    African American Children In Foster Care: Additional HHS
    Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care
    (11-JUL-07, GAO-07-816).

    A significantly greater proportion of African American children
    are in foster care than children of other races and ethnicities,
    according to HHS and other research. Given this situation, GAO
    was asked to analyze the (1) major factors influencing the
    proportion of African American children in foster care, (2)
    extent that states and localities have implemented promising
    strategies, and (3) ways in which federal policies may have
    influenced African American representation in foster care. GAO's
    methodologies included a nationwide survey; a review of research
    and federal policies; state site visits; analyses of child
    welfare data; and interviews with researchers, HHS officials, and
    other experts.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-816
        ACCNO:   A72407
      TITLE:     African American Children In Foster Care: Additional HHS
    Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care
         DATE:   07/11/2007
      SUBJECT:   Blacks
    	     Child welfare
    	     Disadvantaged persons
    	     Families
    	     Federal aid to states
    	     Federal funds
    	     Federal legislation
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Foster children
    	     Policy evaluation
    	     State-administered programs
    	     Foster care

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-07-816

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background

              * [3]Federal Foster Care and Adoption Legislation
              * [4]Foster Care Financing
              * [5]HHS Assessments of State Programs and Technical Assistance t

         * [6]States Report Poverty and Difficulty in Finding Permanent Ho

              * [7]Higher Rates of Poverty, Lack of Support Services, and Racia

                   * [8]Higher Rates of Poverty
                   * [9]Challenges in Accessing Supports and Services
                   * [10]Distrust and Racial Bias or Cultural Misunderstanding

              * [11]Difficulties in Finding Permanent Homes and Achieving Reunif

                   * [12]Challenges in Finding Appropriate Adoptive Homes
                   * [13]Kinship Care
                   * [14]Difficulty in Achieving Reunification

         * [15]States Implemented a Range of Strategies Considering Promisi

              * [16]States Implement a Range of Strategies Expected to Have an I

                   * [17]States' Strategies to Address Racial Bias in Decision
                     Making
                   * [18]States' Strategies to Improve Families' Access to
                     Services
                   * [19]States' Strategies for Increasing the Availability of
                     Perman
                   * [20]Fewer States Implemented Strategies That Focused
                     Attention S

              * [21]Data, Leadership, and Working across Social Service Systems
              * [22]Although HHS Has Provided Assistance and Guidance, States Re

         * [23]States Reported That Some Current Federal Policies May Reduc

              * [24]Policies That Support Services to Families Were Considered H
              * [25]States Generally Viewed Federal Policies on Adoption as Help

                   * [26]Adoption and Guardianship
                   * [27]Licensing and Time Frames

         * [28]Conclusions
         * [29]Matter for Congressional Consideration
         * [30]Recommendation for Executive Action
         * [31]Agency Comments and Our Response

              * [32]Objectives
              * [33]Scope and Methodology
              * [34]Web-Based Survey
              * [35]Site Visits
              * [36]Literature Review of Published Research on Disproportionalit
              * [37]Interviews with Researchers and Child Welfare Organizations
              * [38]Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCA

         * [39]GAO Contact
         * [40]Acknowledgments
         * [41]GAO's Mission
         * [42]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [43]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [44]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [45]Congressional Relations
         * [46]Public Affairs

    Report to the Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
    Representatives

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    July 2007

    AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE

    Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in
    Care

    GAO-07-816

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 4
    Background 7
    States Report Poverty and Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes Are among
    Major Factors Influencing African Americans' Entry and Length of Stay 16
    States Implemented a Range of Strategies Considering Promising for
    Addressing Disproportionality, but Fewer States Specifically Focus
    Attention on Issue 32
    States Reported That Some Current Federal Policies May Reduce the
    Disproportion of African American Children in Care, While Other Policies
    May Increase It 50
    Conclusions 64
    Matter for Congressional Consideration 65
    Recommendation for Executive Action 66
    Agency Comments and Our Response 66
    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 68
    Appendix II Disproportionality Indexes of Children in Foster Care by Race
    and State 73
    Appendix III Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 77
    Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 81

    Tables

    Table 1: Types of Temporary and Permanent Homes for Children in Child
    Welfare 9
    Table 2: Key Federal Legislation Affecting Foster Care Programs 11
    Table 3: Strategies Used by States That Address Factors Contributing to
    Disproportionality 33
    Table 4: Disproportionality Index by State of Children Ages 17 Years of
    Age or Under in Foster Care as of Last Day of Fiscal Year 2004 74

    Figures

    Figure 1: Proportion of Children by Race in Foster Care Settings, End of
    Fiscal Year 2004 8
    Figure 2: Federal Child Welfare Funding by Funding Source, FY 2004 14
    Figure 3: State Views on Poverty-Related Factors Affecting Higher Entry of
    African American Children to Foster Care 18
    Figure 4: State Views on Support and Preventive Services Affecting African
    American Children's Higher Entry into Foster Care 20
    Figure 5: State Views on Issues of Distrust and Bias or Cultural
    Misunderstanding Affecting African American Children's Greater Entry to
    Foster Care 23
    Figure 6: State Views on Factors Affecting Longer Time in Foster Care for
    African American Children -- Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes 26
    Figure 7: State Views on Factors Affecting Greater Time in Foster Care for
    African American Children -- Difficulties in Achieving Reunification 30
    Figure 8: Strategies Intended to Improve Decisions by Reducing Bias 35
    Figure 9: Strategies to Improve Access to Support Services 38
    Figure 10: Strategies to Reduce Length of Stay in Foster Care 41
    Figure 11: Children Entering Foster Care in California in 2005 45
    Figure 12: Children in Foster Care in California in 2005 46
    Figure 13: States' Views on Impact of Funding Policies on
    Disproportionality 51
    Figure 14: States' Views on Impact of Adoption and Guardianship Policies
    on Disproportionality 55
    Figure 15: Adoption Rates for All Children, 2001 through 2005 57
    Figure 16: States' Views on Impact of Federal Policies on Licensing and
    Time Frames for Making Permanency Decisions on Disproportionality 61

    Abbreviations

    ACF Administration for Children and Families
    ASFA Adoption and Safe Families Act
    CFSR Child and Family Services Reviews
    CWLA Child Welfare League of America
    HHS Health and Human Services
    IEP Interethnic Placement Act
    MEPA Multiethnic Placement Act
    NRC national resource center
    OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
    SSBG Social Security Block Grant
    TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

    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

    July 11, 2007

    The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
    Chairman
    Committee on Ways and Means
    House of Representatives

    Children of all races are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and
    neglect, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS)
    National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS); however, HHS
    data show that a significantly greater proportion of African American
    children enter and remain in foster care than children of other races and
    ethnicities. African-American children across the nation were more than
    twice as likely to enter foster care compared with White children in 2004,
    and African American children remained in foster care about 9 months
    longer. On the last day of fiscal year 2004, African American children
    totaled 162,911--or 34 percent--of the 482,541 children in foster care,
    according to HHS data--about twice their proportions in the general child
    population. Although there is great variability among and within the
    states, data from nearly all states show some disproportionate
    representation of African American children in foster care. State data
    also show patterns of disproportionate representation in foster care for
    Native American children and, in certain localities, Hispanics and Asian
    subgroups are also disproportionately represented to some extent.1

    About 60 percent of children who enter foster care do so through reports
    of child abuse or neglect provided to a state's child welfare system.2
    Child welfare staff screen and investigate reports of child maltreatment,
    and make decisions about whether a child can remain safely at home, with
    or without family support services, or must be immediately removed and
    placed in foster care. The decision to place a child in foster care is
    subsequently presented before a judge who evaluates the evidence for
    removal from home and either corroborates or overturns the decision. After
    entering a child in foster care, child welfare staff develop case plans
    that are approved by the courts outlining steps parents must take before a
    child can return home or, for children the courts decide cannot safely be
    returned home, establishing other permanency goals for them, such as
    adoption or legal guardianship. States have the primary responsibility for
    establishing the legal and administrative structures and programs of their
    child welfare services; however, federal legislation and regulations
    establish a framework within which states make their programmatic and
    fiscal decisions. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the
    principal federal agency that provides federal oversight of states' child
    welfare systems. HHS administers about $8 billion in funds each year that
    are dedicated to support states' child welfare systems. HHS also
    administers social services block grant programs, such as Temporary
    Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and states generally spend about $12
    billion of these funds to provide direct social services. States use these
    block grant funds to benefit various populations, including child welfare
    families.

    1Racial disproportionality refers to the extent that children of a certain
    race or ethnic group are over- or underrepresented in foster care relative
    to their proportion in the population. (See app. II for disproportionality
    rates for African American, White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American
    children by state in fiscal year 2004.)

    2Children also enter foster care for other reasons, such as their parents'
    illness, death, or disability or because of the children's delinquent
    behavior and truancy.

    Concerned about why African American children are overrepresented in
    foster care, you asked us to analyze:

               (1) The major factors that have been identified as influencing the
               proportion of African American children entering and remaining in
               foster care compared to children of other races and ethnicities;
               (2) The extent that states and localities have implemented
               strategies that appear promising in addressing African American
               representation in foster care; and
               (3) The ways in which key federal child welfare policies3 may have
               influenced African American representation in foster care.

    To address these three objectives, we used multiple methodologies,
    including administering a state survey; conducting site visits;
    interviewing researchers and federal agency officials; conducting a
    literature review; and analyzing federal legislation and policies.
    Although we focused on African American children in this report, we also
    noted points of similarity or difference with children of other races and
    ethnicities as appropriate.4 Specifically, we conducted a nationwide
    Web-based survey of state child welfare administrators in 50 states and
    the District of Columbia between November 2006 and January 2007 and
    received responses from 48 states.5 In developing the survey, we relied
    upon a literature review to identify issues, such as factors that
    contribute to disproportionality, as well as interviews with child welfare
    researchers and others. To obtain a more in-depth understanding of issues,
    we conducted site visits to California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and
    North Carolina, where we interviewed state and local child welfare
    officials, juvenile court judges, and others involved in the child welfare
    systems. In addition we conducted telephone interviews with Texas state
    and local child welfare officials, service providers, and a judge. When
    viewed as a group, the states we visited reflected diversity in their
    rates of African American representation in foster care, strategies and
    initiatives used to address this disproportionality, program
    administration (state administered and county administered), and
    geographic location. In addition, the states we selected collectively
    covered nearly one-third of children in foster care across the nation. To
    extend our understanding, we interviewed child welfare researchers
    identified through our literature review and through recommendations from
    child welfare officials and stakeholders for their knowledge on issues of
    racial disproportionality in foster care. We also interviewed HHS
    officials responsible for foster care programs and related data, as well
    as federal officials at the Justice Department, Office of Juvenile Justice
    and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which is required by law to address
    racial disproportionality in the juvenile justice systems. In addition, we
    conducted an extensive literature review of research on racial
    disproportionality in foster care and strategies used by states and others
    to address this issue. In reporting our findings, we drew upon research
    publications our methodologists considered generally reliable and
    methodologically sound. We analyzed federal child welfare legislation and
    policies relevant to foster care that our literature review and interviews
    had indicated might have an impact on racial disproportionality. Finally,
    we also analyzed HHS data on foster care and adoptive children that state
    child welfare agencies submit biannually to the agency under its foster
    care and adoption reporting system. We also confirmed the reliability of
    these data for our purposes. We conducted our work between June 2006 and
    June 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards.

    3We are using the term "policy" in this report to include federal laws,
    regulations, and informal agency guidance.

    4Native Americans are also overrepresented nationally, but some are
    affected by different child welfare laws and oversight authority than
    African Americans, making comparisons challenging.

    5For more detail on our methodology for conducting our work, see appendix
    I.

    Results in Brief

    A higher rate of poverty and challenges in accessing support services, as
    well as racial bias and difficulties in finding appropriate permanent
    homes, were identified in our review as the main factors influencing the
    proportion of African American children in foster care. Thirty-three
    states in our survey cited high rates of poverty among African Americans
    as a factor influencing children's entry into foster care. Nationally,
    African Americans are nearly four times more likely than others to live in
    poverty. Studies have shown that families living in poverty have
    difficulty accessing needed services that can help support families and
    keep children who may be vulnerable to abuse and neglect safely at home.
    However, research suggests that poverty does not fully account for
    differing rates of entry into foster care. State child welfare directors
    we surveyed also responded that bias or cultural misunderstanding and
    distrust between child welfare decision makers and the families they serve
    also contribute to the removal of children from their homes. Once African
    American children are removed from their homes, their lengths of stay in
    foster care average 9 months longer than those of White children. The
    challenges in accessing services, such as substance abuse treatment and
    subsidized housing, also contributed to longer lengths of stay for
    children whose goal is to reunify with their families. For children who
    cannot be reunified with their families, state officials reported
    difficulties in finding them appropriate permanent homes, in part because
    of the challenges in recruiting adoptive parents, especially for youth who
    are older or have special needs. An additional factor is that African
    Americans are more likely to rely on relatives to provide foster care.
    Although this type of foster care placement, known as kinship care, can be
    less traumatic for children and reduce the number of placements and chance
    of their re-entry into foster care, it is also associated with longer
    lengths of stay.

    Most states in our survey reported implementing some strategies that
    experts have identified as promising for African American children and
    noted several factors they considered fundamental to any attempt to
    address racial disproportionality. Researchers and officials stressed that
    no single strategy would fully address the issue, but that strategies to
    increase access to support services, reduce bias, and increase the
    availability of permanent homes all hold some promise for reducing
    disproportionality. For example, 38 states reported collaborating with
    neighborhood-based organizations to expand the availability of support
    services. Most states sought to reduce bias by including the family in
    making key decisions and by recruiting and training staff with the skills
    to work with people of all ethnicities. To move children more quickly from
    foster care to permanent homes, more than half of states performed a
    diligent search for relatives of children in foster care who might be
    willing to provide permanent homes, recruited African American adoptive
    families, and offered subsidies to guardians who were not willing to
    adopt, as is currently allowed for adoptive families. However, fewer
    states reported focusing attention on disproportionality itself by, for
    example, enacting state legislation or establishing councils on racial
    disproportionality. Although research on the effectiveness of strategies
    has been limited, public and private officials in the forefront of
    research and implementation said that the ability to analyze data, work
    across social service agencies, and sustain leadership was fundamental to
    any attempt to address racial disproportionality. HHS has taken steps to
    help states in their efforts to address disproportionality through
    outreach and technical assistance. However, state child welfare directors
    generally reported in our survey that additional support in analyzing data
    on disproportionality and disseminating strategies is needed. Child
    welfare officials in states considered to be at the forefront of
    addressing disproportionality told us they relied on technical assistance
    in analyzing data from universities and funds from a private foundation to
    help them devise strategies to address disproportionality.

    According to our survey results, federal policies that provide for family
    support services and promote adoption were generally considered helpful in
    reducing the proportion of African Americans in foster care, but policies
    that limit the use of foster care funding for family support services and
    legal guardianship were reported to have a negative effect. Half of the
    state child welfare directors we surveyed reported that federal block
    grants used to provide services to families, such as substance abuse
    treatment, contribute to reducing the proportion of African American
    children in foster care. However, even more child welfare directors in our
    survey reported that policies governing the use of funds specifically
    intended for children in foster care increase the proportion of African
    American children in foster care. More specifically, many state child
    welfare directors expressed concerns about the cap on funds for preventive
    services and the lack of flexibility to use funds meant for foster care
    and adoption for other purposes, including services to families at-risk of
    having their children removed, such as parenting classes. Among policies
    that affect states' ability to find permanent homes for children, states
    generally reported that adoption policies have been helpful, such as the
    requirement to recruit minority adoptive parents and providing subsidies
    to families adopting children that states have identified as having
    special needs. However, states still face challenges in recruiting
    sufficient numbers of willing and qualified adoptive families for African
    American children. In addition, state and local officials also reported
    wanting federal support for legal guardianship. States responding to our
    survey considered the federal policy recognizing legal guardianship as
    helpful in enabling children to exit foster care, but policies limiting
    the use of federal funds to pay subsidies to guardians, similar to those
    provided to adoptive parents, as a barrier. States were less definitive
    about the impact of federal policies that impose time frames on permanency
    decisions. These time frames may shorten the time children remain in care
    but may also impede states' ability to reunify children with their
    parents.

