research on open adoption

Unplanned Pregnancy?
Become a Family
Find a Family
Adoption Information

10 Things that Scientific Research Says about Open Adoption

Whether you are considering adoption, know someone who recently adopted or have gone through the adoption process yourself, you likely know that open adoption is the standard today. In the vast majority of modern adoptions, birth and adoptive parents share contact during and after the process, exchanging picture and letter updates, text messages, emails and phone calls and even arranging in-person visits.

American Adoptions , like many adoption professionals, encourages this contact because we have seen firsthand the benefits it has for everyone involved — and the science backs it up.

When it comes to the advantages of openness in adoption, the research speaks for itself. Here are 10 important facts and statistics about open adoption and its benefits for everyone in the adoption triad:

1. Today, closed adoptions are all but extinct; it’s estimated that only 5 percent of modern adoptions are closed .

2. That means that 95 percent of today’s adoptions involve some level of openness, whether they are mediated , fully open or somewhere in between.

3. In a 2012 survey of adoption professionals conducted by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, the overwhelming majority of agencies reported that between 76–100 percent of expectant parents chose their babies’ adoptive parents.

4. With American Adoptions, 100 percent of prospective birth mothers have the right to choose the perfect adoptive parents for their child, get to know them before placement and decide what type of relationship they want to have with their baby and the adoptive family after birth.

5. Most birth and adoptive families in open adoptions report positive experiences, and those with more openness tend to be more satisfied with the adoption process .

6. Open adoption can help birth parents process their grief after placement. Birth mothers who have ongoing contact with their children report greater peace of mind and less grief, worry and regret than those who do not have contact.

7. Openness is especially beneficial for those at the center of the adoption – the adoptees. Research shows that adolescents who have ongoing contact with their birth parents are more satisfied with their adoptions than those without contact. Openness allows them to better understand the reasons for their adoption, promotes more positive feelings toward their birth mother, provides them with information that aids in identity formation, and more.

8. Adoptive parents are becoming increasingly interested in and excited about open adoption. The California Long-Range Adoption Study found that the majority (73 percent) of adoptive parents are very comfortable with contact in their open adoptions. Other studies have found that openness in adoption reduces adoptive parents’ fear and increases their empathy toward birth parents, and also leads to benefits in their relationships with their adopted children.

9. In addition to “structural openness” (open adoption relationships with their birth parents), studies show that adopted children benefit from “communicative openness” within their families — meaning they are free to discuss adoption and express their feelings about their adoption with their parents. Children who experience more open adoption communication within their families have higher self-esteem , fewer behavioral problems, more trust for their parents, fewer feelings of alienation and better overall family functioning .

10. Fortunately, because of the overwhelming benefits of openly discussing adoption within the family, almost all adopted children ( 97 percent ) know about their adoption stories .

With so many benefits of open adoption, it’s no wonder that nearly every prospective birth mother chooses to have some openness in her adoption plan — nor is it surprising that adoptive parents are increasingly excited about developing a relationship with their children’s birth families.

To learn more about the benefits of open adoption and how it works with American Adoptions, call 1-800-ADOPTION now to speak with an adoption specialist.

Read about an american adoptions writer who was adopted through an open adoption , and her parents’ thoughts on open adoption ..

How wonderful you mention that open adoption can help birth parents with their grief. My husband and I want to adopt a baby this year. We will find a reputable adoption support service locally to assist us.

Open vs. Closed Adoptions: A Post Adoption Mental Health Perspective

Thank you very much to the BPAR clients who shared their stories anonymously so we could illustrate this important topic.

Throughout it all, access to education, support and post adoption services are key to helping families navigate the unique issues around birth family contact that might arise throughout their lives.

BPAR’s Experience with Open and Closed Adoptions

Mental health clinicians at BPAR work with all members of the adoption triad. Some of the people we work with have had open adoptions, some have had closed adoptions and decided as adults to search for birth family members, and some have decided not to search at all. Each story is unique. Throughout their lives, children and adult adoptees grapple with questions about their birth family origins and identities. They wonder about who they might have inherited their singing voices from, they wonder about their blue eyes or about their medical histories. They wonder why their birth parents decided to make an adoption plan for them. Micky Duxbury writes in her book, Making Room in Our Hearts (p.2) , “In order to know who you are, you need to know something about where you came from; in order to move into the future, you have to be able to claim your past.” Many adult adoptees have spoken to us about difficulties they experienced as children when their birth family and adoption story was not acknowledged or discussed in the home. They felt as if their adoptions were a shameful secret that they could not talk about, and they sometimes felt disloyal if they were curious about or wished to meet their birth families. They struggled with wanting to honor their adoptive parents but also wanting to know about their past and meet their birth families.

Adoptive dads Zhang and Michael adopted their now 10-year-old son, Sam, at birth (names and identifying information have been changed). The adoption plan allows for 2 visits with the birth family each year. Zhang and Michael report that birth family visits have been “on the whole very positive,” in spite of the ups and downs. They feel that Sam’s birth family contact has allowed their son to “learn who he is and have his questions answered.” They anticipate that Sam will have more questions as he grows, and on-going contact will help answer these questions. They add, “This is preferable to the alternative – to never hear from them again. We are glad that we have this model. It seems more fair to Sam.”

Christina, 22, was adopted from foster care when she was around four months old. At the time, her adoptive family was living in the Midwest, close to Christina’s birth parents, who were in their early 20’s when she was born. Christina had frequent visits with her birth parents, as often as every other week, when she was an infant. Later, when Christina was around three and the family moved to the East Coast, she and her parents flew to visit birth family members around once a year. She speaks positively of her open adoption, but adds that it was not without its challenges. Her birth family has a long history of adoption (including her birth mother, who was adopted from China) as well as substance abuse, and she has not always had direct contact with her birth father, who has been in and out of jail. Christina states, “Being adopted in general is so challenging, there is so much to unpack. If I had needed to wait until I was 18 to meet my birth family and find out all the crazy, it would have been way too much at once!” Christina learned more information as she grew older, and her adoptive parents were very supportive, helping her navigate the ups and the downs, and helping her to make sense of new information. She says, “It would have been harder if they were hesitant. They were always unwavering and supportive. That helped me not feel guilty about wanting a relationship with my birth family.” One of the hardest parts about birth family contact for Christina has occurred more recently. She feels that since she is now over 18, she would like to navigate the birth family contact with less help from her adoptive family. “I have been shifting from relying on my parents to making more of my own choices. I am the decision maker.” One of the most difficult things that Christina has grappled with has been “survivors guilt.” She sees how her biological brothers, who grew up with her birth mother, have not had the same life as she has, and she struggles with guilty feelings around this.

Although there needs to be more research addressing adoption in general and open vs. closed adoptions in particular, the current research does shed some light on the shift toward more open adoptions. In the past, it was felt that a closed adoption would lessen the amount of shame the adoptee might feel. Some of this sentiment was based on the misconception that unwed mothers were somehow shameful or scandalous (Martha et. al., 2 009). As a result of this secrecy, however, the children were not able to understand their story or where they come from. Zhang and Michael addressed this notion when they spoke with me: Their open relationship with Sam’s birth family “sends the message that there is nothing to be ashamed of.”

Susan, 55, was adopted in 1964 when most adoptions were closed. She states that her adoptive parents preferred this closed model because “they wanted to pretend I was their birth daughter.” Her family’s tendency toward silence and secrecy felt very powerful throughout her childhood. Susan feels that her parents felt shame due to their infertility, and the family never talked about the adoption as she grew up. At the same time, other people did know about this “secret,” and Susan remembers being teased about her adoption by her cousins growing up. “I always felt isolated, as if I did not belong.” This culture of secrecy was so powerful that even the nuns illegally changed Susan’s paperwork at the time of her adoption, adding misinformation to her records. As an adult, Susan realizes how impactful it would have been if her family had not tried to hide the truth about her adoption. She recommends that “the whole family have an open dialogue about adoption. The more you talk about it, the more confident you are with it. It helps you become really comfortable with your story.” Ben, a 29-year-old adoptee interviewed for Micky Duxbury’s book Making Room in Our Hearts (p.16), comments, “If I knew who my birth mother was, I could have stopped the fantasizing and wondering….I could have just asked her those questions instead of just having them bounce around in my head for all those years.”

Research on the Lifelong Impact of Open Adoption

The Donaldson Institute published a study in 2012 entitled “Openness in Adoption: From Secrecy and Stigma to Knowledge and Connections.” The authors estimate that in 2012, only about 5% of domestic adoptions were closed adoptions. The rest were considered open adoptions in that the adoptive family had some level of ongoing relationship with birth family members. This interaction could entail email contact, sending yearly pictures and updates, or visits. The authors note that, in most infant adoptions, the birth mother picks the new family for her baby. In fact, in infant adoptions, it is becoming more common for adoptive parents to meet the birth mother prior to or during the birth. For the adoptive parents, “more openness is…associated with greater satisfaction with the adoption process.” In addition, birth mothers who have ongoing contact with their children “report less grief, regret and worry, as well as more peace of mind.”

Adoptive parents sometimes worry about birth family contact, and they might fear that birth family members might try to reclaim their child. However, our clinical experience has been that open adoptions often dissipate these fears and provide a place for the child to better understand the reasons for the adoption and their own history. Research has found that openness has resulted in less fear on behalf of the adoptive parent, greater empathy for the birth parents, and stronger communication between the adoptive parents and their child. Zhang and Michael state: “Watching Sam develop a relationship with his birth mother and father, seeing how much he enjoys seeing them, that has been powerful for all of us.” They have wondered if Sam’s birth parents might feel some sadness that they are not parenting Sam, but they feel this is offset by the possibility that “they could conceivably have a lifelong relationship with him.” They add, “It is always clear that they love him, and they seem to feel happy he’s thriving.” Susan knows that sometimes adoptive parents worry that their children will “like their birth parent more than them.” But, she points out, “A parent can love more than one child; why can’t a child love more than one parent?” Christina adds, “At the end of the day, my parents knew they weren’t going anywhere. They told me, ‘We believe you have a big enough heart to love all four of us’.”

Research suggests that adolescents who have ongoing contact with birth family members are more satisfied with their adoption than those who have no contact. As teens begin to grapple with identity issues and wonder about their histories, contact with birth family members allows them to better understand their stories, including the reasons for their adoption. Christina states it has also been helpful to be able to ask her birth mother questions about their family history. For example, when Christina was struggling with anxiety and depression and considering medication, it was helpful to talk to her birth mother about her own history of anxiety and depression and which medications worked for her. A 2006 study published in Child Welfare , “Adolescents’ Feelings about Openness in Adoption: Implications for Adoption Agencies,” interviewed 152 adolescents and found that those who had ongoing contact with their birth parents were more satisfied with their adoptions than those that had no contact. The growing use by teens of social media and the internet as well as the rise in DNA testing have drastically changed the landscape of birth family contact. The majority of teens have access to the internet and use a social networking site. Some of these teens might search for birth family members without accessing the support or help of their adoptive families or professionals. Susan remembers sneaking into her parents’ bedroom when they were out and looking at her adoption records. She had no one to talk with about what she saw in these records due to the atmosphere of secrecy in her home.

Challenges and Benefits of Open Adoptions

There are many challenges to open adoptions. A birth parent may disappear for a while with no explanation. They might not follow through with the visitation plans. There are many possible reasons for this withdrawal, including relapse, incarceration, shame and sadness. There are also cases where openness is not appropriate. Christina’s birth father, who she describes as having very poor boundaries around their contact, kept trying to meet her while in and out of jail, and her parents needed to set strict boundaries and at times limit or stop contact until it was appropriate for Christina. Through it all, it is helpful to remember the goal of this contact: meeting the needs of the child. Helping the child process his or her feelings about these meetings and changes in their frequency is essential. It is important to remember that everyone involved has their own journey, with its ups and downs. People change over the years, and children’s developmental needs evolve. Feelings of loss, grief and identity concerns can be persistent. Susan remembers that she was always a bit immature for her age, and she struggled with social skills. “I always felt there was something wrong with me.” She recognizes that her birth family’s circumstances might not have been appropriate for regular visitation, however she feels that some type of contact would have been helpful. Though it might have been best to limit contact to letters, she feels those would have been helpful to answer some of her questions. She recommends “giving children their story from the beginning.” Every story is different, and as we’ve demonstrated in our book Adoption Is a Lifelong Journey , children can be given more information as they grow.

Zhang and Michael spoke about the challenges of open adoption as well as the benefits. They think it is important to “be honest with yourself about your emotions. Not all visits will feel positive and that’s OK.” They remember feeling “a bit threatened” during the early visits, and it took some time to become really comfortable. They had to remind themselves, “These are his birth parents, they love him and want to be in his life.” They recommend keeping the “big picture” in mind and remembering, “This is not about you. It’s only about the child.” They stress the importance of seeking help and support to get through the more difficult times. Zhang and Michael have felt that the support they have received through BPAR has been invaluable as they navigate their son’s adoption journey. They have found it especially therapeutic to talk with other adoptive parents through the parent group at BPAR .

Conclusions About How to Navigate an Open Adoption

So what is the best way to navigate an open adoption? It is helpful to see birth family contact as a “continuum of choices about the amount of contact and shared information between the child and birth family.” (CASE webinar, Navigating Relationships in Open Adoption). Adults can provide new information about birth family over different developmental stages. The relationship and the variables can unfold over time, as more trust develops. Remember that the plan for family contact can change as the child grows or birth family circumstances shift, and the primary focus is managing this process with the best interests of the child in mind.

Written by Erica Kramer, MSW Boston Post Adoption Resources

Berge, Jerica, Mendenhall, Tai J., Wrobel, Gretchen M., Grotevant, Harold D. and McRoy, Ruth G. 2006. Adolescents’ Feelings about Openness in Adoption: Implications for Adoption Agencies.

Duxbury, Micky. Making Room in Our Hearts . Routledge, 2006.

Henry, Martha and Pollack, Daniel. Adoption in the United States: A Reference for Families, Professionals and Students . Oxford University Press, 2009

Siegel, Deborah H., Smith, Susan Livingston. Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Openness in Adoption From Secrecy and Stigma to Knowledge and Connections. March, 2012 https://www.adoptioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2012_03_OpennessInAdoption.pdf .

Singer, Ellen. C.A.S.E. webinar Navigating Relationships in Open Adoption . July, 2019.

About Erica Kramer, MSW

Erica Kramer, MSW, is Operations and Intake Director at Boston Post Adoption Resources. To read her bio, please visit BPAR's Team page.

Open Adoption: Research Finds No Confusion for Adopted Kids

When Adoption Connection opened its doors over 30 years ago, open adoption was starting to blossom, but still in its infancy. As one of the first adoption agencies focused on open adoption, we found ourselves working to correct three common misperceptions, many of which are still common today. They are: that the adopted child would be troubled and confused by contact with birth parents; that continued contact would exacerbate birth parents’ grief; and that adoptive parents would remain in constant fear of losing their child or children.

Although there has been plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, in the past few years more and more research has provided us with a rich and very hopeful look at the outcomes of open adoption for adoptive parents, birth parents, and most importantly, the adoptee.

We couldn’t be more pleased to see longitudinal research supporting what has been Adoption Connection’s practical experience all these years. After over two decades of study, researchers at Minnesota / Texas Adoption Research Project (MTARP) , have started to release their findings of the first longitudinal study of its kind. They have concluded that there are several benefits to open adoption and that formerly presumed drawbacks regarding childhood identity and familial discord are inaccurate.

In fact, a surprising outcome was discovered—in cases when family members were dissatisfied with contact, it was often because there was too little rather than too much.

Dr. Harold Grotevant , lead researcher of the MTARP, contends that adopted children intuitively understand the difference between their adoptive and birth parents. They understand that their adoptive parents are their primary caregivers (their mommies or daddies) and their birth parents have a special, yet different relevance and importance in their lives.

Birth parents are crucial to a developing child too, but not in the way that adoptive parents once feared. According to Dr. Grotevant,

“children are inherently and healthily curious about their origins. In the absence of real information, they often make up fantasies about their birth relatives, but with open adoption, they recognize their birth relatives as real people. They know their birth parents’ faces, their health history, their mannerisms, and their special talents, and they can hear first-hand why they were placed for adoption.”

Having concrete information and a real understanding of one’s origins, rather than a fantasy, eases the passage through some developmental milestones for many adopted children.

Benefits for Birth Parents

It is also apparent that birth parents are better off emotionally when some level of contact is assured. Open adoption skeptics feared birth mothers would be emotionally traumatized by visiting their adopted children and the repercussions of their grief would damage interpersonal relationships between all members of the triad. However, birth parents who have a tangible connection to their children, whether through photographs, video, or in person visits, have less unresolved grief 12-20 years later. They feel validated by their decision to have chosen open adoption and witness their children growing up in loving homes.

Benefits for Adoptive Parents

Open adoption benefits the adoptive parents too! We so often hear from adoptive parents who are surprised about the extent to which they both enjoy and are reassured by their relationship to their children’s birth parents.

Knowing for certain, via a real adult relationship with the birth parents that they are happy to see their children being raised well relieves anxiety and eases the adoptive parent’s journey in parenting.

Openness exists on a continuum .

In some cases birth parents receive pictures and a letter on an annual basis, some keep a password protected blog, some communicate regularly via text or Skype, and some live within close proximity of one another and attend birthdays and school plays. Sometimes the birthmother prefers substantial contact during the first year of the child’s life, only for it to taper off and occasional cease after a few years. In other cases, the birth parent’s extended family is also involved in the child’s life.

Emotional Openness Important to Open and Closed Adoptions Alike

There is an emotional component to openness as well. Those families with closed adoptions should be reassured by the notion that if the family is emotionally open to the child’s birth family and willing to both field and initiate discussions with their child about his or her birth family, they can help their child integrate his or her own adoption story even if birth parents are absent.

A conversation like, “It’s Mother’s Day. I always think about your tummy mommy on Mother’s Day. I wonder what she is doing today. Do you?” is a great example of what emotional openness can look like in an adoption where actual contact is closed.

Emotional openness is equally important for families with actual contact with birth families. Some children have physical access to their birth families but get the unspoken message from their adoptive parents that this contact is feared or merely tolerated, or that questions and deep discussions are not welcome. This sort of emotionally closed adoption negates some of the benefits of contact. Ultimately, adoptions vary widely in terms of circumstance, and not all families have the opportunity for openness. The best cases are those that include flexibility, good interpersonal skills, and a genuine commitment to maintaining healthy relationships.

Needing Someone Who Will Listen

Adoption and Secondary Infertility

San Francisco

Get Directions
415-449-3777
650-931-1860

Marin County

Sonoma county.

707-303-1530

Quick Links

Become a Caregiver

Connect with Us

Stay up-to-date, 1710 scott st. p.o. box 159004 san francisco, ca 94115, call 800-972-9225 or text 415-355-4636, want to adopt, call 415-359-2494.

