Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

Scott D. Ryan, Sue Pearlmutter, and Victor Groza

Cay men and lesbians often encounter barriers when they pursue adoption. Adoption workers are expected to make decisions regarding child placement using the best interest standard. However, this decision-making model does not adequately consider intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational factors that affect the use of the standard. This article examines the best interest standard and makes practice recommendations to increase the accessibility of adoptions for gay and lesbian applicants. Key words: adoption; child welfare organizations; gay men and lesbians; parents

mpirical and clinical knowledge of adoption policy and practice has increased greatly in recent years. However, a crisis remains in this arena, as many more children are available for adoption than there are families to adopt them. As a result of the 1997 enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89), which requires more expedient termination of birth parent rights than had previously existed, the number of children available for adoption continues to grow. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), established as part of the act, estimated that as of September 30, 2001, 126,000 children were waiting to be adopted. These were children for whom the public child welfare agency had a goal of adoption, for whom parental rights had been terminated, or both. During the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, AFCARS reported that an estimated 46,668 children were adopted through the public child welfare system (AFCARS, 2002). Defining Suitable Adoptive Families Child welfare agencies most often seek adoptive families from among traditional heterosexual two-parent or single-parent families. In doing this, they follow state adoption statutes, many

dating to the mid-1900s that favor those families (Appell, 2001; HoUinger, 1999), even though a great deal of evidence exists that family constellations have changed significantly in the past three decades. Fields and Casper (cited in the U.S. Census Bureau, 2001) reported that the traditional two-parent nuclear family (that is, married households with one or more children under the age of 18) constituted 24 percent of all U.S. households in 2000down from 40 percent in 1970. Although the total number of households in the United States is estimated to increase 15.5 percent from 1995 to 2010, the number of traditional families is projected to decline 6.4 percent from 24.6 million to 23.1 million. Such families would then constitute only 20.1 percent of total households (U.S. Census Bureau, 1996). Creater flexibility in the conceptualization and interpretation of the word "family" (Ricketts & Achtenberg, 1989) would benefit children awaiting adoptive families. The effect of excluding nontraditional placement resources through an overly narrow definition of family is that some children will languish longer in foster care without permanence. Brooks and colleagues (1999) have discussed recent federal legislation intended to increase the pool of multiethnic foster and
CCC Code: 0037-8046/04 $3.00 O 2004 National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

85

adoptive families. Their principles for recruitment Homophobia and Heterosexism and adoption placement practice show that comPrejudice against gay men and lesbians has been mitment to considering gay and lesbian singles socially sanctioned for hundreds of years and, arand couples as potential adoptive families would guably, continues today. The mental health comexpand the possibilities for permanent child munity in this country classified homosexuality as placement. a mental disorder until the early 1970s. At approximately the same time, Weinberg (1972) first Currently there are no uniform standards described homophobia as "the fear by heterosexuacross states regarding adoption by gay men and als when in near proximity to homosexuals, and lesbians. Florida is the only state that explicitly the self-hatred felt by gays because of their homoprohibits single and coupled gay men and lesbians sexuality" (p. 4). Others describe homophobia as from becoming adoptive parents. Although 49 an "irrational fear and hatred of those who love states allow consideration of a gay or lesbian per... [persons] of the same sex" (Pharr, 1988, p. 1), son as an adoptive parent, only four statesCaliconnected to racism, sexism, and other "isms" fornia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ver(Pharr; Plummer, 1992). Calhoun (2000) viewed montand the District of Columbia explicitly it as subordination, a totally sanctioned and sepapermit joint adoption by lesbian or gay couples rate type of oppression. (LetHimStay, 2002). All other jurisdictions determine who ^^^^ ^^^^ Homophobia is most often can and cannot adopt on a caseaccompanied by heterosexby-case basis, using local and Adoption successes depend ism, bias that favors heterostate statutes (Ricketts & on the balance of resources sexual people as the norm and Achtenberg, 1989). Thus, pubheterosexual families as supeand stressors that affect lic child welfare agencies in most rior to other family forms. states could consider gay men According to Plummer (1992) the family. and lesbians as potential adopand Calhoun (2000), heterotive parents. However, Utah and ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^^ sexism is dangerous and perArkansas have instituted excluvasive. It effectively silences sionary administrative policies gay men and lesbians, placing effectively prohibiting gay men and lesbians from them "at the outside of civil society" (Calhoun, p. adopting children in either state's custody (Riggs, 76) and privileges heterosexual men and women. 1999). Similar measures have been considered in It displaces gay men and lesbians from both the Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklapublic and private spheres, particularly the "sphere homa, and Texas (Appell, 2001; Ferrero, Freker, of marriage and the family" (Calhoun, p. 76). & Foster, 2002; Riggs). These policies and legislaAttempts to promote inclusion of gay men and tive measures ignore evidence that family form lesbians as part of a pluralistic culture often meet does little to ensure success in adoption. Rather, with overt and subtle resistance. This battle is not adoption successes depend on the balance of renew, and it is not confined to gay men and lesbisources and stressors that affect the family (Groze, ans. Farley (2000) claimed, for instance, "much of 1996). what is true about relations between AfricanAmericans and Whites, for example, is also true Gay men and lesbians have adopted children about relations between males and females, gays for many years, despite fear and discrimination. and straights, and people with and without disThey have adopted as single parents through pubabilities" (p. 12). Staff in social services organizalic child welfare agencies, private sources, and intions routinely struggle with acceptance of differternational organizations. They have sought older ence, particularly difference with regard to the children from various racial and ethnic groups, as composition of families. In the recent past, interwell as sibling groups and children with disabiliest in adoption by single individuals, men, interties. And, although international adoptions have racial and transracial families, and gay men and permitted more fiexibility, they too have become lesbians has pushed agencies and social workers to more restrictive, as countries such as China, Thaiweigh their commitment to multiculturalism land, and Guatemala have prohibited gay and les(Brooks, Goldberg, Berrick, 8c Austin, 1996; bian adoption applications (Brodzinsky, 2002; Murray, 1996; Rodriguez & Meyer, 1990). Chibbaro, 2002).
Sociai Worii I Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004 86

