Florida

1
Floridas Ban on Gay AdoptionA Cost/Benefit
Analysis
Floridas Ban on Gay AdoptionA Cost/Benefit
Analysis

• By
• Christopher W. Blackwell, MSN, PhD(c), ARNP
• Visiting Instructor, School of Nursing
• Candidate for the PhD in Public Affairs
• College of Health Public Affairs
• University of Central Florida

By Christopher W. Blackwell, MSN, PhD(c),
ARNP Visiting Instructor, School of
Nursing Candidate for the PhD in Public
Affairs College of Health Public
Affairs University of Central Florida
2
Introduction

• Currently 35,656 Children in Floridas Foster
  Care System (Childrens Defense Fund, 2003).
• Many states are easing the burden of child
  placements by lowering restrictions on placements
  by race/ethnicity.
• Some state agencies have stopped considering
  sexual orientation in their placement criteria
  (Brooks Goldber, 2001).

3
Introduction

• The Florida State Legislature enacted Floridas
  ban on gay adoptions in 1977.
• Conservatives support the ban while the gay
  community brands the ban as discriminatory,
  homophobic, and heterosexist (Canedy, 2002).
• Florida is 1 of 3 states which outlaw adoptions
  by homosexuals.

4
Introduction

• This Examination will Include
• Literature Review and Synthesis Empirical
  Research Exploring Gay Parents and Gay Adoptive
  Parents
• Policy Positions of major Pediatric and
  Psychiatric Organizations.
• Comprehensive Cost/Benefit Analysis.

5
Literature Review

• Social science research with gay populations is
  difficult (Heckathorn, 2004), secondary to fear
  of discrimination, social stigma, and
  heterosexism among gay individuals.
• Literature examining child rearing by homosexuals
  although in existence, is very scarce
  (Sigenthaler Bigner, 2000).

6
Literature Review

• Scallen published his groundbreaking study
  comparing child-rearing practices among gay
  fathers and heterosexual fathers in 1981.
• Very small sample size (n 20 in each group).
• Overall, fathering behaviors were very similar
• No statistical difference among paternal problem
  solving, emphasis placed on recreation and the
  degree to which autonomy was encouraged.

7
Literature Review

• Scallen (1981) Conclusions
• Statistically Significant Differences
• Gay fathers were more likely to endorse paternal
  nurturance, were less likely to emphasize
  economics as a central aspect of fathering, and
  were somewhat less traditional in the fathering
  approaches.

8
Literature Review

• Bigner Jacobson (1989) completed a
  meta-analysis on studies examining gay parents
  and compared a sample of heterosexual and
  homosexual mothers and fathers.
• Overall, not much statistical difference in
  responses to hypothetical situations between
  heterosexual and homosexual fathers.
• Gay fathers had a much greater concentration on
  the psychological investment of fathering and
  also gave a more positive self-assessment of
  their accomplishments as fathers.

9
Literature Review

• Bigner Jacobson (1989) found lesbian mothers to
  be statistically comparable to heterosexual
  mothers as child oriented, warm, confident,
  nurturing, and responsive to childrens needs.
• Statistically significant, lesbians were more
  concerned with ensuring their children had
  contact with positive male role models.

10
Literature Review

• Dispelling stereotypes, Bigner Jacobson found
  NO studies correlating
• Sexual orientation of parents and children (8
  among homosexual and heterosexual parents)
• Sexual orientation and abnormal gender identity
  or gender-role behaviors
• Sexual orientation and propensity to abuse or
  sexually exploit children.

11
Literature Review

• Siegenthaler Bigner (2000) studied motivational
  differences to mother between heterosexual and
  homosexual mothers.
• Used the VOC Scale to gauge motivation based on
  1) adult status and social identity 2) expansion
  of self 3) morality 4) primary group ties 5)
  stimulation 6) novelty 7) fun 8) social
  comparison, economic utility, and competition.