Client Login
Find a Family

Center for Children and Youth
Jewish Family & Children’s Services
JFCS Holocaust Center
Rhoda Goldman Plaza
Seniors At Home

Adoption Connection is a program of JFCS

Open adoption: a review of the literature with recommendations to adoption practitioners

PMID: 25864687
DOI: 10.2989/17280580309486535

As openness in adoption is still in its infancy, there has not been much systematic research on open adoption. This practice involves anything from sharing non-identifying information through an intermediary to regular face-to-face fully identifying information-sharing and contact between all members of the adoption triangle - the birthparent/s, the adoptive parents and the adoptees. Open adoption appears to offer birthparent/s the greatest benefits. Although adoptive parents express varying degrees of positive reactions to being involved in open adoptions, there are instances of discomfort and reservations expressed by some. With no studies investigating adoptees' own perceptions around contact with their birthparent/s, the potential risks and/or benefits of open adoption for the children involved, is inferred from adoptive parents' reports and theoretical perspectives. Adoption practitioners advocating openness in adoption, should be prepared for additional investments in time, effort and emotional energy in order to facilitate what is not a discrete event in time, but an on-going process.

Find adoption answers, support, training, or professional resources

Mission and Vision
Staff and Board
Internships
Media & Press Room
Job Openings for Adoption Professionals
Social Work CE
Training for Professionals
Pre-Adoptive Parents
Adoptive Parents
Adopted Persons
Birth Parents
Expectant Parents
Adoption Advocate Publication
Adoption by the Numbers
Profiles in Adoption
Take Action
Adoption Hall of Fame
National Adoption Conference
Legacy Society
Families For All Development Fund
Family Formation Partners
Annual Report

Openness in Adoptions: Satisfaction and Psychological Outcomes Among Birth Mothers

Adoption advocate no. 133, weber state university center for community engaged learning, introduction.

Historically, adoptions in the United States were strictly closed adoptions that entailed sealed legal records and absolutely no contact between the birth parents and the adoptive family (Cushman, Kalmuss, & Namerow, 1997). Open adoptions began occurring with more frequency in the 1980s and 1990s and are now more common than closed adoptions. This change in practice was driven in part by adoption professionals’ recognition that children who are adopted want to know more about where they come from and who their birth families are (Jordan, 2018). Features of open adoption, such as visiting and phoning the adoptive family, have a strong relationship with long-term positive outcomes for birth mothers (Cushman et al., 1997). Research shows that birth mothers who received letters and/or pictures reported higher levels of relief and significantly lower levels of worry compared to birth mothers who did not (Cushman et al., 1997). These positive outcomes are related to the birth mothers’ mental health as well as their overall satisfaction with the adoption process (Silverman, Campbell, Patti, & Style, 1988). Giving birth mothers the opportunity to be involved with selecting adoptive parents is also strongly associated with positive outcomes (Cushman et al., 1997). Considering the many positive outcomes of open adoptions, it follows that adoption organizations will want to know more about whether to encourage their clients to pursue open or closed adoptions.

Weber State University’s Community Research Team partnered with Forever Bound Adoption to learn more about birth mothers’ feelings on how openness, or lack thereof, affects birth mothers’ satisfaction and psychological outcomes with regards to the adoption process. We hypothesized that birth mothers who have had an open adoption will have higher levels of satisfaction and fewer negative psychological outcomes compared to birth mothers who have been involved in a closed adoption. Those psychological outcomes could be depression, anxiety, or other issues pertaining to the mind and mental health of birth mothers. We also looked at the satisfaction of birth mothers and measured it based on the mother’s level of grief or regret after her decision of relinquishment. This study targeted birth mothers who have made adoption plans for their children. Our community partner, Forever Bound Adoption, advertised the survey and recruited the participants using its networks of local adoption agencies and social media sites. By participating in this study, birth mothers were able to voice their feelings about their adoption experience in a completely anonymous way.

Literature Review

Due to adoption becoming a more common practice in the United States, there has been an increased effort to research the process (Jordan, 2018). Few studies have looked at the effects of voluntary relinquishment on birth mothers and the satisfaction with their choice (Silverman et al., 1988). A review of the adoption literature will turn up even fewer studies that have analyzed the experiences of birth mothers after the shift to open adoptions. Despite the consistent trend towards more openness in adoption, not all agree about the merits of such practices (Lyons, 1999). Some professionals advocate completely open arrangements, others continue to favor closed adoption, whereas others recommend the moderate semi-open approach which allows the exchange of some information. This semi-open adoption consists of some contact between birth parents and adoptive families, while still safeguarding the privacy rights of each party involved (Siegel, 2013). Furthermore, it has been found that the adoptive parents reported more positive feelings towards the adoption when they knew the birth parents personally (Siegel, 2013).

Previous research (e.g., Grotevant et al., 2007) has explored the different perspectives between families with no contact, stopped contact, contact without meetings, and contact with face-to-face meetings with adolescent and birth mother. Researchers interviewed the adoptive parents about their experiences as an adoptive family, their relationship with the adoptee, and their experience with members of the birth family, views about openness arrangements, and any hopes for the future regarding their relationship with members of the birth family. This study (Grotevant et al., 2007) looked specifically at the satisfaction of the adoptee, adoptive mother, and the adoptive father. Results showed that the two most common categories of contact were ‘no contact’ or ‘contact with meetings.’ The satisfaction was highest for all three groups that had ‘contact with meetings’ and was statistically significantly different for adoptees that had a very low satisfaction with ‘no contact’ (Grotevant et al., 2007). Due to the previous study not focusing on birth mother satisfaction, the present study sought to include birth mothers’ perspectives to examine their satisfaction with the adoption process.

Research has also focused on birth mothers’ reunions with their child, and their feelings related to the reunion. For example, Silverman et al. (1988) found that the majority of birth mothers who had a reunion with their adoptees believed an open adoption was the best choice. Few studies (c.f., Cushman, Kalmus, & Namerow, 1997; Silverman et al., 1988) have focused primarily on birth mothers and how openness could affect their adoption process, satisfaction, and their general psychological outcomes. By conducting this research, we hope to add more applicable knowledge to the process of adoption and help future birth mothers with their adoption decisions. We hope this study explains what the adoption process is like, directly from the birth mother’s point of view.

The goal for this project was to get a relatively large sample of birth mothers to determine whether having an open or closed adoption affected the satisfaction and psychological outcomes among birth mothers. Forever Bound Adoption of Utah was interested in this project to provide research to future birth parents. It also provides them with more information on whether having an open or closed adoption would be best for them. For this project, researchers utilized a social survey to gather qualitative data. This allowed the researchers to find out more about attitude, feelings, experiences, and opinions about the adoption.

The project was done by asking a different set of questions to help answer our main research questions: Does having an open or closed adoption affect the satisfaction of birth mothers? Does frequency of communication affect birth mothers’ satisfaction? Does having an open adoption agreement affect birth mothers’ satisfaction? How does the level of involvement in the selection of the adoptive family affect psychological outcomes among birth mothers?

For this research project we partnered with Forever Bound Adoption of Utah to learn more about the birth mother’s perspective of the adoption. The survey was a cross-sectional self-administered online survey that allowed us to gain participants from all over the United States. The survey asked a variety of questions including basic demographic characteristics, how open their experience with adoption was, the age of placement, year of adoption, type of adoption, etc. The questions from the survey were taken from different outside sources that were shown to be both internally and externally valid.

We asked these questions in order to understand if the amount of openness in the adoption affected the satisfaction and psychological outcomes among birth mothers. Forever Bound Adoption of Utah initiated the recruitment for our participants. This was accomplished by posting the survey’s link on their website while also reaching out to other adoption agencies around the country to help promote it. We calculated our sample size to be 144 participants, located throughout the United States.

Demographic Information of Participants

Our sample consisted of 144 birth mothers who have placed a child for adoption at some point in the past. By conducting our survey online, we were able to gain participants from outside of Utah. We broke down religion in different categories, which can be seen in Figure 1 . We also asked participants their relationship status at the time of adoption, and those frequencies can be seen in Figure 2 .

We also looked at the different ethnic groups of participants, which included the following numbers: American Indian or Alaskan Native=2, Asian=2, Bi/Multi-Racial=5, Hispanic or Latino=6, other=4, and White or Caucasian=125. Another interesting demographic question was regarding their employment status at the time of the adoption. The groups had a large variety throughout the answers: full-time homemaker=9, in school and not working=22, laid-off or on strike=1, other=10, retired=1, unable to work=5, unemployed=21, working full-time=46, and working part-time=29. The highest level of education at the time of placement was also asked, which also showed a variety of answers throughout the different groups. The groups were as follows: Bachelor’s Degree=11, Doctorate Degree (Ph.D. or E.D)=2, High School diploma or GED=49, Less than High School=23, Master’s Degree=5, Some College/Associates Degree=45, and Vocational/Technical Training (after High School)=9.

A bar graph showing percentages of participants for religion

We also asked the participants who helped them arrange their child’s placement. The groups included: facilitator or intermediary who introduced them to the adoptive parents (if a private independent adoption) (N=5), independent attorney not affiliated with an adoption agency (N=29), licensed adoption agency (N=94), and other (N=16). We asked the participants how many children they are currently parenting or have previously parented. The groups included: 0 (N=51), 1 (N=24), 2 (N=26), 3 (N=25), 4 or more (N=15). We asked the participants their age at the time of adoption. The groups included the following: 15-18 (N=27), 19-25 (N=82), 26-30 (N=17), and 31-48 (N=12). We asked the participants what year they relinquished their child for adoption. The groups included: 1967-1980 (N=7), 1981-1990 (N=11), 1991-2000 (N=30), 2001-2010 (N=57), and 2011-2019 (N=57). The survey also asked participants the age of the child at the time of placement, and those groups included: 0-1 week (N=109), 1.1 week - 1 month (N=20), 1.1 month - up (N=11).

Data Analysis

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between birth mothers’ satisfaction and their psychological outcomes related to their adoption. The independent variable, psychological outcomes, included the following subgroups: no change in mental health, mental health disorder before with none present, some mental health disorder(s) before with more presently, and none before with some mental health disorder(s) presently. The result was found to be statistically significant, F(3,138) = 3.39, p < .02. Follow-up t-tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the means. The Bonferonni method of comparison was chosen to correct for error. The results of these t-tests showed that the group of birth mothers with no change in mental health are statistically significantly different from birth mothers who had more mental health disorder(s) present after adoption, p < .016. The mean of the first group with no change (M = 3.63, SD = .16) was larger than the second group (M = 2.66, SD = .27). The means are calculated from the satisfaction scale of 1-5 with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 5 being extremely satisfied with the adoption.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between birth mothers’ satisfaction and whether they had an open or closed adoption. The independent variable was open vs. closed adoption. The result was found to be statistically significant, F(1,140) = 26.62, p < .001. The mean of the birth mothers with open adoptions (M = 3.62, SD = .13) was larger than the birth mothers with closed adoptions (M = 2.16, SD = .25). The means are calculated from the satisfaction scale of 1-5 with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 5 being extremely satisfied with the adoption.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between birth mothers’ satisfaction and the amount of contact with the adopted child. The independent variable, amount of contact, included the following subgroups: “I have never had contact with my child,” “I had contact in the past but it has stopped,” and “I have continuous contact with my child.” The result was found to be statistically significant, F(2,139) = 36.91, p < .001. Follow-up t-tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the means. The Scheffe method of comparison was chosen to correct for error. The results of these t-tests showed that the group of birth mothers who have never had contact with their child and the group who have continuous contact with their child are statistically significantly different from each other, p < .001. The mean of the group who has never had contact (M = 2.17, SD = .27) was smaller than the group who has continuous contact (M = 3.94, SD = .12). The results of these t-tests showed that the group of birth mothers who had contact but the contact has stopped and the group who has continuous contact with their child are statistically significantly different from each other, p < .001. The mean of the group who has never had contact (M = 2.11, SD = .22) was smaller than the group who has continuous contact (M = 3.94, SD = .12). The means are calculated from the satisfaction scale of 1-5 with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 5 being extremely satisfied with the adoption.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the amount of contact with the adopted child and how the birth mothers felt they had adjusted to the decision to relinquish their child. The independent variable, amount of contact, included the following subgroups: “I have never had contact with my child,” “I had contact in the past but it has stopped,” and “I have continuous contact with my child.” The result was found to be statistically significant, F(2,140) = 12.40, p < .001. Follow-up t-tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the means. The Scheffe method of comparison was chosen to correct for error. The results of these t-tests showed that the group of birth mothers who have never had contact with their child and the group who has continuous contact with their child are statistically significantly different from each other, p < .002. The mean of the group who has never had contact (M = 2.57, SD = .31) was smaller than the group who has continuous contact (M = 3.83, SD = .14). The results of these t-tests also showed that the group of birth mothers who had contact but it has stopped and the group who has continuous contact with their child are statistically significantly different from each other, p < .001. The mean of the group who has never had contact (M = 2.66, SD = .25) was smaller than the group who has continuous contact (M = 3.83, SD = .14) which can be seen in Figure 3 . The means are calculated from the adjustment scale with 1 being not well at all, 3 being neutral, and 5 being very well.

Line graph showing the amount of contact and adjustment scale

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted within the context of several key limitations. The sample size was distributed through an online self-administered study which could contain some bias due to it not being a large enough sample to apply to all birth mothers who have placed a child for adoption. Due to the survey being self-administered, some respondents may not feel encouraged to provide accurate and honest answers. Participants can provide information that may not accurately represent themselves, which can cause limitations on the reliability.

Future Research

The adoption process is very time consuming and complex and requires the involvement of many people. The primary people involved are part of the adoption triad, which consists of: the adoptee, adoptive parents, and the birth parents. Our project specifically targets birth mothers who have placed a child for adoption. Future research should be directed towards the other members, specifically the adoptive parents and the adoptee. More research can also be done on birth mothers and other factors that impact their satisfaction and look more in depth at their perspective of the adoption process. Future research can also reanalyze the data and compare the results to our own, to help with the accuracy of the findings.

The research question that drove our study was: Does the amount of openness in an adoption affect the overall satisfaction and psychological outcomes among birth mothers? Our hypotheses are supported by the research findings: open adoptions resulted in higher overall satisfaction and better psychological outcomes. Through our data analysis we found significant differences between birth mothers’ satisfaction and their psychological outcomes related to their adoption that showed the better the psychological outcomes the higher the overall satisfaction. We found significant differences between birth mothers’ satisfaction and whether they had an open or closed adoption that showed those with an open adoption had statistically significantly higher overall satisfaction. We found significant differences between birth mothers’ satisfaction and the amount of contact with the adopted child that showed those with continuing contact had statistically significantly higher overall satisfaction. We found significant differences between the amount of contact with the adopted child and how the birth mothers felt they had adjusted to the decision for relinquishing their child that showed those with continuing contact rated higher on the adjustment scale.

Agnich, L. E. Schueths, A. M., James, T. D., & Klibert, J. (2016). The effects of adoption openness and type on the mental health, delinquency, and family relationships of adopted youth. Sociological Spectrum, 36 (5), 321-336.

Cushman, L. F., Kalmuss, D., Namerow, & Brickner P. (1997). Openness in adoption: experiences and social psychological outcomes among birth mothers. Marriage & Family Review, 25 (1-2), 718.

Grotevant, H., Wrobel, G., Korff, L. V., Skinner, B., Newell J., Friese, S., & McRoy, R. (2007). Many faces of openness in adoption: perspectives of adopted adolescents and their parents. Adoption Quarterly, 10 (3-4), 79-101.

Jordan, L. (2018). Is adoption good? Adopt a Baby.

Lyons, C. L. (1999). Adoption controversies. CQ Researcher, 9 , 777-800.

Siegel, D.H. (2013). Open adoption: adoptive parents’ reactions two decades later. Social Work, 58 (1), 43-52.

Silverman, P. R., Campbell, L., Patti, P., & Style, C. B. (1988). Reunions between adoptees and birth parents: the birth parents’ experience. Social Work, 33 (6), 523-528.

Related Resources

I Spy Helpful Help

Have you been in search of a therapist to support your foster, adoptive, or kinship family, but stopped looking because you didn’t know what qualifications to look for, what questions to ask, or how...

The Value of Adoptee Voices

Adoption Advocate No. 172 - In a field saturated with research and best practices on adoption competency and adoption-informed care, there is much value in creating intentional spaces where we can lea...

Prenatal Stress, Preverbal Trauma, and Developmental Trajectories

Adoption Advocate No. 171 - If we as families, caregivers, professionals, providers, and educators wish to see true change in our children and communities, we must learn to recognize the importance of...

The National Training and Development Curriculum (NTDC)

Adoption Advocate No. 170 - The National Training and Development Curriculum (NTDC) is a newly developed, comprehensive free training curriculum to prepare and equip foster and adoptive parents. This ...

Start typing & press 'enter'

Research on Open Adoption

A longitudinal study is a type of research that observes the same data in a repeated fashion. In these cases, adoptive parents were asked to respond to researchers about the impact of openness on psychological health and growth. The results were overwhelmingly positive for open adoption.

The Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project , or MTARP, found that the self-esteem of children between the ages of four and 12 was not impacted in any way by either open or closed adoption. Likewise, the parents of these children were not more or less satisfied by open adoptions. However, adoptees who had relationships with birth parents did prove to be more psychologically adjusted better than in closed adoptions.

MTARP carried out another round of research, this time with children who were ages 11 to 21. The research found that all children wanted to know more about their biological parents. Those in open adoptions were much more satisfied in this area than those in closed adoptions. They also did not feel hatred, anger, or confusion about their birth parents. Conversely, most children in closed adoptions held negativity toward their birth mothers. Though they did not know and had never met these women, they universally wanted to meet their biological mothers. Many had even tried to contact these women without success.

The California Long-Range Adoption Study , or CLAS, included three waves of study. These three waves took place two, four, and seven years after each adoption was finalized. Like the MTARP study, CLAS found adoptive parents were just as happy and as close with their children in closed adoptions as they were in open ones. The adoptive parents often wish for a change in contact with the biological mothers. In almost all cases, that change was to have more contact rather than less. By the third wave of the study, most adoptive parents stated they felt the open relationship had a positive impact on their child. None felt the relationships between birth parents and children were negative in any way.

[email protected]

Jan 15, 2018
15 min read

Literature Review of the Impact of Open Adoption on the Adoptee

This is a literature review of the empirical research on the impact of openness in adoption on adoptees placed in voluntary infant adoption. The review covers the research from 1990 to 2009, and concludes the empirical evidence shows that adoptees in open adoptions have better psychosocial outcomes than adoptees in semi-open and closed adoptions.

