African American Children In Foster Care
Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care Gao ID: GAO-07-816 July 11, 2007A significantly greater proportion of African American children are in foster care than children of other races and ethnicities, according to HHS and other research. Given this situation, GAO was asked to analyze the (1) major factors influencing the proportion of African American children in foster care, (2) extent that states and localities have implemented promising strategies, and (3) ways in which federal policies may have influenced African American representation in foster care. GAO's methodologies included a nationwide survey; a review of research and federal policies; state site visits; analyses of child welfare data; and interviews with researchers, HHS officials, and other experts.
A higher rate of poverty is among several factors contributing to the higher proportion of African American children entering and remaining in foster care. Families living in poverty have greater difficulty accessing housing, mental health, and other services needed to keep families stable and children safely at home. Bias or cultural misunderstandings and distrust between child welfare decision makers and the families they serve are also viewed as contributing to children's removal from their homes into foster care. African American children also stay in foster care longer because of difficulties in recruiting adoptive parents and a greater reliance on relatives to provide foster care who may be unwilling to terminate the parental rights of the child's parent--as required in adoption--or who need the financial subsidy they receive while the child is in foster care. Most states we surveyed reported using strategies intended to address these issues, such as involving families in decisions, building community supports, and broadening the search for relatives to care for children. HHS provides information and technical assistance, but states reported that they had limited capacity to analyze data and formulate strategies, and states we visited told us they relied on assistance from universities or others. States reported that the ability to use federal funding for family support services was helpful in keeping African American children safely at home and that federal subsidies for adoptive parents helped move children out of foster care. However, they also expressed concerns about the inability to use federal child welfare funds to provide subsidies to legal guardians. As an alternative to adoption, subsidized guardianship is considered particularly promising for helping African American children exit from foster care. States were also concerned about the lack of flexibility to use federal foster care funds to provide services for families, although states can use other federal funds for this purpose if they consider it a priority.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-816, African American Children In Foster Care: Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-816
entitled 'African American Children in Foster care: Additional HHS
Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care' which
was released on July 30, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2007:
African American Children In Foster Care:
Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion
in Care:
GAO-07-816:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-816, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Ways
and Means, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
A significantly greater proportion of African American children are in
foster care than children of other races and ethnicities, according to
HHS and other research. Given this situation, GAO was asked to analyze
the (1) major factors influencing the proportion of African American
children in foster care, (2) extent that states and localities have
implemented promising strategies, and (3) ways in which federal
policies may have influenced African American representation in foster
care. GAO‘s methodologies included a nationwide survey; a review of
research and federal policies; state site visits; analyses of child
welfare data; and interviews with researchers, HHS officials, and other
experts.
What GAO Found:
A higher rate of poverty is among several factors contributing to the
higher proportion of African American children entering and remaining
in foster care. Families living in poverty have greater difficulty
accessing housing, mental health, and other services needed to keep
families stable and children safely at home. Bias or cultural
misunderstandings and distrust between child welfare decision makers
and the families they serve are also viewed as contributing to
children‘s removal from their homes into foster care. African American
children also stay in foster care longer because of difficulties in
recruiting adoptive parents and a greater reliance on relatives to
provide foster care who may be unwilling to terminate the parental
rights of the child‘s parent”as required in adoption”or who need the
financial subsidy they receive while the child is in foster care.
Most states we surveyed reported using strategies intended to address
these issues, such as involving families in decisions, building
community supports, and broadening the search for relatives to care for
children. HHS provides information and technical assistance, but states
reported that they had limited capacity to analyze data and formulate
strategies, and states we visited told us they relied on assistance
from universities or others.
States reported that the ability to use federal funding for family
support services was helpful in keeping African American children
safely at home and that federal subsidies for adoptive parents helped
move children out of foster care. However, they also expressed concerns
about the inability to use federal child welfare funds to provide
subsidies to legal guardians. As an alternative to adoption, subsidized
guardianship is considered particularly promising for helping African
American children exit from foster care. States were also concerned
about the lack of flexibility to use federal foster care funds to
provide services for families, although states can use other federal
funds for this purpose if they consider it a priority.
Figure: Proportion of Children in Foster Care Settings, End of Fiscal
Year 2004:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of AFCARS and Census data.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO suggests that Congress consider amending current law to allow
subsidies for legal guardianships. HHS believes its proposal for
restructuring child welfare funding would give states the option to do
this, but the viability of this proposal is uncertain. GAO also
recommends that HHS further assist states in addressing
disproportionality. In its comments, HHS noted that GAO‘s
recommendation was consistent with its efforts to provide technical
assistance to states, but did not address the specific actions GAO
recommended. GAO continues to believe that further assistance is
important for helping states address disproportionality.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-816].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Denise M. Fantone at
(202) 512-7215 or fantoned@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
States Report Poverty and Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes Are
among Major Factors Influencing African Americans' Entry and Length of
Stay:
States Implemented a Range of Strategies Considering Promising for
Addressing Disproportionality, but Fewer States Specifically Focus
Attention on Issue:
States Reported That Some Current Federal Policies May Reduce the
Disproportion of African American Children in Care, While Other
Policies May Increase It:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Response:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Disproportionality Indexes of Children in Foster Care by
Race and State:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Types of Temporary and Permanent Homes for Children in Child
Welfare:
Table 2: Key Federal Legislation Affecting Foster Care Programs:
Table 3: Strategies Used by States That Address Factors Contributing to
Disproportionality:
Table 4: Disproportionality Index by State of Children Ages 17 Years of
Age or Under in Foster Care as of Last Day of Fiscal Year 2004:
Figures:
Figure 1: Proportion of Children by Race in Foster Care Settings, End
of Fiscal Year 2004:
Figure 2: Federal Child Welfare Funding by Funding Source, FY 2004:
Figure 3: State Views on Poverty-Related Factors Affecting Higher Entry
of African American Children to Foster Care:
Figure 4: State Views on Support and Preventive Services Affecting
African American Children's Higher Entry into Foster Care:
Figure 5: State Views on Issues of Distrust and Bias or Cultural
Misunderstanding Affecting African American Children's Greater Entry to
Foster Care:
Figure 6: State Views on Factors Affecting Longer Time in Foster Care
for African American Children --Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes:
Figure 7: State Views on Factors Affecting Greater Time in Foster Care
for African American Children --Difficulties in Achieving
Reunification:
Figure 8: Strategies Intended to Improve Decisions by Reducing Bias:
Figure 9: Strategies to Improve Access to Support Services:
Figure 10: Strategies to Reduce Length of Stay in Foster Care:
Figure 11: Children Entering Foster Care in California in 2005:
Figure 12: Children in Foster Care in California in 2005:
Figure 13: States' Views on Impact of Funding Policies on
Disproportionality:
Figure 14: States' Views on Impact of Adoption and Guardianship
Policies on Disproportionality:
Figure 15: Adoption Rates for All Children, 2001 through 2005:
Figure 16: States' Views on Impact of Federal Policies on Licensing and
Time Frames for Making Permanency Decisions on Disproportionality:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
ASFA: Adoption and Safe Families Act:
CFSR: Child and Family Services Reviews:
CWLA: Child Welfare League of America:
HHS: Health and Human Services:
IEP: Interethnic Placement Act:
MEPA: Multiethnic Placement Act:
NRC: national resource center:
OJJDP: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention:
SSBG: Social Security Block Grant:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 11, 2007:
The Honorable Charles B. Rangel:
Chairman:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Children of all races are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and
neglect, according to the Department of Health and Human Services'
(HHS) National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS);
however, HHS data show that a significantly greater proportion of
African American children enter and remain in foster care than children
of other races and ethnicities. African-American children across the
nation were more than twice as likely to enter foster care compared
with White children in 2004, and African American children remained in
foster care about 9 months longer. On the last day of fiscal year 2004,
African American children totaled 162,911--or 34 percent--of the
482,541 children in foster care, according to HHS data--about twice
their proportions in the general child population. Although there is
great variability among and within the states, data from nearly all
states show some disproportionate representation of African American
children in foster care. State data also show patterns of
disproportionate representation in foster care for Native American
children and, in certain localities, Hispanics and Asian subgroups are
also disproportionately represented to some extent.[Footnote 1]
About 60 percent of children who enter foster care do so through
reports of child abuse or neglect provided to a state's child welfare
system.[Footnote 2] Child welfare staff screen and investigate reports
of child maltreatment, and make decisions about whether a child can
remain safely at home, with or without family support services, or must
be immediately removed and placed in foster care. The decision to place
a child in foster care is subsequently presented before a judge who
evaluates the evidence for removal from home and either corroborates or
overturns the decision. After entering a child in foster care, child
welfare staff develop case plans that are approved by the courts
outlining steps parents must take before a child can return home or,
for children the courts decide cannot safely be returned home,
establishing other permanency goals for them, such as adoption or legal
guardianship. States have the primary responsibility for establishing
the legal and administrative structures and programs of their child
welfare services; however, federal legislation and regulations
establish a framework within which states make their programmatic and
fiscal decisions. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
the principal federal agency that provides federal oversight of states'
child welfare systems. HHS administers about $8 billion in funds each
year that are dedicated to support states' child welfare systems. HHS
also administers social services block grant programs, such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and states generally
spend about $12 billion of these funds to provide direct social
services. States use these block grant funds to benefit various
populations, including child welfare families.
Concerned about why African American children are overrepresented in
foster care, you asked us to analyze:
(1) The major factors that have been identified as influencing the
proportion of African American children entering and remaining in
foster care compared to children of other races and ethnicities;
(2) The extent that states and localities have implemented strategies
that appear promising in addressing African American representation in
foster care; and:
(3) The ways in which key federal child welfare policies[Footnote 3]
may have influenced African American representation in foster care.
To address these three objectives, we used multiple methodologies,
including administering a state survey; conducting site visits;
interviewing researchers and federal agency officials; conducting a
literature review; and analyzing federal legislation and policies.
Although we focused on African American children in this report, we
also noted points of similarity or difference with children of other
races and ethnicities as appropriate.[Footnote 4] Specifically, we
conducted a nationwide Web-based survey of state child welfare
administrators in 50 states and the District of Columbia between
November 2006 and January 2007 and received responses from 48
states.[Footnote 5] In developing the survey, we relied upon a
literature review to identify issues, such as factors that contribute
to disproportionality, as well as interviews with child welfare
researchers and others. To obtain a more in-depth understanding of
issues, we conducted site visits to California, Illinois, Minnesota,
New York, and North Carolina, where we interviewed state and local
child welfare officials, juvenile court judges, and others involved in
the child welfare systems. In addition we conducted telephone
interviews with Texas state and local child welfare officials, service
providers, and a judge. When viewed as a group, the states we visited
reflected diversity in their rates of African American representation
in foster care, strategies and initiatives used to address this
disproportionality, program administration (state administered and
county administered), and geographic location. In addition, the states
we selected collectively covered nearly one-third of children in foster
care across the nation. To extend our understanding, we interviewed
child welfare researchers identified through our literature review and
through recommendations from child welfare officials and stakeholders
for their knowledge on issues of racial disproportionality in foster
care. We also interviewed HHS officials responsible for foster care
programs and related data, as well as federal officials at the Justice
Department, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP), which is required by law to address racial disproportionality
in the juvenile justice systems. In addition, we conducted an extensive
literature review of research on racial disproportionality in foster
care and strategies used by states and others to address this issue. In
reporting our findings, we drew upon research publications our
methodologists considered generally reliable and methodologically
sound. We analyzed federal child welfare legislation and policies
relevant to foster care that our literature review and interviews had
indicated might have an impact on racial disproportionality. Finally,
we also analyzed HHS data on foster care and adoptive children that
state child welfare agencies submit biannually to the agency under its
foster care and adoption reporting system. We also confirmed the
reliability of these data for our purposes. We conducted our work
between June 2006 and June 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
A higher rate of poverty and challenges in accessing support services,
as well as racial bias and difficulties in finding appropriate
permanent homes, were identified in our review as the main factors
influencing the proportion of African American children in foster care.
Thirty-three states in our survey cited high rates of poverty among
African Americans as a factor influencing children's entry into foster
care. Nationally, African Americans are nearly four times more likely
than others to live in poverty. Studies have shown that families living
in poverty have difficulty accessing needed services that can help
support families and keep children who may be vulnerable to abuse and
neglect safely at home. However, research suggests that poverty does
not fully account for differing rates of entry into foster care. State
child welfare directors we surveyed also responded that bias or
cultural misunderstanding and distrust between child welfare decision
makers and the families they serve also contribute to the removal of
children from their homes. Once African American children are removed
from their homes, their lengths of stay in foster care average 9 months
longer than those of White children. The challenges in accessing
services, such as substance abuse treatment and subsidized housing,
also contributed to longer lengths of stay for children whose goal is
to reunify with their families. For children who cannot be reunified
with their families, state officials reported difficulties in finding
them appropriate permanent homes, in part because of the challenges in
recruiting adoptive parents, especially for youth who are older or have
special needs. An additional factor is that African Americans are more
likely to rely on relatives to provide foster care. Although this type
of foster care placement, known as kinship care, can be less traumatic
for children and reduce the number of placements and chance of their re-
entry into foster care, it is also associated with longer lengths of
stay.
Most states in our survey reported implementing some strategies that
experts have identified as promising for African American children and
noted several factors they considered fundamental to any attempt to
address racial disproportionality. Researchers and officials stressed
that no single strategy would fully address the issue, but that
strategies to increase access to support services, reduce bias, and
increase the availability of permanent homes all hold some promise for
reducing disproportionality. For example, 38 states reported
collaborating with neighborhood-based organizations to expand the
availability of support services. Most states sought to reduce bias by
including the family in making key decisions and by recruiting and
training staff with the skills to work with people of all ethnicities.
To move children more quickly from foster care to permanent homes, more
than half of states performed a diligent search for relatives of
children in foster care who might be willing to provide permanent
homes, recruited African American adoptive families, and offered
subsidies to guardians who were not willing to adopt, as is currently
allowed for adoptive families. However, fewer states reported focusing
attention on disproportionality itself by, for example, enacting state
legislation or establishing councils on racial disproportionality.
Although research on the effectiveness of strategies has been limited,
public and private officials in the forefront of research and
implementation said that the ability to analyze data, work across
social service agencies, and sustain leadership was fundamental to any
attempt to address racial disproportionality. HHS has taken steps to
help states in their efforts to address disproportionality through
outreach and technical assistance. However, state child welfare
directors generally reported in our survey that additional support in
analyzing data on disproportionality and disseminating strategies is
needed. Child welfare officials in states considered to be at the
forefront of addressing disproportionality told us they relied on
technical assistance in analyzing data from universities and funds from
a private foundation to help them devise strategies to address
disproportionality.
According to our survey results, federal policies that provide for
family support services and promote adoption were generally considered
helpful in reducing the proportion of African Americans in foster care,
but policies that limit the use of foster care funding for family
support services and legal guardianship were reported to have a
negative effect. Half of the state child welfare directors we surveyed
reported that federal block grants used to provide services to
families, such as substance abuse treatment, contribute to reducing the
proportion of African American children in foster care. However, even
more child welfare directors in our survey reported that policies
governing the use of funds specifically intended for children in foster
care increase the proportion of African American children in foster
care. More specifically, many state child welfare directors expressed
concerns about the cap on funds for preventive services and the lack of
flexibility to use funds meant for foster care and adoption for other
purposes, including services to families at-risk of having their
children removed, such as parenting classes. Among policies that affect
states' ability to find permanent homes for children, states generally
reported that adoption policies have been helpful, such as the
requirement to recruit minority adoptive parents and providing
subsidies to families adopting children that states have identified as
having special needs. However, states still face challenges in
recruiting sufficient numbers of willing and qualified adoptive
families for African American children. In addition, state and local
officials also reported wanting federal support for legal guardianship.
States responding to our survey considered the federal policy
recognizing legal guardianship as helpful in enabling children to exit
foster care, but policies limiting the use of federal funds to pay
subsidies to guardians, similar to those provided to adoptive parents,
as a barrier. States were less definitive about the impact of federal
policies that impose time frames on permanency decisions. These time
frames may shorten the time children remain in care but may also impede
states' ability to reunify children with their parents.
Our draft report recommended that HHS pursue specific measures to allow
adoption assistance payments to be used for subsidizing legal
guardianship. In commenting on the draft report, HHS disagreed, stating
that the administration had already proposed an alternative funding
approach, known as the Child Welfare Program Option. Under this
proposal, states could choose to remain under the current foster care
funding structure or instead receive a flexible capped grant that they
could use for a wide range of child welfare services and supports,
including subsidizing guardianships. The current adoption assistance
program would remain the same under this proposed option. However,
although HHS has presented this broad restructuring of child welfare
funding in its budget proposals each year since 2004, no legislation
has been offered to date to authorize it. Moreover, if enacted, it is
unknown how many states would choose a capped grant that would allow
greater program flexibility instead of the current title IV-E foster
care entitlement funding. Therefore, in light of these factors, we have
deleted our recommendation to HHS and are instead suggesting that
Congress consider amending current law to allow subsidies for legal
guardianships, as is currently allowed for adoption. Current evidence
indicates that allowing such subsidies could help states increase the
number of permanent homes available for African American and other
children in foster care. We are also making a recommendation that the
Secretary of the HHS provide states with additional technical
assistance and tools to develop strategies to address
disproportionality. In its comments, HHS noted that our recommendation
was consistent with its efforts to provide technical assistance to
states for addressing disproportionality, but the department did not
address the specific actions we recommended. We continue to believe
that it is important for HHS to take these actions to help states
address this complex issue.