12
Literature Review

• Siegenthaler Bigner (2000) Conclusions
• Only significant difference between the two
  groups Adult-related goals and incentives for
  having children.
• Lesbians cited a significantly higher motivation
  based on the basic want to mother while
  heterosexual mothers cited more societal and
  peer-related factors in the decision.

13
Literature Review

• Siegenthaler Bigner (2000) Conclusions
• Heterosexism in society could contribute to a
  difference in goal-setting behavior between the
  two groups.
• Overall, findings between the two groups were
  very similar.

14
Literature Review

• Brooks and Goldberg (2001) researched both gay
  adoptive parents and the adoption systems
  response to homosexual adoption.
• Found gay parents were
• more willing to adopt children with special
  needs
• psychologically stable
• sensitive
• financially secure
• highly resourceful
• Also found to have statistically significant
  overall higher levels of education
• Possessed strong support systems.

15
Literature Review

• Brooks and Goldberg (2001) indicated a high level
  of homophobia among social workers in the
  adoptive agencies surveyed.
• Placements with homosexuals were somewhat
  hesitant secondary to an uncertainty about the
  effect of placements with gay men and lesbians on
  childrens adjustment and well-being,
• Ryan (2000) had also supported similar findings
  of homophobia and lack of knowledge regarding
  studies of the efficacy of gay and lesbian
  parents.

16
Literature Review

• Professional Organization Positions
• American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) fully
  supports legal recognition of adoption by
  homosexuals (2002).
• AAP recommendation based on the recognition that
  a considerable body of professional literature
  provides evidence that children with parents who
  are homosexual can have the same advantages and
  the same expectations of health, adjustment, and
  development of as can children whose parents are
  heterosexual (p. 339-340).

17
Literature Review

• Dr. Charlotte Patterson (1995) of the American
  Psychological Association (APA) researched gay
  parenting and adoption extensively to reaffirm
  the APAs 1977 position (Conger, 1977)
• The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation
  of natural, or prospective adoptive parents or
  foster parents should not be the sole or primary
  variable considered in custody placements (p.
  432).
• Pattersons conclusions mirror those of the
  studies reviewed.
• Suggested that future research should concentrate
  more on gay fathers and there is a great need for
  longitudinal data.

18
Cost/Benefit Analysis

• Purpose
• Compare the actual monetary benefits of keeping
  the ban with the actual monetary benefits of
  lifting the ban.

19
Proposed Benefits of Allowing Gays to Adopt

• 1) the fiscal benefits of allowing homosexuals to
  adopt children (the saving of funds dedicated to
  keeping children in foster care and under the
  care of the Department of Children and Families)
  
• 2) the psychological/psychosocial benefits
  afforded to adopted children who will be living
  in a DCF-approved home instead of the foster care
  system or other DCF facility
• 3) the benefits afforded to gay men and women of
  the State of Florida who desperately want to
  become parents through adoption.

20
Opportunity Costs/ Alternative Options

• Shift in recruitment funds from other minorities
• Increase in the amount of administrative expenses
  of the Department of Children and Families
  (DCF)discussed later.
• Adjust policy to allow only gay couples or single
  gay individuals the right to adopt
• Increase funding to actively recruiting other
  minorities.

21
Proposed Costs of Lifting the Ban

• 1) Increase in administrative fees to the DCF as
  a result of increasing number of adoptions
• 2)Increased costs associated with the need for an
  increase in case managers and social workers to
  perform follow-up and post-adoption visitations
  with the increase in adoptions.

22
Monetized Benefits of Lifting the BanTable 1
USDA Annual Expenditures for Children
Annual Expenditure Annual (Mean) Cost
Housing 3,340
Food 1,705
Transportation 1,395
Clothing 553
Healthcare 735
Child Care/ Educational Expenses 1,100
Miscellaneous 1,090
Total (Mean) Annual Expenditures 9,918
23
Monetized Benefits of Lifting the Ban

• Estimating a precise number of homosexuals who
  would adopt if the ban was lifted is difficult as
  no studies found has performed this type of
  analysis.
• Beers (1996) found that 51 of gays in New York
  City wanted to parent.
• 2000 US Census revealed
• 600,000 same-sex parented households
• 16 of households in CA headed by same-sex
  couples (8 in NY and 7.2 in TX).