Laws and regulations, narrow definitions of family, homophobia, and heterosexism limit the possibility that lesbians and gay men will be considered as adoptive parents. The cumulative effect of actions by states, local jurisdictions, agencies, and individual staff members is to prevent or discourage consideration of their availability and interest. Even if child welfare staff members overcome these initial barriers, the decision-making tool most often available to them may further limit the inclusion of gay and lesbian families as placement candidates. This standard, the "best interest of the child," is used as a measure to guide placement of children in the custody of the child welfare system. The Best Interest Decision-Mal<ing Standard AH states allow social workers, judges, and professionals involved in the placement of children with prospective adoptive families to apply the best interest of the child standard for decision making (Ricketts, 1991). This standard requires that child welfare workers base their recommendations and decisions on what is best for the child, not what is best for the potential adoptive parents or the agency and not the worker's personal opinion. Workers must assess the match between shortand long-term needs of the child or children awaiting placement and the resources, strengths, and vulnerabilities of a particular family. However, the capacity of social workers to fully and objectively assess parenting ability among a range of family types may be limited. Berkman and Zinberg (1997) found that heterosexism is prevalent among social workers. Establishing a preference for specific types of families in the adoption arena, such as those formed by heterosexual partners, is not new. Wolins (1959) found, for example, that staff in child placement agencies often used a subjective model of goodness, which he compared to an unwritten continuum, to evaluate the desirability of families. Depending on the need for adoptive homes, specific applicant families might be seen as desirable, merely acceptable, or not at all worthy. Bradley (1967) indicated that adoption workers in her study used a "psychosocial appraisal... related to the positive quality of the couple's interaction in their marriage, flexible and outgoing characteristics of both the wife's and husband's personalities, the couple's openness,... motivation for adoption,... marital role performance, and acceptance of their infertil-

