1

Historical, Theoretical & Ethical Analysis of Policy

Victoria Clowers

University of North Carolina at Pembroke

SWK 3480-001 Social Welfare and Policies

Professor F.H. Stephens

December 1, 2021
 2

Historical, Theoretical & Ethical Analysis of Policy

Introduction

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (AFSA) is a federal law that was enacted

November 17, 1997. The purpose of the AFSA is to speed up the legal process of

children being held in foster care then moving into to the adoption process. Before the

enactment of this policy, there were numerous logistical inconsistencies in the

processing of children in foster care resulting in some children remaining in foster care

for long periods, multiple judges hearing the same case in court, and failure to

adequately vet potential foster parents. The social problem that is addressed by the

AFSA is the length of time that children are kept in the system and ultimately out of a

productive household that is better for their development. In order to fully understand

the terms and conditions of AFSA, it is critical to first analyze the process in which it was

developed from a historical perspective and to consider how it addressed this social

problem.

Historical Analysis of Policy and Social Problem

The AFSA was first enacted in November of 1997 when Bill Clinton making it

public law signed it. This bill was supported across the board by Congress making it a

bipartisan bill and enacted with bipartisan support (Philips et al., 2013). In fact, support

was almost unanimous as it “passed easily with 416 members of Congress voting yea,

5 voting nay, and 12 abstaining” (Philips et al., 2013, p. 866). This legislation was

preceded by numerous similar policies such as Aid to Dependent Children-Foster Care

1961, The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 1974, and The Adoption
 3

Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Philips et al., 2013). Although the AFSA did

have a significant amount of support, there were still some oppositions of the legislation.

Out of the 5 congress members who voted against it, Hawaiian representative Mink was

the only person who testified information regarding her direct opposition to the bill. Her

main concerns were that she felt the government was over-stepping and that poor

families were being treated unfairly “by not addressing the underlying causes of poverty

and child maltreatment” (Philips et al., 2013, p. 866).

The AFSA targets the social problems existing within the foster care and

childcare system by reinforcing “the importance of the child’s health and safety in the

foster care administration” (Lercara, 2016, p. 660). While maintaining readiness in these

key areas, the AFSA was also intended to improve the rate at which a child could find a

permanent home (Lercara, 2016). This was a commonly reoccurring issue; between the

years, 1986 and 1995 the foster care system went from 280,000 children to almost

500,000. Policies at the time were not prepared to sufficiently handle numbers this high

– foster care failed to achieve permanency for most children for many months and

sometimes years. Due to this, the AFSA was created to address these issues (Philips et

al., 2013).

Theoretical Basis for the Policy

The main underlying value that is used as a basis for this policy is the value that

society places on the protection of children and other vulnerable parties. Family

Systems Theory serves as a baseline for the development of the AFSA and is used in

support of the value placed on this policy. In the words of Gilbertson and Graves, “family

systems theory is a theory of human behavior that defines the family unit as a complex
 4

social system in which members interact to influence each other's behavior” (Gilbertson

et. al., 2018, p. 32). Further, if one area of the familial system is changed or altered in

any way, it could roll over into other areas of someone’s life (Gilbertson, 2018). From

birth, parents make decisions for a child daily. This can be as small as what snack to

pack with lunch or as large as whether a child will attend public or private schooling. A

family system is what influences a large percentage of a child’s behavior, attitude,

health, and emotional well-being. The Family Systems Theory is reflected in policy set

forth by the AFSA because it promotes the importance of familial structure and

permanency.

Another main goal of the AFSA is to place a child in a permanent home –

whether back to his or her parents or to an adoption -- and do so quickly. The concept

of permanency planning derived from Psychological Parent Theory, which was

developed by Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud, and Albert J. Solnit (Hort, 2001). The

three later developed a book in which they analyze the importance creating a sense of

permanent family structure and how it can affect a child’s development – emotionally,

intellectually, and even morally (Hort, 2001). Additionally, a child’s needs change

frequently during their development; thus, stability is a critical necessity for them (Hort,

2001). This is addressed within the Psychological Parent Theory itself. Goldstein,

Freud, and Solnit used “the term ‘psychological parent’ to describe the stable

relationship between child and caretaker” (Hort, 2001. p. 1888). Due to the nature of

foster care and the foster care system, this can be difficult as it is designed to be a

temporary solution. The AFSA takes into account the importance of the parent/child

dynamic for their development as outlined in the Psychological Parent Theory by

 5

attempting to minimize foster care time for children and its focus on the continuity of

existing families.

Ethical-Value Analysis

Children seen as innocent and vulnerable victims who need protection. This is at

the core of the ethics placed on workers within the child welfare system. It is important

to remember that children are not extensions of their parents; they are completely

worthy and legally bound to their own individual, inherent rights. The ASFA is an

attempt to give those rights back to the child by protecting their innocence and

producing a safe and healthy living environment that contributes positively to their

development. To an extent, this policy does promote social justice; however, because it

does not address the root causes of poverty and other factors that lead to a child being

removed from a home, it does not promote economic justice.

For the most part, the ASFA complies with the NASW Code of Ethics.

Specifically, the social work value of importance of human relationships. This policy

recognizes the value of relations among people – particularly familial relationships. This

policy also supports the social worker’s mission to “seek to strengthen relationships

among people in a purposeful effort to promote, restore, maintain, and enhance the

well-being of individuals, families, social groups, organizations, and communities”

(NASW Code of Ethics, 2017). Secondly, the AFSA complies with the social work value

of dignity and worth of a person. This policy was created in order to preserve the

inherent rights of children and to advocate for a population that cannot sufficiently

protect itself. By protecting this population, the policy recognizes dignity and worth of

human beings.
 6

Target Population and Implementation

The impacted population for the ASFA is children in need of adoption, families

with children in the foster care system, and families looking to foster or adopt children.

