Foreign Affairs
Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process, but Further Enhancements Are Needed Gao ID: GAO-06-133 October 21, 2005U.S. intercountry adoptions nearly tripled from more than 8,000 to more than 22,000 between fiscal years 1994 and 2004. While the Department of State (State) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) manage the process, factors ranging from corruption to inadequate legal frameworks in foreign countries could lead to abuses such as the abduction of children. GAO (1) describes the U.S. intercountry adoption process, (2) assesses the U.S. government's efforts to manage the intercountry adoption process, (3) assesses U.S. efforts to strengthen safeguards and mitigate against the potential for fraudulent adoptions, and (4) describes the Hague Convention (Convention) and the statuses of U.S. and top sending countries' implementation of the Convention.
Adoptive parents must meet domestic and foreign government requirements to complete intercountry adoptions. However, factors such as foreign governments' procedures may contribute to varying time frames for adoptions. USCIS and State are the domestic agencies responsible for intercountry adoptions. USCIS and State made efforts to enhance the process by improving interagency coordination and communication with parents and developing additional guidance on adoptions. In addition, USCIS streamlined the intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees for parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible children. While USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, GAO found that the agency does not have a formal quality assurance program in place where results are summarized and reported to senior agency officials so that an assessment of the quality of the intercountry adoption process can be made over time. Factors in foreign countries' environments may allow for abuses in adoptions. To reduce the likelihood of such abuses, USCIS and State have taken such steps as holding diplomatic discussions with foreign governments and imposing additional U.S. procedural requirements. However, USCIS has not established a formal and systematic process for documenting specific incidents of problems in foreign countries. Such a process would allow for a systematic approach to analyze problematic trends and retain institutional knowledge. The Hague Convention governing intercountry adoptions establishes minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated with the adoption process. The United States has signed the Convention and taken several steps toward implementing the Convention; however, key steps remain, including formal ratification of the Convention. Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the Convention.
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-06-133, Foreign Affairs: Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process, but Further Enhancements Are Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-133
entitled 'Foreign Affairs: Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry
Adoption Process, but Further Enhancements Are Needed' which was
released on October 21, 2005.
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 Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:
October 2005:
Foreign Affairs:
Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process, but Further
Enhancements Are Needed:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-133]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-133, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
U.S. intercountry adoptions nearly tripled from more than 8,000 to more
than 22,000 between fiscal years 1994 and 2004. While the Department of
State (State) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
manage the process, factors ranging from corruption to inadequate legal
frameworks in foreign countries could lead to abuses such as the
abduction of children. GAO (1) describes the U.S. intercountry adoption
process, (2) assesses the U.S. government‘s efforts to manage the
intercountry adoption process, (3) assesses U.S. efforts to strengthen
safeguards and mitigate against the potential for fraudulent adoptions,
and (4) describes the Hague Convention (Convention) and the statuses of
U.S. and top sending countries‘ implementation of the Convention.
What GAO Found:
Adoptive parents must meet domestic and foreign government requirements
to complete intercountry adoptions. However, factors such as foreign
governments‘ procedures may contribute to varying time frames for
adoptions. USCIS and State are the domestic agencies responsible for
intercountry adoptions.
USCIS and State made efforts to enhance the process by improving
interagency coordination and communication with parents and developing
additional guidance on adoptions. In addition, USCIS streamlined the
intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees
for parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible
children. While USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the
adoptions process, GAO found that the agency does not have a formal
quality assurance program in place where results are summarized and
reported to senior agency officials so that an assessment of the
quality of the intercountry adoption process can be made over time.
Factors in foreign countries‘ environments may allow for abuses in
adoptions. To reduce the likelihood of such abuses, USCIS and State
have taken such steps as holding diplomatic discussions with foreign
governments and imposing additional U.S. procedural requirements.
However, USCIS has not established a formal and systematic process for
documenting specific incidents of problems in foreign countries. Such a
process would allow for a systematic approach to analyze problematic
trends and retain institutional knowledge.
The Hague Convention governing intercountry adoptions establishes
minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk
associated with the adoption process. The United States has signed the
Convention and taken several steps toward implementing the Convention;
however, key steps remain, including formal ratification of the
Convention. Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about
39 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have
ratified the Convention.
Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994 through
2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process,
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security work with the
Director of USCIS to formalize its quality assurance process so it can
assess the quality of the adoption process over time and identify areas
where training or guidance may be warranted, and to consider
establishing a formal and systematic approach to document specific
incidents of problems identified in foreign countries to retain
institutional knowledge and analyze trends. DHS and State agreed with
our findings and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-133.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-
4268 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S. Intercountry Adoptions, with
Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process:
U.S. Agencies Improved the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process, but
USCIS Lacks a Formal Quality Assurance Process:
USCIS and State Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Safeguards to the
Process in Foreign Environments, but USCIS Does Not Systematically
Document Incidents of Potential Abuses:
United States and Some U.S. Top Sending Countries Have Not Ratified
Multilateral Convention That Establishes Minimum Intercountry Adoption
Standards:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Country,
Fiscal Year 2004:
Appendix III: List of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices:
Appendix IV: Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry
Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Countries That Currently Have Restrictions on Intercountry
Adoptions, as of September 30, 2005:
Table 2: Approximate Length of Time for Completion of Adoption Overseas
and Estimated Adoption Costs in Top Four Sending Countries (2005):
Figures:
Figure 1: Number U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994
through 2004:
Figure 2: Distribution of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Sending
Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004:
Figure 3: Number of Intercountry Adoptions from Top Four Sending
Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004:
Figure 4: U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process:
Figure 5: Hague Implementation Time Line by Fiscal Year:
Figure 6: World Map of Hague Ratification by Country and U.S.
Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
IAA: Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000:
INA: Immigration and Nationality Act:
INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service:
IR: immediate relative:
IVO: Immigrant Visa Overseas System:
PAS: Performance Analysis System:
UNICEF: United Nations Children's Fund:
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
Letter October 21, 2005:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Chairman:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
More and more U.S. citizens are starting and expanding their families
by adopting children from other countries. The number of children that
entered the United States through intercountry adoptions increased from
about 8,000 in fiscal year 1994 to about 22,000 in fiscal year
2004.[Footnote 1] The U.S. intercountry adoption process is managed by
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State (State) and is
complicated by a number of domestic and foreign government requirements
for adopting a child from another country. Prospective parents often
use the services of an adoption agency to help guide them through this
adoption process and identify orphans that need families. To adopt a
foreign-born child that will live in the United States, the prospective
parents must meet qualifications outlined by U.S. immigration law.
Additionally, the child and the prospective parents must meet the legal
requirements for adoption in the child's country of origin, and the
child must meet requirements outlined by U.S. immigration law to enter
the United States. Despite the existence of such U.S. and foreign
government regulations, a number of factors in foreign countries, such
as corruption, may lead to abuses in intercountry adoption procedures.
In recent years, several countries have suspended their intercountry
adoption programs in response to concerns over abuses in intercountry
adoptions, as well as to review their intercountry adoption processes
and improve safeguards. The 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption
(Convention) provides additional safeguards by establishing uniform
standards for intercountry adoptions.
In response to your interest in intercountry adoptions, this report (1)
describes the U.S. intercountry adoption process, (2) assesses USCIS'
and State's efforts to manage the intercountry adoption process, (3)
assesses U.S. efforts to strengthen safeguards and mitigate against the
potential for fraudulent adoptions, and (4) describes the Hague
Convention and the statuses of U.S. and top sending countries'
implementation of the Convention.
To address our objectives, in Washington, D.C., we interviewed USCIS
and State officials responsible for intercountry adoptions and reviewed
relevant agency documents on the U.S. intercountry adoption process. We
also visited USCIS offices in New York and Los Angeles to see how USCIS
implements domestic procedures related to intercountry adoptions. Both
of these offices ranked in the top 20 percent of domestic offices for
the number of intercountry adoption cases received in fiscal year 2004
and demonstrate geographic diversity. In addition, we contacted U.S.
adoption organizations and agencies to understand their roles, as well
as some adoptive parents who belonged to national adoptive parent
support groups and were willing to respond to us, to hear about their
experiences with the U.S. intercountry adoption process. To understand
the intercountry adoption environment and U.S. processes and procedures
in overseas locations, we visited Guatemala and Russia. These two
countries were consistently ranked among the countries where the
majority of children adopted into the United States originated from in
fiscal years 1994 to 2004. In both countries, we met with USCIS and
State Bureau of Consular Affairs officials managing the U.S.
intercountry adoption process, foreign government officials, and
private adoption facilitators, and visited orphanages to learn about
their respective roles in the adoption process. We conducted research
on the Convention by reviewing it, obtaining information on countries'
current statuses, verifying that the Convention's Web site data was
current through a discussion with a member of the Convention, and
discussing the implementation statuses with Guatemalan and Russian
government officials. Appendix I contains a more detailed description
of our scope and methodology.
We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Adopting a child from a foreign country is a complex process with a
variety of domestic and foreign government requirements that
prospective parents must meet. The Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) establishes requirements for prospective adoptive parents seeking
to adopt children from foreign countries and criteria for the child's
entry into the United States. USCIS and State are the two federal
agencies responsible for implementing the INA's intercountry adoption
requirements. In addition to domestic requirements, the parents and the
child must also meet the requirements for adoption established by the
national government where the child resides. USCIS is the principal
federal focal point for receiving and processing intercountry adoption
applications, determining the parent's eligibility and fitness to
adopt, and determining whether the child meets the INA's definition of
an orphan. In overseas locations where there is no USCIS office, USCIS
has delegated its authority to determine orphan status to
State.[Footnote 2] In addition, State's overseas consular offices issue
visas for entry into the United States. After the U.S. intercountry
adoption requirements have been met and the child has immigrated to the
United States, eligible children receive automatic U.S. citizenship.
Due to various factors, including foreign country requirements, time
frames and costs incurred for adopting children may vary.
We found that USCIS and State made efforts to improve the process by
implementing many of the priorities that an interagency task force
identified in 2002. To enhance the process, both agencies improved
interagency coordination and communication with parents and developed
additional guidance. In addition, USCIS made efforts to streamline the
intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees
for parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible
children. The task force identified problems with consistency in
applying procedures among adoption adjudicators and a lack of
centralized guidance from headquarters. To ensure better consistency
among its adjudicators, USCIS developed standard operating procedures
in 2003. However, the agency has not provided training on these new
procedures. Although USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of
the adoptions process, we found that the agency does not have a formal
quality assurance program in place where results are summarized and
formally reported to senior agency officials. To help ensure the
accuracy and completeness of adoption documents, in early 2004, a USCIS
district office began a document review of completed adoption files and
addressed individual cases through e-mails sent to relevant officials
at USCIS and State. However, a more structured approach would allow the
agencies to assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process
over time, ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware
of the results, and identify opportunities where additional training or
guidance may be warranted.
Although USCIS and State have taken steps to strengthen safeguards to
reduce the likelihood of fraudulent adoptions in foreign countries,
USCIS has not established a procedure to systematically document
problematic incidents that it has identified in its work so that these
trends can be analyzed by its staff. Some factors in the foreign
country, such as corruption and the lack of a legal framework over
intercountry adoptions, may allow for inappropriate activities in
adoptions to occur. To reduce the likelihood of abuses in intercountry
adoptions, State and USCIS have taken such steps as holding diplomatic
discussions with foreign governments and imposing additional U.S.
procedural requirements. For instance, in Guatemala, concerns of
illegally obtained children for adoption led to the U.S. requirement
for DNA testing of mothers and children. Also, USCIS and State provide
publicly available information on Web sites regarding country-specific
requirements and any known problems with the countries' processes.
Although agency officials are aware of general risk environments in
foreign countries, USCIS has not established a formal and systematic
process for analyzing and documenting specific incidents of potential
abuses in the foreign environment. Such a process would include
documenting USCIS staff's knowledge of unscrupulous facilitators and
disreputable adoption agencies identified in their work on adoptions.
