Another agency's speculation, and more questions about the move
Someone using one of the big agencies was told that they believe the extreme slowdown of the past two months is mostly due to the move of the CCAA office and them being short handed in personnel. This person has an early August LID and was told that they thought she would have her referral in August.
Do any of you have any personal contact with someone who may have been at the CCAA office recently? Maybe one of the people at HTS or LWB? Or maybe Brian Stuy or Jane Liedtke might know something? Jane was the one who broke the news that the move was planned for April. Or maybe my most gracious contact out there may know something more?
On March 29th my contact stated that they had moved a good portion of the office over, but that there was still a whole lot of activity happening around the move. So now that I think about it, perhaps that may be the big jump we saw in the number referred this time compared to last time. And, if they were still working on the move in April (but not as much as they were in March), then we really could start seeing an increase soon. However, if that is the case, then I would expect them to go faster than an August referral in August. According to our numbers they can do that if they just continue doing about the same number of referrals they referred last month.
The contact information shown on their website shows:
Address: Zhong Min Plaza No. 7 Baiguang Road, Xuanwu District, Beijing, China Postcode: 100053
Google's cache of the page says the same thing, but it is from April 18th, so the cache isn't that old. Anyone know if this is the old or new address?
And why does this have to be such a mystery? What would be so hard about the CCAA posting a notice on their website as a news item "The CCAA move to our new facilities will be complete by April 10th. Agencies should send all correspondence to our new address at XXXX after this date". (and before I see a rumor that the move was complete on April 10th, I just pulled that date out of the air, no basis for using it over April 1st or July 15th).
Speaking of which, I wonder if any of the agencies may have some input on this. Are they still mailing dossiers to the same place? Are their liasons in China going to the old place or the new place? Has anyone asked their agency about it lately?
Update: Someone has a brochure given to them last summer with the same adress. This means the address on the website is still the old address.
posted by RumorQueen at 4/26/2006 10:19:00 AM
44 Comments:
Anxious to hear about this one. It would be nice if the explanation for the slow down would be this simple. I'm beginning to wonder if we would of chose this direction, if we knew it would be like this.
Holly, I know that some agencies do not send people during trade fairs, but I've never heard that they don't mail dossiers during trade fairs.
R&K, I've read through Jane's description of where it is, but she also says it is on a small road off of the main road and she doesn't know what the actual address is going to be. She gave another road near there and said it will probably be similar to that ones name, which this is not.
Just a question and I wasn't sure where to post it but does anyone know how many members there are in the June DTC group? I have the info for the other groups but not that one.
Pam
The only reason I think that it won't go faster than an August referral in August is because the CCAA has basically said a 12 month wait is what they are trying to get to and having said that I believe that's what we should expect. My only basis for this is that during our first adoption CCAA was basically saying they wanted to get to a six month wait and they did that by doubling up months, but once they reached their "goal" they adjusted their pace to that goal.
I have also heard from a friend using a smaller agency that the move isn't complete yet either.
There is a search box on the right hand side, scroll down to see it. Just type in "12 month" (without the quotes) and you'll see where we've talked about this numerous times - too numerous for me to do justice in a comment box.
I jsut received a forwarded email from a friend. A friend of hers has just started the adoption process. She mentions in this email that her agency is saying 16 to 24 months ( not sure if that is total or after LID, also not sure of the agency. I emailed her to find out.
just a thought...perhaps since the person is just starting the process...the 16-24month is total time? Our agency (originally when we started) didn't mention anything about referral wait time..just the it would take somewhere around 12-15months in all. Hopefully that's the case...seems to go along with the 12month referal wait plus the time for the paperchase, etc.
t
8/10 LID
Again, this is just a feeling on my part, but we hear Aug LID's to expect an August referral. A Dec 9th LID to expect a December referral. And I think those both came from more specific sources than just what an agency is telling prospective or starting families, right? That just feels to me like a 12 month "goal". And I personally don't feel shorted at all that the CCAA won't nail down a time for us as I don't think they want to do that and heaven forbid something go wrong and it not work out like they said. It's a process of getting a child for us, yes. And they are dealing with children they want the best for as well. But it's still a gov't process prone to unexpected events...events that just happen to hit us emotionally.
Has anyone emailed folks like Dr. Jane to ask?
di
Tiffany, what worries me about olympics part of your agency director's reasoning is that it's 2 years until the Olympics. So if your agency director thinks the olympics is slowing things down, then we wouldnt see a pick up until AFTER the summer of 08.
I am assuming the olympics issue is 'china-not-wanting-IA-to-be-in-the-spotlight' leading up to and during the olympics. And if that's the case, wouldnt we see the slowdown continue for the next 2 years?
i think i liked the first part of your director's reasoning (hunan)better than the 2nd part!
