Self-important Adoption Officials

[Tim Lee]

I was struck by this passage from the color-blind adoption story I linked to in my previous post:

Professor Elizabeth Bartholet, who directs the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School, believes that the concept of striving for color blindness is sound. She foresees problems if race once again becomes a key determinant...

"What cannot be done is have a pass/fail test that turns on whether you give the politically correct answers," she said. "If social workers are allowed to use training to determine who can adopt, there's lots of experience showing they abuse that power."

This reminds me of this excellent passage from David Friedman's Law's Order:

Some time back, my children decided that they wanted kittens, so we took a trip to the local Humane Society. It was an interesting experience. We ended up spending several hours waiting in line to receive one of a small number of permissions to "adopt" a pet, filling out forms, and then being interviewed by a Humane Society employee to make sure we were suitable adopters.

What was puzzling about the experience is that kittens are a good in excess supply. The Humane Society has more of them (and of cats, puppies, and dogs) than it can find homes for and, although it does not like to say so, routinely kills surplus animals. Rationing goods in excess supply is not usually a problem. Yet the Humane Society was deliberately making it costly, in time and effort, to adopt a kitten, and trying to select which lucky people got to do so, despite their knowledge that the alternative to being adopted was not another adoption but death. Why?

Part of the answer was that they gave out only seven adoption permits at each two hour interval because that was as many as they could process, given a limited staff and the requirement that each adopter be suitably checked and instructed. But that raises a second question. Since they did not have enough staff to process everyone who came, why insist on extensive interviews? Better owners are no doubt superior, from the standpoint of a cat, to worse owners, but almost any owner is better than being killed, which was the alternative.

So far as I could tell, the only real function of the process was to make the employees feel important and powerful, handing out instructions and boons to humble petitioners. That suspicion was reinforced when the woman interviewing us insisted very strongly that cats should never be permitted outdoors, stopping just short of implying that if we would not promise to keep our new pets indoors she would not let us have them. On further questioning, it turned out that she did not apply that policy to her own cat.

We left the Center petless, obtained two kittens from a friend (and very fine cats they have become), and I wrote an unhappy letter to the local newspaper with a copy to the Humane Society. The result was a long phone conversation with one of the women running the shelter. She explained that there were two models for such shelters: one in which animals were given out on a more or less no questions asked basis and one involving the sort of "adoption procedures" I had observed. When pressed on the fact that the real effect of her shelter's policy was to discourage adoptions and thus kill animals that might otherwise have lived, she responded that if they followed the alternative policy nobody would be willing to work for the shelter, since employees would feel they were treating the animals irresponsibly. That struck me as a kinder version of the explanation I had already come up with.

I wonder if something similar isn't happening in adoption agencies—that adoption officials spend a lot of time screening parents not because such screening is better for kids generally, but because doing more screening makes the adoption officials feel important. If this is happening, it's obviously a much more serious problem when the victims are children than kittens.

The chapter from which I got that passage is worth reading in full, especially the passage preceding it in which he makes a compelling case for legalizing adoption markets, which would obviate many of the problems with the current adoption system.

Incidentally, memo to David Pogue: Law's Order is freely available online, yet I purchased a dozen copies for a book club I was running a couple of years ago. Giving away an electronic version of something doesn't mean no one will buy a paper copy. In some cases, it might even bring more publicity to your book if (for example) it causes bloggers to quote favorably from it and encourage their readers to buy it.

Comments

I suspect another reason may be that adoption agencies will come under much greater scrutiny if they adopt to somebody who later turns out to be abusive. I firmly believe that most bureaucratic hassles are explained by ass-covering rather than incompetence or malice.

Posted by CatCube | May 30, 2008 7:22 AM

"Rationing goods in excess supply is not usually a problem. Yet the Humane Society was deliberately making it costly, in time and effort, to adopt a kitten, and trying to select which lucky people got to do so, despite their knowledge that the alternative to being adopted was not another adoption but death. Why?"

Hmm. Maybe because the humane society believes the animals would be better off dead than to go to an individual who would not treat them right?

Another question for David Friedman might be given that he knows that the odds of those cats being killed goes up if he does not adopt, why wouldn't he be willing to spend a little extra time filling out forms and indulging the whims of a volunteer cat lady to potentially save those cats?

So on one hand we have volunteers who choose cats being killed over not vetting applicants, and on the other we have applicants who choose cats being killed over being vetted. Seems kind of equal doesn't it?

