Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on Implementation 
Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance to States 
(04-APR-05, GAO-05-290).					 
                                                                 
In the 1960s and 1970s, American Indian children were about six  
times more likely to be placed in foster care than other children
and many were placed in non-American Indian homes or		 
institutions. In 1978, the Congress enacted the Indian Child	 
Welfare Act (ICWA) to protect American Indian families and to	 
give tribes a role in making child welfare decisions for children
subject to ICWA. ICWA requires that (1) tribes be notified and	 
given an opportunity to intervene when the state places a child  
subject to ICWA in foster care or seeks to terminate parental	 
rights on behalf of such a child and (2) children be placed if	 
possible with relatives or tribal families. This report describes
(1) the factors that influence placement decisions for children  
subject to ICWA; (2) the extent to which, if any, placements for 
children subject to ICWA have been delayed; and (3) federal	 
oversight of states' implementation of ICWA.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-290 					        
    ACCNO:   A20677						        
  TITLE:     Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on	      
Implementation Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and	 
Assistance to States						 
     DATE:   04/04/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Child adoption					 
	     Children						 
	     Data collection					 
	     Decision making					 
	     Federal law					 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Foster children					 
	     Indian affairs legislation 			 
	     Native American rights				 
	     Native Americans					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Public assistance programs 			 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Surveys						 
	     Child welfare					 
	     Program implementation				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-290

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2005

                                  INDIAN CHILD
                                  WELFARE ACT

 Existing Information on Implementation Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance
                            and Assistance to States

GAO-05-290

[IMG]

April 2005

INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT

Existing Information on Implementation Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance
and Assistance to States

                                 What GAO Found

Placement decisions for children subject to ICWA can be influenced by how
long it takes to determine that ICWA applies, the availability of American
Indian foster and adoptive homes, and the level of cooperation between
states and tribes. While these factors are unique to American Indian
children, other factors can affect decisions similarly for all children.
Many states, for example, place all children with relatives if possible
and may consider changing placements for all children-regardless of ICWA
status-when relatives are identified after initial placement. Our survey
showed few differences between children subject to ICWA and other children
in how often states had to decide whether to move a child to another home.

National data on children subject to ICWA are unavailable; data that were
available from four states showed no consistent pattern in how long
children subject to ICWA remained in foster care or how often they were
moved to different foster homes compared to other children. In general,
most children leaving foster care in fiscal year 2003 in the four states
were reunified with their families, although children subject to ICWA were
somewhat less likely to be reunified or adopted and were somewhat more
likely to leave through a guardianship arrangement.

Length of Stay for Children Exiting Foster Care in FY 2003 in Four States
Percentage of children

A

AW

                                       A

aucasian MC

aucasian MC

                                  A aucasian M

aucasian MC

                       inority IC inority inorityinority

WIC

WIC

WIC

                                       C

Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Washington

3 years or more 2 years - less than 3 years Less than 2 years

Source: Data provided by child welfare agencies in these states.

ACF does not have explicit oversight responsibility for states'
implementation of ICWA and the information the agency obtains through its
general oversight of state child welfare systems sometimes provides little
meaningful information to assess states' efforts. For example, the ICWA
information states provided in their 2004 progress reports varied widely
in scope and content and many states did not report on the effect of their
implementation efforts. Further, while limited information from ACF's
reviews of states' overall child welfare systems indicate some ICWA
implementation concerns, the process does not ensure that ICWA issues will
be addressed in states' program improvement plans.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 6
Time Needed to Determine a Child's ICWA Status, Availability of

American Indian Foster and Adoptive Homes, and Cooperation

between Tribes and States Influence Placement Decisions for

Children Subject to ICWA 16
Limited Data Show No Consistent Differences in Length of Stay or
Other Foster Care Experiences for Children Subject to ICWA
and Other Children 33

ACF Obtains Limited Information on ICWA Implementation

through Its Oversight of States' Child Welfare Systems 46
Conclusions 58
Recommendation for Executive Action 59
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 59

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Appendix II	Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States, FY 2003

Appendix III	Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 83

GAO Contacts 83
Acknowledgments 83

Tables

Table 1: Main ICWA Provisions 7

Table 2: Comparison of Legal Standards for Children Subject to
ICWA and for Children Not Subject to ICWA 8

Table 3: States with (1) Highest Percentage of Children Served in
Foster Care Who Are American Indian and (2) Highest
Number of American Indian Children Served in Foster
Care, FY 2003 13

Table 4: Tribal Membership Requirements for Selected Tribes, as
Reported by Tribal Officials 15
Table 5: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting Challenges
Related to the Availability of Foster Homes, FY 2003 23

Table 6: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting Challenges
Related to the Availability of Homes for Adoption or Long-
Term Guardianship, FY 2003 24

Table 7: States Explicitly Addressing ICWA Compliance
Requirements in Their 2004 Annual Progress and Services
Reports 48

Table 8: States Reporting the Use of Activities Suggested by ACF to
Comply with ICWA 49

Table 9: Relationship between ICWA Topics Discussed in States'
2004 Annual Progress and Services Reports and Density of
States' American Indian Population 50

Table 10: ICWA Concerns Raised in CFSR Final Reports and
Program Improvement Plans by State 52

Table 11: Review of Tribal Notification and Placements in Cases
Involving American Indian Children during Child and
Family Services Reviews, 2002-2004 56

Table 12: American Indian CFSR Cases Where Item Related to
Preserving a Child's Connections Was Judged "Needing
Improvement" During Child and Family Services Reviews,
2001-2004 57

Table 13: Number and Percentage of Children with Unknown
Ethnicity Who Exited Care in FY 2003 for Four States 63
Table 14: Criteria for Determining States' Tribal Population Density
Categories 65
Table 15: Tribal Population Density Categorization by State 66

Figures

Figure 1: American Indian Population Density by State 12
Figure 2: Responses from 25 State Child Welfare Agencies on the
Frequency with Which the State Requested Insufficient

Information to Accurately Determine ICWA Status, FY 2003 18

Figure 3: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting the Frequency with Which
Families Provided Information That Was Too Imprecise to Identify a Child's
Specific Tribe, Requiring States to Send Membership Inquiries to Multiple
Tribes, FY 2003 19

Figure 4: Survey Results from 19 Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on How
Often They Face Decisions about Moving a Child from a Foster Home to
Another Placement When a Relative Came Forward Late in a Case 26

Figure 5: Survey Results from 19 Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on How
Often They Face Decisions to Move a Child from a Pre-adoptive Placement to
Another Placement When a Relative Came Forward Late in a Case 27

Figure 6: Survey Results from 15 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on
How Often They Exempt Children from ASFA's 15 of 22 Provision, FY 2003 31

Figure 7: Length of Stay for Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States,
FY 2003 35

Figure 8: Survey Results from 16 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting
How Many Children Remain in Foster Care Longer as a Result of Following
ICWA Procedures, FY 2003 36

Figure 9: Survey Results from 10 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on
the Estimated Increased Time That Following ICWA Procedures Adds to a
Child's Time in Foster Care, FY 2003 37

Figure 10: Survey Results from 22 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting
on the Effect of Specific ICWA Procedures on the Time to Place a Child in
a Permanent Home Compared to Other Children in Foster Care, FY 2003 38

Figure 11: Survey Results from 19 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting
on How Often Courts Reject State Requests to Terminate Parental Rights for
Children in Foster Care Because Evidence Does Not Meet Applicable Legal
Standards, FY 2003 40

Figure 12: Number of Placements for Children Exiting Foster Care in Three
States, FY 2003 42 Figure 13: Percentage of Children Exiting Foster Care
in FY 2003 by Reunification in Four States 43

Figure 14: Children Exiting Foster Care through Adoption, FY 2003

in Four States 44 Figure 15: Percentage of Children Exiting Foster Care in
FY 2003

by Guardianship in Four States 45 Figure 16: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in
South Dakota 75 Figure 17: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Washington 76
Figure 18: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Oregon 77 Figure 19: FY 2003
Foster Care Exits in Oklahoma 78

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families
AFCARS Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
APSR Annual Progress and Services Report
ASFA Adoption and Safe Families Act
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
CFSR Child and Family Services Review
FY fiscal year
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
ICWA Indian Child Welfare Act
PIP program improvement plan

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. However, 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.

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

April 4, 2005

The Honorable Tom DeLay
Majority Leader
House of Representatives

The Honorable Wally Herger
Chairman
Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

The Honorable Pete Stark
House of Representatives

In the 1960s and 1970s, American Indian children were roughly six times
more likely to be separated from their families and placed in foster care
than other children and many were placed in non-American Indian homes
or institutions. A lack of understanding of tribal cultures and
child-rearing
practices by state child welfare agencies and courts was a significant
factor in this widespread removal of American Indian children from their
homes. In 1978, the Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
(Pub. L. No. 95-608) to protect American Indian families from the
unwarranted removal of their children and to give tribes a role in making
child welfare decisions for children subject to the law. According to the
most recently available HHS data, American Indian children represented
about 3 percent of the over 800,000 children who were in foster care in
fiscal year 2003. The Census Bureau estimates that American Indian
children comprised 1.8 percent of the total U.S. population under the age
of 18 in 2003.

ICWA established criteria for determining whether the tribe or the state
should have custody of a child and make placement decisions.
Specifically, ICWA gives tribes exclusive jurisdiction for tribal children
who reside on a tribal reservation (unless a state has previously been
given jurisdiction by federal law) and gives both states and tribes
jurisdiction for tribal children who do not live on the reservation. In
addition, ICWA established requirements for child welfare proceedings
involving an American Indian child in state custody. For example,
whenever state officials are concerned about the possible abuse or neglect
of a child who is, or is eligible to be, a tribal member and seek custody
of

the child, ICWA requires that the tribe be notified of any court hearings
involving the child and given the right to intervene in the proceedings.
In addition, the law requires that efforts be made to place children
subject to ICWA with relatives or tribal families, unless a good reason
exists not to follow these placement preferences. While ICWA did not
explicitly grant any federal agency oversight authority regarding states'
implementation of ICWA, the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) monitors state compliance
with federal child welfare laws.

Proponents of ICWA believe that the law promotes the well-being of
American Indian children by keeping them connected to their families,
tribes, and cultural heritage. Others are concerned that ICWA's procedural
requirements could result in American Indian children staying longer in
foster care than they would in the absence of the law, working against the
goals of more recent child welfare legislation. In 1997, the Congress
enacted the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) (Pub. L. No. 105-89) to
help states more quickly move children in foster care to safe and
permanent homes. One key provision of the law requires states, with some
exceptions, to file a petition to terminate parental rights for children
who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months-a
requirement that could conflict with the belief expressed by many tribes
that a parent's relationship with a child can never be severed.

Because of your interest in how ICWA affects the foster care experiences
of children subject to the law, as well as how ICWA is working in
conjunction with ASFA, we examined the following: (1) the factors that
influence placement decisions for these children, particularly as they
relate to ASFA's goals of safety, permanency, and well-being of children;
(2) the extent to which delays, if any, have occurred in the foster or
adoptive placement of children subject to ICWA due to issues related to
the implementation of ICWA and how any such delays have affected
children's experiences in care; and (3) the federal government's role in
overseeing states' implementation of ICWA. We have not included
information about children who are under exclusive tribal jurisdiction
because they reside on a reservation.

To answer these questions, we surveyed state child welfare agency
officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia regarding their
implementation of ICWA and their views on how ICWA's provisions affected
children's experiences in foster care. We received responses from 47
states and the District of Columbia. We checked for obvious errors and
asked some states follow-up questions, but did not independently verify

states' responses. We also surveyed officials in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia to determine which states could identify children who
were subject to ICWA in fiscal year 2003 using their automated systems.
Only five states-Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and
Washington-were able to provide these data. Because Rhode Island had so
few children subject to ICWA who left foster care, we dropped this state
from our comparative analysis. To obtain tribal input, we conducted nine
tribal panels in four states and conducted telephone interviews with nine
regional intertribal organizations. Furthermore, we sent a letter to 591
federally recognized tribal governments soliciting their input for our
study and received responses from 74 tribes. We visited five
states-California, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Rhode Island- where
we interviewed state and local child welfare agency officials, state court
officials, and officials from at least two tribes (except in Rhode Island,
which has only one federally recognized tribe) to obtain more detailed
information on ICWA implementation. We selected these states to represent
a diversity of geographic locations, child welfare systems, and
state-tribal relationships. Finally, we reviewed applicable laws and
regulations; interviewed headquarters and regional officials from both ACF
and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA);
reviewed results from ACF's assessments of state child welfare agencies,
known as Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR); reviewed program
improvement plans (PIP) states submitted as part of the CFSR process; and
reviewed annual reports that states are required to submit to ACF about
their child welfare systems. We conducted our work between December 2003
and January 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology appears
in appendix I.

                                Results in Brief

Decisions regarding the placement of children subject to ICWA as they
enter and leave foster care can be influenced by how long it takes to
determine whether a child is subject to the law, the availability of
American Indian foster and adoptive homes, and the level of cooperation
between states and tribes. According to several child welfare officials ,
these factors, which are unique to American Indian children, can play an
important role in placement decisions, including the characteristics of
the foster home in which the child will be placed, the number of
placements a child will have, and the duration of the stay. For example,
if the ICWA status of a child subject to the law is not known or if no
American Indian foster homes are available when such a child first enters
foster care, the state may not be able to place the child initially with a
tribal family and may subsequently move the child to another foster home.
However, other

factors can influence placement decisions similarly for all children
regardless of whether they are subject to the law. For example, ICWA
requires that children subject to ICWA be placed with relatives, unless
good reason exists not to do so, but many states have a similar policy for
all children. In both cases, the state may face decisions about whether to
change a child's initial placement when a relative is identified or comes
forward after a child's initial foster care placement. Our survey results
from 19 states responding to a relevant question showed that states face
decisions to change a child's foster or adoptive placement with similar
frequency, regardless of a child's ICWA status. Decisions about how
children subject to ICWA leave foster care are also influenced by how well
states and tribes work together to blend ICWA and ASFA requirements for
moving a child through the foster care system. While cultural beliefs of
many tribes conflict with ASFA's provision to move a child to adoption
within certain time frames, results from the 15 states responding to a
relevant survey question showed little difference in how frequently
children subject to ICWA were exempted from ASFA's provision compared to
other children.

Data from four states that could identify children subject to ICWA in
their information systems showed no consistent differences when comparing
the length of time they spent in foster care compared to Caucasian or
other minority children who exited foster care in fiscal year 2003. In two
states, these groups of children stayed in foster care for similar periods
of time; in Washington, however, children subject to ICWA who exited care
were less likely than other children to leave foster care within 2 years,
while those in Oregon were more likely to leave foster care within this
time period. While not showing consistent differences in the length of
time in foster care, data showed some different experiences among children
when comparing how often they were moved to different foster homes or how
they left the foster care system. For example, children subject to ICWA
who exited care lived in a similar number of foster homes as other
children in two of the three states having such data, but experienced a
higher number of placements in Washington. In addition, while the data
from the four states showed that most children who left foster care in
2003 were reunified with their families, children subject to ICWA were
somewhat less likely to leave foster care through reunification or
adoption, and somewhat more likely to leave foster care through a
guardianship arrangement compared to other children.

