I’ve changed the History Page to show the latest batch. I’m still not really sure what to do with that partial 16th batch, so I’ve shown that it was there, but since it was less than half of the day I’m not going to make it look like a day was referred, since it was not.

We know that this was a very small batch. Not the smallest ever, but certainly one of them, possibly the second or third smallest since I began keeping track of these things. The good news is that the other two times we had months this small, the following month was a much (much much) bigger month in terms of numbers. If we see that again this month then we’re looking at a cut off at the end of February, possibly the 27th or 28th. Will they do that again? Follow a minuscule month with something two or three times that size? I hope so, but I’m not willing to get anyone’s hopes up about it, so my projections (below) are given the same way they always are.

But before we get to the projections for future batches, let’s first take a historical look of how the raw numbers have fallen in the past as compared to this month. This chart shows the size (in poll numbers) of the previous batches and this batch. Please remember that you can’t compare numbers from different polls. Each poll has to stand by itself. Still, you can get an idea of how the sizes of the batches have gone.

Next we’ll take a look at how reality has looked in hindsight with the projections. The graph below shows where past referral batches have fallen on my projections.

And finally, here are my projections.

And to end this with my standard disclaimer: As always, projections are based on the CCAA continuing to do what they have been doing. There is nothing to say they will follow their recent behavior. They could choose to do a lot less, or a lot more.

First I’d like to say thank you to any veterans that might be reading this today. No politics, just a very heartfelt thank you.

Some people were speculating on numbers yesterday. You might want to check out the “Important Posts” section of the blog, specifically the WorldWide Numbers entry.

There were also discussions of concurrent adoptions and whether the CCAA allows them. They state on their site that they do. You can read it here.

As for the “reasons” for the slowdown, it is true that part of the official explanation is that domestic adoptions have picked up to the extent that there aren’t enough babies for IA. Though I should point out that when the slowdown first happened they insisted abandonments were down and that was the reason. Once the Hague came into force they changed the reason to the one we now see. And in some areas of the country I believe it to be true that abandonments are down and/or that domestic adoption is up. However, I still get reports of full orphanages from families who’ve gone back to visit their child’s orphanage, where babies aren’t being adopted out to anyone. Or, orphanages that appear empty but they have more babies than ever if you consider how many are in foster care. I do not believe that there are so few babies available for IA that the numbers had to drop as they have. No paper ready babies, that I’ll buy, but that’s a completely different thing. The question is, who made the choice that less babies would be made paper ready, and will that decision ever change.

However, there is nothing we can do about that. Whoever is making the decisions within the Chinese Government, whether it is the MoCA or someone even higher, it’s their decision to make. I do feel it important to let people know that I don’t believe the official explanation, to let people know there are babies that aren’t being made paper ready… but I don’t believe there is anything we can do about it. If we try to force the issue then I believe the CCAA will just stop allowing families to return to the orphanages for a visit. I can’t make a public list of the SWI’s with lots of babies because the Chinese government knows which families have visited those orphanages and I’d never do that to families who have confided in me. But even if I could make a list without outing anyone, doing so would just make the CCAA have to take a look at how good of an idea it is to let families go back to visit. They wouldn’t make more babies available, they would just cut off our ways of knowing the babies are there. But, back to the point: There are full SWI’s, and there are empty SWI’s. And in at least one case, an SWI is now empty because there is another SWI in town where the babies are mostly being taken when found abandoned. There are babies that aren’t being made paper ready, but I don’t believe there is anything we can do to change that.

The other thing brought up was how the agencies are going to stay in business. The answer is that not all of them will. Some will adapt to the changes and find a way, others will try to hang onto the same business model and they quite possibly won’t survive. I know that some agencies are starting to quietly talk about joining forces, merging together to try to cut expenses. I worry most about the agencies that take all of the money up front, as those agencies have a business plan that requires new people constantly coming into their program. The agencies that take the bulk of the money upon referral are more likely to be able to weather the storm, I believe. Either way, as agencies go out of business they have a lot of incentive to move their people to another agency, incentive to make arrangements so the original contracts stay mostly valid, as in, the parts that talk about money paid and money due. I’ve seen parts of the contract not work out the same, where new people were required to handle travel arrangements the way the new agency handled it as opposed to the way the old agency handled it, but most of the time the big parts of the contract are the same. And, the most important part, the part that says you get to complete the adoption, that part happens. It is my understanding that the system is set up so that an agency owner who does not make arrangements for their clients before going out of business can face jail time. Like I said, a lot of incentive.

We’ve got a good number of agencies confirming that the box has changed and the cut off was the 17th.

I’ve changed the box here and tomorrow I’ll work on making the changes on the history page. Then I’ll start working on the projections.

In present reality,whether the cut off is officially the 17th or 19th doesn’t matter. Referrals were mailed for the 16th and 17th, and the number of referrals in this batch will be the same no matter which date the CCAA chooses to use for their official date.

However, I’m still waiting for agencies to start reporting en masse that the CCAA box has changed so we can agree here with whatever it is the CCAA is officially saying. Right now most agencies are saying the cut off was the 17th and a few are saying it was the 19th, but none are saying the box has changed.

I finished Swallowing Darkness last night, the 7th book in Laurell K. Hamilton’s Meredith Gentry series. This is the best book I’ve read in a very long time. This is LKH at her best, making the magic come alive. I thought she was genius a few books ago when she brought the fabled Wild Hunt to life. But in Swallowing Darkness we don’t just witness the Hunt, we join it, we get carried away in it.

The book has a few moments of quiet at the beginning before the action starts and then the action doesn’t stop until the end. Merry has grown a lot since the first book in the series, and she can now (mostly) handle what is thrown at her. And that’s a good thing, because pretty much everyone except for her inner circle either wants her dead or under their control. I was pleased with where the story went, but most of all, I was captivated by the prose, enchanted by the descriptions of what was happening. When LKH is on her game she doesn’t just write about magic, she brings it to life, she transports you to the world of faerie.

Of course, if you haven’t read the first six books in the series then this book would be pretty confusing. The books in the series are:

1. A Kiss of Shadows
2. A Caress of Twilight
3. Seduced by Moonlight
4. A Stroke of Midnight
5. Mistral’s Kiss
6. A Lick of Frost
7. Swallowing Darkness

If you read much about Laurel K. Hamilton you’ll see that there are a lot of her former fans who now detest her. Much of that is because of where she’s taken her Anita Blake series, meaning that what started out as a human/vampire/werewolf story has turned into a whole lot of sex. There are people who can (and will) tell you how many pages of sex are in each book, and the ratio of sex to plot per book. What they miss is that the sex is often part of the plot, but, that’s for another discussion. I’m bringing this up because the Meredith Gentry series started out without much sex, then became all about the sex, and then has gradually decreased until there were only two mentions of sex in this book, and only one of those times actually resulted in sex. Swallowing Darkness is plot and magic and action and intrigue and court politics and love and affection and friendship and loyalty and betrayal and family… all wrapped up in the magical world of Faerie.

This book was good enough that it makes me want to pick up book one and start from the very beginning all over again.

So far no agencies have reported that the CCAA box has changed. Several agencies are saying the cut off was the 17th, one agency is saying the cut off was the 19th. So far I have not seen anyone with a 2/20 LID actually receive a referral.

I’d really rather not change the box here until I have several agencies saying the box has changed, then I will change the box here to reflect what the CCAA box shows.