Given the experience with past intercountry adoption concerns related
to child selling and buying activities, documentation of problematic
individuals and incidents in foreign countries would allow for a
systematic approach to analyze problematic trends and retain
institutional knowledge.
The Convention governs intercountry adoptions by establishing minimum
standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated with
intercountry adoption processes; however, since the United States and
three out of its four top sending countries have not ratified it, the
benefits of the Convention have not been fully realized. The Convention
provides some safeguards by establishing international minimum
standards in the intercountry adoption process. Under the Convention,
countries are to designate a Central Authority to carry out the
Convention, prohibit improper financial gains from intercountry
adoptions, and accredit adoption service providers that perform certain
functions specified by the Convention. The United States has signed the
Convention, designating State as the Central Authority, and State has
taken several steps toward implementing the Convention. However, key
steps remain, which include finalizing regulations and accrediting
entities to carry out some of the functions in the adoption process.
Once these steps are completed, the United States plans to ratify the
Convention. Although State's target date for implementation is fiscal
year 2007, agency officials stated that they could not predict how long
it will take to complete implementation due to the reliance on other
bodies to complete certain steps, such as adoption service providers
applying for accreditation. Three of the top four sending countries of
U.S. adoptions over the past 10 fiscal years--Guatemala, Russia, and
South Korea--have not ratified the Convention. In September 2005,
China, the top sending country of U.S. adoption, ratified the
Convention. Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about
39 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have
ratified the Convention.
To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following
actions working with the Director of USCIS to:
* formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can
assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time,
ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the
outcomes of the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities
where additional training or guidance may be warranted; and:
* consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document
specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has
identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and
analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper
activities.
The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written
comments on a draft of this report, which we have reprinted in
appendixes V and VI. DHS generally agreed with our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations. State also agreed with our findings
and conclusions and provided additional information regarding its
outreach efforts to the adoption community. In addition, State provided
supplementary information on its Actions on Intercountry Adoptions in
Selected Countries in appendix VI.
Background:
The INA[Footnote 3] defines U.S. parameters for intercountry adoptions.
INA establishes criteria for children's entry into the United States
and eligibility requirements for prospective adoptive parents of
children from foreign countries. A child is eligible for an immediate
relative (IR) classification under the INA if the child meets the
definition of an "orphan," as stipulated in the act.[Footnote 4] In
addition, adopting parents must meet certain requirements related to
their age, financial status, and medical condition.
Over the past 5 years, there have been legislative developments in the
U.S. intercountry adoption process, with further changes proposed. The
Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA)[Footnote 5] provides the
domestic legislation to implement the 1993 Hague Convention on
Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption, hereinafter referred to as the Hague Convention or the
Convention in this report. The IAA designates State to serve as the
Central Authority of the United States to carry out most
responsibilities of the Convention, including accreditation of adoption
service providers.[Footnote 6] Also in 2000, the United States enacted
the Child Citizenship Act[Footnote 7] to allow automatic citizenship
for eligible adopted children.[Footnote 8] Furthermore, in 2005
congressional legislation was introduced regarding the U.S.
intercountry adoption process.[Footnote 9]
Intercountry Adoptions Have Steadily Increased:
Intercountry adoptions may be a viable alternative to domestic
adoptions for parents interested in adopting an infant, according to
the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. In fiscal years 2002
to 2004, DHS reported that at least 40 percent of children adopted by
U.S. parents were under age 1, and at least 42 percent were between the
ages of 1 and 4. In the past 10 years, the annual number of U.S.
intercountry adoptions has consistently increased and nearly tripled,
from more than 8,000 in fiscal year 1994 to more than 22,000 in fiscal
year 2004 (see fig. 1).[Footnote 10]
Figure 1: Number U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994
through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The majority of children adopted into the United States between 1994
and 2004 have originated from four countries--China, Russia, South
Korea, and Guatemala--which consistently ranked among the top five
sending countries of children adopted by U.S. parents (see app. II for
a listing of all intercountry adoptions by country in fiscal year
2004). In total, adoptions from these four countries accounted for over
70 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in the past 10 years (see
fig. 2).
Figure 2: Distribution of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Sending
Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Each of the countries included in "other countries" makes up less
than 3% of intercountry adoptions during this time.
[End of figure]
Adoptions from China, Russia, and Guatemala increased significantly
between fiscal years 1994 and 2004, accounting for the vast majority
(92 percent) of the total increase (about 14,000) in U.S. intercountry
adoptions during this time. The number of adoptions from South Korea
has remained more consistent during this time (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Number of Intercountry Adoptions from Top Four Sending
Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although the United States is one of the world's leading receiving
countries for intercountry adoptions, some U.S. children are adopted by
foreigners. Statistics on the number of U.S. children adopted by
foreigners are not currently collected on a national level,[Footnote
11] however, Canada, for example, reports adoptions of over 700 U.S.
children from 1993 to 2002.
Current Restrictions on Intercountry Adoptions:
In recent years, several countries, including the United States, have
restricted[Footnote 12] intercountry adoptions from or to all or
specified countries for various reasons, including concerns of fraud,
medical concerns, natural disasters,[Footnote 13] and time allowed for
a country to review safeguards in its intercountry adoption process.
Although some of these restrictions have since been removed, such as
those recently in China, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam,[Footnote 14] several
remain in effect. Currently, the United States has a suspension on
intercountry adoptions from Cambodia--the only U.S.-imposed suspension--
which was issued in 2001 due to evidence of widespread corruption.
Additionally, several foreign governments currently have restricted
intercountry adoptions, in some cases because the countries are
examining their adoption process (see table 1).
Table 1: Countries That Currently Have Restrictions on Intercountry
Adoptions, as of September 30, 2005:
Country: Belarus;
Reason for restriction: Adoptions are on hold while the government
conducts an investigation of allegations of adoption irregularities; a
new adoption law was signed in January 2005, but a new adoption
procedure has not yet been finalized.
Country: Costa Rica;
Reason for restriction: Issued a moratorium in 2003 with countries that
have not ratified the Hague Convention; however, Costa Rican law
permits intercountry adoptions to be performed by attorneys, and
maintains no restrictions on such adoptions.
Country: Georgia;
Reason for restriction: Banned directed adoptions, in which birth
parents relinquish a child directly to adoptive parents, in 2003 (this
was the most common method of adoption by U.S. citizens in Georgia);
State notes that this is generally viewed in the adoption community as
a positive development.
Country: Romania;
Reason for restriction: Limited intercountry adoptions to biological
grandparents, effective in 2005, making permanent the moratorium it
issued in 2001 because its adoption framework did not protect the best
interest of the child.
Country: Ukraine;
Reason for restriction: Suspended acceptance of new adoption dossiers
from U.S. citizens and citizens of several other countries; according
to Ukraine, this decision was based in part on the past noncompliance
of some families with post adoption reports required by Ukrainian law.
Source: GAO analysis of State information.
[End of table]
USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S. Intercountry Adoptions, with
Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process:
The U.S. intercountry adoption process, which is defined by the INA and
primarily implemented by USCIS and State, is complicated by a number of
domestic and foreign government requirements and can be separated into
three phases.[Footnote 15] First, USCIS determines the parents'
eligibility and fitness to adopt through its review of the prospective
parents' application, home study reports, and background checks. Next,
USCIS--or State, in countries where USCIS has no offices--determines
the child's orphan status by examining documents and, when warranted,
conducting overseas investigations. Finally, State's overseas consular
officers verify the child's orphan status and eligibility for an
immigrant visa. (Fig. 4 illustrates the three phases of the U.S.
government's process for intercountry adoptions.) Depending on the type
of visa issued, children admitted to the United States may qualify for
automatic citizenship. Various factors, such as different foreign
government's requirements, contribute to varying lengths of time
required for the process and the varying costs incurred by adoptive
parents.
Phase I--Prospective Parents' Suitability to Adopt Is Determined:
In the first phase of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, USCIS
determines the potential parents' suitability to adopt a child who
resides outside of the United States. The INA defines qualifications
for prospective adoptive parents.[Footnote 16] USCIS implements this
requirement through its 68 domestic offices.[Footnote 17] Prospective
parents submit to USCIS fingerprints; a filing fee; home
study;[Footnote 18] proof of compliance with preadoption requirements
of the prospective parent's state of residence; other documents such as
proof of citizenship, age, marriage license, and divorce decrees; and,
in some cases, an Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition
(Form I-600A).[Footnote 19] The home study is completed by a party
approved under the laws of the prospective parent's state of residence,
such as an adoption agency, and includes interviews with the family and
an assessment of the prospective parent's suitability to adopt a child.
After USCIS receives all required documents from parents, the agency
reviews the documents, conducts background checks on all adult members
living in the household, and makes its determination. If USCIS
determines that the prospective parents are eligible to adopt and fit
to provide the child with proper care, then it sends them a Notice of
Favorable Determination Concerning Applications for Advance Processing
of Orphan Petition (Form I-171H or I-797C).
Phase II--Child's Status as an Orphan Is Determined:
The second phase in the process requires U.S. federal agencies to
determine the orphan status of the child to be adopted, as defined by
the INA. Depending upon the location of the child, either an USCIS
officer or State consular officer determines whether the prospective
adoptive child meets the U.S. immigration law definition of an
orphan.[Footnote 20]
Once a child has been identified, adopting parents file a Petition to
Classify the Orphan as an Immediate Relative (Form I-600), provide
proof of the child's age and identity, proof that the child is an
orphan, and proof of a foreign government-issued adoption decree or
guardianship. In order to obtain adoption decree or guardianship in the
foreign country, parents must meet the foreign government's laws and
requirements. Foreign governments may place additional requirements on
prospective parents, including those regarding the prospective parents'
age and residency in country, as well as the requirement for parents to
agree to provide post adoption information. The Russian government, for
example, requires an agreement from adoptive parents to provide
periodic and on time postplacement reports. However, Russian government
officials have noted that American adoptive parents have not always
complied with this requirement.
USCIS or State officials review the documentation for Form I-600 and,
depending on the specifics of the case, may also undertake a field
investigation. Sometimes officers interview birth mothers or visit
orphanages to verify the circumstances surrounding the child's orphan
status. Following the completed review, USCIS or State officials make a
determination. If all documents are sufficient and the child has been
determined an orphan, USCIS or State officials approve the I-600
petition and send parents a Notice of Approval of Relative Immigration
Visa Petition (Form I-171).
Phase III--Child's Eligibility to Immigrate to the United States Is
Determined:
The third step of the process involves State's issuance of an immigrant
visa to the child for admission into the United States.[Footnote 21]
With respect to state law, most states grant full recognition to a
foreign adoption decree. In some instances, states require adoptive
parents to validate the foreign decree.[Footnote 22]
After parents have an approved Form I-600, they submit a completed
Immigrant Visa application (Form DS-230, Parts I and II) along with the
application fee and required documentation. The consular officer then
examines the documents, which include the following:[Footnote 23]
* child's birth certificate and passport (or other valid travel
document);
* evidence of adoption or legal custody for purposes of emigration and
adoption, as well as evidence of whether the adopting parents saw the
child prior to or during adoption proceedings (if applicable); and:
* record of medical exam from the embassy's panel physician (this exam
is largely to ensure that children with communicable diseases do not
enter the United States; parents are advised by State to consult with
other professionals for complete physical or mental evaluations of the
orphan's health). If significant health problems are uncovered, parents
may be asked to sign an affidavit acknowledging their desire to
continue with the case given the medical condition of the child and, in
some cases, parents may be requested to sign an affidavit regarding
their intent to obtain necessary vaccinations for the child upon entry
to the United States.
State consular officers then approve the child for an IR-3 or IR-4
immigrant visa,[Footnote 24] if all documentation for the orphan is in
order. State provides an immigrant visa package[Footnote 25] for the
child to be presented to the Customs and Border Protection officer at
the U.S. port of entry. According to State officials, the visa issuance
process usually takes about 1 or 2 days.