While ICWA did not give any federal agency direct oversight responsibility
for states' implementation of the law, ACF reviews some limited
information reported by states under the agency's general oversight of

state child welfare systems and its formal assessments of these systems in
its Child and Family Services Reviews; however, the information is
insufficient for ACF to assess states' efforts to implement the law's
requirements. For example, while states are required to discuss ICWA
implementation in their overall 5-year child and family services plans and
in subsequent annual progress and services reports, ACF noted in its 2003
guidance that states were having difficulties reporting on ICWA adherence
and reiterated that states needed to provide a description of the specific
measures taken to comply with the law. While ACF's Child and Family
Services Reviews have identified some ICWA concerns in states, the
structure of this oversight tool was designed to review the overall
performance of a state's child welfare system, rather than any particular
law or program. As a result, it does not ensure that ICWA concerns will be
addressed or that identified problems will be included and monitored in
states' program improvement plans. For example, our review of 51 CFSR
reports showed that 10 reports, generally from states with small American
Indian populations, had no discussion of ICWA implementation, while 32
raised some concerns with how the law was implemented in the state, such
as caseworkers receiving inadequate ICWA training or not consistently
determining a child's ICWA status. Similarly, our review of 47 improvement
plans provided by ACF as of December 2004 showed that 12 of the 32 states
with ICWA implementation concerns identified during the CFSR review did
not report any planned corrective actions.

To improve the usefulness of the information states are required to
provide on their ICWA compliance efforts, we are recommending that the
Secretary of HHS direct the Administration for Children and Families to
review ICWA implementation information available through the CFSRs and
require states to discuss in their annual progress and services reports
any significant ICWA issues not addressed in their program improvement
plans. In addition, ACF should consider using the information on ICWA
implementation in the Child and Family Services Reviews, annual progress
reports, and program improvement plans to target guidance and assistance
to states in addressing any identified issues. HHS disagreed with our
recommendation, stating that it does not have the authority, resources, or
expertise to address GAO's recommendation. Our report recognizes HHS's
limited authority with respect to ICWA and our recommendation offers a way
for the agency to assist states within its existing authority and
resources as part of its current process for overseeing states' child
welfare systems.

Background

When the Congress enacted ICWA in 1978, it created certain requirements
for child welfare proceedings involving American Indian children and
established a number of protections for American Indian families. This
differential treatment of American Indian children is not based on race,
but on the child's political affiliation as a member or potential member
of a tribe. As shown in table 1, the main ICWA provisions determine who is
subject to the law and to which child custody proceedings the law applies.
These provisions also address jurisdiction issues, tribal notification of
child custody proceedings, and placement preferences for American Indian
children entering foster and adoptive homes.

Table 1: Main ICWA Provisions Definition of a child subject to ICWA

ICWA defines a child as Indian if he or she is a member of a federally
recognized tribe or if he or she is eligible for tribal membership and is
the biological child of a tribal member. A child who has some American
Indian blood, but not enough to qualify for membership in a federally
recognized tribe, or who is a member only of a state recognized tribe, is
not subject to ICWA.

                    Definition of child custody proceedings

ICWA applies to the following child custody proceedings: (1) involuntary
foster care placements; (2) petitions to terminate parental rights; (3)
pre-adoptive placements; and (4) adoptive placements. ICWA does not apply
to custody arrangements arising from divorce proceedings or placements by
the juvenile justice system when a child commits an act that would be
deemed a crime if committed by an adult.

Jurisdiction

American Indian tribes with active tribal courts have exclusive
jurisdiction over child welfare proceedings for an American Indian child
who resides on the tribal reservation.

States and tribes share jurisdiction over child welfare proceedings
involving a child subject to ICWA who does not reside on the tribal
reservation. If a tribe or parent requests that a child custody proceeding
be transferred to the jurisdiction of the tribe, the proceeding should be
transferred to tribal jurisdiction, unless either parent objects to the
transfer or good cause exists to not transfer the case. The tribal court
has the right to decline any transfer request.

Notification and intervention

A tribe must be notified about any involuntary child welfare proceeding in
state courts involving a child subject to ICWA and has the right to
intervene in such cases.

A tribe also has the right to intervene in cases in which a parent
voluntarily relinquishes custody of a child subject to ICWA, but ICWA does
not specifically require that tribes be notified about these cases.

                            Placement in foster care

A child subject to ICWA cannot be placed in foster care unless clear and
convincing evidence exists that continued custody by the parent is likely
to result in serious damage to the child.

a

                             Placement preferences

An American Indian child placed in foster care or a pre-adoptive placement
shall be placed in the least restrictive, most family-like setting in
which the child's special needs, if any, may be met. The child shall be
placed within reasonable proximity to his or her home and preference shall
be given, absent good cause to the contrary, to a placement with:

1. a member of the child's extended family;

2. a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the tribe;

3. an American Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized
non-Indian licensing authority; or

4. an institution approved by a tribe or operated by an American Indian
organization that has a program suitable to meet the child's needs.

When placing an American Indian child for adoption, preference shall be
given, absent good cause to the contrary, to a placement with:

1. a member of the child's extended family,

2. other member's of the child's tribe, or

3. other American Indian families.

Source: Pub. L. No. 95-608.

aStates are prohibited by law from delaying or denying a foster or
adoptive placement in order to place a child with a family of the child's
race or cultural background, but children subject to ICWA are excluded
from this prohibition. 42 U.S.C. S: 1996b.

ICWA also established other requirements for children subject to the law
that differ from the requirements that apply to other children in foster
care. As shown in table 2, ICWA requires states to provide active efforts
to keep American Indian families together and to use more stringent legal
standards for placing an American Indian child in foster care and
terminating parental rights.

Table 2: Comparison of Legal Standards for Children Subject to ICWA and
for Children Not Subject to ICWA

To Prevent Break Up of Family ICWA requires states to make "active
efforts" to

and/or To Reunify Family 	provide services designed to prevent the break
up of an American Indian family before an American Indian child can be
placed in foster care or the parental rights of an American Indian parent
can be terminated. However, the state can place an American Indian child
in foster care if the child is in immediate danger and then must make
active efforts to reunify the child with the family.

To Terminate Parental Rights Termination of parental rights cannot be

Standard for Children Subject to ICWA

granted unless the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that
continued custody is likely to result in serious damage to the American
Indian child.

Standard for Children Not Subject to ICWA

To receive foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act, states must provide reasonable efforts to prevent the need
for removing a child from his or her family and to reunify a child in
foster care with his or her family. States are allowed to bypass
reasonable efforts in certain egregious situations, such as when a parent
has subjected a child to torture or sexual abuse.

State statutes have a variety of different legal grounds for terminating
parental rights on behalf of non-American Indian children. Four of the
five states we visited required that the statutory grounds be proven by
clear and convincing evidence, a lower standard than required by ICWA.

Source: Pub. L. No. 95-608, Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, and
state laws.

Note: Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest possible evidence standard
and requires proof of such a convincing character that a person would be
willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important
of his or her own affairs. To establish a finding by clear and convincing
evidence, which is the next highest evidence standard, requires proof that
the particular facts are highly probable or create a firm belief that the
allegation in question is true.

ICWA also authorizes grant funding to American Indian tribes for operating
child and family service programs. In fiscal year 2004, BIA administered
an estimated $10.9 million in ICWA grants to tribes. These grants
generally range from about $26,000 to $750,000, with the average being
$60,000.

Interaction of ICWA with While ICWA requires states to provide active
efforts to reunify families,

ASFA	ASFA requires states to move children more quickly through the child
welfare system. Enacted in 1997, ASFA created fundamental changes in the
nation's child welfare system and established two major goals for all
children: (1) to make a child's safety the most important consideration in
child welfare decisions and (2) to compel child welfare systems to make

timely decisions regarding adoption or other permanent arrangements for
children who cannot safely return home. One key ASFA provision (the "15 of
22" provision) requires states to file a petition to terminate parental
rights if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22
months unless (1) it is not in the child's best interests, (2) the state
has not provided necessary reunification services, or (3) the child is in
the care of a relative.

Key Participants in State Child Welfare Systems

State and local child welfare agencies and courts that hear child welfare
cases all play a role in making placement decisions for children in foster
care. Child welfare caseworkers receive and investigate reports of
suspected maltreatment and recommend and locate appropriate social
services. They also make recommendations to the court about whether a
child should be removed from home, where the child should be placed, and
where the child will ultimately reside. The judge assesses the information
presented about a case and makes the placement decisions for children. For
cases involving children subject to ICWA, the judge will review the
recommendations of all parties involved in a case-the child welfare
agency, the parents, the tribe, and any advocate appointed to represent
the child's best interests-and determine the best placement option for the
child.

When placing a child in foster care, the state must ensure that the foster
family can provide a safe environment that can meet a child's needs. To do
this, each state develops its own standards and procedures for licensing
foster homes. For example, a state may require foster parents to be
emotionally stable and have no significant criminal or child abuse
history. In addition, a state may require a home to meet certain physical
requirements for safety purposes, such as having a smoke detector and
being free of health and fire hazards. ICWA does not require American
Indian homes to be licensed by the state. However, to be eligible to
receive foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E, families must
meet state foster care standards or, for homes on or near Indian
reservations, licensing standards established by the tribe.

Federal Oversight of Child ACF is responsible for the administration and
oversight of federal funding

Welfare Programs 	to states for child welfare services under Titles IV-B
and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Title IV-B authorizes funds to states
to provide a wide array of services to prevent the occurrence of abuse and
neglect and to prevent the need for foster care placements. Some tribes
are eligible for Title IV-B grants as well. Title IV-E provides an
open-ended individual entitlement for

foster care maintenance payments to cover a portion of the food, housing,
and incidental expenses for all foster children whose parents meet certain
federal eligibility criteria and for whom certain judicial findings have
been made. States can also be reimbursed for related administrative and
child placement costs, including the recruitment and licensing of foster
homes. Title IV-E also provides payments to adoptive parents of eligible
children with special needs that can make it difficult for a child to be
adopted, such as emotional, physical, or mental disabilities; emotional
disturbance; being older than an age specified by the state; or being a
member of a minority race. Under current law, ACF cannot provide Title
IV-E funds directly to tribes. Some states have, however, established
agreements with tribes to distribute Title IV-E funds to the tribes for
tribal children who meet the Title IV-E eligibility requirements. As of
June 2001, according to one study, 14 states and 75 American Indian tribal
governments had Title IV-E agreements in place nationally.1

To receive funds from Titles IV-B or IV-E, a state child welfare agency
(or a tribe receiving Title IV-B funds) must submit the following reports,
which are reviewed by ACF regional staff for compliance with all reporting
requirements:

o  	A 5-year child and family services plan (5-year plan) that describes
the state's goals and objectives with regard to the needs and well being
of children and families and the scope and adequacy of services available
for children and families.

o  	A description, developed in consultation with tribes and tribal
organizations, of the specific measures taken by the state to comply with
ICWA, which must be included in the state's 5-year plan, as required by
amendments to the Social Security Act enacted in 1994 (Pub. L. No.
103-432).

o  	An annual progress and services report (APSR) to discuss the state's
progress in meeting the goals outlined in its 5-year plan and to revise
the 5-year plan goals if necessary.

In 2000, ACF established a new federal review system to monitor state
compliance with Titles IV-B and IV-E requirements. One component of this

1See Eddie F. Brown and others, "Using Tribal/State Title IV-E Agreements
to Help American Indian Tribes Access Foster Care and Adoption Funding,"
Child Welfare, vol. LXXXIII, no. 4 (2004).

system is the CFSR, which assesses state performance in achieving safety
and permanency for children, along with well-being for children and
families. The CFSR process includes a self-assessment by the state, an
analysis of state performance in meeting national standards established by
HHS, and an on-site review by a joint team of federal and state officials.
Based on a review of statewide data, interviews with community
stakeholders and some families receiving services, and a review of a
sample of 50 child welfare cases, HHS determines whether a state achieved
substantial conformity with: (1) outcomes related to safety, permanency,
and well-being, such as keeping children protected from abuse and neglect
and achieving permanent, stable living situations for children; and (2)
key systemic factors, such as having an adequate case review system and an
adequate array of services. States are required to develop program
improvement plans to address identified shortcomings. ACF conducted its
first state review in March 2001 and completed on-site reviews in all 50
states and the District of Columbia by March 2004. States found to be
operating in substantial conformity with Titles IV-B and IV-E must
complete a full CFSR every 5 years, while states that are not in
substantial conformity must begin a full CFSR review two years after
approval of their program improvement plans.

ICWA provides BIA with responsibility for administering grants to tribes
for a variety of child welfare purposes and assisting states in
identifying the tribal affiliation of a child upon request. However, BIA
has no oversight authority in terms of how state child welfare agencies or
state courts implement the law for American Indian children in state
custody.

American Indian Demographics and Tribal Membership Requirements

According to Census estimates for 2003, approximately 4.4 million people
in the United States report having some American Indian heritage,
comprising 1.5 percent of the total population. This population includes
individuals who may not be members or eligible for membership in a tribe,
as well as individuals who are members of state recognized tribes. As
shown in figure 1, the American Indian population is heavily concentrated
in the West. In some cases, tribal members live in the same state as their
tribe's reservation, and may live on or near the reservation. In other
cases, tribal members live in states other than those where the tribe's
lands are located. In other words, while a tribe's land may be located in
a particular state, tribal members may live in many states around the
country.

Figure 1: American Indian Population Density by State

Source: 2000 U.S. Census data.

ACF collects information on the number of American Indian children in
state foster care in its Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System (AFCARS); however, states are not required to identify children who
are subject to ICWA. According to the most recent AFCARS data provided by
ACF, the percentage and number of American Indian children reported in
foster care in fiscal year 2003 varied considerably from state to

state.2 In 23 states, for example, American Indian children represented
less than 1 percent of all children served in foster care in fiscal year
2003. In five states, however, at least one-quarter of the foster care
population was American Indian, as shown in table 3. In addition, while
Oklahoma and California reported serving over 3,000 American Indian
children in foster care in 2003, Delaware, Vermont, and the District of
Columbia reported serving fewer than five American Indian children each.

Table 3: States with (1) Highest Percentage of Children Served in Foster
Care Who Are American Indian and (2) Highest Number of American Indian
Children Served in Foster Care, FY 2003

Percentage of children served in foster care who were American Indian Number of
                 American Indian children served in foster care

                       State       Percentage              State       Number 
                      Alaska               62           Oklahoma        3,689 
                South Dakota               61         California        3,646 
                     Montana               35          Minnesota        2,292 
                North Dakota               30             Alaska        1,735 
                    Oklahoma               25         Washington        1,690 
                   Minnesota               15       South Dakota        1,603 
                  New Mexico               13             Oregon        1,219 
                  Washington               11            Montana        1,028 
                    Nebraska                9           Nebraska          825 
                       Idaho                9            Arizona          798 

Source: AFCARS data from HHS's Children's Bureau.

Not all American Indian children who enter foster care are subject to
ICWA. In Washington, for example, of the 1,690 American Indian children
identified in foster care in fiscal year 2003, the state reported that
about 450 were subject to ICWA. American Indian children are only subject
to ICWA if they are members of, or eligible for membership in, 1 of the
over

2However, previous GAO work indicates that the race and ethnicity data
reported in AFCARS are not always accurate. See GAO, Child Welfare: Most
States Are Developing Statewide Information Systems, but the Reliability
of Child Welfare Data Could be Improved, GAO-03-809 (Washington, D.C.:
July 31, 2003). In addition, while AFCARS data do not usually include
American Indian children in tribal custody, these children are included in
the AFCARS data for some states, affecting the comparability of state data
on American Indian children. For example, when a tribe receives Title IV-E
payments for children in tribal custody, these children are also included
in a state's AFCARS data.