ity" (p. 122). Rather than applying objective decision-making criteria, a social worker's values, previous experience, and subjective judgment of particular families appear to drive approval and placement decisions. Such subjective models and unwritten criteria fail to acknowledge the viability of gay and lesbian people and families as placements or even accept them as a resource. Literature suggests that considerations surrounding gay men and lesbians' suitability as adoptive parents focus first on the applicants themselves. These concerns include the mental health of the applicant (Falk, 1989; Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, & Smith, 1986), parenting skills (Cramer, 1986; Patterson, 2000a), and his or her relationship quality and stability (Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, & Joseph, 1995; Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992). Next, consideration focuses on the effect of gay or lesbian adoption on the child's psychological and psychosexual development (Allen & Burrell, 1996; Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Green et al.; Knight & Garcia, 1994; Patterson, 1992, 2000a), sexual safety (Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Knight & Garcia), and social stigmatization (Donaldson, 2000). In addition, studies have examined permutations of these subthemes among gay and lesbian biological and adoptive families (Sullivan, 1995). Currently, no empirical evidence demonstrates that living with a gay or lesbian parent has any significant negative effects on children (for an overview of the available research, see Patterson, 2000b). In using the best interest standard, social workers may be infiuenced by peers, supervisors, their organizational context, and the larger sociocultural arena, and this may restrict their decision making. To more fully understand these infiuences, we use systems theory focusing on the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational levels in our analysis. Systems Theory: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Organizational Levels Hall and Fagan (1956), in discussing the interaction of people, social issues, and social phenomena, defined a system as "a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes... the [systemic] environment is the set of all objects, a change in whose attributes affect the system and also those objects whose attributes are changed by the behavior of the system" (pp. 18-21). A social worker's interpersonal infiuences, such as peers and supervisors, as well

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents 87

as other factors, including agency policies and leadership, have an effect on the decision-making process within a larger social and political context (Figure 1). There are also confounding effects from the interaction of these factors. Although the proportional influence of each factor on an individual's decision remains unclear, each factor affects the decision-making process to varying degrees (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 1998). Each area possesses distinctive boundaries and patterns. At the same time, there is interconnectedness among the factors. Through the permeable boundaries, positive or negative effects can flow in either direction. For instance, an individual can sway a group and change agency policy and vice versa (Robbins et al.). Environmental and Societal Forces Although adoption had been viewed for many years as a service available to white middle- and upper-income families, it has come to target a

much broader audience. Single-parent families, people of various racial and ethnic groups, and other nontraditional families are recruited to obtain permanent placement for an increasing number of children waiting in the child welfare system (Mallon, 2000). Intrapersonal Influences Two empirical studies have explored homophobia among child welfare workers and its effect on adoption placement recommendations (Ryan, 2000; Taylor, 1998). Taylor reported that his sample of 50 child welfare workers in California generally favored allowing adoptions by gay men and lesbians. However, approximately one-third of respondents thought that gay and lesbian adoption applicants should not be able to adopt a child younger than five years, and 25 percent believed the child should be older than 15. Ryan (2000), in a sample of 80 social workers, found that attitudes toward gay men and lesbians

Figurel
Interactions between Systems in Decision Making about Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Families

Interpersonal Intrapersonal

t .y
Organizational
Social Wort / Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004 88

as adoptive parents derive from childhood and familial experiences as well as professional indoctrination. African American workers in his study were more likely to exhibit heterosexist views than workers from other racial or ethnic groups. He reported that these views appear to be related to family and socialization experiences. However, the receipt of special training was highly effective in the formation of positive attitudes and behaviors toward deciding the placement of children with gay men or lesbians. Ryan's research underscores that values and morals developed through primary socialization provide an important framework within which individuals initially evaluate issues. To the extent that child welfare workers use their own standards for decision-making pur-

integrate these observational infiuences into their previous experiences. In addition, when responsibility for action, such as a placement recommendation, is spread throughout a group, workers' attitudes and behavior may be affected. A social worker might then disengage his or her personal system of moral control and make decisions based on perceptions of group reinforcement (Bandura, 1990; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Social workers may also be likely to imitate the actions of individuals whom they perceive as prestigious or similar to themselves, including a supervisor, other respected professionals, colleagues, or peers (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Walters, 1963). Such findings suggest that poses, the best interest of the ^^^^ peers or supervisors with child is often clouded in the whom an individual social process. Brooks and Goldberg worker associates may have an Social workers who (2001) noted that biased workon the placement recadvocate the placement of effect ers can affect placements in a ommendation. Social workers a child with a gay man or number of ways: by questionwho advocate the placement ing the parenting abilities of gay lesbian may be subjected to of a child with a gay man or and lesbian applicants, leaking lesbian may be subjected to ridicule, ostracism, and information to birth parents, ridicule, ostracism, and other other career-limiting and not seeking out lesbian and career-limiting reactions. One gay families. social worker reported that reactions. "[t]here still exists the reality Supervisor and Peer ^^^^ that a homophobic supervisor Influences will link prospective gay and lesbian parents with a hoIn practice, a team, supervisory mophobic worker" (Brooks et al., 1996, p. 28). An group, or committee often participates in indiunbiased worker may initially recommend placevidual adoption placement recommendations. ment to a lesbian or gay man, only to reconsider Although there is no research examining the inhis or her decision because of infiuence exerted by fluence among group members on the placement a homophobic supervisor or other unit members recommendation, peer and supervisor influences (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). However, the have been studied in other contexts. That research reverse may also be true. Peers and supervisors suggests that the infiuence of groups can often can exert positive infiuences and reinforce the use promote positive behavior through the use of soof the best interest standard. Well-informed cial control and social learning methods. Howworkers can guide gay men and lesbians through ever, several studies have also demonstrated that the recruitment and placement processes (Brooks negative acts, including child abuse, aggression, & Goldberg, 2001). and antisocial behavior, can be shaped through the group process (Bandura, 1973; Miller, Handal, Organizational Influences Gilner, & Cross, 1991; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). Thus, group infiuence on individual deciWhereas "an agency's attitude toward placement sion making can occur as social workers see the with gay men and lesbians can have profound imactions of others in the group and the resulting plications for recruitment and placement pracconsequences; view the vicarious reinforcements, tices" (Brooks 8c Goldberg, 2001, p. 152) that inwhich may be positive or negative, that serve to clude gay men and lesbians, organizational infiuence the social worker's future behavior; and practice has been slow to change. Many child
Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