Figure 4: U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
U.S. Citizenship Requirements Differ Depending on Visa Classification:
The INA establishes the criteria by which foreign-born children adopted
by U.S. parents become U.S. citizens. Foreign-born children under the
age of 18 admitted to the United States and residing permanently in the
United States based on an issued IR-3 visa automatically acquire U.S.
citizenship as of the date of admission to the United States. USCIS
reviews IR-3 visa packages and sends Certificates of Citizenship to
eligible children without requiring any additional forms or fees. In
most cases, children that receive IR-4 visas may automatically acquire
U.S. citizenship at entry if there was a final adoption abroad by a
U.S. citizen parent and the state where the child resides does not
require readoption. Other children that receive IR-4 visas acquire U.S.
citizenship upon full and final adoption in the United States.
A Range of Factors Contribute to Varying Adoption Completion Times and
Costs:
Various factors make it difficult to generalize the length of time
required and exact costs incurred by adoptive parents for intercountry
adoptions. Country-specific adoption requirements, particularly in the
top sending countries of U.S. intercountry adoptions, may contribute to
the different time frames it may take to adopt a child. For example,
the Russian government requires adoptive parents to travel to Russia to
meet the prospective adoptive child. Since Russia also requires that
the child remain in Russia before the court hearing, adoptive parents
may travel a second time to Russia to attend the court hearing and
adopt the child. In addition, procedural requirements in the foreign
country may be difficult to meet. For instance, in Guatemala, birth
certificates of the adopted child and documents proving the identity of
birth mothers may be difficult and time-consuming to locate. Other
factors, such as the prospective parents' ability to provide adequate
and timely information to meet U.S. intercountry adoption requirements,
may also contribute to the length of time it takes for U.S. government
officials to approve adoptions. For example, prospective parents may
file application forms for intercountry adoptions to USCIS, which
allows prospective parents up to 12 months to submit supportive
documentation, such as the home study. Estimated total adoption costs
incurred by adoptive parents may also vary depending on the foreign
country.[Footnote 26] Table 2 shows the variations on the estimated
length of time that foreign governments take to approve typical U.S.
intercountry adoption cases in country and estimated cost of an
adoption incurred by adoptive parents among the top sending countries
of U.S. intercountry adoptions.
Table 2: Approximate Length of Time for Completion of Adoption Overseas
and Estimated Adoption Costs in Top Four Sending Countries (2005):
Country: China;
Approximate length of time foreign governments take to approve adoption
in country[A]: 10 to 12 months;
Estimated adoption costs for adoptive parents (per adoption): $15,000
to $20,000.
Country: Russia;
Approximate length of time foreign governments take to approve adoption
in country[A]: 5 months;
Estimated adoption costs for adoptive parents (per adoption): $40,000.
Country: Guatemala;
Approximate length of time foreign governments take to approve adoption
in country[A]: 6 to 7 months;
Estimated adoption costs for adoptive parents (per adoption): $20,000
to $25,000.
Country: South Korea;
Approximate length of time foreign governments take to approve adoption
in country[A]: 1 year;
Estimated adoption costs for adoptive parents (per adoption): $18,000
to $24,000.
Source: Data provided by State.
Note: Data is based on testimonial information obtained by State
Consular Affairs officials reviewing intercountry adoption cases in
foreign countries. This data provides estimated information on typical
U.S. intercountry adoption cases.
[A] According to State officials, this length of time is the
approximate time spent on U.S. intercountry adoption cases by the
foreign government and does not include time spent by the U.S.
government for approval.
[End of table]
U.S. Agencies Improved the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process, but
USCIS Lacks a Formal Quality Assurance Process:
In 2002, an interagency task force on intercountry adoptions was
created to examine ways to improve the U.S. intercountry adoption
process, and USCIS and State implemented most of the priorities that
the task force identified as necessary for improving the adoption
process. USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the
adoptions process but lacks a structured quality assurance program
where results are summarized and communicated to senior agency
officials.
USCIS and State Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process:
USCIS and State have taken several measures to improve the intercountry
adoptions process. The Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS)[Footnote 27] made intercountry adoptions a
priority for the agency in March 2002, after the Commissioner suspended
orphan visa processing for Cambodia.[Footnote 28] The INS created an
adoptions task force with State to comprehensively review the existing
INS structure for handling intercountry adoptions. The task force
identified several priorities to improve the intercountry adoption
process, and the agencies have, over the past 3 years, addressed many
of the priorities by taking the following actions:
* Improved interagency coordination: The task force suggested that
coordination needed to continue and that USCIS consider how adoption
work should be distributed and coordinated between USCIS and State.
USCIS and State's Bureau of Consular Affairs have established a
relationship to work together to address and resolve adoption issues.
For instance, the agencies hold quarterly meetings to coordinate
implementing changes to regulations, discuss challenges to the process,
and improve the forms used by officials in the process. In particular,
USCIS and State officials regularly discuss specific adoption cases and
issues that arise in overseas posts, as well as regulatory,
administrative, and policy matters related to intercountry adoptions.
Moreover, in April 2005, USCIS and State's Bureau of Consular Affairs
officials met at a USCIS field office to establish a mechanism for
sharing information on visa processing.
* Improved efforts to communicate with parents: The adoptions task
force identified the need for USCIS and State to provide advisory
notices for prospective adoptive parents. The task force suggested that
emphasis should be placed on ensuring that parents were consistently
informed about procedures, as well as prohibitions related to child
buying in the process, and that parents receive the most current and
complete information available on issues identified in countries where
adoptions occur. To improve communications with parents, USCIS and
State's Office of Children's Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs
provide information on their Web sites,[Footnote 29] USCIS and State
officials meet with adoption organizations and parents to discuss
various issues and USCIS field offices have taken steps to provide
customer service to parents. For example, USCIS and State Web sites
provide information on the process in the United States and overseas,
and the roles of both agencies, and alert parents to potential concerns
through advisory notices about adoption procedures in other countries.
USCIS and State's Office of Children's Issues provide outreach to
parents and the adoption community by presenting information at
regional and national conferences. In the two domestic USCIS field
offices we visited, we found that officials had taken several actions
to communicate with prospective adoptive parents, such as establishing
procedures to meet prospective parents and providing telephone numbers
for parents to directly contact the Adoption Adjudication Officer.
* Developed standard operating procedures: Another priority of the
adoptions task force was for USCIS to provide consistent guidance for
its field officers adjudicating orphan petitions by developing standard
operating procedures on how to determine parents' suitability to adopt
and a child's orphan status. The task force pointed out that, in some
cases, an adjudicator may be the only person in the field office that
handles adoptions and may have a supervisor reviewing their work who
does not have expertise in adoptions. The task force also reported
that, even among the best adjudicators, there was little procedural
consistency in adjudicating adoptions and no centralized guidance from
headquarters. To address this priority, in 2003, USCIS developed
standard operating procedures on adoption adjudications and made them
available to their staff electronically. We reviewed the standard
operating procedures and found that they described in a very detailed
manner the process for adjudicating orphan petitions. Furthermore,
State provides guidance to consular officers on how to process orphan
visa cases in its Foreign Affairs Manual.
* Conducted agency training: The task force noted that both USCIS and
State officials sometimes lacked the training necessary to determine
orphan status. In response, USCIS developed training materials for its
domestic and overseas field adjudicators for determining orphan status
and conducted an intercountry adoptions training course in 2002, which
some State officials attended. We reviewed the training materials and
found that they re-emphasized INA statutes for defining orphan status,
defined the agency's role and responsibilities for adjudicating orphan
petitions, and provided details for conducting orphan investigations.
In addition, to assist consular officers in their orphan
investigations, State offers fraud training to help its officers
ascertain whether information in documents for determining orphan
status, such as birth certificates, is false or whether documents have
been altered or falsified. According to a State official, State
increased the frequency of the course from twice a year to 8 to 10
times per year in 2005.
* Streamlined the intercountry adoption process: The task force
emphasized that the agency continue to demonstrate its commitment to
maintaining the intercountry adoption process as a priority. USCIS
streamlined some of its intercountry adoption procedures as a result. A
USCIS official acknowledged that the agency is challenged to balance
the prospective parents' interest in creating their new family as
quickly as possible with the need to review and process each
application and the required documents in accordance with U.S. law. To
address issues relating to timeliness, the agency has instituted a
policy requiring completion of all immigration related applications
within 6 months. Between October 2003 and July 2005, the agency has
processed adoption applications in less than 4 months, on
average.[Footnote 30] According to USCIS officials, many petitioners
file an incomplete Advanced Orphan Petition (Form I-600A) or Orphan
Petition (Form I-600) while they are in the process of completing their
home study. Regulations allow the petitioner(s) up to 12 months to
submit supportive documentation. The agency strives to process
completed applications within 30 days of receiving all required
documentation, according to USCIS officials.
In addition, in November 2003, USCIS made efforts to eliminate its
backlog of U.S. citizenship certificates by centralizing the process.
USCIS advised its field offices that, if they needed assistance with
their backlog, to send these cases to a central location for
processing. According to a USCIS official, from November through
December 2003, this central office processed 671 of the 700 backlogged
cases--the remaining cases were either denied or returned to the field
office for additional follow-up. In addition, to streamline and
simplify the issuance of Certificates of Citizenship for adopted
children who receive IR-3 visas and have their adoption finalized
overseas, USCIS created the IR-3 Entrant Program in January 2004. The
program eliminates the application and fee for citizenship certificates
for about 70 percent of children adopted by U.S. citizens. A USCIS
official noted that the agency has consistently met its goal to provide
certificates within 45 days after the family has entered the United
States.
Further, in the intercountry adoption process, a system of checks and
balances has developed that allows State, in the visa issuance phase,
to review USCIS paperwork before issuing the visa to the child.
Additionally, as a part of the streamlined process for issuing the
citizenship certificates to adopted children, USCIS reviews IR-3
immigrant visa packages to verify that the child acquired automatic
U.S. citizenship upon admission to the United States as required under
the INA. Since April 2005, USCIS and State have established procedures
to specifically address issues in visa classification decisions.
USCIS Has Taken Measures to Review the Quality of the Adoptions
Process, but a Structured Quality Assurance Program Is Not in Place:
The adoptions task force reported that USCIS should adopt a quality
assurance program for orphan adjudications. Although USCIS has taken
measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, we found that
USCIS has not developed a formal quality assurance process, similar to
the programs used in other areas of the agency. The activities of the
quality assurance program could include such procedures as the review
of random cases adjudicated by field officers to determine whether they
are following agency guidance and procedures, as well as the evaluation
of statistics to determine average processing times of orphan petitions
by field offices.
The task force reported that, even among the best officers, there was
little procedural or substantive consistency in approach or a
centralized source of guidance from headquarters. In 2003, USCIS
developed standard operating procedures that detailed a step by step
approach for adjudicating orphan petitions with the goal of improved
consistency among its adjudications, but the agency has not provided
training to adjudicating officers on these new procedures. The task
force also reported that problems in adjudicating orphan petitions can
be traced to the fact that individuals train their successors as best
as they can, but there is no routine mechanism for obtaining feedback
on written work from someone with specialized adoption expertise. In
the field offices we visited, we found that the adjudicators had
learned the process for adjudicating adoption petitions mostly through
on-the-job training and mentoring. USCIS held intercountry adoptions
training in 2002 as a result of the task force's suggestion; however,
not all adjudicators who process adoption cases attended the training.
A USCIS official stated that the agency plans to hold similar training
in fiscal year 2006, but no dates have been set.