    Our draft report recommended that HHS pursue specific measures to allow
    adoption assistance payments to be used for subsidizing legal
    guardianship. In commenting on the draft report, HHS disagreed, stating
    that the administration had already proposed an alternative funding
    approach, known as the Child Welfare Program Option. Under this proposal,
    states could choose to remain under the current foster care funding
    structure or instead receive a flexible capped grant that they could use
    for a wide range of child welfare services and supports, including
    subsidizing guardianships. The current adoption assistance program would
    remain the same under this proposed option. However, although HHS has
    presented this broad restructuring of child welfare funding in its budget
    proposals each year since 2004, no legislation has been offered to date to
    authorize it. Moreover, if enacted, it is unknown how many states would
    choose a capped grant that would allow greater program flexibility instead
    of the current title IV-E foster care entitlement funding. Therefore, in
    light of these factors, we have deleted our recommendation to HHS and are
    instead suggesting that Congress consider amending current law to allow
    subsidies for legal guardianships, as is currently allowed for adoption.
    Current evidence indicates that allowing such subsidies could help states
    increase the number of permanent homes available for African American and
    other children in foster care. We are also making a recommendation that
    the Secretary of the HHS provide states with additional technical
    assistance and tools to develop strategies to address disproportionality.
    In its comments, HHS noted that our recommendation was consistent with its
    efforts to provide technical assistance to states for addressing
    disproportionality, but the department did not address the specific
    actions we recommended. We continue to believe that it is important for
    HHS to take these actions to help states address this complex issue.

    Background

    The HHS National Incidence Study has shown since the early 1980s that
    children of all races and ethnicities are equally likely to be abused or
    neglected; however, African American children, and to some extent other
    minority children, have been significantly more likely to be represented
    in foster care, according to HHS data and other research.6 Nationally,
    African American children made up less than 15 percent of the overall
    child population in the 2000 Census, but they represented 27 percent of
    the children who entered foster care during fiscal year 2004, and they
    represented 34 percent of the children remaining in foster care at the end
    of that year, as shown in figure 1.7

    6The National Incidence Study (NIS) is a congressionally mandated,
    periodic effort of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect to
    obtain information about the current incidence of child abuse and neglect
    in the United States. NIS-1 was published in 1981, NIS-2 was published in
    1988, and NIS-3 was published in 1996. The NIS-3 findings are based on a
    nationally representative sample of over 5,600 professionals in 842
    agencies serving 42 counties in the United States.

    7For disproportionality rates for African American, White, Hispanic,
    Asian, and Native American children by state in fiscal year 2004, see
    appendix II.

    Figure 1: Proportion of Children by Race in Foster Care Settings, End of
    Fiscal Year 2004

    African American children were more likely to be placed in foster care
    than White or Hispanic children, and at each decision point in the child
    welfare process the disproportionality of African American children grows.
    Although racial disproportionality is most severe and pervasive for
    African American children, Native American children also experience higher
    rates of representation in foster care than children of other races or
    ethnicities. Just over 2 percent of children in foster care at the end of
    fiscal year 2004 were Native Americans, while they represented less than 1
    percent of children in the United States.8 However, there can be
    significant variation by state and county. It is especially important to
    understand local variations for Hispanic and Asian children, since they
    are underrepresented in foster care nationally and in most states, but are
    overrepresented in some counties and states. For example, in a single
    county in California, Hispanic children represented 30 percent of the
    population but 52 percent of the county's child welfare cases.

    8These data are based on our analysis of HHS's AFCARS data for 2004 and
    U.S. Census population estimates for that year.

    There are various options for placing children in temporary and permanent
    homes through the child welfare system. Temporary options include foster
    care with relatives or non-relatives--whether licensed or unlicensed--and
    group residential settings. According to HHS, approximately one-fourth of
    the children in out-of-home care are living with relatives, and this
    proportion is higher for Hispanic and African American families. For
    permanent placements, adoption and guardianship are options under federal
    law in addition to the child's reunification with their parents. One
    important difference is that adoption entails terminating parental rights,
    while guardianship does not. (See table 1.)

    Table 1: Types of Temporary and Permanent Homes for Children in Child
    Welfare

    Type     of     temporary
    placement                 Definition
    Foster parents            Non-related adults  who  have been  trained  and
                                 licensed/certified to provide  shelter and  care
                                 to a child.
    Kinship Carea -  Licensed Relative or  close  family friend  who  provides
    Foster                    shelter and  care.  Licensed  kinship  care  may
                                 involve a training and licensure process for the
                                 caregivers and support services.
    Kinship Care - Unlicensed Relative or  close  family friend  who  provides
    Foster                    shelter and  care. Unlicensed  kinship care  may
                                 involve only an assessment process to ensure the
                                 safety and suitability  of the  home along  with
                                 supportive   services   for   the   child    and
                                 caregivers.
    Congregate Care           These  settings  include  community-based  group
                                 homes, campus-style residential facilities,  and
                                 secure facilities. Residential programs, and the
                                 staff who work in them, are generally focused on
                                 working with children  who have certain  special
                                 physical or behavioral needs.
    Type     of     permanent Definition
    placementb
    Reunification             Parents reassume  their  role as  the  principle
                                 caretaker  for  their  children  if  the  courts
                                 determine   that   parents   have   successfully
                                 completed the  action  required  in  their  case
                                 plan.
    Adoption                  Caretakers who assume legal guardianship of  the
                                 child  through  the   termination  of   parental
                                 rights.
    Guardianship              Caretakers who assume legal guardianship without
                                 the termination  of a  child's parent's  rights.
                                 Legal guardianship is more durable than a simple
                                 transfer of custody to caretakers.

    Source: HHS, Child Welfare Information Gateway.

    aKinship care exists both as formal arrangements made through the child
    welfare system and as informal arrangements made by families outside of
    child welfare. In this study, we are only referring to formal kinship care
    through child welfare, either as a temporary placement for a child or a
    permanent placement that allows the child to exit foster care.

    bChildren can also exit foster care through emancipation when they turn 18
    years old. This is sometimes referred to as "aging out" of the foster care
    system.

    Federal Foster Care and Adoption Legislation

    In the last decade, several federal laws have been enacted to help states
    reduce the number of children who enter and remain in foster care. These
    laws include the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994,9 as amended in 1996
    by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions included in the Small Business Job
    Protection Act10 (MEPA-IEP). MEPA-IEP is intended to eliminate
    race-related barriers to adoption by prohibiting foster care and adoption
    agencies that receive federal funds from delaying or denying placement
    decisions on the basis of race, color, or national origin of either the
    adoptive or foster parent or child. MEPA-IEP also required states to
    diligently recruit potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the
    ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state who need foster care
    and adoptive homes. MEPA-IEP was followed by the Adoption and Safe
    Families Act of 1997 (ASFA),11 which established expedited time frames to
    place children in permanent homes through reunification, adoption, or
    guardianship and for terminating parental rights. ASFA recognized that
    guardianship may be an appropriate permanency option for some children in
    foster care and it encouraged adoption by establishing adoption incentive
    payments for states. The Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program
    also created under ASFA supported the need to strengthen and reunify
    families. This program expanded dedicated funding for services that could
    help prevent the removal of children from their homes or could expedite
    children's return home from foster care. In addition to family
    preservation and community-based support services, PSSF services include
    time-limited reunification services and adoption promotion and support
    services. States are required to allocate "significant portions" of their
    funding for each of these four service categories. (See table 2.)

    9Pub. L. No. 103-382, SS 551-553.

    10Pub. L. No. 104-188, S 1808.

    11Pub. L. No. 105-89.

    Table 2: Key Federal Legislation Affecting Foster Care Programs

    Legislation                Description
    Multi-Ethnic Placement Act
    of 1994 (MEPA-IEP)
    Prohibition        against    o Prohibited states and other entities that
    adoption   placements   on    receive federal funding assistance from
    basis of race                 delaying or denying a child's foster care or
                                     adoption placement on the basis of the child
                                     or prospective parent's race, color, or
                                     national origin.
    Recruiting   foster    and    o Required that states diligently recruit
    adoptive parents              foster and adoptive parents who reflect the
                                     racial and ethnic diversity of the foster
                                     care population for a state to remain
                                     eligible for federal assistance for child
                                     welfare programs.
    Adoption and Safe Families
    Act of 1997 (ASFA)
    Expediting decisions about    o Required that states hold a permanency
    permanent    homes     for    hearing no later than 12 months after the
    children                      date a child enters foster care. This
                                     requirement was shortened from 18 months in
                                     prior law.
                                     o Required that states file a petition to
                                     terminate parental rights for children who
                                     have been in foster care for 15 of the most
                                     recent 22 months. States may exempt children
                                     from this requirement for multiple reasons,
                                     including if the child is placed with a
                                     relative.
    Providing  incentives   to    o Provided financial rewards to states for
    states   for    increasing    increasing numbers of finalized adoptions
    adoptions                     through the adoption incentive payment
                                     program. States have the flexibility to use
                                     the incentive payment funds for any child
                                     welfare related initiative.
                                     o Required that in order to receive
                                     incentive payments, states must exceed
                                     adoption baselines established for their
                                     state. States receive a fixed payment of
                                     $4,000 for each foster child who is adopted
                                     over the baseline, an extra $2,000 for the
                                     adoption of each special needs child younger
                                     than age 9, and $4,000 for the adoption of
                                     each child aged 9 or older.

    Source: GAO analysis of federal legislation.

    One of the prerequisites to finding children temporary and permanent homes
    is for states to ensure that criminal background checks have been
    conducted for prospective foster care and adoptive parents. Congress had
    prohibited states from receiving federal foster care or adoption
    assistance support on behalf of eligible children who are placed in the
    home of a foster or adoptive parent who had certain types of
    convictions.12 States had been allowed to opt out of certain federal
    criminal background requirements by providing alternative plans to ensure
    children's safety, which were assessed as part of an HHS review process.
    According to HHS, eight states had been approved to use alternative
    plans.13 However, requirements for conducting federal background checks
    have recently changed: a provision of the Adam Walsh Safety and Protection
    Act of 2006,14 which was developed in response to concerns about child
    predators, establishes additional federal requirements for criminal
    background checks of prospective foster or adoptive parents15 and
    eliminates states' ability to opt out of the federal requirements,
    effective October 2008.

    12These convictions include situations in which the prospective foster or
    adoptive parent was, at any time, convicted of felony child abuse or
    neglect, spousal abuse, a crime involving children (including child
    pornography), or a crime involving violence (including rape, sexual
    assault, or homicide, but not including other physical assault or
    battery); or if the record check shows a felony conviction for physical
    assault, battery, or a drug-related offense that was committed in the last
    5 years.

    Foster Care Financing

    Federal funds account for approximately half of states' total reported
    spending for child welfare services, with the rest of funding coming from
    states and localities. In fiscal year 2004, total federal spending on
    child welfare was estimated to be $11.7 billion based on analysis of data
    from over 40 states.16 These federal funds come from sources that are
    dedicated to child welfare as well as those that are provided to states
    under the federal block grant structure for broader purposes.

    Titles IV-E and IV-B of the Social Security Act are the principal sources
    of federal funds dedicated for child welfare activities. Title IV-E
    provides the majority of dedicated federal funds for support payments to
    foster families, adoption assistance, and related administrative costs on
    behalf of children who meet certain federal eligibility criteria.17 Title
    IV-E foster care maintenance and adoption assistance payments are
    authorized as open-ended entitlements. States may claim federal
    reimbursement for a specified amount of the costs for every eligible child
    who is placed in a licensed foster home. In addition, Title IV-E
    established subsidies paid to families who provide adoptive homes to
    children who states identify as having special needs that make placement
    difficult.18 In 2003, 2004, and 2005, states designated more than 80
    percent of adoptions as special needs adoptions enabling families to
    receive federal financial subsidies, according to HHS data. Total federal
    expenditures, including administrative costs, for Title IV-E programs were
    about $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2006. Title IV-B authorizes funds to
    states for broad child welfare purposes, including child protection,
    family preservation, and adoption services. In contrast to Title IV-E
    funds, Title IV-B funds are appropriated annually and totaled about $700
    million in 2006.19

    13As of July 2006, eight states were using alternative background check
    processes approved by HHS instead of specified federal background check
    requirements for prospective foster care and adoptive parents: California,
    New York, Idaho, Oklahoma, Oregon, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Arizona.

    14Pub. L. No. 109-248.

    15Under prior law, the type of criminal record check was not specified.
    Under this act, states are required to perform a fingerprint-based check.

    16Urban Institute 2005 Child Welfare Survey reported in May 2006. This
    funding analysis is the most recent available that shows federal funding
    used specifically for child welfare.

    17States are entitled to Title IV-E reimbursement on behalf of children
    who would have been eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children
    (AFDC) (as AFDC existed on July 16, 1996), but for the fact that they were
    removed from the home of certain specified relatives. Although the AFDC
    program was replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    program in 1996, eligibility for Title IV-E payments remains tied to the
    income eligibility requirements of the now-defunct AFDC program.

    Federal block grants such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    (TANF) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) provide additional
    sources of funds that states can use for child welfare purposes. Block
    grants and other sources of non-dedicated funds made up about 44 percent
    of total federal funds spent on child welfare in 2004, or about $5.2
    billion, according to the most recent research available.20 Under these
    block grants, states have discretion to provide direct social services for
    various populations, including child welfare families, the elderly, and
    people with disabilities. (See fig. 2.)

    18The term "special needs" is used in a distinct way in Title IV-E
    programs. In order to be considered a child with special needs for the
    purpose of providing adoption assistance payments, states must determine
    that the child should not return home and have a factor or condition that
    would make the child difficult to place for adoption without such
    payments. States are provided discretion under federal law to determine
    what these factors or conditions are and may include age, membership in a
    sibling or minority group, or having a medical or developmental disability
    that would make placement difficult. There are additional eligibility
    requirements to obtain adoption assistance subsidies as well.

    19For further information on Title IV-B funds, see GAO, Child Welfare:
    Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could Provide States Additional
    Information to Improve Services, GAO-03-956 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12,
    2003).

    20Data as reported by the Urban Institute in 2006, based on its 2005
    survey of state child welfare agencies. This survey asked states to
    estimate their amount of funds spent on child welfare activities for state
    fiscal year 2004, and over 40 states provided data for federal, state and
    local funds. Federal funding included Title IV-E and IV-B, TANF, SSBG,
    Medicaid, and "other." SSBG includes funding transferred from TANF.
    Medicaid funds reported here include expenditures for transportation,
    rehabilitative services, targeted case management, and mental health
    services in residential treatment facilities and exclude expenditures for
    routine health care services for children in foster care. "Other federal
    funds" include Social Security Income and Survivor's Benefits.

    Figure 2: Federal Child Welfare Funding by Funding Source, FY 2004

    Note: This funding analysis is the most recent available that shows
    federal funding used specifically for child welfare. Total federal
    spending on child welfare was estimated to be $11.7 billion in state
    fiscal year 2004. Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding.

    In 1994, the Congress authorized the use of flexible funding demonstration
    waivers to encourage innovative and effective child welfare practices.
    These waivers, typically authorized for 5 years, allowed states to use
    Title IV-E funds to provide services and supports other than foster care
    maintenance payments. For example, states could use waivers to provide
    subsidies to legal guardians or services to caregivers with substance
    abuse problems. Waiver demonstrations must remain cost-neutral to the
    federal government and they must undergo rigorous program evaluation to
    determine their effectiveness. As of May 2007, according to HHS, 14 states
    have one or more approved Title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration
    projects, involving one or more programmatic components, such as
    subsidized guardianship. With regard to guardianship specifically, four
    states have completed demonstrations that involved subsidized
    guardianships as of May 2007, seven states have active guardianship
    demonstrations, and one state has not yet implemented its guardianship
    demonstration. HHS's ability to approve new Title IV-E waivers expired in
    2006, however, and Congress has not reauthorized this program.

    The Administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposes, for the fifth
    consecutive year, to implement a "Child Welfare Program Option," which
    would restructure the Title IV-E foster care program. Under this proposal,
    states could forego open-ended entitlement foster care funding in exchange
    for a pre-determined grant. Unlike the open-ended funds, the grant could
    be spent on the entire range of child welfare purposes and for any child
    (regardless of the child's federal foster care eligibility status). States
    taking this option would need to continue to ensure child safety
    protections, maintain existing state funding for child welfare, and
    participate in federal assessments of state child welfare programs, known
    as Child and Family Services Reviews. Under this proposal, the Title IV-E
    Adoption Assistance program would continue as an entitlement program,
    according to an HHS official. In 2006, HHS approved two states to pilot
    the program option over the next 5 years under its Title IV-E waiver
    demonstration authority, which expired in that year.21 Final evaluation
    results for these pilots will not be available for at least 5 years.

    HHS Assessments of State Programs and Technical Assistance to States

    States are required to enact policies and meet certain federal standards
    related to child welfare programs, and HHS evaluates how well state child
    welfare systems achieve these federal standards through its Child and
    Family Services Reviews (CFSR). Implemented in 2001, these reviews focus
    on states' performance in ensuring children's safety, permanency, and
    well-being over a range of child welfare services, using various outcome
    measures.22 To address any areas identified as not in substantial
    conformity with these outcome measures, the state develops a program
    improvement plan.23 To evaluate states' performance on these measures, HHS
    also relies, in part, on its Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
    Reporting System (AFCARS) to capture, report, and analyze information
    collected by the states.24 In addition, AFCARS is used to generate annual
    reports on foster care and adoption programs nationwide.

    21These two states are California (Los Angeles County) and Florida.
    Florida began its waiver project in October 2006, while California's
    project has not yet begun.