Background:
The HHS National Incidence Study has shown since the early 1980s that
children of all races and ethnicities are equally likely to be abused
or neglected; however, African American children, and to some extent
other minority children, have been significantly more likely to be
represented in foster care, according to HHS data and other
research.[Footnote 6] Nationally, African American children made up
less than 15 percent of the overall child population in the 2000
Census, but they represented 27 percent of the children who entered
foster care during fiscal year 2004, and they represented 34 percent of
the children remaining in foster care at the end of that year, as shown
in figure 1.[Footnote 7]
Figure 1: Proportion of Children by Race in Foster Care Settings, End
of Fiscal Year 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of AFCARS and Census data.
[End of figure]
African American children were more likely to be placed in foster care
than White or Hispanic children, and at each decision point in the
child welfare process the disproportionality of African American
children grows. Although racial disproportionality is most severe and
pervasive for African American children, Native American children also
experience higher rates of representation in foster care than children
of other races or ethnicities. Just over 2 percent of children in
foster care at the end of fiscal year 2004 were Native Americans, while
they represented less than 1 percent of children in the United
States.[Footnote 8] However, there can be significant variation by
state and county. It is especially important to understand local
variations for Hispanic and Asian children, since they are
underrepresented in foster care nationally and in most states, but are
overrepresented in some counties and states. For example, in a single
county in California, Hispanic children represented 30 percent of the
population but 52 percent of the county's child welfare cases.
There are various options for placing children in temporary and
permanent homes through the child welfare system. Temporary options
include foster care with relatives or non-relatives--whether licensed
or unlicensed--and group residential settings. According to HHS,
approximately one-fourth of the children in out-of-home care are living
with relatives, and this proportion is higher for Hispanic and African
American families. For permanent placements, adoption and guardianship
are options under federal law in addition to the child's reunification
with their parents. One important difference is that adoption entails
terminating parental rights, while guardianship does not. (See table
1.)
Table 1: Types of Temporary and Permanent Homes for Children in Child
Welfare:
Type of temporary placement: Foster parents;
Definition: Non-related adults who have been trained and
licensed/certified to provide shelter and care to a child.
Type of temporary placement: Kinship Care[A] - Licensed Foster;
Definition: Relative or close family friend who provides shelter and
care. Licensed kinship care may involve a training and licensure
process for the caregivers and support services.
Type of temporary placement: Kinship Care - Unlicensed Foster;
Definition: Relative or close family friend who provides shelter and
care. Unlicensed kinship care may involve only an assessment process to
ensure the safety and suitability of the home along with supportive
services for the child and caregivers.
Type of temporary placement: Congregate Care;
Definition: These settings include community-based group homes, campus-
style residential facilities, and secure facilities. Residential
programs, and the staff who work in them, are generally focused on
working with children who have certain special physical or behavioral
needs.
Type of permanent placement[B]: Reunification;
Definition: Parents reassume their role as the principle caretaker for
their children if the courts determine that parents have successfully
completed the action required in their case plan.
Type of permanent placement[B]: Adoption;
Definition: Caretakers who assume legal guardianship of the child
through the termination of parental rights.
Type of permanent placement[B]: Guardianship;
Definition: Caretakers who assume legal guardianship without the
termination of a child's parent's rights. Legal guardianship is more
durable than a simple transfer of custody to caretakers.
Source: HHS, Child Welfare Information Gateway.
[A] Kinship care exists both as formal arrangements made through the
child welfare system and as informal arrangements made by families
outside of child welfare. In this study, we are only referring to
formal kinship care through child welfare, either as a temporary
placement for a child or a permanent placement that allows the child to
exit foster care.
[B] Children can also exit foster care through emancipation when they
turn 18 years old. This is sometimes referred to as "aging out" of the
foster care system.
[End of table]
Federal Foster Care and Adoption Legislation:
In the last decade, several federal laws have been enacted to help
states reduce the number of children who enter and remain in foster
care. These laws include the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of
1994,[Footnote 9] as amended in 1996 by the Interethnic Adoption
Provisions included in the Small Business Job Protection Act[Footnote
10] (MEPA-IEP). MEPA-IEP is intended to eliminate race-related barriers
to adoption by prohibiting foster care and adoption agencies that
receive federal funds from delaying or denying placement decisions on
the basis of race, color, or national origin of either the adoptive or
foster parent or child. MEPA-IEP also required states to diligently
recruit potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic
and racial diversity of children in the state who need foster care and
adoptive homes. MEPA-IEP was followed by the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997 (ASFA),[Footnote 11] which established expedited time
frames to place children in permanent homes through reunification,
adoption, or guardianship and for terminating parental rights. ASFA
recognized that guardianship may be an appropriate permanency option
for some children in foster care and it encouraged adoption by
establishing adoption incentive payments for states. The Promoting Safe
and Stable Families (PSSF) program also created under ASFA supported
the need to strengthen and reunify families. This program expanded
dedicated funding for services that could help prevent the removal of
children from their homes or could expedite children's return home from
foster care. In addition to family preservation and community-based
support services, PSSF services include time-limited reunification
services and adoption promotion and support services. States are
required to allocate "significant portions" of their funding for each
of these four service categories. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Key Federal Legislation Affecting Foster Care Programs:
Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA-IEP).
Legislation: Prohibition against adoption placements on basis of race;
Description:
* Prohibited states and other entities that receive federal funding
assistance from delaying or denying a child's foster care or adoption
placement on the basis of the child or prospective parent's race,
color, or national origin.
Legislation: Recruiting foster and adoptive parents;
Description:
* Required that states diligently recruit foster and adoptive parents
who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the foster care
population for a state to remain eligible for federal assistance for
child welfare programs.
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA).
Legislation: Expediting decisions about permanent homes for children;
Description:
* Required that states hold a permanency hearing no later than 12
months after the date a child enters foster care. This requirement was
shortened from 18 months in prior law;
* Required that states file a petition to terminate parental rights for
children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22
months. States may exempt children from this requirement for multiple
reasons, including if the child is placed with a relative.
Legislation: Providing incentives to states for increasing adoptions;
Description:
* Provided financial rewards to states for increasing numbers of
finalized adoptions through the adoption incentive payment program.
States have the flexibility to use the incentive payment funds for any
child welfare related initiative;
* Required that in order to receive incentive payments, states must
exceed adoption baselines established for their state. States receive a
fixed payment of $4,000 for each foster child who is adopted over the
baseline, an extra $2,000 for the adoption of each special needs child
younger than age 9, and $4,000 for the adoption of each child aged 9 or
older.
Source: GAO analysis of federal legislation.
[End of table]
One of the prerequisites to finding children temporary and permanent
homes is for states to ensure that criminal background checks have been
conducted for prospective foster care and adoptive parents. Congress
had prohibited states from receiving federal foster care or adoption
assistance support on behalf of eligible children who are placed in the
home of a foster or adoptive parent who had certain types of
convictions.[Footnote 12] States had been allowed to opt out of certain
federal criminal background requirements by providing alternative plans
to ensure children's safety, which were assessed as part of an HHS
review process. According to HHS, eight states had been approved to use
alternative plans.[Footnote 13] However, requirements for conducting
federal background checks have recently changed: a provision of the
Adam Walsh Safety and Protection Act of 2006,[Footnote 14] which was
developed in response to concerns about child predators, establishes
additional federal requirements for criminal background checks of
prospective foster or adoptive parents[Footnote 15] and eliminates
states' ability to opt out of the federal requirements, effective
October 2008.
Foster Care Financing:
Federal funds account for approximately half of states' total reported
spending for child welfare services, with the rest of funding coming
from states and localities. In fiscal year 2004, total federal spending
on child welfare was estimated to be $11.7 billion based on analysis of
data from over 40 states.[Footnote 16] These federal funds come from
sources that are dedicated to child welfare as well as those that are
provided to states under the federal block grant structure for broader
purposes.
Titles IV-E and IV-B of the Social Security Act are the principal
sources of federal funds dedicated for child welfare activities. Title
IV-E provides the majority of dedicated federal funds for support
payments to foster families, adoption assistance, and related
administrative costs on behalf of children who meet certain federal
eligibility criteria.[Footnote 17] Title IV-E foster care maintenance
and adoption assistance payments are authorized as open-ended
entitlements. States may claim federal reimbursement for a specified
amount of the costs for every eligible child who is placed in a
licensed foster home. In addition, Title IV-E established subsidies
paid to families who provide adoptive homes to children who states
identify as having special needs that make placement
difficult.[Footnote 18] In 2003, 2004, and 2005, states designated more
than 80 percent of adoptions as special needs adoptions enabling
families to receive federal financial subsidies, according to HHS data.
Total federal expenditures, including administrative costs, for Title
IV-E programs were about $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2006. Title IV-B
authorizes funds to states for broad child welfare purposes, including
child protection, family preservation, and adoption services. In
contrast to Title IV-E funds, Title IV-B funds are appropriated
annually and totaled about $700 million in 2006.[Footnote 19]
Federal block grants such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) provide
additional sources of funds that states can use for child welfare
purposes. Block grants and other sources of non-dedicated funds made up
about 44 percent of total federal funds spent on child welfare in 2004,
or about $5.2 billion, according to the most recent research
available.[Footnote 20] Under these block grants, states have
discretion to provide direct social services for various populations,
including child welfare families, the elderly, and people with
disabilities. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: Federal Child Welfare Funding by Funding Source, FY 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Urban Institute 2005 Child Welfare Survey reported in May 2006.
Note: This funding analysis is the most recent available that shows
federal funding used specifically for child welfare. Total federal
spending on child welfare was estimated to be $11.7 billion in state
fiscal year 2004. Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
In 1994, the Congress authorized the use of flexible funding
demonstration waivers to encourage innovative and effective child
welfare practices. These waivers, typically authorized for 5 years,
allowed states to use Title IV-E funds to provide services and supports
other than foster care maintenance payments. For example, states could
use waivers to provide subsidies to legal guardians or services to
caregivers with substance abuse problems. Waiver demonstrations must
remain cost-neutral to the federal government and they must undergo
rigorous program evaluation to determine their effectiveness. As of May
2007, according to HHS, 14 states have one or more approved Title IV-E
child welfare waiver demonstration projects, involving one or more
programmatic components, such as subsidized guardianship. With regard
to guardianship specifically, four states have completed demonstrations
that involved subsidized guardianships as of May 2007, seven states
have active guardianship demonstrations, and one state has not yet
implemented its guardianship demonstration. HHS's ability to approve
new Title IV-E waivers expired in 2006, however, and Congress has not
reauthorized this program.
The Administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposes, for the fifth
consecutive year, to implement a "Child Welfare Program Option," which
would restructure the Title IV-E foster care program. Under this
proposal, states could forego open-ended entitlement foster care
funding in exchange for a pre-determined grant. Unlike the open-ended
funds, the grant could be spent on the entire range of child welfare
purposes and for any child (regardless of the child's federal foster
care eligibility status). States taking this option would need to
continue to ensure child safety protections, maintain existing state
funding for child welfare, and participate in federal assessments of
state child welfare programs, known as Child and Family Services
Reviews. Under this proposal, the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance
program would continue as an entitlement program, according to an HHS
official. In 2006, HHS approved two states to pilot the program option
over the next 5 years under its Title IV-E waiver demonstration
authority, which expired in that year.[Footnote 21] Final evaluation
results for these pilots will not be available for at least 5 years.
HHS Assessments of State Programs and Technical Assistance to States:
States are required to enact policies and meet certain federal
standards related to child welfare programs, and HHS evaluates how well
state child welfare systems achieve these federal standards through its
Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR). Implemented in 2001, these
reviews focus on states' performance in ensuring children's safety,
permanency, and well-being over a range of child welfare services,
using various outcome measures.[Footnote 22] To address any areas
identified as not in substantial conformity with these outcome
measures, the state develops a program improvement plan.[Footnote 23]
To evaluate states' performance on these measures, HHS also relies, in
part, on its Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS) to capture, report, and analyze information collected by the
states.[Footnote 24] In addition, AFCARS is used to generate annual
reports on foster care and adoption programs nationwide.
HHS provides states with training and technical assistance to help them
develop and implement their CFSR performance improvement plans, build
state agency capacity, and improve the state child welfare system.
Technical assistance providers in this network include HHS's Children's
Bureau, 10 regional offices, and various National Resource Centers. An
additional resource is the department's Child Welfare Information
Gateway, a Web site that provides access to information and resources
to help protect children and strengthen families.[Footnote 25]
States Report Poverty and Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes Are
among Major Factors Influencing African Americans' Entry and Length of
Stay:
A complex set of interrelated factors influence the disproportionate
number of African American children who enter foster care as well as
their longer lengths of stay, and our review found that poverty and the
lack of appropriate homes are particularly influential. Major factors
affecting children's entry into foster care included African American
families' higher rates of poverty, families' difficulties in accessing
support services so that they can provide a safe home for vulnerable
children and prevent their removal, and racial bias and cultural
misunderstanding among child welfare decision makers. Factors often
cited as affecting African American children's length of stay in foster
care included the lack of appropriate adoptive homes for children,
greater use of kinship care among African Americans, and parents' lack
of access to supportive services needed for reunification with their
children.
Higher Rates of Poverty, Lack of Support Services, and Racial Bias
Viewed as Increasing African American Children's Entry into Foster
Care:
In responding to our survey, states considered three main groups of
factors as contributing to African American children's entry into
foster care: These groups included high rates of poverty and other
poverty-related issues, challenges in accessing supports and services
in impoverished communities, and racial bias or cultural
misunderstanding among decision makers.
Higher Rates of Poverty:
Of the many factors that have been found to influence African American
children's disproportionate entry into foster care, the most often
cited factors that emerged in our survey were African American
families' higher rates of poverty and issues related to living in
poverty. Poverty-related factors included the large number of single
parents among African American households, a high rate of substance
abuse, and greater contact with public officials who have mandatory
responsibilities to report incidents of abuse and neglect.[Footnote 26]
(See fig. 3.)
Figure 3: State Views on Poverty-Related Factors Affecting Higher Entry
of African American Children to Foster Care:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
In our survey, poverty was cited as a key factor for entry: 33 states
reported that high rates of poverty in African American communities may
increase the disproportionate number of African American children
entering foster care compared to children of other races and
ethnicities. Researchers and child welfare officials in states we
visited also noted the importance of poverty as a contributing factor.
Across the nation, an estimated 23 percent of all African American
families lived below the poverty level compared to only 6 percent of
Whites, making African Americans nearly four times more likely to live
in poverty, according to U.S. Census data.[Footnote 27] Since foster
care programs primarily serve children from low-income families, this
could account for some of the disproportionate number of African
American children in the foster care system. However, our review of our
survey results, interviews, and studies indicate that factors unrelated
to poverty are also at play in foster care placements.
In addition, child welfare directors in 25 states reported that the
greater number of African American single-parent households was also a
factor contributing to African American children's entry into foster
care to at least a moderate extent.[Footnote 28] According to the most
recent National Incidence Study, children of single parents had a 77 to
87 percent greater risk of harm than children from two-parent
families.[Footnote 29] Across the nation, 35 percent of African
American family households were headed by single females with children
under 18 years of age compared to 9 percent for Whites and 19 percent
for Hispanics, according to U.S. Census data.[Footnote 30] In addition,
nearly half of the child welfare directors responding to our survey
considered higher rates of substance abuse in African American
households as contributing to the proportion of African American
children in foster care. (See fig. 3.) Despite this perception,
national data show that African Americans have nearly the same rate of
substance abuse as Whites.[Footnote 31] However, 65 percent of African
American children were removed from their homes because of parental
substance abuse and placed in foster care, compared to 58 percent of
White children, according to our analysis of AFCARS fiscal year 2004
data.[Footnote 32] Finally, child welfare directors in 14 states
responded that African American children's greater contact with
officials mandated to report child abuse and neglect played a role in
the children's entry to foster care. Several researchers we interviewed
noted that low-income families come into contact with a greater number
of mandated reporters because they have more interaction with some
public services. In fact, as noted in an HHS report, the top three
sources of reports to child protective services hotlines in 2003 were
educational staff, law enforcement officials, and social services
personnel, of which the latter two disproportionately interact with low-
income individuals.
Challenges in Accessing Supports and Services:
In our survey, African American families' challenges in accessing
supports and social services was also viewed as influencing African
American children's entry to foster care. African American and other
families living in impoverished neighborhoods often do not have access
to the kinds of supports and services that can prevent problems in the
home from leading to abuse or neglect. Such supports and services
include affordable and adequate housing, substance abuse treatment, and
family services such as parenting skills and counseling. Access to
legal representation in courts responsible for making decisions about
children reported to have been abused or neglected was also as a factor
as influencing African American children's entry into foster care. (See
fig. 4.)
Figure 4: State Views on Support and Preventive Services Affecting
African American Children's Higher Entry into Foster Care:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
According to our survey, child welfare directors in 25 states reported
that the lack of affordable housing options was a factor that may
increase the proportion of African American children entering foster
care to at least a moderate extent. For low-income families, affordable
public housing is a critical support that can help families stay
together and allow for in-home services, thereby decreasing the chances
of children being removed from their families, but in some areas, there
is a shortage. For example, child welfare officials in a California
county told us they have a waiting list estimated at around 20,000
applicants for public housing.[Footnote 33] Families involved in the
child welfare system often live in communities that lack resources and
services, including drug treatment services and job training, which
they either do not receive or must travel long distances to obtain,
according to an HHS study.[Footnote 34] In our survey, 25 states
reported that the lack of substance abuse treatment and 24 states
reported that the limited access to preventive services were factors
that may increase the proportion of African American children entering
foster care to at least a moderate extent. The state survey responses
may reflect the fact that a higher percentage of African American
families live in impoverished neighborhoods that lack such resources.
