Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe
Families Act (Letter Report, 12/22/1999, GAO/HEHS-00-1).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), focusing on: (1) how states have responded
to ASFA regarding legal, administrative, and other changes that social
workers may need to make in their day-to-day practice of handling child
welfare cases; (2) the status of states' implementation of the two
provisions related to making timely permanency decisions for those
foster children who are unable to safely return home; and (3) the
actions the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken to
assist states and monitor the implementation of these two provisions.

GAO noted that: (1) in response to the passage of ASFA, states enacted
their own enabling legislation and developed administrative policies and
procedures; (2) states also are making changes in social work practices
to implement the two foster care provisions; (3) by July 1999, all
states had laws that mirrored the federal legislation or were more
stringent than federal law, some states had legislation already in place
before passage of ASFA; (4) states also promulgated policies and
regulations, and took other administrative actions to implement changes
to state law; (5) in three states, some changes in social work practice
occurred both before and after ASFA was enacted; (6) preliminary data
suggest that some states have made progress in making more timely
permanency decisions about children who cannot safely return home within
a reasonable time, other states have lagged behind; (7) in implementing
the provision on not requiring efforts to prevent a child's removal from
home or to return a foster child home, most states reported that courts
are considering whether efforts to preserve or reunite the family should
be required when there are egregious circumstances; (8) child welfare
agency officials anticipate that few children will be affected by this
provision because such cases are rare; (9) regarding the position on
terminating parental rights, 27 states were on schedule to meet the
mandated timetable for reexamining cases and determining whether
adoption would be appropriate for children already in foster care when
the law was enacted; (10) twelve states had begun proceedings to
terminate parental rights for over a third of the cases reexamined; (11)
sixty percent of the reexamined cases were exempted because terminating
parental rights was not in the child's best interest or the child was
under the care of a relative; (12) HHS has continued numerous actions to
assist states and monitor implementation of these two provisions by: (a)
offering technical assistance on the states' statutory changes needed to
implement the act; (b) continuing to make available HHS' National
Resource Centers to help state and local child welfare agencies change
social work practices; (c) publishing instructions to guide states'
administrative procedures; and (d) reviewing states' legislation to
ensure conformance with the federal law; and (13) HHS plans to use a
new, results-oriented monitoring approach consisting of child and family
services program reviews that focus on child outcomes, relating to
safety, permanency, and well-being, and cover key elements of the
provision on terminating parental rights.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-00-1
     TITLE:  Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the
	     Adoption and Safe Families Act
      DATE:  12/22/1999
   SUBJECT:  Federal/state relations
	     Children
	     Families
	     Child custody
	     Administrative law
	     State law
	     Child adoption
	     Child abuse
IDENTIFIER:  California
	     Florida
	     Missouri
	     HHS Foster Care System
	     HHS Child Welfare System
	     State Court Improvement Program

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Cover
================================================================ COVER

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

December 1999

FOSTER CARE - STATES' EARLY
EXPERIENCES IMPLEMENTING THE
ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT

GAO/HEHS-00-1

Adoption and Safe Families Act

(116029)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ASFA - Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER

B-282539

December 22, 1999

The Honorable Nancy L.  Johnson
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

Dear Madam Chairman: 

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) (P.L.  105-89, 111
Stat.  2115), which amended the foster care provisions of the Social
Security Act, was enacted in November 1997, prompting fundamental
changes in the way our nation's foster care system is managed.  Prior
to the changes, some foster children languished in temporary,
out-of-home care while prolonged attempts were made to reunite them
with their biological families.  Under the amended provisions, states
are required to find these children a safe, permanent home more
quickly.  In particular, two key provisions affect those children who
are unable to safely return home within a reasonable time.\1 First,
the provision clarifying the circumstances under which states are not
required to try to prevent a child's removal from home or to return a
foster child home\2 allows states to forgo services to preserve or
reunite the biological family.\3 Second, the provision on terminating
parental rights establishes a time frame for states to begin
proceedings to terminate parental rights for certain foster children
for whom adoption is appropriate.\4 As a result of these two
provisions, states must make the difficult decision between the need
to preserve parental rights and the need to give the child the
opportunity to live in a permanent home within a reasonable time. 

