Will you still say after reading this, that Adoption Agencies are not profitable?

I don't need tax returns to know that agencies make a big fat profit. I've never understood how people couldn't believe that adoption facilitators profit from adoption. I've tried and tried to figure it out but here is all I can come up with:

1. If "fees" are for paperwork - why the discrepancy in prices - why is there not a "standard cost"? Oh, wait there are standard costs for Court related expenses, fingerprints, etc.

2. Who ever heard of $40,000 in fees? That is a WHOLE lotta paperwork. They must pay thousands an hour! Do people really think a background check and finger prints cost thousands? In my county, fingerprints are $15 and a background check just went up to a whopping $35. Court costs are $55 - $150 depending on the type of adoption. Maybe it's for being an intermediary for communication. No, wait, most agencies fail to properly forward information. Maybe to storage and filing fees? Nah, they charge for that later. (There was a fire and a flood anyway...)

3. If foster care adoption also can manage to include pre-adoption training, after care and stipends - why is it STILL cheaper than private adoption? There is no legitimate explanation for the difference in cost except that maybe some stigmas and stereotypes more expensive than others. For example, a "damaged" child is not as "valuable" as an "irresponsible teen's". Also a domestically "damaged" child is less "costly" than a "damaged" child from another country.

4. Who do people think pays for all the advertising, (websites, commercials, adverts, brochures, "aggressive birthmother outreach", etc.) get-together picnics, gala dinners/balls (Grrrrrr.), fancy offices, lobbyists, etc. that these agencies have? The expenses for all that stuff must come from "donations"...

5. And someone please explain what "brithmother expenses" are. I haven't figured that out in 15 years. Most first parents have insurance or on medicaid - so that ain't it. Hmmm. Maybe its the housing and food assistance - oh, no...it's not that either. Maternity items...usually not. I must be missing something here.

6. The infamous $10,000 "homestudy"? That one still makes me roll my eyes.

Seriously, if it isn't profit, WHAT IS ALL THAT MONEY FOR???? I would LOVE for someone to really break it down for me because, try as I might, I can't figure it out.

While to a Canadian, $70,000 a year may not sound like a big salary, in the American South it is NOT unsubstantial. That is simply the salary, not the benefits, the bonuses, the perks that go along with the salary. In order for an agency to remain a not-for-profit, all they need to do is to not show a profit. Seems simple enough. If they show a profit, then they simply have to spread the wealth.

In the United States, people do not go into a line of work if there isn't a buck to be made. That is the bottom line. If there is money to be made exploiting young women and their babies, for profit, there are people in the United States who will do it. In some countries they call them awful names, spit on them, make their jobs illegal. Here, we add the word ADOPTION to the name, call them entrepreneurs and Not-for-Profit and they suddenly qualify for government grants, and are heroes! Wow!

I am still thinking about this issue. I do think it's worth trying to understand where all the money goes, but I'm not convinced that it is so simple to say that money is driving *everything* we see happening in adoption practice or that all agencies are equally corrupt just because money changes hands.

I don't think $70,000 is an extremely large salary for an executive director of any large organization. I looked to see what the average salary for a fire chief is and found that it ranges from about $50,000 to $90,000. But we don't conclude from that that firefighting is an industry that promotes fires so that it can profit from them. People in a foster care agency are fighting child abuse and neglect by working to find safe homes for children. They get paid for that, but that doesn't mean they actually have a financial incentive to remove kids from homes in order to have more kids to place. Bonuses for finding adoptive homes for foster kids can only apply in cases where a judge has already terminated the parental rights. The judge has the final decision, and the judge is not getting paid by the adoptive parents.

Now I recognize that some agencies are using coercive practices to convince mothers to sign over their parental rights but I think it is at least partly their conservative religious beliefs that are behind what they do. They really believe they are saving the lives of unborn babies and they believe kids are better off with two parent families. I think their beliefs are as responsible for what they do as any financial incentive. I think what an agency like that is doing is wrong, but I don't think it is a very strong argument to say that they are *only* doing it because they are profiting from it.

I think this is an important question and I think we ought to be looking at where the money goes. Part of that question for me would be what a homestudy costs when it is funded by the state. I agree that the cost seems excessive and that an adoptive family who is paying for it ought to know if they are supporting lobby groups or coercive brochures or the like with that money. Right now I still have more questions than answers.

A couple of points. I know I'm going to get slammed but its never stopped me before.

1) Yes, these are businesses and businesses are there to make money. They have to keep going and they have to make enough money to sustain themselves. Most "non-profits" are like that and you can find similar articles about everything from the Shriners to your local animal rescue. The term "non-profit" is one of the most inaccurate ones out there.

2) While ethically I have a problem with their renting space and such from their own board members, when you look at the numbers $70k for an Executive Director is not all that high. If you want a good director you have to be able to pay a suitable wage. Heck, after 24 years in the military I make $82k a year and I know I sure wouldn't do a job like that with an agency for only $70k a year. Also, $17.8k to rent office space sounds like a pretty good deal on office space (especially a whole building) as does the $40k to rent the additional office space they have. I know enough private business owners who would love to have that kind of deal for their stores and stops.

3) Operating expenses of $293k a year for an agency that conceivably has social workers, office staff, lawyers and others to pay for along with their space and supplies still doesn't seem all that far off to me. Fifteen to 20 adoptions a year would pay for those expenses and I'm sure they do that many a year. Now, there was no mention in this of what they had in cash reserves so it's quite possible that they are charging a fair rate for the adoptions they do in keeping with their expenses.

4) As was stated by Mr Pablo Eisenberg, they are doing nothing more then any other non-profit is doing. This doesn't make it right (although the numbers don't seem all that wrong to me) but at the same time it certainly isn't an adoption agency centric issue (if it is an issue at all).

Yes I will still say ...

Some aren't run that way.

from the article.

"At some agencies, executives work for next to nothing, or even less.

Adoption Planning Inc. of Atlanta, for instance, reported on its most recent tax return that it paid its executive director, Rhonda Fishbein, just $2,500 in 2008. The same year, the tax return said, Fishbein lent the agency $28,000 in “working capital.”

The Giving Tree Inc. of Decatur received a $25,000 interest-free loan in 2007 from its executive director, Yvette Bowden. Her compensation that year totaled about $67,000.

And Christian Homes Inc. of Pavo, near Valdosta, reported on its most recent tax return that none of its $54,580 budget went to salaries or any other expenses other than services for children.

For many agencies, especially those that rely on public money, the financial outlook has dimmed.

The state has cut payments to many agencies because of deep budget shortfalls. Consequently, some organizations say they are struggling to survive."

My goodness,those agencies must stop that thing..!!Why would they sell such an innocent child..!Good post and thanks for sharing it with us..

It cost me $200 in court costs to adopt-back my adult son. EVERYTHING those agencies charge above and beyond a fee in this range IS pure gross profit! The same as any for-profit business. They are selling babies.

Bullsh*t! Of course they profit from selling babies! Why else would they be into that business? For the welfare of the innocent pretty children??? Psh no, they just want to have a nice car to drive. Nasty.

Agencies are disgusting! Anyone who profits from child selling belongs in jail.