Does the international adoption of children stimulate the growth of new family services in the children’s home countries or does it hinder their development?

Two researchers from Liverpool University argue the latter. Their 2003 survey of 33 European countries found that, “those that had the highest rates of children in institutional care also had high proportions of outgoing international placements”.

Moreover, they reported, “those that had the highest rates of children in institutional care also had high proportions of incoming international adoptions”. Thus, “the evidence does not support the notion that international adoption reduces institutional care. On the contrary, survey data suggest that it may contribute to the continuation of institutional care and the resulting harm to children”.

These conclusions have been hotly challenged by social workers, researchers and practitioners in the US and UK. They argue that the study is flawed by unsubstantiated claims, poor methodology and selective interpretation of the findings.

First, say the critics, no agency involved with the welfare of children would claim an association between rates of institutional care for very young children and patterns of international adoption. Such a global statement is unwarranted in the light of the varied social, economic and political circumstances of different countries.

Second, they point to methodological weaknesses due to the unreliability of the evidence from some countries, the ambiguous definitions of key concepts such as “orphan”, “institutional care” or “young children” and to an unjustified implication that statistical correlations indicate causal relationships.

Third, they claim that the correlations reported are based on 16 countries selected from the 33, whereas a full cross-country analysis does not support the Liverpool argument.

Thus they conclude that the data the researchers need to make the generalization that “the incomes from international adoption reduces the motivation to reform local services for children and inhibits the development of foster care or national adoption” is simply not available, and in some cases the opposite seems to be just as likely to be true.

In defense of their original methodology, the Liverpool team stress the importance of a child rights perspective. They point out in their riposte that the United Nations Human Rights Council emphasizes the rights of children’s parents to receive help when they are in difficulty and that international adoption should only be considered when other options close. Thus, it should be a late rather than a first choice intervention.

Longitudinal child development research studies have tended to compare internationally adopted children with those brought up in the receiving country, they go on to argue. Complementary studies are needed that compare those internationally adopted with those living in the sending countries.

What does it all mean? The debate encapsulates many of the difficulties that confound the evaluation of child care interventions. It demonstrates the value of a robust data set and the power this affords but, at the same time, shows how difficult it is to compile evidence internationally.

It also illustrates how the analysis can shape the results and how conclusions, even assuming they are agreed, raise concerns about generality. It may be useful to speak globally about the situation in a continent or large country, but at other times it is grotesque. Indeed, the focus of these exchanges is precisely this: whether the successes of individual adoptions are mirrored in services at national level.

Finally, there is the problem of applying concepts meaningful in one society to another. The term “orphan” is a good example; is it useful when children are reared by extended families or wider groups?

It is equally remarkable that this argument persists at all; it was salient 140 years ago in the emigration debate discussed in Uprooted, Roy Parker’s recent book on the shipment of 80,000 poor children to Canada between 1867 and 1917.

References

Chou S and Browne K, “The relationship between institutional care and the international adoption of children in Europe”, Adoption and Fostering, 32, 1, 2008, pp. 40-48

“The relationship between institutional care and the international adoption of children in Europe: a rejoinder, a letter and the authors’ response”’, Adoption and Fostering, 32,2, 2008, pp. 63-72

Parker R, Uprooted: The Shipment of Poor Children to Canada 1867-1917, Bristol, Policy Press, 2008