500 federally recognized tribes. Federal recognition means that a tribe is
formally recognized as a quasi-sovereign entity with a
government-togovernment relationship with the United States. With federal
recognition, tribes become eligible to participate in federal assistance
programs and can be exempt from state and local jurisdiction. About 40
other tribes are recognized by individual states, while other American
Indian communities are not formally recognized as tribes by the United
States or any individual state; children from these tribes are not subject
to ICWA. Thirty-four states, most of which are located in the western
portion of the United States, have federally recognized tribes. Five
states, generally located in the eastern half of the country, have state
recognized tribes, but no federally recognized tribes. Twelve states, also
in the eastern half of the country, have no federally or state recognized
tribes.

As quasi-sovereign entities, tribes establish their own membership
requirements, which can vary considerably, as shown in table 4. Two common
conditions for enrollment are lineal descendency from a person named on a
tribe's historical membership list (sometimes known as a "base roll") or a
minimum amount of tribal blood (known as blood quantum). For example, to
be eligible for membership in the Navajo Nation, individuals must have at
least  1/4 Navajo blood, meaning that they may have one grandparent who is
full-blooded Navajo or two grandparents who are each half Navajo. Other
conditions may include residing on the tribe's reservation or having
continued contact with the tribe.

Table 4: Tribal Membership Requirements for Selected Tribes, as Reported
by Tribal Officials

Tribe Requirement

Mooretown Rancheria (California) 	Descendency from 1 of 3 individuals
responsible for distributing tribal assets when the tribe was terminated
in 1958 (federal recognition of the tribe was subsequently restored in
1983)

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians A 1/8 blood quantum and one
parent of the Morongo Reservation (California) enrolled in the Morongo
tribe

       Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Descendency from 1899-1906 base rolls

Pawnee Indian Tribe of Oklahoma A 1/8 blood quantum

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon

A 1/16 blood quantum and a parent enrolled at the time of the child's
birth and at the time the child applies for enrollment (unless the parent
is deceased)

            Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (Oregon)

One enrolled parent or grandparent and  1/4 blood quantum in any federally
recognized tribe

Narragansett Indian Tribe (Rhode Island)a Descendency from 1880-1884 base
roll

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek A  1/4 blood quantum in a Sioux
tribe and Reservation (South Dakota) some Crow Creek blood

Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud A  1/4 blood quantum in a Sioux tribe
and Indian Reservation (South Dakota) one parent is a member of the tribe

Source: GAO interviews with tribal officials.

aSince 1995, the tribe has closed its enrollment to all individuals older
than 12 months.

Tribes may change their tribal membership criteria, thereby changing a
child's eligibility for ICWA. For example, an official from the Pawnee
Indian Nation said that the tribe had recently lowered its blood quantum
requirement from 1/4 to 1/8. Since 1995, the Narragansett tribe has closed
its enrollment for most individuals.

Time Needed to Determine a Child's ICWA Status, Availability of American
Indian Foster and Adoptive Homes, and Cooperation between Tribes and
States Influence Placement Decisions for Children Subject to ICWA

Placement decisions for children subject to ICWA-including where a child
should live upon entering foster care, how long the child should remain in
care, and where the child should live permanently--can be influenced by
the length of time it takes to determine a child's ICWA status, the
availability of American Indian foster and adoptive homes, and how states
and tribes work together to follow the provisions of ICWA and ASFA. These
factors are unique to children subject to ICWA, but other factors-such as
the timeliness in identifying relative caregivers and the availability of
foster and adoptive homes-can influence placement decisions similarly for
children who are not subject to the law. Similarly, while the cultural
beliefs of many tribes may conflict with state implementation of ASFA
provisions to move a child to adoption within certain time frames, our
survey results from 15 states responding to a relevant question showed
little difference in how frequently children subject to ICWA were exempted
from ASFA's provision compared to other children.

Identification of a Child's ICWA Status Can Be Challenging and Can
Influence Placement Decisions

Before a child can be placed in accordance with ICWA's placement
preferences, the state has to identify the child as being subject to the
law. A number of state and tribal officials emphasized the identification
of a child's ICWA status as an important factor in placement decisions,
while some state officials also reported challenges in making such
determinations in a timely manner. According to several child welfare
officials, determining that a child is subject to ICWA after initial
placement decisions have already been made can sometimes lead to a child
having more placements or spending more time in foster care, because, as
some of these officials explained, they have to process the new
information about a child's ICWA status, rethink decisions already in
place, and possibly make new placement decisions.

States report that they are making efforts to encourage the appropriate
determination of children's ICWA status. The five states we visited have
policies and procedures intended to ensure that social workers properly
identify children subject to ICWA. For example, all of these states except
Rhode Island have special forms to help them collect information about a
child's family history needed by tribes to determine a child's tribal
membership status. Many, although not all, state child welfare officials

surveyed also reported having policies and procedures to help social
workers identify children subject to ICWA. Of the 48 states responding to
our survey, 33 indicated that they provided ICWA guidelines to social
workers, while 27 indicated that they provided mandatory ICWA training for
newly hired social workers.

However, tribes and states report that the appropriate determination of a
child's ICWA status does not always occur. Several tribal representatives
we spoke with reported that state caseworkers do not always accurately
determine a child's ICWA status, noting that appropriate identification
varies widely from state to state and among localities within a state.
Similarly, our survey of state child welfare officials indicates that
state child welfare workers sometimes fail to collect the information
necessary to accurately identify whether a child is subject to ICWA (see
fig. 2). Of the 25 state child welfare agencies that could answer the
relevant survey question, 7 reported that they often requested
insufficient information to accurately identify a child's tribal
membership, while 12 states reported that this happened on occasion. Child
welfare officials and tribal representatives from California reported that
some caseworkers may incorrectly assume that children with certain
characteristics-such as blond hair or blue eyes or a Hispanic surname-are
not subject to ICWA and do not ask if they have American Indian heritage.

Figure 2: Responses from 25 State Child Welfare Agencies on the Frequency
with Which the State Requested Insufficient Information to Accurately
Determine ICWA Status, FY 2003

                                Number of states

                                       12

very oftenModeratelExtremely or

y

oftenOn occasion Seldom,

ifev

                                       r

                                       e

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: The survey question was as follows: In fiscal year 2003, how often
did your state experience any of the following circumstances related to
identifying a child's ICWA status: state requested insufficient
information to accurately identify a specific tribe?

Eighteen states responded "data not available" or "do not know."

Child welfare officials told us that their ability to identify a child's
ICWA status can depend on the receipt of complete information from
families and the timely response from tribes to states' inquiries about a
child's tribal affiliation. They noted that families are not always
forthcoming with information about a child's American Indian heritage,
either because they lack the information or are reluctant to share it.
When families provide imprecise information, social workers may need to
contact multiple tribes to try to confirm a child's ICWA status. As shown
in figure 3, 13 states reported that family members often provided
imprecise information about their American Indian heritage and 12 states
reported often contacting multiple tribes to determine whether a child was
subject to ICWA.

Figure 3: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting the Frequency with Which
Families Provided Information That Was Too Imprecise to Identify a Child's
Specific Tribe, Requiring States to Send Membership Inquiries to Multiple
Tribes, FY 2003

                                Number of states

                                      8 8

                                often Moderatel

y

oftenOn occasion Seldom,

ifev

                                       r

                                       e

yreV

ICWA children

Non-ICWA children

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: The survey questions were as follows: In fiscal year 2003, how
often did your state experience any of the following circumstances related
to identifying a child's ICWA status: (1) family or caregiver provided
imprecise information to identify any specific tribe; and (2) family or
caregiver provided imprecise information, requiring state to notify
multiple tribes to determine if child was eligible for membership in one
of them?

Eighteen states responded "data not available" or "do not know" about the
inability to identify a specific tribe, while 19 reported "data not
available" or "do not know" about the need to send inquiries to multiple
tribes.

During our site visits, child welfare officials provided several reasons
why parents are sometimes unable to provide information about a child's
American Indian heritage. In some cases, according to an Oklahoma
official, the mother may not know that the father is American Indian. A
South Dakota social worker explained that a mother may not provide
information about paternal relatives if she does not want the child placed
with them. In other cases, officials from California and Oklahoma told us
that families report that a relative may have American Indian heritage,
but they do not know which tribe, making it difficult for child welfare
workers

to determine which tribe to contact. A county court worker in California,
for example, said she has had parents who claimed some Sioux heritage, but
did not know which Sioux tribe was involved. In these cases, she said she
has to send inquiries to 16 tribes to determine if the child is eligible
for membership in any of them. Social workers can ask BIA to assist them
in identifying the appropriate tribe of a child; however, BIA does not
have tribal membership lists and both tribal and state officials explained
that BIA can do little to help identify a child's tribal affiliation.

Once a social worker believes a child might be American Indian, an inquiry
is usually sent to the tribe with whom the child might be affiliated to
determine if the child is a tribal member or eligible for membership.
Officials from all of our site visit states except Rhode Island told us
that tribes vary in how quickly they respond to inquiries about a child's
membership status. They noted that some tribes do not respond to inquiries
in a timely manner, which can increase the time it takes to determine
whether the child is subject to ICWA, although they acknowledged that some
tribes lack staff and resources to respond more promptly. When a tribe
does not respond, child welfare staff have to make additional phone calls
or send additional letters to encourage the tribe to provide the requested
information. However, several tribal officials reported that some ICWA
inquiries from child welfare agencies do not contain sufficient
information for the tribe to determine a child's membership status. They
explained, for example, that tribes may need to know the names and
birthdates of a child's family members in order to determine if a child is
eligible for tribal membership, but the child welfare agency does not
always obtain this information from families and include it in their
inquiry letters.

Even if sufficient information is gathered to determine that a child meets
ICWA's requirements, some state courts may invoke the "existing Indian
family exception" to determine that a child is not subject to the law.
Some judges have ruled that the law does not apply when neither the child
nor the child's parents have maintained significant social, cultural, or
political ties with the tribe, although ICWA does not include this
language. Without this exception, these judges reason that ICWA is
unconstitutionally discriminatory because it treats American Indian
children differently based solely on their ethnicity, as opposed to the
family's political affiliation with the tribe. While courts in some states
use this exception, courts in other states have explicitly rejected it,
reasoning that such an exception is not included in the language of ICWA
and that it undermines ICWA's purpose by allowing state courts to impose
their own subjective values in determining what constitutes American
Indian culture and who

is an American Indian. Several tribal officials stated that this exception
hinders the effective implementation of ICWA because state courts can
invoke the doctrine to disregard placement preferences under the act.
Legislation was introduced in the Congress to amend ICWA to eliminate this
exception, but it was not enacted.

Availability of American Indian Foster and Adoptive Homes Is a Key Factor
Influencing Placement Decisions for Children Subject to ICWA

Availability of American Indian Foster and Adoptive Homes

State and tribal officials noted that the availability of American Indian
foster and adoptive homes is a key factor in making placement decisions
for children subject to ICWA that follow the law's placement preferences.
When these children are initially placed with non-American Indian
families, states and tribes have to make difficult decisions about whether
to move the child if an American Indian foster or adoptive family later
becomes available. However, many states have policies to place children
with relatives whenever possible and, according to officials in two
states, they face similar decisions about changing placements for children
who are not subject to ICWA when relative caregivers become available
after a child's initial placement with another foster family.

The availability of American Indian foster and adoptive homes influences
whether states place children subject to ICWA with a tribal family, as
preferred by law. However, child welfare officials in the five states we
visited described having a shortage of American Indian homes because
families do not meet state licensing standards or pass state background
checks required to become eligible for federal financial support in caring
for a foster child. For example, a social worker in a local child welfare
office in California told us that some American Indian homes that do not
meet the physical standards required of state licensed foster homes, such
as having no more than two children share a bedroom or ensuring that each
child has a separate bed, are not approved as foster homes. Several tribal
officials said, however, that state licensing standards do not always
recognize the communal living situations common in American Indian
communities and exclude appropriate American Indian caregivers. State
officials in South Dakota and California also noted that tribes can
license foster parents themselves using their own licensing standards.

Similarly, child welfare officials said that some American Indian families
have previous criminal convictions or reports of possible child abuse or
neglect, which preclude the state from approving them as possible foster
or adoptive parents. Several tribal officials, however, stated that
criminal background checks sometimes disqualify an otherwise appropriate
American Indian relative from caring for a child subject to ICWA. In some
cases, these offenses occurred many years ago and do not impact an

individual's fitness to serve as a potential foster or adoptive parent. A
child welfare official we visited in Oregon noted that these background
checks may exclude potential caretakers. Officials from Rhode Island and
California stated that they will make exceptions in certain cases for
homes that do not pass the required background check. For example,
potential foster parents in California with a criminal background (that
does not include serious offenses such as murder, kidnapping, or rape) may
be approved if they prove they are rehabilitated. State child welfare
officials and others have previously noted that background checks required
by the federal government sometimes exclude otherwise appropriate
caregivers without regard to whether they are American Indian or of other
races.

Tribal officials described other obstacles to recruiting American Indian
foster families. Several tribal officials told us that American Indian
families sometimes view the state licensing process as intrusive and
insensitive. Child welfare officials in South Dakota told us that they
believe that some American Indian families distrust state agencies and are
not willing to complete the process to become approved caretakers. One of
these officials also said that some American Indian families are already
providing informal kinship care for American Indian children and cannot
care for additional foster children. In addition, a few tribal officials
said that states rely on the tribe to find relatives and tribal foster
families for children subject to ICWA; however, some officials stated that
tribes have limited resources to conduct such searches and to recruit
tribal foster families themselves. Some tribal officials pointed out that,
without direct access to Title IV-E funds, many tribes do not have the
resources to reimburse foster families. ICWA authorizes federal grants to
tribes for providing child welfare services, including licensing foster
homes, but several tribal child welfare officials said that they need
funds directed for this specific purpose to efficiently recruit American
Indian foster homes.

On our survey, more states reported difficulties locating American Indian
foster homes for children subject to ICWA compared to locating other
foster homes (see table 5). Of the state child welfare agencies responding
to a relevant survey question, 15 reported that an American Indian foster
home was often not available for the placement of a child subject to ICWA,
while 6 states reported that they often did not have any type of foster
home available for these children. Eight states faced similar problems
finding appropriate foster homes for children who were not subject to
ICWA.

Table 5: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting Challenges Related to the
Availability of Foster Homes, FY 2003

For children subject to ICWA For children not subject to ICWA

American Indian foster Foster home (of any Foster home was home was not
available background) was not available not available

              Extremely often                     2                 0         
                 Very often                       8                 3         
              Moderately often                    5                 3         
                On occasion                       6                11         
              Seldom, if ever                     2                 8         
          Total states that could                           
            answer the question                  23                25         
          Do not know or data not                           
                 available                       19                17         

Source: GAO survey of state child welfare agencies.