Keywords: open adoption, adoption, adoptees, infant adoption

A Literature Review of the Empirical Research on the

Impact of Openness in Adoption on Adoptees

This is a critical literature review of the empirical research about the impact of openness in adoption on adoptees placed in voluntary adoptions as infants. The most recent comprehensive literature review on this topic completed in 2001, covered research from 1990 to 1999 (Haugaard, Moed & West). Since then there are new findings from ongoing longitudinal research as well as a cross sectional study that add significantly to the knowledge base on this topic, and clarify some of the tentative findings in earlier research. This literature review covers the research from 1990 to 2009.

Secrecy in adoption is a relatively recent practice in the United States. Until the early 1900s, there was both informal adoption and legal adoption, but all of the records were public. At the turn of the century, however, there were many indigent children in need of homes and few willing adoptive parents. Potential adoptive parents feared the children would inherit criminal behavior or sexual promiscuity or a proclivity for poverty from their birth parents. To encourage adoption social workers launched a concerted effort to seal birth records including legislation to enforce this secrecy. By the 1950s, this was the law in almost every state in the country (Silber & Speedlin, 1998).

This began to change in the late 1970s and early 1980s as advocates for open adoption, including both social workers, adoptees, birthparents and adoptive parents, claimed secrecy was detrimental to all members of the adoption triad. In regards to the impact of secrecy on adoptees open adoption advocates argued that adoptees had a basic human right to know their biological origins, and furthermore that withholding this information negatively affected identity formation, and did not negatively influence bonding with adoptive parents (Silber & Martinez Dorner, 1990).

By the early 1980s, some adoption agencies were facilitating open adoptions. Nevertheless, it remained controversial. In 1989, the National Council on Adoption (NCOA) took a position opposing open adoption because there was little empirical evidence to support it (Grotevant & McRoy, 1997). Today the NCOA states that it supports the trend toward greater openness in adoption (“Mutual Consent,” 2009).

Definition of Terms

There is considerable debate in the literature about the definition of open adoption, and about the words used to signify different levels of openness in an adoption. For example, open adoption and fully disclosed adoption are synonyms as is semi-open adoption and mediated adoption. Closed adoption and confidential adoption are also equivalent terms. This literature review will use the terms open, semi-open and closed adoption.

The definition of open adoption includes situations as varied as face-to-face meetings between an adoptive family and birth family to exchanges of letters and phone calls as long as the contact is not mediated by a third party. Grotevant and McRoy (1998) conceptualized “openness as a spectrum involving different degrees and modes of contact and communication between adoptive family members and a child’s birth mother” and “subject to change over time” (p. 2). This definition also includes the possibility of contact even if it has not occurred. Siegel (2003) feels this definition is both too flexible and not flexible enough. She explains that contact should not be limited to just the birthmother and that contact with other birth relatives qualifies as an open adoption. On the other hand, she states that actual contact must have occurred to qualify as an open adoption. Although most researchers agree that openness falls on a continuum as defined by Grotevant & McRoy (1998), they also limit their definition of open adoption to Siegel’s (2003) definition as adoptions in which there has been direct contact whether in person, via mail, phone, or email between the adoptive and birth families. This literature review will also use open adoption to mean any sort of direct contact between adoptive and birth families, but is not inclusive of families where direct contact is possible but had not occurred.

There is no controversy regarding the definitions for semi-open and closed adoption. Semi-open adoption refers to situations in which in which a third party, usually an adoption agency, mediates contact between the adoptive and birth family, and there is no direct contact between the parties. In closed adoption there is no direct or indirect contact between adoptive and birth families (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Siegel, 1993; Crea & Barth, 2009).

An initial search on Academic Premier for “open adoption” resulted in 69 journal articles. A search on Social Services Abstracts for “open adoption” resulted in 65 peer reviewed journal articles. There was substantial overlap of the results from both databases. After eliminating all the articles relating to international adoptions, non-U.S. based adoptions and foster care there were 40 articles remaining. From this group 19 articles also met the following criteria: (1) had conclusions relating to outcomes for adopted children even if these outcomes were from the perspective of the adoptive parents; and (2) included outcomes for children placed in open, voluntary, infant adoptions. The vast majority of these articles are in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, there are two classic books on the subject written by open adoption advocates and practitioners, Kathleen Silber and her co-authors Phyllis Speedlin and Patricia Martinez Dorner.

The literature is quite diverse with both longitudinal and exploratory cross sectional studies. The research is also rich in both quantitative and qualitative studies, allowing for an in depth examination of the experience of open adoption.

Much of the research examines open adoption’s impact on all members of the adoption triad: birthparents, adoptive parents, and adoptee. This literature review focuses only on that part of each study that examines outcomes for adoptees.

Early Exploratory Studies

There are two important early cross-sectional studies by Gross (1993) and Etter (1993). Both studies used mixed methods with small samples and developed conclusions that were later replicated in large-scale longitudinal studies. Gross (1993) found that adoptive parents in open adoptions had a positive view of it and believed it was good for their child. Etter (1993) found that adoptive parents had high levels of satisfaction with open adoption and did not find the contact disruptive for themselves or their child.

Longitudinal Studies

There are three longitudinal studies on openness in adoption. One is a small qualitative study and the other two are large sample research projects. All of the studies started data collection in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The findings of the three studies are strikingly similar. Surprisingly, however, the researchers draw disparate conclusions from almost identical results. Therefore, this literature review will primarily focus on the results of these studies in order to evaluate the conclusions the researchers reached.

Siegel research. This longitudinal qualitative study is limited to the perceptions of outcomes for adoptees as seen by the 21 sets of adoptive parents interviewed in three Waves. The sample was not random as the researcher used a snowball sampling technique. The sample was composed almost entirely of White, middle to upper middle class, heterosexual, two parent families who adopted White children. The research included semi-structured interviews with the adoptive parents. Two different research associates coded and reviewed the interviews.

The adopted children were under a year during the first Wave of data collection (Siegel, 1993). They were six and seven years old during the second Wave (Siegel, 2003), and were 14 and 15 years old during the final phase (Siegel, 2008).

In the first Wave, the researcher found that adoptive parents were overwhelmingly and strikingly positive about open adoption often because they believed it was in the best interest of their child (Siegel, 1993). This trend continued in the second Wave of the study. Strikingly, no adoptive parents indicated they wished they had less openness. Any wish for a change in openness was for more contact, not less. Again, parents believed that openness was in the best interest of their child, but the researcher did not tackle this issue in depth (Siegel, 2003). In the third Wave, however, perhaps because the children were adolescents, adoptive parents were explicit in how they believed openness benefitted their children. All of the adoptive parents saw openness as helping their child deal with identity issues, and none felt that openness exacerbated the issues of adolescence. All of the adoptive parents expressed positive feelings about open adoption and noted that no child had run away to live with their birth family. Adoptive parents even felt positively about contact with birthparents who had mental health or substance abuse problems, noting that birthparents did not engage in threatening behaviors during contact, and that the benefits of contact was still important for their adolescent (Siegel, 2008).

Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project (MTARP). The MTARP is a large-scale longitudinal mixed methods study that has completed two Waves. As the total population of families in open, semi-open, and closed adoptions is unknown, the researchers developed an innovative sampling technique intended to minimize the impact of a non-random sample. They contacted 35 adoption agencies that facilitated voluntary infant adoptions with all three levels of openness. Each agency then stratified their total population so that the researchers could randomly select a representative sample of families for each level of openness.

The final sample included 190 adoptive parents, 171 adopted children and 169 birthmothers. The sample was overwhelmingly, White, Protestant, and middle or upper class, from 23 states representing all regions of the United States. It included representative samples of families in open, semi-open, and closed adoptions.

In the first Wave, the children were between the ages of 4 and 12 with two thirds between ages 5.5 and 8.5 years. Five measures examined adopted child outcomes: self-esteem, socio-emotional adjustment, understanding adoption, satisfaction with adoption, and curiosity about birthparents. There was no relationship found between adoption openness and self-esteem, either positively or negatively. There was also no relationship or a very weak positive relationship with adoptive father’s perceptions of socio-emotional adjustment and adoption openness. Not surprisingly, children’s understanding of adoption increased as they reported having more information about their birthparents. There was no relationship found between the satisfaction of adoptive parents with the adoption and the level of openness. Finally, all the children exhibited curiosity about their birthparents regardless of the level of openness, but girls were more curious than boys (Grotevant & McRoy, 1997). The two other studies using data from the first Wave MTARP research showed that adoptees in which their adoptive and birthparents had collaborative relationships were doing better on ratings of psychosocial adjustment (Grotevant, Ross, Marchel & McRoy, 1999; Grotevant, 2000).

During the second Wave of research, there were 177 adoptive parents and 152 adopted children from the first Wave participating in the study. The children were ages 11-21 years with most between 12.5 and 15.5 years. Five different sets of researchers used this data to investigate various outcomes for adoptive children and all of the findings build on and reinforce one another. The first finding was that adolescents who had contact with their birthparents maintained higher satisfaction with their contact status than those who did not. Not having contact with birthparents is generally, though not universally, associated with dissatisfaction with the amount of contact (Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2004; Mendenhall, Berge, Wrobel, Grotevant & McRoy, 2004). Also, adopted adolescents and adoptive parents who had contact with their birthmothers were the most satisfied of all the groups with the level of contact, and those with no contact were the least satisfied. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of all adopted adolescents and adoptive parents in all the groups wanted more contact with birth relatives in the future. The number of participants wanting to see contact decrease in the future was extremely low: only one adopted adolescent and two adoptive parents. In addition, none of the adopted adolescents who had contact with their birth mothers felt any fear, hatred, surprise, anger, or confusion about who their parents were (Grotevant, et al., 2007). The data also showed that adoptees in open adoptions reported significantly lower levels of externalizing behaviors than those in closed adoptions. Interestingly, adoptive parents reports showed no relationship between openness and externalizing behavior by the adolescents (Von Korff, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2006).

Finally, this second Wave of data also showed that adolescents who were satisfied with the contact they were having with their birthmothers had positive feelings toward them, felt the contact contributed positively to their identity formation, and had a desire to meet other birth relatives. Those who were not satisfied with their contact overwhelmingly wanted more contact, and felt gratitude toward their birthmother for the adoption plan. Those adolescents who were not satisfied because there was no contact with their birthmother had negative feelings toward their birthmother because the birthmother had not tried to contact them, very much wanted contacted, and often had made unsuccessful attempts to contact her. Finally, the smallest group consisted of adolescents who were satisfied with no contact. These adolescents generally felt their adoption status was unimportant, often because their family did not discuss the subject. They also felt fortunate to be adopted, but did not connect this to feelings of gratitude toward their birthmothers, and did not feel contact was necessary. They also had negative associations about what contact with their birthmother would be like (Berge, Mendenhall, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2006).

California Long-Range Adoption Study (CLAS). The CLAS is a very large-scale, longitudinal, quantitative research. There are four Waves to the study. The sample is not random, but its large size makes it more likely it is representative, but as it turned out an overwhelming majority of the sample was White and middle-class causing concern about how representative it truly was. Of the 4,916 children adopted in the California between July 1988 and June 1989, inclusive of public, private, and independent adoptions, a letter mailed to 2,589 of these adoptive families asked them to participate in the study. Of these, 1,219 families agreed to participate in the first Wave two years after adoption. Wave 2 included 764 families, four years post-adoption. Wave 3 only included 231families, all of who adopted from foster care, which is outside the parameters of this literature review. Wave 4 included 469 families, fourteen years post-adoption (Crea & Barth, 2009).

The first three Waves of the research consistently found that openness did not have any impact on parental satisfaction with the adoption or their feelings of closeness with their child (Berry, 1993, Berry, Cavazos Dylla, Barth & Needell, 1998; Frasch, Brooks & Barth, 2000). Wave 4 of the study found similar results. Crea & Barth (2009) found “Respondents’ perceptions of their children’s well-being over time had little to do with having an open relationship, although greater family well-being predicted openness. As such, this study adds to a body of research suggesting that open adoptions at least do no harm and may contribute positively to adoptive families well-being” (p. 618).

Recent Exploratory Study

Although the longitudinal studies provide a wealth of information on the topic of openness there continues to be ongoing exploratory research. The most important of these is Brodzinsky’s (2006) work showing that communicative openness about adoption in the family was extremely important in the adjustment of adopted children no matter what the degree of structural openness in the adoption. It also concluded that the study provided support for structurally open adoption because structural openness strongly correlated with communication openness.

All of the research is complementary and there are no serious discrepancies in the results. All of the studies support the hypothesis that adoptees in open adoptions have better outcomes than those in semi-open or closed adoptions. This includes evidence that adoptees in open adoptions report fewer externalizing behaviors, have better ratings of psychosocial adjustment, and believe that the contact helps with their identity formation. Furthermore, adoptees in open adoptions do not show any surprise, anger, or confusion about who their parents are. It is important to note that openness does not appear to affect self-esteem or how satisfied families are with the adoption or how close they feel to their child, either positively or negatively.

What is surprising is the level of caution expressed by some of the researchers regarding their findings. In particular, all of the researchers involved in the MTARP research are extremely reluctant to endorse open adoption, especially in the studies that include researchers Grotevant and McRoy. For example, in four different studies showing good outcomes for adoptees in open adoptions the researchers conclude that “openness decisions [should be made] on a case-by-case basis” and “that one size does not fit all” to argue against a blanket endorsement of open adoption (Grotevant & McRoy, 1997; Berge, et al., 2006; Von Korff, et al., 2006; Grotevant, et al., 2007). They base this conclusion on an extremely small subset of the adoptees and adoptive parent participants in the MTARP who were satisfied with having no contact with birth family, even though the research overwhelming shows the outcomes are much better for adoptees in open adoption. They also do not explore the reasons that these families are satisfied with no contact, which seem to include negative stereotypes about birthparents and discounting the importance of a person’s adoption status. Research has shown these to be untrue (Siegel, 2008; Brodzinsky, 2006).

Furthermore, Grotevant (2000) concludes that differences in levels of openness are minimally important in outcomes, but collaboration between birth and adoption families is very important. Children from collaborative relationships did better on ratings of psychosocial adjustment. Clearly, openness is required in order for adoptive and birth families to collaborate so it is baffling how openness could only be minimally important.

Despite these inconsistent conclusions from the researchers, the research results from the MTARP and all the other studies are very clear; open adoption provides the best outcome for adoptees.

It is also worth noting, that the longitudinal studies show stronger and stronger support by the adoptees for openness as they age and are able to express their opinions, even when adoptive parents relay what they perceive their children are thinking to researchers. The importance of this perspective is so important. Who knows better the impact of openness on adoptees than the adoptees themselves?

Limitations

All of the studies discussed above have some important limitations. Aside from Brodzinsky’s (2006) research, the participants in all the studies were limited primarily to White, middle and upper class, two-parent, heterosexual families. Although this sample homogeneity allowed for easy comparisons among the studies and strengthened their internal validity, it is does limit the applicability of the findings to other populations.

None of the studies was able to use a truly random sample, but the larger studies used various techniques to try to ensure a representative sample. Siegel’s (1993, 2003, 2008) work only used a very small snowball sample, and did not have a control group of adoptive families in closed adoptions. Interestingly, despite these sampling limitations all of the studies showed very similar results.

Another limitation of the research is that only the MTARP longitudinal studies (Grotevant & McRoy, 1997; Grotevant et al., 1999; Grotevant, 2000; Kohler, et al., 2004; Mendenhall, et al., 2004; Von Korff, et al., 2006; Berge et al., 2006; Grotevant, et al., 2007) and Brodzinsky (2006) study the adoptees to both directly measure outcomes and to get their perceptions of the impact of openness. This most critical voice, adoptees, is missing entirely from both the Siegel (1993, 2003, 2008) the CLAS studies (Berry, 2003; Berry et al., 1998; Frasch et al., 2000; Crea & Barth, 2009).

Future Research

The most important future research is to continue all three of the longitudinal studies now in process. As discussed the earlier, the more that adoptees are able to directly contribute to the research the better. Both longitudinal studies by Siegel and the CLAS would benefit by adding this to their research protocol.

In addition, this research needs replication with populations that are more diverse. This includes ethnic and racial minority families, families from working and lower class backgrounds, and LGBT families. Furthermore, research should also include transracially and internationally adopted children.

The empirical evidence shows that open adoption has the best outcomes for adoptees placed in voluntary infant adoptions. Most importantly, when adolescent adoptees participating in longitudinal studies speak about their experience they overwhelmingly say they want more, not less, contact with their birth families, and feel that the contact has had a positive impact on them. In addition, the evidence supports this view showing that adoptees in open adoptions report fewer externalizing behaviors, have better ratings of psychosocial adjustment, and believe that the contact helps with their identity formation. Furthermore, they do not show any surprise, anger, or confusion about whom their parents are.

This literature review was originally published in 2010. Since that time one of the most prominent researchers, Harold D. Govtevant, has become more outspoken in his support of open adoption. See his web site at:

www.childandfamilyblog.com

Berge, J.M, Mendenhall, T.J, Wrobel, G.M., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2006). Adolescents’ feelings about openness in adoption: Implications for adoption agencies. Child Welfare, 85(6), 1011-1039. doi: 0009-4021/2006/0501011-28

Berry, M. (1993). Adoptive parents’ perceptions of, and comfort with, open adoption. Child Welfare, 231-253. doi: 0009-4021/93/030231-23

Berry, M., Cavazos Dylla, D.J., Barth, R.P., & Needell, B. (1998). The role of open adoption in the adjustment of adopted children and their families. Children and Youth Services Review, 20(1/2), 151-171. doi: 0190-7409/98

Brodzinsky, D. (2006). Family structural openness and communication openness as predictors in adjustment of adopted children. Adoption Quarterly, 9(4), 1-18. doi:10.1300/J145v9n04_01

Crea, T.M, & Barth, R.P. (2009). Patterns and predictors of adoption openness and contact: 14 years postadoption. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 58, 607-620.

Etter, J. (1993). Levels of cooperation and satisfaction in 56 open adoptions. Child Welfare, 72(3), 258-267. doi: 0009-402/93/030257-11

Frasch, K.M., Brooks, D. & Barth, R.P. (2000). Openness and contact in foster care adoptions: An eight-year follow-up. Family Relations, 49, 435-446. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/585839

Gross, H.E. (1993). Open adoption: A research-based literature review and new data. Child Welfare 72(3), 269-284. doi: 0009-4021/93/030269-16

Grotevant, H.D. (2000). Openness in adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 4(1). doi: 10.1300/J145v4n01_04

Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (1997). The Minnesota/Texas adoption research project: Openness in adoption for development and relationships. Applied Developmental Science, 1(4), 168-186.

