Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 

June 26, 2008

Marion W. Cornett, Jr., Administrative Hearing Officer  mwcornett@dhr.state.ga.us
Legal Services Office · Two Peachtree Street, NW · Suite 29.210 · Atlanta, Georgia  30303-3142
Ref:  RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN ADMINISTRATIVE RULE -290-2-27-.01 

Dear Marion W. Cornett, Jr., 

The Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children (GAHSC) registers these comments and concerns regarding the proposed rules and regulations for special needs children under administrative rule 290-2-27-.01.  

The GAHSC represents over 140 programs across Georgia that serve children at risk of abuse and neglect, foster care, adoption, mental illness and in need of family support services.  Our member agencies serve Georgia’s children with special needs.  Our agencies understand the importance of public policy in assuring that these children have the permanency that comes through having their own families.  We understand the importance of assisting families to adopt these children.  Public policy as reflected in administrative rules can “incentivize” placement or hinder it.   

These are our concerns:

1. Outcome data should drive these policy changes.  We have not seen any data to suggest that changes to these rules are necessary.  The State’s financial resources should be directed to get the best possible outcomes toward the adoption of special needs children.  These matrixes do not seem to have been created nor examined.
2. Since Medicaid is tied to adoption assistance, any reduction of adoption assistance will have a major impact on parents who are adopting special needs children.  These parents often depend on Medicaid for the health insurance that is difficult to obtain for children with special needs.  Health insurance can represent as much as 25% of a parents income.  Medicaid often provides a safety valve for these parents.  Adoption Assistance rules need to be as liberal as possible to recognize this important variable.  Assistance could be provided for a wider net of children meeting “special needs rules” without liberal financial benefits.  This does not seem to be addressed in the new rules.
3. We do not support the amendment that “sibling group of three (3) criteria to include a requirement that the siblings must be placed together at the same time.”  Many children come into care on a serial basis.  Troubled mothers often have many children that come into care as they give birth to them.  Adoptive parents will often take these children into care as they are delivered.  Adoption subsidies are important in this decision making.  Eliminating it does not “incentivize” these parents to do that.  We do not support this change. 
4. We do not support the amendment that “Deletes in its entirety the criteria based on a sibling group of two where one is eight (8) years of age or older or has another special need.”  An adoption subsidy recognizes the importance of sibling groups being placed together.  A “special needs” child makes it difficult to care for all the children. 

Therefore we believe more time should be given to public input.  Several groups have not weighed in on these rules.  More time would give you more input and hopefully more consensuses about what changes need to be put into these rule changes.  Thoughtful dialogue will give rise to pubic policy that can be embraced by all stakeholders.  This dialogue should include adoptive parents, foster parents, child placing agencies, family law attorneys and other stakeholders for these children.  

Thank you for allowing this input.   

Sincerely,

Normer Adams,
Executive Director