Child welfare officials in all of the states we visited as well as
researchers noted that lack of adequate supportive services contributed
to disproportionality. For example, during a site visit, a Minnesota
child welfare official noted that wealthier families may be able to
draw upon support services, like family and substance abuse counseling,
that can help keep the children with their families. However, poorer
families, without access to supportive services, may have a more
difficult time weathering a problem such as substance abuse or
emotional issues.[Footnote 35] Even after they are reported to child
welfare, families can have difficulty in gaining access to the types of
services that would allow a child to remain with the family and risk
being removed to foster care. According to HHS's 2005 Child
Maltreatment report, about 40 percent of children identified as victims
of maltreatment do not receive services such as counseling and family
support services.[Footnote 36] With regard to substance abuse treatment
services, one study found significant gaps in services for families
involved with the child welfare system, with only 31 percent of at-risk
children and families with substance abuse problems receiving
treatment.[Footnote 37] There is also some evidence that African
American families, in particular, are not offered the same amount of
support services when they are brought to the attention of the child
welfare system. As one study found, race was a significant factor in
whether families received mental health related services, even after
controlling for age, type of maltreatment, behavior of the child, and
gender.[Footnote 38] A Texas state child welfare official reiterated
this point, telling us that in her experience, African American
children are less likely than children of other races or ethnicities to
receive in-home services.
According to 20 states responding to our survey, once African American
families come into contact with the child welfare system, they often
have difficulties obtaining adequate legal representation in court, and
this contributed to their disproportionate numbers in foster care.
Local court officials and others we interviewed observed that higher
income families can afford private legal representation, which can help
prevent their child's removal to foster care, but lower-income parents
usually do not have this option. In one state we visited, we were told
that public attorneys assigned to child welfare families often do not
meet parents before they appear in court and have little time to review
case files, putting parents at a disadvantage in unfamiliar legal
settings. In addition, the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care
found that parents in dependency hearings were often inadequately
represented because of a lack of time, preparation, and resources,
including attorney compensation.[Footnote 39]
Distrust and Racial Bias or Cultural Misunderstanding:
Coupled with African American parents' greater distrust of the child
welfare system, racial bias or cultural misunderstanding among decision
makers also emerged in our survey as major factors contributing to the
disproportionate number of African American children entering foster
care. These decision makers include mandated reporters, child welfare
caseworkers, and those involved in judicial rulings about these
children. (See fig. 5.)
Figure 5: State Views on Issues of Distrust and Bias or Cultural
Misunderstanding Affecting African American Children's Greater Entry to
Foster Care:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
Families' distrust of the child welfare system was cited by child
welfare directors in 28 states as a factor contributing to the entry of
African American children into foster care to at least a moderate
extent. According to state child welfare officials and some researchers
we interviewed, African American families' distrust of the child
welfare system stems from their perception that the system is
unresponsive to their needs and racially biased against them. Child
welfare officials and researchers said that many African Americans in
poor communities perceive child welfare caseworkers as more intent on
separating African American parents from their children than on working
within their communities to address child safety issues. As an example
of how this dynamic might occur, a neighborhood-based service provider
we interviewed in California described a situation in which a mother
fleeing domestic violence at home did not seek public services for
herself and her children--despite the evident need for clothing and
therapy--because child welfare had once before removed her children and
she did not trust the system to be helpful. These experiences in turn
can shape the families' dynamics in their initial contacts with
mandated reporters, caseworkers, and judges. Casey Family
Programs[Footnote 40] staff in an interview noted that African American
families in such circumstances may not seek services because of such
distrust, which in turn increases the risk of a child's removal.
In our survey, 23 state child welfare directors reported that they
considered racial bias or cultural misunderstanding on the part of
those reporting abuse or neglect, such as teachers, medical
professionals, or police officers, as a factor in the disproportionate
representation of African American children entering foster care to at
least a moderate extent. In support of this view, some studies have
found that medical professionals are more likely to report low-income
or minority children to child protective services, even controlling for
other factors, such as type of abuse.[Footnote 41] In addition, bias or
cultural misunderstanding on the part of child welfare caseworkers and
juvenile and family court judges are viewed as playing a role in the
proportion of African American children entering foster care. In our
survey, child welfare directors in 21 states reported that caseworker
bias, cultural misunderstanding, or inadequate training was a factor
that contributes to entry. To a lesser extent, bias or cultural
misunderstanding was considered a factor in judicial rulings as well.
HHS and a few state child welfare officials we interviewed also noted
that class and educational differences between caseworkers and families
also contributed to cultural misunderstandings. As one researcher
noted, even well-meaning decision makers at any stage of the child
welfare process may have faulty assumptions about racial, ethnic, or
socio-economic groups.
Studies that have tried to control for other factors to determine if
race or racial bias was a predictor for entry into foster care have
produced varied results. One study using California data found that,
after controlling for poverty and maltreatment, African American
children were more likely to be removed from their homes and placed in
foster care compared to White children, when income was accounted
for.[Footnote 42] However, another study using Baltimore, Maryland,
data found African American children did not have an increased
likelihood of being removed from their homes and placed in foster
care.[Footnote 43] Although research on racial bias or race as a
predictor for entry into foster care is not always consistent, a recent
review of the current literature by the Casey-Center for the Study of
Social Policy Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child Welfare System
concluded that race is an important factor that affects the decision to
place children into foster care.[Footnote 44]
Difficulties in Finding Permanent Homes and Achieving Reunification May
Increase Time in Foster Care for African American Children:
In responding to our survey, states considered certain groups of
factors as contributing to African American children's length of stay
in foster care, thereby increasing their disproportionality: These
included challenges in finding appropriate adoptive homes for those
unable to be reunified with their families, the impact of kinship
foster care on length of stay, and other challenges affecting
children's ability to exit foster care to be reunified with their
families.
Challenges in Finding Appropriate Adoptive Homes:
Certain factors made finding permanent homes for African American
children more challenging, according to states responding to our
survey, thereby contributing to longer lengths of stay for African
American children. These factors included an insufficient number of
appropriate adoptive homes, difficulties in finding families that will
adopt older African American children, and the belief that African
American children are more likely to be diagnosed as having special
needs. (See fig. 6.)
Figure 6: State Views on Factors Affecting Longer Time in Foster Care
for African American Children --Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
State officials from 29 states cited the insufficient number of
appropriate adoptive homes as a factor that may increase African
American children's length of stay in foster care to at least a
moderate extent. For African American children, lengths of stays in
foster care averaged 9 months longer compared to White children in
2004, according to our analysis of AFCARS data. This is partly due to
the fact that African American children constituted nearly half of the
children legally available for adoption in 2004 and waited
significantly longer than other children for an adoptive placement.
State officials we interviewed described challenges in recruiting
appropriate adoptive families for African American children. These
challenges include the difficulty many states have in recruiting
adoptive families of the same race and ethnicity of the children
waiting for adoption and the unwillingness of some families to adopt a
child of another race. An additional challenge was finding adoptive
African American families who are able to meet state licensing
requirements, including housing and background checks, for an
appropriate adoptive home. In New York, for example, local officials
explained that state requirements for a certain number of bedrooms can
prevent poor African American families from being able to meet
licensing requirements needed for adoption--this can be especially an
issue in high-cost urban areas in which there is limited affordable
housing. In three states we visited, child welfare officials also told
us that African American families who were interested in adopting were
sometimes prevented from doing so because a member of the household had
a prior criminal record, even though child welfare officials had
determined that the person would not be a risk to the child.[Footnote
45]
The age of foster children awaiting adoption also contributes to the
challenges in finding appropriate adoptive families, with greater
difficulties in placing older children. According to research,
prospective adoptive parents are more inclined to adopt younger
children, and older children may also have less interest in being
adopted. In our survey, 21 states reported that a factor accounting for
the longer lengths of stay for African American children waiting to be
adopted was that many of them were also older.[Footnote 46] According
to a 2003 study comparing a cohort of children whose parents' rights
were terminated at the same time, children who were both older and
African American had longer wait times between the termination of
parental rights and adoption.[Footnote 47] State officials we visited
echoed this finding, noting that child welfare agencies have a
difficult time trying to find adoptive homes, particularly for older
African American children.
In our survey, 16 states also considered the greater likelihood of
African American children being diagnosed as having medical and other
special needs as a factor affecting African American's length of stay
to at least a moderate extent. According to HHS data, African American
children in foster care in 2004 were only slightly more likely to have
been diagnosed as having medical conditions or other disabilities (28
percent) than White children in foster care (26 percent). Children with
special needs may require additional support services, and some African
American families may have less access to support services that would
enable them to take on this extra responsibility. The impact on African
American children is supported by HHS adoption data that shows that 23
percent of African American children who were adopted out of foster
care had a medical condition or disability, compared to 31 percent of
White children in the same category.
Kinship Care:
African American children are more likely than White and Asian children
to enter into the care of relatives.[Footnote 48] Although kinship care
is associated with longer lengths of stay, child welfare researchers
and officials we interviewed consider these placements to be positive
options for African American children because they are less stressful
to the child and maintain familial ties. In addition, some researchers
associate the use of kinship care with fewer foster care placements and
lower rates of re-entry.[Footnote 49] Kinship care also has some
drawbacks. For example, a 1999 GAO study found that kinship care might
increase a child's risk of harm because caregivers may be unwilling to
enforce court-ordered restrictions on parental visits.[Footnote 50] In
responding to our survey, 18 states reported that the use of kinship
care was a factor contributing to longer lengths of stay in foster care
for African American children to at least a moderate extent. This view
is supported by research findings indicating that children living with
relatives generally spend more time in foster care than children living
with non-relatives. For example, a study cited in a HHS report showed
that 42 percent of children in foster kinship care remain there for
more than 2 years compared to 36 percent of children in non-kin foster
care.[Footnote 51]
Moving a child from kinship foster care to adoption can be difficult
for caregivers who need financial assistance or wish to retain family
ties. Several child welfare officials said that there is a financial
disincentive to adopt children who are only eligible for financial
subsidies and services while they are in foster care, especially for
grandparents and others living on a fixed income. Even when states
offer financial subsidies to help families adopt these children,
relatives may be reluctant to terminate their relatives' rights. An
alternative is for these caregivers to provide a permanent home for
their relative's children through legal guardianship in which
caregivers are afforded legal decision-making authority over the child
without terminating the birth parent's rights.[Footnote 52]
Difficulty in Achieving Reunification:
Some of the same factors that states view as contributing to African
American children's entry also contribute to their difficulties in
exiting foster care and being reunified with their families. In our
survey, nearly half of the states considered the lack of affordable
housing, distrust of the child welfare system, and lack of substance
abuse treatment as factors contributing to African American children's
longer lengths of stay. The lack of such supports and other services in
many poor African American neighborhoods contributes to children's
longer stays in foster care because services can influence a parent's
ability to reunify with their child in a timely manner, according to
our survey, interviews, and research. (See fig. 7.)
Figure 7: State Views on Factors Affecting Greater Time in Foster Care
for African American Children --Difficulties in Achieving
Reunification:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
In our survey, nearly half of the states reported a lack of affordable
housing options for African American parents, and state and county
child welfare officials said that housing issues often delay family
reunification, resulting in longer lengths of stay in foster care.
According to child welfare officials and researchers we interviewed,
poor families can lose their housing once their children have been
removed because the TANF program requires children to be living with
caregivers for them to qualify for TANF child-only benefits. For
example, a county official in California noted that about 70 percent of
families in that county experience a housing crisis when their children
are removed. If families cannot afford to remain in their homes without
TANF benefits, then they must seek other alternatives to create homes
suitable for reunification with their children. Furthermore, if
families do maintain their housing or find other housing they can
afford, the standards that parents must meet before their children can
be returned home from foster care are often higher than when the
children were removed. According to a private foundation that assists
13 state and local child welfare agencies around the country in
addressing disproportionality, a parent living in poverty might be
unable to meet housing requirements needed for reunification, such as
having a bedroom for each child, even though the appropriateness of the
parent's housing had not been the original basis for a child's removal.
According to 25 states in our survey, parents' distrust of the child
welfare system was also a factor contributing to African American
children's longer length of stay in foster care to at least a moderate
extent. We were told that African American families in some communities
do not trust child welfare agencies because families in their
communities have had adversarial relationships with various public
organizations, including schools, public health, and criminal justice
systems.
The lack of substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and
other support services in African American communities are additional
factors that can slow African American children's reunification with
their parents, thereby contributing to longer stays in foster care.
According to our survey, 23 state child welfare administrators reported
the lack of substance abuse treatment services as factors contributing
to African American children's longer stays in foster care to at least
a moderate extent. An HHS study found that state officials lack the
resources to provide substance abuse and other types of treatment
services sufficient to help African American families and those of
other racial and ethnic minorities move toward reunification and
adoption.[Footnote 53] Court officials in California said that
initiatives to refer drug offenders to treatment programs instead of
incarceration have increased competition for accessing publicly funded
substance abuse programs, adding to the difficulties families may face
in making changes needed for reunification. In addition, when services
are available, it may take 2 years for a parent to complete a substance
abuse treatment program, and entry into such programs may be delayed if
there are waiting lists for services.
States Implemented a Range of Strategies Considering Promising for
Addressing Disproportionality, but Fewer States Specifically Focus
Attention on Issue:
Most states we surveyed reported implementing a range of child welfare
strategies-often good practices generally-that researchers and experts
believe may also be promising for reducing the number of African
American children in foster care. These strategies are intended to
reduce bias in decision making and increase access to supportive
services for families and the availability of permanent homes for
foster children. Fewer states reported focusing attention on
disproportionality through such actions as convening task forces or
passing state legislation to study the issue. States that did more
directly address disproportionality agreed that certain key elements
were central to their efforts: these elements were data analysis to
identify problems and strategies to address them, leadership to sustain
change across time, and collaboration with different social services
agencies to access programs and resources needed outside the child
welfare system. HHS has provided some support to states for reducing
the proportion of African American children in foster care through
conferences, workshops and various Web sites, but states reported that
they would benefit from having additional guidance in analyzing
information and from the dissemination of strategies that other states
have found promising.
States Implement a Range of Strategies Expected to Have an Impact on
Disproportionality:
Researchers and child welfare administrators stressed that no single
strategy was sufficient to fully address disproportionality. Some
strategies states reported on have the potential to reduce bias or
improve decision making. Other strategies are intended to improve
access to support services for parents, and still others could increase
the availability of permanent homes for children waiting in foster care
(see table 3).
Table 3: Strategies Used by States That Address Factors Contributing to
Disproportionality:
Factor: Bias in decision making;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Involving family in planning
decisions about children.
Factor: Bias in decision making;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Training caseworkers to strengthen
their ability to work across cultures.
Factor: Bias in decision making;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Conducting outreach or education to
mandated reporters on criteria or standards for reporting abuse and
neglect.
Factor: Bias in decision making;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Recruiting, retaining, and promoting
culturally competent staff.
Factor: Bias in decision making;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Using risk assessment tools that are
considered culturally competent or validated.
Factor: Lack of access to support services;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Collaborating with neighborhood-
based organizations to provide services.
Factor: Lack of access to support services;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Using interagency agreements with
other social service agencies to improve families' access to services
across programs.
Factor: Lack of access to support services;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Providing supports for families
judged to be a at lower risk of abusing or neglecting their children
instead of removing them from their families through an approach known
as Alternative, Dual or Differential Response.
Factor: Challenges in finding permanent homes;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Searching for fathers or paternal
kin of foster children.
Factor: Challenges in finding permanent homes;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Recruiting more African American
adoptive families.
Factor: Challenges in finding permanent homes;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Providing financial subsidies to
guardians willing to permanently parent foster children.
Factor: Lack of focused attention;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Establishing councils or advisory
committees on disproportionality.
Factor: Lack of focused attention;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Providing preventive services
targeted at African American families.
Factor: Lack of focused attention;
Type of Strategy States Are Using: Establishing requirements in
contracts to address disproportionality.
Source: GAO survey of state child welfare administrators.
[End of table]
States' Strategies to Address Racial Bias in Decision Making:
To help mitigate the influence of racial and other forms of bias in
child welfare decision making processes, states implemented a range of
strategies such as including family members in discussions of placement
options, providing training for case workers to strengthen their
cultural competency, implementing tools to help caseworkers make more
systematic decisions, and reaching out to educate mandated reporters
about reporting requirements. (See fig. 8.) Among these strategies,
states expected that including families in the decision making process
and training culturally competent staff would most reduce
disproportionality.
Figure 8: Strategies Intended to Improve Decisions by Reducing Bias:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
All states we surveyed had implemented strategies to include families
in the decision making process to some degree, and every state we
visited told us they were using this method to help address
disproportionality. There may be differences in the extent to which
states involved families, ranging from occasional discussions with
family members to more formal approaches of "family group
conferencing," which follows a specific model of engaging family
members in decisions about the child's placement through three phases
including monitoring and follow up. This approach can help address
caseworker bias, as one researcher explained, because it increases
caseworkers' exposure to the lifestyles of the community they are
serving and helps bridge misunderstandings. Some studies of this
strategy show that it holds promise for African American families.