Because states had to make major changes in laws, policies,
procedures, and practices to comply with the act, you asked us to
report on states' early efforts to implement these two provisions. 
In particular, you asked us to describe (1) how states have responded
to ASFA regarding legal, administrative, and other changes that
social workers may need to make in their day-to-day practice of
handling child welfare cases; (2) the status of states'
implementation of the two provisions related to making timely
permanency decisions for those foster children who are unable to
safely return home; and (3) the actions the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) has taken to assist states and monitor the
implementation of these two provisions.  To address these issues, we
reviewed available nationwide data on state efforts to implement the
new law.  To obtain information about states' progress in
implementing the two provisions, we administered a survey to all 50
states and the District of Columbia.  We also interviewed federal,
state, and local officials and other child welfare experts and
visited the state child welfare agency and one county in each of
three states with large foster care populations--California, Florida,
and Missouri.  We conducted our work between December 1998 and
October 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.  (A more detailed description of our scope and
methodology appears in app.  I.)

--------------------
\1 The full text of these provisions, as amended by ASFA, appears in
app.  II. 

\2 42 U.S.C.  671(a)(15)(D). 

\3 Starting or continuing services to keep a family together may not
be appropriate when doing so places the child's safety in jeopardy,
such as when a parent has murdered another child.  In these egregious
circumstances, ASFA allows states to bypass services that must
usually be provided to the biological family and more quickly find
the child another permanent home. 

\4 42 U.S.C.  675(5)(E). 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

In response to the passage of ASFA, states enacted their own enabling
legislation and developed administrative policies and procedures. 
States also are making changes in social work practices to implement
the two foster care provisions.  By July 1999, all states had laws
that mirrored the federal legislation or were more stringent than
federal law; some states had legislation already in place before
passage of ASFA.  States also promulgated policies and regulations,
initiated staff training, and took other administrative actions to
implement changes to state law.  Our work in three states indicates
that some changes in social work practice occurred both before and
after ASFA was enacted, such as concurrently rather than sequentially
pursuing alternate permanency options for the child such as adoption. 

Preliminary data suggest that some states have made progress in
making more timely permanency decisions about children who cannot
safely return home within a reasonable time; other states have lagged
behind.  In implementing the provision on not requiring efforts to
prevent a child's removal from home or to return a foster child home,
most states reported that the courts are considering whether efforts
to preserve or reunite the family should be required when there are
egregious circumstances.  However, child welfare agency officials
anticipate that few children will be affected by this provision
because such cases are rare.  Regarding the provision on terminating
parental rights, 27 states were on schedule to meet the mandated
timetable for reexamining cases and determining whether adoption
would be appropriate for children already in foster care when the law
was enacted.  In the 12 states that had data available on actions
taken for individual children, the states had begun proceedings to
terminate parental rights for over a third of the cases reexamined. 
These states also had exempted about 60 percent of the reexamined
cases, having determined that adoption would be inappropriate.  For
almost all the exempted cases, there was a compelling reason why
terminating parental rights was not in the child's best interests, or
the child was under the care of a relative. 

Since the passage of ASFA, HHS has continued or begun a number of
actions to assist states and monitor implementation of these two
foster care provisions.  HHS' actions to help states include

  -- offering technical assistance on the states' statutory changes
     needed to implement the act;

  -- continuing to make available HHS' National Resource Centers to
     help state and local child welfare agencies change social work
     practices; and

  -- publishing instructions to guide states' administrative
     procedures. 

To monitor state implementation of ASFA, HHS reviewed states'
enabling legislation to ensure conformance with the federal law.  To
assess state progress in implementing the provision on terminating
parental rights, HHS collected information from states such as the
status of implementing the provision for children who were already in
care when ASFA was enacted.  HHS plans to use a new, results-oriented
monitoring approach consisting of child and family services program
reviews that focus on child outcomes related to safety, permanency,
and well-being.  Moreover, HHS intends to use this new approach to
determine state compliance with the ASFA amendments and cover key
elements of the provision on terminating parental rights.  In that
regard, HHS expects that its efforts to address issues specific to
ASFA will provide compliance and program information to agency
officials and policymakers. 

   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The foster care system has grown dramatically in the past 2 decades,
with the number of children in foster care nearly doubling since the
mid-1980s, to an estimated 520,000 children in 1998.  More children
entered foster care each year than exited.  Children also spent a
longer time in temporary out-of-home care; increasingly more children
stayed in foster care for 5 years or longer.  Concerns about
children's long stays in foster care without being placed in a
permanent home culminated in the passage of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997, which emphasized the child welfare system's
goals of safety, permanency, and child and family well-being. 
Policymakers believed that child welfare practitioners had been
misinterpreting the relationship between child safety and the
requirement that states must make "reasonable efforts" to prevent
removal from home or to return a child home.\5 Long stays in foster
care were often the result of well-intentioned practices to preserve
the family through prolonged and extensive services, but without
adequate consideration of the child's need for a permanent home.  In
these situations, adoption or an alternate permanent home was rarely
considered until the child had been in out-of-home care for 18
months.\6