Posted by timex | May 30, 2008 8:08 AM

Although in the cat lady's case she does it because she thinks she's helping the adopted cat, and in Friedman's case he does it because presumably he's a very busy man who will not be subjected to a process that violates his economic principles, chief among which is "not rationing excess goods."

Do your arms move in a does-not-compute robot manner when you write these things?

Posted by timex | May 30, 2008 8:16 AM

what Catcube and timex said. Also, of course Friedman didn't need interview procedures when adopting the kittens from his friend, because his friend already knew him, presumably trusted him, and will likely see those cats again.

Posted by Matt B | May 30, 2008 8:23 AM

timex, you'll notice that Friedman ended up getting cats from another source, so on net I don't think the number of dead cats is higher than it would have been if he'd gotten his cats from that shelter. And while animal abuse is probably an occasional problem, I find it hard to believe that it's high enough that you would really rather a cat die than live with a person who hasn't gone through an extensive screening procedure.

Posted by Tim Lee | May 30, 2008 8:26 AM

"you'll notice that Friedman ended up getting cats from another source, so on net I don't think the number of dead cats is higher than it would have been if he'd gotten his cats from that shelter."

well if you want to get in to the nitty-gritty of the balancing of cat deaths between shelters and friends, then presumably most other people, fed up with the byzantine and exacting standards of the humane society, would do the same, invalidating Friedman's point. anyway, again, if you can't put up with an hour or so of proving your worth to a humane society employee then there might be a lot of other things you can't put up with when it comes to owning a pet, so the system still works.

face it, his kids wanted cats, he didn't want to put up with the hassle or the indignity of the humane society (most likely getting in a pissing match with the lady about letting cats outside, or not, along the way), and so went to a friend who, as mattb pointed out, already knew him. let's not make a larger point on child adoption policies here.

Posted by timex | May 30, 2008 8:49 AM

The function of the process is to make all parties feel important: the employees who do the screening, and the applicants (who can pride themselves on their responsibility and their demonstrably fine pet-owning skills).

People who don't want to deal with the screening (or who will fail it) will just get their pets somewhere else.

Our local animal shelter checks to make sure that all your current pets are licensed and have their rabies shots, and leaves it at that, which seems quite sensible to me.

Posted by Princess of Swords | May 30, 2008 9:11 AM

I wonder if something similar isn't happening in adoption agencies—that adoption officials spend a lot of time screening parents not because such screening is better for kids generally, but because doing more screening makes the adoption officials feel important. If this is happening, it's obviously a much more serious problem when the victims are children than kittens.

I rather doubt it as the consequence for an unadopted child is usually growing up in an orphanage until they’re an adult as opposed to being killed like a “surplus kitten.” Also while an orphanage may be far from the ideal way for a child to grow up, it’s probably better than being brought up by an abusive or neglectful parent which can result in serious physical and emotional problems up to an including premature death. In which case a screening process for would-be parents of children would in general seem to make a lot more sense, carries more benefits and creates fewer problems then it does for having a screening process for people who want to adopt pets.

Posted by Thorley Winston | May 30, 2008 10:01 AM

Hmm. Maybe because the humane society believes the animals would be better off dead than to go to an individual who would not treat them right?

Could a two hour interview really reduce the odds of a kitten going to an indivudal who would not treat them right? I strongly suspect that the sort of monster who would torment a kitten would have no problem lying their head off in an interview with the Humane Society.

Posted by Tracy W | May 30, 2008 10:05 AM

The function of the process is to make all parties feel important: the employees who do the screening, and the applicants (who can pride themselves on their responsibility and their demonstrably fine pet-owning skills).

Right -- it's kind of a "velvet rope" theory. If there's a velvet rope between you and some place, there is an assumption that whatever is behind it is something special. And if you are admitted past the velvet rope, then you are special, too.

Posted by JohnMcG | May 30, 2008 10:08 AM

I agree that animal abuse is bad and something that needs to be prevented. However, this is not the way to do it.
Friedman didn't have to spend one hour at the adoption center, according to the story, but several hours. There were 7 permits distributed every 2 hours. Perhaps his children were getting a bit anxious about waiting for hours, I know I would have. Especially if I were waiting for a puppy or a kitten.

If the SPCAs of the US are really concerned about getting the largest number of animals adopted into safe homes, they would make it less of a hassle to do the adoptions. One possible example would be to have the prospective adopter come to the shelter, provide personal information for a background check, only for animal cruelty. As Princess says, they should also check to ensure any pets that are in your home are current with shots and registration.
If the background checks will take too long to run while the person is at the shelter it could be a two step process. First day you go to the shelter, provide your information, and pick out the animal you like. You then provide the shelter with a fee to do the check and to care for the animal until the next week when you can pick up the pet with no fuss other than a simple orientation for the new owner.
If you have something in your record that makes you unacceptable you lose any money you have spent and the animal stays at the shelter and essentially goes back on the market.