According to an evaluation in Texas, family group decision making led
to a reduction in foster care placements and an increase in placements
with relatives for all children; these findings were especially
pronounced for African American and Hispanic children. Specifically, 32
percent of African American children whose families attended such a
conference returned home compared to 14 percent whose families received
traditional services.
Almost all states (45) reported conducting training for caseworkers to
strengthen their understanding of different cultures, known as cultural
competency training. Such training could include workshops on cultural
differences to enable caseworkers to better interpret behaviors and
interactions with their clients. Somewhat fewer states (36) reported
using initiatives to recruit and retain culturally competent staff. To
address bias among caseworkers, some of the states we visited required
that their child welfare workers take an intensive program called
"Undoing Racism."[Footnote 54] This program has participants analyze
the ways in which structural racism may affect their decisions through
dialogue, reflection, role-playing, and presentations.[Footnote 55] In
addition, officials pointed out that, beyond cultural understanding,
caseworkers need to understand the challenges of living with economic
disadvantages so that they can work effectively with their clients. For
example, one county agency in Iowa required its child welfare workers
to spend 1 day using public transportation to get to social service
appointments their clients must attend to better understand the time
and transportation constraints some people face. Although most survey
respondents expected cultural competency training to have an impact on
disproportionality, there is little research linking cultural
competency training programs to improved outcomes for African American
children. However, one 3-year evaluation of a comprehensive cultural
competency program in Washington state, which was initiated
specifically to address the causes of disproportionality, found that
families served by staff trained in this approach had a higher rate of
children returning home than African American children in other areas.
Because some state data have shown that disproportionality in foster
care starts with the differing rates of reporting among races, most
states (37) are also conducting educational outreach for those who work
with children, such as teachers, health care providers, and social
workers, who are required to report suspected abuse and neglect. These
efforts may help ensure that mandated reporters are not inappropriately
referring families to child welfare. Illinois conducted a widespread
public awareness campaign for mandated reporters about how to identify
abuse and neglect. Although some child welfare officials expect this
outreach strategy to reduce disproportionality, none of the studies we
examined assessed its effectiveness in that regard.
Over half of states (29) reported using risk assessment tools, which
can help caseworkers make more systematic decisions about a child's
safety and the need to remove a child from the home. Caseworkers use
these tools when investigating an allegation of child maltreatment to
systematically collect information about a family and, based on this
information, more objectively assess the level of risk in keeping the
child at home. Without such tools, workers may err on the side of
unnecessarily removing a child from its family, according to some child
welfare officials. Two studies found particular risk assessment tools
to be both race-neutral and more accurate predictors of future harm
than caseworker judgment alone. A 2004 study of five counties in
California found that minority groups often showed a lower risk than
Whites when the assessment tool was applied, which means it could help
to reduce the representation of some groups in the child welfare
system, according to the author.[Footnote 56] However, some researchers
express concern that other risk assessments that rely too heavily on
information related to social conditions and poverty might actually
contribute to racial bias. Despite the promising research about the
value of specific risk assessment tools, only about one-third of the
child welfare administrators surveyed who were using this strategy
expected it to reduce disproportionality.
States' Strategies to Improve Families' Access to Services:
Child welfare agencies are taking action to improve access to services,
such as providing or arranging for mental health treatment, medical
care, and housing assistance for low-income people. The strategies
states are using for this purpose include collaborating with
neighborhood-based services, establishing interagency agreements to
improve access to these services, and implementing an alternative
approach to the removal of children--known as alternative, dual, or
differential response. Just over half of the states who used each
strategy reported in the survey that they expected it to reduce
disproportionality. (See fig. 9.)
Figure 9: Strategies to Improve Access to Support Services:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
Thirty-eight states reported using neighborhood-based support
organizations to improve access to and use of support services.
Neighborhood-based services can improve access to supports for parents
because they are often more conveniently located to parents' homes and
more likely to be staffed by people familiar with issues particular to
their ethnic community. For example, child welfare officials in Los
Angeles County told us that they went door to door in minority
neighborhoods to find service providers beyond those with whom they
have historically contracted. They subsequently heard that this
collaboration helped to increase trust between the community and the
child welfare system and increased use of these services. Similarly,
one county in North Carolina convened a task force of schools, police,
and community groups to examine and identify what support services were
available to families. An HHS report synthesizing the views of child
welfare workers in eight states noted that working with community-based
services holds promise for reducing disproportionality because they are
more accessible and provide services in a culturally appropriate
context.[Footnote 57]
Interagency agreements, used by 34 states, may improve families'
ability to obtain services and supports they need from agencies outside
of child welfare, which are primarily provided and funded through other
state agencies. To address gaps in the provision of services like
substance abuse treatment and financial supports,[Footnote 58] agencies
can work with one another in any of the following ways: training staff
jointly, sharing information and tracking systems, using common intake
and assessment forms, coordinating case management, and placing staff
from multiple agencies in the same office. Some child welfare officials
told us they were reluctant to share information about overlapping
clients because of federal privacy laws,[Footnote 59] while other local
officials described methods they use to share information across
systems. For example, the child welfare agency in San Francisco uses
court agreements with other agencies, such as juvenile justice and
mental health, to share information about families who are involved in
multiple systems, and county officials report that these agreements
enable them to better serve these families. Although we found no
studies on the effectiveness of inter-agency agreements in reducing
disproportionality, many child welfare officials expected that this
strategy could have an impact.
Another approach used by slightly more than half of states is
differential or alternative response, which is a way for states to
provide services to families when the risk of abuse and neglect is
judged to be lower in lieu of removing children from their homes.
Differential response can be used when maltreatment is not related to
physical and sexual abuse, but instead to conditions of chronic
poverty, chemical abuse, or domestic violence. For example, some
California counties have three tracks for assessing families, depending
on a family's situation. In the first track, if the case involves abuse
and neglect and the risk is considered moderate to high for continued
abuse, the caseworker may take action to remove the child with or
without the family's consent, court orders may be involved, and
criminal charges may be filed. In the second track, if the risk of
continued abuse and neglect is lower, families work with
representatives of county child welfare agencies to identify services
for improving child and family well-being. In the third track, if an
allegation is not considered abuse, the family is linked to services in
the community through expanded partnerships with local organizations.
Evaluations of alternative response in some states have shown this
strategy to have promise for addressing the factors that may lead to
the disproportionate number of African American children in care.
Evaluations in Missouri and Minnesota[Footnote 60] found that use of
alternative response increased cooperation between families and the
child welfare agency. The Minnesota study also found that families who
participated in the alternative response system received significantly
greater access to support services and also a lower rate of new
maltreatment reports than families in a control group.
States' Strategies for Increasing the Availability of Permanent Homes:
States are also devising strategies to increase the number of permanent
homes for African American children who cannot be reunified with their
parents so as to reduce the length of time they remain in foster care
and increase the likelihood that they will be adopted. To do this, many
states are increasing the search for fathers and paternal kin, making
efforts to recruit more African American adoptive parents, and
providing financial subsidies for caregivers (often relatives) who are
willing to act as permanent guardians for foster children. (See fig.
10.)
Figure 10: Strategies to Reduce Length of Stay in Foster Care:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
Almost all states surveyed reported that they take action to search for
paternal kin when making decisions on where to place a child. Until
recently, caseworkers did not routinely gather information on fathers,
according to child welfare workers we spoke with. As foster care
agencies have placed greater reliance on placing children with
relatives, however, fathers and paternal relatives are increasingly
being viewed as potential caregivers. Greater efforts to locate fathers
and paternal kin are particularly relevant for African American
families who are less likely to have a father living with the family at
the time of their involvement with the child welfare agency. Officials
we visited in Illinois, North Carolina, and New York told us that they
had instituted changes so that searching for paternal kin was routine.
One county in North Carolina requires social workers to use a
structured protocol in contacting and gathering information from the
father about family members as potential resources. This approach can
allow fathers and other paternal relatives to take a much more active
role in their child's life to prevent out-of-home placements. About two-
thirds of states using this strategy expected it to reduce
disproportionality, but there is relatively little research on the role
of fathers in child welfare cases in general.
Although 38 states reported that, to some extent, they are recruiting
African American adoptive families, states still face challenges.
States are required by law to diligently recruit foster and adoptive
parents who reflect the racial and ethnic backgrounds of children.
States have adopted various strategies, such as contracting with faith-
based organizations and convening adoption support teams, to recruit
greater numbers of African American adoptive parents. However, despite
these efforts the overall number of African American children adopted
by African American parents has not substantially increased in the past
8 years. In addition, HHS's 2001-2004 review found that only 21 of 52
states were sufficiently recruiting minority families, and a recent
report found that the recruitment of minority families was one of the
greatest challenges for nearly all states.
Using subsidized guardianship as an alternative to adoption may hold
particular promise for reducing disproportionality, and more than half
of the states surveyed (30) reported using this strategy.[Footnote 61]
African Americans are more likely than White children to be placed with
relatives for foster care, and relative foster care is generally longer
term.[Footnote 62] These relative caregivers are also more likely than
non-relative foster parents to be low-income.[Footnote 63] They may be
unwilling to adopt because they may find it difficult financially to
forego foster care payments or because adoption entails terminating the
parental rights of their kin. However, states can provide a way for
foster children living with relatives to convert this to a more
permanent arrangement by creating subsidized guardianship programs.
These programs provide financial subsidies for foster parents (often
relatives) who agree to become legally responsible for children, but
are unable or willing to adopt. When Illinois and California
implemented two of the largest of such programs, they subsequently saw
an increase in permanent placements for all children.[Footnote 64]
After instituting their subsidized guardianship programs, over 40
percent of children who were in long-term relative foster care in both
states found permanency. In Illinois, this decrease also coincided with
a reduction in disproportionate numbers of African American children in
foster care.[Footnote 65] HHS officials also pointed out that these
programs can be cost-neutral because the administrative costs
associated with maintaining a child in foster care are no longer
incurred with permanent legal guardianships. All seven states that used
federal waivers to subsidize their guardianship programs with Title IV-
E funds did so in a cost-neutral manner, as required by the waivers.
Fewer States Implemented Strategies That Focused Attention Specifically
on Disproportionality:
Although many states we surveyed are employing the types of strategies
that hold promise for reducing the proportion of African American
children in foster care, fewer states were focusing attention
specifically on disproportionality as a policy issue.[Footnote 66] Such
strategies included establishing councils on disproportionality,
requiring child welfare contractors to address disproportionality, and
targeting preventive services to African American families.[Footnote
67] While these strategies may not necessarily be more effective than
other strategies, they do represent a public acknowledgment of the
issue and may be considered a starting point for further activity.
States were much less likely to use these strategies compared with
other strategies in our survey. A total of 15 states had established
disproportionality councils or commissions that can provide leadership
in addressing the issues. According to a report by the National Council
of State Legislatures, the Illinois African-American Family Commission
has the broad mandate to monitor legislation and programs, and assist
in designing new programs on behalf of African American families, as
well as facilitate the participation of African Americans in
establishing community-based services. In addition, 13 states reported
in our survey that they were targeting preventative services to African
American families, and 11 states had some requirements for contracted
agencies to address disproportionality. For example, child welfare
officials in Kentucky reported that they were making a concerted effort
to contract with service providers that can demonstrate their knowledge
or understanding of the issue of disproportionality.
Data, Leadership, and Working across Social Service Systems Are Key
Elements to Address Disproportionality:
Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data were considered
fundamental aspects of states' efforts to address disproportionality.
These data can include not only disproportionality rates (as described
in appendix II), but also information that identifies the extent to
which disproportionality occurs, among ages, along the child welfare
process, and geographically. For example, a researcher at the
University of California at Berkeley has used state data to show that
African American infants enter at a much higher rate than other
children (see fig. 11). However, this disproportionality grows as
children get older, because African American children are also less
likely to exit foster care; and the foster care population for all ages
then becomes disproportionally African American (see fig. 12). Child
welfare officials in most of the states we visited used their data to
show that as a child moved through the child welfare process from
having a case reported, then investigated, then being removed from the
home, disproportionality increased at each decision point. Lastly,
researchers in Illinois learned that disproportionality rates were
actually higher in the rest of the state than in Cook County, the main
urban county containing Chicago and over half of the state's foster
care population.
Figure 11: Children Entering Foster Care in California in 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Center for Social Services Research, University of California
at Berkeley.
[End of figure]
Figure 12: Children in Foster Care in California in 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Center for Social Services Research, University of California
at Berkeley.
[End of figure]
Using data is considered crucial in identifying where
disproportionality occurs in the child welfare process in order to
devise strategies to most effectively address the issue. For example,
when they analyzed state-level data, Texas officials realized that it
was difficult to find foster care placements in close proximity to the
birth family, making it difficult for African American children to be
reunified with their families. To address this problem, Texas provided
automated support for tracking the vacancies of foster homes and
facilities. Data can also be useful for building consensus among
community leaders, practitioners and policy-makers. Researchers in
Illinois shared data on disproportionality with child welfare
supervisors and caseworkers to increase their awareness that once an
African American child is removed from the home, they are more likely
to spend longer time in foster care. In Guilford County, North
Carolina, child welfare officials shared data to show teachers, who are
also mandated reporters, how disproportionality increases as a child
moves from being referred, to investigated, to placed into foster care.
Despite the importance of data collection, 18 states we surveyed
reported that they were not regularly using data in their efforts to
address disproportionality.
In states we visited, child welfare officials also agreed that
sustained leadership was fundamental to the process of identifying and
addressing disproportionality. Members of the Child Welfare League of
America's Cultural Competence and Racial Disproportionality and
Disparity of Outcomes Committee told us that initiatives generally take
root through the efforts of a person or organizations that champion the
issue. All of the states we visited had some support from the Casey
Foundation, and four states were involved with Casey's Breakthrough
Series Collaborative, which focuses specifically on having child
welfare professionals test new ideas and strategies to address racial
disproportionality.[Footnote 68] Without such leadership, officials who
have many competing priorities may be reluctant to tackle a politically
sensitive issue. For example, child welfare workers in one county
expressed concern that their efforts to address disproportionality
would diminish when their Social Services Director -
-who was highly committed to addressing disproportionality--retired.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, six states
have enacted state legislation to address disproportionality. These
laws generally create commissions or task forces, require a study of
the issue, or fund special projects to address disproportionality. For
example, a Texas law required an analysis of data to determine whether
child welfare enforcement actions were disproportionately initiated
against any racial or ethnic group.[Footnote 69] In addition, some
states included some discussion of African American disproportionality
in their state child welfare plans. California, for example, pledged to
meet the target of increasing the service provisions specifically for
Native American and African American children.
Finally, state child welfare officials, researchers, and other experts
stressed the need to work across different social service systems
because many of the factors that contribute to disproportionality lay
outside the child welfare system. For example, one child welfare
official we interviewed observed that efforts to address
disproportionality in one system (e.g., child welfare) can be undone by
lack of diligence in another (e.g., housing). Additionally, some state
officials said that there was a need for collaboration among social
service agencies, such as juvenile justice and education, because
disproportionality in child welfare often results when families have
not had their service and support needs met by other agencies.
Although HHS Has Provided Assistance and Guidance, States Report That
More Information and Technical Assistance Is Needed:
HHS has made available technical assistance, guidance, and information
to states on disproportionality at conferences, workshops and through
various HHS Web sites. Since 2004, disproportionality and cultural
competency have been discussed at training and technical assistance
meetings attended by members of HHS's network of National Resource
Centers, and since 2006 these issues have been a priority area for the
network, according to HHS officials. Currently, HHS provides states and
localities with information on disproportionality through various
National Resource Center Web sites and the Children's Bureau
Information Gateway Web site, such as links to literature examining
various strategies and audio files of past teleconferences discussing
disproportionality. HHS also provides guidance and information on
promising approaches as well as technical assistance and training to
improve states' efforts to find minority foster care and adoptive
parents through its AdoptUsKids initiative and Web site. In 2003, HHS's
Children's Bureau also published a study examining
disproportionality[Footnote 70] and the Office of Planning, Research
and Evaluation summarizes other published and unpublished research
findings on disproportionality on its Web site.
Although HHS does not require states to collect or report information
on disproportionality, the agency has included state-based data on
disproportionality in its Annual Child Welfare Outcomes Report to
Congress. In addition, through an initiative known as the Culturally
Competent Practice Knowledge Management Initiative, the agency is
compiling an inventory of tools and best practices for addressing
disproportionality. According to HHS officials, the agency plans to
make this information available to consultants within its network of
National Resource Centers to use in providing training and technical
assistance to states and localities, but as of April 2007, HHS had not
determined whether or how to make this information publicly available.
As a whole, child welfare administrators we surveyed reported that in
their view, their own states should be doing more to address
disproportionality but added that having additional resources,
including information on promising practices and technical assistance,
would be useful in their efforts. Forty-two states reported that
additional resources were needed to apply known strategies to reduce
the disproportionality of African American children. All six states we
visited were using funds from a private foundation, Casey Foundation,
to support their initiatives. Similarly, 41 states reported that having
information on best practices to address racial disproportionality
would be at least moderately helpful to them. In responding to the
survey, officials from one state noted that Casey Family Programs had
developed helpful strategies to address the issue, and officials from
another state noted that having a central federal repository to share
information across states, including descriptions and evaluations of
promising strategies, would help them more effectively address
disproportionality.
