Hard Numbers
We have a couple of data points that I feel fairly comfortable with that I’d like to use to analyze things.
- Referral batches usually include between 400 and 700 babies each
- The recent referral batch only included around 200 babies
The second data point comes from several agencies AND it seems to agree with our polls.
My biggest question is why there were so many fewer dossiers for babies received at the CCAA for last month’s batch.
Let’s understand what happens with the babies’ dossiers. First the orphanages compile them, and then they send them to the provincial authority who must process them with their own red tape and then the provincial authority sends them to the CCAA.
And let us remember that last year the months following CNY were very small months. We don’t have good polls for those months so we don’t know if they were small batches or if they represented large LID days. But for the sake of our argument, let’s assume for the moment that they represented smaller than normal batches.
Is it possible that the orphanages were short handed back in February because they had so many people going home for CNY and there was no time to send paperwork? Yes, that’s possible, but since the dossiers spend time with the provincial authority before going to the CCAA I wouldn’t expect to see the shortage of dossiers at the CCAA just yet. However, if the provincial authorities had the same issue, then we might see two months with very small batches. If this theory is correct then the previous month was small because of the provincial authorities time off and next month would be small because of the time off at the orphanages.
I could be all wrong about this, but looking at last years numbers I think we may be seeing a pattern. And hoping for two small months and then going back to decent batch sizes again is much better than the alternative theory that the MoCA has told the CCAA not to refer as many babies this year as they did last year. I’m not ready to go there yet.
Where does this take us? Let’s look at the poll to the right.
The 25th and 26th total 79 votes on our poll. If we are going to see a second small batch (and if the above theory is correct then we probably will) then we have to accept that a one day batch this time is possible. However, I am leaning towards thinking that we’ll see at least two days this time. I could be wrong, but I hope I am not.
If last month was an anomaly and this month’s batch has twice the number of matches then the CCAA will make it to at least the 31st.
If the CCAA is going to do two small batches and then jump back up to an average of 550 matches per month then the referrals will go something like:
May through 10/28
June through 11/8
July through 11/18
August through 11/29
September through 12/11
October through 12/23
Let me be clear that I think this has about a 2% chance of being close. Maybe the CCAA won’t do another really small batch and the next one will be big and reality is better than this, but maybe they will do two more really small batches and then reality could be much worse.
Or maybe the average isn’t going to be 550, maybe the average is going to be 400, or 600. We don’t know.
But I see a lot of people trying to figure out how long it is going to take to get through November, so I thought I’d look at it from a midline point of view. There is a very good chance it could be better than this, and probably a much better chance it will be worse than this. I’m not claiming to be right here, I’m just putting out one possible scenario based on past performance.
This is not to be considered as accurate as my good and bad case scenarios usually are. I am not making a good and bad case scenario this month because I simply don’t know if this month was an anomaly or not. If I were to do one then the bad case is one day, the mid case is probably two days, the hopeful case takes us to the 31st and I just don’t think we’re going to have the good case happen so I’m not even going to go there. I’d love to be wrong, of course.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I know there is a possibility of them only doing one day this time. But man would that just plain ol STINK!!! Especially since I am 10/28/05!!!
I cannot get over the numbers of November. I feel so horrible for all of those waiting. This is one insane ride.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Many thanks RQ…Just a question. How did you come up with about 200 dossiers referred last month… Did you base this on our assumption that the polls here represent about 30-35% of the total number of LID’s at the CCAA? I am assuming you are…and this seems like a reasonable assumption. If so, then referrals numbers were ++++ lower last month…no matter what the reason…and this makes me really nervous…no matter the reason.
The hardest part of the wait is the ‘not knowing of the when’. Someone else posted on the earlier comments; that they would rather wait 6 months if they ‘knew the when’; then wait 4 months and not know the when. I can relate completely to this.
As always, I am really thankful for your comments. Take care.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Thanks for the data RQ, It’s nice to see whats
ahead me. With a lid of 11/18/05, I wish I could
plan on a certain month. I was really concerned
about traveling in the heat this summer, fall looks
pretty good.
Have a wonderful day RQ
http://www.ost.redthreadkids.org
April 26th, 2007 at 10:45 am
catherinethegreat - I explained in the post that this number comes from several agencies plus it agrees with the poll numbers.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Your right; so sorry….I missed the part about the information coming from several agencies…thanks for the clarification. This helps me understand how you came up with your other numbers too. Thanks again
April 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Weren’t there some agencies saying that last month represented more like 800 babies? I never really believed this and trust RQ’s info far more, but….
