|
Why is an Office for Orphan Policy, Diplomacy and Development needed?
 According to UNICEF, 143 million children in the developing world are orphans, meaning they have lost one or both of their parents. If the current pace continues, 15 million more children will be orphaned this year alone.
At the same time, by the end of 2003, only 17 countries with generalized epidemics reported having a national policy for orphans and vulnerable children to guide strategic decision-making and resource allocation. In 2007, The U.S. government reported spending $225 million, less that .7 percent of the U.S. foreign aid budget, on Orphans and Vulnerable Children. What's worse, very little of the funding set aside to address the overall needs of orphaned children is dedicated to activities designed to reconnect these children with a responsible, loving parent. Similarly, global efforts, such as the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2002, fail to recognize that connecting orphaned children with permanent families is an important component of any universal child welfare strategy.
Part of the reason for this disconnect is that the U.S. is still reliant upon processes and programs that were established when the term "orphan" was used to refer to the thousands of children whose parents were killed as a result of World War II and the Korean War. In addition, responsibility for addressing the needs of these children has been divided up among various offices and bureaus within the federal government, each with its own focus and agenda.
For this to change, the U.S. needs to develop a comprehensive, forward thinking strategy for addressing the needs of orphaned children worldwide. To be successful, such a strategy must include activities aimed at preserving and reunifying families and providing permanent parental care for orphaned children. History shows that diplomatic leadership of this kind requires a focused and appropriately resourced effort led by the United States Department of State.
Isn't this just creating more bureaucracy?
No. In fact, The Families for Orphans Act tries to reduce the bureaucracy that has stymied efforts on behalf of orphaned children by putting in place mechanisms to eliminate unnecessary duplication of efforts and better coordinate activities on behalf of orphaned children. The Office for Orphan Policy, Development and Diplomacy will not be a separate federal entity. Instead, it will be a focused office within the U.S. Department of State. In addition, its requirement that all federal entities with an interest in the area of orphans participate in a policy coordinating committee will eliminate the duplication of efforts and barriers to effective communication that too often lead to inefficiency in this area.
Faced with a similar dilemma in October 2001, the U.S. Congress had the foresight to create the Office to Combat Trafficking in Persons. To date, this office has radically transformed U.S. efforts to eliminate trafficking worldwide. The Families for Orphans Act emulates this and other models of effective diplomatic leadership by the United States.
Doesn't the United States already spend millions on taking care of orphans?
The following chart outlines the breakdown of U.S. efforts to "Invest in People" abroad.
 As the figure abroad demonstrates, the majority of foreign aid funds are invested in health care, with 5.1 billion of the total 7.7 billion going to AIDS. According to figures complied by Global Action for Children, the U.S. spends approximately $225 million on addressing the overall needs of orphans. This represents less than .7 percent of total foreign aid. A review of the programs funded reveals that the majority of the United States efforts are aimed at providing housing, nutrition, health care, education and protection for orphans and vulnerable children. What's more, many of these programs are restricted to those children who have been orphaned as a result of AIDS. No doubt, these programs are necessary and the U.S. could be spending more than they are currently in these areas. At the same time, if the U.S. wants to address the long term needs of orphaned children, then it must also encourage and fund programs aimed at reconnecting orphaned children with a loving, responsible adult.
How does this differ from the way things are now?
Under current law there are at least five different offices and bureaus engaged in work on behalf of orphans (Office of Children's Issues (DOS); Orphans and Vulnerable Children Coordinator (USAID); PEPFAR, Office of the AIDS Coordinator; Population, Refugees and Migration). These offices are not working together to achieve the objectives of a unified comprehensive global strategy nor are they given the benefit of regular opportunities for coordination and communication. Under the current system, it is highly possible that the Office of Children's Issues could be advocating for the deinstitutionalization of children at the same time that the Orphans and Vulnerable Children Coordinator is advocating for building an orphanage to house AIDS orphans.
At the same time, foreign governments are looking to the United States to provide leadership and dedicate resources to addressing this world crisis. Under current law, international and national meetings on the subject of orphans are attended by a wide variety of varying level officials, many of whom are attending such meetings by default. Foreign governments do not have the opportunity to engage in diplomatic conversations with a consistent, high level official.
Under the Families for Orphans Act, the United States would be represented by a U.S. Coordinator for Orphan Policy Development and Diplomacy. Aided by the information gathered by tools such as a biennial census and a global assessment, the Coordinator would be in a position to lead the U.S. to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for addressing both the physical and emotional needs of orphans. Finally, through the work of an interagency Policy Coordinating Committee, the U.S. government would be better able to coordinate both domestic and international efforts on behalf of children in need of homes.
Would this bill impede the efforts of the United States to implement the Hague Convention on International Adoption?
No. It merely states that the new Office should represent the United States whenever there is a need for diplomatic representation on the issue of international adoption. One might argue that the Families for Orphans Act would actually expedite the full implementation of the Hague Convention in that it will provide the leadership and resources necessary to more appropriately address the need for international adoption systems that are both effective and ethical.
Does this bill conflict with Public Law PL 109-95?
No. The Families for Orphans Act does nothing to replace the structure put in place by PL 109-95. Under current law, the Special Advisor for Orphans and Vulnerable Children is engaged in efforts to ensure that the world's children are receiving the health care, nutrition, education and the protection they need to survive. These activities would continue with the additional benefit of coordination and support from the Office of Orphan Policy Development and Diplomacy.
Just how many of the world's children are in need of homes?
The simple answer is we don't know. While UNICEF reports that there are 132 million orphaned children, a large percentage of these children have at least one living relative capable of providing them with a loving and safe home. It is for this reason that the Families for Orphans Act proposes that the U.S. engage in a biennial census so that we can better understand and respond to the needs of these children and their families.