Two key provisions, which were introduced by ASFA, particularly
affect those children who are unable to safely return home within a
reasonable time.  First, states need not pursue efforts to prevent
removal from home or to return a child home if a parent has already
lost parental rights to that child's sibling; has committed specific
types of felonies, including murder or voluntary manslaughter of the
child's sibling; or has subjected the child to aggravated
circumstances such as abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual
abuse.  In these egregious situations, the courts may determine that
services to preserve or reunite the family--that is, the reasonable
efforts requirement established in Public Law 96-272--are not
required.  Once the court makes such a determination, the state must
begin within 30 days to find the child an alternate permanent home. 

Second, states must begin the process of terminating parental rights
by filing a petition with the courts if an infant has been abandoned;
the parent committed any of the felonies included in the first
provision; or the child has been in foster care 15 of the last 22
months.  States may exempt children from this requirement if the
child is placed with a relative; the state has not provided services
needed to make the home safe for the child's return; or there is a
compelling reason why filing a petition to terminate parental rights
is not in the child's best interests.  As states begin the process of
terminating parental rights, they must also find the child a
qualified adoptive family.  Federal law requires states to apply this
provision at 6-month intervals to one-third of all children who were
in foster care when ASFA was enacted until the state has completed
its entire caseload.  States must complete this process no later than
18 months after the state's first legislative session following
passage of ASFA.\7

State and local agencies have primary responsibility for the welfare
of children in their state.  Child welfare agencies respond to
reports of abuse and neglect and may identify and provide social
services needed by the family to keep it together.  If the child's
removal is warranted, however, the child is placed in foster care,
which may include placement with a relative.  Child welfare agencies
then provide services to improve circumstances in the child's home
and try to reunite the family.  If a child cannot safely return home,
the child welfare agency attempts to find an alternate permanent
home, such as with relatives, an adoptive family, or a legal
guardian.  State courts review the child welfare agency's actions for
individual children and their families.  Court-appointed special
advocates, guardians ad litem,\8 or both, represent the child in
court.  Legal representatives for the parents and the child welfare
agency also may participate in court hearings.  At these hearings, a
judge decides whether a child should be placed in foster care and, if
so, for how long, and where the child will reside permanently.  HHS
administers the federal child welfare programs that help fund states'
programs and services.  In this capacity, HHS provides technical
assistance to states, funds National Resource Centers,\9 and monitors
states' compliance with federal statutes and regulations. 

--------------------
\5 Established under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
1980 (P.L.  96-272), the term "reasonable efforts" is not defined in
law or in federal regulations and has been interpreted in a wide
variety of ways by states and the courts.  According to HHS, services
offered or provided to the family, such as family counseling, respite
care, and substance abuse treatment, have often been considered to
constitute reasonable efforts to prevent a child from being removed
from home or to return a child home. 

\6 HHS, Adoption 2002:  A Response to the Presidential Executive
Memorandum on Adoption Issued on December 14, 1996 (Washington, D.C.: 
HHS, Feb.  1997).  Prior to ASFA, courts decided on the child's
permanency goal at the 18-month dispositional hearing.  ASFA requires
this hearing to occur within 12 months after the child enters foster
care and calls it a permanency hearing. 

\7 ASFA refers to the timetable for states to apply the provision on
terminating parental rights as the Transition Rules (42 U.S.C.  625
note).  To illustrate the timetable for children who were already in
foster care when ASFA was enacted, suppose a state's first
legislative session that began after ASFA was enacted ended on June
30, 1998.  The state must then apply the provision to the first
one-third of its caseload by Jan.  1, 1999, the second one-third by
July 1, 1999, and the entire caseload by Jan.  1, 2000. 

\8 Court-appointed special advocates are usually volunteers who are
trained to assist the court and oversee a child's case.  A guardian
ad litem is an attorney or trained volunteer who represents the child
in court, investigates the case, and monitors case progress. 

\9 HHS contracts with various organizations around the country to
function as National Resource Centers specializing in different areas
of child welfare, such as permanency planning, organizational
improvement, and youth development.  The purpose of the resource
centers is to provide training, technical assistance, and
consultation to state and local child welfare agencies to help
strengthen their capacity to integrate policy and practice and
improve service delivery and child outcomes. 

