This is a difficult area - the thing is if black adoptors are not coming forward to adopt, then what can be done about that. I worked for an LA where 98% of the children were white UK, and thus the issue of same race placements seldom arose. Barnardoes used to be good at recruiting black adoptors and we did "buy" placements for them for the very small minority of black children, but for fostering rather than adoption. They very rarely had black adoptors approved and ready to adopt.
There are some common problems, regardless of ethnicity. The vast majority of adoptors want a baby, and when realising that this is not going to be possible, they will be willing to consider an older child, but usually under 5 years. The children who await adoption are sibling groups, children with disabilities and older middle years aged children, and there is a strong preference for girls over boys.
I think that same race placement is the ideal but only if the match is right, and this of course is true for children whatever their ethnicity.
For sometime now many LAs have dropped their insistence on same race placements, and are trying to recruit families who will "support the children in a way that reflects their ethnicity" and so I am a bit surprised at this article in the Guardian, which of course relates to Cameron's crazy notion of 3 months from removal of a child to adoption. He knows not the first thing about adoption.
I think times have changed and certainly where I live (Birmingham) white uk people are in fact the minority ethnic group, with large populations of Asian people, Polish, Latvian, and a smaller group of african caribbean ethnicity. I am not for one moment suggesting racism is dead and buried (and there is no indication that this is ever going to change) but I a black child is not going to stand out in a multi cultural, multi ethnicity like Birmingham. I appreciate this is not the same for all areas of the country, especially rural areas.
On balance I come down on the side of children being placed with families of a different race, because I truly believe (after 30 years of social work practice) that the over-riding need for children of any ethnicity who have been removed from their birthparents because of neglect/abuse etc is to be placed in a family that can understand the needs of the child in terms of attachment and loss and know that for many of these children "love is not enough" as they have often been illtreated in their first weeks, months and years of life. The first 3 years of a child's life are the most important years developmentally, and lay down the foundation for the rest of their lives.
What the writer of the article says about adoption in the 60s and 70s is absolutely true and on another thread I have mentioned the fact that young women were more or less forced to give up their babies for adoption. The "assessment" of the adoptors was horrendous - they needed to have a nice clean and tidy home and garden, and a reference from the GP and the vicar and then all that was left to do was to go and choose their child from the mother and baby home. I was an unmarried mother in 1966 and had my parents not been supportive of me and my baby that's what would have happened to me. Some of those women are still grieving their lost child 40 years on. Thankfully times have changed and single parents can keep their babies.
I think the writer of the article is not really presenting a balanced view and I always worry about dogmatic views in issues as important as this. There is no easy answer and no "right" and "wrong" - sadly adoption placements break down, and the older the child when placed, the more likely it is that the adoption will break down. The truth of the matter is that the trauma that many children suffer prior to removal from their family, means that they are never able to overcome their difficulties, and this manifests itself in all kinds of behaviour problems throughout the life span. Hence I think children should be removed sooner rather than later but again that is not easy because the sws first duty is to keep families together and offer support etc. and every sw knows that they cannot bring a case before the court unless they have evidence that the child has been abused/neglected.
Think I have probably said enough!
Will be interested in the views of others.