In January 2004, as part of the Child Citizenship Act Program, the
USCIS Buffalo office began its review of adoption documents for
children who received IR-3 visas to help ensure the accuracy and
completeness of the information relating to the adoption process. This
review process accounts for about 70 percent of the adoption cases,
with the remaining 30 percent not included. The USCIS Buffalo office
has an informal process for addressing individual cases by sending e-
mails to relevant officials at USCIS and State. We reviewed several of
the e-mails sent by the USCIS Buffalo office, which identified issues
such as insufficient documentation, misclassifications of visas, and
inconsistent interpretation of INA regulations. While USCIS Buffalo's
review process has merits, the results of the review are not summarized
and formally reported to either senior USCIS or State officials.
Moreover, USCIS does not have a structured approach that would allow
the agencies to assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process
over time, ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware
of the results, and identify opportunities where additional training or
guidance may be warranted.
USCIS and State Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Safeguards to the
Process in Foreign Environments, but USCIS Does Not Systematically
Document Incidents of Potential Abuses:
The conditions in foreign environments can contribute to potential
abuses in the intercountry adoptions process. USCIS and State have
taken steps to increase safeguards and mitigate the potential for
fraudulent adoptions, though USCIS has not formally and systematically
documented specific problematic incidents to help USCIS adjudicators
better understand the potential pitfalls in some intercountry
adoptions.
Factors in Some Foreign Countries May Contribute to Abuses in U.S.
Intercountry Adoptions:
While the U.S. immigration law covering intercountry adoptions is
designed to ensure that adopting parents are suitable and fit to
provide proper care of the child and that the foreign-born child is an
orphan, conditions in some countries--such as corruption and the lack
of a legal framework over intercountry adoptions--may lead to abuses in
the intercountry adoption process. According to the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF),[Footnote 31] such abuses are more likely to
occur in countries where legislative provisions are nonexistent,
inadequate, or plagued with gaps and loopholes. UNICEF research also
identified that risk for abuses significantly increased when government
entities that oversee the adoption process are absent, insufficient, or
when the prospective parents act through intermediaries that may not be
licensed. For example, State has received a growing number of
complaints concerning adoption facilitators operating in various
countries. Licensing of agents and facilitators is done in accordance
with local law. However, not all foreign governments require that
agents and facilitators be licensed. Accordingly, it can be difficult
to hold facilitators accountable for fraud, malfeasance, or other bad
practices in general.
According to USCIS, State, and UNICEF, there have been some known cases
of abuse in intercountry adoptions, which include:
* abducting children;
* exchanging a child for financial or material rewards to the birth
family, or "child buying";
* deliberately providing misleading information to birth parents to
obtain their consent;
* providing false information to prospective adopters;
* falsifying documents; and:
* obtaining favorable adoption decisions from corrupt local or central
government officials.
Past difficulties with intercountry adoptions in foreign countries,
most notably in Cambodia, illustrate the potential effect of high-risk
adoption environments. The United States issued a suspension on
intercountry adoptions from Cambodia in December 2001 after receiving
complaints from nongovernmental organizations in Cambodia that
criminals were involved in "baby buying" for adoptions. From 1997 to
2001, the conspirators operated a scheme to defraud U.S. citizens who
adopted some 700 children from Cambodia. The conspirators received
approximately $8 million dollars from adoptive parents in the United
States. The conspiracy involved assorted crimes, including alien
smuggling, visa fraud, and money laundering, and included schemes such
as the use of baby buyers obtaining children from birth parents by
informing the birth parents that they may have their child back at any
time, then obtaining false Cambodian passports to enable the children
to leave the country. In 2004, after a DHS investigation, a U.S.
adoption facilitator pled guilty to conspiracy to commit visa fraud and
conspiracy to launder money.
The United States has also noted ongoing concerns with intercountry
adoptions in certain countries, as of the date of this report. These
countries include Guatemala, where a large number of U.S. adopted
children originate from, as well as Nepal, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone.
In Guatemala, USCIS and State noted on their Web sites that the use of
a false birth mother to release her child is the usual method chosen by
unscrupulous operators to create a paper trail for an illegally
obtained child. USCIS and State officials acknowledged the known
problems in Guatemala of birth mothers who are paid by private adoption
attorneys to relinquish their children for adoption. According to
State, problematic cases may further be complicated by high incidence
of corruption and civil document fraud in Guatemala. In Nepal, visa
fraud is a significant problem facing potential adoptive parents,
according to State's Web site. State also emphasized that document and
identity fraud related to adoptions are serious concerns in Nigeria,
and a high rate of adoption fraud has been uncovered in Sierra Leone.
Both Agencies Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Intercountry Adoption
Safeguards in Foreign Countries, but USCIS Has Not Formally and
Systematically Documented Incidents of Potential Abuses:
USCIS and State have taken various steps to strengthen safeguards
against abuses associated with adoptions from foreign countries. USCIS
and State's Office of Children's Issues coordinate to provide publicly
available information to alert prospective adoptive parents to country-
specific adoption processes and serious problems that may develop or
already exist in foreign adoption processes State officials also hold
diplomatic discussions with foreign countries regarding intercountry
adoptions. Through discussions between the United States and Vietnam,
for example, intercountry adoptions, which had been suspended, resumed
after the two countries signed an agreement of cooperation in June
2005. In addition, USCIS has established written guidance for ways to
identify fraud in intercountry adoption cases. The guidance provides
that USCIS officers consider specific fraud indicators, such as
documentary deficiencies and delays in registering birth certificates.
Furthermore, State has provided fraud prevention management training to
State consular officers, and USCIS officials said that all USCIS
officers receive training, which includes an antifraud segment, when
hired.
USCIS and State have established procedures for determining the orphan
status of the child based on the conditions that exist in the country
relating to the intercountry adoption process. These procedures may add
to the length of time for the adoption process. For example, in
countries where the adoption process is clear and transparent, and when
officers deal with adoption agencies with high standards, USCIS allows
the field investigation to be completed through a documentary review.
In some instances, however, deficiencies or inconsistencies in the
documentation presented will require in-depth field investigations. In
certain countries, these investigations can include additional steps,
such as interviews with the birth mother, DNA testing when necessary
and feasible, and interviews with adoption entities such as
facilitators, orphanage directors, and local officials. In Guatemala,
for example, USCIS requires DNA testing in all cases where the child is
released by an identified birth mother due to concerns over the use of
false birth mothers to release illegally obtained children. In Nigeria,
where document and identity fraud related to adoptions are serious
concerns, all adoptions are required to undergo full field
investigations to verify the authenticity of the information provided
in the adoption decrees and U.S. orphan petitions. These added steps in
the process may contribute to a lengthier completion time for
intercountry adoptions, but may also help the U.S. government in
ensuring the legitimacy of information provided on the adopted child
and in detecting fraud.
Both USCIS and State publicize general knowledge of the risk
environment in foreign countries. However, while State has documented
specific concerns via cable communication, USCIS has not established a
procedure to systematically document instances of individual
problematic situations identified through its intercountry adoption
work in foreign countries, including its staff's knowledge of
unscrupulous adoption attorneys and facilitators, as well as
disreputable orphanages and adoption agencies. Although USCIS officials
informed us that they discuss the risk environment in foreign countries
with overseas staff on a periodic and informal basis, agency officials'
knowledge of specific incidents of concern may be better captured in a
systematically documented method. In Guatemala, for example, USCIS
staff informed us of instances where facilitators may have provided
substantial funds to birth mothers who have relinquished their children
for adoption. A USCIS official had also banned specific adoption
attorneys in Guatemala from submitting intercountry adoption cases due
to the USCIS official's suspicions of the attorneys' fraudulent
practices. This information, however, is communicated anecdotally to
other USCIS officials without being specifically and systematically
documented. In addition, while USCIS provides information for State's
publicly available notices documenting country conditions, individual
and detailed accounts of concern are not systematically captured. USCIS
officials also noted that they have access to cables prepared by State
officials that discuss concerns with intercountry adoptions in foreign
countries. Contents in State's documented cables range from
documentation of general risks to intercountry adoptions in foreign
countries to findings during orphan investigations in specific adoption
cases.
GAO internal control standards specify that agencies consider adequate
mechanisms to identify risks arising from external factors, including
careful considerations of the risks resulting from interactions with
other federal entities and parties outside the government. Our
standards also note that agency management should establish a formal
process to analyze these risks. Documentation by USCIS staff of
specific problematic incidents would provide a systematic method to
retain institutional knowledge, analyze trends in the occurrence of
these problems, and share critical information.
United States and Some U.S. Top Sending Countries Have Not Ratified
Multilateral Convention That Establishes Minimum Intercountry Adoption
Standards:
The Hague Convention, which governs intercountry adoptions, establishes
minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk
associated with foreign governments' adoption processes. The United
States has signed the Convention and taken key steps toward
implementation but has not yet formally ratified it, while some U.S.
top sending countries have also not ratified the Convention.[Footnote
32]
Hague Convention Establishes Minimum Standards for Intercountry
Adoptions:
The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in
Respect of Intercountry Adoptions is designed to help alleviate some of
the risks associated with the adoption process by establishing
international minimum standards that sending and receiving countries
must abide by.[Footnote 33] In particular, the objectives of the
Convention are (1) to establish safeguards to ensure that intercountry
adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and with
respect for his or her fundamental rights as recognized in
international law; (2) to establish a system of cooperation among
Contracting States to ensure that those safeguards are respected and
thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children; and
(3) to secure the recognition in Contracting States of adoptions made
in accordance with the Convention. Standards of the Convention will
only be applicable for intercountry adoptions in which both the sending
and receiving country have ratified the Convention.
More specifically, the Convention's safeguards include the required
designation of a Central Authority in each country to implement
Convention procedures, as well as requirements regarding prospective
parents, adoptable children, and other involved entities. These Central
Authorities must coordinate with each other, provide evaluation reports
on their country's adoption experiences to other countries, and take
the appropriate measures to prevent improper financial gain from an
intercountry adoption, among other responsibilities. Additionally,
under a Hague adoption, a prospective adoptive parent must apply for an
adoption through the sending country's Central Authority. To meet these
requirements, the sending country must establish that a child is
eligible for adoption by ensuring that adoption is in the best interest
of the child and that appropriate counseling and consents, not induced
by payment, have been provided, while the receiving country must
determine that the prospective parents are eligible and suitable to
adopt. Moreover, the Convention requires the receiving country to
ensure that the child will be authorized to enter and permanently
reside in the country before the adoption takes place, though this is
not a prerequisite to parent-child contact. Under the Convention, the
Central Authority may delegate certain functions to a public authority
or an accredited body, as long as this body pursues only nonprofit
objectives, is staffed by qualified persons, and is subject to
supervision. The Convention also permits many Central Authority
functions to be performed by other bodies or persons who meet certain
ethical, training, and experience standards.[Footnote 34]
Although the Convention establishes minimum standards, it does not
establish formal means to determine whether countries are complying
with them. The United States has monitoring mechanisms, outlined in the
IAA,[Footnote 35] to ensure it adheres to the standards of the
Convention. However, the Convention does not include mechanisms to
determine whether other countries are doing so as well. For example,
although the Convention requires the sending countries to prepare a
report for each child, it is up to the sending country to ensure that
its report is factual.
United States and Some Top Sending Countries Have Yet to Ratify the
Convention:
Although State has taken some key steps to implement the Convention,
several remain. The United States signed the Convention in 1994. In
2000, the Senate gave its advice and consent, but the United States
will not formally ratify the Convention until it is able to carry out
the obligations required of it by the Convention. That same year, the
United States passed the implementing legislation, the IAA, which
established State as the U.S. Central Authority for intercountry
adoptions. Following passage of the legislation, State has taken
several steps to prepare for implementation, including drafting and
issuing regulations for comment as required by IAA,[Footnote 36] hiring
staff to carry out some of the responsibilities of the Convention, and
requesting applications for accrediting entities, which under IAA are
responsible for accrediting adoption service providers. However, some
key steps remain, which include finalizing regulations, deploying case
registry software to track adoption cases,[Footnote 37] and signing
agreements with accredited entities. Implementation of the Convention
is one of State's highest priorities, according to State officials.
Figure 5 provides a detailed time line of the United States'
implementation of the Convention.