   STATES HAVE MADE STATUTORY AND
   ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES; SOCIAL
   WORK PRACTICES ARE EVOLVING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

States have made legal and administrative changes to implement ASFA,
including the two amendments on not requiring efforts to prevent a
child's removal from home or to return a child home and on
terminating parental rights.  In addition, state child welfare
agencies are moving to make changes in social work practices to
implement these provisions.  By July 1999, all states had laws to
implement these two provisions.  Some states already had statutes
covering these issues, and other states enacted laws in response to
ASFA.  States also have promulgated policies and regulations,
initiated staff training, and taken other administrative actions to
implement changes to state law.  Changes to social work practices
were, in some locations, already under way before ASFA.  Depending on
their existing situations, child welfare agencies are beginning to
make new or additional changes in practices to reflect new state laws
and policies. 

      STATE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES
      TO KEY PROVISIONS DIFFERED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

States responded differently to the need for state legislation to
implement the two key provisions introduced by ASFA.  By July 1999,
all states that did not already have laws consistent with ASFA had
enacted such legislation.  Nearly all states also passed new
legislation related to both provisions.  According to a National
Conference of State Legislatures publication,\10 most states'
legislation essentially mirrored the language in federal law. 
However, some states exercised the discretion allowed under federal
law and enacted laws that emphasized the safety of foster children to
a greater degree than under ASFA.  For example, several states
shortened the time frame for initiating the process of terminating
parental rights for foster children from the 15-month limit
established by ASFA to 12 months.  Still other states expanded the
termination of parental rights requirement for abandoned infants to
include all abandoned children.  In contrast, relatively few states
enacted additional circumstances beyond those in the federal law for
when efforts to prevent removal of a child from home or to return a
child home are not required. 

The National Conference of State Legislatures also reported that
several states required little or no legislative changes because
existing state statutes already were consistent with one or both of
the key provisions introduced by ASFA.  For example, California had
state laws in place stipulating the grounds--similar to those
introduced by ASFA--under which services to reunite a family need not
be provided; the state opted to add another reason related to child
abductions to its legislation.\11 New Jersey already had in statute
the termination of parental rights requirement for abandoned children
and most of the felonies listed in the federal law; new state
legislation added the 15-month time limit and the remaining felonies. 
No state attempted to define in statute the compelling reasons why
initiating proceedings to terminate parental rights would not be in a
child's best interests.  However, a few states' legislation provided
examples of compelling reasons, such as when the children are
juvenile delinquents, are older and do not want to be adopted, or
have a permanency goal other than adoption. 

--------------------
\10 Steve Christian, 1998 State Legislative Responses to the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, State Legislative Report,
24(5) (Mar.  1999). 

\11 California Welfare and Institutions Code 361.5(b) (1999). 

      ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
      TO IMPLEMENT STATE ASFA
      LEGISLATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

According to two 1998 nationwide surveys,\12 state child welfare
agencies were taking a variety of administrative actions to implement
the federal legislation within the first year after ASFA was enacted. 
Most states had put new policies into effect or were in the process
of promulgating regulations and policies.  Many states had begun to
train staff both within the child welfare agency--including managers,
supervisors, and child welfare workers--and outside the agency, such
as attorneys, judges, and guardians ad litem, on the statutory and
policy changes.  Moreover, some states were coordinating activities
with the courts to reduce delays and streamline court procedures. 
Our nationwide survey and work in three states found that states are
also exploring changes to their management information systems to
track children's time in foster care and in relation to the time
limits established by ASFA.  At the time of our review, most states
could not readily provide data on actions taken for children affected
by either of the two key provisions.\13 However, many states reported
that they were in the process of modifying their systems to track
such data. 

In the three states we visited, additional administrative activities
were under way, but not always in response to the legislative changes
brought about by ASFA.  Florida's child welfare agency planned to add
125 new attorneys, paralegal staff, and administrative staff
statewide to meet anticipated workload increases resulting from the
provision on terminating parental rights.  In Missouri, the child
welfare agency submitted a budget request for 160 additional workers
in the three largest metropolitan areas.  The impetus, however, was
an ongoing effort to achieve a reduction in workers' caseloads in
accordance with professional standards.  Nevertheless, state
officials expect the additional resources will help the local offices
to comply with the ASFA changes.  Moreover, Missouri's child welfare
agency did increase efforts to recruit as well as retain adoptive
families in response to the requirement to concurrently begin efforts
to find an adoptive family for a child while initiating the process
to terminate parental rights.  In contrast, California had already
begun to focus attention on adoptive family recruitment and retention
strategies in 1996 as a result of the Governor's Adoptions Initiative
to increase the number of adoptions of foster children statewide. 

--------------------
\12 Both the American Public Human Services Association and the Child
Welfare League of America surveyed state child welfare agencies
during the summer of 1998. 