Note: The survey question was as follows: How frequently in fiscal year
2003 did your state encounter each of the following challenges: (a)
appropriate foster home (of any ethnic background) for an ICWA child was
not available; (b) appropriate American Indian foster home for an ICWA
child was not available; and (c) appropriate foster home for a non-ICWA
child was not available?

Of the state child welfare agencies responding to a relevant survey
question, 14 reported that American Indian homes for adoption or longterm
guardianship were often not available, and an additional 8 states reported
that they often did not have any type of home available, as shown in table
6. However, 9 states faced similar problems finding homes for adoption or
guardianship of children who were not subject to ICWA.

Table 6: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting Challenges Related to the
Availability of Homes for Adoption or Long-Term Guardianship, FY 2003

For children subject to ICWA For children not subject to ICWA

      American Indian adoptive Adoptive or long-term Adoptive or long-term or
      long-term guardianship guardianship home (of any guardianship home home
            was not available background) was not available was not available

              Extremely often                     2                 0         
                 Very often                       4                 1         
              Moderately often                    8                 7         
                On occasion                       5                 9         
              Seldom, if ever                     4                 7         
          Total states that could                23                24         
            answer the question                             
          Do not know or data not                20                18         
                 available                                  

Decisions to Change a Child's Placement

Source: GAO survey of state child welfare agencies.

Note: The survey question was as follows: How frequently in fiscal year
2003 did your state encounter each of the following challenges: (a)
appropriate adoptive or long-term guardianship home (of any ethnic
background) for an ICWA child was not available; (b) appropriate American
Indian adoptive or long term guardianship home for an ICWA child was not
available; (c) appropriate adoptive or longterm guardianship home for a
non-ICWA child was not available?

The availability of a foster home that provides services for a special
needs foster child can also influence the placement of a child subject to
ICWA. Some tribal and child welfare officials noted that some children are
placed with non-American Indian families when they have special needs and
require services that cannot be provided by most tribal homes. As social
workers in a South Dakota child welfare office told us, tribes often agree
that children with special needs, such as those stemming from fetal
alcohol syndrome or reactive attachment disorder (a complex psychiatric
illness that can affect young children and is characterized by serious
problems in emotional attachments to others) should be placed within reach
of the services they need, even if it means placing them with non-American
Indian families.

A child subject to ICWA may be placed with a non-American Indian family if
relatives or American Indian foster or adoptive homes are not available or
if the child's ICWA status was not determined when the child first entered
foster care. If, after a placement decision has been made, the state
learns that a child is subject to ICWA or that a relative or an American
Indian foster or adoptive home has become available, the state and tribe
face the difficult decision regarding whether to change a child's foster
or pre-adoptive placement. Late identification of relatives also occurs
for

non-American Indian children. Almost all states, including the five we
visited, have a policy to place all children with relatives, if possible.3
Child welfare officials in three of these states said that relatives are
sometimes reluctant to care for children initially and may only come
forward once the state stops its efforts to reunify the family and begins
to seek an adoptive family. Officials in these three states also noted
that families coming forward later can occur with relatives of all
children, regardless of their ICWA status.

Our survey data indicate that states face decisions to change placements
with similar frequency for children subject to ICWA and those not subject
to ICWA. As shown in figure 4, 8 of the 19 states responding to a relevant
question reported often having to make decisions about whether to keep
children subject to ICWA with their current foster family compared to 9
states often facing these decisions for other children.

3Urban Institute, The Continuing Evolution of State Kinship Care Policies
(Washington, D.C., 2002).

Figure 4: Survey Results from 19 Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on How
Often They Face Decisions about Moving a Child from a Foster Home to
Another Placement When a Relative Came Forward Late in a Case

Number of states

                                       11

elExtremoften

yoften

n occasion SeldomO

y

                                       r

f, iev

                                       e

oderatelM

ICWA children

Non-ICWA children

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: The survey question asked: to what extent did your state face the
following challenges, situations, or events for ICWA and non-ICWA
children: relative came forward late in a case, prompting need to decide
between current foster placement and placement with a relative?

Twenty-three states responded "data not available" or "do not know" for
ICWA children, while 18 states responded "data not available" for non-ICWA
children.

Our survey showed that fewer of these same 19 states were likely to face
decisions about whether to change a child's pre-adoptive home to place the
child with a relative and that these decisions occurred about as often for
children subject to ICWA as for other children not subject to the law. As
shown in figure 5, six states reported often facing decisions about
whether to keep children subject to ICWA with their current pre-adoptive
family, while seven states reported often facing these decisions for other
children.

Figure 5: Survey Results from 19 Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on How
Often They Face Decisions to Move a Child from a Pre-adoptive Placement to
Another Placement When a Relative Came Forward Late in a Case

Number of states

                               9 often Moderatel

y

oftenOn occasion Seldom,

ifev

                                       r

                                       e

yreVICWA children

Non-ICWA children

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: The survey question asked: to what extent did your state face the
following challenges, situations, or events for ICWA and non-ICWA
children: relative came forward late in a case, prompting need to decide
between current adoptive placement and placement with a relative?

Twenty-three states responded "data not available" or "do not know" for
ICWA children, while 18 states responded "data not available" for non-ICWA
children.

Child welfare officials said that when facing decisions to change a
child's placement, they would generally move a child to a home that was
more in accordance with ICWA's preferences, unless this would create
emotional problems for the child. For example, an assistant district
attorney in Oklahoma said that she had a case in which the child had
serious emotional issues as a result of witnessing a sibling's homicide at
the hands of her mother. The attorney recommended against moving the child
to a relative's home after 2 years of doing well living with a
non-American Indian family. However, a few tribal officials said that they
sometimes had difficulties getting state child welfare and court officials
to move a child from an initial placement with a non-American Indian
family, regardless of

the circumstances. An Oklahoma tribe, for example, said a judge refused to
move a child to an American Indian home after 3 days in a non-American
Indian foster home because the child had already bonded with the foster
family.

Relationships with Tribes Can Affect Placement Decisions and How They
Align with ASFA Provisions

Tribal and State Relationships

How well states and tribes work together can also affect placement
decisions, particularly in agreeing on the appropriate permanency plan for
a child. For example, while ASFA encourages states to move children into
permanent homes quickly and emphasizes adoption for children who cannot
return to their families, many tribes do not believe in terminating
parental rights and do not support adoption. When tribes are not satisfied
with placement decisions being made by the state, they can seek tribal
jurisdiction of a case, which gives the tribe authority to make placement
decisions for a child. However, officials in the five states we visited
reported that tribes do not frequently seek jurisdiction of children
subject to ICWA. Differences in opinion between tribes and private
adoption agencies about how ICWA's placement preferences apply to children
who are voluntarily relinquished for adoption can also affect placement
decisions.

The level of cooperation between tribes and states can affect placement
decisions, particularly in agreeing on the appropriate permanency plan for
a child. Tribal and state officials we interviewed described varying
levels of communication and cooperation between tribes and child welfare
agencies. In Oregon, for example, tribal, state, and local officials
consistently reported that they worked closely together to make key
placement decisions for children subject to ICWA. Social workers at the
two local offices we visited emphasized that they consult with tribal
staff about children subject to ICWA, work closely with them throughout a
case, and give deference to the tribe's wishes about where the child
should be placed and what the child's permanency goal should be. Because
they work so closely with the tribes, some tribal and child welfare
officials explained that they are generally successful in placing children
subject to ICWA with relatives or American Indian families.

Several tribal officials told us that they worked well with caseworkers in
offices near the tribe, but not as well with social workers elsewhere. In
Cherokee County in Oklahoma, for example, which includes the headquarters
of the Cherokee Nation, state court and child welfare officials reported
that they generally worked well with tribal officials and agreed on
placements for children in foster care. Officials with the Cherokee child
welfare program agreed that they had a good relationship

Tribal Cultural Beliefs and ASFA

with the local county child welfare staff, but stated that social workers
in other counties and other states did not always work collaboratively
with the tribe. Several other tribal officials added that some caseworkers
will not involve the tribe in placement decisions and do not listen to the
tribe's recommendations. Tribal officials said that when tribes and states
work well together, children subject to ICWA are more likely to be placed
with relatives or American Indian families.

Tribal cultural beliefs can also influence decisions about a child's
permanent placement. These cultural beliefs sometimes conflict with ASFA's
15 of 22 provision, which requires states to file a petition to terminate
parental rights for a child who has been in foster care for 15 of the last
22 months. Officials from many tribes told us that their tribes do not
believe that the connection between a parent and child can be severed and,
therefore, they do not believe in the termination of parental rights. They
expressed concern that states interpret ASFA to overemphasize adoption as
a permanency goal when parents cannot reunify with their children.
According to one tribal official, if a child is living with family members
in a stable, long-term situation, the tribe considers that a permanent
placement. Other tribal officials said that they would agree to adoption
under certain circumstances, such as when relatives are adopting the child
or if a parent has had no contact with a child in 2 years.

Many of the tribal officials we spoke with also expressed concern that
ASFA does not provide sufficient time for parents to reunify with their
children. Some pointed out that ASFA's 15-month time frame for filing a
petition to terminate parental rights does not provide sufficient time for
American Indian parents to address difficult issues such as substance
abuse. A previous GAO study reported on some of the difficulties state
child welfare officials faced when applying ASFA's 15 of 22 provision to
any family dealing with substance abuse issues.4

While a state can determine that tribal cultural beliefs is a compelling
reason to exempt children subject to ICWA from ASFA's 15 of 22 provision,
our survey results, as well as previous work, indicate that children not
subject to ICWA can also be exempted when adoption is not an appropriate
plan. In our survey, for example, results from the 15 states

4See GAO, Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding
Permanent Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain,
GAO-02-585 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002).

that could answer a relevant question show little difference in how
frequently they exempt children subject to ICWA from the 15 of 22
provision compared to children not subject to ICWA (see fig. 6).
Similarly, in two previous GAO reports, data from a limited number of
states indicated that many of these states exempted numerous children from
ASFA's requirement to file a petition to terminate parental rights after a

5

child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months.
According to two Oregon court officials we interviewed, all children who
are unlikely to be adopted, such as those who have severe behavioral or
mental health issues, are also exempted from this provision. One of these
officials also said that both children subject to ICWA and those not
subject to ICWA may be exempt when a child has been placed with
grandparents who do not want to be part of terminating the parental rights
of their own children.

5See GAO, Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption
and Safe Families Act, GAO/HEHS-00-1 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 1999) and
GAO-02-585.

Figure 6: Survey Results from 15 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on
How Often They Exempt Children from ASFA's 15 of 22 Provision, FY 2003

                               Number of states 9

                                       8

                                       8

ICWA children

Non-ICWA children

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: The survey question was as follows: In fiscal year 2003, how often
did the following situations or events occur with ICWA and non-ICWA
children: state decided to exempt child who had been in foster care for 15
of the most recent 22 months from ASFA's requirement to file a petition to
terminate parental rights?

Twenty-six states responded "data not available" or "do not know" for ICWA
children, while 22 states responded "data not available" or "do not know"
for non-ICWA children.

While several tribal officials told us that they will seek jurisdiction of
a case and the associated authority to make placement decisions for a
child if a tribe is not satisfied with the placement decisions being made
by the state, officials from five states we visited told us they receive
relatively few transfer requests for children subject to ICWA. Officials
from many tribes we interviewed concurred that they do not request
jurisdiction in many cases and discussed some factors they consider when
deciding whether to transfer ICWA cases to tribal court. Tribal officials
explained that they lack the resources to effectively provide for the
needs of all children subject to ICWA and that states can generally offer
more services for children than the tribes. However, officials from some
tribes also said

                                       7

                                       6

                                       5

                                       4

                                       3

                                       2

                                       1

                                       0

y

ModerateloftenOn occasion Seldom,

ifev

                                       r

                                       e

Tribal and State Jurisdiction Decisions

Placement Decisions for Children Voluntarily Relinquished for Adoption

they will not request jurisdiction if the parent lives far from the
reservation because the tribe will not be able to provide services or
monitor the family. Officials from some tribes also told us that they
allow children to remain in state custody with the state providing
services if the state is working cooperatively with the tribe and if the
tribe is satisfied with the decisions the state is making, but will seek a
transfer if they have any concerns.

When tribes do request a transfer of jurisdiction to tribal court, state,
court, and tribal officials in four of the states we visited did not
report any significant problems with tribal requests to transfer
jurisdiction. However, child welfare and tribal officials in South Dakota
described tensions relating to transfer requests. State, local, and court
officials in the state expressed concerns that some tribal requests to
transfer jurisdiction occur late in the case and often after the state has
moved to terminate parental rights. Judges we interviewed in South Dakota
said they would generally deny these requests as untimely. Officials from
two South Dakota tribes we visited acknowledged that sometimes a parent
who does not want to cooperate with the state will seek to transfer a case
to the tribal court; one tribal official also noted that sometimes state
courts do not provide a good reason for denying tribal transfer requests.
During our tribal panels, tribal officials from other states also reported
resistance at times from states with regard to transferring cases to
tribal courts.

While ICWA's placement preferences also apply to children who are
voluntarily relinquished by their parents for adoption, tribal and private
adoption agency officials we spoke to reported varying practices in
implementing the preferences for these children. We discussed voluntary
adoptions with tribal officials and representatives from private adoption
agencies in the five states we visited and they reported different
perspectives about how ICWA placement preferences should be applied in
these circumstances and whether tribal or parental preferences should
prevail if the two are in conflict. Officials with some tribes indicated
that when they are informed about a voluntary adoption case involving a
child who is a member or potential member of their tribe, they generally
do not become involved in the private adoption proceedings. Officials in
other tribes reported that they will intervene in these types of cases and
oppose adoption placements that do not follow ICWA's placement
preferences. Several tribal officials expressed concern that the tribe
loses many potential tribal members through voluntary adoptions.

Most of the private adoption officials we spoke with reported that tribes
frequently accept a birth parent's choice of a non-American Indian

Limited Data Show No Consistent Differences in Length of Stay or Other
Foster Care Experiences for Children Subject to ICWA and Other Children

adoptive family. In some cases, however, they said a tribe will insist
that a child subject to ICWA be placed with relatives or with a family
from the tribe. Several private adoption officials reported that many
birth parents do not want to place their child with a tribal family or
relatives on the reservation; if a tribe opposes the parent's choice of
adoptive family, the birth parent frequently chooses to parent the child.
In the opinion of some of these officials, a parent's wishes should
constitute good cause for not following ICWA's placement preferences.
However, officials from two Oklahoma tribes told us that private agencies
do not have many American Indian adoptive families because many American
Indian families cannot afford the sizeable adoption fees they charge; as a
result, American Indian mothers are generally not given an opportunity to
choose an American Indian adoptive family when they seek to voluntarily
relinquish a child through a private agency.

Limited data from four states showed that children subject to ICWA in some
of these states had similar foster care experiences as children not
subject to ICWA, while in other states, they had different experiences. In
two of four states that could identify children subject to ICWA in their
information systems, these children stayed in foster care for lengths of
time similar to those of Caucasian children. In Washington, however,
children subject to ICWA were less likely to leave foster care within 2
years compared to Caucasian and other minority children, while in Oregon
children subject to ICWA and other minority children were somewhat more
likely to do so compared to Caucasian children. In addition, differences
in the number of placements and the exit destinations of children subject
to ICWA compared to other children were evident. Many states reported in
our survey that they did not have the information necessary to comment on
children's experiences in foster care, but only 3 of the 10 states
responding to a relevant question reported that following ICWA's
requirements lengthened a child's stay in foster care by 5 months or more.
Data were not available from these states to determine whether these
longer time periods resulted in children experiencing a higher number of
foster care placements or differences in how children left the foster care
system-whether through adoption, transfer to another agency, or by other
means.