Figure 5: Hague Implementation Time Line by Fiscal Year:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
State officials said the implementation of the Convention is a long-
term project and attributed its lengthiness to several challenges.
First, IAA required that State consider the standards or procedures
developed or proposed by the adoption community before issuing
regulations.[Footnote 38] Once regulations were issued to the public
for comment, State received about 1,500 comments from more than 200
entities expressing a wide range of views, some calling for more
stringent standards and others for less stringent. State revised the
regulations, including responses to comments, and sent them to Office
of Management and Budget. Second, State is further challenged in
drafting agreements with accrediting entities because such entities
could be either state licensing bodies or nonprofits, both of which
entail a variety of different restrictions, such as state laws.
Finally, State must complete some steps in sequential order. For
example, agreements with accrediting entities can not be signed until
the regulations are finalized. Further, although State's target date
for implementation is fiscal year 2007, agency officials stated that
they could not predict how long it will take accrediting entities to
approve adoption service agencies. According to officials, State will
have completed its work needed to implement the Convention by the end
of 2005, at which time the adoption service providers will have to
apply for accreditation. In addition, USCIS must revise regulations to
implement the Convention, and, according to USCIS, they are currently
in the process of making the revisions.
Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of
all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the
Convention.[Footnote 39] Three out of four top sending countries for
U.S. intercountry adoptions--Guatemala, Russia, and South Korea--have
not ratified the Convention. In September 2005, China, the top sending
country of U.S. adoptions, ratified the Convention. State officials
said that Russia is working toward ratification of the Convention.
Guatemala acceded to the Convention in 2002, but, in 2003, the
Guatemalan court ruled the accession to be unconstitutional based on
technicalities. South Korea has not signed the Convention. See appendix
IV for the countries that have implemented the Convention, as well as
the total number of U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004
from these countries, as well as the top four sending countries.
Following implementation of the Convention, the United States plans to
continue adoptions with non-Hague Convention countries, according to
State officials. However, State officials told us that prior to U.S.
implementation of the Convention, other Hague Convention countries
could potentially suspend adoptions with the United States. For
example, Costa Rica announced the suspension of non-Hague adoptions in
2003, though the country has continued to allow some adoptions by U.S.
citizens, according to State officials.
Conclusions:
With more and more U.S. citizens expanding their families by adopting
children who live in other countries, it is important for the U.S.
government to have procedures in place that provide prospective parents
with transparent and accessible information on adoptions, coordination
between the two primary agencies responsible for implementing U.S.
immigration law on intercountry adoptions, and mechanisms to evaluate
the suitability of prospective parents and to determine the child's
status as an orphan and eligibility to immigrate to the United States.
The United States has such procedures in place, and the designated
agencies have worked to improve them. While U.S. adoptive parents
desire a smooth and expedited adoption process, agency officials are
challenged to balance the importance of prioritizing and expediting
intercountry adoption cases with the need to conduct thorough
investigations to ensure the legitimacy of each adoption.
In recent years, State and USCIS have taken measures to enhance the
intercountry adoption process. However, the development of an
intercountry adoptions quality assurance program would help to ensure
that U.S. intercountry adoption procedures are consistently followed
domestically and worldwide. Moreover, because foreign governments play
a prominent role in U.S. intercountry adoptions, the U.S. government is
limited in its ability to mitigate against abuses that take place
abroad. Although the U.S. government has taken measures to address some
risks to intercountry adoptions, a systematic documentation of such
incidents in foreign countries would allow for a formal mechanism for
retaining and sharing specific information among staff working on
adoption cases.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following
actions working with the Director of USCIS to:
* formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can
assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time,
ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the
outcomes of the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities
where additional training or guidance may be warranted; and:
* consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document
specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has
identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and
analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper
activities.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written
comments on a draft of this report (see apps. V and VI). GAO
incorporated technical comments from both agencies as appropriate. Both
DHS and State generally agreed with the report draft's observations and
conclusions. DHS agreed with our two recommendations for USCIS to
formalize its quality assurance mechanisms and for USCIS to consider
establishing a formal and systematic approach to document specific
incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions identified in foreign
countries. DHS also commented that the report accurately describes the
process and responsibilities of both agencies in the intercountry
adoption process. DHS noted that both agencies have improved
interagency coordination and efforts to communicate with parents,
developed standard operations procedures, conducted training, and
streamlined the process.
State commented that the department and USCIS have established
procedures that provide prospective adoptive parents with transparent
and accessible information, ensure coordination between their distinct
supportive roles, and meet the requirements of U.S. law. State also
noted that the report outlines the separate responsibilities of each
agency and recognizes the steps that both agencies have taken to ensure
that intercountry adoptions take place within the context of strong
safeguards. State replied that it is deeply concerned about the welfare
of children around the world and regards the Hague Convention as an
important means of promoting strong safeguards and ensuring that
intercountry adoption remains a viable option for children around the
world who seek permanent family placements. The department also
discussed its action on implementing the Hague Convention and indicated
that it plans to complete the tasks necessary to ratify the Convention
in 2005 and to enable adoption service providers to be accredited in
time for the United States to be able to ratify the Convention in 2007.
Also, State provided additional information regarding its outreach
efforts to the adoption community that we added to the report and
provided supplementary information on Department of State Actions on
Intercountry Adoptions in Selected Countries.
We will send copies of this report to appropriate Members of Congress,
the Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland Security and State, and
the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. We also will
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or [Hyperlink, fordj@gao.gov]. 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 VII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To describe the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we met with
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) and Department of State (State) officials in
Washington, D.C., with responsibilities for managing intercountry
adoptions cases. Specifically, we met with officials in USCIS' Offices
of Field Operations and International Operations, and State's Bureau of
Consular Affairs' Offices of Children's Issues and Visa Services. We
reviewed documents on U.S. intercountry adoptions, including
information on USCIS and State Web sites, which outlined specific
procedures for prospective adoptive parents to complete during the
intercountry adoption process, as well as information on the child's
eligibility for citizenship. Furthermore, we reported on the varying
intercountry adoption completion times and costs incurred by adoptive
parents in the top four sending countries based on discussions with
officials from State's Office of Children's Issues, who obtained this
information from State's Bureau of Consular Affairs officers handling
intercountry adoption cases in the four overseas locations. These
Bureau of Consular Affairs officers provided approximate time frames
based on their experiences in reviewing intercountry adoption cases. We
did not test the reliability of this data.
To assess the U.S. government agencies' efforts to manage the
intercountry adoption process, we interviewed USCIS and State officials
in Washington, D.C. We reviewed a USCIS task force report from June
2002, which assessed the U.S. intercountry adoption process and
identified areas for improvements. We discussed actions taken to
address these issues with USCIS officials. We further reviewed USCIS
and State documents to understand their procedures for handling
intercountry adoptions cases and their management of the process. These
documents include USCIS Standard Operating Procedures and Adjudicator's
Field Manual, as well as State's Foreign Affairs Manual. Additionally,
we reviewed USCIS and State's caseload data, documentation of
communication and coordination between the two agencies, as well as
training materials provided to USCIS and State officials related to
intercountry adoptions. The estimate of the time that USCIS officials
took to process intercountry adoption applications relies on their
Performance Analysis System (PAS). GAO tested the reliability of the
PAS data and found that it was sufficiently reliable at the aggregate
level to identify overall trends. We also visited USCIS offices in New
York and Los Angeles to see how USCIS implements domestic procedures
related to intercountry adoptions. Both of these offices ranked in the
top 20 percent of domestic offices for the number of adoption cases
received in fiscal year 2004 and demonstrate geographic diversity.
Additionally, we visited Guatemala City, Guatemala, and Moscow, Russia,
to see how USCIS and State implement intercountry adoption procedures
overseas. Our reasons for selecting those two countries are discussed
below. Furthermore, we contacted U.S. adoption organizations and
agencies to understand their roles, as well as some adoptive parents
who belonged to national adoptive parent support groups and were
willing to respond to us, to hear about their experiences with the U.S.
intercountry adoption process.
To understand the intercountry adoption process and the adoption
environment in overseas locations, we visited Guatemala City and
Moscow; we selected these locations for various reasons. Both countries
were consistently ranked among the top five sending countries for U.S.
intercountry adoptions from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2004. In
Guatemala City, USCIS officials adjudicate all orphan petitions to
determine the eligibility of the adopted children while State officials
issue visas to the adopted children. In contrast, State officials with
designated responsibility in Moscow approve the eligibility of the
adopted children and issue their visas. In addition, USCIS and State
officials noted concerns with intercountry adoptions abuses in
Guatemala, which research conducted for United Nations Children's Fund
(UNICEF) corroborated. In both countries, we interviewed USCIS and
State Bureau of Consular Affairs officials managing the U.S.
intercountry adoption process. We also met with foreign government
officials and private adoption facilitators and visited orphanages to
learn about their respective roles in the adoption process and their
views on the risks associated with intercountry adoptions in Guatemala
and Russia. The information on foreign law in this report does not
reflect our independent legal analysis, but is based on interviews and
secondary sources.
To describe the Hague Convention and the statuses of U.S. and top
sending countries' implementation of the Convention, we analyzed the
text of the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation
in Respect of Intercountry Adoption to identify the purpose and
standards of the Convention. We also analyzed the U.S. Intercountry
Adoption Act of 2000, which provides for the implementation of the
Convention by the United States. We also reviewed State's Web sites and
documents regarding the status of its implementation of the Convention,
including comments on draft regulations and State's Fiscal Year 2006
Performance Summary. In addition, we interviewed USCIS and State
officials to determine the status of the U.S. implementation of the
Convention. Finally, we obtained data on other countries' ratification
of the Convention from the Web site of The Hague Conference on Private
International Law, which tracks the statuses of countries that have
signed and ratified the Convention. To verify that this data on the Web
site was current, we interviewed an official from the member of the
permanent bureau of the Convention. Furthermore, we discussed the
implementation statuses of the Convention in their own countries with
Guatemalan and Russian government officials.
We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Country,
Fiscal Year 2004:
Sending country: Afghanistan;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Albania;
Number of adoptions: 9.
Sending country: Algeria;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Armenia;
Number of adoptions: 31.
Sending country: Azerbaijan;
Number of adoptions: 26.
Sending country: Bangladesh;
Number of adoptions: 9.
Sending country: Barbados;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Belarus;
Number of adoptions: 202.
Sending country: Belize;
Number of adoptions: 13.
Sending country: Benin;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Bolivia;
Number of adoptions: 5.
Sending country: Bosnia-Herzegovina;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Brazil;
Number of adoptions: 69.
Sending country: Bulgaria;
Number of adoptions: 110.
Sending country: Burma;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Burundi;
Number of adoptions: 3.
Sending country: Cameroon;
Number of adoptions: 6.
Sending country: Canada;
Number of adoptions: 6.
Sending country: Cape Verde;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Central African Republic;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Chile;
Number of adoptions: 4.
Sending country: China--mainland born;
Number of adoptions: 7,044.
Sending country: China--Taiwan born;
Number of adoptions: 109.
Sending country: Colombia;
Number of adoptions: 287.
Sending country: Congo, Democratic Republic of the;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Costa Rica;
Number of adoptions: 10.
Sending country: Croatia;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Czech Republic;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Djibouti;
Number of adoptions: 3.
Sending country: Dominica;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Dominican Republic;
Number of adoptions: 18.
Sending country: Ecuador;
Number of adoptions: 28.
Sending country: El Salvador;
Number of adoptions: 16.
Sending country: Eritrea;
Number of adoptions: 6.
Sending country: Estonia;
Number of adoptions: 13.
Sending country: Ethiopia;
Number of adoptions: 289.
Sending country: Fiji;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Georgia;
Number of adoptions: 24.
Sending country: Germany;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Ghana;
Number of adoptions: 13.
Sending country: Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Greece;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Guatemala;
Number of adoptions: 3,264.
Sending country: Guyana;
Number of adoptions: 36.