    22The CFSR outcomes include protecting children from abuse and neglect,
    fostering permanency and stability in children's living conditions,
    preserving the continuity of children's family relationships and
    connections, enhancing families' capacity to provide for their children's
    needs, and ensuring that children receive appropriate services to meet
    their educational needs.

    23For additional information regarding HHS's oversight and states'
    implementation of the CFSR process, see GAO, Child and Family Services
    Reviews: Better Use of Data and Improved Guidance Could Enhance HHS's
    Oversight of State Performance, [47]GAO-04-333 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20,
    2004).

    HHS provides states with training and technical assistance to help them
    develop and implement their CFSR performance improvement plans, build
    state agency capacity, and improve the state child welfare system.
    Technical assistance providers in this network include HHS's Children's
    Bureau, 10 regional offices, and various National Resource Centers. An
    additional resource is the department's Child Welfare Information Gateway,
    a Web site that provides access to information and resources to help
    protect children and strengthen families.25

    States Report Poverty and Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes Are among Major
    Factors Influencing African Americans' Entry and Length of Stay

    A complex set of interrelated factors influence the disproportionate
    number of African American children who enter foster care as well as their
    longer lengths of stay, and our review found that poverty and the lack of
    appropriate homes are particularly influential. Major factors affecting
    children's entry into foster care included African American families'
    higher rates of poverty, families' difficulties in accessing support
    services so that they can provide a safe home for vulnerable children and
    prevent their removal, and racial bias and cultural misunderstanding among
    child welfare decision makers. Factors often cited as affecting African
    American children's length of stay in foster care included the lack of
    appropriate adoptive homes for children, greater use of kinship care among
    African Americans, and parents' lack of access to supportive services
    needed for reunification with their children.

    24On a semiannual basis, all states submit data to HHS concerning all
    children in foster care for whom state child welfare agencies have
    responsibility for placement, care, or supervision and on children who are
    adopted under the auspices of the state's public child welfare agency.
    AFCARS also includes information on foster and adoptive parents.

    25The Information Gateway was formerly the National Clearinghouse on Child
    Abuse and Neglect Information and the National Adoption Information
    Clearinghouse.

    Higher Rates of Poverty, Lack of Support Services, and Racial Bias Viewed as
    Increasing African American Children's Entry into Foster Care

    In responding to our survey, states considered three main groups of
    factors as contributing to African American children's entry into foster
    care: These groups included high rates of poverty and other
    poverty-related issues, challenges in accessing supports and services in
    impoverished communities, and racial bias or cultural misunderstanding
    among decision makers.

      Higher Rates of Poverty

    Of the many factors that have been found to influence African American
    children's disproportionate entry into foster care, the most often cited
    factors that emerged in our survey were African American families' higher
    rates of poverty and issues related to living in poverty. Poverty-related
    factors included the large number of single parents among African American
    households, a high rate of substance abuse, and greater contact with
    public officials who have mandatory responsibilities to report incidents
    of abuse and neglect.26 (See fig. 3.)

    26Mandated reporters are individuals required by law to report cases of
    children's abuse and neglect. They are usually professionals who have
    frequent contact with children, such as health care workers, teachers,
    social workers, and law enforcers.

    Figure 3: State Views on Poverty-Related Factors Affecting Higher Entry of
    African American Children to Foster Care

    In our survey, poverty was cited as a key factor for entry: 33 states
    reported that high rates of poverty in African American communities may
    increase the disproportionate number of African American children entering
    foster care compared to children of other races and ethnicities.
    Researchers and child welfare officials in states we visited also noted
    the importance of poverty as a contributing factor. Across the nation, an
    estimated 23 percent of all African American families lived below the
    poverty level compared to only 6 percent of Whites, making African
    Americans nearly four times more likely to live in poverty, according to
    U.S. Census data.27 Since foster care programs primarily serve children
    from low-income families, this could account for some of the
    disproportionate number of African American children in the foster care
    system. However, our review of our survey results, interviews, and studies
    indicate that factors unrelated to poverty are also at play in foster care
    placements.

    27U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2005. The next highest
    percentages of families living below the poverty level were Hispanic and
    Native American families, both at 21 percent.

    In addition, child welfare directors in 25 states reported that the
    greater number of African American single-parent households was also a
    factor contributing to African American children's entry into foster care
    to at least a moderate extent.28 According to the most recent National
    Incidence Study, children of single parents had a 77 to 87 percent greater
    risk of harm than children from two-parent families.29 Across the nation,
    35 percent of African American family households were headed by single
    females with children under 18 years of age compared to 9 percent for
    Whites and 19 percent for Hispanics, according to U.S. Census data.30 In
    addition, nearly half of the child welfare directors responding to our
    survey considered higher rates of substance abuse in African American
    households as contributing to the proportion of African American children
    in foster care. (See fig. 3.) Despite this perception, national data show
    that African Americans have nearly the same rate of substance abuse as
    Whites.31 However, 65 percent of African American children were removed
    from their homes because of parental substance abuse and placed in foster
    care, compared to 58 percent of White children, according to our analysis
    of AFCARS fiscal year 2004 data.32 Finally, child welfare directors in 14
    states responded that African American children's greater contact with
    officials mandated to report child abuse and neglect played a role in the
    children's entry to foster care. Several researchers we interviewed noted
    that low-income families come into contact with a greater number of
    mandated reporters because they have more interaction with some public
    services. In fact, as noted in an HHS report, the top three sources of
    reports to child protective services hotlines in 2003 were educational
    staff, law enforcement officials, and social services personnel, of which
    the latter two disproportionately interact with low-income individuals.

    28Hispanic families are less likely than African American families to be
    headed by single parents, a cultural difference that has been cited as a
    protective factor for Hispanic families that reduces the potential for
    children's removal from their families for neglect or abuse, despite
    similar rates of poverty.

    29A. Sedlak and D. Broadhurst, Executive Summary of the Third National
    Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. (U.S. Department of Health and
    Human Services, Washington, D.C.: 1996).

    30U.S. Census American Community Survey data from 2005. Females make up
    the majority of single parent households.

    31U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
    Health Services Administration, Results from the 2005 National Survey on
    Drug Use and Health: National Findings (HHS, SAMHSA, Office of Applied
    Studies, Rockville, MD: 2006).

    32All AFCARS data cited in this report comes from our analysis of the
    AFCARS database, which was made available to us by the National Data
    Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect , Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
    unless otherwise stated. NDACAN's funding is provided by grant 90-CA-1667
    from the Children's Bureau, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

      Challenges in Accessing Supports and Services

    In our survey, African American families' challenges in accessing supports
    and social services was also viewed as influencing African American
    children's entry to foster care. African American and other families
    living in impoverished neighborhoods often do not have access to the kinds
    of supports and services that can prevent problems in the home from
    leading to abuse or neglect. Such supports and services include affordable
    and adequate housing, substance abuse treatment, and family services such
    as parenting skills and counseling. Access to legal representation in
    courts responsible for making decisions about children reported to have
    been abused or neglected was also as a factor as influencing African
    American children's entry into foster care. (See fig. 4.)

    Figure 4: State Views on Support and Preventive Services Affecting African
    American Children's Higher Entry into Foster Care

    According to our survey, child welfare directors in 25 states reported
    that the lack of affordable housing options was a factor that may increase
    the proportion of African American children entering foster care to at
    least a moderate extent. For low-income families, affordable public
    housing is a critical support that can help families stay together and
    allow for in-home services, thereby decreasing the chances of children
    being removed from their families, but in some areas, there is a shortage.
    For example, child welfare officials in a California county told us they
    have a waiting list estimated at around 20,000 applicants for public
    housing.33 Families involved in the child welfare system often live in
    communities that lack resources and services, including drug treatment
    services and job training, which they either do not receive or must travel
    long distances to obtain, according to an HHS study.34 In our survey, 25
    states reported that the lack of substance abuse treatment and 24 states
    reported that the limited access to preventive services were factors that
    may increase the proportion of African American children entering foster
    care to at least a moderate extent. The state survey responses may reflect
    the fact that a higher percentage of African American families live in
    impoverished neighborhoods that lack such resources. Child welfare
    officials in all of the states we visited as well as researchers noted
    that lack of adequate supportive services contributed to
    disproportionality. For example, during a site visit, a Minnesota child
    welfare official noted that wealthier families may be able to draw upon
    support services, like family and substance abuse counseling, that can
    help keep the children with their families. However, poorer families,
    without access to supportive services, may have a more difficult time
    weathering a problem such as substance abuse or emotional issues.35 Even
    after they are reported to child welfare, families can have difficulty in
    gaining access to the types of services that would allow a child to remain
    with the family and risk being removed to foster care. According to HHS's
    2005 Child Maltreatment report, about 40 percent of children identified as
    victims of maltreatment do not receive services such as counseling and
    family support services.36 With regard to substance abuse treatment
    services, one study found significant gaps in services for families
    involved with the child welfare system, with only 31 percent of at-risk
    children and families with substance abuse problems receiving treatment.37
    There is also some evidence that African American families, in particular,
    are not offered the same amount of support services when they are brought
    to the attention of the child welfare system. As one study found, race was
    a significant factor in whether families received mental health related
    services, even after controlling for age, type of maltreatment, behavior
    of the child, and gender.38 A Texas state child welfare official
    reiterated this point, telling us that in her experience, African American
    children are less likely than children of other races or ethnicities to
    receive in-home services.

    33This number was not associated with a particular racial or ethnic group.

    34U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children of Color in the
    Child Welfare System: Perspectives from the Child Welfare Community (HHS,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, Washington,
    D.C.: 2003).

    35Some child welfare officials also pointed out that lower income families
    may even be referred to the child welfare system in order to gain access
    to services.

    36U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2005
    (HHS, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Washington, D.C.:
    2007).

    According to 20 states responding to our survey, once African American
    families come into contact with the child welfare system, they often have
    difficulties obtaining adequate legal representation in court, and this
    contributed to their disproportionate numbers in foster care. Local court
    officials and others we interviewed observed that higher income families
    can afford private legal representation, which can help prevent their
    child's removal to foster care, but lower-income parents usually do not
    have this option. In one state we visited, we were told that public
    attorneys assigned to child welfare families often do not meet parents
    before they appear in court and have little time to review case files,
    putting parents at a disadvantage in unfamiliar legal settings. In
    addition, the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care found that parents
    in dependency hearings were often inadequately represented because of a
    lack of time, preparation, and resources, including attorney
    compensation.39

      Distrust and Racial Bias or Cultural Misunderstanding

    Coupled with African American parents' greater distrust of the child
    welfare system, racial bias or cultural misunderstanding among decision
    makers also emerged in our survey as major factors contributing to the
    disproportionate number of African American children entering foster care.
    These decision makers include mandated reporters, child welfare
    caseworkers, and those involved in judicial rulings about these children.
    (See fig. 5.)

    37Cited by Christianne Lind, "Developing and Supporting a Continuum of
    Child Welfare Services," (The Finance Project), 2004. The Finance Project
    is a non-profit organization that provides research, consulting, and
    technical assistant to public and private leaders on investing and making
    financial decisions with regard to children, families, and local
    communities.

    38Ann F. Garland et al., "Racial and Ethnic Variations in Mental Health
    Care Utilization Among Children in Foster Care," Children's Services:
    Social Policy, Research and Practice, 3(3): 133-146 (2000).

    39Astra Outley, Representation for Children and Parents in Dependency
    Proceedings (The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, May 2004).

    Figure 5: State Views on Issues of Distrust and Bias or Cultural
    Misunderstanding Affecting African American Children's Greater Entry to
    Foster Care

    Families' distrust of the child welfare system was cited by child welfare
    directors in 28 states as a factor contributing to the entry of African
    American children into foster care to at least a moderate extent.
    According to state child welfare officials and some researchers we
    interviewed, African American families' distrust of the child welfare
    system stems from their perception that the system is unresponsive to
    their needs and racially biased against them. Child welfare officials and
    researchers said that many African Americans in poor communities perceive
    child welfare caseworkers as more intent on separating African American
    parents from their children than on working within their communities to
    address child safety issues. As an example of how this dynamic might
    occur, a neighborhood-based service provider we interviewed in California
    described a situation in which a mother fleeing domestic violence at home
    did not seek public services for herself and her children--despite the
    evident need for clothing and therapy--because child welfare had once
    before removed her children and she did not trust the system to be
    helpful. These experiences in turn can shape the families' dynamics in
    their initial contacts with mandated reporters, caseworkers, and judges.
    Casey Family Programs40 staff in an interview noted that African American
    families in such circumstances may not seek services because of such
    distrust, which in turn increases the risk of a child's removal.

    In our survey, 23 state child welfare directors reported that they
    considered racial bias or cultural misunderstanding on the part of those
    reporting abuse or neglect, such as teachers, medical professionals, or
    police officers, as a factor in the disproportionate representation of
    African American children entering foster care to at least a moderate
    extent. In support of this view, some studies have found that medical
    professionals are more likely to report low-income or minority children to
    child protective services, even controlling for other factors, such as
    type of abuse.41 In addition, bias or cultural misunderstanding on the
    part of child welfare caseworkers and juvenile and family court judges are
    viewed as playing a role in the proportion of African American children
    entering foster care. In our survey, child welfare directors in 21 states
    reported that caseworker bias, cultural misunderstanding, or inadequate
    training was a factor that contributes to entry. To a lesser extent, bias
    or cultural misunderstanding was considered a factor in judicial rulings
    as well. HHS and a few state child welfare officials we interviewed also
    noted that class and educational differences between caseworkers and
    families also contributed to cultural misunderstandings. As one researcher
    noted, even well-meaning decision makers at any stage of the child welfare
    process may have faulty assumptions about racial, ethnic, or
    socio-economic groups.

    Studies that have tried to control for other factors to determine if race
    or racial bias was a predictor for entry into foster care have produced
    varied results. One study using California data found that, after
    controlling for poverty and maltreatment, African American children were
    more likely to be removed from their homes and placed in foster care
    compared to White children, when income was accounted for.42 However,
    another study using Baltimore, Maryland, data found African American
    children did not have an increased likelihood of being removed from their
    homes and placed in foster care.43 Although research on racial bias or
    race as a predictor for entry into foster care is not always consistent, a
    recent review of the current literature by the Casey-Center for the Study
    of Social Policy Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child Welfare System
    concluded that race is an important factor that affects the decision to
    place children into foster care.44

    40Casey Family Programs is a foundation that works nationally with state
    and local child welfare agencies and families to provide direct services,
    as well as child welfare practice and policy suggestions.

    41For example: R. L. Hampton and E. Newberger, "Child Abuse Incidence and
    Reporting by Hospitals: Significance of Severity, Class and Race,"
    American Journal of Public Health (75) 1: 56-60 (1985). For information on
    other studies, see R. Hill, Synthesis of Research on Disproportionality in
    Child Welfare: An Update (Casey-Center for the Study of Social Policy
    Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child Welfare System, 2006).

    Difficulties in Finding Permanent Homes and Achieving Reunification May Increase
    Time in Foster Care for African American Children

    In responding to our survey, states considered certain groups of factors
    as contributing to African American children's length of stay in foster
    care, thereby increasing their disproportionality: These included
    challenges in finding appropriate adoptive homes for those unable to be
    reunified with their families, the impact of kinship foster care on length
    of stay, and other challenges affecting children's ability to exit foster
    care to be reunified with their families.

      Challenges in Finding Appropriate Adoptive Homes

    Certain factors made finding permanent homes for African American children
    more challenging, according to states responding to our survey, thereby
    contributing to longer lengths of stay for African American children.
    These factors included an insufficient number of appropriate adoptive
    homes, difficulties in finding families that will adopt older African
    American children, and the belief that African American children are more
    likely to be diagnosed as having special needs. (See fig. 6.)

    42Barbara Needell et al., "Black Children and Foster Care Placement in
    California"  (Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6): 393-408 (2003).

    43S. Zuravin et al., "Predictors of Child Protective Service Intake
    Decisions: Case Closure, Referral to Continuing Services, or Foster Care
    Placement," in P.A. Curtis, G. Dale, Jr., and J.C. Kendall (eds.), The
    Foster Care Crisis ( Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska, 1999), pp.
    63-83).

    44Robert B. Hill, Synthesis of Research on Disproportionality in Child
    Welfare: An Update (Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child
    Welfare System, 2006).