Data from the four states-which may not reflect the experiences of other
states-have some limitations.6 For example, while the percentage of
missing data was small for most of these states, Oregon was unable to
determine the race, ethnicity, or ICWA status of about 15 percent of
children exiting foster care in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the data
from Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota include some children in tribal
custody, while children in tribal custody are not included in the data
from Washington (see apps. I and II for more information about the data
provided by these states). In addition, our analyses are based on children
exiting foster care, which can influence the measurement of foster care
outcomes.7 We have only reported differences between groups that are
statistically significant.8

Data from the Four States and Survey Results Show Different Patterns in
the Length of Time Children Subject to ICWA Stay in Foster Care

While no national data exist, data from four states showed different
patterns in the length of time children subject to ICWA spent in foster
care compared to other children in fiscal year 2003. As shown in figure 7,
children exiting foster care who were subject to ICWA in two states
(Oklahoma and South Dakota) stayed in foster care for about the same
period of time as Caucasian and other minority children. In Washington,
however, children subject to ICWA who exited care were more likely to have
longer foster care stays in comparison; in Oregon, they had shorter stays
compared to Caucasian children, but similar stays compared to other
minority children.9 Differences in lengths of stay can also be observed

6Rhode Island also provided data on children subject to ICWA. However, we
are not reporting this information because so few children subject to ICWA
left foster care in Rhode Island in fiscal year 2003 and this data may not
be representative of the experiences of children subject to ICWA in the
state.

7When collecting data on children who exit care, data on children
currently in foster care are not included and children with shorter foster
care stays are overrepresented, biasing the measured outcomes. For
example, the overall lengths of stay for children exiting care tend to
appear shorter due to this overrepresentation.

8We tested the data for statistical significance using the chi square test
and have reported differences between groups that are statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

9According to Washington officials, children who are subject to ICWA in
their state are less likely to exit foster care within 30 days than other
children, but are slightly more likely to exit care when they remain in
care for more than 30 days. Oregon officials noted that children subject
to ICWA in their state are less likely to exit care during their first
month of foster care than other children. However, by the 24th month of
care, the percentage of children subject to ICWA and other minority
children exiting foster care exceeds the percentage of Caucasian children
exiting foster care.

among states. For example, in South Dakota, 81 percent of children subject
to ICWA who exited care spent 2 years or less in foster care compared to
63 percent of children subject to ICWA in Washington.

  Figure 7: Length of Stay for Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States, FY
                                      2003

                             Percentage of children

AICW

                               Caucasian Minority

AICW

                               Caucasian Minority

AICW

                               Caucasian Minority

AICW

                               Caucasian Minority

Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Washington

                                3 years or more

                          2 years - less than 3 years

                               Less than 2 years

Source: Data provided by child welfare agencies in these states.

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal year
2003 was 214 in Oregon, 1,534 in Oklahoma, 592 in South Dakota, and 169 in
Washington.

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not subject
to ICWA.

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included in
our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who exited
foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent in South
Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in Oregon (14.7
percent).

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, children
who are in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a Title IV-E
agreement with the state are included in the state's data. In addition,
the South Dakota data include some children who are in the custody of a
tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and supervision.

Due to rounding, figures may not add to 100 percent.

Most states were unable to respond to our survey questions about the
effect of following ICWA procedures on the amount of time children stay in
foster care. However, of the 16 state child welfare agencies that answered
this survey question, 4 states reported that hardly any children
experienced longer stays in foster care as a result of following ICWA
procedures, while 7 reported that only some children remained longer in
foster care. The remaining 5 states reported that half or more of the
children were affected by the law's requirements (see fig. 8).

Figure 8: Survey Results from 16 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting
How Many Children Remain in Foster Care Longer as a Result of Following
ICWA Procedures, FY 2003

                                   About half

                                      Most

                                   Hardly any

                                      Some

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: The survey question was as follows: Compared to children not
subject to ICWA, overall, for about how many children subject to ICWA has
following ICWA procedures increased the amount of time required to be
placed in a permanent home?

Twenty-six states responded "data not available" or "do not know."

Of the 10 states in our survey that reported on the estimated increase in
the amount of time to place a child in a permanent home as a result of
following ICWA, most reported that the additional time was minimal. As
shown in figure 9, officials in seven states reported that, on average,
children experienced no more than 1 to 2 additional months in foster care.
Only three states said that following ICWA requirements delayed a child's
permanent placement 5 months or more.

Figure 9: Survey Results from 10 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on
the Estimated Increased Time That Following ICWA Procedures Adds to a
Child's Time in Foster Care, FY 2003

Less than a month

No additional time

More than 6 months

5-6 months

1-2 months

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: The survey question was as follows: On average, how much additional
time does following ICWA procedures collectively add to the time it takes
to place a child subject to ICWA in a permanent placement, compared to
children not subject to ICWA?

Thirty-two states responded "data not available" or "do not know."

When asked about the effect of individual ICWA requirements, officials in
most of the 22 responding states reported that following each of five ICWA
requirements did not increase, or only somewhat increased, the time needed
to place a child in a permanent home, as shown in figure 10. No more than
eight states reported that following a specific ICWA procedure was
responsible for a moderate or larger increase in the time children spend
in foster care. While responses were fairly similar for the five ICWA
requirements, more states reported that finding foster and adoptive homes
in accordance with ICWA's placement preferences influenced a child's time
in foster care.

Figure 10: Survey Results from 22 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting
on the Effect of Specific ICWA Procedures on the Time to Place a Child in
a Permanent Home Compared to Other Children in Foster Care, FY 2003

Number of states

18 17

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 At most At least somewhat moderately increased increased Amount of time
increased

Identifying children who are subject to the law and which tribe(s) should
be notified

Notifying tribes of court hearings involving American Indian children

Locating foster homes that are in accordance with ICWA's placement
preferences

Locating adoptive homes that are in accordance with ICWA's placement
preferences

Meeting required ICWA evidence standards for foster care placement and
termination of parental rights decisions Source: GAO survey. Notes: The
survey question was as follows: On average, how much have each of these
required ICWA procedures increased, if at all, the total amount of time it
takes to place ICWA children in a permanent placement compared to non-ICWA
children?

Nineteen states responded "data not available" or "do not know" about the
effect of locating foster homes that are in accordance with ICWA placement
preferences, while 21 states responded "data not available" or "do not
know" to the remaining questions regarding identifying children who are
subject to ICWA, notifying tribes, locating adoptive homes, and meeting
ICWA evidence standards.

For the "at most somewhat increased" category, the following response
categories were grouped together: hardly or not at all increased and
somewhat increased.

For the "at least moderately increased" category, the following response
categories were grouped together: moderately increased, greatly increased,
and very greatly increased.

One reason that some states may report few differences in length of stay
for children subject to ICWA and other children is that officials in state

child welfare agencies and courts may use similar standards that apply to
all children, despite differences outlined in the law.

o  	Active Efforts: ICWA requires states to provide "active efforts" to
prevent the break up of an American Indian family, while states are only
required to provide "reasonable efforts" for other children to receive
federal funds. According to some state officials, as part of providing
active efforts, caseworkers may offer extra assistance, such as
transportation assistance or culturally-relevant services to American
Indian families, and may spend more time trying to reunify the family,
which can, in some cases, lead to a child remaining in foster care for a
longer period of time. However, other state officials told us that the
level of services offered to the general child welfare population has been
increasing, blurring the line between active efforts and the "reasonable
efforts" states are required to provide to all families whose children are
taken into state custody. Officials in four states attributed this
similarity to the influence of ASFA, noting that ASFA's time frames
require states to provide more services upfront in order to decide after
15 months whether to reunify a family or terminate parental rights. Some
tribal officials disagreed and told us that social workers do not always
provide active efforts to children subject to ICWA. In some cases, they
said, state caseworkers simply refer parents to services without providing
any additional assistance-essentially providing the same level of services
as they would for a non-American Indian family.

o  	Evidence Standard for Terminating Parental Rights: Some child welfare
officials we interviewed in one state believe that ICWA's higher evidence
standard for terminating parental rights can make it more difficult to
terminate parental rights and prolong a child's stay in foster care in
some cases. Other child welfare officials, however, do not consider ICWA's
evidence standard to be a significant factor in placement decisions,
because they believe that judges and juries use a similar evidence
standard for all children. Our survey results also suggest that petitions
to terminate parental rights are not often rejected for children subject
to ICWA due to the higher evidence standard. As shown in figure 11, most
of the 19 states responding to a relevant question reported that petitions
on behalf of children subject to ICWA are seldom, if ever, rejected by the
courts due to insufficient evidence. In fact, these states reported that
courts rejected these petitions due to insufficient evidence more often on
behalf of children not subject to ICWA.

Figure 11: Survey Results from 19 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting
on How Often Courts Reject State Requests to Terminate Parental Rights for
Children in Foster Care Because Evidence Does Not Meet Applicable Legal
Standards, FY 2003

                                Number of states

                                       13

                                often Moderatel

y

oftenOn occasion Seldom,

                                       r

ifev

                                       e

yreV

ICWA children

Non-ICWA children

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: The survey question was as follows: In fiscal year 2003, how often
did the following situations or events occur with ICWA and non-ICWA
children: court rejected the state's request to terminate parental rights
because the state's case did not meet the appropriate legal sufficiency
standard for evidence?

Twenty-four states responded "data not available" or "do not know" for
ICWA children, while 19 states responded "data not available" or "do not
know" for non-ICWA children.

Data from Four States Show Some Differences in How Children Subject to
ICWA Move through Foster Care

While only three of the four states provided placement information, data
from two of these states showed no differences in the number of placements
experienced by children subject to ICWA and other children who exited
foster care.10 In Washington, however, children exiting care who were
subject to ICWA were more likely to have a greater number of placements
than Caucasian or other minority children, as shown in figure

12. Additional statistical analyses of the state placement data showed
children subject to ICWA in Washington were less likely than other
children to have one or two placements and more likely to have four or
more placements than Caucasian children. The analyses also showed that
Oregon children subject to ICWA were less likely than Caucasian children
to have four or more placements.11 These data also indicate differences
among states in the number of placements. For example, South Dakota
reported that 26 percent of children exiting foster care who were subject
to ICWA had three or more placements while in foster care compared to 37
percent in Washington.

10Oklahoma did not include data on number of placements for children
subject to ICWA in response to our data request.

11Oregon officials explained that, compared to children subject to ICWA, a
higher percentage of Caucasian children remain in foster care for more
than 24 months, which may be a factor in Caucasian children being more
likely to have four or more placements. They said that their data show
that children subject to ICWA and Caucasian children have a similar number
of placements during their first 12 months in foster care.

Figure 12: Number of Placements for Children Exiting Foster Care in Three
States, FY 2003

                             Percentage of children

A

                                   Caucasian

inorityM

                                  A Caucasian

inorityM

AICW

aucasianC

inorityM

WIC

WICOregon South Dakota Washington

3 or more

2 or less

Source: Data provided by child welfare agencies in these states.

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal year
2003 was 214 in Oregon, 592 in South Dakota, and 169 in Washington.

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not subject
to ICWA.

Washington could not identify the number of placements for two Caucasian
children (less than 1 percent) and six minority children (less than 1
percent).

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included in
our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who exited
foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent in South
Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in Oregon (14.7
percent).

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon and South Dakota, children who are in
the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a Title IV-E agreement
with the state are included in the state's data. In addition, the South
Dakota data include some children who are in the custody of a tribal
court, but for whom the state provides services and supervision.

Data from the four states showed some differences in how children subject
to ICWA left foster care compared to other children. When comparing
whether they left the foster care system to reunify with their

families, left under another type of permanent arrangement (such as
adoption or guardianship), or left under different circumstances, most
children in these states who left the foster care system in 2003 were
reunified with their families. However, some significant differences can
be observed. In Washington, for example, reunification rates for children
subject to ICWA were significantly lower compared to Caucasian or other
minority children. In Oklahoma, children subject to ICWA and Caucasian
children were less likely to be reunified than other minority children.
Differences were also found based on the state where children lived. For
example, the reunification rate for children subject to ICWA was 58
percent in Oklahoma, but only 36 percent in Washington.

Figure 13: Percentage of Children Exiting Foster Care in FY 2003 by
Reunification in Four States

Percent of children exiting care

100

90

80

                                     69 70

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Washington

ICWA

Caucasian

Other minority

Source: Data provided by child welfare agencies in these states.

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal year
2003 was 214 in Oregon, 1,534 in Oklahoma, 592 in South Dakota, and 169 in
Washington.

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not subject
to ICWA.

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included in
our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who exited
foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent in South
Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in Oregon (14.7
percent).

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, children
who are in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a Title IV-E
agreement with the state are included in the state's data. In addition,
the South Dakota data include some children who are in the custody of a
tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and supervision.

Children subject to ICWA were somewhat less likely than Caucasian
children, and about as likely as other minority children, to leave foster
care through adoption in the four states, as shown in figure 14. Adoption
rates for children subject to ICWA were fairly comparable among the
states, ranging from 12 percent to 17 percent.

Figure 14: Children Exiting Foster Care through Adoption, FY 2003 in Four
States

Percent of children exiting care 25

                                     21 21

20

15

10

5

0 Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Washington

ICWA Caucasian Other minority Source: Data provided by child welfare
agencies in these states.

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal year
2003 was 214 in Oregon, 1,534 in Oklahoma, 592 in South Dakota, and 169 in
Washington.

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not subject
to ICWA.

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included in
our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who exited
foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent in South
Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in Oregon (14.7
percent).

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota children
who are in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a Title IV-E
agreement with the state are included in the state's data. In addition,
the South Dakota data include some children who are in the custody of a
tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and supervision.

Children subject to ICWA were somewhat more likely to exit foster care
through a guardianship arrangement than either Caucasian or minority
children, as shown in figure 15. Guardianship rates for children subject
to ICWA were fairly similar in three states, ranging from 7 percent to 9
percent, but were higher in Washington.

Figure 15: Percentage of Children Exiting Foster Care in FY 2003 by
Guardianship in Four States

Percent of children exiting care

25

20

15 15

10

5

0 Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Washington

ICWA

Caucasian

Other minority

Source: Data provided by child welfare agencies in these states.

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal year
2003 was 214 in Oregon, 1,534 in Oklahoma, 592 in South Dakota, and 169 in
Washington.

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not subject
to ICWA.

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included in
our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who exited
foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent in South
Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in Oregon (14.7
percent).

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, children
who are in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a Title IV-E
agreement with the state are included in the state's data. In addition,
the South Dakota data include some children who are in the custody of a
tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and supervision.

While most children who exit foster care are placed in permanent homes,
many leave foster care under different circumstances-for example, when
they turn 18, run away, or are transferred to another agency. Children
subject to ICWA in three states were significantly more likely than
Caucasian children to be transferred to another agency. According to a
child welfare official in South Dakota, the state does not have
information to determine what type of agency these children were
transferred to, but said that other agencies could include tribal courts,
juvenile justice facilities, and agencies for the developmentally
disabled. Officials in Oklahoma and Washington reported that most children
subject to ICWA in this category are transferred to tribal court.