89

welfare agencies prefer couples to single parents, middle-class to working-class or poorer families, and nonkin to kin. However, such exclusions have worked against the placement of special needs children, including African American children, older children, sibling groups, or gay and lesbian youths. Such special needs children are precisely those whom nontraditional, single-parent, or working-class families and racial and ethnic group familiesrather than traditional, white, two-parent, middle-class familiesare more willing to adopt (Rodriguez & Meyer, 1990). Agency policy regarding adoptions by gay men and lesbians can also be covert, with no explicitly written guidelines (Reilly, 1996). As a result, adoption workers may erroneously assume that gay or lesbian adoptions are not legal in their state. Ryan (1996) found that 14 percent of the social workers he surveyed would not place a child with a gay man or lesbian because they believed these placements were either against the law or in opposition to agency policy, neither of which was true. Covert exclusion may avoid confrontation with community stakeholders. However, hidden policies provide no uniform guidance to staff and encourage individual interpretations of laws and regulations (Pandukht, 1998; Reilly). In addition, ambiguous policies create misinformation among workers. Many agencies, in an indirect attempt to be inclusive, have instituted a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to avoid conflicts with those in their communities who are opposed to adoptions by gay men and lesbians. Yet, policies to guide professional behavior are obstructed by such secrecy and informality (Sullivan, 1995). Reilly asserted that "[t]he failure of... agencies to provide written direction or regulation on the placement of children in gay and lesbian homes is a disservice to children" (p. 112). Child welfare agency managers are often caught in a dilemma when staff members make a determination to place children with gay men or lesbians. Influential stakeholders from outside the agency, as well as within, may hold negative views of gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Although some agency representatives covertly allow adoptions by gay men and lesbians to occur, such secrecy helps to maintain the status quo of worker confusion, gay and lesbian exclusion, and waiting children. Policy statements from professional organizations that include child welfare staff and adminis-

trators could positively influence organizational and individual social worker behavior. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and NASW have all adopted official policy statements that explicitly address the placement of children with gay men or lesbians (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002; Ricketts, 1991). The American Psychiatric Association's (1986) policy on adoptions by gay men or lesbians states that "single factors such as homosexuality should not necessarily or automatically rule out the selection of a potential adoptive parent" (p. 1506). The American Psychological Association, in 1974, after removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, adopted the following resolution: "Homosexuality per se implies no impairment of judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities" (1975, p. 1). The organization later adopted the following resolution: "Sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of prospective adoptive parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in placement" (1976, p. 1). The NASW Code of Ethics (2000) states, "Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of... sexual orientation" (Section 4.02). The Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest and largest child advocacy group, is more explicit in its assertion that lesbians and gay men seeking to adopt shall be judged by the same standards that apply to heterosexuals: "All applicants should have an equal opportunity to apply for the adoption of children and receive fair and equal treatment and consideration of their qualifications as adoptive parents ... [and that] sexual preference should not be the sole criterion on which the suitability of adoptive applicants is based" (2000, pp. 47-50). However, even with these official policies in place, the effect on individual agencies and their staff is not clear. Practice Implications The characteristics and definitions of family change with the realities of demographic shifts in this country. However, application of the best interest standard can become more inclusive only if workers, their supervisors, and child welfare organizations begin to consciously accept gay and lesbian people as potential adoptive parents.

