I have no experience, so please excuse this if it's insensitive, but isn't the difference between adopting and being a foster parent the fact that as a foster parent you are only a temporary guardian for the child? i.e. they usually have parents they would go back to eventually?
Not insensitive at all. Fostering is just the first step, and can be followed by a formal adoption. Our three adoptions were foster for ~2 years as the case made its way through the courts (we got all the kids at <1mo old).
Depending on the situation, kids can go back with their biological parents. The social worker should be pretty up front about the prospects of that, though. Of the 5 kids we've fostered, 2 went back to their parents and we were well aware of that before we took them (they were 3 and 6 years old). Usually when infants are removed from a home, there's not much chance of them returning.
I am not certain but I think being a foster parent you can decide to permanently adopt the child after a period of time, thus he calls it an "overlooked route to adoption."
It's called Fost-adopt in our state. When a child is taken from a home they have to put them somewhere. If you let them know you want to adopt then they will give you children with a very high chance of never being able to return to the parents. Instead of paying for adoption you get paid. Up to about $1,500/mo pre-adoption.