While transfer rates for children subject to ICWA were generally 11
percent or less, in Washington, transfer rates were nearly three times as
high, and this was the second most common way for children subject to ICWA
to leave foster care. Washington officials explained that the state seeks
to identify a child's tribal affiliation and transfer a child to tribal
jurisdiction whenever appropriate. They noted a relationship between the
higher transfer rate and the lower reunification rate for children subject
to ICWA in their state, pointing out that if the percentage of children
reunified and the percentage transferred are combined, the total
percentage is similar for all groups of children. We reviewed exit data
using an alternative methodology that excluded transfers and found that
differences among children subject to ICWA, Caucasian children, and other
minority children were somewhat less. However, children subject to ICWA
were still somewhat less likely to leave foster care through adoption and
somewhat more likely to leave under a guardianship arrangement than other
children.

While ICWA did not give ACF direct oversight responsibility for states'
implementation of ICWA, the agency reviews limited information as part of
its general oversight of states' child welfare systems; however, the
monitoring processes in place sometimes provide little information that
ACF can use to assess states' efforts to implement the law's requirements.
States are required to discuss ICWA implementation in their overall 5-year
child and family services plan and in their annual progress and services
reports, but states are not required to use a standard reporting format
and some states provide little meaningful information with respect to ICWA

ACF Obtains Limited Information on ICWA Implementation through Its
Oversight of States' Child Welfare Systems

implementation. ACF's reviews of states' overall child welfare systems
through its CFSR process have greater potential to identify state
implementation issues, but the structure of this oversight process does
not ensure that ICWA issues will be addressed in the various aspects of
the review itself or that identified problems will be addressed and
monitored in states' program improvement plans or through other means.

ACF Has Limited Oversight Authority and Some States Report Little
Information on ICWA Implementation

ICWA did not give any federal agency explicit oversight responsibilities
with respect to states' implementation of the law nor did it require
states to report on their implementation efforts. Recognizing the lack of
reporting requirements, the Congress amended Title IV-B to require state
child welfare agencies to report to ACF on their efforts to comply with
ICWA in their 5-year plans and to develop these plans in consultation with
tribal organizations in the state. This reporting requirement provides ACF
with some limited oversight authority, since it monitors states'
compliance with Title IV-B requirements. ACF officials emphasized that the
agency does not administer ICWA and is not authorized to take any
enforcement actions for failure to comply with the act, although they
encourage states to comply with ICWA. ACF guidance issued for developing
the 5-year plans covering fiscal years 2000 through 2004 required states
to provide a description of the specific measures to be taken to comply
with ICWA, which, at a minimum, must provide for (1) the identification of
American Indian children, (2) the notification of tribes, and (3) giving
preference to American Indian caregivers when determining out-of-home or
permanent placements for American Indian children. Additional guidance
issued in 2000 (1) required states to discuss ICWA implementation in their
annual progress and services reports, which discuss progress made in
implementing the 5-year plans; (2) emphasized the need for states to
consult with tribal organizations; and (3) recommended that states with no
federally recognized tribes consult with urban or national American Indian
organizations in the development of their plans.

In its guidance for states' 2003 annual progress and services reports, ACF
noted that states appeared to be having difficulties reporting on ICWA
adherence and reiterated that states needed to provide a description of
the specific measures taken to comply with the law. However, as of
December 2004, ACF had not established standard guidelines or tools for
reviewing and evaluating the completeness of state ICWA compliance
activity in these reports. Reviews of state reports have shown that they
do not always include information that ACF would need to monitor states'
implementation of the law, because they either do not include ICWA
implementation information or do not explicitly address progress made to

implement the law. A study of the 1999 5-year plans and the 2000 annual
progress and services reports by researchers from Washington University in
St. Louis found that three-quarters of the states did not address all
three of ACF's required measures and over half of the states failed to
address any of the required measures.12 Our more recent review of 48
states' annual progress and services reports submitted to ACF in 2004
showed similar results in addressing all three areas (see table 7),
although only 4 states did not address ICWA at all. While all states have
the same reporting requirements, we noted that states having higher
concentrations of American Indians were somewhat more likely to address
all three ACF reporting requirements than other states.

Table 7: States Explicitly Addressing ICWA Compliance Requirements in Their 2004
                      Annual Progress and Services Reports

     Tribal                                        Addressed ICWA       
Population                                      compliance, but      
    Density       All 3 2 required 1 required not any required Did not  
               required areas      area                                 
Categorya      areas  addressed  addressed areas explicitly address  Total 
              addressed                                 ICWA            
       I              3          0          1                       8 0    12 
       II             3          0          1                       6 0    10 
      III             1          1          2                       6 0    10 
       IV             2          4          4                       2 4    16 
     Total            9          5          8                      22 4   48b 

Source: GAO review of states' 2004 annual progress and services reports.

aCategory I represents states with the highest tribal population densities
and Category IV represents states with the lowest tribal population
densities. See appendix I for more information about the creation of these
categories and which states are included in each.

bApproved annual progress and services reports for three states were not
available at the time of our review.

Even when states do provide ICWA information on the three required areas,
our review revealed that the reports varied widely in scope and content,
making it sometimes difficult to determine what progress states were
making in implementing the law. For example, North Dakota's report
discussed numerous ICWA-related topics, including contacting tribes to
elicit suggestions for increasing relative or tribal placements. However,
the state did not provide information on the extent to which it was
successful in giving preference to American Indian caregivers when placing
American

12Brown, E. F.; Limb, G. E.; Munoz, R.; and Clifford, C. A.; Title IV-B
Child and Family Services Plans: An Evaluation of Specific Measures Taken
by States to Comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (Seattle, Wash.:
Casey Family Programs, 2001).

Indian children. In other cases, reports are missing information on state
actions taken to implement ICWA. During our site visit to Oregon, for
example, we noted that the state had procedures to identify ICWA children,
notify tribes, and follow ICWA's placement preferences that were not
reflected in the state's 2004 annual progress and services report
submitted to ACF.

ACF guidance issued in 2000 lists several suggested ICWA activities that
states may choose to address in their 5-year plans. Addressing these
activities is not required, but could provide a better picture of efforts
states are taking to improve how ICWA is being implemented. These
activities include training programs, development of caseworker
expectations, recruitment of American Indian foster homes, and agreements
to recognize and use tribal foster homes. While some states included
information on some of these suggested activities in their annual progress
and services reports, they often did not discuss the relative success of
their efforts, which limited the usefulness of this information for
oversight purposes. For example, while table 8 shows that 31 states
discussed their ICWA training efforts, our review showed that only 2
states reported how many staff were trained.

Table 8: States Reporting the Use of Activities Suggested by ACF to Comply
with ICWA

Number of Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance states

Training programs for state employees

Forms/procedures that include tribal affiliation and notification

Development of state caseworker compliance expectations or measures

ICWA-related collaborations with local agencies to provide services to
American Indian children

State partnership agreements with tribes

          Culturally appropriate standards for foster home licensing 1

                 Recruiting of American Indian foster homes 14

        Promotion of relative placements for American Indian children 5

            Recognition and use of foster homes licensed by tribes 4

                                   Othera 32

Source: GAO review of states' 2004 annual progress and services reports.

aOther activities states reported include hiring ICWA specialists and
holding ICWA conferences.

As shown in table 9, on average, states with higher American Indian
population densities discussed more ICWA activities in their annual
progress and services reports than states with lower population densities.

Table 9: Relationship between ICWA Topics Discussed in States' 2004 Annual
Progress and Services Reports and Density of States' American Indian
Population

American Indian population density Average number of ICWA measures

a

category discussed in APSR

4.0

4.1

3.5

2.2

Source: GAO review of 2004 annual progress and services reports.

aThe states included in each category are listed in appendix I. Category I
includes states with the highest densities of American Indians in their
populations, while category IV includes states with the lowest densities.

The range of ICWA information included in the annual progress and services
reports may also be related to how closely ACF regional staff review
states' activities for information related to ICWA implementation. ACF's
regional offices are responsible for reviewing the ICWA information that
states report in their 5-year plans and in their annual progress and
services reports to ensure that states have followed ACF guidance,
including whether they contain information on how tribes or tribal
organizations were consulted in the development of these documents. If
information initially submitted by states about their consultation with
tribes or efforts to comply with ICWA is lacking or unclear, regional
officials said they generally require states to provide additional
clarification concerning their ICWA activities prior to approving the
state's 5-year plan or annual progress reports. Four regions had a staff
member designated as the tribal liaison for the region (two others
designated a tribal liaison during the course of our review). ACF staff in
some regions reported conducting some additional oversight activities with
regard to ICWA or tribal issues. In one ACF region with 69 tribes, the
tribal child welfare specialist told us that she checked the policy and
procedures manuals for each state to ensure that they included guidance on
following ICWA. In another region with some tribes but relatively few
children subject to ICWA, the tribal program specialist has sponsored
several ICWA training sessions for state child welfare and judicial staff,
in part because of continued resistance to ICWA on the part of some state
child welfare and judicial staff. In other regions, ACF staff reported
relying on reviews

of states' plans and annual progress reports, with no additional
monitoring activities.

ACF's Child and Family Services Reviews Do Not Focus on ICWA and Do Not
Ensure That States Address ICWA Problems

The structure of ACF's CFSR reviews of states' overall child welfare
systems does not ensure that ICWA issues will be addressed in the various
aspects of the review itself or that identified problems will be addressed
and monitored in states' program improvement plans. Information about
states' ICWA efforts may be obtained in three different parts of the
review process:

o  	In the CFSR statewide assessment process: A state must discuss how
effective it has been in implementing ICWA.

o  	In interviews with stakeholders by the CFSR review team: These
interviews may discuss how the child welfare agency complies with ICWA
provisions concerning notification of tribes, observing placement
preferences, and working with tribes and courts concerning decisions for
American Indian children in foster care.

o  	As part of the onsite review of child welfare case files: The review
determines if the case involves an American Indian child and if so, will
then determine if (1) the state notified the tribe of the child's
placement in a timely manner and (2) the child was placed with extended
family or with an American Indian family.

Our review of the self-assessments submitted by 51 states showed that all
but 2 states addressed their efforts to implement ICWA, but the submitted
information was somewhat limited to assess states' performance. One state,
for example, noted that it had American Indian children in state custody,
but did not discuss any ICWA compliance measures. In general, states with
higher concentrations of American Indians were more likely to discuss a
greater number of ICWA implementation efforts in their statewide
assessments.

Our review of CFSR final reports disclosed that 32 of 51 state reports
raised some concerns about ICWA implementation, as shown in table 10. CFSR
reports for 10 states-generally those with low densities of American
Indians-had no discussion of ICWA implementation. Concerns raised in the
reports included inadequate training of state social workers, shortages of
American Indian homes for foster and adoptive placements, and
identification and notification issues. For example, the Alaska CFSR final
report notes that stakeholders commented on the lack of sufficient

tribal involvement in ICWA training, despite a 5-year emphasis on this
training. The Arizona report noted that compliance with ICWA is not always
consistent with the intent or spirit of the law from district to district,
and that efforts are not made to determine the applicability of ICWA in
all cases. Similarly, in the Nevada report, some stakeholders expressed
concern that some judges in the state do not follow the provisions of
ICWA. In Utah, reviewers noted that stakeholders expressed different
opinions about the consistency with which caseworkers identified American
Indian children and notified tribes when these children are in state
custody. Montana's report stated that stakeholders noted that the child
welfare agency is in need of American Indian foster homes, but does not do
any specific recruiting for these homes.

Table 10: ICWA Concerns Raised in CFSR Final Reports and Program
Improvement Plans by State Tribal population ICWA discussed in ICWA
implementation concerns

ICWA concerns in CFSR density category State final CFSR report? raised in final
                         CFSR report? addressed in PIP?

                      Alaska      Y            Y                 Y            
                     Arizona      Y            Y                 N            
             Idaho                Y            Y                 Y            
                   Minnesota      Y            Y                 N            
                     Montana      Y            Y                 N            
                  New Mexico      Y            N                NA            
                North Dakota      Y            Y                 N            
                    Oklahoma      Y            Y                 Y            
                      Oregon      Y            N                NA            
                South Dakota      Y            Y                 Y            
                  Washington      Y            Y                 Y            
                     Wyoming      Y            Y                 Y            
                  California      Y            N                NA            
                    Colorado      Y            Y                 N            
                      Kansas      Y            N                NA            
             Maine                Y            Y                 Y            
                    Michigan      Y            Y                 N            
                 Mississippi      Y            Y                Not receivedb 
                    Nebraska      Y            Y                 Y            
                      Nevada      Y            Y                 N            
              North Carolina      Y            N                NA            
                Rhode Island      Y            Y                Not receivedb 
             Utah                 Y            Y                 Y            

Tribal population ICWA discussed in

               ICWA implementation concerns ICWA concerns in CFSR

density category State final CFSR report?

                 raised in final CFSR report? addressed in PIP?

                       Wisconsin      Y          Y                Y           
              Alabama                 Y          N               NA           
                     Connecticut      Y          N               NA           
              Florida                 Y          Y                N           
               Iowa                   Y          Y                Y           
              Indiana                NA          N               NA           
                       Louisiana      Y          Y                N           
                   Massachusetts      Y          Y                N           
                        New York      Y          Y                N           
                  South Carolina      Y          Yc              NA           
               Texas                  Y          Y                N           
                        Arkansas      Y          Y                Y           
                        Delaware     Na          N               NA           
            District of Columbia      N          N               NA           
              Georgia                Na          N               NA           
              Hawaii                 Na          N               NA           
             Illinois                 Y          Y              Not receivedb 
                        Kentucky     Na          N               NA           

Maryland Y Y Not receivedb
Missouri Y Y Y
New Hampshire N N NA
New Jersey Y N NA
Ohio Y Y Y
Pennsylvania Y Y Y
Tennessee Y N NA
Vermont Na N NA
Virginia Na N NA
West Virginia Na N NA

Source: GAO review of Child and Family Services Review final reports and
available state program improvement plans.

aOnly ICWA related statement was that the state has no federally
recognized tribes.

bACF had not provided GAO with approved plan as of December 31, 2004.

cReport notes that concern was resolved.

The CFSR process is not designed to ensure that these types of ICWA
problems are addressed. ACF requires states to develop program improvement
plans to address problems identified during the CFSR process,
specifically, areas in which ACF determines that the state is not in

compliance with the CFSR standards. An issue can be discussed in the CFSR
report without ACF necessarily finding that the state was not in
compliance with these standards. The goal of the CFSR is for states to
address the most pressing problems that are contributing to poor outcomes
for children. ACF does not specifically review or rate ICWA implementation
as part of the CFSR process; instead, ICWA issues are formally addressed
as part of the CFSR measure relating to preserving family relationships
and community connections. If a state is able to pass this overall measure
based on performance on other aspects of the measure, ACF would not
generally require states to address ICWA implementation issues in their
program improvement plan. For example, Michigan's CFSR final report noted
that the state did not have enough Native American foster homes and that
the procedures used to identify Native American children and notify tribes
were insufficient. However, because the "preserving connections" factor
was assessed as a strength, the state did not discuss any specific
corrective actions concerning identification of American Indian children,
notification of tribes, or recruitment of Native American foster homes.