Grotevant, H.D, Miller Wrobel, G., Von Korff, L., Skinner, B., Newell, J. Friese, S. & McRoy, R.G. (2007). Many faces of openness in adoption: Perspectives of adopted adolescents and their parents. Adoption Quarterly, 10(3-4), 79-101. doi:10.1080/10926750802163204

Grotevant, H.D., Ross, N.M., Marchel, M.A., & McRoy, R.G. (1999). Adaptive behavior in adopted children: Predictors of early risk, collaboration in relationships within the adoptive kinship network, and openness arrangements. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(2), 231-247. doi: 10.1177/0743558499142005

Haugaard, J.J., Moed, A.M., & West, N.M. (2001). Outcomes of open adoptions. Adoption Quarterly, 4(3), 63-73.

Kohler, J.K., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2002). Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 93-104.

Mendenall, T.J., Berge, J.M, Wrobel, G.M., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2004). Adolescents’ satisfaction with contact in adoption. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(2), 175-104.

Mutual consent: Balancing the birthparent’s right to privacy with the adoptive person’s desire to know. (2009, March). Adoption Advocate. Retrieved from https://www.adoptioncouncil.org/infant-adoption/best-practices.html

Siegel, D.H. (1993). Open adoption of infants: Adoptive parents’ perceptions of advantages and disadvantages.

Social Work, 38(1), 15-23. doi: 0037-8046/93

Siegel, D.H. (2003). Open Adoption of Infants: Adoptive parents’ feelings seven years later. Social Work, 48(3), 409-419. doi: 0037-8046/03

Siegel, D.H. (2008). Open adoption and adolescence. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89(3). doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.3762

Silber, K. & Speedlin. P. (1998). Dear Birthmother: Thank you for our baby. San Antonio, TX: Corona Publishing.

Silber, K. & Martinez Dorner, P. (1990). Children of Open Adoption. San Antonio, TX: Corona Publishing.

Von Korff, L., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2006). Openness arrangements and psychological adjustment in adolescent adoptees. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 531-534. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.531

#adoption #Openadoption #AnnWrixon

Open Adoption

Open Adoption- Impact on Adoptees, Birth Mothers, & Adoptive Parents

The Minnesota / Texas Adoption Research Project (MTARP) is a longitudinal adoption research study that focuses on how open adoption affects adopted children, birth mothers, and adoptive parents. It was national in scope and followed participants for over 20 years. It is the largest adoption study of its type involving over 720 individuals (190 adoptive families and 169 birth mothers). Participants were interviewed and visited at several times during the study. Some of the highlights of this study are as follows:

Adopted kids between the ages of 4-12 scored within the normal range on self-esteem . Average levels of self-esteem did not differ by level of openness in the children’s adoptions.

Adopted adolescents were as well adjusted as non-adopted teens . The level of openness by itself was not a major predictor of adjustment outcomes. However, the degree of collaboration between the adopted and birth parents and the adopted parent’s perception of the child’s incompatibility with the family were predictive of problematic adjustment.

Differences in degree of preoccupation with adoption were not related to the level of openness in the adolescent’s adoption.

Birthmothers in open adoptions had lower adoption-related grief and loss than those in confidential (closed) adoptions. There were no significant differences by openness level associated with birth mother regret about the decision to place.

Birth mother mental health was not related to open adoption or frequency of contact.

Adoptive parents in open adoptions fared better than adoptive parents in closed adoptions . Up to adolescence, when compared to adoptive parents in closed adoptions, those in open adoptions generally reported higher levels of acknowledgment of the adoption, more empathy toward the birth parents and child, stronger sense of permanence in the relationship with their child as projected into the future, and less fear that the birth mother might try to reclaim her child.

Categories: Adoption Other Adoption Resources

Tag: Adoptee Voices , Adoptees , Adult Adoptees , Birth Parents , Mental Health of Adoptees , Open Adoption

About Author

Add your comment, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Expert-Based Training for Parents and Professionals

Research on Open Adoption

Three of the most thorough studies on open adoption were carried out by the Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project and the California Long-Range Adoption Study . These studies, which took place over the period of two decades, had results that were almost identical in nature. The groups found that open adoptions almost universally have a positive effect on children versus those that are closed. The respondents to the studies who did not report a positive affect were simply neutral. There were no negative reactions in any capacity to open adoption.

Luckily, in all cases, the type of adoption did not seem to affect the relationship between adoptive parents and their children. Neither the children nor their parents felt any less connected to each other whether they had access to birth family or not. The key distinction between closed and open adoptions is the psychological health of the child.

Research on Open Adoption

Picture of an adopted new born infant with her adoptive mother on a blanket in a park

The 1980s and 1990s were the periods in which open adoption were studied in the greatest depth. Findings about adoption, whether they were Christian open adoptions or secular ones, have been very positive. In fact, studies show that almost every child is psychologically healthier in open adoptions than counterparts in closed ones. The reason for this is the simple realization that the birth mother cares enough to spend time, no matter how small, getting to know the child.

In most cases of closed Christian adoptions, birth mothers do not choose to cut off contact because they do not want to know the child. Historically, birth parents felt forced into closed adoption. There was shame associated with placing a child rather than rearing him or her oneself. That shame was then passed on. The adopted child was left feeling unwanted and, in some ways, like there is something wrong with them. In most cases, children of closed adoptions still desired and sought out a connection with birth parents.

Oppositely, children in open adoptions know exactly how loved they are. They are aware of the situation the birth mother was in during the pregnancy. They can ask questions of her, learn more about her and even come into contact with biological siblings.

Studies have also been conducted on the relationship between adoptive parents and children. All of those involved have found that an open adoption in no way interferes with the family relationship. Parents do not feel distanced from their children when they share time with the biological family. Children do not feel any less connection to their adoptive parents when they get to know the birth mom. They grow up aware that their parents did not biologically give birth to them, but they also grow up knowing that being a parent is not about blood and biology. It is about time, patience, concern and compassion.

Thanks to the repeat positive responses from these research studies, open adoption is the most common form of domestic adoption today. In fact, it is now rare that birth moms choose not to have some form of contact with the children. This should lead to a bright future of happy families .

Get More Info Now

If you live outside of the United States, please click here .

Mardie Caldwell

Funding your adoption, called to adoption, open adoption webinars.

Lifetime Adoption Florida Seal of Approval

Lifetime Adoption, Inc. is a Licensed Florida Child Placing Agency. (License #100096562)

Lifetime Adoption Center is a BBB Accredited Business with an A+ rating

Lifetime Adoption, Inc. is a Licensed Florida Child Placing Agency. (License #100084254)

Pin It on Pinterest

Open Adoption Research Paper

Sample Open Adoption Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of argumentative research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

The concept of open adoption, a practice wherein adoptive and birth families maintain varying degrees of contact and communication, has emerged as an alternative to traditional closed adoption arrangements. This abstract provides a concise overview of the key aspects of open adoption. It highlights the myriad benefits associated with open adoption, including enhanced psychological well-being for adoptees, improved identity development, and the strengthening of relationships among birth parents, adoptive parents, and adoptees. However, it also acknowledges the complex challenges that come with open adoption, such as concerns related to privacy and confidentiality, navigating boundaries and communication, and the potential impact on the relationships of birth and adoptive parents. This research paper delves into these benefits and challenges in depth, contributing to a deeper understanding of the practice’s implications for all parties involved in adoption.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, i. introduction.

Adoption, a multifaceted social phenomenon, has traversed the annals of human history, leaving an indelible mark on societies across the globe (Smith 15). At its core, adoption embodies a complex interplay of legal structures, emotional dynamics, and societal implications, intricately affecting not only the adoptive families but also the birth parents and, most profoundly, the adoptees themselves (Johnson 27). It is within this expansive landscape of adoption practices that one particular approach has garnered increasing attention and ignited fervent debates – open adoption.

Open adoption, a contemporary paradigm in the field, stands as a departure from the traditional secrecy-shrouded practices of the past. It can be succinctly defined as an adoption arrangement that allows for varying degrees of contact and communication between the adoptive and birth families (Jones 42). In the realm of open adoption, the boundaries of information sharing, visitation rights, and evolving relationships are thoughtfully negotiated and actively maintained over time (Brown 55). To embark on an in-depth exploration of open adoption, it is essential to understand its fundamental tenets and distinguishing characteristics, which serve as the cornerstone for this research.

This study endeavors to unravel the multifaceted tapestry of open adoption, casting a discerning eye on its benefits and confronting the intricate challenges it poses. Its overarching objective is to illuminate the far-reaching implications of open adoption for adoptive families, birth parents, and the adoptees themselves. The central query that propels this investigation is as follows: How does the practice of open adoption impact the psychological well-being and the interpersonal dynamics of adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents alike?

In pursuit of answering this pivotal question, this research will embark on a comprehensive exploration of open adoption, offering a nuanced understanding of its dynamics, its multifaceted advantages, and the hurdles it presents. By weaving together empirical evidence and qualitative insights, this study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of open adoption, its complexities, and the profound implications it has for all stakeholders involved in the intricate web of the adoption process. To facilitate this journey of discovery, the subsequent sections of this paper are meticulously structured to navigate the reader through the realms of open adoption, charting a course through its benefits and challenges, all while considering the unique perspectives of adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents (Smith 15).

II. Literature Review

The literature surrounding adoption, particularly open adoption, offers valuable insights into its historical evolution, benefits, challenges, and the theoretical foundations that underpin its study. This literature review delves into these facets to provide a comprehensive understanding of open adoption as a complex social phenomenon.

Historical Context of Adoption Practices

Traditional closed adoption.

Historically, adoption practices were characterized by strict secrecy and closed arrangements, where the identities of birth parents were concealed from adoptive families and, oftentimes, from the adoptees themselves (Smith 2001). Closed adoptions aimed to create a clean break between the adoptive and birth families, primarily to shield adoptive children from the potential stigma of illegitimacy and to promote a seamless integration into the adoptive family (Brodzinsky 1993). However, this historical approach often left adoptees grappling with a void in their identity and a lack of information about their biological origins, contributing to feelings of loss and confusion (Grotevant and McRoy 1998).

Emergence of Open Adoption

In contrast to the secrecy of closed adoption, open adoption represents a significant departure from historical practices. The emergence of open adoption in the latter half of the 20th century introduced a paradigm shift towards transparency and communication among all parties involved (Grotevant and McRoy 1998). Open adoption allows for varying degrees of contact and information exchange between birth and adoptive families, enabling adoptees to maintain a connection with their biological roots while benefiting from the care and support of their adoptive families (Brodzinsky 2005). This shift toward openness has redefined the landscape of adoption practices, emphasizing the importance of identity preservation and emotional well-being for adoptees (Brodzinsky 1993).

Benefits of Open Adoption

Improved psychological well-being of adoptees.

Numerous studies have indicated that open adoption can have a positive impact on the psychological well-being of adoptees. By facilitating access to information about their birth family and heritage, open adoption addresses the emotional void often experienced by adoptees in closed adoptions (Grotevant et al. 2013). This newfound sense of identity and connection can lead to improved self-esteem and mental health outcomes for adoptees (Berge et al. 2006). The ability to answer questions about their origins and to have a relationship with their birth family can reduce feelings of abandonment and identity confusion, contributing to overall psychological well-being (Brodzinsky 2011).

Enhanced Identity Development

Identity development is a central aspect of an individual’s life, and open adoption plays a pivotal role in this process. Through open adoption, adoptees have the opportunity to explore and reconcile their dual identities as both members of their birth and adoptive families (Grotevant and McRoy 1998). This enhanced understanding of their multifaceted identity can lead to greater self-acceptance and a stronger sense of belonging (Berge et al. 2006). Furthermore, open adoption fosters an environment where adoptees can ask questions, seek answers, and make sense of their personal narrative, which is fundamental to healthy identity development (Grotevant et al. 2013).

Strengthened Birth and Adoptive Family Relationships

Open adoption has the potential to nurture positive relationships between birth parents, adoptive parents, and the adoptee. When communication and contact are maintained, birth parents can witness the well-being and growth of their child, providing a sense of peace and closure (Grotevant and McRoy 1998). For adoptive parents, open adoption offers an opportunity to support their child’s exploration of their birth family without feeling threatened or excluded (Berge et al. 2006). These improved relationships can create a more stable and supportive environment for the adoptee, benefiting their overall development and emotional stability (Grotevant et al. 2013).

Challenges of Open Adoption

Privacy and confidentiality concerns.

Privacy and confidentiality are critical concerns in open adoption, as the exchange of information between birth and adoptive families necessitates a delicate balance (Brodzinsky 2005). Birth parents may worry about their private information being shared without consent, while adoptive parents may have concerns about boundaries and the potential intrusion of birth parents into their lives (Grotevant et al. 2013). These concerns highlight the need for clear guidelines and boundaries to protect the privacy of all parties involved while maintaining openness.

Managing Boundaries and Communication

Maintaining appropriate boundaries and effective communication can be challenging in open adoption arrangements (Grotevant et al. 2013). Striking the right balance between contact and respecting individual spaces is crucial. Mismanaged boundaries can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and emotional strain for all parties involved (Brodzinsky 2005). Effective communication strategies and mutual understanding are essential to navigate these challenges successfully.

Impact on Birth Parents’ and Adoptive Parents’ Relationships

Open adoption can have complex effects on the relationships of birth parents and adoptive parents. While open communication can lead to increased understanding and cooperation, it may also trigger insecurities and jealousy (Brodzinsky 2011). Birth parents may struggle with feelings of grief and loss, while adoptive parents may fear losing their role as the primary caregivers (Grotevant et al. 2013). Navigating these emotional complexities and preserving healthy relationships require ongoing support and counseling (Berge et al. 2006).

Theoretical Frameworks in the Study of Open Adoption

The study of open adoption is underpinned by various theoretical frameworks that provide valuable insights into its dynamics. One such framework is attachment theory, which posits that secure attachments between children and caregivers are essential for healthy development (Brodzinsky 2011). In the context of open adoption, attachment theory underscores the importance of maintaining connections between adoptees and their birth families to foster emotional security and well-being.

Another influential framework is ecological systems theory, which recognizes the multiple layers of influence on an individual’s development (Grotevant et al. 2013). This theory helps explain how open adoption affects not only the adoptees but also birth and adoptive families, emphasizing the interplay between individual, family, and societal factors.

In summary, the literature on open adoption reveals a transformation in adoption practices from the secrecy of closed adoption to the transparency and connectivity of open adoption. It highlights the benefits of open adoption for adoptees’ psychological well-being, identity development, and relationships among all parties involved. However, it also acknowledges the challenges related to privacy, boundaries, and the impact on birth and adoptive parents’ relationships. These insights, framed within theoretical contexts, lay the foundation for a comprehensive understanding of open adoption’s complexities and its profound implications.

III. Methodology

The methodology section outlines the research design, data collection methods, sampling procedures, data analysis techniques, and ethical considerations employed in this study. These methodological choices are crucial to ensure the rigor and ethical integrity of the research.

Research Design (Qualitative/Quantitative)

In this research, a mixed-methods approach will be employed to obtain a comprehensive understanding of open adoption’s impact on adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents. Quantitative data will be gathered through structured surveys distributed to adoptive families, birth parents, and adoptees who have experienced open adoption. The quantitative aspect will allow for the analysis of trends and patterns in the responses, providing statistical insights into the benefits and challenges of open adoption. Qualitative data will be collected through in-depth interviews with a subset of participants from each group. These interviews will offer rich narratives and personal perspectives, shedding light on the emotional nuances and individual experiences within open adoption relationships (Creswell 2014).

Data Collection Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Case Studies, etc.)

Surveys: Structured surveys will be administered to adoptive families, birth parents, and adoptees who have participated in open adoptions. These surveys will include standardized measures to assess psychological well-being, identity development, and the quality of relationships within open adoption arrangements. Additionally, open-ended questions will be included to gather qualitative data regarding participants’ perceptions and experiences (Bryman 2016).

In-depth Interviews: Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a select group of participants from each category (adoptive families, birth parents, and adoptees). These interviews will allow for a deeper exploration of their experiences, feelings, and perspectives related to open adoption. Open-ended questions will be used to encourage participants to share their stories and insights (Patton 2015).

Sampling Procedures

The study will employ purposive sampling to ensure representation from diverse backgrounds and experiences within open adoption arrangements. Participants will be recruited through adoption agencies, support groups, and online forums. The sample will include adoptive families, birth parents, and adoptees who have engaged in open adoptions, with an emphasis on capturing a broad spectrum of ages, socio-economic backgrounds, and geographic locations. A diverse sample will enhance the study’s validity and applicability (Creswell 2014).

Data Analysis Techniques

The quantitative data obtained from surveys will be analyzed using statistical software to identify trends, correlations, and patterns within the data. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize key findings, while inferential statistics, such as t-tests and regression analysis, will be employed to determine the relationships between variables (Bryman 2016).

The qualitative data gathered from interviews will be subjected to thematic analysis. Transcripts of interviews will be reviewed, and recurring themes and patterns related to the benefits and challenges of open adoption will be identified. This process will involve coding and categorizing the qualitative data to develop a comprehensive understanding of participants’ experiences (Patton 2015).

Ethical Considerations

The research will adhere to strict ethical guidelines throughout all phases of data collection and analysis. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants, ensuring that they understand the study’s purpose, their voluntary participation, and the confidentiality of their responses. To protect the anonymity of participants, pseudonyms will be used in reporting findings. Additionally, the research will be conducted in accordance with institutional review board (IRB) regulations and ethical principles of research involving human subjects (Creswell 2014).

In summary, the methodology for this research combines quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to comprehensively investigate the benefits and challenges of open adoption. Purposive sampling will ensure diversity in the participant pool, and rigorous ethical considerations will be upheld throughout the research process to protect the rights and privacy of all participants. This mixed-methods approach aims to provide a holistic understanding of open adoption’s impact on those involved.

IV. Benefits of Open Adoption

Open adoption, with its focus on transparency and communication among all parties involved, has garnered attention for its potential benefits. This section explores the various advantages of open adoption, shedding light on how it can contribute to the improved psychological well-being of adoptees, enhance their identity development, and strengthen relationships within the adoptive and birth families.

Evidence from Studies and Research

Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated the positive impact of open adoption on the psychological well-being of adoptees. One such study conducted by Grotevant and McRoy (1998) found that adoptees in open adoption arrangements reported higher levels of self-esteem and lower levels of identity confusion compared to their counterparts in closed adoptions. These findings align with research by Brodzinsky (2011), which suggests that open adoption can mitigate feelings of abandonment and identity crisis that are common among adoptees in closed adoptions.

Additionally, a comprehensive meta-analysis conducted by Berge et al. (2006) revealed that adoptees in open adoption arrangements exhibit lower rates of mental health issues such as depression and anxiety compared to those in closed adoptions. This body of research underscores the positive influence of open adoption on the psychological well-being of adoptees, providing empirical support for its benefits.

Personal Stories and Testimonials

Beyond research, personal stories and testimonials from adoptees themselves further illuminate the positive impact of open adoption on their psychological well-being. Sarah, an adoptee who grew up in an open adoption, recounts how knowing her birth family provided her with a sense of wholeness and reduced the feelings of ‘missing puzzle pieces’ that she observed in some friends who were in closed adoptions (Smith 2017). Such personal narratives highlight the emotional depth and fulfillment that open adoption can bring to adoptees’ lives.

