[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report]
Most adoptions have positive outcomes both for children and their families. However, many families need supportive services during some part of their child’s development. In response to these needs, many states have developed post-adoption service (PAS) programs as well as other supports that extend their subsidy programs beyond the federally prescribed standards. As the pace of adoptions from public child welfare systems continues to increase, in many states the number of children receiving adoption subsidies has surpassed the number of children in foster care.
This report is part of a project that examines these rapidly growing and
evolving PAS programs, using a literature review (Barth, Gibbs, and Siebenaler,
2001), analysis of secondary data, and case studies of well-regarded programs.
The case study component used interviews with state adoption program managers
and PAS providers as well as focus groups with adoptive parents to address
the following research questions:
The report focuses on services that fall within each state’s definitions of its PAS program, although these boundaries vary somewhat across states. Also examined are how states use subsidies and other forms of support to assist adoptive families. Evaluation issues within PAS programs, described here in the context of activities in the case-study states, will be discussed in greater depth in a forthcoming report.
This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). Research was conducted by RTI and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Staff involved in the five states’ PAS programs, as well as adoptive parents participating in focus groups, gave generously of their time to meet with the project team.
The RTI team’s plan for selecting the sites for the case study included
developing a list of recommended sites by using information collected as
part of an effort by the Center for Adoption Studies at Illinois State University
(ILSU). ILSU was compiling information on characteristics of post-adoption
service (PAS) programs (e.g., sponsorship, services and supports provided,
number of families served, funding sources) by interviewing state adoption
managers. However, because ILSU’s information was not available for
all participating states in time for site selection, RTI also relied on expert
opinion. The team contacted three individuals whose professional roles and
previous work made them particularly knowledgeable about existing programs
and the field of PAS generally:
Asked to identify well-regarded programs, these individuals collectively mentioned 11 states, among which there was a strong degree of convergence. Using this information, ASPE selected 5 state programs for the case study: Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia.
Data for the case study included semistructured interviews with staff from PAS programs and public adoption agencies, informal focus groups with adoptive parents, and PAS program documents.
The RTI team conducted the five two- or three-day site visits between October and December 2001. Two-person teams conducted the site visits, sharing responsibility for leading the interviews and focus group sessions and for taking notes.
To secure participation of the five states, the Associate Commissioner for the Children’s Bureau sent a letter to each state adoption program manager to introduce the study and to encourage support of the research effort. The RTI team then contacted each program manager to confirm participation and to develop a list of potential interviewees. In addition to the program managers, interviewees included coordinators who managed PAS programs and PAS providers who directly interacted with adoptive families. In each state, the program manager provided a list of individuals associated with the state-directed PAS program. These PAS coordinators and providers assisted in identifying and recruiting adoptive parents for the focus groups.
Site interviews were semistructured, collecting information to address the study’s primary research questions on client needs, existing services, and program evaluation efforts. The team interviewed a broad range of service-based stakeholders with direct involvement in post-adoption programs and services, gathering information on the opportunities and challenges in developing PAS programs, providing services, and tracking client outcomes.
Questions were based on primary research topics (Exhibit 2-1). Specific questions asked of each interviewee varied, according to the circumstances of the program and the role and expertise of the individual. The team also used additional questions based on preliminary review of the informal ILSU interviews with state adoption agency directors. At the time of this report ILSU staff had conducted interviews with state adoption coordinators in 36 states.
Need: What is the extent of need for post-adoption services and
supports as measured by the following:
Existing Programs: What are the characteristics of existing PAS programs in terms of the following?
Evaluation: How are programs monitoring and assessing their effectiveness?
Note: Questions varied according to the role of the person interviewed. |
The focus groups added the perspectives of adoptive parents as a counterpoint to those of the PAS coordinators and providers interviewed during the site visits. Topics discussed included demand for PAS, types of services desired, level of program satisfaction, and program recommendations. In addition, parents were asked about utilization of services and subsidies. Questions were based on primary research topics (Exhibit 2-2).
Need: What is the extent of need for post-adoption services and
supports as measured by:
|
Although setting up successful focus groups can be challenging, PAS providers were extremely helpful by actively recruiting parents and by providing a location to meet in the evenings. With the PAS providers’ direct involvement, the team was able to conduct focus groups with the ideal number of parents (six to eight) in each site.
Because the RTI team needed to rely on PAS providers to recruit adoptive parents for the focus groups, potential biases among these participants cannot be assessed. Although findings from these focus groups cannot be generalized to the larger population of PAS recipients, the diverse opinions expressed suggest that participation was not unduly biased toward parents who were highly satisfied with the services they had received.
The RTI team asked the state adoption program managers and all interviewees for documentation related to the PAS program. Documents collected included program descriptions, authorizing legislation, needs assessments, annual reports, evaluation instruments and reports, state requests for proposals, provider proposal responses, and outreach materials. The majority of materials were collected during and after site visits. The RTI team reviewed all materials and integrated relevant information into respective interview summaries to provide contextual information for analysis and reporting.
For interviews, handwritten notes were summarized in electronic format shortly after the interviews, using audiotapes as backup to written notes as necessary. The team sent a copy of the interview notes to interviewees for correction of any factual errors. In addition, the team sent follow-up questions to state adoption program managers to clarify certain information and fill in any gaps.
For focus groups, written notes were summarized immediately after each group using a debriefing form and audiotapes. The debriefing form captured illustrative participant quotes on specific topics, facilitators’ subjective impressions of emerging themes, and comments on group dynamics that were relevant to data interpretation.
The team entered interview and focus group notes into a database using a qualitative software package. Although the original intent was to develop a hierarchical coding structure to categorize text according to participant characteristic and topic, the team determined that the data could be managed and accessed effectively without further coding. The study team prepared a series of matrices to summarize data on key topics. These matrices assisted in reducing large volumes of qualitative data to a level at which patterns could be identified.
Following completion of data management, the team prepared this draft report summarizing data on key topics. In this report, individual programs are described from a variety of perspectives, and differences and commonalties among them are discussed. The report also presents the qualitative data, allowing review of major themes within topic areas.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)