While states may voluntarily address ICWA implementation issues in their
program improvement plans, our review of 47 approved plans provided to us
by ACF as of December 2004 showed that states did not always identify
corrective actions they would take to improve ICWA compliance. As shown in
table 10, 12 of the 32 states with ICWA implementation concerns identified
during the CFSR did not report plans to address ICWA implementation
problems in their program improvement plans.

Similarly, the reviews of case files during the CFSR do not ensure that
ICWA implementation is reviewed because cases involving American Indian
children are not always included. During CFSR onsite visits, ACF requires
officials to visit three sites in a state and randomly select a total of
50 case files for their review. During these case reviews, if a child
appears to have American Indian heritage, the CFSR reviewers are then to
determine if the tribe was notified and if the child was placed with the
tribe or extended family. Under this methodology, states with fewer
children subject to ICWA in the child welfare system are less likely to
have an ICWA case selected for review of their compliance with the law. In
some states, however, sites where tribes were located were intentionally
selected to increase the probability that cases involving American Indian
children would be selected for review.

The limited information gathered from the case file reviews may not
accurately reflect a state's implementation of ICWA. In the CFSRs
conducted from 2002 to 2004,13 ACF's review of 72 cases involving American
Indian children in foster care showed that states often did not implement
one or more ICWA provisions, but whether these children were actually
subject to ICWA is unknown. As shown in table 11, CFSR reviewers concluded
that the child's tribe was not notified in over onefourth of the cases
reviewed and the child was not placed with a relative or the tribe over
one-half of the time. The reviewers made these determinations for all
American Indian cases reviewed, whether or not the children were subject
to ICWA. Most of the states that had cases with identified ICWA issues did
include efforts to improve ICWA implementation in their improvement plans,
including four of the states with the highest concentrations of America
Indians.

13ACF does not have case specific data on tribal notification and
placement for cases involving American Indian children for CFSRs completed
in 2001.

Table 11: Review of Tribal Notification and Placements in Cases Involving
American Indian Children during Child and Family Services Reviews,
2002-2004

                           Number of                             If tribe not 
                             cases                                notified or 
                           reviewed    Cases where Cases where child not      
                           involving                 child was placed with    
     Tribal                 American child's tribe was not        relative or 
population                 Indian placed with                  tribe, ICWA 
    density      State     childrena  not notified relative or issues in PIP? 
    category                                             tribe 
                 Alaska           16                       2 9       Y        
                 Idaho             6                       1 1       Y        
                Montana           13                       3 5       N        
                Oklahoma           3                       0 0 Not applicable 
               Washington          5                       1 3       Y        
                Wyoming            4                       3 3       Y        
               California          1                       0 1       Y        
                Colorado           1                       0 0 Not applicable 
                Michigan           1                       0 0 Not applicable 
              Mississippi          2                       2 2    PIP not     
                                                                  received    
                Nebraska           2                       1 1       Y        
                 Nevada            1                       0 1       N        
              Rhode Island         1                       1 1    PIP not     
                                                                  received    
                  Utah             4                       0 2       Y        
               Wisconsin           3                       2 1       Y        
              Connecticut          1                       0 0 Not applicable 

                                  Iowa 20 1 Y

      Hawaii                1             1             1          N          
     Maryland               1             1             1    PIP not received 
     Missouri               2             1             2          Y          
       Ohio                 2             1             2          Y          
      Total       72 (100%)    20 (27.8%)      37 (51.4%) 

Source: GAO review of state program improvement plans and data provided by
James Bell Associates, which is under contract with ACF to compile Child
and Family Services Review results.

Notes: ACF does not have case specific data on tribal notification and
placement for cases involving American Indian children for CFSRs completed
in 2001.

These cases involve American Indian children who may or may not be
formally subject to ICWA.

aIncludes children who are part American Indian.

The case review questions involving tribal notification and placement are
included as part of the CFSR's assessment of how well the state preserves
the child's connections with family members and the child's community.
Based on the responses to these and other questions, ACF rates the area
either as a strength, as needing improvement, or not applicable. Of the

2,600 total case files ACF reviewed during the CFSRs conducted from 2001
through 2004, 87 cases from 20 states involved children who were American
Indian as shown in table 12. The CFSR reviewers judged 23 of the 87 cases
as needing improvement with regard to preserving a child's connections in
half of these states. While most of the states that had cases rated as
needing improvement addressed ICWA implementation issues in their program
improvement plans, two states having higher concentrations of American
Indians did not report any planned corrective action.

Table 12: American Indian CFSR Cases Where Item Related to Preserving a
Child's Connections Was Judged "Needing Improvement" During Child and
Family Services Reviews, 2001-2004

                                   American Indian CFSR  If case(s) needing   
                                  American cases rated    improvement, ICWA   
                                         needing        
                                            Indian CFSR implementation issues 
Tribal population                     improvement in                    in 
                                             preserving 
density category     State     cases revieweda a             PIP?          
                                  child's connections   
                        Alaska                     14 4           Y           
                        Idaho                       5 0           -           
                      Minnesota                    10 1           N           
                       Montana                     10 2           Y           
                     North Dakota                   2 0           -           
                      New Mexico                    4 0           -           
                        Oregon                      2 0           -           
                     South Dakota                  21 6           Y           
                      Washington                    1 0           -           
                       Wyoming                      2 1           Y           
                        Maine                       1 0           -           
                       Michigan                     1 0           -           
                       Nebraska                     2 1           Y           
                         Utah                       2 0           -           
                      Wisconsin                     3 3           N           
                         Iowa                       1 0           -           

                         Louisiana           1                  1           Y 
          IV             Arkansas            2                  2           Y 
                         Missouri            1                  0           - 
                           Ohio              2                  2           Y 
        Total               20               87                23 

Sources: James Bell Associates and GAO review of state program improvement
plans.

               aDoes not include children of "two or more races."

Conclusions

ICWA created important protections to prevent state child welfare agencies
and courts from inappropriately separating American Indian children from
their families. More than 25 years after it was enacted, however, we know
very little about the effect of this law on moving American Indian
children in foster care to permanent homes in a timely manner, while
ensuring their safety and well-being. The scarcity of data on outcomes for
children subject to the law, along with variations in how individual
states, courts, social workers, and tribes interpret and implement ICWA,
make it difficult to generalize about how the law is being implemented or
its effect on American Indian children. Our discussions with tribal
officials, as well as our review of the limited information on ICWA
implementation from the CFSRs, indicate that some problems with ICWA
implementation are occurring, although we cannot estimate how extensive
such problems are.

Gathering additional data from states about children subject to ICWA could
provide a clearer picture about ICWA's effect on children's experiences in
foster care and help determine the extent of any systemic problems with
state implementation of the law. However, any new data collection effort
would have to consider the differential burden and costs to the states of
collecting this information, given that many states have few or no
American Indians subject to the law in their child welfare systems. With
clear oversight authority, ACF would be better able to directly monitor
states' implementation of ICWA. However, even with its current authority,
the agency has not made the most effective use of the relevant data it is
able to gather as part of its oversight of states' overall child welfare
systems. For example, ACF already collects some information on states'
implementation of ICWA through the CFSRs as part of its assessment on how
well states preserve the child's connections with family members and the
child's community; a review of the findings related to ICWA implementation
could provide an opportunity to further identify problems states are
having implementing the law and any systemic problems existing across
states that could be addressed with more specific guidance or technical
assistance. Similarly, the existing annual progress and services reports
provide an opportunity for states and tribes to address ICWA
implementation issues raised during the Child and Family Services Reviews
that have not already been addressed in states' program improvement plans.

Recommendation for Executive Action

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

To improve the usefulness of the information states are required to
provide on their ICWA compliance efforts, the Secretary of HHS should
direct the head of ACF to (1) review the ICWA implementation issues
identified in its CFSRs, (2) require states to discuss in their annual
progress reports any significant ICWA issues not addressed in their
program improvement plans, and (3) consider using the information on ICWA
implementation in the CFSRs, annual progress and services reports, and
program improvement plans to target guidance and assistance to states in
addressing any identified issues.

We provided a draft of this report to HHS and the Department of the
Interior for comments and their responses are reproduced in appendices III
and IV, respectively. HHS also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. The Department of the Interior's BIA stated
that it had no comments on the report as it has no oversight authority for
states' implementation of ICWA; however, it noted that the report's
information on ICWA grant funding is accurate.

HHS disagreed with our conclusions and recommendation. While HHS stated
that it shares GAO's concerns regarding states' implementation of ICWA, it
emphasized that it does not have the authority, resources, or expertise to
address GAO's recommendation. HHS also questioned GAO's assumption that
ACF is the most appropriate oversight agency for ICWA instead of another
federal agency, such as BIA. HHS further commented that there were
limitations in data collection because we focused on states'
implementation of ICWA, while HHS's Indian Health Service stated that
there is inadequate knowledge on which to base a realistic improvement
plan and proposed an expanded study examining both state and tribal ICWA
issues.

Our report recognizes HHS's limited authority with respect to ICWA and our
recommendation offers a way for the agency to assist states within its
existing authority and resources as part of its current process for
overseeing states' child welfare systems. While HHS does not have specific
oversight authority with respect to ICWA, it is responsible for ensuring
that states provide meaningful information about their ICWA compliance
efforts as part of Title IV-B's reporting requirements and, in fact, has
issued guidance to states on ICWA implementation. We continue to believe
that HHS could better use the ICWA information it already gathers during
its CFSR reviews to improve the usefulness of states' submissions on ICWA
compliance. The information gathered by HHS, along with issues identified
by tribes and states, suggest that some states

could benefit from additional guidance on effective ICWA implementation.
Given that the Department of the Interior does not have any authority with
respect to states' implementation of ICWA and given HHS's child welfare
expertise and its existing systems for analyzing child welfare data and
providing assistance to states, we believe that HHS is in the best
position to continue to assist states in their ICWA reporting and
implementation efforts. Further, we believe that action to improve state
efforts using existing information should not wait until further study of
state and tribal issues provides more comprehensive information about ICWA
implementation.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of HHS, the
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, appropriate congressional
committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss this report further, please
call me at (202) 512-8403 or Lacinda Ayers at (206) 654-5591. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Cornelia M. Ashby Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Issues

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We used several different methodologies to examine the factors influencing
placement decisions for children subject to ICWA, the foster care
experiences of these children compared to those of other children, and
federal oversight of states' implementation of ICWA. Specifically, we
collected information by:

o  	Analyzing data from states with information systems that could
identify children subject to ICWA;

o  Surveying state child welfare officials through a web-based
questionnaire;

o  Conducting site visits to five states;

o  Interviewing ACF and BIA central office and regional officials;

o  Reviewing applicable laws and regulations;

o  	Reviewing 2004 Annual Progress and Services Reports for 50 states and
the District of Columbia;

o  	Reviewing final CFSR reports for all states and the District of
Columbia and Program Improvement Plans for 47 states; and

o  	Soliciting input from federally recognized tribes by conducting tribal
panels, interviewing regional intertribal organizations, and sending
letters to federally recognized tribes requesting their input.

While our report focused on children involuntarily removed from their home
and placed in state foster care due to abuse or neglect, we also gathered
some limited information about how ICWA is implemented with regard to
children who are voluntarily relinquished by their parents for adoption.
In addition to discussing voluntary adoptions with tribal officials we
interviewed, we interviewed officials at nine private adoption agencies
that handle ICWA cases in the states we visited, interviewed attorneys
with the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (AAAA), and communicated
with six other AAAA members who responded to our email on the AAAA
listserv regarding private adoptions.

We conducted our review between December 2003 and January 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Data on Children Subject To compare the experiences of children subject to
ICWA with those of

to ICWA	other children in foster care, we reviewed data from HHS' AFCARS
database for federal fiscal years 2000-2003 to determine whether these
data on American Indian children would be appropriate for the purposes of
our review. However, these information systems do not collect data
specifically on children subject to ICWA; instead, they only require
states to report on the race and ethnicity of children in foster
care-including American Indian/Alaskan Native-but not all American Indian
children are

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

subject to ICWA. Furthermore, previous GAO work indicates that the race
data reported in AFCARS are not always accurate.1 As a result, we were
unable to use these data to learn about the foster care experiences of
children subject to ICWA. However, we did use AFCARS data for background
information on American Indian children in foster care.

We then surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine
which states collected automated data on children subject to ICWA in
fiscal year 2003. Only five states-Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, and Washington-were able to provide these data. Because so few
children subject to ICWA left foster care in Rhode Island in fiscal year
2003, however, we are not reporting these data as they may not be
representative of the experiences of children subject to ICWA in the
state. We shared our analyses of the state data with each state to verify
their accuracy. When appropriate, we adjusted the data to reflect comments
from the states. We tested the data for statistical significance using the
chi square test and only reported differences between groups that were
statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

The data provided by the four states have several limitations. Three of
the states were unable to determine the ethnicity or ICWA status for all
children who exited foster care in 2003. Table 13 shows that, except for
Oregon, the number of unidentified children represented less than 5
percent of the total children exiting foster care in these states.
Generally, states were able to provide the length of stay, number of
placements, or exit destinations for children with known racial or ICWA
characteristics who exited care in fiscal year 2003. When this did not
occur, the unknown percentage for a specific group rarely exceeded 1
percent of those exiting care. The unknown percentages were higher in a
few cases. For example, Oregon could not identify the exit destination for
4 percent of Caucasian children, 5 percent of other minority children, and
3 percent of children subject to ICWA.

1GAO, Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide Information
Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be Improved,
GAO-03-809 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003).

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Table 13: Number and Percentage of Children with Unknown Ethnicity Who
Exited Care in FY 2003 for Four States

              Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003

                                                      Ethnicity not   
                                                      specified/ICWA  
       States        ICWA    Caucasian      Minority  status unknown    Total 
    South Dakota     592        401              117                2   1,112 
     Percentage      53.2       36.1            10.5       0.2        
     Washington      169       3,856           2,183       109          6,317 
     Percentage      2.7        61.0            34.6       1.7        
       Oregon        214       2,638             965       655          4,472 
     Percentage      4.8        59.0            21.6       14.7       
      Oklahoma      1,534      3,224           1,732                0   6,490 
     Percentage      23.6       49.7            26.7       0.0        

Source: Data provided by child welfare agencies in these states.

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

In addition, the data from Washington includes only children who are
subject to ICWA and who are in state custody. In contrast, the data from
Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota include some children who are in the
custody of a tribal court. All three states had some tribal Title IV-E
agreements in 2003 and, as a result, children who are in tribal custody
and whose tribe has a Title IV-E agreement with the state are included in
the state's data. In addition, the South Dakota data also include some
children who are in the custody of a tribal court, but for whom the state
provides services and supervision.

Survey of State Child Welfare Officials

To obtain information on states' ICWA policies and procedures and their
experiences with children subject to ICWA, we surveyed all 50 states and
the District of Columbia using a web-based survey. To ensure the relevance
and appropriateness of the survey questions and to test that they were
consistently and reliably interpreted before they were administered, we
pre-tested the survey instrument in Idaho, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Utah and
received input from the Association on American Indian Affairs, Casey
Family Programs, and the National Indian Child Welfare Association. In May
2004, we e-mailed a notification to the child welfare director in each
state, alerting them that a survey was forthcoming. This notification was
followed by our e-mail to the directors containing the web link to the
survey and a unique user identification and password to access the survey.
To encourage as many states as possible to complete the survey, we

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

conducted follow-up calls to states that did not respond to our survey by
the initial deadline.