    Figure 6: State Views on Factors Affecting Longer Time in Foster Care for
    African American Children -- Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes

    State officials from 29 states cited the insufficient number of
    appropriate adoptive homes as a factor that may increase African American
    children's length of stay in foster care to at least a moderate extent.
    For African American children, lengths of stays in foster care averaged 9
    months longer compared to White children in 2004, according to our
    analysis of AFCARS data. This is partly due to the fact that African
    American children constituted nearly half of the children legally
    available for adoption in 2004 and waited significantly longer than other
    children for an adoptive placement. State officials we interviewed
    described challenges in recruiting appropriate adoptive families for
    African American children. These challenges include the difficulty many
    states have in recruiting adoptive families of the same race and ethnicity
    of the children waiting for adoption and the unwillingness of some
    families to adopt a child of another race. An additional challenge was
    finding adoptive African American families who are able to meet state
    licensing requirements, including housing and background checks, for an
    appropriate adoptive home. In New York, for example, local officials
    explained that state requirements for a certain number of bedrooms can
    prevent poor African American families from being able to meet licensing
    requirements needed for adoption--this can be especially an issue in
    high-cost urban areas in which there is limited affordable housing. In
    three states we visited, child welfare officials also told us that African
    American families who were interested in adopting were sometimes prevented
    from doing so because a member of the household had a prior criminal
    record, even though child welfare officials had determined that the person
    would not be a risk to the child.45

    The age of foster children awaiting adoption also contributes to the
    challenges in finding appropriate adoptive families, with greater
    difficulties in placing older children. According to research, prospective
    adoptive parents are more inclined to adopt younger children, and older
    children may also have less interest in being adopted. In our survey, 21
    states reported that a factor accounting for the longer lengths of stay
    for African American children waiting to be adopted was that many of them
    were also older.46 According to a 2003 study comparing a cohort of
    children whose parents' rights were terminated at the same time, children
    who were both older and African American had longer wait times between the
    termination of parental rights and adoption.47 State officials we visited
    echoed this finding, noting that child welfare agencies have a difficult
    time trying to find adoptive homes, particularly for older African
    American children.

    In our survey, 16 states also considered the greater likelihood of African
    American children being diagnosed as having medical and other special
    needs as a factor affecting African American's length of stay to at least
    a moderate extent. According to HHS data, African American children in
    foster care in 2004 were only slightly more likely to have been diagnosed
    as having medical conditions or other disabilities (28 percent) than White
    children in foster care (26 percent). Children with special needs may
    require additional support services, and some African American families
    may have less access to support services that would enable them to take on
    this extra responsibility. The impact on African American children is
    supported by HHS adoption data that shows that 23 percent of African
    American children who were adopted out of foster care had a medical
    condition or disability, compared to 31 percent of White children in the
    same category.

    45According to statistics from the Bureau of Justice, African American men
    were over two times more likely to have been in prison on December 31,
    2005, than Hispanic men and over six times more likely than White men.
    Female incarceration rates, though substantially lower than male
    incarceration rates, reveal similar racial and ethnic differences. African
    American neighborhoods with highly concentrated poverty tend to have both
    high levels of foster care involvement as well as involvement in the
    criminal justice system, according to child welfare officials we spoke
    with and research we reviewed.

    46According to our analysis of AFCARS fiscal year 2004 data, African
    American children are even more disproportionally represented in foster
    care at older ages than other children.

    47Brenda D. Smith, "After Parental Rights Are Terminated: Factors
    Associated with Exiting Foster Care," Children and Youth Services Review,
    25(12): 965-985 (2003).

      Kinship Care

    African American children are more likely than White and Asian children to
    enter into the care of relatives.48 Although kinship care is associated
    with longer lengths of stay, child welfare researchers and officials we
    interviewed consider these placements to be positive options for African
    American children because they are less stressful to the child and
    maintain familial ties. In addition, some researchers associate the use of
    kinship care with fewer foster care placements and lower rates of
    re-entry.49 Kinship care also has some drawbacks. For example, a 1999 GAO
    study found that kinship care might increase a child's risk of harm
    because caregivers may be unwilling to enforce court-ordered restrictions
    on parental visits.50 In responding to our survey, 18 states reported that
    the use of kinship care was a factor contributing to longer lengths of
    stay in foster care for African American children to at least a moderate
    extent. This view is supported by research findings indicating that
    children living with relatives generally spend more time in foster care
    than children living with non-relatives. For example, a study cited in a
    HHS report showed that 42 percent of children in foster kinship care
    remain there for more than 2 years compared to 36 percent of children in
    non-kin foster care.51

    Moving a child from kinship foster care to adoption can be difficult for
    caregivers who need financial assistance or wish to retain family ties.
    Several child welfare officials said that there is a financial
    disincentive to adopt children who are only eligible for financial
    subsidies and services while they are in foster care, especially for
    grandparents and others living on a fixed income. Even when states offer
    financial subsidies to help families adopt these children, relatives may
    be reluctant to terminate their relatives' rights. An alternative is for
    these caregivers to provide a permanent home for their relative's children
    through legal guardianship in which caregivers are afforded legal
    decision-making authority over the child without terminating the birth
    parent's rights.52

    48Hispanic children were also more likely to use kinship care than Whites,
    according to our analysis of AFCARS fiscal year 2004 data.

    49For example see: R. Barth, "Family Reunification," Child Welfare
    Research Review, 2 (1997): 109-122.

    50GAO, Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues,
    [48]GAO-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: May, 1999).

    51R. Cook et al., Unpublished Analysis of Kinship Care Data, (1998),
    quoted in U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, Report to the
    Congress on Kinship Foster Care: Part I: Research Review, Part II:
    Secretary's Report to the Congress (Washington, D.C.: 2000).

      Difficulty in Achieving Reunification

    Some of the same factors that states view as contributing to African
    American children's entry also contribute to their difficulties in exiting
    foster care and being reunified with their families. In our survey, nearly
    half of the states considered the lack of affordable housing, distrust of
    the child welfare system, and lack of substance abuse treatment as factors
    contributing to African American children's longer lengths of stay. The
    lack of such supports and other services in many poor African American
    neighborhoods contributes to children's longer stays in foster care
    because services can influence a parent's ability to reunify with their
    child in a timely manner, according to our survey, interviews, and
    research. (See fig. 7.)

    52Kinship care refers to situations in which a relative or a close family
    friend provides shelter and cares for a child who is still in the foster
    care system. Legal guardianship refers to situations in which a relative
    or caregiver has taken permanent legal custody of the child without
    terminating parental rights; with legal guardianship, the child has exited
    foster care.

    Figure 7: State Views on Factors Affecting Greater Time in Foster Care for
    African American Children -- Difficulties in Achieving Reunification

    In our survey, nearly half of the states reported a lack of affordable
    housing options for African American parents, and state and county child
    welfare officials said that housing issues often delay family
    reunification, resulting in longer lengths of stay in foster care.
    According to child welfare officials and researchers we interviewed, poor
    families can lose their housing once their children have been removed
    because the TANF program requires children to be living with caregivers
    for them to qualify for TANF child-only benefits. For example, a county
    official in California noted that about 70 percent of families in that
    county experience a housing crisis when their children are removed. If
    families cannot afford to remain in their homes without TANF benefits,
    then they must seek other alternatives to create homes suitable for
    reunification with their children. Furthermore, if families do maintain
    their housing or find other housing they can afford, the standards that
    parents must meet before their children can be returned home from foster
    care are often higher than when the children were removed. According to a
    private foundation that assists 13 state and local child welfare agencies
    around the country in addressing disproportionality, a parent living in
    poverty might be unable to meet housing requirements needed for
    reunification, such as having a bedroom for each child, even though the
    appropriateness of the parent's housing had not been the original basis
    for a child's removal.

    According to 25 states in our survey, parents' distrust of the child
    welfare system was also a factor contributing to African American
    children's longer length of stay in foster care to at least a moderate
    extent. We were told that African American families in some communities do
    not trust child welfare agencies because families in their communities
    have had adversarial relationships with various public organizations,
    including schools, public health, and criminal justice systems.

    The lack of substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and other
    support services in African American communities are additional factors
    that can slow African American children's reunification with their
    parents, thereby contributing to longer stays in foster care. According to
    our survey, 23 state child welfare administrators reported the lack of
    substance abuse treatment services as factors contributing to African
    American children's longer stays in foster care to at least a moderate
    extent. An HHS study found that state officials lack the resources to
    provide substance abuse and other types of treatment services sufficient
    to help African American families and those of other racial and ethnic
    minorities move toward reunification and adoption.53 Court officials in
    California said that initiatives to refer drug offenders to treatment
    programs instead of incarceration have increased competition for accessing
    publicly funded substance abuse programs, adding to the difficulties
    families may face in making changes needed for reunification. In addition,
    when services are available, it may take 2 years for a parent to complete
    a substance abuse treatment program, and entry into such programs may be
    delayed if there are waiting lists for services.

    53HHS, Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives from
    the Child Welfare Community (HHS, Administration for Children and
    Families, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 2003).

    States Implemented a Range of Strategies Considered Promising for Addressing
    Disproportionality, but Fewer States Specifically Focus Attention on Issue

    Most states we surveyed reported implementing a range of child welfare
    strategies-often good practices generally-that researchers and experts
    believe may also be promising for reducing the number of African American
    children in foster care. These strategies are intended to reduce bias in
    decision making and increase access to supportive services for families
    and the availability of permanent homes for foster children. Fewer states
    reported focusing attention on disproportionality through such actions as
    convening task forces or passing state legislation to study the issue.
    States that did more directly address disproportionality agreed that
    certain key elements were central to their efforts: these elements were
    data analysis to identify problems and strategies to address them,
    leadership to sustain change across time, and collaboration with different
    social services agencies to access programs and resources needed outside
    the child welfare system. HHS has provided some support to states for
    reducing the proportion of African American children in foster care
    through conferences, workshops and various Web sites, but states reported
    that they would benefit from having additional guidance in analyzing
    information and from the dissemination of strategies that other states
    have found promising.

    States Implement a Range of Strategies Expected to Have an Impact on
    Disproportionality

    Researchers and child welfare administrators stressed that no single
    strategy was sufficient to fully address disproportionality. Some
    strategies states reported on have the potential to reduce bias or improve
    decision making. Other strategies are intended to improve access to
    support services for parents, and still others could increase the
    availability of permanent homes for children waiting in foster care (see
    table 3).

    Table 3: Strategies Used by States That Address Factors Contributing to
    Disproportionality

    Factor            Type of Strategy States Are Using
    Bias in  decision Involving  family  in  planning  decisions  about
    making            children
                         Training caseworkers to strengthen their ability to work
                         across cultures
                         Conducting outreach or  education to mandated  reporters
                         on criteria or standards for reporting abuse and neglect
                         Recruiting,   retaining,   and   promoting    culturally
                         competent staff
                         Using  risk   assessment  tools   that  are   considered
                         culturally competent or validated
    Lack of access to Collaborating       with       neighborhood-based
    support services  organizations to provide services
                         Using interagency agreements  with other social  service
                         agencies to improve families' access to services  across
                         programs
                         Providing supports for families judged to be a at  lower
                         risk of abusing or neglecting their children instead  of
                         removing them from  their families  through an  approach
                         known as Alternative, Dual or Differential Response
    Challenges     in Searching for fathers or  paternal kin of  foster
    finding permanent children
    homes             Recruiting more African American adoptive families
                         Providing financial  subsidies to  guardians willing  to
                         permanently parent foster children
    Lack  of  focused Establishing councils or  advisory committees  on
    attention         disproportionality
                         Providing  preventive  services   targeted  at   African
                         American families
                         Establishing  requirements  in   contracts  to   address
                         disproportionality

    Source: GAO survey of state child welfare administrators.

      States' Strategies to Address Racial Bias in Decision Making

    To help mitigate the influence of racial and other forms of bias in child
    welfare decision making processes, states implemented a range of
    strategies such as including family members in discussions of placement
    options, providing training for case workers to strengthen their cultural
    competency, implementing tools to help caseworkers make more systematic
    decisions, and reaching out to educate mandated reporters about reporting
    requirements. (See fig. 8.) Among these strategies, states expected that
    including families in the decision making process and training culturally
    competent staff would most reduce disproportionality.

    Figure 8: Strategies Intended to Improve Decisions by Reducing Bias

    All states we surveyed had implemented strategies to include families in
    the decision making process to some degree, and every state we visited
    told us they were using this method to help address disproportionality.
    There may be differences in the extent to which states involved families,
    ranging from occasional discussions with family members to more formal
    approaches of "family group conferencing," which follows a specific model
    of engaging family members in decisions about the child's placement
    through three phases including monitoring and follow up. This approach can
    help address caseworker bias, as one researcher explained, because it
    increases caseworkers' exposure to the lifestyles of the community they
    are serving and helps bridge misunderstandings. Some studies of this
    strategy show that it holds promise for African American families.
    According to an evaluation in Texas, family group decision making led to a
    reduction in foster care placements and an increase in placements with
    relatives for all children; these findings were especially pronounced for
    African American and Hispanic children. Specifically, 32 percent of
    African American children whose families attended such a conference
    returned home compared to 14 percent whose families received traditional
    services.

    Almost all states (45) reported conducting training for caseworkers to
    strengthen their understanding of different cultures, known as cultural
    competency training. Such training could include workshops on cultural
    differences to enable caseworkers to better interpret behaviors and
    interactions with their clients. Somewhat fewer states (36) reported using
    initiatives to recruit and retain culturally competent staff. To address
    bias among caseworkers, some of the states we visited required that their
    child welfare workers take an intensive program called "Undoing Racism."54
    This program has participants analyze the ways in which structural racism
    may affect their decisions through dialogue, reflection, role-playing, and
    presentations.55 In addition, officials pointed out that, beyond cultural
    understanding, caseworkers need to understand the challenges of living
    with economic disadvantages so that they can work effectively with their
    clients. For example, one county agency in Iowa required its child welfare
    workers to spend 1 day using public transportation to get to social
    service appointments their clients must attend to better understand the
    time and transportation constraints some people face. Although most survey
    respondents expected cultural competency training to have an impact on
    disproportionality, there is little research linking cultural competency
    training programs to improved outcomes for African American children.
    However, one 3-year evaluation of a comprehensive cultural competency
    program in Washington state, which was initiated specifically to address
    the causes of disproportionality, found that families served by staff
    trained in this approach had a higher rate of children returning home than
    African American children in other areas.

    54Sponsored by the People's Institute for Survival and Beyond and promoted
    by Casey Family Programs.

    55According to academic researchers and others, structural or
    institutional racism is defined as the historical, cultural, political,
    ideological, and economic practices that have produced disparities and
    disproportionality between the different racial groups. Under this
    conceptualization of racism, the focus is not on individual behavior but
    instead on systems that distribute resources along lines by race or
    ethnicity.

    Because some state data have shown that disproportionality in foster care
    starts with the differing rates of reporting among races, most states (37)
    are also conducting educational outreach for those who work with children,
    such as teachers, health care providers, and social workers, who are
    required to report suspected abuse and neglect. These efforts may help
    ensure that mandated reporters are not inappropriately referring families
    to child welfare. Illinois conducted a widespread public awareness
    campaign for mandated reporters about how to identify abuse and neglect.
    Although some child welfare officials expect this outreach strategy to
    reduce disproportionality, none of the studies we examined assessed its
    effectiveness in that regard.

    Over half of states (29) reported using risk assessment tools, which can
    help caseworkers make more systematic decisions about a child's safety and
    the need to remove a child from the home. Caseworkers use these tools when
    investigating an allegation of child maltreatment to systematically
    collect information about a family and, based on this information, more
    objectively assess the level of risk in keeping the child at home. Without
    such tools, workers may err on the side of unnecessarily removing a child
    from its family, according to some child welfare officials. Two studies
    found particular risk assessment tools to be both race-neutral and more
    accurate predictors of future harm than caseworker judgment alone. A 2004
    study of five counties in California found that minority groups often
    showed a lower risk than Whites when the assessment tool was applied,
    which means it could help to reduce the representation of some groups in
    the child welfare system, according to the author.56 However, some
    researchers express concern that other risk assessments that rely too
    heavily on information related to social conditions and poverty might
    actually contribute to racial bias. Despite the promising research about
    the value of specific risk assessment tools, only about one-third of the
    child welfare administrators surveyed who were using this strategy
    expected it to reduce disproportionality.

    56Will Johnson, "Effectiveness of California's Child Welfare Structured
    Decision Making Model: A Prospective Study of the Validity of the
    California Family Risk Assessment," (California Child Welfare Structured
    Decision Making Project, for the California Department of Social Services,
    Feb. 2004). See also L. Anthony Loman and Gary L. Siegel, "An Evaluation
    of the Minnesota SDM Family Risk Assessment: Final Report," (Institute of
    Applied Research, St. Louis, Missouri, conducted for the Department of
    Human Services, Minnesota: Dec. 2004).

      States' Strategies to Improve Families' Access to Services

    Child welfare agencies are taking action to improve access to services,
    such as providing or arranging for mental health treatment, medical care,
    and housing assistance for low-income people. The strategies states are
    using for this purpose include collaborating with neighborhood-based
    services, establishing interagency agreements to improve access to these
    services, and implementing an alternative approach to the removal of
    children--known as alternative, dual, or differential response. Just over
    half of the states who used each strategy reported in the survey that they
    expected it to reduce disproportionality. (See fig. 9.)