Sending country: Haiti;
Number of adoptions: 356.
Sending country: Honduras;
Number of adoptions: 8.
Sending country: Hong Kong S.A.R;
Number of adoptions: 15.
Sending country: Hungary;
Number of adoptions: 8.
Sending country: India;
Number of adoptions: 406.
Sending country: Indonesia;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Iran;
Number of adoptions: 6.
Sending country: Ireland;
Number of adoptions: 3.
Sending country: Jamaica;
Number of adoptions: 51.
Sending country: Japan;
Number of adoptions: 45.
Sending country: Jordan;
Number of adoptions: 4.
Sending country: Kazakhstan;
Number of adoptions: 826.
Sending country: Kenya;
Number of adoptions: 21.
Sending country: Korea, South;
Number of adoptions: 1,716.
Sending country: Kyrgyzstan;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Laos;
Number of adoptions: 4.
Sending country: Latvia;
Number of adoptions: 15.
Sending country: Lebanon;
Number of adoptions: 14.
Sending country: Lesotho;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Liberia;
Number of adoptions: 86.
Sending country: Lithuania;
Number of adoptions: 29.
Sending country: Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Rep. of;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Madagascar;
Number of adoptions: 4.
Sending country: Malaysia;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Mali;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Marshall Islands, Republic of the;
Number of adoptions: 8.
Sending country: Mexico;
Number of adoptions: 89.
Sending country: Moldova;
Number of adoptions: 32.
Sending country: Mongolia;
Number of adoptions: 23.
Sending country: Morocco;
Number of adoptions: 7.
Sending country: Mozambique;
Number of adoptions: 3.
Sending country: Nepal;
Number of adoptions: 73.
Sending country: Nicaragua;
Number of adoptions: 11.
Sending country: Nigeria;
Number of adoptions: 71.
Sending country: Pakistan;
Number of adoptions: 32.
Sending country: Panama;
Number of adoptions: 6.
Sending country: Peru;
Number of adoptions: 21.
Sending country: Philippines;
Number of adoptions: 196.
Sending country: Poland;
Number of adoptions: 102.
Sending country: Portugal;
Number of adoptions: 4.
Sending country: Romania;
Number of adoptions: 57.
Sending country: Russia;
Number of adoptions: 5,865.
Sending country: Rwanda;
Number of adoptions: 3.
Sending country: Saint Lucia;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Samoa;
Number of adoptions: 34.
Sending country: Senegal;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Serbia and Montenegro;
Number of adoptions: 2.
Sending country: Seychelles;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Sierra Leone;
Number of adoptions: 36.
Sending country: Singapore;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Slovakia;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Somalia;
Number of adoptions: 4.
Sending country: South Africa;
Number of adoptions: 8.
Sending country: Sri Lanka;
Number of adoptions: 13.
Sending country: Swaziland;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Syria;
Number of adoptions: 3.
Sending country: Tajikistan;
Number of adoptions: 6.
Sending country: Tanzania;
Number of adoptions: 4.
Sending country: Thailand;
Number of adoptions: 69.
Sending country: Togo;
Number of adoptions: 1.
Sending country: Tonga;
Number of adoptions: 4.
Sending country: Trinidad and Tobago;
Number of adoptions: 8.
Sending country: Turkey;
Number of adoptions: 5.
Sending country: Uganda;
Number of adoptions: 17.
Sending country: Ukraine;
Number of adoptions: 723.
Sending country: Uzbekistan;
Number of adoptions: 3.
Sending country: Vietnam;
Number of adoptions: 21.
Sending country: Zambia;
Number of adoptions: 10.
Sending country: Total;
Number of adoptions: 22,884.
Source: State.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: List of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices:
City: Bangkok;
Country: Thailand;
Office type: District Office.
City: Beijing;
Country: China;
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office.
City: Guangzhou;
Country: China;
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office.
City: Ho Chi Minh City;
Country: Vietnam;
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office.
City: Hong Kong;
Country: China;
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office.
City: Manila;
Country: Philippines;
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office.
City: Seoul;
Country: Korea;
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office.
City: Mexico City;
Country: Mexico;
Office type: District Office.
City: Ciudad Juarez;
Country: Mexico;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Guatemala City;
Country: Guatemala;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Havana;
Country: Cuba;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Kingston;
Country: Jamaica;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Lima;
Country: Peru;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Monterrey;
Country: Mexico;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Panama City;
Country: Panama;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Port-au-Prince;
Country: Haiti;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: San Salvador;
Country: El Salvador;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Santo Domingo;
Country: Dominican Republic;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Tegucigalpa;
Country: Honduras;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Tijuana;
Country: Mexico;
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office.
City: Rome;
Country: Italy;
Office type: District Office.
City: Accra;
Country: Ghana;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
City: Athens;
Country: Greece;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
City: Frankfurt;
Country: Germany;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
City: Islamabad;
Country: Pakistan;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
City: Johannesburg;
Country: South Africa;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
City: London;
Country: England;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
City: Moscow[A];
Country: Russia;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
City: Nairobi;
Country: Kenya;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
City: New Delhi;
Country: India;
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office.
Source: USCIS data.
[A] Although USCIS has a Sub Office in Moscow, Russia, USCIS officials
in Moscow do not handle U.S. intercountry adoption cases. Instead,
State's consular officers approve these cases in Moscow.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry
Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004:
Figure 6: World Map of Hague Ratification by Country and U.S.
Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
October 14, 2005:
Mr. Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Ford:
RE: Draft Report GAO-05-996, Foreign Affairs: Agencies Have Improved
the Inter-Country Adoption Process But Further Enhancements Are Needed
(GAO Job Code 320335):
The Department of Homeland Security appreciates the opportunity to
review and comment on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO)
draft report. The report accurately describes the process and the
responsibilities' of both the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) and Department of State. We appreciate the
acknowledgment of the improvements both agencies have made in the inter-
country adoption process. As the report states, both agencies have
improved interagency coordination, improved efforts to communicate with
parents, developed standard operating procedures, conducted agency
training and streamlined the process. We believe these efforts have
made the process more transparent to adoptive parents and agencies
involved in adoption processing, and at the same time have improved the
integrity of the inter-country adoption process.
We generally agree with the two recommendations made in the report. To
enhance the process the GAO recommended that USCIS formalize its
quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can assess the quality
of the inter-country adoption process over time, ensure that senior
officials from USCIS and State are aware of the outcomes of the quality
assurance process, and identify opportunities where additional training
or guidance may be warranted.
Quality assurance mechanisms are in place but could be more formalized.
USCIS established the Certificate of Citizenship Act Project located at
its Buffalo District as a result of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.
Once a child with a full and complete adoption overseas has been
admitted to the United States, all documentation presented at the port-
of-entry is forwarded to the Buffalo District. The purpose of this
project is to produce documentation identifying the adopted child as a
United States citizen. In addition to providing this documentation, the
project staff also conduct a post adoption audit. USCIS officers review
all documentation prepared by both USCIS and State for accuracy and
completeness of the information relating to the adoption. If questions
arise regarding the documentation presented, those questions are routed
to the approving office through USCIS headquarters. If questions arise
concerning the issuance of the immigrant visa, those questions are
routed to the Embassy through State. After review of over 20,000 cases,
this post-adoption audit reported that errors occurred in less than I
percent of all reviewed cases. Follow up is conducted by e-mail between
the Buffalo Office, USCIS Headquarters and State.
USCIS will work with State to develop a process that will allow both
agencies to comprehensively look at the results of this post audit
quality assurance program. USCIS will also work with State to become
more familiar with any quality assurance program it administers.
The GAO also recommended that USCIS consider establishing a formal and
systematic approach to document specific incidents of problems in inter-
country adoptions that it has identified in foreign countries to retain
institutional knowledge and analyze trends of individuals involved in
improper activities. The report indicates that State currently
documents these incidents through the cable process. USCIS officers
will be reminded of their ability to raise issues of importance by
using the State Department cable system. This process is not limited to
State employees, but is used by USCIS employees also. USCIS officers
overseas will be advised of the opportunity to document specific
incidents of problems by utilizing the State Department cabling system.
That way, there will be one source of information for both State
Department and USCIS officers.
The report also explains the time frames it takes to complete the inter-
country adoption process. In the section titled "Phase II-Child's
Status as an Orphan is Determined," the draft report says "According to
USCIS, it is the agency's goal to process the I-600 Form [Petition to
Classify the Orphan as an Immediate Relative] within 6 months." This
statement comes from the USCIS backlog reduction plan, which indicates
it is the agency's goal to process all forms within a maximum of six
months. Forms I-600 are generally processed in a shorter timeframe.
Although the GAO explains the factors that contribute to the time
frames involved in the process, in order to fully appreciate the
timeframe of inter-country adoptions, it is important to place them in
the context of the timeframe for domestic adoptions, which generally
take as long as or longer than inter-country adoptions. On average,
intrastate adoptions take 36 months to complete and interstate
adoptions take an average of 43 months. Similar to inter-country
adoption timeframes, the length of time that a domestic adoption may
take varies depending on the program, the State, and the criteria that
the prospective adopting parent(s) choose.
We are providing technical comments to your office under separate
cover.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D. C. 20520:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
OCT 12 2005:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "FOREIGN
AFFAIRS: Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process But
Further Enhancements are Needed," GAO Job Code 320335.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Scott Boswell, Citizen Services Specialist, Bureau of Consular Affairs,
at (202) 736-9098.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Sid Kaplan (Acting):
cc: GAO - Victoria Lin;
CA - Maura Harty;
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process but Further
Enhancements are Needed (GAO-05-996, Job Code 320335):
General:
The Department welcomes the General Accounting Office's draft report on
intercountry adoptions. We appreciate the effort GAO made to consult
widely with Department officials both in Washington and at posts
abroad, as well as with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
(USCIS) officials, about agency procedures and conditions in countries
of origin affecting intercountry adoptions.
The Department welcomes the report's conclusion that the Department and
USCIS have established procedures that provide prospective adoptive
parents with transparent and accessible information, ensure
coordination between their distinct, mutually supportive roles, and
meet the requirements of U.S. laws. We appreciate that the report
outlines clearly the separate responsibilities of each agency, and its
recognition of the steps both agencies have taken to ensure that
intercountry adoptions take place within the context of strong
safeguards for the interests of children, birth parents and adoptive
parents. We note that the report does not recommend a fundamental
restructuring of these arrangements.
The Department of State is deeply concerned about the welfare of
children around the world. Towards that end, the Bureau of Consular
Affairs established the Office of Children's Issues in 1994 to handle
international parental child abductions and intercountry adoptions.
Department officials at all levels work extensively with prospective
adoptive parents, the U.S. adoption community, our Embassies and
Consulates abroad, Congress, other Federal agencies, and officials in
countries of origin and other receiving countries to preserve the
option of intercountry adoption for children in need of permanent
family placements, and to ensure that intercountry adoptions are
transparent and conform to internationally accepted standards.
The Department appreciates that GAO highlighted the importance that
local factors in countries of origin have on intercountry adoptions,
and that therefore U.S. Government agencies have taken a flexible
approach in adopting procedures aimed at responding to particular
conditions in a given country, rather than adopting a "one size fits
all" approach. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, and consular officers at
our Embassies and Consulates overseas, closely monitor trends and
circumstances that could impact adoptions. The overwhelming majority of
the more than 20,000 annual intercountry adoptions to the U.S. proceed
without incident. It is problematic situations - whether caused by a
moratorium on intercountry adoptions, changes in a country's procedures
or a high incidence of fraud - which naturally attract attention. When
the Department learns of changes on the horizon in a given country, we
alert Congress, the adoption community, and prospective adoptive
parents, and provide authoritative and up-to-date information on
developments. We also work with the country concerned to clarify
information and where possible identify solutions to problems that may
arise. We have attached at Tab 1 a synopsis of the Department's efforts
in some of the more high profile and high volume countries of origin.