Twenty-five states also reported that receiving technical assistance
from HHS in calculating disproportionality and tracking it over time
would be useful.[Footnote 71] Some of these states volunteered through
written comments that this additional assistance would be useful
because state and local agencies have limited capacity to analyze or
track disproportionality-related data. Nearly all of the states we
visited had assistance from local universities or research institutes
in analyzing data on disproportionality. California state child welfare
officials told us that without the aid of a university researcher, they
would not have the ability to help counties that lack the capacity to
collect and analyze their data. At the time of our survey, eighteen
states reported that they were not regularly analyzing or using data in
their efforts to address disproportionality.
Some child welfare officials and researchers we interviewed reported
that the leadership and efforts made by the Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), to
address the disproportionate representation of minorities in the
juvenile justice system could serve as a model for child welfare. In
response to similar issues with racial disproportionality, the Justice
Department has overseen states' efforts in addressing
disproportionality in the juvenile justice system, as mandated. To
carry out its mission, OJJDP has established reporting requirements for
states; provided guidance, technical assistance, and information on
promising practices through a centralized location on the OJJDP Web
site; and conducted regular conferences and training sessions for over
a decade on the issue. According to a key official from OJJDP and a few
state juvenile justice coordinators we interviewed, because of the
legal mandate and federal funding provided over time, OJJDP's efforts
have helped states implement strategies intended to reduce
disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system. As of
2005, nearly all eligible states and territories have devised plans to
address disproportionality and regularly submit reports to OJJDP.
States Reported That Some Current Federal Policies May Reduce the
Disproportion of African American Children in Care, While Other
Policies May Increase It:
Federal policies that support services to families and adoption were
generally considered helpful in reducing the proportion of African
Americans in foster care, but policies that limit funds for prevention
and legal guardianship were reported to have a negative effect,
according to our review. Although it is difficult to isolate the effect
of any one policy,[Footnote 72] many states reported that federal block
grants that can be used to provide services to families help reduce
disproportionality. At the same time, even more states reported that
other policies constraining the use of federal child welfare funds work
against this goal. States generally reported that policies promoting
adoption-such as subsidies to families adopting children with special
needs and the requirement to recruit minority adoptive parents-have
been helpful, but wanted more support for legal guardianship. In
particular, states considered the federal policy recognizing legal
guardianship as helpful in enabling children to exit foster care, but
policies limiting the use of federal funds to pay subsidies to
guardians as a barrier. Federal policies that impose time frames on
caseworkers for making permanency decisions may shorten the time
children remain in care but may also impede states' ability to reunify
children with their parents.
Policies That Support Services to Families Were Considered Helpful, but
Some Funding Policies Constrain States' Ability to Reduce
Disproportionality:
According to states we surveyed, having federal block grant funds
available to provide services to families contributes to reducing the
proportion of African American children in foster care compared to
children of other races and ethnicities. However, policies that limit
federal child welfare funds for preventive services or other purposes
besides maintenance payments to foster care families are viewed as
having a negative effect. (See fig. 13.)
Figure 13: States' Views on Impact of Funding Policies on
Disproportionality:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
In our survey, 23 states reported that the ability to use TANF block
grant funds to provide parenting classes, substance abuse treatment
programs, and payments to guardians who are relatives contributes to a
reduction in the proportion of African American children in care in
their states.[Footnote 73] Many officials and researchers we
interviewed told us that having an adequate level of preventive
services and family supports was particularly relevant for African
American families living in poverty. However, as with all block grants,
state officials determine the use of these funds and their program
priorities. TANF funds used for child welfare in 2004 ranged from zero
percent in eight states to 51 percent of Connecticut's total federal
funds for such purposes, according to an Urban Institute
report.[Footnote 74] Some officials from local child welfare agencies
we interviewed also noted that because they did not have a steady
source of funds for child welfare activities, it was difficult to plan
for and provide preventive and family support services to these
families. In a recent GAO report, states cited such services as the
ones most in need of greater federal, state or local
resources.[Footnote 75]
Other policies constrain the amount of federal child welfare funds
states can spend on services to support families, and states reported
that these policies contributed to the disproportion of African
American children in foster care. Of particular concern to 28 states
were limitations on the use of federal funds under Title IV-B, which
funds preventative and family support services. Under this part of the
law, states are entitled to no more than their specified share of
annual funding regardless of the number of families they serve in a
year. These IV-B prevention funds can help divert children from foster
care by providing services to their families and also help children
exit foster care by providing supports to adoptive families and
guardians. Yet the majority of federal funding for child welfare is
distributed as payments for maintaining children already in foster care
homes under another part of the law, Title IV-E. [Footnote 76]
Twenty-five states we surveyed reported that the limited use of Title
IV-E funds for other purposes besides making maintenance payments to
foster care families, such as providing services to families,
contribute to the proportion of African American children in care.
According to California and Minnesota officials, because the majority
of federal child welfare funds are used for foster care payments
instead of preventive services, federal funding policies did not align
with states' efforts to reduce the number of children entering foster
care by serving at-risk children safely in their homes.[Footnote 77]
Previous GAO work as well as other research has noted that federal
child welfare funding favors reimbursement for foster care placements,
while providing less support for services to prevent such
placements.[Footnote 78] Every year since fiscal year 2004, the
administration has proposed in its budget the creation of a Child
Welfare Program Option under which states would have the option to
receive federal foster care funds in the form of flexible grants, which
they could use to fund a range of child welfare services and
activities.[Footnote 79] This proposal has not been introduced as
legislation.
States Generally Viewed Federal Policies on Adoption as Helpful, but
Other Policies Limit State Efforts to Find Alternate Placements or
Reunify Families:
In responding to our survey, states considered certain federal policies
as helpful in reducing disproportionality, especially adoption policies
and the recognition of guardianship. However, states viewed the lack of
subsidies for guardianship and policies affecting the licensing of
foster care and adoptive families as contributing to
disproportionality. Views were mixed on federal policies that impose
time frames for making permanency decisions.
Adoption and Guardianship:
Among federal policies that affect states' ability to find permanent
homes for children, those that promote adoption were believed to reduce
the proportion of African American children in foster care, according
to our survey results. Although the recognition of guardianship as a
placement option under federal law was also considered helpful, state
and local officials reported that the lack of federal reimbursement for
subsidies to guardians constrained their ability to place children in
such arrangements. (See fig. 14.)
Figure 14: States' Views on Impact of Adoption and Guardianship
Policies on Disproportionality:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
In our survey, 22 states reported that the requirement to diligently
recruit minority families contributes to a decrease in the proportion
of African American children in care. According to officials from
Illinois, New York, and North Carolina, the requirement to diligently
recruit minority families has had a positive impact on moving African
American children into permanent homes. For example, this requirement
broadened the role and use of extended family as possible caregivers
for children, according to an HHS survey of child welfare
workers.[Footnote 80]
State officials told us that it was a challenge to recruit a racially
and ethnically diverse pool of potential foster and adoptive parents,
as evidenced by the fact that more than half of states are not meeting
HHS performance goals for recruitment.[Footnote 81] State officials
noted the shortage of willing, appropriate, and qualified parents to
adopt African American children, particularly older children, and
researchers also cited a lack of resources among state and local
agencies and federal guidance to implement new recruiting and training
initiatives.[Footnote 82] Perhaps because of these challenges, 9 states
in our survey reported that the policy requiring diligent recruitment
had no effect on the proportion of African American children in care,
and 15 states reported that they were unable to tell. Over the last 5
years, African American children as well as Native American children
have consistently experienced lower rates of adoption than children of
other races and ethnicities, according to HHS adoption data. (See fig.
15.)
Figure 15: Adoption Rates for All Children, 2001 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of HHS reported AFCARS data.
Note: Adoption rates are calculated as total estimated count of
adoptions with public agency involvement finalized during the year of
interest divided by the number of children waiting to be adopted on the
last day of the prior year. Children waiting to be adopted are defined
by HHS as those children who have goal of adoption and/or have parental
rights terminated, excluding children with termination of parental
rights who are 16 and older and have the goal of emancipation.
[End of figure]
Providing adoption incentive payments to states generally helps reduce
the proportion of African American children in care, according to our
survey; however, these benefits may not be sustainable over time. In
our survey, 20 states reported that these federal incentive payments
provided to states for increasing adoptions contributes to reducing the
proportion of African American children in care. A state official from
Texas's child welfare agency told us that in 2005 the state received
the highest adoption incentive payments among all states and that the
number of African American children adopted has increased each year
since 2004. However, states face challenges under this program because
they must reach higher benchmarks each year to continue to earn
adoption incentive payments. While the total number of adoptions
nationally increased significantly in the late 1990s, since 2000
adoption rates have reached a plateau, according to HHS data and other
research.
Twenty states reported that the federal policy that provides subsidies
to parents who adopt a child considered as having special needs
contributes positively to reducing the proportion of African American
children in foster care.[Footnote 83] Of African American children who
were adopted from foster care in 2004 who states classified as having
special needs, the child's race provided the basis for the
classification in 20 percent of cases. In contrast, race was the basis
for the classification of about 10 percent of Hispanic, Asian, and
Native American adopted children who were determined to have special
needs in that year.
The federal policy encouraging race-neutral adoptions was believed to
have less effect than other policies on the proportion of African
American children in foster care.[Footnote 84] Intended to eliminate
race-related barriers to adoption, MEPA-IEP prohibits foster care and
adoption agencies that receive federal funds from delaying or denying
placement decisions on the basis of race, color or national origin.
Although 15 states reported that encouraging race-neutral adoptions
would help reduce disproportionality, 18 states responded that this
policy had no effect, and an additional 12 states reported that they
were unable to tell. An HHS 2003 study of child welfare agencies,
staff, and partner agencies noted that confusion and a general lack of
knowledge regarding what the law allowed or prohibited hindered its
implementation. In support of this finding, child welfare officials we
spoke with in Illinois and Texas also noted that child welfare workers
may misunderstand or fear that they are not complying with the law's
prohibition. These officials stated that in some cases child welfare
workers may be less likely to place African American children with
relatives or in African American adoptive homes because they mistakenly
believe that the law prohibits or discourages same-race adoptions.
Other researchers and officials told us they opposed the law's intent
and were concerned about the detrimental effects of placing children
with parents of another race on a child's well being.[Footnote 85] Some
officials we interviewed stated that race should be given first
priority in placing African American children in families for care as
is done for Native American children under the Indian Child Welfare Act
of 1978 (ICWA).[Footnote 86] According to a judge we interviewed in
North Carolina, the encouragement of race-neutral adoptions led in some
cases to African American children being placed in cross-racial homes
in which they felt disconnected from their heritage.
In addition to adoption, many child welfare officials and researchers
we interviewed considered legal guardianship a particularly important
way to help African American children exit foster care. Legal
guardianship was formally recognized under federal law as another
option for placing children in permanent homes.[Footnote 87] Some
African American families, especially relatives, are reluctant to adopt
because they do not want to terminate the parental rights of the
child's parent, according to officials and researchers we interviewed.
Legal guardianship allows a household to establish a permanent home for
a child without terminating the parental rights of the birth parents.
Seventeen states in our survey reported that this federal policy was
believed to help decrease the proportion of African American children
in their states' foster care systems. In California and Illinois,
subsidized guardianships have been found to reduce the number of
children in foster care, including African American children. In
California about 16,000 children exited the state foster care system
between 2000 and 2005 through their kinship guardianship program, and
about 43 percent of these children were African American, according to
data from state officials. Based on the results of the Illinois waiver
and other states with waivers, subsidized guardianships have also been
found to be at least cost neutral.
However, according to state child welfare directors we surveyed and
interviewed, the lack of federal reimbursement for subsidies to
guardians constrained states' ability to place African American
children in guardianship arrangements. In many cases, families that
could otherwise serve as guardians lack the financial stability to
permanently care for children without support, according to officials
and researchers we interviewed. However, unless states are one of the
seven that have a current federal demonstration waiver for assisted
guardianship or kinship permanency programs, states cannot use federal
child welfare funds to provide subsidies to legal guardians.[Footnote
88]
According to state and local child welfare officials, states would like
to have more flexibility to use Title IV-E funds for supporting
guardianship placements, as is done with adoption. In discussions with
us, HHS officials stated that the Administration's proposed Child
Welfare Program Option would provide states with the flexibility to use
Title IV-E funds for the entire range of child welfare purposes,
including assisted guardianship. However, although an HHS official said
that guardianship was not considered as permanent as adoption, the
results for the child have been found to be essentially the same. In
the Illinois evaluation, guardianship and adoption both provide
comparable levels of stability for the child and showed similar
outcomes in terms of children's emotional and physical health.
Licensing and Time Frames:
Federal policies regarding licensing, such as those that limit
reimbursement for costs associated with the use of unlicensed relative
caregivers and require criminal background checks on prospective
caregivers, contribute to the disproportionality of African American
children in foster care, according to states we surveyed. To a lesser
extent, state officials reported that federally mandated time frames
determining a child's permanency plan and whether parental rights
should be terminated also had a negative effect. (See fig. 16.)
Figure 16: States' Views on Impact of Federal Policies on Licensing and
Time Frames for Making Permanency Decisions on Disproportionality:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state child welfare survey responses.
[End of figure]
States considered federal policies on the licensing and the use of
relatives to provide foster care as increasing the proportion of
African American children in foster care. In some cases, states
permanently place children with unlicensed relatives who are neither
adoptive parents nor guardians; however, states cannot claim federal
reimbursement for such kinship care.[Footnote 89] In our survey, 20
states reported that this policy limiting reimbursement for costs
associated with the use of unlicensed relative caregivers contributed
to the disproportionality of African American children by hindering
their ability to place children with relatives. According to
researchers and state officials we interviewed, such policies have a
disproportionate impact on African American children because they are
more likely to live with unlicensed relatives. These relatives may be
able to provide safe homes for children but may also be more likely
have lower incomes and have difficulty meeting foster care licensing
requirements, such as having a certain number of bedrooms.
Eighteen states reported that federal policies requiring states to
perform criminal background checks on prospective caregivers, including
relatives, contributes to disproportionality, while other states
reported that these policies had no effect. Among child welfare
officials and others we interviewed, some were concerned that federal
law requiring states to conduct fingerprinting checks for prospective
parents or other types of background checks on all adults in the
household may deter some African American relatives from stepping
forward as caregivers. However, 16 states saw federal policy on
criminal checks as having no effect. This may be in part due to the
fact that most states have their own requirements regarding background
checks that are similar to or more stringent than federal
requirements.[Footnote 90]
Until recently, states could opt out of federal requirements for
criminal background checks on prospective foster care and adoptive
parents, but that provision was eliminated by the recently enacted Adam
Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act. For the eight states that opted
out of the federal requirements, federal regulations require them to
verify that safety considerations with respect to the prospective
foster or adoptive parents have been addressed.[Footnote 91] Some
officials were concerned that the federal policy would limit their
ability under previous policy to place African American and other
children with relatives and other families. California and New York
officials told us that their alternative plans allow them the
flexibility to make exemptions case-by-case for foster care, adoptive,
or guardianship families, typically relatives, that have past
convictions that would otherwise be automatically prohibited by federal
law.[Footnote 92] Although such exemptions make up a comparatively
small proportion of total placements for children,[Footnote 93] state
and county officials in California told us that their inability to make
these exemptions beginning October 2008--when the prohibition on
states' ability to opt out of federal requirements goes into effect--
may have a disproportionate impact in the placement of African American
children with relatives or other families who they consider safe and
appropriate for children.
State officials had mixed views on federal policies that impose time
frames on permanency decisions that affect whether children will be
reunified with their parents or placed in an alternative home.[Footnote
94] About a third of states reported that federal policy requiring that
states adhere to certain time frames for initiating plans to place
children in permanent arrangements and for terminating parental rights
contributed to an increase in the proportion of African American
children in care. Some state officials and researchers we interviewed
said that these time frames were not reasonable for some African
American parents who have complex problems, such as substance abuse and
mental health issues, that require more time to resolve or if they have
difficulty in accessing services.[Footnote 95] When parental rights are
terminated, some children become "legal orphans" and remain in foster
care longer than if parents had been given more time to complete their
reunification plans.[Footnote 96] According to an HHS official's
analysis of AFCARS data, the percentage of children who have had their
parental rights terminated but who did not find a permanent home and
ultimately emancipated out of the foster care system increased from 3.3
percent in 2000 to 6.7 percent in 2005.[Footnote 97] On the other hand,
some child welfare officials reported that the ASFA time frames have
been helpful in ensuring that children do not languish in care and have
helped reduce the proportion of African American children in care.
Conclusions:
Issues surrounding the disproportionate representation of African-
American children in foster care are pervasive, continuing, and
complex. They cut across different points in the child welfare process-
-from before entry to exit from foster care--and they affect nearly all
states in this nation to varying degrees.
In efforts to reduce African American representation in foster care,
state and local child welfare agencies face numerous challenges. These
challenges include ensuring that decisions to place a child in foster
care are not influenced by bias or cultural misconceptions about
families or communities, and that parent's difficulties in accessing
support services do not prevent a child from returning home. Adding to
these challenges is the fact that many supports and services are
provided through multiple social service systems and require actions
outside the responsibility of child welfare agencies, such as the
ability to obtain timely substance abuse treatment for parents or the
availability of affordable housing. To facilitate access to services,
state and local agencies bear the primary responsibility for
coordinating and administering these services.