    Figure 9: Strategies to Improve Access to Support Services

    Thirty-eight states reported using neighborhood-based support
    organizations to improve access to and use of support services.
    Neighborhood-based services can improve access to supports for parents
    because they are often more conveniently located to parents' homes and
    more likely to be staffed by people familiar with issues particular to
    their ethnic community. For example, child welfare officials in Los
    Angeles County told us that they went door to door in minority
    neighborhoods to find service providers beyond those with whom they have
    historically contracted. They subsequently heard that this collaboration
    helped to increase trust between the community and the child welfare
    system and increased use of these services. Similarly, one county in North
    Carolina convened a task force of schools, police, and community groups to
    examine and identify what support services were available to families. An
    HHS report synthesizing the views of child welfare workers in eight states
    noted that working with community-based services holds promise for
    reducing disproportionality because they are more accessible and provide
    services in a culturally appropriate context.57

    Interagency agreements, used by 34 states, may improve families' ability
    to obtain services and supports they need from agencies outside of child
    welfare, which are primarily provided and funded through other state
    agencies. To address gaps in the provision of services like substance
    abuse treatment and financial supports,58 agencies can work with one
    another in any of the following ways: training staff jointly, sharing
    information and tracking systems, using common intake and assessment
    forms, coordinating case management, and placing staff from multiple
    agencies in the same office. Some child welfare officials told us they
    were reluctant to share information about overlapping clients because of
    federal privacy laws,59 while other local officials described methods they
    use to share information across systems. For example, the child welfare
    agency in San Francisco uses court agreements with other agencies, such as
    juvenile justice and mental health, to share information about families
    who are involved in multiple systems, and county officials report that
    these agreements enable them to better serve these families. Although we
    found no studies on the effectiveness of inter-agency agreements in
    reducing disproportionality, many child welfare officials expected that
    this strategy could have an impact.

    57HHS, Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives from
    the Child Welfare Community (HHS, Administration for Children and
    Families, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.:  2003).

    58See GAO, Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play
    a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed
    Solely to Obtain Mental Health Service, [49]GAO-03-397 (Washington, D.C.:
    Aug. 2003), for gaps in access to mental health service and see GAO, HHS
    Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of States'
    Independent Living Programs, [50]GAO-05-25 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2004)
    for gaps in supportive services for children transitioning out of foster
    care.

    59In response to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
    of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-191), known as HIPPA, the Secretary of HHS issued
    regulations covering the use and disclosure of protected health
    information. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (Pub. L. No.
    93-380) governs access to student education records.

    Another approach used by slightly more than half of states is differential
    or alternative response, which is a way for states to provide services to
    families when the risk of abuse and neglect is judged to be lower in lieu
    of removing children from their homes. Differential response can be used
    when maltreatment is not related to physical and sexual abuse, but instead
    to conditions of chronic poverty, chemical abuse, or domestic violence.
    For example, some California counties have three tracks for assessing
    families, depending on a family's situation. In the first track, if the
    case involves abuse and neglect and the risk is considered moderate to
    high for continued abuse, the caseworker may take action to remove the
    child with or without the family's consent, court orders may be involved,
    and criminal charges may be filed. In the second track, if the risk of
    continued abuse and neglect is lower, families work with representatives
    of county child welfare agencies to identify services for improving child
    and family well-being. In the third track, if an allegation is not
    considered abuse, the family is linked to services in the community
    through expanded partnerships with local organizations. Evaluations of
    alternative response in some states have shown this strategy to have
    promise for addressing the factors that may lead to the disproportionate
    number of African American children in care. Evaluations in Missouri and
    Minnesota60 found that use of alternative response increased cooperation
    between families and the child welfare agency. The Minnesota study also
    found that families who participated in the alternative response system
    received significantly greater access to support services and also a lower
    rate of new maltreatment reports than families in a control group.

    60This study was based on data from 14 counties.

      States' Strategies for Increasing the Availability of Permanent Homes

    States are also devising strategies to increase the number of permanent
    homes for African American children who cannot be reunified with their
    parents so as to reduce the length of time they remain in foster care and
    increase the likelihood that they will be adopted. To do this, many states
    are increasing the search for fathers and paternal kin, making efforts to
    recruit more African American adoptive parents, and providing financial
    subsidies for caregivers (often relatives) who are willing to act as
    permanent guardians for foster children. (See fig. 10.)

    Figure 10: Strategies to Reduce Length of Stay in Foster Care

    Almost all states surveyed reported that they take action to search for
    paternal kin when making decisions on where to place a child. Until
    recently, caseworkers did not routinely gather information on fathers,
    according to child welfare workers we spoke with. As foster care agencies
    have placed greater reliance on placing children with relatives, however,
    fathers and paternal relatives are increasingly being viewed as potential
    caregivers. Greater efforts to locate fathers and paternal kin are
    particularly relevant for African American families who are less likely to
    have a father living with the family at the time of their involvement with
    the child welfare agency. Officials we visited in Illinois, North
    Carolina, and New York told us that they had instituted changes so that
    searching for paternal kin was routine. One county in North Carolina
    requires social workers to use a structured protocol in contacting and
    gathering information from the father about family members as potential
    resources. This approach can allow fathers and other paternal relatives to
    take a much more active role in their child's life to prevent out-of-home
    placements. About two-thirds of states using this strategy expected it to
    reduce disproportionality, but there is relatively little research on the
    role of fathers in child welfare cases in general.

    Although 38 states reported that, to some extent, they are recruiting
    African American adoptive families, states still face challenges. States
    are required by law to diligently recruit foster and adoptive parents who
    reflect the racial and ethnic backgrounds of children. States have adopted
    various strategies, such as contracting with faith-based organizations and
    convening adoption support teams, to recruit greater numbers of African
    American adoptive parents. However, despite these efforts the overall
    number of African American children adopted by African American parents
    has not substantially increased in the past 8 years. In addition, HHS's
    2001-2004 review found that only 21 of 52 states were sufficiently
    recruiting minority families, and a recent report found that the
    recruitment of minority families was one of the greatest challenges for
    nearly all states.

    Using subsidized guardianship as an alternative to adoption may hold
    particular promise for reducing disproportionality, and more than half of
    the states surveyed (30) reported using this strategy.61 African Americans
    are more likely than White children to be placed with relatives for foster
    care, and relative foster care is generally longer term.62 These relative
    caregivers are also more likely than non-relative foster parents to be
    low-income.63 They may be unwilling to adopt because they may find it
    difficult financially to forego foster care payments or because adoption
    entails terminating the parental rights of their kin. However, states can
    provide a way for foster children living with relatives to convert this to
    a more permanent arrangement by creating subsidized guardianship programs.
    These programs provide financial subsidies for foster parents (often
    relatives) who agree to become legally responsible for children, but are
    unable or willing to adopt. When Illinois and California implemented two
    of the largest of such programs, they subsequently saw an increase in
    permanent placements for all children.64 After instituting their
    subsidized guardianship programs, over 40 percent of children who were in
    long-term relative foster care in both states found permanency. In
    Illinois, this decrease also coincided with a reduction in
    disproportionate numbers of African American children in foster care.65
    HHS officials also pointed out that these programs can be cost-neutral
    because the administrative costs associated with maintaining a child in
    foster care are no longer incurred with permanent legal guardianships. All
    seven states that used federal waivers to subsidize their guardianship
    programs with Title IV-E funds did so in a cost-neutral manner, as
    required by the waivers.

    61A 2006 report by Generations United found that a total of 35 states and
    the District of Columbia were subsidizing legal guardianships. (See
    [51]http://ipath.gu.org/documents/A0/GU-GeneralFactSheetJune.pdf .) Three
    of these states, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, did not respond
    to our survey on disproportionality. Other states may subsidize
    guardianships, but not limit these subsidies to families involved in the
    state child welfare system.

    62This may be in part because relative foster care homes can be exempt
    from federal timeline requirements.

    63Jill Duerr Berrick, "When Children Cannot Remain Home: Foster Family
    Care and Kinship Care," The Future of Children: Protecting Children from
    Abuse and Neglect, 8, no.1 (1998).

      Fewer States Implemented Strategies That Focused Attention Specifically on
      Disproportionality

    Although many states we surveyed are employing the types of strategies
    that hold promise for reducing the proportion of African American children
    in foster care, fewer states were focusing attention specifically on
    disproportionality as a policy issue.66 Such strategies included
    establishing councils on disproportionality, requiring child welfare
    contractors to address disproportionality, and targeting preventive
    services to African American families.67 While these strategies may not
    necessarily be more effective than other strategies, they do represent a
    public acknowledgment of the issue and may be considered a starting point
    for further activity. States were much less likely to use these strategies
    compared with other strategies in our survey. A total of 15 states had
    established disproportionality councils or commissions that can provide
    leadership in addressing the issues. According to a report by the National
    Council of State Legislatures, the Illinois African-American Family
    Commission has the broad mandate to monitor legislation and programs, and
    assist in designing new programs on behalf of African American families,
    as well as facilitate the participation of African Americans in
    establishing community-based services. In addition, 13 states reported in
    our survey that they were targeting preventative services to African
    American families, and 11 states had some requirements for contracted
    agencies to address disproportionality. For example, child welfare
    officials in Kentucky reported that they were making a concerted effort to
    contract with service providers that can demonstrate their knowledge or
    understanding of the issue of disproportionality.

    64In 2003, the University of Illinois and Westat conducted an evaluation
    of Illinois' subsidized guardianship program, the largest of all programs
    funded by Title IV-E waivers, reaching 6,800 guardians. The study used an
    experimental design with random assignment of families into treatment and
    control groups. The study found that Illinois' subsidized guardianship
    waiver resulted in fewer children remaining in long-term foster care with
    ongoing administrative oversight, that home stability increased, and that
    the withdrawal of regular administrative oversight and casework services
    from the families did not result in higher rates of indicated subsequent
    reports of abuse and neglect.

    65Illinois' guardianship program was funded through a federal Title IV-E
    waiver.

    66States like Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, and Montana all reported in their
    survey comments that they were concentrating their efforts on
    disproportionality of other populations such as Native Americans and
    Hispanics because the number of African Americans in their foster care
    systems was comparatively small.

    Data, Leadership, and Working across Social Service Systems Are Key Elements to
    Address Disproportionality

    Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data were considered fundamental
    aspects of states' efforts to address disproportionality. These data can
    include not only disproportionality rates (as described in appendix II),
    but also information that identifies the extent to which
    disproportionality occurs, among ages, along the child welfare process,
    and geographically. For example, a researcher at the University of
    California at Berkeley has used state data to show that African American
    infants enter at a much higher rate than other children (see fig. 11).
    However, this disproportionality grows as children get older, because
    African American children are also less likely to exit foster care; and
    the foster care population for all ages then becomes disproportionally
    African American (see fig. 12). Child welfare officials in most of the
    states we visited used their data to show that as a child moved through
    the child welfare process from having a case reported, then investigated,
    then being removed from the home, disproportionality increased at each
    decision point. Lastly, researchers in Illinois learned that
    disproportionality rates were actually higher in the rest of the state
    than in Cook County, the main urban county containing Chicago and over
    half of the state's foster care population.

    67Diligent recruitment of African American foster and adoptive parents
    might be considered a more targeted strategy. However, we grouped this
    under strategies to increase the number of permanent homes because states
    are required by law to engage in this activity, and it is not necessarily
    an indication of their efforts to target efforts to address
    disproportionality.

    Figure 11: Children Entering Foster Care in California in 2005

    Figure 12: Children in Foster Care in California in 2005

    Using data is considered crucial in identifying where disproportionality
    occurs in the child welfare process in order to devise strategies to most
    effectively address the issue. For example, when they analyzed state-level
    data, Texas officials realized that it was difficult to find foster care
    placements in close proximity to the birth family, making it difficult for
    African American children to be reunified with their families. To address
    this problem, Texas provided automated support for tracking the vacancies
    of foster homes and facilities. Data can also be useful for building
    consensus among community leaders, practitioners and policy-makers.
    Researchers in Illinois shared data on disproportionality with child
    welfare supervisors and caseworkers to increase their awareness that once
    an African American child is removed from the home, they are more likely
    to spend longer time in foster care. In Guilford County, North Carolina,
    child welfare officials shared data to show teachers, who are also
    mandated reporters, how disproportionality increases as a child moves from
    being referred, to investigated, to placed into foster care. Despite the
    importance of data collection, 18 states we surveyed reported that they
    were not regularly using data in their efforts to address
    disproportionality.

    In states we visited, child welfare officials also agreed that sustained
    leadership was fundamental to the process of identifying and addressing
    disproportionality. Members of the Child Welfare League of America's
    Cultural Competence and Racial Disproportionality and Disparity of
    Outcomes Committee told us that initiatives generally take root through
    the efforts of a person or organizations that champion the issue. All of
    the states we visited had some support from the Casey Foundation, and four
    states were involved with Casey's Breakthrough Series Collaborative, which
    focuses specifically on having child welfare professionals test new ideas
    and strategies to address racial disproportionality.68 Without such
    leadership, officials who have many competing priorities may be reluctant
    to tackle a politically sensitive issue. For example, child welfare
    workers in one county expressed concern that their efforts to address
    disproportionality would diminish when their Social Services Director
    --who was highly committed to addressing disproportionality--retired.
    According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, six states
    have enacted state legislation to address disproportionality. These laws
    generally create commissions or task forces, require a study of the issue,
    or fund special projects to address disproportionality. For example, a
    Texas law required an analysis of data to determine whether child welfare
    enforcement actions were disproportionately initiated against any racial
    or ethnic group.69 In addition, some states included some discussion of
    African American disproportionality in their state child welfare plans.
    California, for example, pledged to meet the target of increasing the
    service provisions specifically for Native American and African American
    children.

    Finally, state child welfare officials, researchers, and other experts
    stressed the need to work across different social service systems because
    many of the factors that contribute to disproportionality lay outside the
    child welfare system. For example, one child welfare official we
    interviewed observed that efforts to address disproportionality in one
    system (e.g., child welfare) can be undone by lack of diligence in another
    (e.g., housing). Additionally, some state officials said that there was a
    need for collaboration among social service agencies, such as juvenile
    justice and education, because disproportionality in child welfare often
    results when families have not had their service and support needs met by
    other agencies.

    68Called the Breakthrough Series Collaborative (BSC), this program
    encourages participating jurisdictions to develop child welfare systems
    that are free of structural racism and benefit all children by engaging
    with other jurisdictions, developing leaders and disseminating lessons
    learned.

    69When this report was completed, the Texas Health and Human Services
    Commission and the Department of Family and Protective Services, as
    required by the law (Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Sec. 264.2041) also devised a
    remediation plan to prevent racial or ethnic disparities and an evaluation
    of policies and procedures should the results indicate disparate treatment
    of racial or ethnic groups.

    Although HHS Has Provided Assistance and Guidance, States Report That More
    Information and Technical Assistance Is Needed

    HHS has made available technical assistance, guidance, and information to
    states on disproportionality at conferences, workshops and through various
    HHS Web sites. Since 2004, disproportionality and cultural competency have
    been discussed at training and technical assistance meetings attended by
    members of HHS's network of National Resource Centers, and since 2006
    these issues have been a priority area for the network, according to HHS
    officials. Currently, HHS provides states and localities with information
    on disproportionality through various National Resource Center Web sites
    and the Children's Bureau Information Gateway Web site, such as links to
    literature examining various strategies and audio files of past
    teleconferences discussing disproportionality. HHS also provides guidance
    and information on promising approaches as well as technical assistance
    and training to improve states' efforts to find minority foster care and
    adoptive parents through its AdoptUsKids initiative and Web site. In 2003,
    HHS's Children's Bureau also published a study examining
    disproportionality70 and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation
    summarizes other published and unpublished research findings on
    disproportionality on its Web site.

    Although HHS does not require states to collect or report information on
    disproportionality, the agency has included state-based data on
    disproportionality in its Annual Child Welfare Outcomes Report to
    Congress. In addition, through an initiative known as the Culturally
    Competent Practice Knowledge Management Initiative, the agency is
    compiling an inventory of tools and best practices for addressing
    disproportionality. According to HHS officials, the agency plans to make
    this information available to consultants within its network of National
    Resource Centers to use in providing training and technical assistance to
    states and localities, but as of April 2007, HHS had not determined
    whether or how to make this information publicly available.

    70HHS, Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives from
    the Child Welfare Community (HHS, Administration for Children and
    Families, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 2003).

    As a whole, child welfare administrators we surveyed reported that in
    their view, their own states should be doing more to address
    disproportionality but added that having additional resources, including
    information on promising practices and technical assistance, would be
    useful in their efforts. Forty-two states reported that additional
    resources were needed to apply known strategies to reduce the
    disproportionality of African American children. All six states we visited
    were using funds from a private foundation, Casey Foundation, to support
    their initiatives. Similarly, 41 states reported that having information
    on best practices to address racial disproportionality would be at least
    moderately helpful to them. In responding to the survey, officials from
    one state noted that Casey Family Programs had developed helpful
    strategies to address the issue, and officials from another state noted
    that having a central federal repository to share information across
    states, including descriptions and evaluations of promising strategies,
    would help them more effectively address disproportionality.