We also appreciate the report's acknowledgment of the Department's
efforts to implement the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (the
Convention), which the Department regards as an important means of
promoting strong safeguards and ensuring that intercountry adoption
remains a viable option for children around the world who seek
permanent family placements. The Department is proceeding
simultaneously with several tasks required to implement the Convention.
We plan to complete these tasks in 2005, to enable adoption service
providers to be accredited in time for the U.S. to be able to ratify
the Convention in 2007.
The following are the Department's comments on the draft report,
arranged by section.
Results in Brief:
Senior level officials in the Department, including the Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs and Ambassadors posted around the world,
regularly raise intercountry adoptions in diplomatic discussions with
many countries; for example, adoptions has figured prominently in talks
with Vietnam, Russia, Azerbaijan and Cambodia. The Assistant Secretary
has traveled to countries as diverse as Vietnam, Romania and Russia to
discuss adoptions, and the Department raises this issue wherever
appropriate in bilateral discussions in Washington with foreign
governments. (Page 3):
The draft report notes that additional legislation regarding the U.S.
intercountry adoption process was introduced in 2005. The legislation
would seek to change the current structure and responsibilities of the
Department in this area.
The Department notes, as does the report, that under current
organization and procedures the Department is successfully and
efficiently assisting U.S. citizens interested in intercountry
adoptions. The Department has significant resources to carry out these
tasks. A total of 11 staff in the Bureau of Consular Affairs are
devoted full-time to adoption issues. In addition, as noted above, high-
level Department officials - including the Assistant Secretary for
Consular Affairs and the Secretary of State - engage counterparts to
support intercountry adoption for children in need and to overcome
obstacles that arise. (Page 5):
Background:
The draft report's table of countries that currently maintain moratoria
or restrictions on intercountry adoptions includes countries affected
by the 2004 South Asian tsunami. The Department believes that it is
inappropriate to include this entry in this table. The other entries
identify countries that have limited intercountry adoptions through
national law or regulation. The situation in the aftermath of the
tsunami was considerably different. The standard child protection and
welfare practice accepted by international organizations and
governments is that intercountry adoption should not be the first
solution following natural disasters, civil strife or other calamities,
but that agencies and governments should first attempt to reunite
children with birth parents if possible; then seek to place the child
with relatives or domestically if possible; and only after such
attempts have failed should intercountry adoption be considered. Thus,
in this case the countries in the region were following accepted
international practice regarding intercountry adoption, not imposing
additional restrictions. The Department itself articulated this
position in a notice placed on its website shortly after the tsunami
struck. Further, we note that this position was supported by UNICEF,
other countries of origin, as well as the U.S. adoption community, many
of whom issued similar statements or posted links to the Department's
statement on their websites. (Page 9):
USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S. Intercountry Adoptions, with
Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process:
Phase III - Child's Eligibility to Immigrate to the United States is
Determined:
The Department recognizes the importance of the immigrant visa process
to prospective adoptive parents, and gives priority to adoption
immigrant visa applicants at all steps in the process, including:
* Expedited immigrant visa appointments and interviews;
* Assistance with expedited fingerprint renewal, if these have expired;
* Immigrant visa issuance in one or two days, as noted in the report.
The Department seeks to maintain adoption immigrant visa processing
even when circumstances force the suspension of other consular
services. For example, in February 2004 civil unrest prompted the
evacuation of the Embassy in Port-au Prince, Haiti and the suspension
of all but emergency U.S. citizen services. Even before all Embassy
staff had returned, the first visa services to resume were immigrant
visa appointments for U.S. citizens completing adoptions in Haiti.
(Pages 12-13):
USCIS and State Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process:
The Department requests that the draft report acknowledge the
Department's, as well as USCIS', outreach to the U.S. adoption
community. Such outreach has always been an important activity of the
Bureau of Consular Affairs. The Department provides extensive outreach
to parents and the adoption community by presenting information at
regional and national conferences. In FY 2005, for example, Department
officers addressed national conferences of the Child Welfare League of
America (CWLA), Joint Council on International Children's Services
(JCICS), and the National Council for Adoption (NCFA), as well as a
meeting of adoption agencies from Indiana. The Department, jointly with
USCIS, conducts quarterly briefings for the JCICS Board of Directors on
intercountry adoption issues; the Department generally hosts these
briefings. The Department regularly provides intercountry adoption
updates upon request to members of CWLA, JCICS, NCFA and other groups
when they are in Washington. Department officials also regularly brief
Congressional members and staff on adoption issues. The most recent of
these briefings was conducted on September 12, 2005. (Page 16):
The Department understands that GAO reviewed a USCIS task force report
from 2002 that indicated that USCIS and State officials "sometimes
lacked the training necessary to determine orphan status." The
Department notes that all officers who will perform consular functions
at a post overseas receive extensive training, to include instruction
in U.S. immigration law, interviewing techniques and consular
procedures. This training, which has been provided since before 2002,
provides consular officers with the skills and resources to enable them
to determine the orphan status of a child adopted overseas. The
Department would be pleased to provide GAO with further details on this
training. (Page 16):
Hague Implementation Timeline:
The Department has completed revision of the proposed rule on the
accreditation/approval of adoption service providers based on the
public comments received, including the preparation of written
responses to the comments. The revised text of the rule, including a
preamble incorporating the written responses to the comments, was
received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on August 31,
2005. OMB has 90 days to review the rule and circulate it for
interagency comments. The Department briefed OMB on the content of the
proposed rule in July 2005, and requested expedited clearance. (Page
24) Tab 1:
Department of State Actions on Intercountry Adoptions Selected
Countries:
Belarus:
The Government of Belarus suspended adoptions in early 2005, reneging
on promises made to four U.S. and several other foreign families that
their adoptions would be finalized under old procedures. Another 114
cases involving U.S. families are also pending. In June 2005, Assistant
Secretary Maura Harty met with the Belarusian Ambassador to discuss
these cases and how we can move forward on intercountry adoptions from
Belarus. In August 2005, A/S Harty sent a follow-up letter to the
Ambassador to suggest next steps. The Belarusian Government has invited
a high-level delegation to Minsk to discuss the issue; we recently
counter-proposed a working-level delegation, and Embassy Minsk is
trying to clarify Government of Belarus plans to seek from these
potential meetings.
Cambodia:
Then-INS suspended adoptions from Cambodia in December 2001 due to the
rampant fraud and reports of widespread baby selling. This is currently
the only moratorium or suspension on adoptions that was initiated by
the U.S. In the fall of 2004, A/S Harty held two days of talks with
Cambodian officials in Phnom Penh concerning the possibility of our
lifting the suspension on intercountry adoptions. After their meeting,
we hired Holt International (a major adoption service provider based in
Eugene, OR) to conduct a nationwide study that surveyed children in
institutions in Cambodia during the summer. Holt has completed the
survey and this database of children will be turned over to the
Cambodian government shortly and used as the baseline for a staged plan
for the reinstitution of adoptions from Cambodia.
China:
A/S Harty has traveled to China to observe in person our efforts on
international adoptions. In August 2005, A/S Hart met with a Chinese
delegation headed by the Vice Minister for Civil Affairs, which
oversees adoptions, and discussed China's upcoming accession to the
Hague Convention and its effect on intercountry adoptions to the U.S.
China deposited its instrument of ratification of the Hague
Intercountry Adoption Convention in The Hague on September 16, 2005.
Post and the Chinese Central Authority report that this should not
affect the over 7,000 intercountry adoptions from China by American
families each year. We are watching this closely.
Guatemala:
A/S Harty has traveled twice to Guatemala, holding meetings with
appropriate officials at the Foreign Ministry and at Guatemala's
Central Authority. In addition, Embassy Guatemala is monitoring closely
discussions within the Government of Guatemala and the Guatemalan
legislature concerning possible revision to the country's adoption
code, which is now going through a legislative hearing process.
Guatemala is party to the Hague Convention but has never succeeded in
implementing Hague-consistent adoption legislation.
Kazakhstan:
Embassy Almaty reported during the last days of August that they are
beginning to hear rumors that some regions within Kazakhstan are
considering moratoria on adoptions to the United States, perhaps
because of past failures of U.S. adoptive families to comply with post-
adoption reporting requirements. Post is continuing to monitor the
situation and is seeking official clarification from Kazakh
authorities.
Romania:
In early 2001, the Government of Romania formalized a de facto
moratorium that had been in effect since the previous year. During the
moratorium, which lasted until June 2004, the GOR continued to register
prospective adoptive parents, including U.S. citizens. Legislation that
was passed in June 2004 and went into effect in January 2005
effectively bans all intercountry adoptions, the only exception being
when the prospective adoptive parents are the child's biological
grandparents. This law was in large part a response to external
pressure from the then-EU rapporteur for Romania, Baroness Emma
Nicholson, who opposes intercountry adoption.
There are approximately 200 U.S. families who had registered with the
Romanian authorities either prior to the formal imposition of the
moratorium or during the moratorium; these families are seeking to
adopt about 250 Romanian children. U.S. officials at all levels, up to
and including President Bush, have raised with Romanian officials the
need to resolve these pending cases. A/S Harty met with President
Basescu in Bucharest in June 2005 and he committed himself to resolving
the cases, but nothing has happened. Romanian officials have wavered on
a proposal first raised in late 2004 to create an international
commission to review the pending cases.
In September 2005, A/S Harty appeared before the Helsinki Commission
and publicly criticized Romania for its inaction on the part of these
pending cases, as well as its new more restrictive adoption law.
Immediately following her appearance before the Commission, A/S Harty
attended a U.S./EU Troika meeting in London, where she again voiced
concern about Romania and sought assistance from EU member states to
encourage a lifting of the moratorium in Romania. As of September 2005,
we have redirected our focus to the EU and European Commission; a
demarche cable has just gone out requesting support from selected
capitals to convince the Romanians that they do not need such a
draconian adoption law in order to accede to the European Union in
2007.
Russia:
The U.S.-Russian relationship on intercountry adoption has been
dominated in recent months by the reports of three adopted Russian
children murdered by their American adoptive parents. Some Duma members
have suggested a moratorium on intercountry adoptions, at least to the
United States. In mid-August, the Federation Council (the higher
chamber of parliament) recommended such a moratorium to the General
Prosecutor. The primary Russian concerns are that (a) American adoptive
parents are not undergoing sufficient pre-adoption background checks
and counseling, and (b) a failure of U.S. families and adoption service
providers to follow through on post-adoption reporting requirements
leaves the Russian Government with little information about how the
children do post-placement. Much of the focus has been on so-called
"independent" adoptions - i.e., those adoptions facilitated by other
than fully accredited agencies.
In addition to a possible moratorium, some Russian officials have also
suggested a bilateral adoption agreement with the U.S. along the lines
of what we have with Vietnam, but it is the U.S. position that a
sufficient international mechanism (the Hague Adoption Convention,
which Russia has signed but not ratified) already exists to provide
safeguards for intercountry adoptions. Major U.S. adoption
organizations, including both the National Council for Adoption (NCFA)
and the Joint Council on International Children's Services (JCICS) have
agreed to advocate for better counseling and training of prospective
adoptive parents, and for 100% compliance with post adoption reporting.
The issue of adoptions is always on the agenda when A/S Harty or her
PDAS meet with their Russian counterparts. PDAS Smith traveled to
Moscow in February 2004; A/S Harty went in February 2005. A/S Harty has
twice hosted the Russians here in Washington, most recently in
September 2005. During the September 21 bilateral consular talks with
the Russians, A/S Harty expressed her condolences for the murdered
Russian children and repudiated these actions. She then stressed the
need for both sides to commit themselves to procedures that will
protect the children, birth parents and prospective adoptive parents.
She urged the Russians to ratify the Hague Adoption Convention, which
will help ensure better safeguards in the process. Separately, on
September 14, DAS Catherine Barry and officers from the Office of
Children's Issues met with the members of a two-week International
Visitor Program (IVP) on intercountry adoptions. We are hopeful that
exposure to many aspects of the U.S. adoption system (including the
meeting in the Department) will allow participants to take back a
positive view of the safeguards the U.S. has in place.
