Translate this site:
German
Danish
Dutch
French
Norwegian
Spanish
Swedish



Friday, April 21, 2006

More of my thoughts

When my husband and I first started investigating international adoption, long long ago, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the CCAA seems to always have the best interest of the babies at heart. And I still think that this is the case. Not only from looking at their process and guidelines, but now I know people who have met with the various directors and other employees of the CCAA and all of these people talk about how they came away feeling that you could really feel the concern for the babies they were responsible for. I have been critical of the way the CCAA handles the flow of information, and of the way they seem to have been hit unawares with the flood of parent dossiers even though they should have known about them when they were logged in. I have had my share of venting, and will probably do so again. But, I do ultimately think that the employees of the CCAA have the best interest of the babies at heart. I also have a feeling that if there is a purposeful slowdown going on, that it came from the Chinese Government as a decree that the director(s) of the CCAA must follow. I don't know that this is the case and I'm not speculating that it is.. I am only saying that IF they are slowing things down on purpose, I would bet it's not a decision the CCAA made. Now, as to the discussion of why there is a slowdown. The thing many people seem to be overlooking is that we have evidence that there are less (a lot less) referrals being made per month this year than there were last year. The reason is said to be a lack of paperwork for babies. So the next question is - why is there less paperwork? I've seen various reasons:
  • The CCAA didn't plan well (I don't really buy this one)
  • The Hunan situation (I think this is a big part of it)
  • Less healthy babies being abandoned (I think there has been a change in demographics, so perhaps some of the orphanages that previously submitted paperwork for a lot of babies no longer have as many babies, but perhaps other orphanages that previously didn't have as many now have more but aren't approved to send in paperwork)
We also hear that they have a lot more paperwork from parents, but the thing that keeps sticking out to me is that they are sending less referrals now than they were last year. Even if they had the exact same amount of paperwork from families, they would still be falling behind. The slowdown is not because there are more parent dossiers. The extent of the slowdown is worse because of this, but even if they had the exact same amount of parent dossiers, there would still be a slowdown. Plus, if you keep in mind that the numbers of parent dossiers goes up pretty dramatically EVERY year, so they have always planned for that and haven't been phased by it for the past several years - well, this just means the fact that there are more parent dossiers does not seem (to me) to be the reason for the slowdown. I've had a couple of people email me about what I think is going to happen after this batch. For a rough estimate of what I think, see the bottom part of this post. Once we are sure of a cut-off for this batch I promise to do an in-depth re-analysis of the numbers and go out several months. But, to answer a specific question, I do think we are close to the point that they might be able to start doing more than two weeks per month and maybe even somewhere around a whole month. Probably not this month. But if they manage to get past the 6th then maybe next month (or maybe not), and the next month I'd say probably (based on the numbers from the polls). As for the talk about a quota. When they put it in place last time each agency was allowed to submit a percentage of the dossiers they had submitted over the past year. I have said many times that if they were going to follow their past patterns they would have put a quota in place this time last year. I don't know why they didn't, unless they thought they could keep up. Perhaps if they hadn't been blindsided with the problems in Hunan they could have. Since they aren't putting one in place now and apparently have no plans to, I have to think that they either have a plan to get caught up, or want it to keep slowing down. Which takes us back to the question of whether it is intentional or not, doesn't it.

6 Comments:

Blogger RumorQueen said...

We now have 3 agencies who have confirmed they are getting less referrals this year than last year, plus the State Department has confirmed it.

I am not seeing this as an "I wonder", I'm seeing this as fact. There are less referrals being issued per month now than there was last year.

I'm not convinced one way or the other whether it's intentional. I can see good reasons it may not be (Hunan issues), but part of me also thinks maybe they wanted to slow it down a little bit and then got slammed with the Hunan stuff and it's just been slowed down more than they originally meant. Or, maybe not. Like I said, I'm not really convinced one way or the other on the "intentional" part of it.

4/22/2006 07:41:00 AM  
Blogger Kim said...

RQ~Our family coordinator also told us that it isn't that there aren't enough babies in the orphanages to match with referrals but that only a small amount of orphanages that are in China are used by the CCAA. I guess there are some type of qualifications that an orphanage must meet in order to be used for international adoptions? I wondered if you had any info on that. If that is the case it is a sad fact that there are so many children left there that could be adopted by great families here.

4/22/2006 07:44:00 AM  
Blogger RumorQueen said...

Glassmaker - until last last year the CCAA was only responsible for the orphanages that were a part of the international program. But then last year they became responsible for ALL orphanages in China. At that time it is my understanding that they started pulling more of those orphanages into the international program. And we have seen this to be true, as I've now seen five (I think) new orphanages in the past couple of months that had never adopted babies out internationally before.

4/22/2006 08:10:00 AM  
Blogger Sean & Shannon said...

With new orphanages being brought on, it still leads us back to the question: If there are more orphanages adopting out internationally, why the slow down? There should be more babies available. Right? So again, it makes me think the slow down is intentional, and they have some kind of plan to get it back on track.

4/22/2006 09:20:00 AM  
Blogger RumorQueen said...

Sean/Shannon - theoretically because of the Hunan issue. They are now having to make double sure that there is nothing questionable about the way the baby ended up at the orphanage. So some of the babies that were planned to be put into the program have now been determined to not be eligible.

4/22/2006 09:30:00 AM  
Blogger eli said...

kevin and laura, i agree, i have been saying for awhile that i think that referred babies will get a bit 'older' in the months to come, at least temporarily, if indeed the hunan situation has been a big factor in the slowdown. if orphanage directors have been afraid to release baby dossiers because they are unsure that they can properly document the baby's origins, then wouldnt all that extra checking and rechecking add a few months to the baby's processing time?

in this scenario, we wouldnt see as many babies being referred at 6-7 months, we would see a few months added to that as orphanages take more time to check out the babies' origins and make sure the baby came to them legally.

i havent seen this yet, but it wouldnt surprise me if, like you said, we saw more babies referred at 11-16 months at least for a while until they get systems in place to document the babies' origins and ensure that they won't end up in jail like the hunan folks.

on the other hand, this 'ageing' of babies would not happen if we are to believe that the 'baby shortage' is the main culprit, not hunan. but if we believe in the hunan factor, i have to believe we'd see slightly older babies

4/23/2006 11:04:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home