Social Wort/Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004 90

Aligning Personal Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors with Professional Guidelines A primary intervention tool for changing behavior is the use of training. Ryan (2000) found that training focused specifically on adoptions by gay men and lesbians was the most significant predictor of social worker placement recommendation. Others have also noted the positive effects of general training on attitudes held toward gay men and lesbians (Ben-Ari, 1998; Christensen & Sorensen, 1994; Serdahely & Ziemba, 1984; Wells, 1991). Trainers should begin this work by helping social workers define their beliefs and attitudes about gay men and lesbians, including attitudes about them as parents. Identifying individual values and beliefs regarding this issue is essential to the growth process (Taylor, 1998). A strong association exists between Western Judeo-Christian theology and negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Crawford & SoUiday, 1996). Training for individual workers might include information about current interpretations of biblical references to help modify attitudes (Boswell, 1980). Finally, training should focus on communication and problem solving around workers' concerns or discomfort in assessing and working with gay and lesbian applicants. Research suggests that interventions directly addressing stereotypes and unfounded beliefs may be most effective in countering negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians as parents (Crawford & SoUiday, 1996). Adoption workers could meet vth gay and lesbian applicants, birth families, and adoptive families (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997; Herek, 1988; Herek & Glunt, 1993), thereby enlisting collective support. Other strategies for changing attitudes have been suggested. For instance, special committees focused on gay and lesbian issues within an agency "increased the visibility of gay/lesbian employees and have led to a more tolerant attitude [among staff]" (Brooks et al., 1996, p. 26). Providing social workers with information from relevant research may further help to Uluminate and broaden their perceptions of family. For example, the majority of students in one study attributed their attitude changes to meeting with a gay man and his mother and obtaining additional theoretical and empirical information about gay men and lesbians (Ben-Ari, 1998). Child welfare workers also need to understand how to apply the best interest standard in ways

that are inclusive. In training, they should be encouraged to examine applicant information and materials with an awareness of the child's needs and interests, recognizing that their own values may impede that process. Definitions of family could be discussed and broadened in a training or educational setting so that workers begin their consideration of applicants from a larger pool of adoptive candidates. Conversely, some academics suggest that the long-term effect of training on gay and lesbian issues is negligible (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997). More research is needed to ascertain the veracity of this claim and the potential source of such erosion. Continued vigilance appears crucial to maintaining an open dialogue among workers on the issue of gay and lesbian adoption. Moderating Supervisor and Peer Influences As noted earlier, homophobic peers or supervisors might negatively infiuence an accepting social worker. Most training focuses on the individual social worker. In this instance, training could address the effects of agency policy and other employees, providing workers with tools and strategies to implement new policies and deal vnth other system constraints. To counter any negative effects of supervisors, peers, or other groups. Brooks and colleagues (1996) described one agency's practice of having representatives of the gay and lesbian community present at the meeting at which placements are considered. This practice humanizes the victims of prejudicial behavior (Bandura, 1990) and reminds decision makers of their responsibility to consider the best interest of the child rather than the sexual orientation of the applicants. The inclusion of a gay or lesbian community representative, the hiring of gay and lesbian social workers, or both, could shift the power balance within the group, providing more support for consideration of placements with gay and lesbian applicants. Bandura (1977) indicated that because behavior is learned, it can be unlearned as well. Thus, interacting with gay and lesbian coworkers and community members can help social workers become comfortable working with gay and lesbian applicants. Given that compliance is also possible despite individual personal attitudes, supervisors can serve as positive role models for social workers through their inclusion of diverse family forms in