Where are agencies getting such different info? How can anyone really know whether to believe their agencies on anything any more?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Thank you for doing this. This is what I have been wanting to see for awhile, and of course I know this is just a theory - but it’s still nice to see it done - thanks for taking the time.
Tracy
LID 11/22/05
April 26th, 2007 at 11:45 am
windthrow, I am with you on that. My agency (which is quite small) received 20 referrals last month. I doubt they received 10% of the overall referrals.
Nancy
April 26th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Our agency estimated between 600 and 800 referrals last month. They are a big, China only agency and they have been correct about everything else up to this point. I believe them, I have no reason not to. I still hope RQ’s numbers are correct for the following batches though!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:59 am
On of our agencies in our country stated on their website that many people were logged in those 2 days AND that CCAA had a lot of sick employees (illnes). I had already mentioned that on the forum but nobody responded to that. Has nobody else heard this from their agency?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Thanks again for the data.last month i came up with my own little bit of data,i based it on 10 days worth of referrals each month and came up with referrals in Oct. will include lid.of dec.25/05….time will tell.I’m glad to see that i’m right i target with yours.
Thanks again for all you do.
lid dec.19/05
April 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I spoke with someone I know at a very large China-only agency and they said that between 600 and 800 referrals were sent last month. (just as lmlw0503 stated above). Maybe those two days were really, really, really huge!
April 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I know of one agency saying there were a lot of referrals last month, and I know of many agencies giving out the 200 number. At this point the 200 number not only makes the most sense but has the most agencies giving it out.
We know those days are huge and we had planned to see less days this batch because the days are big. However, for there to be only two days it seems that what happened was a combination of there being big days and less matches made.
Also, when you look at the blogs with referral announcements that was also way down. It doesn’t make sense that this batch may have had double the normal number of referrals as we’ve been seeing. If so, where were the announcements?
From what I gather, very few agencies actually received referrals in the last batch. Many of those who received them got a decent number, but not many agencies were included.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
hi RQ,
maybe you addressed this somewhere else, but referring to 2006 being bigger than 2005, I personally know of two agencies saying this is not the case, that applications were down in 2006. What weight are you giving the information you had received?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I don’t have any hard numbers, but right now I’m thinking that the first part of 2006 is probably similar - March is HUGE but then I think we’ll see some smaller months in the May though July (ish) time frame and then I believe the end of the year will balloon up and get huge again.
Again, agencies have supposedly heard from the CCAA that 2006 was bigger than 2005, and for the time being I’m going to believe that.
I have some anecdotal evidence that agencies were swamped at the end of the year, so I have no reason to not believe it at this point.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
The agency that is ‘on the record’ as saying that 600-800 matches were made last month is mine (the large china only agency who is very conservative and often right)
i have really been puzzling over it since i absolutely do not believe it. I believe RQ’s numbers — and the lack of referral announcements on every site i visit — much more. I’ve really been having a tough time with this since i really do trust this agency alot and can’t understand why they would go out on a limb with numbers that make no sense when you dig deeper. did ccaa tell them that 600-800 matches were made and they chose to believe it? why would ccaa say that if it wasn’t true?
and why did this agency feel the need to quote specific numbers all of a sudden, when I have always thought ‘the numbers’ were pretty much top secret? it all has me wondering…
i also think its interesting that we are hearing so many varied excuses — sick employees, CNY, it was a small batch, it was a big batch. its all over the place. really, it’s enough to drive a person nuts…
April 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I agree with RQ and eli…no matter what the reason…it makes the most sense that less babies were referred last month. I just had to ask again this am as I keep hearing the 600-800 story as well…
Re: the larger estimate from your agency eli…somebody must have told them this number in error…..otherwise you are right: Why would they do this? As for the rest…there are really no words for this….
April 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I would like to throw this out there. I’ve been keeping stats on my agency for the past 17 months, and for there to be only 200 referrals last month would have meant that my agency alone had 15% of the referrals and that would be completely uncharacteristic.
If they matched 600, then that would tend to fit the historical pattern better.
Not to say that this couldn’t be a strange blip on the chart, but something to consider.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
But metonda, you are assuming that the same number of agencies received referrals this time as they normally do. What if the number of agencies receiving referrals was a third the normal number? Then your numbers would be right, wouldn’t they?
I don’t know the exact numbers, but I’m pretty sure it is a good bit less than half the number who would normally receive them.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
We have two posts here indicating that just two agencies represented 50 referrals from the last batch. If people sent RQ the name of their agency and the number of referrals they got this batch I would think we should get a pretty good idea of whether which of the two numbers (200 vs 800) is closer to being correct.