To some extent, federal policies on adoption have supported states'
efforts to reduce the foster care population, but among policies aimed
at reducing the number of minority children in foster care, many states
experienced challenges recruiting sufficient minority families that
reflect the foster care population. African American children have
generally seen lower adoption rates than children of other races, and
in recent years the adoption rate for all children has reached a
plateau. States report being constrained by the lack of federal
subsidies for legal guardianship similar to those provided for
adoption. Many consider legal guardianship to be more reflective of the
cultural values held by some African Americans and other families of
color and better suited to the needs of African American and Hispanic
families who want to permanently care for related children without
necessarily adopting them. As a strategy, subsidizing guardianships has
demonstrated its value in providing permanent families for children and
in reducing the number of African American children in foster care. It
may also be cost-effective, given the experiences of the states that
implemented this strategy using federal waivers. This may therefore be
the time to reconsider the current distinctions that provide subsidies
for adoption but not for guardianship.
The importance of collecting and analyzing data by race is considered a
crucial first step for addressing racial disparity within child welfare
and other systems. Yet some states and localities report a lack of
capacity to collect or analyze data that would better allow them to
identify the strategies that would be most useful in addressing the
problems in their state. HHS provides assistance to states on data
analysis and practices through its technical assistance network and
related Web sites, although the agency lacks the directive and funding
that Department of Justice officials said were instrumental to their
efforts to analyze data by race and provide guidance on promising
practices. In response to this directive, states that have identified
disproportionality in juvenile justice as an issue have regularly
submitted reports to OJJDP and have devised plans to address the issue.
In child welfare, states identified as being in the forefront of
efforts to address disproportionality are relying on private
organizations to provide financial and technical assistance. In the
absence of research-based evidence on strategies that work for
addressing disproportionality, states are seeking out promising
practices used in other states. Despite the steps that HHS has taken to
disseminate information about these strategies, states report that they
need further information and technical assistance to strengthen their
current efforts in addressing disproportionality.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
To assist states in increasing the number of homes available for the
permanent placement of African American and other children from foster
care, we suggest that Congress consider amending federal law to allow
federal reimbursement for legal guardianship similar to that currently
provided for adoption.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To enhance states' ability to reduce the proportion of African American
children in foster care, the Secretary of HHS should further assist
states in understanding the nature and extent of disproportionality in
their child welfare systems and in taking steps to address the issue.
These actions should include:
* Encouraging states to regularly track state and local data on the
racial disproportionality of children in foster care and use these data
to develop strategies that can better enable them to prevent children's
entry into foster care and speed their exit into permanent homes. HHS
should also encourage states to make increased use of HHS's National
Resource Centers as a source of technical assistance on this issue.
* Completing and making publicly available information on
disproportionality that the agency is developing under its Culturally
Competent Practice Knowledge Initiative so that states have easier
access to tools and strategies useful for addressing the issue.
Agency Comments and Our Response:
We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment. HHS's
written comments are provided in appendix III of this report.
Our draft report included a recommendation that HHS pursue specific
measures to allow federal reimbursement for legal guardianship. In
commenting on the draft report, HHS disagreed with the recommendation,
stating that the administration had already proposed a broad
restructuring of child welfare funding, known as the Child Welfare
Program Option, which would allow states to use federal funds for legal
guardianship. Under this proposed restructuring of child welfare,
states could choose to remain under the current foster care funding
structure or they could instead receive a capped grant for a period of
5 years. States choosing the grant option would have the flexibility to
use these funds for a wide range of child welfare purposes, including
subsidizing guardianships. The current adoption assistance program
would remain the same under this proposal. However, HHS has presented
this option in its budget proposals each year since 2004, but no
legislation has been offered to date to authorize it. Moreover, if
enacted, it is unknown how many states would choose a capped grant that
would allow greater program flexibility instead of the current title IV-
E foster care entitlement funding. In light of these factors, we
suggest that Congress consider taking action to allow adoption
assistance payments to be used for legal guardianship. Current evidence
indicates that such a change could help states increase the number of
permanent homes available for African American and other children in
foster care. Furthermore, some states have demonstrated this change can
be achieved without increasing program costs. We have changed the final
report to delete our recommendation to HHS and to include instead this
matter for congressional consideration.
In response to our recommendation that HHS take certain actions to
further assist states in understanding and addressing the nature and
extent of racial disproportionality in their child welfare systems, HHS
stated that these actions were consistent with their current technical
assistance efforts to encourage and assist states in addressing racial
disproportionality. For example, HHS cited the variety of technical
assistance available to states in areas such as data analysis and
cultural competency. However, HHS did not address the specific actions
that we recommended related to encouraging states to regularly track
and use child welfare data on racial disproportionality and completing
and making publicly available the information on disproportionality
that it is developing through its Culturally Competent Practice
Knowledge Initiative. We continue to believe that it is important for
HHS to take these actions to further equip states to address this
complex issue.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, copies of this report will be sent
to the Secretary of HHS, relevant congressional committees, and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Denise M. Fantone, Acting Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
For this study, we were asked to analyze (1) the major factors that
have been identified as influencing the proportion of African American
children entering and remaining in foster care compared to children of
other races and ethnicities; (2) the extent that states and localities
have implemented strategies that appear promising in addressing African
American representation in foster care; and (3) the ways in which key
federal child welfare policies may have influenced African American
representation in foster care. Although we focused on African American
children in this report, we also noted points of similarity or
difference with children of other races and ethnicities as appropriate.
Scope and Methodology:
Overall, to address these three objectives, we used multiple
methodologies, including administering a state survey; conducting site
visits; interviewing researchers and federal agency officials;
conducting a literature review using various criteria; and analyzing
federal legislation and policies. More specifically, we conducted a
nationwide Web-based survey of state child welfare administrators in 50
states and the District of Columbia between November 2006 and January
2007. To obtain a more in-depth understanding of the issues, especially
of any promising strategies to address disproportionality of African
American children, we conducted site visits to California, Illinois,
Minnesota, New York, and North Carolina, and in addition, conducted
telephone interviews with state and local child welfare officials,
service providers, and court officials in Texas. These states were
selected in accordance with various criteria discussed below. To extend
our understanding, we interviewed child welfare researchers identified
by others as knowledgeable on issues of racial disproportionality in
foster care as well as representatives from national child welfare
organizations, such as the Casey Family Programs; the Child Welfare
League of America; Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Inc; and the
Center for the Study of Social Policy, on these matters. In addition,
we participated in child welfare-related conferences with sessions
relevant to these objectives. We also conducted an extensive literature
review and analyzed published research on racial disproportionality in
foster care and strategies used by states and others to address this
issue, and selected the research for this review based on particular
criteria described below. At the federal level, we interviewed HHS
officials responsible for foster care programs and related data, as
well as officials at the Department of Juvenile Justice, which is
required by law to address racial disproportionality in the juvenile
justice systems. Finally, we analyzed federal child welfare
legislation, agency documentation, and policies relevant to foster care
that may have an impact on racial disproportionality. We conducted our
work between June 2006 and June 2007 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Web-Based Survey:
To obtain state perspectives on our objectives and the relative
priority state child welfare agencies place on the challenges they
face, we conducted a Web-based survey of child welfare directors in the
50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey was conducted using
a self-administered electronic questionnaire posted on the Web. We
contacted directors via e-mail announcing the survey and sent follow-up
e-mails and made telephone calls as well to encourage responses. The
survey data were collected between November 2006 and January 2007. We
received completed surveys from 47 states and the District of Columbia
(a 92 percent response rate). The states of New Jersey, Maryland, and
Rhode Island did not return completed surveys.
To develop the survey questions, we relied on information gathered
through interviews with researchers, professional associations, and our
literature review (see criteria for selecting literature). In addition,
in July 2006, we solicited comments from various researchers and other
experts on elements used in our survey to ensure their completeness.
These elements included a list of factors that contribute to,
strategies to address, and federal policies that may affect the
disproportionality of African American children in foster care. We
received comments on these elements from the Center for the Study of
Social Policy, the Black Administrators in Child Welfare, and Westat,
and made modifications accordingly. We worked closely with social
science survey specialists to develop and pretest the questionnaire.
Because these were not sample surveys, there are no sampling errors.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, in
the sources of information that are available to respondents, or how
the data are entered into a database can introduce unwanted variability
into the survey results. We took steps in the development of the
questionnaires, the data collection, and data analysis to minimize
these nonsampling errors. For example, prior to administering the
survey, we pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with
five states to determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear,
(2) the terms used were precise, (3) respondents were able to provide
the information we were seeking, and (4) the questions were unbiased.
We made changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire
based on pretest results. Because these were Web-based surveys in which
respondents entered their responses directly into our database, there
was a reduced possibility of data entry error. We also performed
computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses and other
indications of error. In addition, an independent analyst verified that
the computer programs used to analyze the data were written correctly.
Site Visits:
To obtain a more in-depth understanding of issues, we conducted site
visits to California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and North
Carolina. In addition we conducted telephone interviews with Texas
state child welfare officials, a researcher a service provider, and a
judge in Texas. When viewed as a group, the states we visited reflected
diversity in geographic location, rates of African American
representation in foster care, strategies and initiatives used to
address this disproportion, and program administration (state
administered and county administered). In addition, the states we
selected collectively covered nearly one-third of children in foster
care across the nation. During these visits, we interviewed state and
local child welfare officials; juvenile court judges and other child
welfare-related legal representatives, such as attorneys and public
guardians; community service providers; and others involved in the
child welfare systems, such as academic researchers. We also collected
information, reports, and data on disproportionality and initiatives to
address this issue from state and local child welfare agencies and
others during these visits. We cannot generalize our findings beyond
the states we visited.
Literature Review of Published Research on Disproportionality:
To learn more about the major factors, strategies, and federal policies
influencing whether African American children enter and remain in
foster care compared to children of other races and ethnicities, we
conducted a literature review. The literature we reviewed included
research articles we identified through databases, such as Lexis-Nexis,
J-STOR, and the National Clearinghouse on the Child Abuse and Neglect
Information. We used various search terms, such as disproportionality,
African American, foster care, child welfare system, and over-
representation in searching these databases. We also reviewed
literature cited in these studies and those we found on Web sites
related to child welfare and disproportionality, as well as literature
recommended to us from our interviews. In addition, we conducted a more
intensive review about 50 studies identified through these methods that
focused on factors affecting entry and length of stay in foster care.
For each selected study, we determined whether the study's findings
were generally reliable. Two GAO social science analysts assessed each
study's research methodology, including its research design, sampling
frame, selection of measure, data quality, limitation, and analytic
techniques for its methodological soundness and the validity of the
results and conclusions that were drawn.
Interviews with Researchers and Child Welfare Organizations:
For all three objectives we also conducted interviews with academic
researchers and other experts on disproportionality issues, such as
child welfare-related organizations. We identified child welfare
researchers for our interviews through our literature review and
through recommendations from child welfare officials and stakeholders
as knowledgeable on issues of racial disproportionality in foster care.
For this study we interviewed academic researchers affiliated with the
following universities and research centers: Chapin Hall at the
University of Chicago, Children and Family Research Center at the
University of Illinois School of Social Work, Jordan Institute for
Families at the University of North Carolina, School of Social Welfare
at the University of California at Berkeley, University of Minnesota
School of Social Work, University of Texas School of Social Work, and
Hunter College School of Social Work of the City University of New
York. We also interviewed researchers and other staff at the following
organizations: Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Casey Family
Programs, Center for the Study of Social Policy, Child Welfare League
of America, National Association of Public Child Welfare
Administrators, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,
Nestor Associates, and Westat. To obtain clarification on the findings
of the National Incidence Surveys, we also interviewed the principal
investigator of these studies for HHS, also at Westat.
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS):
To obtain children welfare data we requested and analyzed the U.S.
Children's Bureau AFCARS data from the National Data Archive on Child
Abuse and Neglect at Cornell University (NDACAN). AFCARS is a federal
database that provides case level data on all children covered by Title
IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. On a bi-annual basis,
all states submit data to the Children's Bureau concerning each child
in foster care and each child who has been adopted under the authority
of the state's child welfare agency. To confirm the reliability of the
data, social science methodologists at GAO conducted electronic data
testing, comparing our figures with HHS and others who have reported
similar data. We also interviewed several officials with NDACAN and HHS
who were responsible for the data. We found the data to be sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report.
In calculating the adoption rates reported in figure 15, we used
estimates from HHS's Web site of the total estimated count of adoptions
with public agency involvement finalized at year end divided by the
number of children waiting to be adopted on the last day of the prior
year. Children waiting to be adopted are defined by HHS as those
children who have the case goal of adoption and/or have parental rights
terminated.[Footnote 98] According to an HHS official familiar with
AFCARS data, the HHS reported numbers of children waiting to be adopted
may be imprecise because of variations among states and over
time.[Footnote 99] Accordingly, we also calculated the adoption rate by
using the number of children in foster care on the last day of the
prior year as the denominator. Under both analyses, African American
and Native American children had lower adoption rates between 2001 and
2005 than children of other races and ethnicities. We chose not to
report the findings under the second method of analysis because the
numbers of children in foster care on the last day of the prior year
include many children who are not waiting to be adopted, such as
children who have a case goal of reunification and later reunify with
their parents, which would greatly underestimate adoption
rates.[Footnote 100]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Disproportionality Indexes of Children in Foster Care by
Race and State:
Among researchers and others, disproportionality indexes or ratios are
used to characterize the extent of disproportionality in a particular
area, whether nationwide, within a state, or within a county or
metropolitan area. Table 4 represents the proportion of African
American, White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American children in the
foster care system in each state when compared to the overall
population of each racial category of children in that state. (See
table 4.) In the table, we present disproportionality indexes by state
for children in foster care on the last day of fiscal year 2004. In
this table, for example, an index number of below 1.00 indicates an
under-representation of African American in foster care in a state
compared to African American children's proportions in the general
child population in that state, while a number above 1.00 indicates an
over-representation of African American children in foster care in a
state compared to African American children's proportions in the
general child population in that state. This table also displays this
indexing methodology for the other four racial and ethnic
categories.[Footnote 101]
Overall, the disproportionality index nationwide for African American
children is 2.26, which means that African American children were over-
represented in foster care nationally in 2004 at a rate of more than
twice their proportions in the U.S. child population. In fiscal year
2004, a total of 36 states had disproportionality indexes of 2.0 or
more, and 16 states had disproportionality indexes of 3.0 or more for
the number of African American children in foster care at the end of
the fiscal year (indexes of 2.0 or more are bolded in the table 4).
Within states, disproportionality rates may vary considerably, as noted
earlier.
Table 4: Disproportionality Index by State of Children Ages 17 Years of
Age or Under in Foster Care as of Last Day of Fiscal Year 2004:
State: Alabama;
African American children[A]: 1.52;
White children[B]: 0.77;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.63;
Asian children[D]: 0.05; Native American children[E]: 0.54.
State: Alaska;
African American children[A]: 2.23;
White children[B]: 0.48;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.25;
Asian children[D]: 0.04;
Native American children[E]: 3.07.
State: Arizona;
African American children[A]: 2.36;
White children[B]: 0.95;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.95;
Asian children[D]: 0.13;
Native American children[E]: 0.39.
State: Arkansas;
African American children[A]: 1.39;
White children[B]: 0.84;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.64;
Asian children[D]: 0.30;
Native American children[E]: 0.05.
State: California;
African American children[A]: 4.05;
White children[B]: 0.75;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.89;
Asian children[D]: 0.17;
Native American children[E]: 1.80.
State: Colorado;
African American children[A]: 2.78;
White children[B]: 0.78;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.27;
Asian children[D]: 0.28;
Native American children[E]: 1.94.
State: Connecticut;
African American children[A]: 2.76;
White children[B]: 0.49;
Hispanic children[C]: 2.02;
Asian children[D]: 0.08;
Native American children[E]: 0.58.
State: Delaware;
African American children[A]: 2.30;
White children[B]: 0.58;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.83;
Asian children[D]: 0.05;
Native American children[E]: 0.51.
State: District of Columbia;
African American children[A]: 1.30;
White children[B]: 0.01;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.31;
Asian children[D]: 0.17;
Native American children[E]: 0.00.
State: Florida;
African American children[A]: 1.93;
White children[B]: 0.89;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.42;
Asian children[D]: 0.12;
Native American children[E]: 0.88.
State: Georgia;
African American children[A]: 1.44;
White children[B]: 0.80;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.54;
Asian children[D]: 0.07;
Native American children[E]: 0.12.
State: Hawaii;
African American children[A]: 0.44;
White children[B]: 0.58;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.19;
Asian children[D]: 1.01;
Native American children[E]: 1.80.
State: Idaho;
African American children[A]: 3.37;
White children[B]: 0.89;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.12;
Asian children[D]: 0.24;
Native American children[E]: 5.86.
State: Illinois;
African American children[A]: 3.48;
White children[B]: 0.50;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.29;
Asian children[D]: 0.02;
Native American children[E]: 0.53.
State: Indiana;
African American children[A]: 3.01;
White children[B]: 0.72;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.87;
Asian children[D]: 0.09;
Native American children[E]: 1.36.
State: Iowa;
African American children[A]: 4.45;
White children[B]: 0.86;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.91;
Asian children[D]: 0.79;
Native American children[E]: 5.41.
State: Kansas;
African American children[A]: 2.93;
White children[B]: 0.88;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.47;
Asian children[D]: 0.16;
Native American children[E]: 1.22.
State: Kentucky;
African American children[A]: 2.02;
White children[B]: 0.87;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.26;
Asian children[D]: 0.19;
Native American children[E]: 0.68.
State: Louisiana;
African American children[A]: 1.40;
White children[B]: 0.76;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.28;
Asian children[D]: 0.12;
Native American children[E]: 0.64.