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

91

the placement process. The supervisory process can also help social work staff address overt and covert discrimination through reminders that gay or lesbian people can be considered as adoptive parents (in all states except Florida, Mississippi, and Utah [which prohibit adoption by all unmarried couples]), discussion of professional standards and ethics, and creation of a system for monitoring placement recommendations. Last, supervisors can support development of clear, inclusive organizational policies that recognize and incorporate family diversity. Such policies would permit many types of families to be considered as adoptive parents using the best interest standard. These policies would encourage decisions "based on the strengths and needs of the child and the perceived ability of the prospective adoptive family to meet those needs and develop those strengths" (Mallon, 2000, p. 14). Organizational Changes Only a few laws or policies explicitly require child welfare organizations to consider gay and lesbian applicants equally with heterosexual individuals in child placement decisions. This double standard for placement decisions seems antithetical to a mission of social justice and runs counter to the ethical guidelines of NASW and recommendations from the Child Welfare League of America, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and other organizations. The clear positions these professional organizations have taken can provide an agency with support to implement inclusive policies, procedures, and practices. Although decision makers' lack of guidance may encourage ambiguity and homophobia, these position statements can provide legitimacy for an organization's positive actions in the larger professional community. In addition, agencies can engage community activists knowledgeable on adoption by gay and lesbian individuals to assist in developing clear policies that help remove this veil of ambiguity. One important step in presenting an agency's position to the public and potential opposition groups is preparation for public discussions and questions. Such preparation is paramount for two key reasons. First, gay and lesbian issues routinely evoke heated debate, particularly as they relate to family formation. Second, it is impossible to educate through argument without each side becom-

ing further entrenched and polarized in its respective position. To assist in the preparatory process, various scenarios should be role-played by identifying and rehearsing potential responses to public and media questions about gay and lesbian adoptions (Reardon, 1981). Professionals should begin by emphasizing those things on which all parties agree (Reardon, 1981), including the need for and desire to provide permanent, loving homes for children in foster care. Focusing on this idea would encourage decisions using the best interest standard. Another point to emphasize in the discussion is the costbenefit of permanency, using data on the costs and effects of keeping children in nonpermanent placements. When engaging those who criticize recruitment of gay and lesbian adoptive families, social workers might impress on them the great need for adoptive homes and seek their assistance in locating families through their churches, neighborhoods, organizations, or extended family members. However, the critics should not define the discussion. Opponents may argue against an agency's actions in biblical terms, accusing the agency, commissioners, council members, and others of condoning homosexuality. Answers to inquiries can instead reframe the focus on areas of agreement, such as the best interest of the child and permanency or constitutionality and civil rights. Forming coalitions around the reframed issue may increase organizational strength (Reardon, 1981; Schneider, 1985). When organizational staff members engage individuals and groups in a discussion of gay and lesbian adoption, they should identify the affective or cognitive source of the concern first. Affective needs, such as feelings of fear and disgust, should be addressed before other information is given. This provision of empathy lets the other party know that he or she is being heard without necessarily acknowledging agreement or acquiescence. The empathic connection should then make room for cognitive information, such as why the fear is not warranted, to be better received and processed (Rogers, 1951). "Message senders" influence the ways in which an audience receives intended messages (Reardon, 1981). Thus, establishing a cadre of researchers and experts to whom the agency could direct the media for independent comments that support the agency's position or practice would help to

Social Wort/Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004

92

reframe the question and educate the community. Organizations should project a unified position through all written and verbal correspondence on this issue. Consensus between key internal stakeholders can be achieved through reframing as outlined earlierfocusing on the waiting children and their need for permanency and away from applicants' sexual orientation. At the organizational level too, leaders must emerge to create and implement clear and inclusive adoption policies that positively influence staffs' decision making and perceptions. They can begin to ensure that the best interest standard is uniformly applied and that it considers both heterosexual and gay and lesbian families as prospective adoptive families. Conclusion Social work professionals have a responsibility to challenge problems that have been socially sanctioned and created. Leadership requires doing what is right, not necessarily what is popular or consistent with expressed community standards and values. Working to ensure the best interests of children may require joining the fight against gay and lesbian prejudice. A recognition of struggles in the civil rights movement and the women's movement can help us understand how such normative prejudice has denied large segments of the population full participation in society. These struggles also help identify the significance of any change in values, attitudes, and behaviors that were once perceived as acceptable. No one has the right to adopt; children do have a right to loving, permanent homes. This article has proposed that one step toward that goal is a critical re-evaluation at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational levels of the ways in which the best interest of the child standard is defmed and applied. References Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, P.L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115. See also http://www.abanet.org/ftp/ pub/child/pl 105-89.txt AFCARS. (2002). Adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ afcars/report8.pdf Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 19-35.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2002). Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.aap. org/policy/020008.html American Psychiatric Association. (1986). Position statement on discrimination in selection of foster parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1506. American Psychological Association. (1975). Policy statements on lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns: Discrimination against homosexuals. Retrieved June 2000, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbpolicy/ child.html American Psychological Association. (1976). Policy statements on lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns: Child custody or placement. Retrieved June 2000, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbpolicy/against.html Appell, A. R. (2001). Lesbian and gay adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 4, 75-86. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 27-46. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C , Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374. Bandura, A., & Walter, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ben-Ari, A. (1998). An experiential attitude change: Social work students and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 36(2), 59-71. Berkman, C , & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in social workers. Social Work, 42, 319-332. Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bradley, T. (1967). An exploration of caseworkers' perceptions of adoptive applicants. New York: Child Welfare League of America. Brodzinsky, D. (2002). Adoption agency perspectives on lesbian and gay prospective parents: A national study. Adoption Quarterly, 5(3), 5-23. Brooks, D., Barth, R., Bussiere, A., & Patterson, G. (1999). Adoption and race: Implementing the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions. Social Work, 44, 167-178. Brooks, D., & Goldberg, S. (2001). Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: Can they meet the needs of waiting children? Social Work, 46, 147157.