    Twenty-five states also reported that receiving technical assistance from
    HHS in calculating disproportionality and tracking it over time would be
    useful.71 Some of these states volunteered through written comments that
    this additional assistance would be useful because state and local
    agencies have limited capacity to analyze or track
    disproportionality-related data. Nearly all of the states we visited had
    assistance from local universities or research institutes in analyzing
    data on disproportionality. California state child welfare officials told
    us that without the aid of a university researcher, they would not have
    the ability to help counties that lack the capacity to collect and analyze
    their data. At the time of our survey, eighteen states reported that they
    were not regularly analyzing or using data in their efforts to address
    disproportionality.

    71Although 18 states in our survey believed that having reporting
    requirements on disproportionality rates in the CFSR would be useful,
    nearly as many responded that it would not be useful, and HHS officials
    told us that the CFSR process was governed by statute and that they could
    not add such a requirement. In addition, some child welfare officials we
    interviewed believed that outcomes should be recorded by race. These would
    be similar to educational outcome requirements under the No Child Left
    Behind Act. It requires states to create an accountability system of
    assessments, graduation rates, and other indicators. Schools have to make
    adequate yearly progress to a state-determined level of proficiency.

    Some child welfare officials and researchers we interviewed reported that
    the leadership and efforts made by the Department of Justice, Office of
    Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), to address the
    disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile justice
    system could serve as a model for child welfare. In response to similar
    issues with racial disproportionality, the Justice Department has overseen
    states' efforts in addressing disproportionality in the juvenile justice
    system, as mandated. To carry out its mission, OJJDP has established
    reporting requirements for states; provided guidance, technical
    assistance, and information on promising practices through a centralized
    location on the OJJDP Web site; and conducted regular conferences and
    training sessions for over a decade on the issue. According to a key
    official from OJJDP and a few state juvenile justice coordinators we
    interviewed, because of the legal mandate and federal funding provided
    over time, OJJDP's efforts have helped states implement strategies
    intended to reduce disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile
    justice system. As of 2005, nearly all eligible states and territories
    have devised plans to address disproportionality and regularly submit
    reports to OJJDP.

    States Reported That Some Current Federal Policies May Reduce the Disproportion
    of African American Children in Care, While Other Policies May Increase It

    Federal policies that support services to families and adoption were
    generally considered helpful in reducing the proportion of African
    Americans in foster care, but policies that limit funds for prevention and
    legal guardianship were reported to have a negative effect, according to
    our review. Although it is difficult to isolate the effect of any one
    policy,72 many states reported that federal block grants that can be used
    to provide services to families help reduce disproportionality. At the
    same time, even more states reported that other policies constraining the
    use of federal child welfare funds work against this goal. States
    generally reported that policies promoting adoption-such as subsidies to
    families adopting children with special needs and the requirement to
    recruit minority adoptive parents-have been helpful, but wanted more
    support for legal guardianship. In particular, states considered the
    federal policy recognizing legal guardianship as helpful in enabling
    children to exit foster care, but policies limiting the use of federal
    funds to pay subsidies to guardians as a barrier. Federal policies that
    impose time frames on caseworkers for making permanency decisions may
    shorten the time children remain in care but may also impede states'
    ability to reunify children with their parents.

    72Because policies are often implemented around the same time and overlap,
    changes in outcomes, such as adoption rates, may reflect the influence of
    multiple policies.

    Policies That Support Services to Families Were Considered Helpful, but Some
    Funding Policies Constrain States' Ability to Reduce Disproportionality

    According to states we surveyed, having federal block grant funds
    available to provide services to families contributes to reducing the
    proportion of African American children in foster care compared to
    children of other races and ethnicities. However, policies that limit
    federal child welfare funds for preventive services or other purposes
    besides maintenance payments to foster care families are viewed as having
    a negative effect. (See fig. 13.)

    Figure 13: States' Views on Impact of Funding Policies on
    Disproportionality

    In our survey, 23 states reported that the ability to use TANF block grant
    funds to provide parenting classes, substance abuse treatment programs,
    and payments to guardians who are relatives contributes to a reduction in
    the proportion of African American children in care in their states.73
    Many officials and researchers we interviewed told us that having an
    adequate level of preventive services and family supports was particularly
    relevant for African American families living in poverty. However, as with
    all block grants, state officials determine the use of these funds and
    their program priorities. TANF funds used for child welfare in 2004 ranged
    from zero percent in eight states to 51 percent of Connecticut's total
    federal funds for such purposes, according to an Urban Institute report.74
    Some officials from local child welfare agencies we interviewed also noted
    that because they did not have a steady source of funds for child welfare
    activities, it was difficult to plan for and provide preventive and family
    support services to these families. In a recent GAO report, states cited
    such services as the ones most in need of greater federal, state or local
    resources.75

    Other policies constrain the amount of federal child welfare funds states
    can spend on services to support families, and states reported that these
    policies contributed to the disproportion of African American children in
    foster care. Of particular concern to 28 states were limitations on the
    use of federal funds under Title IV-B, which funds preventative and family
    support services. Under this part of the law, states are entitled to no
    more than their specified share of annual funding regardless of the number
    of families they serve in a year. These IV-B prevention funds can help
    divert children from foster care by providing services to their families
    and also help children exit foster care by providing supports to adoptive
    families and guardians. Yet the majority of federal funding for child
    welfare is distributed as payments for maintaining children already in
    foster care homes under another part of the law, Title IV-E. 76

    73In addition to block grant funds, federal funds for prevention and
    family support services under Title IV-B have been useful in states'
    efforts to address disproportionality, according to some officials we
    interviewed.

    74See Cynthia Andrews Scarcella, Roseanna Bess, Erica Hecht Zielewski, and
    Rob Geen, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children V (Washington, D.C.:
    Urban Institute, 2006). According to the Urban Institute survey, states'
    allocation of TANF and SSBG block grants constituted 32 percent of federal
    child welfare spending in fiscal year 2004.

    75See GAO-07-75.

    Twenty-five states we surveyed reported that the limited use of Title IV-E
    funds for other purposes besides making maintenance payments to foster
    care families, such as providing services to families, contribute to the
    proportion of African American children in care. According to California
    and Minnesota officials, because the majority of federal child welfare
    funds are used for foster care payments instead of preventive services,
    federal funding policies did not align with states' efforts to reduce the
    number of children entering foster care by serving at-risk children safely
    in their homes.77 Previous GAO work as well as other research has noted
    that federal child welfare funding favors reimbursement for foster care
    placements, while providing less support for services to prevent such
    placements.78 Every year since fiscal year 2004, the administration has
    proposed in its budget the creation of a Child Welfare Program Option
    under which states would have the option to receive federal foster care
    funds in the form of flexible grants, which they could use to fund a range
    of child welfare services and activities.79 This proposal has not been
    introduced as legislation.

    76States may claim federal reimbursement under Title IV-E for every
    eligible child who is placed in a licensed foster care homes, and states
    may seek reimbursement from the federal government for specified
    percentages of these costs. Of total federal child welfare expenditures
    for 2004, Title IV-E claims represented about 50 percent, while Title IV-B
    funds represented about 5 percent, according to data from the Urban
    Institute.

    77Although many officials we interviewed indicated that more funds should
    be placed in prevention, family preservation and family support services,
    findings from large-scale evaluations conducted by HHS showed that
    provision of these services provided no or little effect in reducing
    out-of-home placement, maltreatment recurrence, or improved family
    functioning beyond what normal casework services achieved. See HHS,
    Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs, Final
    Report, Volumes 1 and 2  (Dec. 2002).

    78See [52]GAO-06-787T ; [53]GAO 07-75 ; Fostering the Future: Safety,
    Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care, Pew Commission on
    Children in Foster Care (May 2004); and C. Lind, Developing and Supporting
    a Continuum of Child Welfare Services, Welfare Information Network, The
    Finance Project (Dec. 2004).

    79HHS discussed the current funding structure and the administration's
    proposed child welfare program option in its publication, Federal Foster
    Care Financing: How and Why the Current Funding Structure Fails to Meet
    the Needs of the Child Welfare Field, ASPE Issue Brief, (U.S. Department
    of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and
    Evaluation, Washington, D.C.: Aug.  2005).

    States Generally Viewed Federal Policies on Adoption as Helpful, but Other
    Policies Limit State Efforts to Find Alternate Placements or Reunify Families

    In responding to our survey, states considered certain federal policies as
    helpful in reducing disproportionality, especially adoption policies and
    the recognition of guardianship. However, states viewed the lack of
    subsidies for guardianship and policies affecting the licensing of foster
    care and adoptive families as contributing to disproportionality. Views
    were mixed on federal policies that impose time frames for making
    permanency decisions.

      Adoption and Guardianship

    Among federal policies that affect states' ability to find permanent homes
    for children, those that promote adoption were believed to reduce the
    proportion of African American children in foster care, according to our
    survey results. Although the recognition of guardianship as a placement
    option under federal law was also considered helpful, state and local
    officials reported that the lack of federal reimbursement for subsidies to
    guardians constrained their ability to place children in such
    arrangements. (See fig. 14.)

    Figure 14: States' Views on Impact of Adoption and Guardianship Policies
    on Disproportionality

    In our survey, 22 states reported that the requirement to diligently
    recruit minority families contributes to a decrease in the proportion of
    African American children in care. According to officials from Illinois,
    New York, and North Carolina, the requirement to diligently recruit
    minority families has had a positive impact on moving African American
    children into permanent homes. For example, this requirement broadened the
    role and use of extended family as possible caregivers for children,
    according to an HHS survey of child welfare workers.80

    State officials told us that it was a challenge to recruit a racially and
    ethnically diverse pool of potential foster and adoptive parents, as
    evidenced by the fact that more than half of states are not meeting HHS
    performance goals for recruitment.81 State officials noted the shortage of
    willing, appropriate, and qualified parents to adopt African American
    children, particularly older children, and researchers also cited a lack
    of resources among state and local agencies and federal guidance to
    implement new recruiting and training initiatives.82 Perhaps because of
    these challenges, 9 states in our survey reported that the policy
    requiring diligent recruitment had no effect on the proportion of African
    American children in care, and 15 states reported that they were unable to
    tell. Over the last 5 years, African American children as well as Native
    American children have consistently experienced lower rates of adoption
    than children of other races and ethnicities, according to HHS adoption
    data. (See fig. 15.)

    80HHS, Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives from
    the Child Welfare Community (HHS, Administration for Children and
    Families, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 2003).

    81This is based on HHS CFSR results between 2001 and 2004. Challenges in
    recruiting are consistent with survey responses in an earlier GAO study as
    well. See GAO, Child Welfare: Improving Social Service program, Training,
    and Technical Assistance Information Would Help Address Long-standing
    Service-level and Workforce Challenges, [54]GAO-07-75 (Washington, D.C.:
    Oct. 6, 2006).

    82Lorelei B. Mitchell, Richard P. Barth, Rebecca Green, Ariana Wall, et
    al., "Child Welfare Reform in the United States: Findings from a Local
    Agency Survey," Child Welfare, 84, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 2005).

    Figure 15: Adoption Rates for All Children, 2001 through 2005

    Note: Adoption rates are calculated as total estimated count of adoptions
    with public agency involvement finalized during the year of interest
    divided by the number of children waiting to be adopted on the last day of
    the prior year. Children waiting to be adopted are defined by HHS as those
    children who have goal of adoption and/or have parental rights terminated,
    excluding children with termination of parental rights who are 16 and
    older and have the goal of emancipation.

    Providing adoption incentive payments to states generally helps reduce the
    proportion of African American children in care, according to our survey;
    however, these benefits may not be sustainable over time. In our survey,
    20 states reported that these federal incentive payments provided to
    states for increasing adoptions contributes to reducing the proportion of
    African American children in care. A state official from Texas's child
    welfare agency told us that in 2005 the state received the highest
    adoption incentive payments among all states and that the number of
    African American children adopted has increased each year since 2004.
    However, states face challenges under this program because they must reach
    higher benchmarks each year to continue to earn adoption incentive
    payments. While the total number of adoptions nationally increased
    significantly in the late 1990s, since 2000 adoption rates have reached a
    plateau, according to HHS data and other research.

    Twenty states reported that the federal policy that provides subsidies to
    parents who adopt a child considered as having special needs contributes
    positively to reducing the proportion of African American children in
    foster care.83 Of African American children who were adopted from foster
    care in 2004 who states classified as having special needs, the child's
    race provided the basis for the classification in 20 percent of cases. In
    contrast, race was the basis for the classification of about 10 percent of
    Hispanic, Asian, and Native American adopted children who were determined
    to have special needs in that year.

    The federal policy encouraging race-neutral adoptions was believed to have
    less effect than other policies on the proportion of African American
    children in foster care.84 Intended to eliminate race-related barriers to
    adoption, MEPA-IEP prohibits foster care and adoption agencies that
    receive federal funds from delaying or denying placement decisions on the
    basis of race, color or national origin. Although 15 states reported that
    encouraging race-neutral adoptions would help reduce disproportionality,
    18 states responded that this policy had no effect, and an additional 12
    states reported that they were unable to tell. An HHS 2003 study of child
    welfare agencies, staff, and partner agencies noted that confusion and a
    general lack of knowledge regarding what the law allowed or prohibited
    hindered its implementation. In support of this finding, child welfare
    officials we spoke with in Illinois and Texas also noted that child
    welfare workers may misunderstand or fear that they are not complying with
    the law's prohibition. These officials stated that in some cases child
    welfare workers may be less likely to place African American children with
    relatives or in African American adoptive homes because they mistakenly
    believe that the law prohibits or discourages same-race adoptions. Other
    researchers and officials told us they opposed the law's intent and were
    concerned about the detrimental effects of placing children with parents
    of another race on a child's well being.85 Some officials we interviewed
    stated that race should be given first priority in placing African
    American children in families for care as is done for Native American
    children under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA).86 According to
    a judge we interviewed in North Carolina, the encouragement of
    race-neutral adoptions led in some cases to African American children
    being placed in cross-racial homes in which they felt disconnected from
    their heritage.

    83As noted earlier, federal policy allows states to classify children as
    special needs if they have characteristics that make them difficult to
    place with adoptive families without adoption assistance, such as
    belonging to a sibling or minority group, or having a disability.

    84Most African American children were adopted by African American parents
    from 2000 to 2004, according to our analysis of HHS data, and the
    percentage of African American children in foster care adopted by single
    or married African American parents remained relatively steady at around
    70 percent.

    In addition to adoption, many child welfare officials and researchers we
    interviewed considered legal guardianship a particularly important way to
    help African American children exit foster care. Legal guardianship was
    formally recognized under federal law as another option for placing
    children in permanent homes.87 Some African American families, especially
    relatives, are reluctant to adopt because they do not want to terminate
    the parental rights of the child's parent, according to officials and
    researchers we interviewed. Legal guardianship allows a household to
    establish a permanent home for a child without terminating the parental
    rights of the birth parents. Seventeen states in our survey reported that
    this federal policy was believed to help decrease the proportion of
    African American children in their states' foster care systems. In
    California and Illinois, subsidized guardianships have been found to
    reduce the number of children in foster care, including African American
    children. In California about 16,000 children exited the state foster care
    system between 2000 and 2005 through their kinship guardianship program,
    and about 43 percent of these children were African American, according to
    data from state officials. Based on the results of the Illinois waiver and
    other states with waivers, subsidized guardianships have also been found
    to be at least cost neutral.

    However, according to state child welfare directors we surveyed and
    interviewed, the lack of federal reimbursement for subsidies to guardians
    constrained states' ability to place African American children in
    guardianship arrangements. In many cases, families that could otherwise
    serve as guardians lack the financial stability to permanently care for
    children without support, according to officials and researchers we
    interviewed. However, unless states are one of the seven that have a
    current federal demonstration waiver for assisted guardianship or kinship
    permanency programs, states cannot use federal child welfare funds to
    provide subsidies to legal guardians.88

    85This concern was also expressed in a previous GAO report. See GAO,
    Foster Care Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act Poses
    Difficult Challenges, [55]GAO-98-204 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 1998).

    86Pub. L. No. 95-608. ICWA requires that efforts be made to place Native
    American children with relatives or tribal families, unless a good reason
    exists not to follow these placement preferences.

    87Prior to ASFA's enactment, children's options for exiting foster care
    included being reunified with their parents, adopted by a relative or
    nonrelative, or achieving emancipation from foster care when they reached
    a certain age, usually 18.

    According to state and local child welfare officials, states would like to
    have more flexibility to use Title IV-E funds for supporting guardianship
    placements, as is done with adoption. In discussions with us, HHS
    officials stated that the Administration's proposed Child Welfare Program
    Option would provide states with the flexibility to use Title IV-E funds
    for the entire range of child welfare purposes, including assisted
    guardianship. However, although an HHS official said that guardianship was
    not considered as permanent as adoption, the results for the child have
    been found to be essentially the same. In the Illinois evaluation,
    guardianship and adoption both provide comparable levels of stability for
    the child and showed similar outcomes in terms of children's emotional and
    physical health.