RQ if you dont want your e-mail even more cluttered up with this info please just delete this! I just think this is an important bit of information to try to figure out.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Oh NO!
With a 11/9 Lid I had some high hopes on June. I guess that is what I will live on, hopes.
This makes me so crazy, I have even pulled back on my RQ viewing to just once a day so I do not get to depressed. I rather call it a funk. Since I do not want to be classified as having “depression”. :)
April 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
With an LID of 11/5/05 I would do the most awesome Snoopy dance the world has ever seen if we got a June referral. I can’t believe I just typed that after originally thinking I would be home last June, but hey…gotta roll with flow in IA.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I know that my agency which will typically receive 30-45 referrals with each batch, received none.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
windthrow, it’s already been done, the mods pulled it all together in a spreadsheet.
The final tally that does not include agency names can be seen here
http://chinaadopttalk.com/2007/04/16/data-from-the-mods/
April 26th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
thanks RQ…had already managed to forget about that one somehow
not all that conclusive though…sigh…
April 26th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
RQ, that is a good point.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Well I for one can believe this chart because our agency is saying Feb/Mar 08 for us Apr06 Lids. This would be right about there, wouldn’t it Rumor Queen? And for the record, our agency is telling us NO SPEED UPS everyone prepare for renewals!!
April 26th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
There is do doubt — and I mean “no doubt” that RQ’s numbers are correct. Far fewer babies were referred in April. I don’t know what to make of what some of your agengies are saying — well, actually I do — I just haven’t figured out how to explain it without all h–e–double toothpicks breaking loose. It will be apparent in a couple months when traffic throught the consulate gets sparse.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
My small, China-only agency (might be same as Nancy’s?) had 20 referrals last month, and I know of AT LEAST one 10/28 that got a referral, and at least 10/31 in that group. I did not participate in the mod’s poll, as I don’t have all the data, but I do know we had about 26 families between 10/25 and 10/31 and almost all got referrals. This is by far the largest # of referrals they’ve had by at least 50% in the last 15 months.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Can’t_sleep_at-All,
Are you saying 10/28 got a referral? I don’t follow - the CCAA only matched to 10/26. I am confused…
LID 10/28/05
April 26th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
My agency received 30 referrals for LID’s of 10/25 and 10/26. That number seems pretty consistent with their monthly numbers of referrals so I’m not sure I understand the numbers either.
Spam word - Shamian - I’ll be there in about 6 weeks!! :))
April 26th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Hi RQ
Thank you so much for all of the information! My LID is 9/06.
Obviously I will have a long wait. I hope you will continue to be the RQ for a long time.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
My agency posted that between 600-800 babies were referred last month. They said that more people were logged in on the two refererel days then normal due to the CCAA’s log in practice that month.
I beleive that the CCAA is working hard to match us with our children. Why would they spend all of the money to build their new beautiful adoption affairs building if they did not have good intentions.
Keep the faith!
LID 5/31/06
April 26th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
mom4Hannah…
I just want back and did a little digging. It looks like all but two of the referrals were for 10/25 and 10/26 LIDs. But there was one with 10/28 and one with 10/31. Again, I think this is like the last few months where, if the CCAA sees that there are only 1 or 2 other dossiers before another big batch, that perhaps they pull in those few to help make travel easier? So, there’s this staggered cutoff date. And I don’t know anything about those referrals for 10/28 and 10/31…perhaps they were SN? The other explanation could be that people have their LID wrong. I know for the first few months, I told everyone my LID was 10/25, but it was really 10/26!
April 26th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
oh, and I should also add that I have no idea what all the LID dates are for my agency. For all I know, after the single 10/28 and 10/31 referrals, maybe their next LID isn’t until 11/15. I have no visibility into that.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Can’t_sleep_at_all, Did your agency get twins in the last batch?
April 27th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I think I am with the same tiny, New England-based, China only agency as can’t_sleep is, and if so, they did indeed get a set of twins. If I recall correctly, there was also a set of twins in either the previous or perhaps 2 batches ago as well, going to an expedited family of Chinese descent. I don’t know who the family is who received the referral for twins this past go-round.
RQ: has there been any talk of larger groups of WC being released for adoption? I know that the pool of NSN babies is getting smaller (they say) but if these folks at CCAA have fewer NSN babies to refer, wouldn’t they have time to concentrate on processing more SN babies, do you think? Any stats on SN groups being larger? Thanks for any insight.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I’m not sure if there were twins. I haven’t heard of any.