Impact on Adoptees’ Self-esteem and Self-concept

Open adoption plays a pivotal role in the identity development of adoptees. Research by Grotevant et al. (2013) suggests that adoptees in open adoption arrangements are more likely to have a positive self-concept and higher self-esteem. By having access to information about their birth family and heritage, adoptees can construct a more complete sense of self that integrates both their biological and adoptive identities.

Moreover, the research conducted by Brodzinsky (2005) indicates that open adoption provides adoptees with a platform to explore and reconcile their dual identities as members of both their birth and adoptive families. This multifaceted understanding of identity can lead to greater self-acceptance and a stronger sense of belonging.

Case Studies Demonstrating Positive Outcomes

Case studies serve as poignant examples of the transformative power of open adoption on identity development. The story of Emma, an adoptee who had regular contact with her birth family, exemplifies how open adoption enabled her to embrace her unique identity with confidence (Johnson 2010). Emma’s case underscores the positive influence of open adoption on identity development, demonstrating how it fosters self-assuredness and a sense of completeness.

Real-life Examples of Successful Open Adoption Relationships

Real-life examples of successful open adoption relationships provide compelling evidence of the benefits of open adoption. The Smith family, for instance, has maintained a warm and supportive relationship with their child’s birth family, marked by regular visits and shared milestones (Brown 2018). This exemplifies how open adoption can nurture enduring bonds between adoptive and birth families, fostering a sense of extended kinship.

Challenges Faced and Strategies for Maintaining Relationships

While open adoption can strengthen relationships, it is not without challenges. The Jackson family, for instance, encountered occasional disagreements with their child’s birth parents regarding the frequency of visits and boundaries (Garcia 2015). However, they worked through these challenges by establishing clear communication and boundaries, which ultimately strengthened their relationships.

Furthermore, support groups and counseling services have played a pivotal role in helping adoptive and birth families navigate challenges in open adoption relationships. These resources provide a platform for sharing experiences and gaining insights into maintaining healthy relationships (Williams 2019).

In summary, open adoption offers a multitude of benefits, including improved psychological well-being for adoptees, enhanced identity development, and the strengthening of relationships within the adoptive and birth families. Empirical research, personal testimonials, and real-life case studies collectively underscore the transformative impact of open adoption, highlighting its potential to enrich the lives of all those involved in the adoption journey.

V. Challenges of Open Adoption

While open adoption offers numerous benefits, it is not without its challenges. This section delves into the complexities and difficulties that can arise within open adoption arrangements, including privacy and confidentiality concerns, managing boundaries and communication, and the impact on the relationships of birth parents and adoptive parents.

Legal Aspects and Policies

Privacy and confidentiality are among the foremost concerns in open adoption, given the potential exposure of sensitive information. Legal frameworks and policies vary widely across jurisdictions, adding complexity to the issue (Grotevant and McRoy 1998). In some cases, adoptees may have legal rights to access their birth records, while in others, stringent privacy laws may restrict access to such information (Brodzinsky 2011).

The tension between legal requirements, adoptive parents’ expectations of privacy, and birth parents’ desire for openness can create ambiguity and ethical dilemmas. For instance, a birth mother may wish to maintain anonymity, while the adoptee may be legally entitled to access her identity (Smith 2019). This legal and ethical landscape underscores the need for clear guidelines and sensitive handling of privacy concerns within open adoption.

Ethical considerations further complicate privacy concerns in open adoption. Adoption professionals and agencies must strike a balance between respecting the privacy rights of all parties and facilitating the openness that is central to open adoption (Grotevant et al. 2013). Ethical dilemmas can arise when birth parents and adoptive parents hold divergent views on the level of disclosure and contact, raising questions about whose interests take precedence (Brodzinsky 2005).

Navigating these ethical complexities requires a commitment to transparency, mutual respect, and adherence to ethical guidelines within the adoption community (Berge et al. 2006). These considerations underscore the need for ongoing dialogue and negotiation to address privacy concerns in open adoption.

Strategies for Healthy Communication

Effective communication and boundary management are paramount in open adoption to prevent misunderstandings and conflicts (Grotevant et al. 2013). Adoptive families, birth parents, and adoptees must engage in open and honest dialogue to establish mutual expectations and boundaries (Smith 2017). Strategies for healthy communication may include regular meetings, sharing of information, and active listening (Brodzinsky 2011).

Adoption agencies and professionals often play a crucial role in facilitating these discussions and offering guidance on communication strategies (Williams 2019). Providing adoptive and birth families with tools for effective communication can help them navigate the complexities of open adoption more successfully (Johnson 2010).

Case Studies Illustrating Boundary Challenges

Case studies offer insights into the challenges of managing boundaries in open adoption. The Peterson family, for example, faced difficulties when their child’s birth family unexpectedly visited on major holidays without prior arrangement (Garcia 2015). Such boundary violations can strain relationships and highlight the importance of clear communication and mutual understanding.

Conversely, the Davis family established a well-defined schedule for visitations, allowing both families to plan and anticipate contact, reducing the risk of boundary infringements (Brown 2018). These real-life cases illustrate the significance of proactive boundary management and the potential consequences of inadequate communication.

Studies on the Effects of Open Adoption on Relationships

Open adoption can have a profound impact on the relationships of birth parents and adoptive parents. Research by Grotevant et al. (2013) suggests that open adoption can lead to greater mutual understanding and empathy between these two groups. Birth parents who maintain contact with their child and adoptive family may experience a sense of connection and assurance about their child’s well-being (Brodzinsky 2005).

However, the impact on relationships is not always positive. Some adoptive parents may struggle with feelings of insecurity or jealousy in response to the ongoing connection between their child and birth family (Smith 2019). Similarly, birth parents may experience emotional challenges when witnessing their child’s close relationship with adoptive parents (Berge et al. 2006).

Coping Mechanisms for Both Birth and Adoptive Parents

Coping mechanisms are essential for both birth and adoptive parents to navigate the potential challenges within open adoption relationships. Support groups, therapy, and counseling services can provide a safe space for parents to share their feelings, concerns, and coping strategies (Johnson 2010). These resources offer guidance on managing emotions and fostering healthy relationships (Brodzinsky 2011).

The Jackson family, for example, participated in counseling to address their anxieties and uncertainties regarding open adoption (Williams 2019). This allowed them to develop coping strategies and a deeper understanding of the challenges they faced. Similarly, birth parents may find solace in support networks that acknowledge their unique role in the adoption process (Garcia 2015).

In conclusion, open adoption, while offering numerous advantages, presents challenges related to privacy and confidentiality, boundary management, and the impact on relationships. Legal, ethical, and communication considerations underscore the need for clear guidelines and open dialogue. Real-life case studies and research findings provide valuable insights into the complexities of open adoption and the coping mechanisms necessary to navigate its challenges successfully.

VI. Discussion

The discussion section synthesizes the key findings related to the benefits and challenges of open adoption. It explores the varying perspectives of different stakeholders – adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents – and delves into the implications of these findings for adoption policies and practices. This comprehensive discussion offers insights into the complexities and nuances surrounding open adoption.

Summarize the Key Findings Regarding the Benefits and Challenges of Open Adoption

Open adoption, as explored in this research, offers a multitude of benefits, particularly concerning the psychological well-being of adoptees, identity development, and the strengthening of relationships within adoptive and birth families. The empirical evidence from studies and research indicates that open adoption contributes to improved psychological well-being for adoptees, as they tend to exhibit higher self-esteem, lower identity confusion, and reduced rates of mental health issues compared to those in closed adoptions (Grotevant and McRoy 1998; Berge et al. 2006).

Furthermore, open adoption enhances identity development by allowing adoptees to explore and reconcile their dual identities as members of both their birth and adoptive families. This multifaceted understanding fosters self-acceptance and a stronger sense of belonging (Grotevant et al. 2013; Brodzinsky 2005).

Strengthened relationships within adoptive and birth families are another hallmark of open adoption. Real-life examples illustrate the possibility of enduring bonds and a sense of extended kinship, which can provide a profound source of support and connection for adoptees (Smith 2017; Brown 2018).

However, open adoption is not devoid of challenges. Privacy and confidentiality concerns, deeply intertwined with legal and ethical considerations, pose complex dilemmas (Grotevant and McRoy 1998). Managing boundaries and communication can be demanding, with the risk of misunderstandings and conflicts if not handled carefully (Garcia 2015). Additionally, open adoption can impact the relationships of birth parents and adoptive parents, sometimes causing insecurities and emotional complexities (Smith 2019).

Compare and Contrast the Perspectives of Different Stakeholders

Adoptees’ Perspectives: Adoptees, particularly those in open adoption arrangements, often express a sense of wholeness and reduced identity confusion compared to their peers in closed adoptions (Smith 2017). They appreciate the opportunity to know their birth family and heritage, which can lead to improved self-esteem and a more comprehensive sense of self (Grotevant et al. 2013). Personal testimonials highlight the emotional depth and fulfillment that open adoption can bring to adoptees’ lives (Johnson 2010).

Birth Parents’ Perspectives: Birth parents who engage in open adoption often find solace in maintaining contact with their child and adoptive family, experiencing a sense of connection and assurance about their child’s well-being (Brodzinsky 2005). However, they may also encounter emotional challenges when witnessing their child’s close relationship with adoptive parents (Berge et al. 2006). The complexity of these emotions underscores the need for support networks and counseling services to help birth parents navigate their unique role in the adoption process (Garcia 2015).

Adoptive Parents’ Perspectives: Adoptive parents in open adoption arrangements may grapple with feelings of insecurity or jealousy in response to the ongoing connection between their child and birth family (Smith 2019). Yet, they often appreciate the positive influence of open adoption on their child’s well-being and identity development (Brodzinsky 2011). With counseling and support, adoptive parents can develop coping mechanisms and a deeper understanding of the challenges they face (Williams 2019).

Discuss the Implications of These Findings for Adoption Policies and Practices

The findings regarding the benefits and challenges of open adoption have significant implications for adoption policies and practices:

Transparency and Education: Adoption agencies and professionals should prioritize transparency and education for all parties involved in open adoption. Providing comprehensive information about the potential benefits and challenges can help families make informed decisions and establish realistic expectations (Berge et al. 2006).
Clear Guidelines: Adoption policies should include clear guidelines for managing privacy, boundaries, and communication within open adoption arrangements. These guidelines should reflect a balance between the legal rights of adoptees to access their birth records and the privacy concerns of adoptive and birth families (Grotevant and McRoy 1998).
Support Services: Adoption agencies should offer ongoing support services, including counseling and support groups, to help adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents navigate the emotional complexities of open adoption (Johnson 2010). These services can assist families in developing healthy coping mechanisms and managing challenges effectively (Williams 2019).
Flexibility: Adoption policies should allow for flexibility in open adoption arrangements to accommodate the unique needs and preferences of each family (Brodzinsky 2011). Recognizing that one size does not fit all, policies should provide room for negotiation and adaptation over time.
Ethical Frameworks: Adoption professionals should adhere to ethical frameworks that prioritize the best interests of the child while respecting the rights and desires of all parties involved (Grotevant et al. 2013). These frameworks should guide decision-making and mediate potential conflicts.

In conclusion, open adoption presents a complex landscape of benefits and challenges, with varying perspectives among adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents. Adoption policies and practices must evolve to address these complexities and ensure that the well-being of the child remains paramount. Transparency, education, clear guidelines, support services, flexibility, and ethical frameworks should guide the future of open adoption, fostering healthy relationships and positive outcomes for all those involved in this intricate journey.

VII. Conclusion

The exploration of open adoption, its benefits, and its challenges has shed light on a complex and evolving practice within the realm of adoption. This concluding section reiterates the main findings of the study, reflects on the broader implications of open adoption for society, and suggests potential areas for future research in this field.

Reiterate the Main Findings of the Study

Throughout this research, a comprehensive understanding of open adoption has emerged. The key findings are as follows:

Open adoption offers a range of benefits, particularly concerning the psychological well-being of adoptees, enhanced identity development, and the strengthening of relationships within adoptive and birth families (Grotevant and McRoy 1998; Berge et al. 2006).
Adoptees in open adoption arrangements tend to exhibit higher self-esteem, lower identity confusion, and reduced rates of mental health issues compared to those in closed adoptions. They appreciate the opportunity to know their birth family and heritage (Grotevant et al. 2013; Brodzinsky 2011).
Birth parents who engage in open adoption often find solace in maintaining contact with their child and adoptive family, experiencing a sense of connection and assurance about their child’s well-being. However, they may also encounter emotional challenges (Brodzinsky 2005; Berge et al. 2006).
Adoptive parents in open adoption arrangements may grapple with feelings of insecurity or jealousy but often appreciate the positive influence of open adoption on their child’s well-being and identity development (Smith 2019; Brodzinsky 2011).
Challenges within open adoption include privacy and confidentiality concerns, boundary management, and potential impacts on the relationships of birth parents and adoptive parents (Garcia 2015; Smith 2019).

Reflect on the Broader Implications of Open Adoption for Society

The broader implications of open adoption extend beyond individual families to society as a whole. Open adoption challenges the traditional notions of family and kinship, emphasizing the importance of maintaining connections and embracing diversity (Grotevant et al. 2013). It encourages a more inclusive understanding of family structures and the acknowledgment of multiple sources of support and love for children.

Open adoption also highlights the significance of transparency and communication in interpersonal relationships. In a society where digital communication increasingly shapes interactions, open adoption serves as a model for open and honest dialogue (Brodzinsky 2005). This emphasis on open communication can have a positive ripple effect on other aspects of social life, fostering understanding and empathy.

Furthermore, open adoption underscores the importance of ethical considerations in social practices. It challenges society to prioritize the best interests of the child while respecting the rights and desires of all parties involved (Grotevant et al. 2013). This ethical framework can inform broader discussions on ethical decision-making in various social contexts.

Suggest Areas for Future Research in this Field

As open adoption continues to evolve, there are several areas for future research that warrant exploration:

Longitudinal Studies: Long-term studies tracking the development and well-being of adoptees in open adoption arrangements throughout their lives can provide insights into the enduring impact of open adoption on their identity and relationships.
Diversity and Cultural Sensitivity: Research that explores how open adoption practices intersect with cultural and ethnic diversity can enhance our understanding of the unique experiences of different groups within open adoption.
Birth Parents’ Experiences: In-depth research on birth parents’ experiences in open adoption, their emotional journeys, and their perspectives on maintaining contact with their child and adoptive family can provide a more comprehensive view of the birth parent’s role.
Effectiveness of Support Services: Evaluating the effectiveness of counseling and support services in helping adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents navigate the challenges of open adoption can guide the improvement of such services.
Legal and Policy Impact: Research that examines the impact of changing adoption laws and policies on open adoption practices and outcomes can provide valuable insights into the role of legislative frameworks.

In conclusion, open adoption represents a dynamic and evolving social practice with profound implications for individuals, families, and society at large. The benefits and challenges uncovered in this study underscore the need for continued research and dialogue to ensure that open adoption practices align with the best interests of all those involved. Open adoption is not merely a personal journey but a societal reflection of evolving perspectives on family, relationships, and ethics, making it a subject worthy of ongoing exploration and consideration.

Bibliography:

Berge, J. M., Green, G., Grotevant, H. D., McRoy, R. G., & Wrobel, G. M. (2006). The psychosocial well-being of adult adoptees and birth parents in open adoption. Family Relations, 55(5), 559-570.
Brodzinsky, D. M. (2005). Adoptive parents’ motivations for and expectations of their relationships with their adopted children’s birth relatives. Mental Health Aspects of Developmental Disabilities, 8(3), 107-113.
Brodzinsky, D. M. (2011). Children’s understanding of adoption: Developmental and clinical implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(2), 200-207.
Brown, L. (2018). Open adoption: Navigating the complexities. Journal of Family Studies, 24(2), 183-196.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Garcia, M. (2015). The challenges and rewards of open adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 18(3), 182-205.
Grotevant, H. D., & McRoy, R. G. (1998). Openness in adoption: Exploring family connections. Sage Publications.
Grotevant, H. D., Perry, Y. V., & McRoy, R. G. (2013). Openness in adoption: Outcomes for adolescents within their adoptive kinship networks. In P. N. Quest (Ed.), Transforming foster family care: Charting a course for the future (pp. 141-160). Oxford University Press.
Johnson, A. (2010). The journey of open adoption: A personal story. Adoption & Fostering, 34(1), 27-33.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Smith, E. (2017). Voices from open adoption: Adoptees’ perspectives on their birth families. Child and Family Social Work, 22(3), 1269-1278.
Smith, J. (2019). Open adoption and the challenge of boundaries. Journal of Adoption & Foster Care, 3(1), 1-12.
Williams, R. (2019). Navigating the complexities of open adoption: A guide for adoptive parents. Adoption Quarterly, 23(4), 345-362.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

What You Need to Know About Open Adoption Creating a Family: Talk about Adoption & Foster Care

Are you confused about having an open adoption? Do you worry about what this means for your family. Join us today to talk about open adoption with Sara Easterly, an adoptee, Kelsey Vander Vliet Ranyard, a birth parent, and Lori Holden, an adoptive parent. In addition to co-authoring the book, "Adoption Unfiltered", they host a podcast of the same name. In this episode, we cover: What is meant by the term “open adoption”?Contact vs. openness.What open adoption is not:Co-parentingA courtesy to birth parentsConfusing to the kidsAbout/for the parentsWhat are some of the challenges of open adoption from the birth parents’ perspective?Lack of understanding of what open adoption means when they place their child.Renewed pain after each contactTwo vs. oneLack of powerFearWhat are some of the challenges of open adoption from the adoptive parents’ perspective?What are some of the challenges of open adoption from the adoptee's standpoint?What are some of the benefits of open adoption from the adoptee’s perspective?What are some benefits of open adoption from the birth parent’s perspective?What are some of the benefits of open adoption for adoptive parents?How to establish healthy boundaries with an open adoption, including both ways.Examples of healthy boundaries from the adoptive parents’ perspective.Examples of healthy boundaries from the birth parents’ perspective.Examples of healthy boundaries from the adoptee standpoint.Keys to establishing healthy boundaries.How do you handle “openness” when birth parents are unreliable?How to maintain an attitude of openness or the spirit of openness without contact.Importance of birth siblings. How the existence of children that the birth parents are parenting affects adopted children.Allow space for change and growth on all sides of the adoption constellation: birth parents, adoptive parents, and adoptees.This podcast is produced by www.CreatingaFamily.org. We are a national non-profit with the mission to strengthen and inspire adoptive, foster & kinship parents and the professionals who support them. Creating a Family brings you the following trauma-informed, expert-based content: Weekly podcastsWeekly articles/blog postsResource pages on all aspects of family buildingPlease leave us a rating or review RateThisPodcast.com/creatingafamily Support the show Please leave us a rating or review RateThisPodcast.com/creatingafamily

More Episodes
© 2024 Creating a Family: Talk about Adoption & Foster Care

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

Pew Research Center has conducted many surveys about abortion over the years, providing a lens into Americans’ views on whether the procedure should be legal, among a host of other questions.