      Licensing and Time Frames

    Federal policies regarding licensing, such as those that limit
    reimbursement for costs associated with the use of unlicensed relative
    caregivers and require criminal background checks on prospective
    caregivers, contribute to the disproportionality of African American
    children in foster care, according to states we surveyed. To a lesser
    extent, state officials reported that federally mandated time frames
    determining a child's permanency plan and whether parental rights should
    be terminated also had a negative effect. (See fig. 16.)

    88According to HHS officials, as of May 2007, seven states have active
    demonstrations testing the use of subsidized guardianship as an
    alternative permanency option, and one state has not yet implemented its
    guardianship demonstration.

    Figure 16: States' Views on Impact of Federal Policies on Licensing and
    Time Frames for Making Permanency Decisions on Disproportionality

    States considered federal policies on the licensing and the use of
    relatives to provide foster care as increasing the proportion of African
    American children in foster care. In some cases, states permanently place
    children with unlicensed relatives who are neither adoptive parents nor
    guardians; however, states cannot claim federal reimbursement for such
    kinship care.89 In our survey, 20 states reported that this policy
    limiting reimbursement for costs associated with the use of unlicensed
    relative caregivers contributed to the disproportionality of African
    American children by hindering their ability to place children with
    relatives. According to researchers and state officials we interviewed,
    such policies have a disproportionate impact on African American children
    because they are more likely to live with unlicensed relatives. These
    relatives may be able to provide safe homes for children but may also be
    more likely have lower incomes and have difficulty meeting foster care
    licensing requirements, such as having a certain number of bedrooms.

    89In the preamble to its 2000 regulations implementing ASFA, HHS clarified
    that relative caregivers must be fully licensed and meet the same
    licensing requirements as nonkin in order for the state to receive IV-E
    reimbursements for those families. 65 Fed. Reg. 4020 Except for background
    checks related to criminal convictions, states determine their own
    licensing requirements for prospective foster care, adoptive, and guardian
    parents, but must meet national safety standards as overseen through the
    CFSR process.

    Eighteen states reported that federal policies requiring states to perform
    criminal background checks on prospective caregivers, including relatives,
    contributes to disproportionality, while other states reported that these
    policies had no effect. Among child welfare officials and others we
    interviewed, some were concerned that federal law requiring states to
    conduct fingerprinting checks for prospective parents or other types of
    background checks on all adults in the household may deter some African
    American relatives from stepping forward as caregivers. However, 16 states
    saw federal policy on criminal checks as having no effect. This may be in
    part due to the fact that most states have their own requirements
    regarding background checks that are similar to or more stringent than
    federal requirements.90

    Until recently, states could opt out of federal requirements for criminal
    background checks on prospective foster care and adoptive parents, but
    that provision was eliminated by the recently enacted Adam Walsh Child
    Safety and Protection Act. For the eight states that opted out of the
    federal requirements, federal regulations require them to verify that
    safety considerations with respect to the prospective foster or adoptive
    parents have been addressed.91 Some officials were concerned that the
    federal policy would limit their ability under previous policy to place
    African American and other children with relatives and other families.
    California and New York officials told us that their alternative plans
    allow them the flexibility to make exemptions case-by-case for foster
    care, adoptive, or guardianship families, typically relatives, that have
    past convictions that would otherwise be automatically prohibited by
    federal law.92 Although such exemptions make up a comparatively small
    proportion of total placements for children,93 state and county officials
    in California told us that their inability to make these exemptions
    beginning October 2008--when the prohibition on states' ability to opt out
    of federal requirements goes into effect--may have a disproportionate
    impact in the placement of African American children with relatives or
    other families who they consider safe and appropriate for children.

    90For example, according to information from HHS's Children's Bureau, 24
    states as of August 2006 require federal criminal record checks for
    prospective adoptive parents and 23 states require fingerprinting checks.

    9145 C.F.R. 1356.30(e).

    State officials had mixed views on federal policies that impose time
    frames on permanency decisions that affect whether children will be
    reunified with their parents or placed in an alternative home.94 About a
    third of states reported that federal policy requiring that states adhere
    to certain time frames for initiating plans to place children in permanent
    arrangements and for terminating parental rights contributed to an
    increase in the proportion of African American children in care. Some
    state officials and researchers we interviewed said that these time frames
    were not reasonable for some African American parents who have complex
    problems, such as substance abuse and mental health issues, that require
    more time to resolve or if they have difficulty in accessing services.95
    When parental rights are terminated, some children become "legal orphans"
    and remain in foster care longer than if parents had been given more time
    to complete their reunification plans.96 According to an HHS official's
    analysis of AFCARS data, the percentage of children who have had their
    parental rights terminated but who did not find a permanent home and
    ultimately emancipated out of the foster care system increased from 3.3
    percent in 2000 to 6.7 percent in 2005.97 On the other hand, some child
    welfare officials reported that the ASFA time frames have been helpful in
    ensuring that children do not languish in care and have helped reduce the
    proportion of African American children in care.

    92For example, officials in California told us that county child welfare
    officials made an exemption for an uncle who, 3 years ago, had a felony
    drug conviction for being under the influence of marijuana and alcohol.
    The county welfare agency determined that he had since rehabilitated and
    would, along with the aunt, make an appropriate caregiver of three
    children.

    93For example, state officials from California estimated that local child
    welfare agencies made about 360 exemptions in California between 2005 and
    2006 for relative caregivers who otherwise would have been automatically
    disqualified as caregivers under federal law. These exemptions accounted
    for 2 to 3 percent of all placements that were approved for foster care,
    some of whom later became guardians or adoptive parents, according to
    officials.

    94ASFA shortened the time frame in which a permanency hearing must be held
    for children when they first enter foster care from 18 months to 12 months
    and required states to file a petition to terminate parental rights for
    children who have been in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months. States
    may exempt children from the requirement to terminate parental rights if a
    child is placed with a relative.

    95However, timelines were often extended because of parents' difficulties
    in accessing services they needed to comply with requirements for
    reunifying with their children. See GAO, Foster Care: Recent Legislation
    Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent Homes for Children, but
    Long-Standing Barriers Remain, [56]GAO-02-585 (Washington, D.C.: June 28,
    2002).

    Conclusions

    Issues surrounding the disproportionate representation of African-American
    children in foster care are pervasive, continuing, and complex. They cut
    across different points in the child welfare process--from before entry to
    exit from foster care--and they affect nearly all states in this nation to
    varying degrees.

    In efforts to reduce African American representation in foster care, state
    and local child welfare agencies face numerous challenges. These
    challenges include ensuring that decisions to place a child in foster care
    are not influenced by bias or cultural misconceptions about families or
    communities, and that parent's difficulties in accessing support services
    do not prevent a child from returning home. Adding to these challenges is
    the fact that many supports and services are provided through multiple
    social service systems and require actions outside the responsibility of
    child welfare agencies, such as the ability to obtain timely substance
    abuse treatment for parents or the availability of affordable housing. To
    facilitate access to services, state and local agencies bear the primary
    responsibility for coordinating and administering these services.

    To some extent, federal policies on adoption have supported states'
    efforts to reduce the foster care population, but among policies aimed at
    reducing the number of minority children in foster care, many states
    experienced challenges recruiting sufficient minority families that
    reflect the foster care population. African American children have
    generally seen lower adoption rates than children of other races, and in
    recent years the adoption rate for all children has reached a plateau.
    States report being constrained by the lack of federal subsidies for legal
    guardianship similar to those provided for adoption. Many consider legal
    guardianship to be more reflective of the cultural values held by some
    African Americans and other families of color and better suited to the
    needs of African American and Hispanic families who want to permanently
    care for related children without necessarily adopting them. As a
    strategy, subsidizing guardianships has demonstrated its value in
    providing permanent families for children and in reducing the number of
    African American children in foster care. It may also be cost-effective,
    given the experiences of the states that implemented this strategy using
    federal waivers. This may therefore be the time to reconsider the current
    distinctions that provide subsidies for adoption but not for guardianship.

    96To mitigate this situation, California passed legislation in 2005
    permitting a child who has not been adopted after the passage of 3 years
    from termination of parental rights to petition the juvenile court for
    reinstatement of parental rights (Cal. Stats., AB 519, Chap. 634).

    97Some of the increase also represented better data reporting, as cited in
    Penelope L. Maza, "Children Who Fall Through the Cracks," The Roundtable,
    National Child Welfare Research Center,  21, no. 1 (2007).

    The importance of collecting and analyzing data by race is considered a
    crucial first step for addressing racial disparity within child welfare
    and other systems. Yet some states and localities report a lack of
    capacity to collect or analyze data that would better allow them to
    identify the strategies that would be most useful in addressing the
    problems in their state. HHS provides assistance to states on data
    analysis and practices through its technical assistance network and
    related Web sites, although the agency lacks the directive and funding
    that Department of Justice officials said were instrumental to their
    efforts to analyze data by race and provide guidance on promising
    practices. In response to this directive, states that have identified
    disproportionality in juvenile justice as an issue have regularly
    submitted reports to OJJDP and have devised plans to address the issue. In
    child welfare, states identified as being in the forefront of efforts to
    address disproportionality are relying on private organizations to provide
    financial and technical assistance. In the absence of research-based
    evidence on strategies that work for addressing disproportionality, states
    are seeking out promising practices used in other states. Despite the
    steps that HHS has taken to disseminate information about these
    strategies, states report that they need further information and technical
    assistance to strengthen their current efforts in addressing
    disproportionality.

    Matter for Congressional Consideration

    To assist states in increasing the number of homes available for the
    permanent placement of African American and other children from foster
    care, we suggest that Congress consider amending federal law to allow
    federal reimbursement for legal guardianship similar to that currently
    provided for adoption.

    Recommendation for Executive Action

    To enhance states' ability to reduce the proportion of African American
    children in foster care, the Secretary of HHS should further assist states
    in understanding the nature and extent of disproportionality in their
    child welfare systems and in taking steps to address the issue. These
    actions should include:

               o Encouraging states to regularly track state and local data on
               the racial disproportionality of children in foster care and use
               these data to develop strategies that can better enable them to
               prevent children's entry into foster care and speed their exit
               into permanent homes. HHS should also encourage states to make
               increased use of HHS's National Resource Centers as a source of
               technical assistance on this issue.

               o Completing and making publicly available information on
               disproportionality that the agency is developing under its
               Culturally Competent Practice Knowledge Initiative so that states
               have easier access to tools and strategies useful for addressing
               the issue.

    Agency Comments and Our Response

    We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment. HHS's
    written comments are provided in appendix III of this report.

    Our draft report included a recommendation that HHS pursue specific
    measures to allow federal reimbursement for legal guardianship. In
    commenting on the draft report, HHS disagreed with the recommendation,
    stating that the administration had already proposed a broad restructuring
    of child welfare funding, known as the Child Welfare Program Option, which
    would allow states to use federal funds for legal guardianship. Under this
    proposed restructuring of child welfare, states could choose to remain
    under the current foster care funding structure or they could instead
    receive a capped grant for a period of 5 years. States choosing the grant
    option would have the flexibility to use these funds for a wide range of
    child welfare purposes, including subsidizing guardianships. The current
    adoption assistance program would remain the same under this proposal.
    However, HHS has presented this option in its budget proposals each year
    since 2004, but no legislation has been offered to date to authorize it.
    Moreover, if enacted, it is unknown how many states would choose a capped
    grant that would allow greater program flexibility instead of the current
    title IV-E foster care entitlement funding. In light of these factors, we
    suggest that Congress consider taking action to allow adoption assistance
    payments to be used for legal guardianship. Current evidence indicates
    that such a change could help states increase the number of permanent
    homes available for African American and other children in foster care.
    Furthermore, some states have demonstrated this change can be achieved
    without increasing program costs. We have changed the final report to
    delete our recommendation to HHS and to include instead this matter for
    congressional consideration.

    In response to our recommendation that HHS take certain actions to further
    assist states in understanding and addressing the nature and extent of
    racial disproportionality in their child welfare systems, HHS stated that
    these actions were consistent with their current technical assistance
    efforts to encourage and assist states in addressing racial
    disproportionality. For example, HHS cited the variety of technical
    assistance available to states in areas such as data analysis and cultural
    competency. However, HHS did not address the specific actions that we
    recommended related to encouraging states to regularly track and use child
    welfare data on racial disproportionality and completing and making
    publicly available the information on disproportionality that it is
    developing through its Culturally Competent Practice Knowledge Initiative.
    We continue to believe that it is important for HHS to take these actions
    to further equip states to address this complex issue.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
    its issue date. At that time, copies of this report will be sent to the
    Secretary of HHS, relevant congressional committees, and other interested
    parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
    addition, the report will be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site
    at [57]http://www.gao.gov .

    Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
    questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
    Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
    of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
    listed in appendix IV.

    Denise M. Fantone, Acting Director
    Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Objectives

    For this study, we were asked to analyze (1) the major factors that have
    been identified as influencing the proportion of African American children
    entering and remaining in foster care compared to children of other races
    and ethnicities; (2) the extent that states and localities have
    implemented strategies that appear promising in addressing African
    American representation in foster care; and (3) the ways in which key
    federal child welfare policies may have influenced African American
    representation in foster care. Although we focused on African American
    children in this report, we also noted points of similarity or difference
    with children of other races and ethnicities as appropriate.

    Scope and Methodology

    Overall, to address these three objectives, we used multiple
    methodologies, including administering a state survey; conducting site
    visits; interviewing researchers and federal agency officials; conducting
    a literature review using various criteria; and analyzing federal
    legislation and policies. More specifically, we conducted a nationwide
    Web-based survey of state child welfare administrators in 50 states and
    the District of Columbia between November 2006 and January 2007. To obtain
    a more in-depth understanding of the issues, especially of any promising
    strategies to address disproportionality of African American children, we
    conducted site visits to California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and
    North Carolina, and in addition, conducted telephone interviews with state
    and local child welfare officials, service providers, and court officials
    in Texas. These states were selected in accordance with various criteria
    discussed below. To extend our understanding, we interviewed child welfare
    researchers identified by others as knowledgeable on issues of racial
    disproportionality in foster care as well as representatives from national
    child welfare organizations, such as the Casey Family Programs; the Child
    Welfare League of America; Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Inc.;
    and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, on these matters. In
    addition, we participated in child welfare-related conferences with
    sessions relevant to these objectives. We also conducted an extensive
    literature review and analyzed published research on racial
    disproportionality in foster care and strategies used by states and others
    to address this issue, and selected the research for this review based on
    particular criteria described below. At the federal level, we interviewed
    HHS officials responsible for foster care programs and related data, as
    well as officials at the Department of Juvenile Justice, which is required
    by law to address racial disproportionality in the juvenile justice
    systems. Finally, we analyzed federal child welfare legislation, agency
    documentation, and policies relevant to foster care that may have an
    impact on racial disproportionality. We conducted our work between June
    2006 and June 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
    auditing standards.

    Web-Based Survey

    To obtain state perspectives on our objectives and the relative priority
    state child welfare agencies place on the challenges they face, we
    conducted a Web-based survey of child welfare directors in the 50 states
    and the District of Columbia. The survey was conducted using a
    self-administered electronic questionnaire posted on the Web. We contacted
    directors via e-mail announcing the survey and sent follow-up e-mails and
    made telephone calls as well to encourage responses. The survey data were
    collected between November 2006 and January 2007. We received completed
    surveys from 47 states and the District of Columbia (a 92 percent response
    rate). The states of New Jersey, Maryland, and Rhode Island did not return
    completed surveys.

    To develop the survey questions, we relied on information gathered through
    interviews with researchers, professional associations, and our literature
    review (see criteria for selecting literature). In addition, in July 2006,
    we solicited comments from various researchers and other experts on
    elements used in our survey to ensure their completeness. These elements
    included a list of factors that contribute to, strategies to address, and
    federal policies that may affect the disproportionality of African
    American children in foster care. We received comments on these elements
    from the Center for the Study of Social Policy, the Black Administrators
    in Child Welfare, and Westat, and made modifications accordingly. We
    worked closely with social science survey specialists to develop and
    pretest the questionnaire. Because these were not sample surveys, there
    are no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting
    any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling
    errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is
    interpreted, in the sources of information that are available to
    respondents, or how the data are entered into a database can introduce
    unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the
    development of the questionnaires, the data collection, and data analysis
    to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, prior to administering
    the survey, we pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with
    five states to determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2)
    the terms used were precise, (3) respondents were able to provide the
    information we were seeking, and (4) the questions were unbiased. We made
    changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire based on
    pretest results. Because these were Web-based surveys in which respondents
    entered their responses directly into our database, there was a reduced
    possibility of data entry error. We also performed computer analyses to
    identify inconsistencies in responses and other indications of error. In
    addition, an independent analyst verified that the computer programs used
    to analyze the data were written correctly.