24
Monetized Benefits of Lifting the Ban

• Table 2 Total Benefits of Lifting the Ban
  (5-year period)

Year of Lifting of Ban Children Adopted Amount Saved
One 100 100 X 9,918 991,800
Two 100 100 X 9,918 991,800
Three 100 100 X 9,918 991,800
Four 100 100 X 9,918 991,800
Five 100 100 X 9,918 991,800
Total 500 991,800 x 5 4,959,000
25
Monetized Costs of Lifting the Ban

• Table 3 Fees Associated with Adoption

Agency Fee Item Amount
Application Fees 300
Homestudy and Preparation Services 1,600
Post-Placement Supervision 850
Parent Physical for Each Parent 93
Psychiatric Evaluation for Each Parent 325
Court Costs and Attorneys Fees 500
Total Amount 3,668
26
Monetized Costs of Lifting the Ban

• Table 4 Total Costs Associated with Lifting the
  Ban on Gay Adoptions
• (5-year period)

Year Number of Adopted Children Total Expenditure
One 100 100 x 3,668 366,800
Two 100 100 x 3,668 366,800
Three 100 100 x 3,668 366,800
Four 100 100 x 3,668 366,800
Five 100 100 x 3,668 366,800
Total 100 366,800 x 5 1,834,000
27
Monetized Costs of Keeping the Ban Net Benefits

• Same as the benefits of lifting the ban
• Over a 5-year period equal to 4, 959, 000 (using
  100 as the potential number of adopted children).
• Table 5 Total Net Benefits Lifting the Ban
  (5-Year Period)

Total Benefits 4,959,000
Total Costs 1,834,000
Benefits- Costs 3,125,000
Total Net Benefits 3,125,000
28
Discounting

• Brings future costs into todays values (Korosec,
  2003).
• For this analysis, will discount for a 5-year
  period
• PV Sn S Sum of Costs and Benefits
• (1 r)n n Given Year
  
• r Discount Rate (.05)

29
Discounting Benefits of Keeping the Ban

• 1 2 3
  4 5
• 366,800 366,800 366,800 366,800
  366,800
• (1 .05)1 (1 .05)2 (1 .05)3 (1
  .05)4 (1 .05)5
• Calculated Answers
• 1 2 3
  4 5
• 349,333 332,698 316,855 301,767
  287,397
• 
  1,588,050

30
Discounting Benefits of Lifting the Ban

• 1 2 3
  4 5
• 991,800 991,800 991,800 991,800
  991,800
• (1 .05)1 (1 .05)2 (1 .05)3 (1
  .05)4 (1 .05)5
• Calculated Answers
• 1 2 3
  4 5
• 944,571 899,591 856,754 815,856
  769,265
• 
  4,286,137

31
Analysis/Application of the Fundamental Rule of
Cost/Benefit Analysis

• Net Benefits of Lifting the Ban 3,125,000.
• Net Costs of Keeping the Ban -3,125,000.
• Discount Value of Lifting the Ban 4,286,137.
• Discount Value of Keeping the Ban 1,588,050.
• Fundamental Rule
• In any choice situation, select the alternative
  that produces the greatest net (marginal)
  benefit (Korosec, 2003)
• Discounting and Total Net Benefit analysis
  indicates it is fiscally-wise to LIFT THE BAN!

32
Sensitivity Analysis

• Sensitivity analysis measures the impact on
  project outcomes of changing one or more key
  input values about which there is uncertainty
  (Dorf, 1999).
• Uncertainty in this study was the number of
  children who would be adopted if the ban was
  lifted.
• Assess Sensitivity Analysis with a lower value of
  50 (and holding all other values constant).