My daughter's Godmother recently came to visit us from China (she is full Chinese still living in China). I asked her about adoptions and told her of the slowdown. She had no first hand knowledge of the CCAA really but does have a feeling for how the gov't works and she believes that the Olympics probably have something to do with it. She said that the gov't has gotten stricter as the time approaches and she expects it to get more strict in the future. Whereas last year when she visited she thought it might have become more relaxed as the Olympics got closer. We all know they don't want a scandal with the world watching.
It is 2 years until the Olympics but there are a great many already going to China to prepare for the Olympics, builders etc. It's safe to assume more and more reporters will be allowed in to see the progress of the building and I'm sure some press will be looking for more "interesting" bits to report. So perhaps the gov't is going to slow down to make sure things like the Hunan thing don't happen (or be sure they don't get uncovered and reported)...
Do I think this is the bulk of the slowdown? No, I really don't. Do I think they are lying or keeping something from us, nope. I think they are doing their jobs and I'm glad.
I would love to think that the slowdown is due to the move, but I honestly think it just that there are not enough paper-ready babies ready. I really do think it is that simple.
As to why there are not many with their paperwork ready, that could be due to many factors: The Hunan situation (reviewing paperwork more closely, therefore more slowly), economy improving in China and fewer babies being abandoned, or more people choosing to keep the girls they gave birth to. There is a campaign in China that stresses girls are "just as good" as boys.
Just my humble thoughts on the situation.
just a bit on the 'reporters in China' bit.
believe me...the officials and police will be very strict on where the reporters go and what they see and report. I watched a piece on CBS about some of the rivers being contaminated. Basically the provincial police came in quickly, kindly escorted the news staff away and told them to file papers with the provincial capital for permission to go back in and report their story. Of course when they did, the answer was a "polite" no. They still got some footage and a report when they were there, but it didn't take long for the gov't to find out.
I think there will be some of the Olympics thing thrown into the mix for the adoption process as they get closer, but I also don't think it'll make much difference in the timeline.
Why would CCAA state the slow down is due to not enough paper-ready babies when it is really due to a move?
CCAA has said domestic adoptions are on the rise and do get priority. That could slow us down.
I also think the orphanage directors are adding to the slow down....perhaps they have new lengthy procedures to learn/implement due to Hunan ordeal.
Both of these equate to fewer paper ready babies for IA.
I do not for one second believe that there is a shortage of babies. Shortage of paper ready babies, sure. But not a shortage of babies.
While there are reports of a few orphanages having a lot less babies than a few years ago, there are many more reports of other orphanages that have so many babies they don't know where to put them - cribs in hallways because the rooms are full.
RQ may have something posted later...maybe, dunno. but let me say something that was told to me that came from the CCAA.
(paraphrased)
"the CCAA plans on continuing to match the same amount of children each month".
I totally agree there are lots of babies in the orphanages. That's why I was careful to say "paper ready babies". Just my 2 cents...I do believe that is where the problem is....the CCAA is getting lower quantities paper ready babies and domestic applicants get matched first so there is simply not many left to match with all the international applicants which have increased in quantity.
w4ot - I have a number of emails right now documenting conversations different people have had with their agency, and I haven't posted the gist of them because I feel that to do so will make it obvious to their agency that they sent the info and I'm trying to be careful to conceal my sources. I will get the information out, but I'm working on the best way to do that without getting anyone in trouble with their agency.
None of it is earthshattering, but I think that there are a few pieces of the puzzle in them. Some interesting little tidbits.
Like I said, I'll get all of the info out, just give me a bit so I can do it as discreetly as possible.
RQ-
definitely. that's why you do what you do! :) and i agree with your assessment 100%.
well, honestly I think that statement to me sounded just like it reads. Perhaps there is a certain amount of children they process each month and regardless of what is going on with everything else, they plan on processing that same amount each month. There was nothing to me in that statement that says 'the same as the last few months'. I see it as what it says at face value. "the same amount of children each month" as if whatever this number is has remained constant for some time.
my personal thought...say they are matching/processing a certain number each month-let's pretend 1200...then if there are 1200 dossiers over the course of 5 days, then thats a month's match group. if there are 1200 dossiers over the course of 3 weeks...then that's a months match group.
take that how you will. :)
my guess about the ccaa not saying anything about the move is because to them it's not the driving force of the slowdown.
maybe i am dense but i still dont understand that 'same number of babies per month' statement. havent we established that, for the last 6 months and particularly for the last couple of months, they are referring a fraction of the babies-per-month than they did in the past? Like a year ago, say, they referred 1000 babies per month and now it seems they are doing, say, 300. ( i am making up these numbers but they are what i imagine could be accurate)
So, "same amount of babies per month" i.e. 300, or same as they used to, i.e. 1000?