\13 Neither the act nor HHS required states to collect or report
specific data related to either of the two provisions introduced by
ASFA. 

      CHANGES IN SOCIAL WORK
      PRACTICES ARE ONGOING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

In two of the states we visited, some state-initiated changes to
their child welfare systems predated ASFA and were consistent with
the overall intent of the federal legislation.  As a result, state
and local child welfare agencies began to change social work
practices before ASFA's enactment in these two states.  For example,
under the Governor's Adoptions Initiative in California, the state
instituted a new process and procedures for child welfare workers to
work toward reuniting the family while concurrently rather than
sequentially pursuing alternate permanency options for the child such
as adoption.\14 This new social work practice model was viewed as one
way to more quickly find a permanent home for foster children.  In
1994, Missouri initiated a new process for its child welfare workers
to expedite permanency decisions.  This process launched a team
approach to case management and decision-making whereby all the key
decisionmakers--including the child welfare worker and supervisor,
parents, foster care provider, guardian ad litem, and juvenile
officer of the court--make up a family support team.  This team
completes the assessment of service needs and develops, monitors,
reviews, and revises the case plan on a defined, periodic basis. 

Despite earlier changes, child welfare workers will need to
incorporate into day-to-day practice specific requirements
established by ASFA and document these actions within established
time frames.  According to child welfare officials in the three
states we visited, these procedural changes are in process.  For
example, Missouri completed expansion of its new child welfare
process statewide in July 1999 and, in response to ASFA, modified the
process to include concurrent planning to help meet mandated
timelines.  In practice, child welfare workers now must inform
parents at each family support team meeting that they risk losing
parental rights if their child cannot safely return home after 15
months.  In the county we visited in Florida, we found no changes in
social work practice related to the provision on terminating parental
rights; however, the child welfare agency's attorneys have begun to
more proactively identify cases for which efforts to prevent removal
from home or to return a child home may not be warranted.  State and
local agency officials in the three states also identified a need to
modify or reinforce other social work practices to implement these
two key provisions, such as focusing earlier on finding a child a
permanent home and establishing effective working relationships with
agency attorneys. 

--------------------
\14 ASFA allows states to undertake efforts to place a child for
adoption or with a legal guardian while concurrently pursuing efforts
to preserve or reunite the family.  Known as concurrent planning,
the use of this social work practice model appears to be expanding
nationwide.  According to the American Public Human Services
Association's 1998 survey, at least 32 states were using concurrent
planning as one way to move children more quickly into permanent
homes. 

   EARLY OBSERVATIONS POINT TO
   MORE TIMELY PERMANENCY
   DECISIONS SINCE ASFA
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Some states have made more timely permanency decisions since ASFA by
deciding to forgo services to keep families together in egregious
situations and by meeting mandated time frames to begin the process
of terminating parental rights for some children who were already in
foster care when ASFA was enacted.  Other states lagged behind, were
unable to report on actions taken, or both.  In implementing the
provision on not requiring efforts to prevent a child's removal from
home or to return a child home, most states reported that the courts
are considering this provision for the few children likely to be
affected.  Regarding the second provision on terminating parental
rights, over a third of the children's cases reviewed in the 12
states that provided data have had proceedings initiated to terminate
parental rights.  As permitted under the law, these states also found
that adoption was not appropriate for a substantial portion of the
reviewed cases.  In these cases, the reasons cited for exempting a
child from this requirement were that the child had a compelling
reason why moving to terminate parental rights was not in his or her
best interests or the child was under the care of a relative. 

      MOST STATES CONSIDER THE
      PROVISION TO NOT REQUIRE
      EFFORTS TO PREVENT REMOVAL
      FROM HOME OR TO RETURN A
      CHILD HOME, BUT FEW CHILDREN
      LIKELY AFFECTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Most states reported that, as the courts reviewed foster care cases,
they considered the provision for when efforts to prevent removal
from home or to return a child home are not required.  However, only
two states were able to report the number of children--zero and four
children, respectively--who have been exempted from efforts to
prevent removal from home or to return them home.  Moreover, agency
officials in the three states we visited believed that only a small
percentage--estimated at 3 to 10 percent--of the caseload had the
egregious characteristics that would warrant such a determination. 
In Contra Costa County, California, for example, state statute has
had similar provisions in place since the 1980s.  According to county
officials, the most common circumstances for not requiring
reunification services include children who have siblings that had
not reunited with their family or that had parental rights
terminated, and children with chronically addicted parents who have
made no effort to address their substance abuse and comply with their
treatment plan. 