Sierra Leone:
Embassy Dakar (which conducts informal reviews prior to I-600 filings
at request of parents) and Embassy Freetown have had to conduct many
field investigations due to the unreliability of Sierra Leonean
documentation and allegations of rampant fraud. In August 2005, A/S
Harty approved the creation and funding of a new local investigator
position in Freetown to help deal with the caseload. Acting A/S for
Legislative Affairs Matthew Reynolds recently responded to a letter
from 15 Senators and House Members on the situation in Sierra Leone;
the letter emphasized the inherent problems of operating in a country
in which so many families are living in internally displaced person
(IDP) camps.
Ukraine:
A/S Harty traveled to Ukraine in May 2005 and raised concerns about a
rumor regarding the possible suspension of adoptions. On September 21,
Embassy Kiev, informed us that Ukraine had suddenly suspended
intercountry adoptions from the United States, citing problems with
post-adoption reporting by American families during 1996-2003. On
September 23, A/S Harty contacted the Deputy Foreign Minister in Kiev
to express our displeasure with this abrupt decision and to ask how we
might assist in solving this problem. On September 27, A/S Harty met
with the Ukrainian Charge d'Affaires and Consul to again press the
issue and look for a solution. Our Embassy in Kiev is also working with
various parts of the Ukrainian Government to see if this decision can
be reversed. As we understand it, the suspension should not affect
cases already in the pipeline. In addition, new legislation is on the
horizon that would transfer authority for adoptions to the Ministry of
Family, Youth and Sports and add other safeguards.
Vietnam:
The U.S.-Vietnam bilateral agreement on adoptions, signed by A/S Harty
and the Vietnamese Minister of Justice on June 21 in Washington,
entered into force on September 1, 2005. This followed years of
negotiations and personal involvement by A/S Harty to bring this to
fruition. The agreement allowed the Ministry of Justice (and
specifically the Department of International Adoptions, DIA) to
centralize many of the powers and authority that had previously been
left to the provinces, but made no changes to U.S. laws or requirements
on adopting from Vietnam. With the entry-into-force of the agreement,
the DIA began accepting applications for licenses from U.S. adoption
service providers. DIA chief Dr. Long has told Embassy Hanoi that he
expects the licensing process to take from two to two-and-a-half
months, meaning post should be seeing the first cases under the new
system by mid-November. Separately, the Visa Office has been working
with Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS/CIS) on a proposal to
transfer adoption visa processing from Ho Chi Minh City to Hanoi; this
is still under discussion and a final decision has not yet been taken.
The following are GAO's comments on the letter from the Department of
State dated October 12, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. State commented that the draft report's table of countries that
currently maintain restrictions on intercountry adoptions included
countries affected by the 2004 South Asian tsunami. The department did
not believe that it was appropriate to do so because the region was
following accepted international practices rather than imposing
restrictions on intercountry adoptions in contrast to the other
countries included in the table. We removed this listing from the
table.
2. State provided additional information regarding its outreach efforts
to the adoption community, which we added to the report.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Jess Ford (202) 512-4268 or [Hyperlink, fordj@gao.gov]:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Phyllis Anderson, Assistant
Director; Joe Carney; Tracey Cross; Mark Dowling; Joel Grossman; Rhonda
Horried; and Victoria Lin made key contributions to this report.
(320335):
FOOTNOTES
[1] A U.S. intercountry adoption is defined as an adoption of a child
who changed his or her habitual country of residence, the sending
country, to the United States, the receiving country. This report
measures the number of U.S. intercountry adoptions using the number of
visas issued to these children to immigrate to the United States.
Unless otherwise specified, the report uses the term "intercountry
adoption" to refer to children coming into the United States.
[2] One exception is Moscow, Russia, where USCIS has an office present,
but State has this delegated authority. See appendix III for a list of
USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices.
[3] Codified at 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.
[4] The act includes in its definition of immediate relative children
who have been orphaned by the death or disappearance of, or abandonment
or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. If one
parent remains, that parent must be incapable of providing the proper
care for the child and must, in writing, irrevocably release the child
for adoption and emigration. Additionally, a child can qualify as an IR
if the child has resided with and been in the legal custody of the
adopting parent for at least 2 years, or, in some instances, where the
child has not yet been adopted, but is traveling to the United States
for purposes of adoption. Also, a child qualifies as an IR if he or she
is the natural sibling of a child that has been adopted or is being
adopted by the same family and meets all requirements above except that
the child is under the age of 18.
[5] Pub. L. No. 106-279 (Oct. 6, 2000).
[6] The act assigns functions specified in Article 14 of the Convention
(relating to the filing of applications of prospective adoptive
parents) to the Attorney General.
[7] Pub. L. No. 106-395 (Oct. 30, 2000).
[8] To be eligible, a child must meet the following requirements: (1)
has at least one U.S. citizen parent (by birth or naturalization), (2)
is under 18 years of age, (3) resides permanently in the United States
in the legal and physical custody of a U.S. citizen parent, and (4)
meets the requirements applicable to adopted children under the INA.
[9] The legislation, known as the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of
2005, proposes to establish an Office of Intercountry Adoptions within
State and appoint an Ambassador at Large to head the office; transfer
functions and resources related to intercountry adoptions currently
performed by DHS to State; amend INA to grant automatic U.S.
citizenship to some foreign-born adopted children; and require an
annual report on intercountry adoption.
[10] To assess the reliability of the data we used from the State's
Immigrant Visa Overseas System (IVO), we interviewed knowledgeable
agency officials about the completeness and accuracy of the data. Based
on the information and documentation we obtained, we concluded that the
data were sufficiently reliable to use in this report.
[11] With U.S. implementation of the Hague Convention through IAA,
State will be required to submit a report to Congress that includes the
number of U.S. children emigrating from the United States for
intercountry adoptions.
[12] The term restriction in this report may refer to suspensions,
bans, or moratoriums.
[13] For example, countries affected by the 2004 Tsunami, such as
Indonesia and Sri Lanka, announced measures to prevent adoptions of
children who lost their parents in the disaster until all reasonable
efforts to reunite such children with immediate or close relatives had
been concluded. According to State officials, this practice follows
accepted international practice regarding intercountry adoptions rather
than imposing restrictions on adoptions.
[14] China issued a suspension on intercountry adoptions due to medical
reasons (SARS outbreak) that was lifted in 2003. Vietnam issued a
decree in 2002 that required an agreement on intercountry adoptions
between Vietnam and other countries. The United States and Vietnam did
not have an agreement at the time the decree was issued and, therefore,
intercountry adoptions were stopped. However, after the two countries
signed an agreement in June 2005, adoptions have resumed. Azerbaijan
issued a suspension in 2004 pending the implementation of new adoption
procedures. Azerbaijan lifted the suspension in August 2005 when an
Azerbaijani investigation into adoption practices was concluded.
[15] Most parents who permanently reside in the United States and adopt
overseas go through this three-step process.
[16] Under the INA, the prospective parent of an orphan must be a U.S.
citizen and, if married, apply for permission to adopt a foreign orphan
jointly with his or her spouse or, if unmarried, be at least 25 years
old at the time he or she files the orphan petition. Meeting
preadoption requirements of the child's proposed state of residence is
applicable to cases in which parents are required to readopt the child
in the United States.
[17] At USCIS domestic offices, staffing to handle intercountry
adoptions is determined by each office. In offices with large
caseloads, between one and two staff handle intercountry adoption
cases. Intercountry adoption cases make up less than 1 percent of the
agency's overall workload, about 22,000 cases of approximately 6 to 7
million total cases.
[18] The laws of every state and the District of Columbia require all
prospective parents (no matter where they intend to adopt) to
participate in a home study. This process has two purposes for
intercountry adoption: to educate and prepare the adoptive family for
adoption and to evaluate the fitness of the adoptive family. Specific
home study requirements vary greatly from agency to agency, state to
state, and (in the case of intercountry adoption) by the child's
country of origin. USCIS includes requirements for the home study in
its standard operating procedures.
[19] Filing of the Form I-600A is optional, and it enables parents who
want to adopt, yet have not identified an orphan, to initiate the
adoption process. Regardless of whether parents file a Form I-600A,
they must file a Form I-600.
[20] In 30 overseas USCIS offices, USCIS adjudicates orphan cases. In
countries where USCIS does not have an overseas office, State consular
officers help determine the child's orphan status and approve adoption
cases; if cases are not approvable, consular officers send these to one
of USCIS' three district offices overseas in Bangkok, Mexico City, and
Rome. See appendix III for a list of USCIS Overseas District and Sub
Offices.
[21] In Guatemala, the U.S. embassy schedules specific immigrant visa
appointment dates and times for all adoption cases.
[22] According to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse,
states such as Colorado and Connecticut do not grant full recognition
until that decree is validated by a state court. For more information,
see http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/international.pdf.
[23] For children not yet adopted, not seen by both adopting parents,
or who will reside in states requiring readoption, parents must also
submit the Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) with accompanying
documentation.
[24] IR-3 visas are issued for orphans who had a full and final
adoption overseas by both adopting parents, when both parents
physically saw the child prior to or during local adoption proceedings.
IR-4 visas are is sued when a full and final adoption has not been
completed overseas, or when a full and final adoption has been
completed but one or both parents(s) did not see the child prior to or
during the adoption process.
[25] The visa package includes the Application for Advance Processing
of Orphan Petition, Petition to Classify the Orphan as an Immediate
Relative, a USCIS or State official's Determination on Child for
Adoption, court adoption decree, birth certificate, abandonment or
relinquishment documents, DS-230, medical-panel physician report,
immunizations or waiver, evidence of employment, and evidence of assets
and liabilities. Additionally, the Affidavit of Support (Form I-864)
and 3 years' income tax reports are included in the package for IR-4
visas.
[26] These costs include U.S. government fees, such as the USCIS
application fee of $525, State's visa fee of $335, and Federal Bureau
of Investigation fingerprint fee of $70 per adoptive family member. The
remainder of the costs to adoptive parents includes adoption agency,
facilitator, and attorney fees; fees charged for the home study; travel
expenses; and fees charged by foreign governments.
[27] On March 1, 2003, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services became
one of three INS components to join DHS.
[28] The Cambodia situation is discussed later in this report.
[29] USCIS' Web site is http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/index2.htm.
State's Web site is
http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/adoption_485.html.
[30] Since USCIS allows parents up to 1 year to file their home study
after USCIS has received the parents' application and fee, USCIS
determines the application processing time from when USCIS receives the
parents' application and fees to when USCIS completes adjudication of
the application including the submitted home study.
[31] Innocenti Digest, Intercountry Adoption (Florence, Italy: December
1998).
[32] In order to become a party to the Convention, states must either
ratify or accede to the Convention. Member states to the Hague
Conference typically sign and then subsequently ratify the Convention.
Nonmember states, including, for example, Guatemala, do not sign the
Convention, but can accede to it.
[33] The Convention also allows countries that have implemented the
Convention to enter into agreements to improve the function of the
Convention procedures.
[34] Central Authorities from other countries have the right to not
accept nonaccredited entities involvement in the process. The Central
Authority is required to provide the names of accredited and
nonaccredited bodies involved in the process.
[35] Pub. L. No. 106-279 (Oct. 6, 2000), 42 USC4901 et seq.
[36] IAA requires the issuance of new regulations for the accreditation
process for adoption service providers and preservation of Convention
records. In addition, regulations will need to be drafted to account
for the changes made to the visa issuance process.
[37] IAA requires State to submit a report to Congress that includes
the number of intercountry adoptions that involve a child immigrating
to and emigrating from the United States for both Hague and non-Hague
adoption cases.
[38] 42 U.S.C. 14923 (b).
[39] For a full list, see
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.statusprint&cid=69.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