In what ways does the US government support permanent parental care for children in developing countries such as Guatemala?
Sadly, the US government is not consistently engaged in helping developing countries find permanent parental care for children. In fact, in most countries the only permanency related intervention is through international adoption. What this means is that when international adoption slows down or is stopped all together, children are left without any viable opportunities to find permanent families. The Families for Orphans Act attempts to change this by putting in place a diplomatic structure for engaging in dialogue with world leaders and leaders of other countries regarding orphan policy and care. In addition, it provides the resources necessary to support the efforts of governments and non-governmental organizations to provide permanent parental care.
Why is permanent family care so important? Can't children have their basic needs met by an institution?
Current research shows the stress babies and children without parental care experience impairs brain development, causes motor problems, cognitive and emotional problems. Children who live their lives in institutions end up homeless, unemployed, incarcerated and involved in trafficking and prostitution when emancipated. About half do not finish high school and college completion even among US foster youth is rare. At the same time, research shows that children who are adopted have far better educational and social outcomes than those who remain in foster or institutional care.
Is this bill really an "international adoption" bill?
This is an egregious misrepresentation, which feeds into the 'anti-adoption' constituencies. The bill, in its very title, encourages a comprehensive strategy for preservation, reunification and permanent parental care, ideally in the child's own country. While children are languishing in orphanages it is best practice that if a permanent family cannot be found in their home country, that international adoption be an option. The bill references 'international adoption' only 6 times, 3 of which are specific to eliminating corruption and establishing best practice.
Does The Families for Orphans Act give the United States unilateral power to develop global child welfare strategies by providing financial incentives for other countries (including through debt and trade relief) to send their children abroad for international adoption?
The bill does not directly or indirectly 'give the United States unilateral power'. Despite the United States' considerable influence, recent events in Honduras and Iran clearly demonstrate that the U.S. never holds unilateral powers on any issue. To qualify for assistance of any type, the country must substantially meet or be working to meet 18 individual minimum standards including having child protection laws and programs to encourage family preservation. Only one minimum standard references Intercountry Adoption (IA). The minimum standard for IA is that the country must allow IA - it does not state that the country must conduct IA.
Instead of creating a new office in State, shouldn't the United States be participating diplomatically with other nations in developing global child welfare strategies, for example, by finally ratifying the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child?
While the United States has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), this bill is based on many of the principles, most notably a child's right to a permanent family. A child's right to a permanent family has been long overlooked by US agencies working overseas. It is unfair for children to continue to wait while the battle to ratify the UNCRC is waged.
Doesn't the Families for Orphans Act legalize an overly broad definition of "orphan," capturing countless numbers of children who already have loving families, potentially including, for example, children who reside in boarding schools away from their primary caregivers?
The definition of orphan is actually less broad than that defined by UNICEF. The UNICEF definition includes children currently living in a one-parent family. The claim that children living in a boarding school would be included in the definition is inaccurate. For children living in boarding schools to be included in the definition, the child must meet at least one other definition of orphan. Boarding schools are only included when the school's specific purpose is to house orphans. The bill's definition includes boarding schools for orphans due to the fact that some countries attempt to categorize orphanages in more favorable terminology such as boarding school, yet the school functions as an orphanage. This provides more, not less, protection to children's right to a permanent family.
Does the Families for Orphans Act augment existing financial incentives for countries to favor international adoption by offering additional financial incentives, including technical assistance, grants, trade, and debt relief from the United States, which may sacrifice established child welfare principles by favoring international adoption over local solutions?
The bill does not favor IA over local solutions provided the local solution provides a permanent family for the child. The bill contains 18 individual minimum standards, only one of which is related to IA. The minimum standards call for preserving existing families, reunification of children with families of birth or relatives, permanent guardianship and domestic adoption. Again, the bill does not promote IA over any of these local and permanent solutions.
Don't the reunification efforts proposed in the Families for Orphans Act set up "time limits" which may cause original families to be unnecessarily separated from their children?
"Time-limited reunification efforts" meet the "best interest" principle of the UNCRC, the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption and the Hague Guide To Good Practice. Experience and research, such as the Harvard-lead Bucharest Early Intervention Project, clearly demonstrates that 'indefinite' reunification efforts damage children in virtually every aspect. The United States, after decades of focusing on reunification, now promotes 'time-limited' reunification efforts. Current reunification practices, including those of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR), can keep children outside of permanent family care for up to 10 years. Such lengthy reunification efforts would not be defined by any reasonable person as "in the best interest of the child."
Doesn't the Families for Orphans Act have conflicting definitions? For example, long-term kinship and guardianship arrangements which are considered "permanent" care under the bill may simultaneously be considered long-term foster care arrangements, which are considered to be temporary care under the bill.
No, the 'conflict' as stated does not reflect the full definition of kinship-care and guardianship. The bill defines both as permanent care if and only if they are "legally recognized and intended to be permanent." The terms are referenced as 'temporary' only when they are intended to be temporary. This bill is intended to encourage more legal permanent relationships.
Doesn't the Families for Orphans permit the United States then to essentially disregard a country's cultural norms?
No, the Families for Orphans Act encourages adaptation of the law as necessary to meet cultural norms. A child's right to a family is a global, cultural norm. Additional, universal human rights, including a child's right to a family, should be promoted by the United States and all governments. When a country's cultural norms do not satisfy universal human rights, the United States should promote and favor human rights. Examples include religious freedom which the U.S. promotes through a specific law and office, and Female Genital Mutilation - a cultural norm which is decried by virtually all countries and NGOs such as UNICEF.
|
