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][email protected]

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

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [63][email protected] (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][email protected] (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
[email protected].

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:[email protected]
  59. http://www.gao.gov/
  60. http://www.gao.gov/
  61. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  62. mailto:[email protected]
  63. mailto:[email protected]
  64. mailto:[email protected]
  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. ***