State: Maine;
African American children[A]: 1.74;
White children[B]: 0.88;
Hispanic children[C]: 2.15;
Asian children[D]: 0.43;
Native American children[E]: 1.52.
State: Maryland;
African American children[A]: 2.27;
White children[B]: 0.39;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.23;
Asian children[D]: 0.08;
Native American children[E]: 0.78.
State: Massachusetts;
African American children[A]: 2.23;
White children[B]: 0.67;
Hispanic children[C]: 2.18;
Asian children[D]: 0.39;
Native American children[E]: 0.89.
State: Michigan;
African American children[A]: 2.90;
White children[B]: 0.56;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.78;
Asian children[D]: 0.13;
Native American children[E]: 1.83.
State: Minnesota;
African American children[A]: 3.63;
White children[B]: 0.63;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.39;
Asian children[D]: 0.37;
Native American children[E]: 7.31.
State: Mississippi;
African American children[A]: 1.10;
White children[B]: 0.92;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.73;
Asian children[D]: 0.54;
Native American children[E]: 0.14.
State: Missouri;
African American children[A]: 2.15;
White children[B]: 0.84;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.62;
Asian children[D]: 0.13;
Native American children[E]: 1.04.
State: Montana;
African American children[A]: 2.68;
White children[B]: 0.63;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.62;
Asian children[D]: 0.56;
Native American children[E]: 3.44.
State: Nebraska;
African American children[A]: 2.76;
White children[B]: 0.80;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.98;
Asian children[D]: 0.27;
Native American children[E]: 6.54.
State: Nevada;
African American children[A]: 2.67;
White children[B]: 1.07;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.53;
Asian children[D]: 0.36;
Native American children[E]: 0.39.
State: New Hampshire;
African American children[A]: 4.37;
White children[B]: 0.91;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.79;
Asian children[D]: 0.15;
Native American children[E]: 0.90.
State: New Jersey;
African American children[A]: 3.81;
White children[B]: 0.41;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.35;
Asian children[D]: 0.03;
Native American children[E]: 1.27.
State: New Mexico;
African American children[A]: 2.81;
White children[B]: 1.02;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.06;
Asian children[D]: 0.20;
Native American children[E]: 0.40.
State: New York;
African American children[A]: 2.63;
White children[B]: 0.37;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.97;
Asian children[D]: 0.08;
Native American children[E]: 0.90.
State: North Carolina;
African American children[A]: 1.67;
White children[B]: 0.74;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.79;
Asian children[D]: 0.27;
Native American children[E]: 1.53.
State: North Dakota;
African American children[A]: 3.26;
White children[B]: 0.69;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.90;
Asian children[D]: 2.98;
Native American children[E]: 3.09.
State: Ohio;
African American children[A]: 2.87;
White children[B]: 0.65;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.98;
Asian children[D]: 0.08;
Native American children[E]: 0.96.
State: Oklahoma;
African American children[A]: 1.76;
White children[B]: 0.70;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.10;
Asian children[D]: 0.12;
Native American children[E]: 1.12.
State: Oregon;
African American children[A]: 3.27;
White children[B]: 0.75;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.70;
Asian children[D]: 0.24;
Native American children[E]: 8.68.
State: Pennsylvania;
African American children[A]: 3.56;
White children[B]: 0.53;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.38;
Asian children[D]: 0.21;
Native American children[E]: 1.10.
State: Rhode Island;
African American children[A]: 2.68;
White children[B]: 0.76;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.14;
Asian children[D]: 0.47;
Native American children[E]: 2.11.
State: South Carolina;
African American children[A]: 1.43;
White children[B]: 0.74;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.69;
Asian children[D]: 0.19;
Native American children[E]: 0.48.
State: South Dakota;
African American children[A]: 1.67;
White children[B]: 0.41;
Hispanic children[C]: 2.33;
Asian children[D]: 0.28;
Native American children[E]: 3.71.
State: Tennessee;
African American children[A]: 1.52;
White children[B]: 0.84;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.91;
Asian children[D]: 0.16;
Native American children[E]: 0.36.
State: Texas;
African American children[A]: 2.02;
White children[B]: 0.81;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.89;
Asian children[D]: 0.09;
Native American children[E]: 0.73.
State: Utah;
African American children[A]: 6.06;
White children[B]: 0.82;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.63;
Asian children[D]: 0.91;
Native American children[E]: 3.97.
State: Vermont;
African American children[A]: 3.24;
White children[B]: 1.01;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.45;
Asian children[D]: 0.13;
Native American children[E]: 0.70.
State: Virginia;
African American children[A]: 1.89;
White children[B]: 0.72;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.76;
Asian children[D]: 0.06;
Native American children[E]: 0.28.
State: Washington;
African American children[A]: 3.07;
White children[B]: 0.80;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.03;
Asian children[D]: 0.19;
Native American children[E]: 4.99.
State: West Virginia;
African American children[A]: 2.04;
White children[B]: 0.92;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.19;
Asian children[D]: 0.00;
Native American children[E]: 0.19.
State: Wisconsin;
African American children[A]: 4.69;
White children[B]: 0.54;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.26;
Asian children[D]: 0.34;
Native American children[E]: 2.48.
State: Wyoming;
African American children[A]: 4.28;
White children[B]: 0.96;
Hispanic children[C]: 1.06;
Asian children[D]: 0.17;
Native American children[E]: 0.24.
State: United States;
African American children[A]: 2.26;
White children[B]: 0.68;
Hispanic children[C]: 0.87;
Asian children[D]: 0.22;
Native American children[E]: 2.25.
Source: GAO analysis using Census Population Estimates from 2004 and
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) for
fiscal year 2004, which was made available to us by the National Data
Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN), Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York. Children identified by the child welfare system with
two or more racial categories were not included.
Note: Children who were identified by the child welfare system with two
or more racial categories or who were unknown were not presented in
this table.
[A] Children identified by the child welfare system as African
American, non-Hispanic, and with only one race category.
[B] Children identified by the child welfare system as White, non-
Hispanic, and with only one race category.
[C] Children identified by the child welfare system as having Hispanic
origins; not a racial category.
[D] Children identified by the child welfare system as Asian, which
includes Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic and with only one
race category.
[E] Children identified by the child welfare system as Native American,
non-Hispanic, and with only one race category.
[End of table]
To derive each state's disproportionality index, for example, we
divided the proportion of African American children in foster care (the
number of African American children in foster care divided by the total
number of children in child foster care) by the proportion of the
African American children in the general population (the number of
African American children in the population divided by the total number
in the general population).[Footnote 102] According to HHS AFCARS data
from fiscal year 2004, there were 498,981 children ages 17 years and
under in foster care in the United States on September 30, 2004. Of
these children, 162,991 were African American. Census population
estimates for 2004 show there were 73,258,205 children 17 years old and
under in the general population, of which 10,805,487 children were
African American. Using the methodology described, we obtained a
disproportionality index of 2.26 nationally for African American
children in foster care at the end of the fiscal year for 2004. This
methodology was used for the other four racial categories.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Department Of Health And Human Services:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
Jun 18 2007:
Denise Fantone, Acting Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office"
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Fantone:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, "African American
Children in Foster Care: Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help
States Reduce the Proportion in Care " (GAO-07-816), before its
publication.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Vincent J. Ventimiglia:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The
Government Accountability Office Draft Report Entitled. "African
American Children In Foster Care: Additional HHS Assistance Needed To
Help States Reduce The Proportion In Care" (GAO-07-816):
GAO Recommendations:
(1) To assist states in increasing the number of homes available for
permanent placement of African American and other children from foster
care, the Secretary of HHS should conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of allowing adoption assistance payments to also be used
for legal guardianship. Such a study should begin with the promising
waiver results and examine whether subsidized guardianship can be
implemented more broadly with similar results. Depending on the
results, HHS should consider submitting a legislative proposal to
reauthorize the use of federal demonstration waivers to subsidize legal
guardianships, or alternatively, to amend current law to allow federal
reimbursement for legal guardianship.
(2) To enhance states' ability to reduce the proportion of African
American children in foster care, the Secretary of HHS should further
assist states in understanding the nature and extent of
disproportionality in their child welfare systems and in taking steps
to address the issue. These actions should include:
* Encouraging states to regularly track state and local data on the
racial. disproportionality of children in foster care and use the data
to develop strategies that can better enable them to prevent children's
entry into foster care and speed their exit into permanent homes. HHS
should also encourage states to make increased use of HHS's National
Resource Centers as a source of technical assistance on this issue.
* Completing and making publicly available information on
disproportionality that the agency is developing under its Culturally
Competent Practice Knowledge Initiative so that states have easier
access to tools and strategies useful for addressing the issue.
HHS Comments:
We do not concur with recommendation (1). As noted in the body of the
report, the Administration has already identified in the Child Welfare
Program Option a proposal to allow States the option to receive their
foster care funding as a flexible grant for a period of five years or
to maintain the program as it is currently funded. The option would
provide States with the flexibility to develop a seamless child welfare
system that supports a continuum of services to families in crisis and
children at risk from the provision of prevention services to the
provision of subsidies for guardianships.
States that choose the grant option will be able to use the funds for
foster care payments, prevention activities, permanency efforts
(including searching for relatives and subsidized guardianships), case
management, administrative activities, such as data analysis of the
level of representation of specific populations, training for child
welfare staff in cultural competence, and other such services related
to child welfare activities. States would be able to develop innovative
and effective systems for preventing child abuse and neglect, keeping
families and children of all backgrounds safely together, and moving
children toward adoption and permanency, quickly.
Flexibility was built into the Child Welfare Program Option based on
knowledge developed from the previous and existing Federal Title IV-E
waivers. The grant would encompass Federal funding for the existing
Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments program and the associated
administrative costs, including Statewide Automated Child Welfare
Information Systems and training. State allocations would be based on
historical expenditures in consultation with the States. States that
choose the option must maintain their existing level of financial
investment in child welfare programs. The Administration is committed
to addressing the fundamental flaws of the program through the Child
Welfare Program Option, thereby providing States that take it the
flexibility to address the causes of disproportional representation,
creatively and actively.
Recommendation (2) is consistent with the Children's Bureau current
technical assistance efforts to encourage and assist States in
addressing disproportionality through multiple avenues. Technical
assistance is available to States in a variety of forms, including data
analysis to determine the extent of concerns at the State and local
levels, development of effective case practice models sensitive to
various cultural populations, and design of service systems that can be
individualized to the specific needs of children and families. Cultural
competence in child welfare is a topic that has been discussed for many
years without an identifiable national model or working solution for
implementation in States.
As part of its work with States, Tribes, localities, and courts, the
Children's Bureau has created a Training and Technical Assistance (TTA)
Network to assist States, Tribes, localities, and courts implement
system changes necessary to produce better outcomes for children,
youth, and families involved in the child welfare system. Over several
years of discussions with the TTA Network, ongoing concern has been
raised about the over-representation of children and families of color
in the public child welfare system-a negative consequence when practice
lacks cultural competence.
The Children's Bureau has highlighted for each member of its technical
assistance network the importance of developing and providing
leadership activities to identify and classify issues and barriers
related to culturally competent practices and disseminating positive
results and strategies for implementation across the country. The
Children's Bureau applauds GAO for recognizing the importance of these
existing efforts and for GAO's support of ACF's continuing focus on
reducing disproportional representation of specific populations both at
entry into foster care and in reducing the longer stay while in foster
care. By highlighting the availability of these services, GAO is
assisting ACF in publicizing the availability of technical assistance
in this area.
Additionally, GAO reported that most States are using strategies to
address the over-representation of specific populations in foster care,
such as involving families in decision making, building community
supports, and broadening the search for relatives to care for children.
It should be noted that ACF reviews States and provides feedback on
performance of these strategies as part of the Child and Family
Services Reviews (CFSRs). ACF makes separate determinations regarding
substantial conformity for each of the seven outcomes and each of the
seven systemic factors reviewed.
All States reviewed during the first round of CFSRs were found to be in
substantial conformity on some of these areas and not in substantial
conformity on others. The design of the reviews provides an opportunity
for States to enter into program improvement plans to move towards
improving performance in identified outcomes and systemic factors. It
is by focusing States on long-term strategic and active program
improvement that the reviews achieve the objective of enhancing service
to children and families.
The Children's Bureau has begun the second round of reviews and has
developed specific technical assistance strategies to help States
prepare for the CFSRs and maximize the benefit derived from the program
improvement planning process. The National Child Welfare Resource
Center for Organizational Improvement (NRCOI) has worked with other
national resource centers to develop a CFSR training and technical
assistance package. This material will help agencies successfully
prepare for the second round of the CFSR, enhance leadership and
management capacity, and achieve better outcomes through systemic
change. Information on the technical assistance can be found on the
NRCOI website at hyperlink,
http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/helpkids/cfsrta.htm.
The Children's Bureau also funds the Child Welfare Information Gateway,
which has information available for readers who wish to learn more
about disproportionality and cultural competence (see hyperlink,
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/cultural/disporp/related.cfm).
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Denise M. Fantone, Acting Director (202) 512-7215 or fantoned@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
Cindy Ayers (Assistant Director) and Deborah A. Signer (Analyst-in-
Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Christopher T. Langford,
Theresa Lo, and Kimberly Siegal made significant contributions to this
report, in all aspects of the work. Interns Lisa McMillen and Ashley
Gilbert also contributed with data collection and analysis. In
addition, Charles Willson assisted in the message and report
development; Jay Smale contributed to the initial design of the
engagement and, together with Luann Moy, assessed studies for the
literature review; William R. Chatlos provided technical assistance in
the development and pre-testing of the Web-based survey; Carolyn Boyce
provided technical support in survey research and statistical analysis;
George Quinn provided data analytic support; and James Rebbe, Attorney,
provided legal support.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Racial disproportionality refers to the extent that children of a
certain race or ethnic group are over-or underrepresented in foster
care relative to their proportion in the population. (See app. II for
disproportionality rates for African American, White, Hispanic, Asian,
and Native American children by state in fiscal year 2004.)
[2] Children also enter foster care for other reasons, such as their
parents' illness, death, or disability or because of the children's
delinquent behavior and truancy.
[3] We are using the term "policy" in this report to include federal
laws, regulations, and informal agency guidance.
[4] Native Americans are also overrepresented nationally, but some are
affected by different child welfare laws and oversight authority than
African Americans, making comparisons challenging.
[5] For more detail on our methodology for conducting our work, see
appendix I.
[6] The National Incidence Study (NIS) is a congressionally mandated,
periodic effort of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect to
obtain information about the current incidence of child abuse and
neglect in the United States. NIS-1 was published in 1981, NIS-2 was
published in 1988, and NIS-3 was published in 1996. The NIS-3 findings
are based on a nationally representative sample of over 5,600
professionals in 842 agencies serving 42 counties in the United States.
[7] For disproportionality rates for African American, White, Hispanic,
Asian, and Native American children by state in fiscal year 2004, see
appendix II.
[8] These data are based on our analysis of HHS's AFCARS data for 2004
and U.S. Census population estimates for that year.
[9] Pub. L. No. 103-382, §§ 551-553.
[10] Pub. L. No. 104-188, § 1808.
[11] Pub. L. No. 105-89.
[12] These convictions include situations in which the prospective
foster or adoptive parent was, at any time, convicted of felony child
abuse or neglect, spousal abuse, a crime involving children (including
child pornography), or a crime involving violence (including rape,
sexual assault, or homicide, but not including other physical assault
or battery); or if the record check shows a felony conviction for
physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense that was committed
in the last 5 years.
[13] As of July 2006, eight states were using alternative background
check processes approved by HHS instead of specified federal background
check requirements for prospective foster care and adoptive parents:
California, New York, Idaho, Oklahoma, Oregon, Massachusetts, Ohio, and
Arizona.
[14] Pub. L. No. 109-248.
[15] Under prior law, the type of criminal record check was not
specified. Under this act, states are required to perform a fingerprint-
based check.
[16] Urban Institute 2005 Child Welfare Survey reported in May 2006.
This funding analysis is the most recent available that shows federal
funding used specifically for child welfare.
[17] States are entitled to Title IV-E reimbursement on behalf of
children who would have been eligible for Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) (as AFDC existed on July 16, 1996), but for
the fact that they were removed from the home of certain specified
relatives. Although the AFDC program was replaced by the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program in 1996, eligibility for Title IV-
E payments remains tied to the income eligibility requirements of the
now-defunct AFDC program.
[18] The term "special needs" is used in a distinct way in Title IV-E
programs. In order to be considered a child with special needs for the
purpose of providing adoption assistance payments, states must
determine that the child should not return home and have a factor or
condition that would make the child difficult to place for adoption
without such payments. States are provided discretion under federal law
to determine what these factors or conditions are and may include age,
membership in a sibling or minority group, or having a medical or
developmental disability that would make placement difficult. There are
additional eligibility requirements to obtain adoption assistance
subsidies as well.
[19] For further information on Title IV-B funds, see GAO, Child
Welfare: Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could Provide States
Additional Information to Improve Services, GAO 03-956 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 12, 2003).
[20] Data as reported by the Urban Institute in 2006, based on its 2005
survey of state child welfare agencies. This survey asked states to
estimate their amount of funds spent on child welfare activities for
state fiscal year 2004, and over 40 states provided data for federal,
state and local funds. Federal funding included Title IV-E and IV-B,
TANF, SSBG, Medicaid, and "other." SSBG includes funding transferred
from TANF. Medicaid funds reported here include expenditures for
transportation, rehabilitative services, targeted case management, and
mental health services in residential treatment facilities and exclude
expenditures for routine health care services for children in foster
care. "Other federal funds" include Social Security Income and
Survivor's Benefits.