      STATES' PROGRESS VARIED ON
      THE REQUIREMENT TO REEXAMINE
      FOSTER CARE CASELOAD
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Most states had begun the process of reexamining their caseload of
foster children who were already in care when ASFA was enacted.  For
the children whose cases had been reviewed, the state was to either
file a petition to begin the process of terminating parental rights
or to document an exemption if adoption was inappropriate.  We
determined that the first states were required to complete these
actions for their entire caseload by September 1999 and the last few
states by December 2000.  As of July 1999, states were at various
stages of meeting their respective timetables as set by ASFA.  Of the
47 states responding to our survey, we determined that 27 states were
on or ahead of schedule, 14 states were not, 4 states' status was
unknown because they had not tracked their progress, and 2 states did
not provide sufficient information to determine progress. 

States are required to complete the necessary actions, in 6-month
intervals, for at least one-third of their caseload of foster
children already in care when ASFA was enacted.  When we compared the
required completion dates for each phase--based on the date that the
states' first legislative session following passage of ASFA
ended--and the phases states reported as completed, we found that
states generally made more progress in completing the first one-third
phase than in competing the second phase, as illustrated in figure 1. 
Of the 47 states responding to our survey as of July 1999, 22 of the
36 states that needed to complete the first one-third phase reported
that they had completed this much of their caseload.  In addition, 13
of the 30 states that needed to complete the second one-third phase
had met that requirement.  No state was required to have finished all
three phases at the time of our survey, but three states reported
that they had completed the required actions for their entire
caseload. 

   Figure 1:  States' Progress in
   Completing the Three Phases of
   Foster Care Caseload Review, as
   of July 1999

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Of the 47 responding states, 11 states did not have to
complete any of the one-third phases as of July 1999 because their
legislatures adjourned in late 1998 or 1999.  Nevertheless, 4 of
these 11 states reported completing at least the first phase. 

Source:  GAO survey, based on responses from 47 states. 

Child welfare agencies reexamined the cases of children who were
already in care when ASFA was enacted and began the process of
terminating parental rights for some children.  In the 12 states that
reported data,\15 over a third of the cases reviewed--or about 19,100
children--resulted in the state's filing a petition to terminate
parental rights.  These states also said they exempted about 60
percent of the cases reviewed--or 32,300 children--after determining
that adoption would be inappropriate.  For the foster children
reviewed, the percentages of children who had a petition filed or
were being exempted varied across the 12 states, as shown in figure
2. 

   Figure 2:  Results of Reviews
   for Foster Children in 12
   States, as of March 1999

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO survey. 

--------------------
\15 At the time of our survey, most states could not readily provide
data on the actions taken for individual children.  Neither ASFA nor
HHS required states to collect or report the data we requested, but
many states reported that they were in the process of modifying their
systems to provide such data in the future. 

         REASONS FOR EXEMPTING
         CHILDREN
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.1

In the 12 states that had data available, about 70 percent of the
cases of exempted children had a compelling reason why terminating
parental rights was not in the child's best interests.  According to
child welfare officials in the three states we visited and available
data in Broward County, Florida, the most common compelling reasons
for exempting children have been and will likely continue to be that

  -- the parents are in compliance with or nearing completion of the
     services outlined in the case plan and the family is expected to
     reunite imminently or within 30 days;

  -- the child is over a specified age (such as 12 years or older),
     does not want to be adopted, and has another permanency option;
     and

  -- the child suffers from severe emotional or behavioral problems
     or a developmental disability, and needs ongoing treatment in a
     residential setting or needs to be stabilized. 

For about 30 percent of the exempted children in the 12 states that
had data available, the states also reported exempting children who
were under the care of a relative.  According to child welfare
officials in two of the counties we visited, their agencies chose to
exempt all foster children who were in the care of relatives, after
reviewing each case individually.  Moreover, child welfare officials
in the two respective states expected this generally to be the case
throughout the state.  Child welfare officials told us that a child
in the care of relatives could still exit the foster care system
through other permanency options.  Several states have initiated or
are experimenting with placing children permanently with their
caregivers when they are relatives by using adoption and guardianship
arrangements.  Under the Governor's Adoptions Initiative in
California, for example, birth parents can voluntarily relinquish
their parental rights--which can be accomplished more quickly than
involuntary termination of parental rights--and maintain ties to
their children after adoption by relatives.  In Illinois, the state
is experimenting with offering relatives who are caregivers a subsidy
when they either adopt the child or become the child's legal
guardian. 