While these three population do receive benefit from the policy, the main target

population would be the children in the foster care system. This policy applies to any

child within the system, so there is no eligibility criteria or any parties not subject to the

policy. Additionally, as the policy required states to make “reasonable efforts to preserve

families,” children with a threat of entering the foster care system also can be affected

by this policy.

This policy was implemented effectively; however, there were some unfortunate

results. Due to the increases intervention in cases of child abuse and neglect, there was

and continues to be a drastic rise in the amount of children in foster care. According to

Adoption & Foster Care Statistics, the number of children in foster care has risen up

from roughly 38,000 in 1998 to nearly 60,000 in 2017 (AFCARS, 2017). However, due

to this policy, there has been an increase in the number children who leave the foster

care system and who do so quickly (Golden, 2009). The Family First Prevention

Services Act was passed in response to these concerns. In this policy, one can find

“several provisions to enhance support services for families to help children remain at

home, reduce the unnecessary use of congregate care, and build the capacity of

communities to support children and families” (Lercara, 2019, p. 26).

Policy Strengths and Limitations

 7

The ASFA marked a crticial shift in the inner workings of the child welfare

system. Before its creation, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 was

the current ruling legislation for the child welfare system. A strength of the ASFA when

compared to previous policy is shift in focus towards the safety, health, and wellbeing of

children and away from the idea that children must be reunified with their birth parents.

(Golden, 2009). This was a monumental shift in previous policy and was considerably

more beneficial for the children who were involved. Another strength of this policy is the

strict attentiveness for the timeline in which legal proceedings and filing occurs (Golden,

2019). Previously, there was not a concrete timeline, which led to children being in

foster care systems longer than necessary and causing them to make frequent moves.

This caused a great deal of unnecessary pain. Lastly, the policy shift focus onto

observing visitation frequencies and quality while a child is in foster care awaiting a

court hearing. This allows social workers to intervene in potentially hazardous scenarios

and base their standard of care on a strengths based approach for family planning.

A study was conducted that served as a review for the effectiveness of ASFA

twelve years after it was initially implemented. This study revealed successes as well as

shortcomings of the policy. This study concluded that “ASFA has increased exits from

the foster care system through adoption and guardianship, yet many youth exit foster

care through emancipation and many without connections to a family” (Golden, 2009, p.

131). There were many shortfalls regarding placing children with relatives instead of a

traditional adoption pathway. Additionally, the study concluded, “ASFA revealed a need

for improved collaboration, supports, and services from other public systems such as

mental health, housing, income support, and criminal justice systems” (Golden, 2009, p.
 8

132). Lastly, this study found that the child welfare system was in need of vast

improvement in order to care for families in a timely and competent manner. This

includes the “number of available bilingual workers; the lack of training and

understanding among workers about mental illness and substance abuse issues; the

inconsistent training on the ASFA ‘compelling reasons’ exceptions; and the need for

greater worker competency in addressing the needs of culturally, ethnically, and racially

diverse families” (Golden, 2009, p. 133). Towards the conclusion of the report of the

study, there were some suggestions for changes to the policy that ultimately led to the

creation of the Family First Prevention Services Act. This act builds off the policies in

ASFA, but addresses some of the shortcomings.

Conclusion

The ASFA made drastic strides in effectively addressing deficiencies in the child

welfare system. For its time, it served as an effective guide in the shift of maintaining

biological families at all costs to serving children and their needs. It is supported by

numerous theories that are frequently studied in the profession of social work and social

justice. Although there were many strengths to this policy, future change is still

necessary to seal the deal on the original goals set forth. Remembering the importance

of protecting the innocence and leading to the empowerment of oppressed members of

society will serve as a guide in implementation of this change in the future.

 9

References

AFCARS Report #25 (Preliminary Estimates for Fiscal Year 2017)

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/afcars

Gilbertson, S., Graves, B. (2018). Chapter 4 - Heart Health and Children, Editor(s):

Ronald Ross Watson, Sherma Zibadi, Lifestyle in Heart Health and Disease,

Academic Press, Pages 35-46, ISBN 9780128112793,

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811279-3.00004-5.

Golden, O., Macomber, J. (2009). Intentions and Results: A Look Back at the Adoption

and Safe Families Act. Center for the study of social policy.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/intentions-and-results-look-back-

adoption-and-safe-families-act

Hort, K. (2001). Is twenty-two months beyond the best interest of the child? ASFA's

Guidelines for the Termination of Parental Rights, 28 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1879.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol28/iss6/6

Lercara, B. (2016). The Adoption and Safe Families Act: Proposing a “Best Efforts”

Standard to Eliminate the Ultimate Obstacle for Family Reunification. Family Court

Review, 54(4), 657–670. https://doi-org.proxy181.nclive.org/10.1111/fcre.12250

 10

National Association of Social Workers. (2017). NASW code of ethics. Retrieved

October 4 2021, from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-

Ethics/Code-of- Ethics-English

Phillips, C. M., & Mann, A. (2013). Historical analysis of the Adoption and Safe Families

Act of 1997. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(7), 862–

868. https://doi-org.proxy181.nclive.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.809290