Posted by jon | May 30, 2008 10:09 AM

I think the interview process at the Humane Society is about the level of commitment of prospective adopters. Lots of people like the idea of taking on a kitten or puppy -- on a whim. The question is, will they stick with the animal for 15 years (or however long it lives), or will the animal just be back in the shelter when the owner gets bored with it? Abandonment strikes me a much bigger problem than outright cruelty, and adult pets are harder to adopt out than cute little babies. Shelters therefore want to get it right the first time with the babies, who tend to get snapped up first.

Posted by M.C. | May 30, 2008 10:14 AM

Perhaps I'm overreacting but I find it a little disturbing to compare adopting children to adopting animals. Even if I ignore my discomfort I don't think it's fair to compare adoption agencies to animal shelters. There is a huge market for healthy babies and prospective parents are willing to pay exorbitant fees for a child. This creates a large incentive for orphanages (especially in poor countries) to steal and/or sell children. So screening parents is only part of the purpose of an adoption agency. They are also required to monitor the behavior of orphanages to make sure that adopted babies are actually orphans and are not being sold.

Posted by pete | May 30, 2008 10:18 AM

Speaking someone who adopted a cat from a fostering agancy (not the SPCA, but I did need to make two trips to Petsmart and have a brief Q&A with the foster mom) AND as someone currently trying to place two strays I rescued in my alley, I see nothing wrong with some sort of interview process.

There are legitimate concerns: if you rent, does the landlord allow cats? Will you keep it indoors? Will you have it declawed? They even suggest that the foster owner personally deliver the cat to the new owner so he can check on the living conditions. If it's total squalor, then wait for another adoptive owner. You are trying to place a living creature, not a toaster for crying out loud.

Posted by Matt B | May 30, 2008 10:25 AM

My local Humane Society is a no-kill shelter. I had to go through quite a long application process to get my foxhound Miles, and I'm glad to have done it, if it prevents some abusive bastard or dog-fighting cretin from getting his hands on a dog. Somehow, they balance that process without putting animals down.

Of course, the point of Friedman's anecdote is to make him appear withering and prove his anti-bureau conservative bona fides, so who cares about the extenuating circumstances?

Posted by Freddie | May 30, 2008 10:27 AM

Since Friedman here is engaging in pseudo-psychology, let me engage in a little of my own. Now, if you think that these shelter employees are being counter-productive, I think you can make a pretty strong case. Given that, the natural thing to assume, of course, is that these employees genuinely think that what they are doing helps the animals, and are perhaps misled in thinking that. Ah, but that doesn't get you approving links from libertarian bloggers; that doesn't "take someone down a notch"; that doesn't, in short, ridicule and condemn. And because punditry (of one kind of another) is a consumer commodity, and there's only so much people can read, and more and more voices out there competing for attention, commentators like Friedman must always make the most outrageous statements possible. Because, well, you've got to be heard!

So instead of endorsing the entirely plausible and obvious suggestion that the people who work in these shelters are committed but naive-- which doesn't really stick it to them as hard as it could-- instead, Friedman comes up with a mental model (the self-importance model) that attacks them as aggressively as possible. And looky here, an approving citation on a libertarian blog, just the place to attack mushy-head animal loving liberals.

I mean, hey-- if Friedman can attack people's motives, why can't I?

Posted by Freddie | May 30, 2008 10:48 AM

As an adoptee myself, I'd be quite a bit concerned about the idea of creating an adoption market. I do think that the adoption process needs to have some fairly strict safeguards. You don't want to have kids going into abusive situations. But how would an adoption market prevent those kinds of abusive situations?

Yes, the image of the rich white family paying thousands of dollars to the poor disadvantaged woman is one possible outcome of it. There's also the possibility of the unscrupulous couple paying a pittance to an African American woman, since her child will not fetch as much on the market (this is injustice, but I'm just describing the situation as it is even now); then exploiting the child for free labor and the tax break that comes along with having children.

One can also imagine a vastly increased potential for baby-snatching (such as already exists in some third-world countries). If we allow an adoption market, that monetary incentive will always be there.

Posted by Tel | May 30, 2008 10:52 AM

I don't know what things are like elsewhere, but at the shelter I went to kittens were not in excess supply; they were generally adopted the same day they were put on display. This had it's own problems: they fixed my cat at 7 weeks and 4 days and I adopted him at 7 weeks and 6 days.