[21] These two states are California (Los Angeles County) and Florida.
Florida began its waiver project in October 2006, while California's
project has not yet begun.
[22] The CFSR outcomes include protecting children from abuse and
neglect, fostering permanency and stability in children's living
conditions, preserving the continuity of children's family
relationships and connections, enhancing families' capacity to provide
for their children's needs, and ensuring that children receive
appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
[23] For additional information regarding HHS's oversight and states'
implementation of the CFSR process, see GAO, Child and Family Services
Reviews: Better Use of Data and Improved Guidance Could Enhance HHS's
Oversight of State Performance, GAO-04-333 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20,
2004).
[24] On a semiannual basis, all states submit data to HHS concerning
all children in foster care for whom state child welfare agencies have
responsibility for placement, care, or supervision and on children who
are adopted under the auspices of the state's public child welfare
agency. AFCARS also includes information on foster and adoptive
parents.
[25] The Information Gateway was formerly the National Clearinghouse on
Child Abuse and Neglect Information and the National Adoption
Information Clearinghouse.
[26] Mandated reporters are individuals required by law to report cases
of children's abuse and neglect. They are usually professionals who
have frequent contact with children, such as health care workers,
teachers, social workers, and law enforcers.
[27] U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2005. The next highest
percentages of families living below the poverty level were Hispanic
and Native American families, both at 21 percent.
[28] Hispanic families are less likely than African American families
to be headed by single parents, a cultural difference that has been
cited as a protective factor for Hispanic families that reduces the
potential for children's removal from their families for neglect or
abuse, despite similar rates of poverty.
[29] A. Sedlak and D. Broadhurst, Executive Summary of the Third
National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. (U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.: 1996).
[30] U.S. Census American Community Survey data from 2005. Females make
up the majority of single parent households.
[31] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2005 National
Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (HHS, SAMHSA, Office
of Applied Studies, Rockville, MD: 2006).
[32] All AFCARS data cited in this report comes from our analysis of
the AFCARS database, which was made available to us by the National
Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect , Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, unless otherwise stated. NDACAN's funding is provided by
grant 90-CA-1667 from the Children's Bureau, U. S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
[33] This number was not associated with a particular racial or ethnic
group.
[34] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children of Color in
the Child Welfare System: Perspectives from the Child Welfare Community
(HHS, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau,
Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[35] Some child welfare officials also pointed out that lower income
families may even be referred to the child welfare system in order to
gain access to services.
[36] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment
2005 (HHS, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Washington,
D.C.: 2007).
[37] Cited by Christianne Lind, "Developing and Supporting a Continuum
of Child Welfare Services," (The Finance Project), 2004. The Finance
Project is a non-profit organization that provides research,
consulting, and technical assistant to public and private leaders on
investing and making financial decisions with regard to children,
families, and local communities.
[38] Ann F. Garland et al., "Racial and Ethnic Variations in Mental
Health Care Utilization Among Children in Foster Care," Children's
Services: Social Policy, Research and Practice, 3(3): 133-146 (2000).
[39] Astra Outley, Representation for Children and Parents in
Dependency Proceedings (The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care,
May 2004).
[40] Casey Family Programs is a foundation that works nationally with
state and local child welfare agencies and families to provide direct
services, as well as child welfare practice and policy suggestions.
[41] For example: R. L. Hampton and E. Newberger, "Child Abuse
Incidence and Reporting by Hospitals: Significance of Severity, Class
and Race," American Journal of Public Health (75) 1: 56-60 (1985). For
information on other studies, see R. Hill, Synthesis of Research on
Disproportionality in Child Welfare: An Update (Casey-Center for the
Study of Social Policy Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child Welfare
System, 2006).
[42] Barbara Needell et al., "Black Children and Foster Care Placement
in California" (Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6): 393-408
(2003).
[43] S. Zuravin et al., "Predictors of Child Protective Service Intake
Decisions: Case Closure, Referral to Continuing Services, or Foster
Care Placement," in P.A. Curtis, G. Dale, Jr., and J.C. Kendall (eds.),
The Foster Care Crisis ( Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska, 1999),
pp. 63-83).
[44] Robert B. Hill, Synthesis of Research on Disproportionality in
Child Welfare: An Update (Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in the
Child Welfare System, 2006).
[45] According to statistics from the Bureau of Justice, African
American men were over two times more likely to have been in prison on
December 31, 2005, than Hispanic men and over six times more likely
than White men. Female incarceration rates, though substantially lower
than male incarceration rates, reveal similar racial and ethnic
differences. African American neighborhoods with highly concentrated
poverty tend to have both high levels of foster care involvement as
well as involvement in the criminal justice system, according to child
welfare officials we spoke with and research we reviewed.
[46] According to our analysis of AFCARS fiscal year 2004 data, African
American children are even more disproportionally represented in foster
care at older ages than other children.
[47] Brenda D. Smith, "After Parental Rights Are Terminated: Factors
Associated with Exiting Foster Care," Children and Youth Services
Review, 25(12): 965-985 (2003).
[48] Hispanic children were also more likely to use kinship care than
Whites, according to our analysis of AFCARS fiscal year 2004 data.
[49] For example see: R. Barth, "Family Reunification," Child Welfare
Research Review, 2 (1997): 109-122.
[50] GAO, Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues, GAO-
99-32 (Washington, D.C.: May, 1999).
[51] R. Cook et al., Unpublished Analysis of Kinship Care Data, (1998),
quoted in U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, Report to
the Congress on Kinship Foster Care: Part I: Research Review, Part II:
Secretary's Report to the Congress (Washington, D.C.: 2000).
[52] Kinship care refers to situations in which a relative or a close
family friend provides shelter and cares for a child who is still in
the foster care system. Legal guardianship refers to situations in
which a relative or caregiver has taken permanent legal custody of the
child without terminating parental rights; with legal guardianship, the
child has exited foster care.
[53] HHS, Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives
from the Child Welfare Community (HHS, Administration for Children and
Families, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[54] Sponsored by the People's Institute for Survival and Beyond and
promoted by Casey Family Programs.
[55] According to academic researchers and others, structural or
institutional racism is defined as the historical, cultural, political,
ideological, and economic practices that have produced disparities and
disproportionality between the different racial groups. Under this
conceptualization of racism, the focus is not on individual behavior
but instead on systems that distribute resources along lines by race or
ethnicity.
[56] Will Johnson, "Effectiveness of California's Child Welfare
Structured Decision Making Model: A Prospective Study of the Validity
of the California Family Risk Assessment," (California Child Welfare
Structured Decision Making Project, for the California Department of
Social Services, Feb. 2004). See also L. Anthony Loman and Gary L.
Siegel, "An Evaluation of the Minnesota SDM Family Risk Assessment:
Final Report," (Institute of Applied Research, St. Louis, Missouri,
conducted for the Department of Human Services, Minnesota: Dec. 2004).
[57] HHS, Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives
from the Child Welfare Community (HHS, Administration for Children and
Families, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[58] See GAO, Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies
Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of
Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Service, GAO-03-397
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2003), for gaps in access to mental health
service and see GAO, HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services
and Monitoring of States' Independent Living Programs, GAO-05-25
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2004) for gaps in supportive services for
children transitioning out of foster care.
[59] In response to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-191), known as HIPPA, the Secretary of HHS
issued regulations covering the use and disclosure of protected health
information. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (Pub. L. No.
93-380) governs access to student education records.
[60] This study was based on data from 14 counties.
[61] A 2006 report by Generations United found that a total of 35
states and the District of Columbia were subsidizing legal
guardianships. (See hyperlink, http://ipath.gu.org/documents/A0/GU-
GeneralFactSheetJune.pdf.) Three of these states, Maryland, New Jersey,
and Rhode Island, did not respond to our survey on disproportionality.
Other states may subsidize guardianships, but not limit these subsidies
to families involved in the state child welfare system.
[62] This may be in part because relative foster care homes can be
exempt from federal timeline requirements.
[63] Jill Duerr Berrick, "When Children Cannot Remain Home: Foster
Family Care and Kinship Care," The Future of Children: Protecting
Children from Abuse and Neglect, 8, no.1 (1998).
[64] In 2003, the University of Illinois and Westat conducted an
evaluation of Illinois' subsidized guardianship program, the largest of
all programs funded by Title IV-E waivers, reaching 6,800 guardians.
The study used an experimental design with random assignment of
families into treatment and control groups. The study found that
Illinois' subsidized guardianship waiver resulted in fewer children
remaining in long-term foster care with ongoing administrative
oversight, that home stability increased, and that the withdrawal of
regular administrative oversight and casework services from the
families did not result in higher rates of indicated subsequent reports
of abuse and neglect.
[65] Illinois' guardianship program was funded through a federal Title
IV-E waiver.
[66] States like Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, and Montana all reported in
their survey comments that they were concentrating their efforts on
disproportionality of other populations such as Native Americans and
Hispanics because the number of African Americans in their foster care
systems was comparatively small.
[67] Diligent recruitment of African American foster and adoptive
parents might be considered a more targeted strategy. However, we
grouped this under strategies to increase the number of permanent homes
because states are required by law to engage in this activity, and it
is not necessarily an indication of their efforts to target efforts to
address disproportionality.
[68] Called the Breakthrough Series Collaborative (BSC), this program
encourages participating jurisdictions to develop child welfare systems
that are free of structural racism and benefit all children by engaging
with other jurisdictions, developing leaders and disseminating lessons
learned.
[69] When this report was completed, the Texas Health and Human
Services Commission and the Department of Family and Protective
Services, as required by the law (Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Sec. 264.2041)
also devised a remediation plan to prevent racial or ethnic disparities
and an evaluation of policies and procedures should the results
indicate disparate treatment of racial or ethnic groups.
[70] HHS, Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives
from the Child Welfare Community (HHS, Administration for Children and
Families, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[71] Although 18 states in our survey believed that having reporting
requirements on disproportionality rates in the CFSR would be useful,
nearly as many responded that it would not be useful, and HHS officials
told us that the CFSR process was governed by statute and that they
could not add such a requirement. In addition, some child welfare
officials we interviewed believed that outcomes should be recorded by
race. These would be similar to educational outcome requirements under
the No Child Left Behind Act. It requires states to create an
accountability system of assessments, graduation rates, and other
indicators. Schools have to make adequate yearly progress to a state-
determined level of proficiency.
[72] Because policies are often implemented around the same time and
overlap, changes in outcomes, such as adoption rates, may reflect the
influence of multiple policies.
[73] In addition to block grant funds, federal funds for prevention and
family support services under Title IV-B have been useful in states'
efforts to address disproportionality, according to some officials we
interviewed.
[74] See Cynthia Andrews Scarcella, Roseanna Bess, Erica Hecht
Zielewski, and Rob Geen, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children V
(Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2006). According to the Urban
Institute survey, states' allocation of TANF and SSBG block grants
constituted 32 percent of federal child welfare spending in fiscal year
2004.
[75] See GAO 07-75.
[76] States may claim federal reimbursement under Title IV-E for every
eligible child who is placed in a licensed foster care homes, and
states may seek reimbursement from the federal government for specified
percentages of these costs. Of total federal child welfare expenditures
for 2004, Title IV-E claims represented about 50 percent, while Title
IV-B funds represented about 5 percent, according to data from the
Urban Institute.
[77] Although many officials we interviewed indicated that more funds
should be placed in prevention, family preservation and family support
services, findings from large-scale evaluations conducted by HHS showed
that provision of these services provided no or little effect in
reducing out-of-home placement, maltreatment recurrence, or improved
family functioning beyond what normal casework services achieved. See
HHS, Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs,
Final Report, Volumes 1 and 2 (Dec. 2002).
[78] See GAO-06-787T; GAO 07-75; Fostering the Future: Safety,
Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care, Pew Commission
on Children in Foster Care (May 2004); and C. Lind, Developing and
Supporting a Continuum of Child Welfare Services, Welfare Information
Network, The Finance Project (Dec. 2004).
[79] HHS discussed the current funding structure and the
administration's proposed child welfare program option in its
publication, Federal Foster Care Financing: How and Why the Current
Funding Structure Fails to Meet the Needs of the Child Welfare Field,
ASPE Issue Brief, (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Washington, D.C.: Aug.
2005).
[80] HHS, Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives
from the Child Welfare Community (HHS, Administration for Children and
Families, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[81] This is based on HHS CFSR results between 2001 and 2004.
Challenges in recruiting are consistent with survey responses in an
earlier GAO study as well. See GAO, Child Welfare: Improving Social
Service program, Training, and Technical Assistance Information Would
Help Address Long-standing Service-level and Workforce Challenges, GAO-
07-75 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2006).
[82] Lorelei B. Mitchell, Richard P. Barth, Rebecca Green, Ariana Wall,
et al., "Child Welfare Reform in the United States: Findings from a
Local Agency Survey," Child Welfare, 84, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 2005).
[83] As noted earlier, federal policy allows states to classify
children as special needs if they have characteristics that make them
difficult to place with adoptive families without adoption assistance,
such as belonging to a sibling or minority group, or having a
disability.
[84] Most African American children were adopted by African American
parents from 2000 to 2004, according to our analysis of HHS data, and
the percentage of African American children in foster care adopted by
single or married African American parents remained relatively steady
at around 70 percent.
[85] This concern was also expressed in a previous GAO report. See GAO,
Foster Care Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act Poses
Difficult Challenges, GAO-98-204 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 1998).
[86] Pub. L. No. 95-608. ICWA requires that efforts be made to place
Native American children with relatives or tribal families, unless a
good reason exists not to follow these placement preferences.
[87] Prior to ASFA's enactment, children's options for exiting foster
care included being reunified with their parents, adopted by a relative
or nonrelative, or achieving emancipation from foster care when they
reached a certain age, usually 18.
[88] According to HHS officials, as of May 2007, seven states have
active demonstrations testing the use of subsidized guardianship as an
alternative permanency option, and one state has not yet implemented
its guardianship demonstration.
[89] In the preamble to its 2000 regulations implementing ASFA, HHS
clarified that relative caregivers must be fully licensed and meet the
same licensing requirements as nonkin in order for the state to receive
IV-E reimbursements for those families. 65 Fed. Reg. 4020 Except for
background checks related to criminal convictions, states determine
their own licensing requirements for prospective foster care, adoptive,
and guardian parents, but must meet national safety standards as
overseen through the CFSR process.
[90] For example, according to information from HHS's Children's
Bureau, 24 states as of August 2006 require federal criminal record
checks for prospective adoptive parents and 23 states require
fingerprinting checks.
[91] 45 C.F.R. 1356.30(e).
[92] For example, officials in California told us that county child
welfare officials made an exemption for an uncle who, 3 years ago, had
a felony drug conviction for being under the influence of marijuana and
alcohol. The county welfare agency determined that he had since
rehabilitated and would, along with the aunt, make an appropriate
caregiver of three children.
[93] For example, state officials from California estimated that local
child welfare agencies made about 360 exemptions in California between
2005 and 2006 for relative caregivers who otherwise would have been
automatically disqualified as caregivers under federal law. These
exemptions accounted for 2 to 3 percent of all placements that were
approved for foster care, some of whom later became guardians or
adoptive parents, according to officials.
[94] ASFA shortened the time frame in which a permanency hearing must
be held for children when they first enter foster care from 18 months
to 12 months and required states to file a petition to terminate
parental rights for children who have been in foster care for 15 of the
past 22 months. States may exempt children from the requirement to
terminate parental rights if a child is placed with a relative.
[95] However, timelines were often extended because of parents'
difficulties in accessing services they needed to comply with
requirements for reunifying with their children. See GAO, Foster Care:
Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent Homes for
Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain, GAO-02-585 (Washington,
D.C.: June 28, 2002).
[96] To mitigate this situation, California passed legislation in 2005
permitting a child who has not been adopted after the passage of 3
years from termination of parental rights to petition the juvenile
court for reinstatement of parental rights (Cal. Stats., AB 519, Chap.
634).
[97] Some of the increase also represented better data reporting, as
cited in Penelope L. Maza, "Children Who Fall Through the Cracks," The
Roundtable, National Child Welfare Research Center, 21, no. 1 (2007).
[98] This excluded children with termination of parental rights who are
16 and older and have the goal of emancipation.
[99] According to this HHS official, until the last few years, some
states may have been under-reporting cases in which termination of
parental rights has occurred, and states vary in how they determine
adoption as a case goal for children in foster care. HHS has been
revising how it generates this estimate over the years.
[100] For example, in 2005, reunification was the case goal for 50
percent of children, and 54 percent of children who exited foster care
that year were reunified with their parent or primary caretaker.
[101] Another method, used by child welfare researchers at the
University of California at Berkeley to characterize differences among
populations, is called a "disparity index." This index compares the
levels of disproportionality between various racial and ethnic groups.
For example, the disparity index for New York's African American
children when compared to White children is 7.11--more than double the
state's disproportionality rate for African American children of 2.63,
as shown in table 4. (OJJDP also uses a similar index, which it terms
the "relative rate index," in analyzing disproportionate minority
contact.)
[102] The methodology we used for our disproportionality calculations
is based on the University of California at Berkeley Center for Social
Services Research's Foster Care Dynamics Disproportionality and
Disparity Index Web site. URL: < hyperlink,
http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/dynamics/disprop/>
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