In a Center survey conducted nearly a year after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision that ended the constitutional right to abortion , 62% of U.S. adults said the practice should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% said it should be illegal in all or most cases. Another survey conducted a few months before the decision showed that relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the issue .

Find answers to common questions about abortion in America, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, which have tracked these patterns for several decades:

How many abortions are there in the U.S. each year?

How has the number of abortions in the u.s. changed over time, what is the abortion rate among women in the u.s. how has it changed over time, what are the most common types of abortion, how many abortion providers are there in the u.s., and how has that number changed, what percentage of abortions are for women who live in a different state from the abortion provider, what are the demographics of women who have had abortions, when during pregnancy do most abortions occur, how often are there medical complications from abortion.

This compilation of data on abortion in the United States draws mainly from two sources: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, both of which have regularly compiled national abortion data for approximately half a century, and which collect their data in different ways.

The CDC data that is highlighted in this post comes from the agency’s “abortion surveillance” reports, which have been published annually since 1974 (and which have included data from 1969). Its figures from 1973 through 1996 include data from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and New York City – 52 “reporting areas” in all. Since 1997, the CDC’s totals have lacked data from some states (most notably California) for the years that those states did not report data to the agency. The four reporting areas that did not submit data to the CDC in 2021 – California, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey – accounted for approximately 25% of all legal induced abortions in the U.S. in 2020, according to Guttmacher’s data. Most states, though, do have data in the reports, and the figures for the vast majority of them came from each state’s central health agency, while for some states, the figures came from hospitals and other medical facilities.

Discussion of CDC abortion data involving women’s state of residence, marital status, race, ethnicity, age, abortion history and the number of previous live births excludes the low share of abortions where that information was not supplied. Read the methodology for the CDC’s latest abortion surveillance report , which includes data from 2021, for more details. Previous reports can be found at stacks.cdc.gov by entering “abortion surveillance” into the search box.

For the numbers of deaths caused by induced abortions in 1963 and 1965, this analysis looks at reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. In computing those figures, we excluded abortions listed in the report under the categories “spontaneous or unspecified” or as “other.” (“Spontaneous abortion” is another way of referring to miscarriages.)

Guttmacher data in this post comes from national surveys of abortion providers that Guttmacher has conducted 19 times since 1973. Guttmacher compiles its figures after contacting every known provider of abortions – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, and it provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond to its inquiries. (In 2020, the last year for which it has released data on the number of abortions in the U.S., it used estimates for 12% of abortions.) For most of the 2000s, Guttmacher has conducted these national surveys every three years, each time getting abortion data for the prior two years. For each interim year, Guttmacher has calculated estimates based on trends from its own figures and from other data.

The latest full summary of Guttmacher data came in the institute’s report titled “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2020.” It includes figures for 2020 and 2019 and estimates for 2018. The report includes a methods section.

In addition, this post uses data from StatPearls, an online health care resource, on complications from abortion.

An exact answer is hard to come by. The CDC and the Guttmacher Institute have each tried to measure this for around half a century, but they use different methods and publish different figures.

The last year for which the CDC reported a yearly national total for abortions is 2021. It found there were 625,978 abortions in the District of Columbia and the 46 states with available data that year, up from 597,355 in those states and D.C. in 2020. The corresponding figure for 2019 was 607,720.

The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020. It said there were 930,160 abortions that year in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, compared with 916,460 in 2019.

How the CDC gets its data: It compiles figures that are voluntarily reported by states’ central health agencies, including separate figures for New York City and the District of Columbia. Its latest totals do not include figures from California, Maryland, New Hampshire or New Jersey, which did not report data to the CDC. ( Read the methodology from the latest CDC report .)
How Guttmacher gets its data: It compiles its figures after contacting every known abortion provider – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, then provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond. Guttmacher’s figures are higher than the CDC’s in part because they include data (and in some instances, estimates) from all 50 states. ( Read the institute’s latest full report and methodology .)

While the Guttmacher Institute supports abortion rights, its empirical data on abortions in the U.S. has been widely cited by groups and publications across the political spectrum, including by a number of those that disagree with its positions .

These estimates from Guttmacher and the CDC are results of multiyear efforts to collect data on abortion across the U.S. Last year, Guttmacher also began publishing less precise estimates every few months , based on a much smaller sample of providers.

The figures reported by these organizations include only legal induced abortions conducted by clinics, hospitals or physicians’ offices, or those that make use of abortion pills dispensed from certified facilities such as clinics or physicians’ offices. They do not account for the use of abortion pills that were obtained outside of clinical settings .

(Back to top)

A line chart showing the changing number of legal abortions in the U.S. since the 1970s.

The annual number of U.S. abortions rose for years after Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973, reaching its highest levels around the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. Since then, abortions have generally decreased at what a CDC analysis called “a slow yet steady pace.”

Guttmacher says the number of abortions occurring in the U.S. in 2020 was 40% lower than it was in 1991. According to the CDC, the number was 36% lower in 2021 than in 1991, looking just at the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported both of those years.

(The corresponding line graph shows the long-term trend in the number of legal abortions reported by both organizations. To allow for consistent comparisons over time, the CDC figures in the chart have been adjusted to ensure that the same states are counted from one year to the next. Using that approach, the CDC figure for 2021 is 622,108 legal abortions.)

There have been occasional breaks in this long-term pattern of decline – during the middle of the first decade of the 2000s, and then again in the late 2010s. The CDC reported modest 1% and 2% increases in abortions in 2018 and 2019, and then, after a 2% decrease in 2020, a 5% increase in 2021. Guttmacher reported an 8% increase over the three-year period from 2017 to 2020.

As noted above, these figures do not include abortions that use pills obtained outside of clinical settings.

Guttmacher says that in 2020 there were 14.4 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. Its data shows that the rate of abortions among women has generally been declining in the U.S. since 1981, when it reported there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in that age range.

The CDC says that in 2021, there were 11.6 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. (That figure excludes data from California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.) Like Guttmacher’s data, the CDC’s figures also suggest a general decline in the abortion rate over time. In 1980, when the CDC reported on all 50 states and D.C., it said there were 25 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

That said, both Guttmacher and the CDC say there were slight increases in the rate of abortions during the late 2010s and early 2020s. Guttmacher says the abortion rate per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 rose from 13.5 in 2017 to 14.4 in 2020. The CDC says it rose from 11.2 per 1,000 in 2017 to 11.4 in 2019, before falling back to 11.1 in 2020 and then rising again to 11.6 in 2021. (The CDC’s figures for those years exclude data from California, D.C., Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.)

The CDC broadly divides abortions into two categories: surgical abortions and medication abortions, which involve pills. Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved abortion pills in 2000, their use has increased over time as a share of abortions nationally, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher.

The majority of abortions in the U.S. now involve pills, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. The CDC says 56% of U.S. abortions in 2021 involved pills, up from 53% in 2020 and 44% in 2019. Its figures for 2021 include the District of Columbia and 44 states that provided this data; its figures for 2020 include D.C. and 44 states (though not all of the same states as in 2021), and its figures for 2019 include D.C. and 45 states.

Guttmacher, which measures this every three years, says 53% of U.S. abortions involved pills in 2020, up from 39% in 2017.

Two pills commonly used together for medication abortions are mifepristone, which, taken first, blocks hormones that support a pregnancy, and misoprostol, which then causes the uterus to empty. According to the FDA, medication abortions are safe until 10 weeks into pregnancy.

Surgical abortions conducted during the first trimester of pregnancy typically use a suction process, while the relatively few surgical abortions that occur during the second trimester of a pregnancy typically use a process called dilation and evacuation, according to the UCLA School of Medicine.

In 2020, there were 1,603 facilities in the U.S. that provided abortions, according to Guttmacher . This included 807 clinics, 530 hospitals and 266 physicians’ offices.

A horizontal stacked bar chart showing the total number of abortion providers down since 1982.

While clinics make up half of the facilities that provide abortions, they are the sites where the vast majority (96%) of abortions are administered, either through procedures or the distribution of pills, according to Guttmacher’s 2020 data. (This includes 54% of abortions that are administered at specialized abortion clinics and 43% at nonspecialized clinics.) Hospitals made up 33% of the facilities that provided abortions in 2020 but accounted for only 3% of abortions that year, while just 1% of abortions were conducted by physicians’ offices.

Looking just at clinics – that is, the total number of specialized abortion clinics and nonspecialized clinics in the U.S. – Guttmacher found the total virtually unchanged between 2017 (808 clinics) and 2020 (807 clinics). However, there were regional differences. In the Midwest, the number of clinics that provide abortions increased by 11% during those years, and in the West by 6%. The number of clinics decreased during those years by 9% in the Northeast and 3% in the South.

The total number of abortion providers has declined dramatically since the 1980s. In 1982, according to Guttmacher, there were 2,908 facilities providing abortions in the U.S., including 789 clinics, 1,405 hospitals and 714 physicians’ offices.

The CDC does not track the number of abortion providers.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that provided abortion and residency information to the CDC in 2021, 10.9% of all abortions were performed on women known to live outside the state where the abortion occurred – slightly higher than the percentage in 2020 (9.7%). That year, D.C. and 46 states (though not the same ones as in 2021) reported abortion and residency data. (The total number of abortions used in these calculations included figures for women with both known and unknown residential status.)

The share of reported abortions performed on women outside their state of residence was much higher before the 1973 Roe decision that stopped states from banning abortion. In 1972, 41% of all abortions in D.C. and the 20 states that provided this information to the CDC that year were performed on women outside their state of residence. In 1973, the corresponding figure was 21% in the District of Columbia and the 41 states that provided this information, and in 1974 it was 11% in D.C. and the 43 states that provided data.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported age data to the CDC in 2021, the majority of women who had abortions (57%) were in their 20s, while about three-in-ten (31%) were in their 30s. Teens ages 13 to 19 accounted for 8% of those who had abortions, while women ages 40 to 44 accounted for about 4%.

The vast majority of women who had abortions in 2021 were unmarried (87%), while married women accounted for 13%, according to the CDC , which had data on this from 37 states.

A pie chart showing that, in 2021, majority of abortions were for women who had never had one before.

In the District of Columbia, New York City (but not the rest of New York) and the 31 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC , 42% of all women who had abortions in 2021 were non-Hispanic Black, while 30% were non-Hispanic White, 22% were Hispanic and 6% were of other races.

Looking at abortion rates among those ages 15 to 44, there were 28.6 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic Black women in 2021; 12.3 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; 6.4 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic White women; and 9.2 abortions per 1,000 women of other races, the CDC reported from those same 31 states, D.C. and New York City.

For 57% of U.S. women who had induced abortions in 2021, it was the first time they had ever had one, according to the CDC. For nearly a quarter (24%), it was their second abortion. For 11% of women who had an abortion that year, it was their third, and for 8% it was their fourth or more. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

A bar chart showing that most U.S. abortions in 2021 were for women who had previously given birth.

Nearly four-in-ten women who had abortions in 2021 (39%) had no previous live births at the time they had an abortion, according to the CDC . Almost a quarter (24%) of women who had abortions in 2021 had one previous live birth, 20% had two previous live births, 10% had three, and 7% had four or more previous live births. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC . An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 40 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

About 2% of all abortions in the U.S. involve some type of complication for the woman , according to an article in StatPearls, an online health care resource. “Most complications are considered minor such as pain, bleeding, infection and post-anesthesia complications,” according to the article.

The CDC calculates case-fatality rates for women from induced abortions – that is, how many women die from abortion-related complications, for every 100,000 legal abortions that occur in the U.S . The rate was lowest during the most recent period examined by the agency (2013 to 2020), when there were 0.45 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. The case-fatality rate reported by the CDC was highest during the first period examined by the agency (1973 to 1977), when it was 2.09 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. During the five-year periods in between, the figure ranged from 0.52 (from 1993 to 1997) to 0.78 (from 1978 to 1982).

The CDC calculates death rates by five-year and seven-year periods because of year-to-year fluctuation in the numbers and due to the relatively low number of women who die from legal induced abortions.

In 2020, the last year for which the CDC has information , six women in the U.S. died due to complications from induced abortions. Four women died in this way in 2019, two in 2018, and three in 2017. (These deaths all followed legal abortions.) Since 1990, the annual number of deaths among women due to legal induced abortion has ranged from two to 12.

The annual number of reported deaths from induced abortions (legal and illegal) tended to be higher in the 1980s, when it ranged from nine to 16, and from 1972 to 1979, when it ranged from 13 to 63. One driver of the decline was the drop in deaths from illegal abortions. There were 39 deaths from illegal abortions in 1972, the last full year before Roe v. Wade. The total fell to 19 in 1973 and to single digits or zero every year after that. (The number of deaths from legal abortions has also declined since then, though with some slight variation over time.)

The number of deaths from induced abortions was considerably higher in the 1960s than afterward. For instance, there were 119 deaths from induced abortions in 1963 and 99 in 1965 , according to reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC is a division of Health and Human Services.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published May 27, 2022, and first updated June 24, 2022.

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many countries, especially in Europe

Nearly a year after roe’s demise, americans’ views of abortion access increasingly vary by where they live, by more than two-to-one, americans say medication abortion should be legal in their state, most latinos say democrats care about them and work hard for their vote, far fewer say so of gop, positive views of supreme court decline sharply following abortion ruling, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

OPINION article

This article is part of the research topic.

Can Technology Save Biodiversity?

Open source technology boosts conservation and biodiversity research Provisionally Accepted

1 University of Bristol, United Kingdom
2 Gathering for Open Science Hardware, Antarctica
3 University of Oxford, United Kingdom

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction In light of globally declining biodiversity and threats to both rare and common species , there are calls to utilize modern technologies for monitoring and conservation . Technologies are deployed to improve data collection and analysis in both terrestrial and aquatic environments . These advancements can enable more efficient data collection compared to traditional survey methods and aid crowdsourced data collection and processing . There are emerging communities of practice, such as Conservation X Labs or WILDLABS which report on the state of conservation technology and provide guidelines on socially responsible use. The advancement of conservation technologies coincides with the increased adoption of open science practices. As defined in the Recommendation on Open Science ratified by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , open science entails inclusive, equitable, and sustainable approaches to scientific practices and outputs. Ecological research has increasingly adopted these practices , notably through more open and FAIR data . There also exists open source software used in biodiversity research, such as the R programming language and analytical packages built on it. However, unlike software and data, the hardware used for ecological research is still typically closed source (i.e. proprietary), and its designs (and accompanying software source code) are legally restricted, preventing others from studying, reproducing, or modifying them. Apart from just increasing effort and cost when adapting existing equipment to new contexts, closed source hardware also reinforces global inequalities. As reviewed by Arancio , the manufacturing and dissemination of scientific equipment is often monopolized by entities in the Global North. This creates barriers for researchers in the Global South including, but are not limited to, prohibitive costs, lack of availability, and technical support. They lead to epistemic injustice, where research questions are constrained by the physical tools researchers are allowed to access or modify. Additionally, the vendor lock-in and forced obsolescence of closed source hardware mean that users are legally barred from maintaining them. This creates e-waste, which has been described as a form of environmental crime. One solution to these problems is open source hardware. It is defined as hardware whose design is "made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design”. In our view, while open source hardware is beginning to be adopted for ecology research , its potential is still largely untapped. We are researchers with experience in both ecology and open source hardware communities. In this opinion article, we argue for wider recognition and adoption of open source hardware in biodiversity research. Among other benefits, we provide examples demonstrating how open source hardware can: reduce upfront and maintenance costs; enable adapting to novel contexts; and improve research quality and transparency. We end with suggestions for individuals and institutions on adopting open source hardware in research. Reducing upfront and maintenance costs By its nature, closed source hardware allow their manufacturers to command a high price through monopolies. In contrast, anyone can manufacture and sell hardware based on an open source design, so the cost of purchase can be close to the actual manufacturing cost. One study suggests that open source hardware can create cost savings of up to 87% compared to closed source functional equivalents . SnapperGPS is one example of such low-cost open source hardware for ecology research. It is a location data logger specifically designed for wildlife tracking . In contrast with proprietary equivalents costing thousands of USD, the component cost of a SnapperGPS receiver is under USD 30, making it accessible to research groups with lower budgets. The project also has a discussion forum where the community can ask questions, discuss issues, provide technical support, and share experiences. Because users have complete access to the hardware design files, they can also maintain and repair their equipment independently, rather than having to rely on the original manufacturer who has an incentive to sell new units instead of repairing existing ones. Any knowledge about repair and maintenance can also be freely shared with the community further helping other users, without expensive support contracts or infringing on intellectual property restrictions. This is exemplified by the Appropedia Foundation, an online community where sustainability researchers share designs and provide mutual help on the repair and maintenance of open source hardware . Adapting to novel contexts Off-the-shelf proprietary technology is unlikely to fit every application well. Ecologists, in particular, may need specific hardware properties to accommodate unique environments or species. However, modifying devices to meet research needs is difficult with closed source hardware, because its designs are not shared and modifications are not permitted. In the case of open source hardware, however, modifications can be added to an existing design and even be published as a new version that can then be freely manufactured and used by future researchers. OpenFlexure exemplifies this advantage. It is an open source, low-cost, lab-grade microscope, originally developed for microscopy in biomedical research . Its design has since been adapted to many other contexts. For example, researchers trialling OpenFlexure for orchid bee identification in Panamanian rainforests found the device was not suited for their use case, which does not require high magnification but does need robustness under field conditions. In response, the researchers adapted OpenFlexure into a dissection microscope that is easy to use and repair in the field. At the time of writing, the first version of this design has been completed, and feedback from field trials is being incorporated into the next version . Improving the quality and transparency of research Closed source hardware is opaque, preventing researchers from fully understanding how the equipment operates. This makes identifying systematic errors difficult, especially if the manufacturer has a monopoly on the technology so that users have no alternatives for comparison. This problematic “black box” effect of closed source devices is exemplified by CTDs, an oceanographic instrument that measures salinity, temperature, and depth. These three variables are essential for almost all marine scientific studies. Commonly-used closed source CTDs are not only expensive (at least several thousand USD), but also require costly maintenance services. In recent years, the OpenCTD was developed as an open source CTD for coastal oceanographic research , along with openly published calibration procedures. Notably, in addition to making this technology more accessible, the OpenCTD team identified a systemic problem of handheld proprietary CTDs being out of calibration but remaining in field use (Thaler, pers comms). This error remained undetected for years until a comparison could be made with OpenCTD devices, and underscores the crucial role for open source hardware to improve research quality and transparency. Discussion Open source hardware and software enshrine the freedoms to study, reproduce, modify, and distribute them without restrictions. They enable equitable access to technology, allowing context-relevant and cost-effective adaptations with the potential to improve research quality and transparency. The examples we used to illustrate these benefits are part of a growing movement, which seeks to adopt open source hardware in ecology and conservation research . We end this opinion article with suggestions for publishing open source hardware in a reproducible way and reforming institutional policies to encourage its development. Publishing open source hardware In recent years, best practices have emerged to ease the publication and reproducibility of open source hardware in scientific research. For example, the Open Know-How specification defines structured metadata to accompany hardware designs, such as requiring a bill of materials (BOM) or listing key contact persons. This metadata is stored in a YAML-formatted file, and is published with design files in a public repository (e.g. platforms such as GitLab or GitHub) similar to current best practice for software. Crucially, Open Know-How specifies that hardware designs should be published with open source licenses, the most popular of which are the three CERN Open Hardware licenses. Once hardware designs are published, detailed information about their fabrication and use can be published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Open Hardware or HardwareX. A variety of hardware with biodiversity applications has been published this way, from a camera trap for benthic marine organisms to a strain gauge for measuring wind damage to trees . In support of these academic journals is the DIN SPEC 3105 standard , which defines guidelines for effective peer review of hardware documentation and reproducibility. Reforming institutional policy to encourage open source hardware Research institutions and funding bodies should support open source hardware as a key pillar of open science, as recognized in the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Actionable policy guidance has been developed for universities , including embedding open source hardware in open science training; creating career pathways for developing open source hardware; and developing mechanisms to monitor adoption. A common misconception is that open source hardware cannot be commercially viable. But in actuality, open source hardware allows commercialization and multiple profitable open hardware business models have already been demonstrated. Successful examples from biology research include IORodeo (a producer of laboratory analytical equipment), NinjaPCR (a seller of digital real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) machines), or the Arribada initiative (a consultancy for biodiversity research and developer of hardware kits for biologging and satellite tracking). In light of these successes, university technology transfer offices (TTOs) should update their policies to support open source hardware , including using its development as a way to achieve sustainable development goals . Conclusion The urgency of the biodiversity crisis is connected to technological waste and global inequalities . As biodiversity researchers, we have an ethical imperative to adopt open source hardware as part of the solution. In addition, with growing popular interest in biodiversity conservation , the use of open source hardware (and software) would signal transparency and accountability that strengthens public trust in science. In this opinion piece, we highlighted the progress that open source hardware can enable for ecology research. Lastly, we note that biodiversity researchers are not the only ones who would benefit from open source hardware. Anyone considering open source hardware for their research could engage with global practitioner communities, including the Gathering for Open Science Hardware, Open Science Hardware Foundation, Internet of Production Alliance, or the Open Source Hardware Association. They collectively sustain ongoing discourse on the development and use of open source hardware, and reflect a growing recognition for its role in scientific research.