We received responses from 47 states and the District of Columbia; we did
not receive responses from Kentucky, Hawaii, and Minnesota. However, many
states were unable to respond to all of our survey questions and
frequently responded that they did not know the answer or that the data
requested was not available at the state level. The majority of states (28
of the 48) reported that their survey responses were for all American
Indian children involved in the child welfare system, without regard to
ICWA status. Two states reported that their responses were based on the
state, rather than federal, definition of who is subject to ICWA. Only 14
states reported that their survey responses were for children who are
subject to the federal law. We did not independently verify any
information obtained through the survey. However, we conducted logic tests
for certain responses to corroborate the consistency of responses within a
state and contacted individual states to clarify all identified
inconsistencies. The results we report for states that provided responses
to our survey questions cannot be generalized to nonresponding states. In
many cases, less than 50 percent of the states that completed the survey
responded to an individual question, meaning that results could change to
the extent that nonresponding states differed from those that responded.

State Categorizations by We analyzed data according to the density of the
tribal population in each

Tribal Population 	state to determine the extent to which state responses
or data findings were correlated with tribal density. As shown in table
14, these categories take into account the tribal population of a state as
estimated by the Census and the tribal population within the state
eligible for BIA services.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Table 14: Criteria for Determining States' Tribal Population Density
Categories

                        Category Criteria No. of states

              I >1% Tribal enrollment density or >1% population eligible  
                                                 for BIA services density  12 
             II                        0.1% -1% Tribal enrollment density  12 
            III                       0% - 0.1% Tribal enrollment density  10 
             IV   0% Tribal enrollment density and 0% population eligible 
                                                 for BIA services density  17 

Source: 2001 Census estimates and BIA data on the percentage of people
within each state who are (1) enrolled in a tribe or (2) eligible for BIA
services.

Notes: Indiana was placed in category III; although it had 0 percent
tribal enrollment, it had a 0.1 percent population eligible for services.
None of the other category II or III states had 0 percent tribal
enrollment.

To be eligible for BIA services, an individual must be a member of a
federally recognized tribe or possess one-half or more American Indian
blood quantum from a tribe indigenous to the United States.

Each of the 50 states and District of Columbia was assigned to one of four
population density categories, as shown in table 15. These categories
allow us to factor in both individuals who self-identify as possessing
American Indian heritage and individuals who are tribal members or have
blood ties to a tribe. The categories were based on the maximum of either
tribal population density or density of those eligible for services.
Density was calculated as a percentage of state population (estimated by
the Census Bureau).

Category I includes states that have the greatest tribal population
density or population eligible for BIA services. States placed in Category
I had tribal enrollment densities or population eligible for BIA services
densities that exceeded 1 percent. States in categories II and III have
between 0 and 1 percent tribal population in their states, while category
IV consists of states that have no tribal population and no population
eligible for BIA services.

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

          Table 15: Tribal Population Density Categorization by State

                             2001 Total tribal 2001 Total population eligible 
Category      State      enrollment density       for BIA services density 
                 Alaska                  18.88                          21.38 
                Arizona                   4.78 
                 Idaho                    0.77 
               Minnesota                  1.04 
                Montana                   7.02 
              North Dakota                8.74 
               New Mexico                 8.95 
                Oklahoma                 18.19                          13.26 
                 Oregon                   0.59 
              South Dakota               14.14                          12.56 
               Washington                 0.81 
                Wyoming                   2.13 
      II       California                 0.15                           0.17 
                Colorado                  0.08 
                 Kansas                   0.36 
                 Maine                    0.57 
                Michigan                  0.52                           0.27 
              Mississippi                 0.31                           0.29 
             North Carolina               0.15                           0.09 
                Nebraska                  0.84                           0.45 
                 Nevada                   0.65                           0.58 
              Rhode Island                0.25                           0.25 
                  Utah                    0.66                           0.52 
               Wisconsin                  0.98                           0.63 
      III       Alabama                   0.05                           0.05 
              Connecticut                 0.06                           0.06 
                Florida                   0.02                           0.02 
                  Iowa                    0.04                           0.05 
                Indiana                   0.00                           0.01 
               Louisiana                  0.06                           0.02 
             Massachusetts                0.02                           0.00 
                New York                  0.10                           0.10 
             South Carolina               0.06                           0.04 

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

                                  2001 Total tribal     2001 Total population 
                                                                     eligible 
Category        State         enrollment density  for BIA services density 
                   Texas                       0.01                      0.01 
      IV          Arkansas                     0.00                      0.00 
            District of Columbia               0.00 
                  Delaware                     0.00 
                  Georgia                      0.00 
                   Hawaii                      0.00 
                  Illinois                     0.00 
                  Kentucky                     0.00 
                  Maryland                     0.00 
                  Missouri                     0.00 
               New Hampshire                   0.00 
                 New Jersey                    0.00 
                    Ohio                       0.00 
                Pennsylvania                   0.00 
                 Tennessee                     0.00 
                  Virginia                     0.00 
                  Vermont                      0.00 

                               West Virginia 0.00

Source: 2001 Census estimates based on 2000 Census data and BIA data on
the percentage of people within each state who are (1) enrolled in a tribe
or (2) eligible for BIA services.

Site Visit to States 	To obtain a more detailed understanding of how
states implement ICWA, we conducted site visits to California, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. We selected states based on
geographic diversity, the nature of state-tribal relations, the number of
federally recognized tribes, and the size of the American Indian
population. During our site visits, we interviewed state and local child
welfare staff, tribal officials from at least two federally recognized
tribes in each state (except in Rhode Island, which has only one federally
recognized tribe), state court judges, and representatives from private
adoption agencies that handle ICWA cases. We collected and reviewed
relevant documentation from these site visits. In addition, we spoke with
a variety of people in the child welfare field about their knowledge of
the effect of states' implementation of ICWA on children subject to the
law, including academic researchers, attorneys, child welfare advocates,
and a state court judge from Utah.

Federal Oversight 	To learn about the federal government's role in
overseeing states' implementation of ICWA, we examined relevant federal
regulations and

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

guidelines, as well as ACF's program instructions to states and tribes
related to ICWA. We interviewed officials from ACF's central office and
all 10 of its regional offices. We also interviewed officials from BIA's
central office and social workers from 8 of its regional offices. To
examine the extent to which states report their progress in implementing
ICWA to ACF, we also reviewed excerpts of the 2004 Annual Progress and
Services Reports states submitted to ACF covering their ICWA compliance
activities during federal fiscal years 2000-2004 for all 50 states and the
District of Columbia.

To determine the extent to which the CFSRs evaluated ICWA activities in
the states, we reviewed final CFSR reports for all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. We also reviewed Program Improvement Plans from 47
states to determine the extent to which states attempted to correct ICWA
weaknesses surfaced in the CFSR final reports.

Tribes and Tribal Organizations Contacted

During the course of this review, we communicated with 161 tribes and 20
tribal organizations about states' implementation of ICWA. We visited
officials from 10 tribes as part of our site visits and spoke with
representatives from 87 tribes and tribal organizations at multiple panel
discussions we conducted at American Indian conferences and site visits
(the number of tribes that participated in the panels may be undercounted
because some participants did not sign in). We held two panel discussions
during our site visit to Oklahoma in March 2004 at Norman and Tulsa; three
panel discussions at the National Indian Child Welfare Association
conference in April 2004 at Denver, Colorado; two panel discussions at the
California State ICWA Conference in June 2004 at Lakeside, California; and
two panel discussions at the National Congress of American Indians 2004
Mid-Year Session in June 2004 at Uncasville, Connecticut. In addition, we
collaborated with 9 regional intertribal organizations to organize
telephone conferences, during which we spoke to representatives from 44
tribes.

To ensure the receipt of sufficient tribal input, we sent a letter in July
2004 to 591 federally recognized tribal governments, informing them of our
review and requesting their input. Representatives from 74 tribes and 5
tribal organizations called, wrote, or e-mailed us in response to this
letter. We asked tribes to respond to four questions: (1) In general, how
well does your state implement ICWA and how frequently do problematic
situations arise? (2) What benefits does ICWA provide to Indian children
in state custody in terms of safety, permanency, and well-being and in
what ways, if any, does ICWA delay or hinder your state's ability to keep
Indian

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

children safe and to place them in permanent homes in a timely manner? (3)
Are there any challenges that exist to the effective implementation of
ICWA and do you have any suggestions for federal action that could improve
the placement of Indian children in permanent homes in a more timely
manner? (4) Is there any other information you would like to provide about
your tribe's experiences with ICWA? Because we did not specify a
particular format for tribes to use, the responses we received varied in
length, type, and content.

Following are the names of the tribes and tribal organizations with whom
we had contact through our site visits, tribal panels, telephone
conferences, or our letter asking for tribal input.

Tribes

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian

Reservation, California Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Arapahoe Tribe of the
Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Asa'carsarmiut Tribe, Alaska Assiniboine
and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,

Montana Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Bear River Band of the
Rohnerville Rancheria, California Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians
of California Big Lagoon Rancheria, California Blackfeet Tribe of the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns
Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon Caddo Nation of Oklahoma Central Council of
the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes, Alaska Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community
of the Trinidad Rancheria, California Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma Chevak
Native Village, Alaska Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River
Reservation,

South Dakota Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Chickaloon Native
Village, Alaska Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma Chilkat Indian Village
(Klukwan), Alaska Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation,
Montana Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma
Cocopah Tribe of Arizona

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene Reservation, Idaho
Comanche Nation, Oklahoma
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation,

Montana
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Washington
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon
Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Washington
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota
Crow Tribe of Montana
Delaware Nation, Oklahoma
Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, Connecticut (Not a federally

recognized tribe) Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap
Reservation of Montana Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the
Fort McDermitt

Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
Arizona Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada Galena
Village (aka Louden Village), Alaska Gila River Indian Community of the
Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona Gulkana Village, Alaska Havasupai
Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona Houlton Band of Maliseet
Indians of Maine Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation,
Arizona Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
of Washington Karuk Tribe of California Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa
Indian Tribe of Oklahoma Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon La Jolla Band of
Luiseno Mission Indians of the La Jolla Reservation,

California La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta
Indian

Reservation, California Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians of Wisconsin Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians of the Lac

du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa
Indians, Michigan

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Lumbee-Cheraw Tribe of North Carolina (Not a federally

recognized tribe) Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation,
Washington Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of
Michigan Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Metlakatla Indian Community,
Annette Island Reserve, Alaska Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Minnesota Chippewa
Tribe, Minnesota (Leech Lake Band) Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota
(White Earth Band) Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California
Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Morongo

Reservation, California Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot
Reservation, Washington Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma Narragansett
Indian Tribe of Rhode Island Native Village of Ambler, Alaska Native
Village of Buckland, Alaska Native Village of Eyak (Cordova), Alaska
Native Village of Kiana, Alaska Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska Native
Village of Kotzebue, Alaska Native Village of Koyuk, Alaska Native Village
of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak), Alaska Native Village of Larsen Bay, Alaska
Native Village of Mekoryuk, Alaska Native Village of Noatak, Alaska Native
Village of Port Graham, Alaska Native Village of Port Lions, Alaska Native
Village of Ruby, Alaska Native Village of Selawik, Alaska Native Village
of Tanacross, Alaska Native Village of Tazlina, Alaska Native Village of
Unalakleet, Alaska Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Artic
Village

and Native Village of Venetie), Alaska Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico
& Utah Newhalen Village, Alaska Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Ninilchik
Village, Alaska Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation,
Washington Noorvik Native Community, Alaska Oneida Nation of New York
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Organized Village of Kwethluk, Alaska
Osage Tribe, Oklahoma
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada
Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation, California
Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona
Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
Penobscot Tribe of Maine
Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico
Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico
Pueblo of San Juan, New Mexico
Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona
Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation, Washington
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation,

California
Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota
Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River

Reservation, Arizona
Samish Indian Tribe, Washington
San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona
Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa

Ysabel Reservation, California
Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, Connecticut (Not a federally recognized tribe)
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs

Rancheria (Verona Tract), California
Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian

Reservation, Washington
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho
Smith River Rancheria, California
St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota
Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin
Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota
Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona
Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota
Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado,

New Mexico & Utah
Village of Crooked Creek, Alaska
Village of Dot Lake, Alaska
Village of Kalskag, Alaska
Village of Old Harbor, Alaska
Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) of Massachusetts
Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony,

Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community,

& Washoe Ranches)
White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco &

Tawakonie), Oklahoma
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
Wyandotte Nation, Oklahoma
Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona
Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell

Ranch, Nevada
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas
Yupiit of Andreafski, Alaska
Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California

                              Tribal Organizations

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Alaska Inter-Tribal Council
Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association
All Indian Pueblo Council
Association of Village Council Presidents, Inc.
California Tribal TANF Partnership
Great Lakes Intertribal Council
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada
Kodiak Area Native Association
Maniilaq Association
Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes
Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council
National Indian Child Welfare Association
Southern California Indian Center

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Tanana Chiefs Conference
Two Feathers Native American Family Services
United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.
United Tribes Technical College
Urban American Indian Involvement, Inc.

Appendix II: Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States, FY 2003

Figure 16: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in South Dakota

Percent of children exiting care 80

69

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Reunification Adoption Guardianship Emancipation Living with Transfer to
Runaway relatives another agency

Type of exits

ICWA Caucasian Minority Source: Data provided by the state child welfare
agency in South Dakota.

Note: South Dakota was not able to identify the race or ethnicity for all
children who exited foster care. The percentage of children with unknown
ethnicity who exited foster care in fiscal year 2003 was less than 0.2
percent.

       Appendix II: Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States, FY 2003

Figure 17: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Washington

Percent of children exiting care 80

70

64 63

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Reunification Adoption Guardianship Emancipation Living with Transfer to
Runaway relatives another agency

Type of exits

ICWA

Caucasian

Minority

Source: Data provided by the state child welfare agency in Washington.

Note: Washington was not able to identify the race or ethnicity for all
children who exited foster care. The percentage of children with unknown
ethnicity who exited foster care in fiscal year 2003 was 1.7 percent.

Appendix II: Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States, FY 2003

Figure 18: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Oregon

Percent of children exiting care 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

69

Reunification Adoption Guardianship Emancipation Living with Transfer to
Runaway relatives another agency

Type of exits

ICWA

Caucasian

Minority

Source: Data provided by the state child welfare agency in Oregon.

Note: Oregon was not able to identify the race or ethnicity for all
children exiting foster care. The percentage of children with unknown
ethnicity who exited foster care in fiscal year 2003 was 14.7 percent.

Appendix II: Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States, FY 2003

Figure 19: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Oklahoma

Percent of children exiting care 80

70

65

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Reunification Adoption Guardianship Emancipation Living with Transfer to
Runaway relatives another agency

Type of exits

ICWA Caucasian Minority

      Source: Data provided by the state child welfare agency in Oklahoma.

            Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(130329)

Lacinda Ayers (206) 654-5591 Michelle St. Pierre (617) 788-0558

In addition to those named above, Jerry Aiken, Elizabeth Caplick, Shirley
Hwang, and Bob Sampson made key contributions to this report. Carolyn
Boyce, Corinna Nicolaou, and Diana Pietrowiak provided key technical
assistance; Daniel Schwimer provided legal assistance.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***