Posted by Mandatory Vacation | May 30, 2008 10:59 AM

Huh? The ONLY function of the interview he can think of is expression of power? What an ultra-maroon. A paranoid and pompous one at that.

This reminds of a post I read on Powerline the other day. After noting the difference in the amount of attention paid to McClellan's and Doug Feith's recent books, the author declares that the ONLY reason he can think of for the "MSM"'s coverage of McClellan over Feith is bias. Let's see. Former Bush official publicly defends and supports his actions. Not news. Former Bush official, publicly lends his voice in support of the most incendiary claims of the "left-wing BDS nuts." News. I can't think of ONE good reason why one would get more coverage than the other...

My only knowledge of Tim Lee is from two posts I read here this week. I don't usually rush to judgment on people, but in this case I can say with confidence that Tim is a moron. Now, Tim is clearly a very intelligent person, but that only proves that one can be very intelligent and a moron at the same time. One just needs tight enough blinders, to paraphrase my comment on the other post I read of his.

Posted by phasearth | May 30, 2008 11:18 AM

Two words - Bill. Frist.

Posted by CBG | May 30, 2008 11:27 AM

Tel,

I'm certainly not suggesting that we do away with the current legal process for overseeing adoptions. What I mean is simply that the current limitations on monetary payments be lifted, and that the adoption process be streamlined. Obviously, you'd still want some basic regulation to make sure the adoptive parents met some basic standards (employed, no history of child abuse, maybe a couple of references and a home walk-through), and of course a parent would have the same obligations to a "purchased" baby as any parent does today. Child labor is illegal, and would continue be illegal after adoption markets were legalized.

Posted by Tim Lee | May 30, 2008 11:28 AM

Mr. Lee,

This is the Atlantic crowd; for them, the enlightened bureaucrat centrally managing and doling out resources is an axiom. And of course the perfect is the enemy of the good; for fear of a kitten being mistreated or a child not learning about Kwanza, supply is removed from the marketplace. Sad enough when we are talking about cats, outrageous when it's progressives putting their stereotypes on race above a child's future.

Posted by Esher Fern Gamble | May 30, 2008 11:55 AM

What I mean is simply that the current limitations on monetary payments be lifted, and that the adoption process be streamlined. Obviously, you'd still want some basic regulation to make sure the adoptive parents met some basic standards (employed, no history of child abuse, maybe a couple of references and a home walk-through), and of course a parent would have the same obligations to a "purchased" baby as any parent does today. Child labor is illegal, and would continue be illegal after adoption markets were legalized.

Putting quotes around the word "purchased" doesn't change what you are advocating here - the buying and selling of human beings.

The whole point of adoption laws and monetary limits is to keep an adoption market from developing. It's obviously not perfect but it's done because the incentives created by such a market would tear poor families apart and lead to much worse abuses than happen in foster care and orphanages now.

If it's better to be adopted by an unfit family than to be in an orphanage or foster care then the correct solution is to fix the orphanages and foster care system, not to create a market for babies.

Posted by Pete | May 30, 2008 2:21 PM

The real travesty is that we actually have a market for food. Is there anything more unjust to humanity than having to exchange money for what we need to live?

Posted by Esher Fern Gamble | May 30, 2008 2:36 PM

EFG: Shh... Don't give them any ideas.

Posted by Jody | May 30, 2008 3:14 PM

"It's obviously not perfect but it's done because the incentives created by such a market would tear poor families apart and lead to much worse abuses than happen in foster care and orphanages now."

I can agree with that as a rule, on the grounds that paying $ for guardianship of any human, even one you desperately want to love as your own child, is a bit unnerving . After all, available money creates incentives for more such conduct, etc.

Not sure, though, that often unaccountable bureaucrats produce better outcomes. See, e.g., foster care system.

Posted by Spartee | May 30, 2008 4:46 PM

I find the analogy of the cat adoptions to child adoptions rather useless, if not actually distasteful. After all, the bottom line is that children are not cats. We do not kill children if there are more of them than can be adopted. Nor would we, as a society, find it acceptable to place a child in an abusive home. A "mildly" abusive home is not an acceptable alternative to foster care or an orphanage.

Certainly, there may be - and probably are - adoption officials who are power hungry. But that doesn't mean stripping them of power would be in the children's best interest. And we must at the very least try to do the very best we can for children.

What I find interesting - even troubling - is that there are people who seem to believe that the same is true of kittens, puppies, and all other sorts of animals.

Posted by Chief Family Officer | May 31, 2008 10:53 PM