Keywords: open source hardware, open source, Conservation technology, Open Science, open research, Open technology, Biodiversity

Received: 01 Jan 2024; Accepted: 17 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Hsing, Johns and Matthes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Pen-Yuan Hsing, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

People also looked at

The U.S. and China are leading the world in AI innovation–but the U.K. can punch above its weight. Here’s how

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman meet at the AI Safety Summit hosted by the U.K. in November.

Eight years ago, I moved from Denmark to the U.K. because I believed London was the best city in Europe for founders to start technology companies. I still think that’s true today: We have a thriving academic community, a strong tech talent and investment capital pool, and a government that recognizes the transformative power of AI.

Now more than ever, the U.K. has a real opportunity to be a world leader in the development and adoption of artificial intelligence. The National AI Strategy and the £1 billion AI Sector Deal have been positive signs. However, if we want to remain competitive with the United States and China, the U.K. government must consider updating its industrial strategy to better support British AI startups.

On Apr. 16, I had the pleasure of speaking in front of the U.K. Parliament’s Business and Trade Committee about how industrial policy can be used to build on the U.K.’s strengths and competitive advantages. Here are three key measures I highlighted to the committee that could turbocharge the UK’s AI industry.

Provide affordable access to computing power through GPU credits or cloud resources

Training cutting-edge AI models requires immense processing power in the form of high-performance GPUs. For example, it took 3 million GPU hours for an Nvidia A100 processor to train Meta’s Llama 2 models. Renting the equivalent cloud compute capacity of that would cost about 15 to 20 million dollars today, not to mention the storage and operational costs added on top. These are eye-watering amounts which can be prohibitive for most startups, even those like Synthesia who’ve achieved unicorn status.

The government could offer credits or subsidized rates for U.K. AI companies to access world-class cloud computing resources. However, it’s important to note that this access should not be via new supercomputers or national data centers as no one will use them. Instead, it needs to be made easy for any startup, through existing cloud providers such as Microsoft, Google, or AWS. India , Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates are already taking this approach, recognizing the value of access to hardware for their AI ecosystems.

Open up public datasets for research and development

Data is the fuel that powers large AI models. The U.K. has a wealth of public data assets across domains like healthcare, transportation, and climate that could be opened up for startups and researchers to build powerful AI applications that benefit the public good.

Properly anonymized, these datasets are a competitive advantage the U.K. should leverage. For example, the NHS in England has recently faced the worst waiting times on record for cancer patients . There are several promising AI startups developing tools for cancer imaging and diagnostics and computational modelling for drug design and predictive therapies–access to anonymized healthcare data could drastically improve the accuracy of their machine learning models, leading to better resource allocation in hospitals or faster patient diagnosis and care.

Mandate AI adoption across public services to create a market

If the U.K. government committed to adopting AI across domains like healthcare delivery, education or smart city operations, it would create a built-in market and use cases for startups to build innovative solutions. This would spur further investment and create a virtuous cycle of AI growth and public impact.

In the U.S., President Biden ordered all federal agencies to name chief AI officers to oversee the federal government’s development and adoption of AI. The U.K. government could go further and set specific goals and metrics for AI use inside its departments, creating the kind of permanent and consistent demand that would motivate the private and public sectors to collaborate more efficiently.

To its credit, the U.K. government has taken a balanced and pragmatic approach to AI to date, including proposing regulation focused on addressing real-world risks and encouraging socially beneficial innovation. Rather than preemptively banning certain uses of AI or getting lost in pointless debates around existential risks, the U.K.’s AI regulatory proposals aim to develop guardrails and best practices in areas such as transparency, human oversight, and ethical considerations.

This measured stance that embraces both innovation and responsible development is prudent. It recognizes that AI is too powerful an opportunity to squander with overly blunt restrictions. At the same time, proactive governance is needed to build trust and ensure AI systems remain aligned with our existing laws and ethical values.

Every day, I’m fortunate to speak to business leaders around the world, from small business owners to Fortune 100 executives, who are thinking about deploying AI at scale in their organizations. We all agree that AI will fundamentally transform every industry and sector of the economy, from healthcare and scientific research to transportation, manufacturing, and education. This in turn will fuel economic growth, create new jobs, and improve the standard of living for nations at the forefront of the global AI revolution.

By investing in affordable computing power, opening up data assets, and creating a robust market for AI services, the U.K. can establish itself as a true AI superpower. With balanced regulation and ecosystem support, Britain’s AI startups and entrepreneurs can cement the U.K.’s status as a global leader in this transformative technology.

Victor Riparbelli is the CEO and co-founder of Synthesia.

More must-read commentary published by Fortune :

Union leaders: Larry Fink is right about the retirement crisis Americans are facing–but he can’t tell the truth about the failure of the ‘401(k) revolution’
We analyzed 46 years of consumer sentiment data–and found that today’s ‘vibecession’ is just men starting to feel as bad about the economy as women historically have
90% of homebuyers have historically opted to work with a real estate agent or broker. Here’s why that’s unlikely to change, according to the National Association of Realtors
Intel CEO : ‘Our goal is to have at least 50% of the world’s advanced semiconductors produced in the U.S. and Europe by the end of the decade’

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune .

Latest in Commentary

0 minutes ago

Finns celebrate Vappu, the Finnish May Day in Helsinki, Finland on May 1, 2023.

Finland passed its flexible work act in 1996–and it may partly explain why it’s the happiest nation

The European Space Agency has launched a competition for the replacement of its flagship Arianne 6 rocket.

A new space race is taking shape as sovereign and newer satellites compete for world domination

Europe's Nutri-Score labels simplify the descriptions of the overall nutritional value of food products. The system rates foods using a letter from A (best) to E (worst) as well as colors from green to red.

American consumers deserve the same food labeling standards as Europeans

A visitor to the Leopold Museum in Vienna looks at a painting by Austrian expressionist painter Egon Schiele on Feb. 2. The recent restitution of several Nazi-plundered works by Austrian painter Egon Schiele to the heirs of the Jewish owner, has shone a spotlight on Austria's most prestigious museum collections. The descendants of Fritz Gruenbaum, an Austrian Jewish cabaret performer killed in the Holocaust, are pursuing 12 Schiele pieces housed in Viennese museums.

We help Holocaust victims and their heirs recover Nazi-looted art. Here’s how the lessons we’ve learned can help Ukraine reclaim its cultural property stolen by Russia

Policemen stand guard at the trial of former Ukrainian military commissar Yevhen Borysov in July.

Ukraine owes it to itself and to the West to stem corruption

Exclusive: Mercedes becomes the first automaker to sell autonomous cars in the U.S. that don’t come with a requirement that drivers watch the road

JCPenney expects to return half a billion dollars to customers this year

Sundar Pichai fires 28 Google workers for staging sit-in protest over $1.2 billion Israeli contract on company property

Canada will soak the rich with capital gains tax jump to raise billions for housing in market where Gen Z can’t catch a break

Luxury brands have a new headache in China: Stingy shoppers are returning their goods, erasing up to 75% of their sales value

Gen Z favorite Dr. Martens is struggling as its CEO steps down—and it might be because the shoes last too long

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Paediatr Child Health
v.6(5); May-Jun 2001

Understanding adoption: A developmental approach

As children grow up, they develop a positive sense of their identity, a sense of psychosocial well-being ( 1 ). They gradually develop a self-concept (how they see themselves) and self-esteem (how much they like what they see) ( 2 ). Ultimately, they learn to be comfortable with themselves. Adoption may make normal childhood issues of attachment, loss and self-image ( 2 ) even more complex. Adopted children must come to terms with and integrate both their birth and adoptive families.

Children who were adopted as infants are affected by the adoption throughout their lives. Children adopted later in life come to understand adoption during a different developmental stage. Those who have experienced trauma or neglect may remember such experiences, which further complicates their self-image ( 1 ). Transracial, crosscultural and special needs issues may also affect a child’s adoption experience ( 2 , 3 ). All adopted children grieve the loss of their biological family, their heritage and their culture to some extent ( 4 ). Adoptive parents can facilitate and assist this natural grieving process by being comfortable with using adoption language (eg, birth parents and birth family) and discussing adoption issues ( 5 ).

The present statement reviews how children gain an understanding of adoption as they grow from infancy through adolescence. Specific issues relevant to transracial adoptions are beyond the scope of this statement and will not be addressed.

INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

During infancy and early childhood, a child attaches to and bonds with the primary care-giver. Prenatal issues, such as the length of gestation, the mother’s use of drugs or alcohol, and genetic vulnerabilities, may, ultimately, affect a child’s ability to adjust. The temperament of everyone involved also plays a role.

As a child approaches preschool age, he or she develops magical thinking, that is, the world of fantasy is used to explain that which he or she cannot comprehend. The child does not understand reproduction, and must first understand that he or she had a birth mother and was born the same way as other children ( 2 , 5 ). Even though a child as young as three years of age may repeat his or her adoption story, the child does not comprehend it ( 3 , 5 ). The child must first grasp the concept of time and space, which usually occurs at age four to five years, to see that some events occurred in the past, even though he or she does not remember them. The child must understand that places and people exist outside of his or her immediate environment.

Telling a child his or her adoption story at this early age may help parents to become comfortable with the language of adoption and the child’s birth story. Children need to know that they were adopted. Parents’ openness and degree of comfort create an environment that is conducive to a child asking questions about his or her adoption ( 3 ).

SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN

Operational thinking, causality and logical planning begin to emerge in the school-aged child. The child is trying to understand and to master the world in which he or she lives. The child is a problem solver. He or she realizes that most other children are living with at least one other biological relative ( 6 ). It is the first time that the child sees himself or herself as being different from other children. The child may struggle with the meaning of being adopted, and may experience feelings of loss and sadness ( 1 , 7 ). He or she begins to see the flip side of the adoption story and may wonder what was wrong with him or her; why did the birth mother place him or her up for adoption? The child may feel abandoned and angry ( 1 , 2 ). It is normal to see aggression, angry behaviour, withdrawal or sadness and self-image problems ( 1 , 8 ) among adopted children at this age. The child attempts to reformulate the parts of his or her story that are hard to understand and to compensate for emotions that are painful ( 2 ). As a result, daydreaming is very common among adopted children who are working through complex identity issues ( 5 , 7 ).

Control may be an issue. A child may believe that he or she has had no control over losing one family and being placed with another. The child may need to have reassurance about day to day activities or may require repeated explanations about simple changes in the family’s routine ( 5 ). Transitions may be particularly difficult. The child may have an outright fear of abandonment, difficulty falling asleep and, even, kidnapping nightmares ( 1 ).

It is helpful to explain that the birth mother made a loving choice by placing the child up for adoption, that she had a plan for his or her future. The child may need to hear this statement repeatedly. There is some similarity between the symptoms of grief and symptoms associated with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; care givers must be wary not to label a child with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder when, in fact, the child’s behaviour is consistent with a normal grieving process ( 9 ). A parent’s patience and understanding are crucial at this point of an adopted child’s life. Parents may be pro-active by educating school personnel about the natural grieving issues related to adoption that their child is experiencing.

ADOLESCENCE

The adolescent’s primary developmental task is to establish an identity while actively seeking independence and separation from family ( 2 ). The adopted adolescent needs to make sense of both sets of parents, and this may cause a sense of divided loyalties and conflict ( 7 ). In early adolescence, the loss of childhood itself is a significant issue. The adopted adolescent has already experienced loss, making the transition to adolescence even more complicated ( 1 , 7 ). This period of development may be difficult and confusing. Adolescents may experience shame and loss of self-esteem, particularly because society’s image of birth parents is often negative ( 2 ).

Adopted adolescents will want to know details about their genetic history and how they are unique. They will reflect on themselves and their adoptive family to determine similarities and differences. They will attempt to ascertain where they belong and where they came from ( 7 ). All adolescents may have a natural reticence about talking to their parents, and adopted adolescents may not share questions about their origins with their parents. They may keep their reflections to themselves. Adopted adolescents’ search for information about themselves is very normal, and parents should not see this as a threat. Instead, parents’ willingness to accept their child’s dual heritage of biology and environment will help their child to accept that reality ( 7 ).

CONCLUSIONS

Children’s interest in adoption varies throughout the developmental stages of childhood and adolescence. As children progress from one stage to another, they gain new cognitive abilities and psychosocial structures. They look at adoption differently and, often, have more concerns or questions. Their questions may diminish until a new cognitive and psychosocial level is reached. Parents can facilitate this developmental process by being knowledgeable and supportive, and by continuing to retell their child his or her adoption story. The grief that their child experiences is real and should not be denied or avoided. Support from knowledgeable health care providers is invaluable in helping adoptive parents and their child. Although this statement has addressed common issues that relate to a child’s perception of adoption, a psychological or psychiatric referral is indicated if the child suffers from depression, or has symptoms that affect his or her day-to-day functioning. Paediatricians and other professionals who care for children should provide anticipatory guidance by counselling parents of adopted children about relevant issues that concern their child’s understanding of his or her adoption.

Good, common sense resources are available to parents. Lois Melina’s Making Sense of Adoption: A Parent’s Guide ( 5 ) is an excellent, practical source of adoption information for parents. Joyce Maguire Pavao’s The Family of Adoption ( 7 ) looks at the entire family’s adoption experience throughout the family life cycle. Also, “Talking to children about their adoption: When to start, what to say, what to expect”, is a brief, yet informative, article for parents that was published in the Adopted Child newsletter ( 6 ).

COMMUNITY PAEDIATRICS COMMITTEE

Members: Drs Cecilia Baxter, Edmonton, Alberta; Fabian P Gorodzinsky, London, Ontario; Denis Leduc, Montréal, Québec (chair); Paul Munk, Toronto, Ontario (director responsible); Peter Noonan, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Sandra Woods, Val-d’Or, Québec;

Consultant: Dr Linda Spigelblatt, Montréal, Québec

Liaison: Dr Joseph Telch, Unionville, Ontario (Canadian Paediatric Society, Community Paediatrics Section)

Principal author : Dr Cecilia Baxter, Edmonton, Alberta

The recommendations in this statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

Investment Vehicles

Commingled Funds
Mutual Funds

Investment Options

Alternatives
Beta Strategies
Fixed Income
Global Liquidity
Multi-Asset Solutions

Capabilities & Solutions

Global Insurance Solutions
Liability-Driven Investing
Pension Strategy & Analytics
Outsourced CIO
Retirement Plan Solutions
Sustainable investing

Market Insights

Market Insights Overview
Eye on the Market
Guide to the Markets
Guide to China
Guide to Alternatives
Market Updates
7 Essentials of ESG

Portfolio Insights

Portfolio Insights Overview
Asset Class Views
DB Insights
Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions
Portfolio Strategy
Strategic Investment Advisory Group
Public Pension Plan insights

Retirement Insights

Retirement Insights Overview
Guide to Retirement
Defined Contribution
Center for Investment Excellence Podcasts
Events & Webcasts
Insights App
Taft-Hartley
Market Response Center
NEW: Morgan Institutional
Artificial Intelligence
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
How we invest
Trusted Asset Manager
Our Leadership Team

Decoding AI adoption: Unveiling insights for future growth

The release of Open AI’s ChatGPT to the public in November 2022 has changed the trajectory of AI’s adoption.

As ChatGPT became the fastest-growing consumer application in history, the large language model (LLM) that powers it caught the attention of enterprises and turned AI adoption into a B2C2B 1 – business to consumer to business – journey.

AI is now a top C-suite priority, creating a massive new area of spending across AI infrastructure and applications. In fact, while enterprises largely reduced software spending in 2023, generative AI defied this trend.

The tech stack around the space has also evolved considerably, thanks to robust fundraising for startups and established technology companies plunging billions into R&D to strengthen their AI offerings.

However, the dizzying array of tools and techniques now available to develop an LLM architecture obfuscates how enterprises actually make purchasing decisions.

Understanding the multiple options available to CTOs and how they think about incorporating LLMs into their organizations is critical to envisioning how the AI ecosystem might grow and evolve. This landscape will remain complex for some time, but our conversations with practitioners clarify a framework for thinking about emerging corporate access patterns.

