In surveys by Children's Rights, adoption subsidies which offset the costs of adopting high risk youth from child welfare are significant factors in whether or not people decide to adopt.  Major findings include the following:

• 81% reported that the availability of adoption subsidies was important to their decision to adopt;
• 58% of respondents said they could not adopt without a subsidy;
• More than half of the respondents said the subsidy amount was not sufficient;
• Almost half (47%) of adoptive parents received an adoption subsidy that was lower than the ratethey received as foster parents;
• 88% reported that receipt of Medicaid for the child was critical to their decision to adopt;
• Less than half of the survey participants who had adopted reported receiving post-adoption services; and
• The obstacles to adoption most frequently cited by respondents were the child welfare system bureaucracy and inadequate subsidy amounts.

In one study, 58% of families stated that adoption wouldn't have been possible without an adoption subsidy.  As adoption subsidies are almost always less than foster care per diem, that study alone indicates that without guaranteed subsidies, we are likely to experience a reduction in adoptions, and, increased costs to the state.

A summary from the attached study says: An adoption from foster care costs state and federal government about $115,000, but saves the government about $258,000 in child welfare and human service costs, netting a savings of $143,000 (Barth et al 2006, adjusted for inflation to 2000 dollars). I show that each adoption nets between $88,000 and $150,000 in private benefits and $190,000 to $235,000 in total public benefits (in constant 2000 dollars). Thus each dollar spent on the adoption of a child from foster care yields between $2.45 and $3.26 in benefits to society.

For some reason, Child Welfare Leadership, and other decision-makers aren't making decisions which reflect this economic reality.  When we expand the analysis to those children in residential settings who could be adopted with creative subsidy strategies, the cost savings multiply dramatically.  In one case in which I was involved, the cost for one child went from $357 per day to $140 per day.  This is a reduction from $130,305 to 51,100 per year, a savings of 79,205, and the young person is having far better outcomes with a  full time parent and attending public school successfully.  Since this adoption, the state involved has changed the policies to make this type of savings impossible, no longer guaranteeing subsidies at all and limiting them to less than $20 per day.

With a targeted approach, and only 15 children, the state could save over 1.1 million per year by replicating this strategy, and would have much better outcomes with young people over the long run.

I entitled this "Penny Wise, Ton Foolish" rather than "Penny Wise, Pound Foolish" because the traditional saying just doesn't reflect the magnitude of the error involved in cutting adoption supports.  If you are involved in state government, or know anyone who is involved in state government, please help them reconsider the current trends.  They are harming children while costing all of us more money!