Foster Care

Federal law prohibits consideration of race in making decisions about where to place children in foster care. As a result, caseworkers have had to set aside their personal views, which in many cases hold that eliminating race as a factor will lead to placements that are not in the best interests of children. GAO found lingering confusion among state and local officials and caseworkers about allowable actions under the law. GAO notes that all levels of government face three significant challenges in changing placement practices. First, agencies need to continue changing long-standing social work practices, such as the beliefs of some officials and caseworkers that the interests of children are best served when race is considered. Second, agencies need to translate legal principles into practical advice for caseworkers. Although officials and caseworkers GAO spoke with understood that the law prohibits them from delaying or denying placement on the basis of race, they also voiced confusion about allowable actions under the law. Third, agencies need to develop information systems to monitor compliance with restrictions on race in placement decisions. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see: Foster Care: Challenges Faced in Implementing the Multiethnic Placement Act, by Mark V. Nadel, Associate Director for Income Security Issues, before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, House Committee on Ways and Means. GAO/T-HEHS-98-241, Sept. 15 (eight pages).

GAO noted that: (1) the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and California initiated collaborative, multipronged efforts to inform agencies and caseworkers about the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994; (2) HHS program officials recognized that the act requires child welfare agencies to undergo a historic change in how foster care and adoption placement decisions are made by limiting the use of race as a factor; (3) within 6 weeks of the act's passage, HHS took the first step in a comprehensive approach to implementation that involved issuing policy guidance and providing technical assistance; (4) some states believed that HHS' policy was more restrictive regarding the use of race in placement decisions than provided for in the act; (5) after enactment of the 1996 amendment, HHS did not update its policy guidance for 9 months, and it has done little to address casework practice issues; (6) California has yet to conform its state laws and regulations to the amended act; (7) the state provided training to some county staff, but the training was not targeted toward staff who have primary responsibility for placing children in foster or adoptive homes; (8) both counties have provided some training to caseworkers on the 1996 amendment, either through formal training sessions or one-on-one training by supervisors, however, only one county has begun to revise its policies; (9) changing long-standing social work practices, translating legal principles into practical advice for caseworkers, and developing compliance monitoring systems are among the challenges remaining for officials at all levels of government in changing placement decisionmaking; (10) the implementation of this amended act predominantly relies on the understanding and willingness of caseworkers to eliminate race from the placement decisions they make; (11) while agency officials and caseworkers understand that this legislation prohibits them from delaying or denying placements on the basis of race, not all believe that eliminating race will result in placements that are in the best interests of children; (12) state and local officials and caseworkers demonstrated lingering confusion about allowable actions under the law; (13) the state training session GAO attended on the amended act showed that neither the state nor HHS has provided clear guidance to caseworkers to apply the law to casework practice; and (14) federal efforts to determine whether placement decisions are consistent with the amended act's restrictions on the use of race-based factors will be hampered by difficulties in identifying data that are complete and sufficient.