phrased yet another way: would this this 'same number of babies per month' statement be good or bad news?
i agree oscarE, it seems that every 'reason' we've heard for the slowdown points to a longer wait than 12 months. if the olympics is the reason and they just want us all to "go away," then you'd think they'd make the wait longer than 12 months. if they are determined to keep the number of babies constant and the number of parent dossiers keeps increasing, then you'd think the wait would be longer than 12 months too ( since we are almost there and a 12 month wait would mean full months starting in june, no exceptions)
the only scenarios i can see that make sense for a 12 month wait going forward are 1) they stretched to 12 months deliberately and will stay there once there, and 2) hunan
for the record, i dont believe for an instant that an office move would cause the dramatic 6 month slowdown we have just seen and i also dont believe domestic adoption is much of a factor either. you're not going to have vast numbers of chinese families rushing to adopt girls when they showed virtually no interest just a year ago.
i suppose a temporary slowdown in paperready babies -- one that can be rectified by some means --could also be a culprit. but it seems to me that with alot of these potential reasons for the slowdown, if we are to accept them, we would also need to accept a longer wait time than 12 months.
I think tammy made a good point when she said: "My guess is The goverment said slow down and they said yes sir, end of story" the question is, how much did the govt ask the ccaa to slow down? to 12 months to reduce the number of dossiers to a more manageable level or to 24 months to make us all go away?
oscar1elmo-
I think you're on the right track. we all know there are more family dossiers going to China. the CCAA has maintained that, agencies have maintained that. I'm not sure about referralls being down from last year to this year and all that, but yes, that's the gist of it how I'm reading it. More family dossiers from the participating countries...same amount of babies being processed each month...probable slow down. But not every time. I think what happened is the amount of families in a month has overtaken the amount of children they're processing in a month. But it's all numbers, meaning there's a certain amount to reach, but the actual number of LID days may vary.
this is the way I look at it...might be wrong: totally or partially: i'm not going to claim anything, just hypothesising.
let's say you have to do 1200 matches each month. pretend we start at the beginning of June. June 1-6 has 200 LIDs for each of the 6 days for a total 1200 LIDs Okay, that's your group. Now then the next time you go to match you have to match 1200 again. let's say that june 7 has 100 LIDs, june 8 has 50, june 10 has 200, june 15 has 100, june 18 has 250, june 19 has 25, june 20 has 200, and june 21 has 275. that's your group. AND it's 3 weeks worth of LIDs unlike the 6 days the group before. of course I doubt they are strict on specific numbers...meaning that if one day pushes them over that particular number of 1200 then they finish that LID day. This is just my theory... and as far as last year? maybe the number of family dossiers weren't as much...maybe the number of children they were processing each month was different than it is now. I think there are many factors playing into it all, but it comes back to, as you say Oscar...simple math. ??????
I believe the move is being blamed for the last two months only covering 3 and 4 business days of LID's. It took them two full months to refer seven business days of LID's. That's what they are saying the move was responsible for - not the previous months of two weeks worth of referrals... but the slow down from two weeks at a time to less than one week at a time.
I don't know - just pointing out what some are saying.
waiting4 -- your numbers make alot of sense.
i just wish i knew that the next few months were smaller( easier to get through) than the behemoths of april, may, and june. then maybe i could sleep at night
That's why we are doing the polls Eli - to try to get an idea of the size of the upcoming months.
RQ -- right, thank Gah for the polls. i can't wait to see your july and aug results
ok, that modification of ' the office move" excuse makes more sense, but i think its about time for that particular excuse to be retired. like, you can use it for 2 months folks, but at a certain point, its time to get back to work, ya know?
eli-
I have to say that the whole statement about the same amount of children each month and my 'hypothesising' and figuring out that example thing stems from RQ's thinkings...I mean...what she was saying and how that example I wrote goes...makes alot of sense. Total "props" to RQ.
I just wish there was a way to know how many LIDs were total for each month and how they're distributed throughout each month. I mean..not just by these polls..they give good insight, but unless we knew the real numbers from all 150-some agencies...there's no way to truly figure anything out I fear...only keep guessing and hoping.
I have no clue about the move, but my big agency is still maintaining that the slowdown is due to the # of parent dossiers and the lack of baby dossiers. They called Monday night and said that someone from the agency had met with someone from the CCAA last month and we should be assured with our August LID we will get a referral in 2006.
Instead of a poll where everyone gives their lid's - I think it would be better if everyone counted up the # of dossiers for a given month that their particular agency. We don't need to give our agency name but shouldn't it be obvious by the numbers if there's duplication. Maybe we could get a more accurate accessment of just how many dossiers are out there. Would this be possible or would agencies frown on this? For example - my agency has 37 more dossiers logged in in June 2005. I know some of these may have dropped off/gone SN or moved forwards or backwards, but 37 for my agency is left for June according to my guestimation. Maybe some agencies don't give families this info? How about it RQ?