33
Sensitivity Analysis

• Table 6 Sensitivity Analysis of Lifting the Ban
  Adjusting Number of Potential Adopted to 50 per
  Year

Year of Lifting of Ban Children Adopted Amount Saved
One 50 50 X 9,918 495,900
Two 50 50 X 9,918 495,900
Three 50 50 X 9,918 495,900
Four 50 50 X 9,918 495,900
Five 50 50 X 9,918 495,900
Total 250 495,900 x 5 2,479,500
34
Sensitivity Analysis

• Table 7 Sensitivity Analysis DCF Costs of
  Lifting the Ban (50 adoptions)

Year Number of Adopted Children Total Expenditure
One 50 50 x 3,668 183,400
Two 50 50 x 3,668 183,400
Three 50 50 x 3,668 183,400
Four 50 50 x 3,668 183,400
Five 50 50 x 3,668 183,400
Total 250 183,400 x 5 917,000
35
Sensitivity Analysis

• Table 8 Sensitivity Analysis Total Net Benefits
  of Lifting the Ban

Total Benefits 2,479,500
Total Costs 917,000
Benefits- Costs 1,562,500
Total Net Benefits 1,562,500
36
Sensitivity Analysis Discounting

• Lifting the Ban
• 1 2 3
  4 5
• 495,900 495,900 495,900 495,900
  495,900
• (1 .05)1 (1 .05)2 (1 .05)3 (1
  .05)4 (1 .05)5
• Calculated
  Answers
• 1 2 3
  4 5
• 472,285 449,795 428,377 407,978 388,550
  
• 
  2,146,985

37
Sensitivity Analysis Discounting

• Keeping the Ban
• 1 2 3 4
  5
• 183,400 183,400 183,400 183,400
  183,400
• (1 .05)1 (1 .05)2 (1 .05)3
  (1 .05)4 (1 .05)5
  
• Calculated Answers
• 1 2 3
  4 5
• 174,666 166,349 158,427 150,883
  143, 698
• 
  794,023

38
Sensitivity Analysis

• Net Benefits of Lifting the Ban 1,562,500.
• Net Benefits of Keeping the Ban -1,562,500.
• Discount Value of Lifting the Ban 2,146,985.
• Discount Value of Keeping the Ban 794,023.
• Fundamental Rule
• In any choice situation, select the alternative
  that produces the greatest net (marginal)
  benefit (Korosec, 2003)
• Discounting and Total Net Benefit analysis
  indicates it is fiscally-wise to LIFT THE BAN!
• Sensitivity Analysis ROBUST!

39
Executive Summary

• Very controversial issue.
• Literature reviewed indicated that homosexuals
  are at least as capable at parenting as
  heterosexuals.
• NO evidence supported that children are
  negatively affected physiologically,
  psychologically, or developmentally.
• Research is in drastic need of augmentation
  (especially data examining gay fathers and
  longitudinal outcomes).

40
Executive Summary

• Based on the analyses of these data, a lift of
  the ban on adoptions by gays, although costing
  1,834,000 to the DCF (over a five-year period
  and assuming 100 children per year would be
  adopted by homosexuals), would benefit the DCF
  and State of Florida by 4,959,500.
• This yielded a total of 3,125,000 to be saved by
  the DCF and the taxpayers of Florida
• Discounting also yielded more positive results
  for lifting the ban than it did for keeping the
  ban

41
Executive Summary

• Sensitivity Analyses were robust
• Limitations/Influences of Funding/ Feasibility
• If the ban is lifted, an immediate increase in
  the staff of the DCF is needed.
• Initial budgeting for the DCF should not reflect
  saved monies.
• Suggestions include re-budgeting in the second
  year, analysis of precise costs and adjusting the
  DCF budget accordingly, or implementation of a
  non-annual budget.

42
Executive Summary

• Limitations/Influences of Funding/ Feasibility
• Spend saved funds on other areas of the DCF,
  other areas of the state budget, or allocate back
  to taxpayers.
• Actual DCF figures were not used
• Potential number of gays and lesbians who are
  willing to adopt if the ban is lifted is
  difficult to estimate and could be much greater
  or much less than the value of 100 adoptions used
  in this study.