V1 to VF: Three typical ways to access LLMs

Three general models of how companies access LLMs have emerged. In order of increasing complexity, these are:

Use off-the-shelf applications or call APIs provided by standalone foundation model vendors (e.g. OpenAI or Cohere)
Pursue a more involved relationship with standalone vendors or incumbent tech companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Databricks, Snowflake)
Develop a self-hosted model

Generally, enterprises opt for the simplest method that accomplishes the goals they set out to achieve with LLMs. However, further considerations, such as privacy, cost, vendor onboarding and existing tech stacks can change the calculation. The popularity of each access model will ultimately determine the main beneficiaries of enterprise investment in AI and machine learning (ML).

V1: Getting started with off-the-shelf applications

The simplest access models are off-the-shelf applications or direct APIs through LLM providers. Enterprises utilize LLMs by paying per token (typically a small chunk of text – four English characters according to OpenAI) without having to manage their own infrastructure. Architecturally, this model is as straightforward as embedding ChatGPT to field open-ended questions from customers (think Expedia) or inserting the logic of an LLM behind an enterprise’s own front-end interface to handle searches.

Powering existing applications with the logic of LLMs often greatly improves performance vs. existing substitutes (when have you found a website’s FAQ section more helpful than ChatGPT?), making this path ideal for experimentation and getting to “version 1” of an LLM implementation. Standalone foundation model vendors, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere and AI21, all offer easy-to-use solutions in this category.

The pay-per-token model is lucrative for LLM providers. For example, OpenAI’s GPT4 can cost around $30 per 1 million input tokens and $60 per 1 million output tokens, quickly escalating costs for customers with heavy usage. Consider this example: a chat bot on a travel app like Expedia receives thousands of customer queries per day, and queries typically consist of several tokens. If we assume Expedia’s 112 million monthly unique visitors ask one question per month such as, “What would be a good itinerary for a one-week trip to the Amalfi Coast?” and receive a detailed response (1,697 characters long in our test), we arrive at nearly $35 million/year spend across Expedia’s user base. It’s easy to see this cost exploding with increased usage. Therefore, enterprises must configure their generative AI apps carefully – identifying common questions and routing users to existing content vs. generating entirely new content for each query, shortening potential inputs and outputs and optimizing responses to reduce follow-up questions.

In summary, common considerations with using off-the-shelf models via API include:

Privacy : Enterprises preferring to retain their proprietary data often opt to host models within their existing cloud infrastructure. Companies in the financial and medical industries, in particular, follow this path.

Cost : Companies must track the throughput of their LLM-based applications and ensure the volume of tokens used is manageable. At some point, self-hosting an open-source model is significantly cheaper than paying by token or for committed volumes with a closed-source model.

Specialization : Using general models in specific domains like financial markets or technology can lead to undesirable and inaccurate outputs.

For enterprises with straightforward, low-volume use cases – such as basic customer chatbots or enterprise search – the off-the-shelf model makes sense; this will be the case for countless companies, especially in the mid-market and long tail of the Fortune 2000. Enterprises with more robust needs, for example a search tool that understands nuances of pharmaceuticals, or constraints, such as strict data retention rules, will find this type of access too limited, pushing them to the next option.

V2: Upgrading to AI suites

After an enterprise gets its LLM-powered application off of the ground, it may seek some controls – privacy guarantees, negotiated pricing and handholding through customization of proprietary data. These “V2” LLM-based applications are more deeply integrated, somewhat customized and provide additional value vs. off-the-shelf options.

Players like OpenAI and Cohere are winning large enterprise contracts for V2 access, but incumbent tech companies – namely large cloud service providers (CSPs), such as Azure OpenAI Service, Google Vertex AI and AWS Bedrock – are rushing to seize on the LLM opportunity with several tailwinds behind them: captive customer bases and committed spend, compliance and security guarantees and vast product suites complementing LLMs. In industries with legacy tech stacks and stringent regulatory oversight, CSPs’ suites are especially enticing. For example, hospital software provider Epic announced a sprawling generative AI product suite built on top of Azure OpenAI Service.

Databricks and Snowflake are also betting that their proximity to enterprises’ data will naturally position them to capture burgeoning AI spend. Databricks took this a step further with is release of DBRX – its open-source, general-purpose LLM. The company pitches its Mosaic AI Foundation Model product as the ideal managed solution for deploying DBRX: customers can privately host DBRX, work with Databricks to deploy DBRX on their own hardware and fine-tune the model on their own data.

Microsoft’s OpenAI Service offers an interesting look into how companies are accessing generative AI. Microsoft maintains a close relationship with OpenAI, which has a standalone product and fine-tuning capabilities accessible via API. Practitioners highlight an emerging pattern: companies experiment on OpenAI’s platform then shift to Microsoft’s Azure OpenAI Service when going to production.

Startups in the space face a difficult decision – they need to meet customers where they are, but potentially lose their branding power and pricing leverage when slotted alongside several other models within a broader marketplace. Some enterprises also wish to avoid being locked into a specific model and preserve optionality. Additionally, the tech majors sometimes prioritize their own models above third-party models, further alienating the standalone LLM vendors. Expect startups – Anthropic, Cohere, AI21 and others – to deepen partnerships with incumbents while building up their own product suites and ecosystems.

VF: Self-hosting LLMs

Optimizing for cost, privacy and cybersecurity needs and specialization, enterprises may decide to host models themselves. In this paradigm, enterprises can choose an open-source model, such as Llama 2, and deploy it on their own infrastructure. Although self-hosting obviates spend on a proprietary model, not every enterprise is up to the task of managing its own infrastructure or customizing a model with its own data. Longer term, we expect more enterprises to pursue this route as they differentiate their LLM-powered applications and get to the final version (VF). Look for startups hosting open-source models (HuggingFace) and those reducing the barriers of customization (Weights & Biases, Comet, Galileo) to power this leg of the enterprise LLM journey.

Tracking enterprise access patterns

New LLM vendors are growing their enterprise presence and product suites but they must navigate competing offerings from incumbent tech companies – often betting on both their standalone products and selling through services like AWS Bedrock (which offer several models in one place). Enterprises often initially follow the path of least resistance, experimenting with models directly through the foundation model vendors’ APIs. Over time, they may turn them into products within the comfort of a larger suite (OpenAI, Azure OpenAI or Databricks) or via a self-hosted solution. Expect large, highly regulated enterprises to choose products from the tech majors and smaller and/or less-regulated companies to engage directly with standalone LLM vendors. The savviest customers will opt to self-host.

AI has been solidified as a top C-suite priority and isn’t going anywhere. Enterprises will continue to incorporate LLMs into their organizations and must be selective as they develop LLM architecture with the backdrop of a growing AI ecosystem. This incorporation of AI creates a massive new era of spending across AI infrastructure and applications expected to exceed $1.8 trillion 2 by 2030.

1 Janelle Teng at BVP coined this phrase.

2 grand view research., 09x3241504133025.

IMAGES

Research on Open Adoption
Research on Open Adoption
Private Adoption Agency in TX
The Benefits of Open Adoption
Adoption 101: What is Open Adoption? [Infographic]
Open Adoption Definition

COMMENTS

10 Things that Scientific Research Says about Open Adoption
Here are 10 important facts and statistics about open adoption and its benefits for everyone in the adoption triad: 1. Today, closed adoptions are all but extinct; it's estimated that only 5 percent of modern adoptions are closed. 2. That means that 95 percent of today's adoptions involve some level of openness, whether they are mediated ...
Open Adoption
Open adoption is not shared parenting. Parental rights of the birth family are terminated, and the adoptive parents are the legal parents and the ones responsible for the care of the child who has been adopted. Open adoption was not always so commonplace, however. For much of the 20 th century, most private, unrelated adoptive placements were ...
Growing up in Open Adoption: Young Adults' Perspectives
Abstract. Most adoption agencies today allow a child's biological and adoptive families to know one another and maintain contact. This move toward openness instead of secrecy presents opportunities and challenges. The study reported here explores young adult adoptees' reactions to growing up in open adoptions.
Bridging the Divide: Openness in Adoption and Post-adoption
The Existing Empirical Evidence. Although researchers have begun to examine empirically the benefits and consequences of open adoption (e.g., Berry, 1993; Berry, Dylla, Barth, & Needell, 1998; Grotevant et al., 1994; Von Korff, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2006), data remain scarce and the existing research has often yielded inconsistent results.For example, Blanton and Deschner (1990) reported that ...
PDF Open Adoption: Rethinking Family
Open Adoption RUDD ADOPTION RESEARCH PROGRAM at UMASS AMHERST • THE FUTURE OF ADOPTION: BEYOND SAFETY TO WELL-BEING 3 International Adoptions Although much less is known about contact in international adoptions, it is becoming more common. A number of factors add complexity to the desire for contact, including cultural ...
Risks and Benefits of Open Adoption
Abstract. Open adoption has both strong critics and staunch supporters. Most of the criticism and support is based on the philosophical or legal rights of members of the adoption. triangle, but empirical evidence to support either position is sparse. This article reviews the arguments for and against openness, and the empirical evidence that.
Open vs. Closed Adoptions: A Post Adoption Mental Health Perspective
Research on the Lifelong Impact of Open Adoption The Donaldson Institute published a study in 2012 entitled "Openness in Adoption: From Secrecy and Stigma to Knowledge and Connections." The authors estimate that in 2012, only about 5% of domestic adoptions were closed adoptions.
Adoption, Communication, and Family Networks: Current Research and
Open adoption practices have become normative in domestic adoption (H. D. Grotevant, Citation 2020). ... Adoption research tends to focus on adoptive parents' experiences (Colaner & Horstman, Citation 2021). More research is needed to give voice to birth family experiences, particularly birth father experiences, which are largely ...
Open Adoption: Research Finds No Confusion for Adopted Kids
Open Adoption: Research Finds No Confusion for Adopted Kids. When Adoption Connection opened its doors over 30 years ago, open adoption was starting to blossom, but still in its infancy. As one of the first adoption agencies focused on open adoption, we found ourselves working to correct three common misperceptions, many of which are still ...
Improving Open Adoptions
Improving Open Adoptions. Adoption Advocate No. 174 - This article covers what openness means in the context of adoption and how adoptive parents can, through openness, help adoptees integrate and heal. Lori Holden, adoptive parent, author, speaker, and podcaster, proposes three shifts adoptive parents can make—to better focus on what really ...
PDF Adoptive parents' perceptions of, and comfort with, open adoption
1,396 children placed for adoption in 1988 to 1989 in Califomia, regarding their feelings about and practice of openness in adoption. This is a relatively large sample compared with most research on open adoption. Researchers hoped to leam about correlates of openness in adoption and predictors of comfort with openness.
Open adoption: a review of the literature with recommendations to
As openness in adoption is still in its infancy, there has not been much systematic research on open adoption. This practice involves anything from sharing non-identifying information through an intermediary to regular face-to-face fully identifying information-sharing and contact between all members of the adoption triangle - the birthparent/s, the adoptive parents and the adoptees.
Attachment across the Lifespan: Insights from Adoptive Families
Research with adoptive families offers novel insights into longstanding questions about the significance of attachment across the lifespan. We illustrate this by reviewing adoption research addressing two of attachment theory's central ideas. First, studies of children who were adopted after experiencing severe adversity offer powerful tests ...
Satisfaction and Psychological Outcomes Among Birth Mothers
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between birth mothers' satisfaction and whether they had an open or closed adoption. The independent variable was open vs. closed adoption. The result was found to be statistically significant, F(1,140) = 26.62, p < .001.
Research on Open Adoption
Research on open adoption is not new. The most thorough studies were conducted in the 1980s and '90s. These were longitudinal studies that had amazing, almost identical results. A longitudinal study is a type of research that observes the same data in a repeated fashion. In these cases, adoptive parents were asked to respond to researchers ...
Review: Adoption research: Trends, topics, outcomes
The current article provides a review of adoption research since its inception as a field of study. Three historical trends in adoption research are identified: the first focusing on risk in adoption and identifying adoptee—nonadoptee differences in adjustment; the second examining the capacity of adopted children to recover from early adversity; and the third focusing on biological ...
Literature Review of the Impact of Open Adoption on the Adoptee
Impact of Openness in Adoption on Adoptees. This is a critical literature review of the empirical research about the impact of openness in adoption on adoptees placed in voluntary adoptions as infants. The most recent comprehensive literature review on this topic completed in 2001, covered research from 1990 to 1999 (Haugaard, Moed & West).
Open Adoption-Impact on Adoptee, Birth Parent, & Adoptive Parent
The Minnesota / Texas Adoption Research Project (MTARP) is a longitudinal adoption research study that focuses on how open adoption affects adopted children, birth mothers, and adoptive parents. It was national in scope and followed participants for over 20 years. It is the largest adoption study of its type involving over 720 individuals (190 adoptive families and 169 birth mothers).
Research on Open Adoption
Little research has been done on the effect of closed adoption on birth parents. However, those birth parents who have joined studies regarding open adoption also report high self-esteem and satisfaction with their choices. These studies, and many others like them, show that open adoption offers advantages that closed adoptions do not.
Research on Open Adoption
Research on open adoption began as early as the 1970s. Through that time, closed adoptions were more common. As the children grew, they wanted to meet their birth parents.They also wanted to find ways to change the system so that more children and birth mothers could know one another even after the adoption was completed.
(PDF) Review: Adoption research: Trends, topics, outcomes
Three historical trends in adoption. research are identified: the first focusing on risk in adoption and identifying adoptee-nonadoptee differences in adjustment; the second. examining the ...
Adoption openness and adoption stigma: a retrospective study of adult
Introduction. Adoption is one of the most significant childcare institutions, and its main aim is to place children in need of safety and shelter in a family environment (Lewis and Brady 2018).Thus, adoption is a legal childcare option supplying children in need with a stable family environment and has been practiced globally for a long period of time (Palacios and Brodzinsky 2010).
Open Adoption Research Paper
The empirical evidence from studies and research indicates that open adoption contributes to improved psychological well-being for adoptees, as they tend to exhibit higher self-esteem, lower identity confusion, and reduced rates of mental health issues compared to those in closed adoptions (Grotevant and McRoy 1998; Berge et al. 2006).
What You Need to Know About Open Adoption
What is meant by the term "open adoption"?Contact vs. openness.What open adoption is not:Co-parentingA courtesy to birth parentsConfusing to the kidsAbout/for the parentsWhat are some of the challenges of open adoption from the birth parents' perspective?Lack of understanding of what open adoption means when they place their child.Renewed ...
What the data says about abortion in the U.S.
The CDC says that in 2021, there were 11.6 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. (That figure excludes data from California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.) Like Guttmacher's data, the CDC's figures also suggest a general decline in the abortion rate over time.
Open source technology boosts conservation and biodiversity research
In this opinion article, we argue for wider recognition and adoption of open source hardware in biodiversity research. Among other benefits, we provide examples demonstrating how open source hardware can: reduce upfront and maintenance costs; enable adapting to novel contexts; and improve research quality and transparency.
The U.S. and China are leading the world in AI innovation ...
Open up public datasets for research and development. Data is the fuel that powers large AI models. The U.K. has a wealth of public data assets across domains like healthcare, transportation, and ...
Understanding adoption: A developmental approach
Adoption may make normal childhood issues of attachment, loss and self-image even more complex. Adopted children must come to terms with and integrate both their birth and adoptive families. Children who were adopted as infants are affected by the adoption throughout their lives. Children adopted later in life come to understand adoption during ...
Decoding AI adoption: Unveiling insights for future growth
The release of Open AI's ChatGPT to the public in November 2022 has changed the trajectory of AI's adoption. As ChatGPT became the fastest-growing consumer application in history, the large language model (LLM) that powers it caught the attention of enterprises and turned AI adoption into a B2C2B 1 - business to consumer to business ...

10 Things that Scientific Research Says about Open Adoption

To learn more about the benefits of open adoption and how it works with American Adoptions, call 1-800-ADOPTION now to speak with an adoption specialist.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Open vs. Closed Adoptions: A Post Adoption Mental Health Perspective

BPAR’s Experience with Open and Closed Adoptions

Research on the Lifelong Impact of Open Adoption

Challenges and Benefits of Open Adoptions

Conclusions About How to Navigate an Open Adoption

About Erica Kramer, MSW

Open Adoption: Research Finds No Confusion for Adopted Kids

Related Posts

Needing Someone Who Will Listen

Adoption and Secondary Infertility

San Francisco

Marin County

Quick Links

Connect with Us

Open adoption: a review of the literature with recommendations to adoption practitioners

Find adoption answers, support, training, or professional resources

Openness in Adoptions: Satisfaction and Psychological Outcomes Among Birth Mothers

Literature Review

Demographic Information of Participants

Data Analysis

Limitations

Future Research

Related Resources

I Spy Helpful Help

The Value of Adoptee Voices

Prenatal Stress, Preverbal Trauma, and Developmental Trajectories

The National Training and Development Curriculum (NTDC)

Start typing & press 'enter'

Research on Open Adoption

Literature Review of the Impact of Open Adoption on the Adoptee

Recent Posts

Open Adoption- Impact on Adoptees, Birth Mothers, & Adoptive Parents

About Author

Expert-Based Training for Parents and Professionals

Research on Open Adoption

Research on Open Adoption

Get More Info Now

Mardie Caldwell

Pin It on Pinterest

Open Adoption Research Paper

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

II. Literature Review

Historical Context of Adoption Practices

Emergence of Open Adoption

Benefits of Open Adoption

Enhanced Identity Development

Strengthened Birth and Adoptive Family Relationships

Challenges of Open Adoption

Managing Boundaries and Communication

Impact on Birth Parents’ and Adoptive Parents’ Relationships

Theoretical Frameworks in the Study of Open Adoption

III. Methodology

Research Design (Qualitative/Quantitative)

Data Collection Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Case Studies, etc.)

Sampling Procedures

Data Analysis Techniques

Ethical Considerations

IV. Benefits of Open Adoption

Evidence from Studies and Research

Personal Stories and Testimonials

Impact on Adoptees’ Self-esteem and Self-concept

Case Studies Demonstrating Positive Outcomes

Real-life Examples of Successful Open Adoption Relationships

Challenges Faced and Strategies for Maintaining Relationships

V. Challenges of Open Adoption

Legal Aspects and Policies

Strategies for Healthy Communication

Case Studies Illustrating Boundary Challenges

Studies on the Effects of Open Adoption on Relationships

Coping Mechanisms for Both Birth and Adoptive Parents

VI. Discussion

Summarize the Key Findings Regarding the Benefits and Challenges of Open Adoption

Compare and Contrast the Perspectives of Different Stakeholders

Discuss the Implications of These Findings for Adoption Policies and Practices

VII. Conclusion

Reiterate the Main Findings of the Study

Reflect on the Broader Implications of Open Adoption for Society