    Site Visits

    To obtain a more in-depth understanding of issues, we conducted site
    visits to California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and North Carolina.
    In addition we conducted telephone interviews with Texas state child
    welfare officials, a researcher a service provider, and a judge in Texas.
    When viewed as a group, the states we visited reflected diversity in
    geographic location, rates of African American representation in foster
    care, strategies and initiatives used to address this disproportion, and
    program administration (state administered and county administered). In
    addition, the states we selected collectively covered nearly one-third of
    children in foster care across the nation. During these visits, we
    interviewed state and local child welfare officials; juvenile court judges
    and other child welfare-related legal representatives, such as attorneys
    and public guardians; community service providers; and others involved in
    the child welfare systems, such as academic researchers. We also collected
    information, reports, and data on disproportionality and initiatives to
    address this issue from state and local child welfare agencies and others
    during these visits. We cannot generalize our findings beyond the states
    we visited.

    Literature Review of Published Research on Disproportionality

    To learn more about the major factors, strategies, and federal policies
    influencing whether African American children enter and remain in foster
    care compared to children of other races and ethnicities, we conducted a
    literature review. The literature we reviewed included research articles
    we identified through databases, such as Lexis-Nexis, J-STOR, and the
    National Clearinghouse on the Child Abuse and Neglect Information. We used
    various search terms, such as disproportionality, African American, foster
    care, child welfare system, and over-representation in searching these
    databases. We also reviewed literature cited in these studies and those we
    found on Web sites related to child welfare and disproportionality, as
    well as literature recommended to us from our interviews. In addition, we
    conducted a more intensive review about 50 studies identified through
    these methods that focused on factors affecting entry and length of stay
    in foster care. For each selected study, we determined whether the study's
    findings were generally reliable. Two GAO social science analysts assessed
    each study's research methodology, including its research design, sampling
    frame, selection of measure, data quality, limitation, and analytic
    techniques for its methodological soundness and the validity of the
    results and conclusions that were drawn.

    Interviews with Researchers and Child Welfare Organizations

    For all three objectives we also conducted interviews with academic
    researchers and other experts on disproportionality issues, such as child
    welfare-related organizations. We identified child welfare researchers for
    our interviews through our literature review and through recommendations
    from child welfare officials and stakeholders as knowledgeable on issues
    of racial disproportionality in foster care. For this study we interviewed
    academic researchers affiliated with the following universities and
    research centers: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, Children and
    Family Research Center at the University of Illinois School of Social
    Work, Jordan Institute for Families at the University of North Carolina,
    School of Social Welfare at the University of California at Berkeley,
    University of Minnesota School of Social Work, University of Texas School
    of Social Work, and Hunter College School of Social Work of the City
    University of New York. We also interviewed researchers and other staff at
    the following organizations: Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Casey
    Family Programs, Center for the Study of Social Policy, Child Welfare
    League of America, National Association of Public Child Welfare
    Administrators, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,
    Nestor Associates, and Westat. To obtain clarification on the findings of
    the National Incidence Surveys, we also interviewed the principal
    investigator of these studies for HHS, also at Westat.

    Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)

    To obtain children welfare data we requested and analyzed the U.S.
    Children's Bureau AFCARS data from the National Data Archive on Child
    Abuse and Neglect at Cornell University (NDACAN). AFCARS is a federal
    database that provides case level data on all children covered by Title
    IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. On a bi-annual basis, all
    states submit data to the Children's Bureau concerning each child in
    foster care and each child who has been adopted under the authority of the
    state's child welfare agency. To confirm the reliability of the data,
    social science methodologists at GAO conducted electronic data testing,
    comparing our figures with HHS and others who have reported similar data.
    We also interviewed several officials with NDACAN and HHS who were
    responsible for the data. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable
    for the purposes of this report.

    In calculating the adoption rates reported in figure 15, we used estimates
    from HHS's Web site of the total estimated count of adoptions with public
    agency involvement finalized at year end divided by the number of children
    waiting to be adopted on the last day of the prior year. Children waiting
    to be adopted are defined by HHS as those children who have the case goal
    of adoption and/or have parental rights terminated.1 According to an HHS
    official familiar with AFCARS data, the HHS reported numbers of children
    waiting to be adopted may be imprecise because of variations among states
    and over time.2 Accordingly, we also calculated the adoption rate by using
    the number of children in foster care on the last day of the prior year as
    the denominator. Under both analyses, African American and Native American
    children had lower adoption rates between 2001 and 2005 than children of
    other races and ethnicities. We chose not to report the findings under the
    second method of analysis because the numbers of children in foster care
    on the last day of the prior year include many children who are not
    waiting to be adopted, such as children who have a case goal of
    reunification and later reunify with their parents, which would greatly
    underestimate adoption rates.3

    1This excluded children with termination of parental rights who are 16 and
    older and have the goal of emancipation.

    2According to this HHS official, until the last few years, some states may
    have been under-reporting cases in which termination of parental rights
    has occurred, and states vary in how they determine adoption as a case
    goal for children in foster care. HHS has been revising how it generates
    this estimate over the years.

    3For example, in 2005, reunification was the case goal for 50 percent of
    children, and 54 percent of children who exited foster care that year were
    reunified with their parent or primary caretaker.

    Appendix II: Disproportionality Indexes of Children in Foster Care by Race
    and State

    Among researchers and others, disproportionality indexes or ratios are
    used to characterize the extent of disproportionality in a particular
    area, whether nationwide, within a state, or within a county or
    metropolitan area. Table 4 represents the proportion of African American,
    White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American children in the foster care
    system in each state when compared to the overall population of each
    racial category of children in that state. (See table 4.) In the table, we
    present disproportionality indexes by state for children in foster care on
    the last day of fiscal year 2004. In this table, for example, an index
    number of below 1.00 indicates an under-representation of African American
    in foster care in a state compared to African American children's
    proportions in the general child population in that state, while a number
    above 1.00 indicates an over-representation of African American children
    in foster care in a state compared to African American children's
    proportions in the general child population in that state. This table also
    displays this indexing methodology for the other four racial and ethnic
    categories.1

    Overall, the disproportionality index nationwide for African American
    children is 2.26, which means that African American children were
    over-represented in foster care nationally in 2004 at a rate of more than
    twice their proportions in the U.S. child population. In fiscal year 2004,
    a total of 36 states had disproportionality indexes of 2.0 or more, and 16
    states had disproportionality indexes of 3.0 or more for the number of
    African American children in foster care at the end of the fiscal year
    (indexes of 2.0 or more are bolded in the table 4). Within states,
    disproportionality rates may vary considerably, as noted earlier.

    1Another method, used by child welfare researchers at the University of
    California at Berkeley to characterize differences among populations, is
    called a "disparity index." This index compares the levels of
    disproportionality between various racial and ethnic groups. For example,
    the disparity index for New York's African American children when compared
    to White children is 7.11--more than double the state's disproportionality
    rate for African American children of 2.63, as shown in table 4. (OJJDP
    also uses a similar index, which it terms the "relative rate index," in
    analyzing disproportionate minority contact.)

    Table 4: Disproportionality Index by State of Children Ages 17 Years of
    Age or Under in Foster Care as of Last Day of Fiscal Year 2004

                                                                           Native
                        African American     White  Hispanic      Asian  American
    State                   childrena childrenb childrenc  childrend childrene
    Alabama                      1.52      0.77      0.63       0.05      0.54
    Alaska                       2.23      0.48      0.25       0.04      3.07
    Arizona                      2.36      0.95      0.95       0.13      0.39
    Arkansas                     1.39      0.84      0.64       0.30      0.05
    California                   4.05      0.75      0.89       0.17      1.80
    Colorado                     2.78      0.78      1.27       0.28      1.94
    Connecticut                  2.76      0.49      2.02       0.08      0.58
    Delaware                     2.30      0.58      0.83       0.05      0.51
    District of                  1.30      0.01      0.31       0.17      0.00
    Columbia
    Florida                      1.93      0.89      0.42       0.12      0.88
    Georgia                      1.44      0.80      0.54       0.07      0.12
    Hawaii                       0.44      0.58      0.19       1.01      1.80
    Idaho                        3.37      0.89      1.12       0.24      5.86
    Illinois                     3.48      0.50      0.29       0.02      0.53
    Indiana                      3.01      0.72      0.87       0.09      1.36
    Iowa                         4.45      0.86      0.91       0.79      5.41
    Kansas                       2.93      0.88      0.47       0.16      1.22
    Kentucky                     2.02      0.87      0.26       0.19      0.68
    Louisiana                    1.40      0.76      0.28       0.12      0.64
    Maine                        1.74      0.88      2.15       0.43      1.52
    Maryland                     2.27      0.39      0.23       0.08      0.78
    Massachusetts                2.23      0.67      2.18       0.39      0.89
    Michigan                     2.90      0.56      0.78       0.13      1.83
    Minnesota                    3.63      0.63      1.39       0.37      7.31
    Mississippi                  1.10      0.92      0.73       0.54      0.14
    Missouri                     2.15      0.84      0.62       0.13      1.04
    Montana                      2.68      0.63      1.62       0.56      3.44
    Nebraska                     2.76      0.80      0.98       0.27      6.54
    Nevada                       2.67      1.07      0.53       0.36      0.39
    New Hampshire                4.37      0.91      1.79       0.15      0.90
    New Jersey                   3.81      0.41      0.35       0.03      1.27
    New Mexico                   2.81      1.02      1.06       0.20      0.40
    New York                     2.63      0.37      0.97       0.08      0.90
    North Carolina               1.67      0.74      0.79       0.27      1.53
    North Dakota                 3.26      0.69      1.90       2.98      3.09
    Ohio                         2.87      0.65      0.98       0.08      0.96
    Oklahoma                     1.76      0.70      1.10       0.12      1.12
    Oregon                       3.27      0.75      0.70       0.24      8.68
    Pennsylvania                 3.56      0.53      1.38       0.21      1.10
    Rhode Island                 2.68      0.76      1.14       0.47      2.11
    South Carolina               1.43      0.74      0.69       0.19      0.48
    South Dakota                 1.67      0.41      2.33       0.28      3.71
    Tennessee                    1.52      0.84      0.91       0.16      0.36
    Texas                        2.02      0.81      0.89       0.09      0.73
    Utah                         6.06      0.82      1.63       0.91      3.97
    Vermont                      3.24      1.01      0.45       0.13      0.70
    Virginia                     1.89      0.72      0.76       0.06      0.28
    Washington                   3.07      0.80      1.03       0.19      4.99
    West Virginia                2.04      0.92      1.19       0.00      0.19
    Wisconsin                    4.69      0.54      1.26       0.34      2.48
    Wyoming                      4.28      0.96      1.06       0.17      0.24
    United States                2.26      0.68      0.87       0.22      2.25

    Source: GAO analysis using Census Population Estimates from 2004 and
    Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) for fiscal
    year 2004, which was made available to us by the National Data Archive on
    Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
    Children identified by the child welfare system with two or more racial
    categories were not included.

    Note: Children who were identified by the child welfare system with two or
    more racial categories or who were unknown were not presented in this
    table.

    aChildren identified by the child welfare system as African American,
    non-Hispanic, and with only one race category.

    bChildren identified by the child welfare system as White, non-Hispanic,
    and with only one race category.

    cChildren identified by the child welfare system as having Hispanic
    origins; not a racial category.

    dChildren identified by the child welfare system as Asian, which includes
    Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic and with only one race
    category.

    eChildren identified by the child welfare system as Native American,
    non-Hispanic, and with only one race category.

    To derive each state's disproportionality index, for example, we divided
    the proportion of African American children in foster care (the number of
    African American children in foster care divided by the total number of
    children in child foster care) by the proportion of the African American
    children in the general population (the number of African American
    children in the population divided by the total number in the general
    population).2 According to HHS AFCARS data from fiscal year 2004, there
    were 498,981 children ages 17 years and under in foster care in the United
    States on September 30, 2004. Of these children, 162,991 were African
    American. Census population estimates for 2004 show there were 73,258,205
    children 17 years old and under in the general population, of which
    10,805,487 children were African American. Using the methodology
    described, we obtained a disproportionality index of 2.26 nationally for
    African American children in foster care at the end of the fiscal year for
    2004. This methodology was used for the other four racial categories.

    2The methodology we used for our disproportionality calculations is based
    on the University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services
    Research's Foster Care Dynamics Disproportionality and Disparity Index Web
    site. URL: < http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/dynamics/disprop/>

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

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Denise M. Fantone, Acting Director (202) 512-7215 or [58]fantoned@gao.gov

    Acknowledgments

    Cindy Ayers (Assistant Director) and Deborah A. Signer (Analyst-in-Charge)
    managed all aspects of the assignment. Christopher T. Langford, Theresa
    Lo, and Kimberly Siegal made significant contributions to this report, in
    all aspects of the work. Interns Lisa McMillen and Ashley Gilbert also
    contributed with data collection and analysis. In addition, Charles
    Willson assisted in the message and report development; Jay Smale
    contributed to the initial design of the engagement and, together with
    Luann Moy, assessed studies for the literature review; William R. Chatlos
    provided technical assistance in the development and pre-testing of the
    Web-based survey; Carolyn Boyce provided technical support in survey
    research and statistical analysis; George Quinn provided data analytic
    support; and James Rebbe, Attorney, provided legal support.

    (130573)

    GAO's Mission

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

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( [59]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
    [60]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone

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

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

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

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

    Contact:

    Web site: [61]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
    E-mail: [62]fraudnet@gao.gov
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [63]JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [64]AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    [65]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-816 .

    To view the full product, including the scope
    and methodology, click on the link above.

    For more information, contact Denise M. Fantone at (202) 512-7215 or
    fantoned@gao.gov.

    Highlights of [66]GAO-07-816 , a report to the Chairman, Committee on Ways
    and Means, House of Representatives

    July 2007

    AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE

    Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in
    Care

    A significantly greater proportion of African American children are in
    foster care than children of other races and ethnicities, according to HHS
    and other research. Given this situation, GAO was asked to analyze the (1)
    major factors influencing the proportion of African American children in
    foster care, (2) extent that states and localities have implemented
    promising strategies, and (3) ways in which federal policies may have
    influenced African American representation in foster care. GAO's
    methodologies included a nationwide survey; a review of research and
    federal policies; state site visits; analyses of child welfare data; and
    interviews with researchers, HHS officials, and other experts.

    [67]What GAO Recommends

    GAO suggests that Congress consider amending current law to allow
    subsidies for legal guardianships. HHS believes its proposal for
    restructuring child welfare funding would give states the option to do
    this, but the viability of this proposal is uncertain. GAO also recommends
    that HHS further assist states in addressing disproportionality. In its
    comments, HHS noted that GAO's recommendation was consistent with its
    efforts to provide technical assistance to states, but did not address the
    specific actions GAO recommended. GAO continues to believe that further
    assistance is important for helping states address disproportionality.

    A higher rate of poverty is among several factors contributing to the
    higher proportion of African American children entering and remaining in
    foster care. Families living in poverty have greater difficulty accessing
    housing, mental health, and other services needed to keep families stable
    and children safely at home. Bias or cultural misunderstandings and
    distrust between child welfare decision makers and the families they serve
    are also viewed as contributing to children's removal from their homes
    into foster care. African American children also stay in foster care
    longer because of difficulties in recruiting adoptive parents and a
    greater reliance on relatives to provide foster care who may be unwilling
    to terminate the parental rights of the child's parent--as required in
    adoption--or who need the financial subsidy they receive while the child
    is in foster care.

    Most states we surveyed reported using strategies intended to address
    these issues, such as involving families in decisions, building community
    supports, and broadening the search for relatives to care for children.
    HHS provides information and technical assistance, but states reported
    that they had limited capacity to analyze data and formulate strategies,
    and states we visited told us they relied on assistance from universities
    or others.

    States reported that the ability to use federal funding for family support
    services was helpful in keeping African American children safely at home
    and that federal subsidies for adoptive parents helped move children out
    of foster care. However, they also expressed concerns about the inability
    to use federal child welfare funds to provide subsidies to legal
    guardians. As an alternative to adoption, subsidized guardianship is
    considered particularly promising for helping African American children
    exit from foster care. States were also concerned about the lack of
    flexibility to use federal foster care funds to provide services for
    families, although states can use other federal funds for this purpose if
    they consider it a priority.

    Proportion of Children in Foster Care Settings, End of Fiscal Year 2004

    References

    Visible links
      47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-333
      48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-99-32
      49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-397
      50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-25
      51. http://ipath.gu.org/documents/A0/GU-GeneralFactSheetJune.pdf
      52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-787T
      53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-75
      54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-75
      55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-98-204
      56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-585
      57. http://www.gao.gov/
      58. mailto:fantoned@gao.gov
      59. http://www.gao.gov/
      60. http://www.gao.gov/
      61. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
      62. mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
      63. mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
      64. mailto:AndersonP1@gao.gov
      65. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-816
      66. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-816
    *** End of document. ***