The law provides a third type of exemption when the state has not
provided the necessary services to make the home safe for the child's
return.  According to child welfare officials in the three states we
visited, their agencies have so far exempted few, if any,
children--and are unlikely to exempt children--for this reason.  No
children in Contra Costa County, California, no children in Broward
County, Florida, and two children in Jackson County, Missouri, have
been exempted for this reason.  Moreover, child welfare officials in
the three states did not expect to exempt children because services
had not been provided.  In two of the states, officials indicated
that state law requires them to provide reunification services unless
the court orders them not to.  Nevertheless, agencies have not
explicitly ruled out using this exemption. 

   HHS HAS ASSISTED STATE
   IMPLEMENTATION OF ASFA; FUTURE
   MONITORING EFFORTS ARE UNDER
   DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

HHS has taken action on a number of fronts to assist states and
oversee the implementation of ASFA.  HHS' actions to help states
include providing technical assistance to states on the statutory
changes; contracting with entities to function as National Resource
Centers to help state and local child welfare agencies change social
work practice; and issuing instructions to guide state administration
of new requirements.  HHS monitoring activities to date include
assessing and certifying states' enabling legislation and collecting
information about states' implementation of the provision on
terminating parental rights.  In the future, HHS plans to use a new,
results-oriented monitoring approach to establish states' compliance
with the amendments made by ASFA. 

      HHS INITIATED ACTIONS TO
      HELP STATES IMPLEMENT ASFA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

HHS regional staff and National Resource Centers provided technical
assistance to states as they formulated new state statutes,
determined their implementation schedule, and adapted social work
practices.  For example, all HHS regional offices held conferences on
ASFA that included training on the act's requirements and timelines
and information sharing among states.  The National Resource Center
for Permanency Planning at Hunter College in New York City responded
to requests for assistance in calculating when state actions must be
completed to implement the ASFA amendment on terminating parental
rights and in applying concurrent planning to social work practice. 
The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational
Improvement at the University of Southern Maine also provided
training and technical assistance to states on designing a concurrent
planning system as well as interagency collaboration between the
agency and the courts.  Moreover, HHS contracted with the National
Conference of State Legislatures to analyze states' legislative
responses to ASFA and to assist states as they implement their new
laws.  To further assist states as they continue to implement the
act, HHS disseminated in September 1999 guidelines to help states
examine their existing statutes and current child welfare policy and
practice.  In October 1999, HHS funded a new National Resource Center
on Child Welfare Services and Information Technology.  This new
center is to assist state and local child welfare agencies as well as
family and juvenile courts in developing and improving information
systems to better manage their programs, improve decision-making, and
meet the goals of ASFA. 

To guide states' implementation of the new law, HHS issued
instructions in August 1998 on the timelines for states to comply
with the provision on terminating parental rights.  In particular,
the instructions set out for states the methodology for determining
the applicable effective dates, including the requirement for states
to phase-in over an 18-month period actions to terminate parental
rights for those foster children who were already in care when ASFA
was enacted.\16 On September 18, 1998, HHS published proposed
regulations that cover, among other issues, the two provisions
established by ASFA on not requiring efforts to prevent removal from
home or to return a child home and on terminating parental rights.\17
At the time of our review, HHS planned to publish the final
regulations by late December 1999. 

HHS also provided guidance to and identified technical resources for
states about continuing their efforts to improve court processes
related to handling foster care and adoption proceedings.  In
addition to the two provisions related to making timely permanency
decisions for foster children who are unable to safety return home,
section 305(a) of ASFA reauthorized the State Court Improvement
Program.\18 Under this program, state courts collaborate with the
other organizations and individuals involved in the lives of foster
children--such as the state child welfare agency, attorneys, and
guardians ad litem--to assess court processes and capacities and to
implement reforms that address the courts' specific needs.  In
February 1999, HHS instructed state courts to comply with all the
requirements established by ASFA as they implement system reforms. 

--------------------
\16 The dates for applying the provision on terminating parental
rights vary for each state.  These dates depend on when the child
entered foster care, how long the child has been in care, and when
the state legislature was in session. 

\17 63 Fed.  Reg.  50,058. 

\18 The State Court Improvement Program was initially established
under section 13712 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
(P.L.  103-66). 