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

93

Brooks, D., Goldberg, S., Berrick, J., & Austin, M. (1996). Considerations relating to the placement of children in gay/lesbian foster and adoptive homes. Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social Services Consortium. Calhoun, C. (2000). Feminism, the family, and the politics of the closet: Lesbian and gay displacement. New York: Oxford University Press. Chibbaro, L., Jr. (2002). Most agencies OK gay adoptions. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http:// www.hrc.org/familynet/newsstand.asp?ID= 1866 Child Welfare League of America. (2000). Standards for adoption service (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Christensen, S., & Sorensen, L. (1994). Effects of a multi-factor education program on the attitude of child and youth worker students towards gays and lesbians. Child and Youth Care Forum, 23, 119-133. Cramer, D. (1986). Gay parents and their children: A review of research and practical implications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 504-507. Crawford, 1., & SoUiday, E. (1996). The attitudes of undergraduate college students toward gay parenting. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 63-77. Donaldson, C. (2000). Midlife lesbian parenting. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy, &Research, 11,119-138. Falk, P. (1989). Lesbian mothers: Psychological assumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44, 941-947. Farley, J. (2000). Majority-minority relations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ferrero, E., Freker, J., & Foster, T., with Coles, M., Cooper, L, & Esseks, J. (2002). Too high a price: The case against restricting gay parenting. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. Flaks, D. K., Ficher, 1., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 105114. Gibbs, E. D. (1988). Psychosocial development of children raised by lesbian mothers: A review of research. Women and Therapy, 8, 65-75. Green, R., Mandel, J., Hotvedt, M., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 167-184. Groze, V. (1996). Successful adoptive families: A longitudinal study of special needs adoption. New York: Praeger. Hall, A., & Fagan, R. (1956). Definition of system. General Systems, 1, 18-28. Herek, G. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25,451477. Herek, G., & Glunt, E. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men: Re-

sults from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239-244. HoUinger, J. H. (Ed.). (1999). Adoption law and practice. New York: Matthew Bender. Knight, R., & Garcia, D. (1994). Homosexual parenting: Bad for children, bad for society. Washington, DC: Family Research Council. Koepke, L., Hare, J., & Moran, P. B. (1992). Relationship quality in a sample of lesbian couples with children and child-free lesbian couples. Family Relations, 41, 224-229. LetHimStay. (2002). The big picture: Gay parenting and the law. Retrieved September 20, 2002, from http:// www.lethimstay.com/bigpicture_parenting.html Mallon, G. P. (2000). Gay men and lesbians as adoptive parents. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, ii(4), 1-22. Miller, T., Handal, P., Gilner, F., & Cross, J. (1991). The relationship of abuse and witnessing violence on the Child Abuse Potential Inventory with black adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 351-363. Murray, S. (1996). "We all love Charles": Men in child care and the social construction of gender. Gender and Society, 10, 368-385. National Association of Social Workers. (2000). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (Section 4.02). Retrieved October 30, 2002, from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/default.htm Pandukht, K. (1998, October). Adoption in the gay and lesbian community: Legal, policy and social issues. Unpublished master's thesis. University of California, Irvine. (UMI No. 1390134., MAI 35/05, p. 1275) Patterson, C. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63,1025-1042. Patterson, C. (2000a). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052-1069. Patterson, C. (2000b, February 23). Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Retrieved October 2002, from http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Inverness, CA: Chardon Press. Plummer, K. (1992). Speaking its name: Inventing lesbian and gay studies. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experiences (pp. 3-26). London: Routledge. Reardon, K. (1981). Persuasion: Theory and context. Beverly HUls, CA: Sage Publications. Reilly, T. (1996). Gay and lesbian adoptions: A theoretical examination of policy-making and organizational decision making. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 4,99-115. Ricketts, W. (1991). Lesbians and gay men as foster parents. Portland, ME: National Child Welfare Resource Center for Child and Family Policy. Ricketts, W., & Achtenberg, R. (1989). Adoption and foster parenting for lesbians and gay men: Creating