M&K, Not all agencies give that information out. The ones that do are in the minority. I think I'd need to have information for at least 12 or 15 agencies, and I'd need to know the agency name because crossing numbers off because they are the same is a bad way to figure it. And if I had information for an agency for one month but not the others then I wouldn't be able to use it for the one month.
That just seems way more complicated than a poll.
Plus when there is a way to find something out without irritating the agencies, I'd just as soon do it the way that doesn't irritate them.
Okay guys, if you *want* to send the info then send it via email and I'll put it together and see what it shows. I will need the agency name, but I won't publish any agency names - I'll list them as Agency 1, Agency 2, etc.
RQ is right. Besides, even if I know what my agency has out there for the next month or so, and if say people have info from another 10-15 agencies that still makes it a crap shoot. Isn't there like 157 agencies around the world that the CCAA works with? we'd only still be getting a about 10-15% or so of all the LIDs.
I'd love if there was a way to get all that info from as many agencies as possible, but I think that is...well...impossible. I think we'd have to have most of the large and medium agencies' numbers to even get close to figuring anything out. LIke i said in an earlier post...I just think we can only keep guessing and hoping.
that little hypothesis/theory was done to maybe present a different view of why things have slowed down at more of a basic/core level. RQ touched on it in her hypothesis and with doing the polls. There are maybe things like the Hunan thing, the move, etc that plays into it all, but at a simple level and by that statement about continuing to process the same number of children each month it does seem that the number of family dossiers is much larger compared to the number of children they are matching. And I still feel that only the CCAA really knows what the CCAA is doing.
I want to be excited in seeing these polls...seeing how the numbers look smaller in some areas of each month (June and July) which would possibly indicate the CCAA will move through those quicker...but, and I don't know about everyone else, I have to go in with guarded optimism because I am (and the wife too) tired of being disappointed and frustrated each time a match group goes out. I know we'll all get through this and I do hope that these poll numbers and what-have-you are close to being correct so we end up in the "12 month" wait thing rather than the alot longer version.
Ireland posted they have referrals so the calls should start rolling in!
i agree waiting4 -- i am trying not to think too much until we get through one more referral batch. at that point we'll see if they plan to keep it at 12 months or not. then maybe i can believe that it was all a grand design to lengthen the wait to 12 months -- annoying, yes, but not the doomsdays scenario i have been imagining
if it gets to 13-14 months, that is when i'll start losing hope.
eli-
you have a point about this next referral batch. If indeed the CCAA gets through the 21st of June or whatever, then it would appear we were on the right track with our theories and speculations on the referral amounts, how they're distributed throughout the months, the whole "12month plan" thing, and finally how the "continuing to process the same amount of children each month" thing comes into play in the process.
That agency did not have any other LID's in the time frame that were sent. Their next LID is the 9th.
laurel-
just wanted to say congrats in advance for getting DTC and LID after that. Hope the wait for you won't be as weird as this one.
8/10 LID
We have a July 25, 2005 log in date. Our agency is small but does have 3 locations in California. We were told that the slow down has to do with Hunan. That the Chinese Gov't is being very careful to "dot their i's and cross their t's". Because our agency only sends in dossiers on the 15th of the month, with log in dates around the 25th, they got no referals in April or May. It is very frustrating...I am not optimistic about a 12 month turnaround if they are only sending a week's worth of referrals per month...and I doubt if they are going to send out the hundreds of referrals all at once that would actually allow them to get the process to get back on the original 6-9 month turnaround. BUT - I do soooo hope that I am wrong! Afterall, the only ones who are truly suffering are our daughters!
I don't buy this one. Why are the reviewed dossiers being turned out at a reasonable rate(i.e. monthly)? How did/does the move effect only part of the adoption process....the matching? Dossiers seem to be logged in at reasonable rate as well. It simply doesn't compute in my head.
The DTC times have fluctuated in the past, for various reasons. A look at the current slow-down, however, has as its main cause, I believe, the Hunan baby-trafficking scandal. Immediately after this story broke, Hunan stopped placing finding ads, the beginning of a child's paperwork. Referrals continued to come from Hunan, but all were for children whose paperwork was already in the system. As these children were referred, there was no "supply" to replace them. Hunan represents about 30-40% of all referrals, so taking that off the table reduced available children significantly.
The good news is that finding ads resumed in the middle of April, so new Hunan referrals should come again in September or October. Don't be surprised if there are no Hunan babies before then.
A temporary slowdown, but as I will show in my next blog, a precursor of the future.
Brian
www.research-china.org
Post a Comment
<< Home