When
The last 12 referral batches arrived at 27, 37, 36, 18, 24, 39, 32, 47, 30, 32, 31, and 52 day intervals.
The average is 34 days, the median is 32 days, and we see 32 twice. The shortest interval is 18 days and the longest is 52. But, the 47 was hopefully an anomaly due to H1N1, and the 52 day interval seems to have been because no one was in the CCAA offices to sign referrals for the week before their holiday. Meaning it is possible we shouldn’t be using those numbers in our figures. Or, maybe we should.
Which means I’m going to figure three possible scenarios this month.
Scenario One:
This scenario takes no exceptions into account. It’s based purely on the numbers of the last 12 referral batches.
Most Likely: Monday, November 16, 2009
Latest: Thursday, December 3, 2009
Scenario Two:
This scenario looks at the months that were likely off due to various circumstances and pulls them out of the equations:
Most Likely: Friday, November 13, 2009
Latest: Friday, November 20, 2009
Scenario Three:
This scenario takes us one step beyond the second scenario. This scenario assumes that they finished matching this batch of referrals back in September and put them on a desk somewhere awaiting signatures, and then proceeded with the next batch.
Most Likely: Friday, October 30, 2009
Latest: Monday, November 9, 2009
It has been theorized that the CCAA is worried about H1N1 and they are holding back as much as possible until they see how things are going to play out once flu season swings into full bloom. If that is the case, then I would not expect scenario three to be a possibility.
That’s not to say the third scenario isn’t going to happen. If I felt sure it wouldn’t happen then I wouldn’t have mentioned it at all, much less done the math for it. The CCAA has done this in the past (long interval followed by a short one), so it is a possibility. It depends on the true reasons for holding them, basically. If they truly didn’t send them out because they were waiting on signatures then scenario three is pretty likely. But, if they held them because they’ve been told to slow things down until we get an idea of what the flu is going to do, then scenario three is not very likely at all.
Oh, there is one other thing I have to mention. I won’t call this scenario four because I don’t give it any weight, but the most likely arrival date for those who believe referrals always arrive on or near the first of the month would be November 1. Again, I’ve never given that theory any weight, but if I don’t mention it people will squawk.
I’ve had a few people ask what we call the referrals that just arrived. I always refer to a batch by the date referrals began arriving – the day phone calls are first reported is the defining factor for me. So for my purposes, this is called the October batch. If we get another batch in late October then we’ll have the early October referrals and the late October referrals. It’s true that these are the referrals that were matched in September, but it just gets too complicated trying to have all of the arguments around what to call a batch when you start down that path. I’m all for keeping it simple, and labeling them by the date phone calls are first made has so far been the simplest and most definitive way to label them.
These When posts are all about managing expectations, and part of that is looking at when we should start looking for rumors. If we expect referrals to begin arriving November 13th or 16th then we’d expect to begin seeing early rumors the week of November 2nd. If the third scenario happens then we’d expect to see early rumors begin sometime next week.
I have no rumors that give me an idea of which scenario is most likely. As usual, we just have to wait and see.


October 14th, 2009 at 9:18 am
As always, thanks RQ!
My heart is rooting for Scenario Three!
But my head is seems to be holding onto Scenario Two–my head is giving quite a bit of weight to the affects of H1N1 on our referrals and general travel into China.
I’m trying to find humor in all this maddness, so my brain is yelling out “Get Ready To Rumble”–I sure hope #3 wins, but it is a longshot!
RRyahoos
LID 05/11/06
October 14th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
RQ thanks for all the numbers. I see from the Babies post that at least one couple had an LID of the 3/29/06. Is this just random or was the 29th in?
Thanks so much for everything
shamrock LID 06/02/06
October 14th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
shamrock-the 29th was not included. There was one family who found out their paperwork had been “stamped incorrectly” and they were included with the 3/27 families, but aside from that, we are aware of no other 3/29 families that received referrals.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I am aware of two LID groups who were originally told their LID was the 29th, but were recently told their LID was actually the 28th. And, of course, they got a referral in this batch.
As I’ve said before, I think that if the CCAA just needs a little bit more in order make a batch work out (number of babies available to match vs number of families in a log-in-day) that they “change” the LID of a travel group or two in order to keep from having however many babies have to wait an extra month to be adopted.
Sometimes it works the other way, where a family is told “oh, no, your LID is a few days later”.
They don’t officially split a day, but I believe that they occasionally unofficially split them.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I have a question, I hope this is the right forum to ask. We are DTC 10.12.09 for a Special Needs Child, so we aren’t waiting for a referral, how does that work? We have our son, and just waiting to bring him home.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
The SN program works differently than the NSN program.
You can get an idea of time frames in the forum – there is a room for those in the SN program, and you’ll see some threads stickied to the top that have some charts with statistics.
If you haven’t been to the forum you can get there from the link in the top right hand column.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Noendinsight—thank you for all of the information. Amylea–we are prob. with the same agency/same position. If I could figure out how to e-mail you privately I would–would love to talk…..
October 14th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Hi
Any people out there that still have not been moved from thier non hague to a hague agency?
We are still waiting.
Molly
October 14th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Thanks RQ for everything!!!
I hope you and your family are having a wonderful week!
~D.O.Cassie
http://www.faithhopeandlove-fhl.blogspot.com/
October 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
MOLLO, no we have not been moved. I e-mailed our agancy and no response. They sent out an e-mail 9-17 that “there are many things to consider”. I think they are figuring out how much to charge us. Remember, this is cost them a lot of $$$ in not being able to charge for homestudies anymore. I have a bad feeling they will charge between $500 and $1000 to make up for future loss. LID 1-07…what is your LID?
October 15th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
still waiting-
I would love to talk also. I feel like we are just in limbo, not haveing a date to follow. you can email me at amy.phillipy@yahoo.com.