Social Work / Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004

94

new traditions in family. Marriage and Family Review, i4, 8 3 - n 6 . Riggs, D. (1999, Summer). Two steps forward, one step back: Single and gay adoption in North America. Adoptalk [Online]. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from http://www.nacac.org/adoptalk articles/two steps.html Robbins, S., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. (1998). Contemporary human behavior theory: A critical perspective for social work. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Robinson, S., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658-672. Rodriguez, P., & Meyer, A. (1990). Minority adoptions and agency practices. Social Work, 35, 528-531. Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ryan, S. (1996). Adoption workers' attitudes toward homosexuals as adoptive parents. tJnpublished manuscript. Ryan, S. (2000). Examining social workers' placement recommendations of children with gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Families in Society, 81, 517-528. Schneider, J. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 209-229. Serdahely, W., & Ziemba, G. (1984). Changing homophobic attitudes through college sexuality education. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 109-116. Sullivan, A. (1995). Policy issues. In A. Sullivan (Ed.), Issues ofgay and lesbian adoption: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Pierce-Warwick Adoption Symposium (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Taylor, M. (1998, October). Attitudes of social workers toward gay and lesbian adoption. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (UMI No. 1390139, MAI 36/05, p. 1276) U.S. Census Bureau. (1996, May). National households and families projections. Retrieved June 2000, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/nathh.ktml U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). America's families and living arrangements: March 2000. In J. Fields & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Current population reports (Series P-20, No. 537). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: St. Martin's Press. Wells, J. (1991). What makes a difference? Various teaching strategies to reduce homophobia in university students. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 229-238. Wolins, M. (1959). The problem of choice in foster home finding. Social Work, 4, 40-48.

Scott D. Ryan, PhD, RPT-S, is assistant professor, School of Social Work, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2570; e-mail: sryan@mailer. fsu.edu. Sue Pearlmutter, PhD, is assistant professor, and Victor Groza, PhD, is professor, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. Original manuscript received February 4, 2002 Final revision received November 11, 2002 Accepted February 3, 2003

The Department of Veterans Affairs' INTERPROFESSIONAL PALUATIVE CARE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM in Academic Year 2004-20Q5 for Social Woriiers. The goai of the largest intefprofessional fellowship program is to develop clinicians with the vision, knowledge, and commitment to lead palliative care into the 21st century. You wiil be part of a Medical Center interdisciplinary palliative care team making an impact in a hospice, geriatric, or end-of-iife/pain management setting. Your training will involve hands^n clinical work integrated with quality small-group academic instruction and didactics. Your fellowship can be personally tailored to fit your educationai needs with eiective experiences at participating local medical facilities and university medical school programs to include: Stanford Univ., Mt. SInal, UCLA, Oregon HSU, Univ. of Texas HSC, Univ. of WisconsinMadison, Marquette Univ, etc. There are 6 Fellowship Sites: Bronx, NY; Los Angeles. CA; Milwaukee, Wl; Palo Alto, CA; Portland, OR; & San Antonio, TX. All fellowships last for 12 months unless othenwise noted and begin in July, August or September depending on the site and discipline. Ail fellows must have graduated from accredited educationai programs in their respective professions, be a U.S. citizen, have active, unrestricted licenses (depending on the discipline) to practice in the U.S., & show a career interest in palliative care. The Bronx, Los Angeles (two 6-month slots), Milwaukee, San Antonio, & Paio Alto sites accept Master's, post-master's. & doctoral level social work fellow applications. Stipends & Benefits - As a VA Fellow, you are a VA Employee and paid a stipend (depending on your discipline and credentials). Only 1-year fellows are eligible for VA health and life insurance benefits. Opportunities after the Fellowship - We make every effort to support you in your next career step. Fellows are under no obligation to work for the VA after completion of the program. For more information, please contact Mike Ellis at (650) 493-5000, ext. 63631 or Mlchael.Elli82 @ med.va.gov Please visit us on the worldwide web at: www.hosplce.va.gov

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

95