      HHS WILL USE NEW,
      RESULTS-ORIENTED MONITORING
      APPROACH
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

HHS has monitored states' efforts to make statutory changes that
allow them to implement ASFA and has collected information about
states' progress in implementing the provision on terminating
parental rights.  HHS tracked the status of states' enabling
legislation to ensure that new state statutes were timely and
conformed with all ASFA amendments.  By October 1999, according to
HHS officials, regional staff had certified enabling legislation for
43 states as conforming to the requirements established by ASFA.  The
remaining states were either under review or not in compliance with
federal law but taking corrective action.  To assess state
implementation of the new provision on terminating parental rights,
HHS directed states to provide descriptive information as part of
their planning requirements for child welfare services.  By June
1999, states had submitted information on the status of applying the
provision to appropriate foster children.  States also were to
describe the capacity of the state child welfare agency and judicial
system to implement and meet the provision's requirement for children
who have been in care for 15 of the last 22 months.  To minimize the
reporting burden on states at this early juncture, HHS did not
require states to provide specific data and had no plans to aggregate
information across states.  Instead, according to HHS officials,
having states provide descriptive information would enable regional
staff to broadly assess their respective states' progress and
identify areas that may warrant technical assistance or immediate
attention. 

HHS plans to use a new, results-oriented approach to monitor states'
child welfare programs, including compliance with ASFA amendments.\19
Under this approach, new child and family services reviews will focus
on the results that these programs achieve.  In the past, review
procedures focused almost entirely on the accuracy and completeness
of case files to determine whether required legal processes and
protections were being carried out.  The new monitoring approach will
evaluate state programs in two areas--child and family outcomes
related to child safety, permanency, and child and family well-being;
and the characteristics of the state agency that directly affect its
capacity to deliver services leading to improved outcomes.  In
addition, the program reviews will determine whether a state's foster
care system complies with applicable federal laws, including the ASFA
amendments. 

While HHS plans to implement the new monitoring system in the near
future, it has not conducted compliance reviews since 1994, except
for testing the new program reviews in a limited number of states. 
Moreover, HHS has not monitored states' progress in meeting mandated
timetables for applying the provision on terminating parental rights
for children who were already in foster care when ASFA was enacted. 
According to HHS officials, more specific criteria and data
collection requirements to assess states' compliance with the
amendments will be incorporated into protocols for conducting the
program reviews.  The new monitoring system should go into effect 9
months after regulations are final, which is expected to occur in
late December 1999.  At that time, the process for addressing issues
of noncompliance would entail giving states the opportunity to take
corrective action within agreed-upon time frames.  By the time the
new monitoring system goes into effect, however, nearly all states
will likely have completed implementing the provision on terminating
parental rights for foster children who were already in care when
ASFA was enacted.  For foster children who entered care after the
passage of ASFA, HHS intends to use this new monitoring approach to
cover key elements of this ASFA amendment.  HHS' efforts to address
issues specific to ASFA are expected to provide both compliance and
program information to agency officials and policymakers. 

--------------------
\19 Section 203 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 
103-432) established requirements for HHS to develop a new child
welfare review system to evaluate state programs and provide states
with technical assistance and opportunities to take corrective action
before financial penalties are assessed.  Under the old review
system, HHS relied on financial reviews and penalties as the
exclusive form of enforcement. 

   COMMENTS FROM HHS AND STATE
   AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We gave a draft of this report for comment to HHS and state child
welfare agencies in the three states we visited.  We received
comments from HHS, California, Florida, and Missouri.  HHS commented
that our report confirms the work of the administration, HHS, and the
states to implement the requirements established by ASFA.  HHS also
provided additional information on its efforts to assist states as
they implement various aspects of ASFA.  In particular, HHS said that
the report should include a discussion of recent HHS-distributed
guidelines as a technical assistance tool for state child welfare
agencies and courts, national child welfare organizations, and child
advocacy groups, which we have done.  HHS also said that the report
presumes that adoption is the only permanency option.  While we
believe that the provision on terminating parental rights emphasizes
adoption, we have added information about other permanency options,
where appropriate.  HHS also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate.  Appendix III contains HHS' comments. 

In their comments, all three states agreed with our findings. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Donna E. 
Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services; state child welfare
directors; and other interested parties.  We will make copies
available to others on request. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
call me at (202) 512-7215.  Other GAO contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Cynthia M.  Fagnoni
Director, Education, Workforce, and
 Income Security Issues

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

To determine what legal, administrative, and social work practice
changes states have made in response to ASFA, we reviewed nationwide
information collected by national child welfare organizations and
visited three states.  In particular, we reviewed data and analyses
compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures on states'
legislative responses to the two key provisions established by ASFA
on not requiring efforts to prevent removal from home or to return a
child home and on terminating parental rights.  To identify
administrative changes, we reviewed the results of two nationwide
surveys conducted by the American Public Human Services
Administration and the Child Welfare League of America, respectively,
on states' early efforts to implement ASFA.  We did not verify the
data received from these three organizations.  To gain insight into
states' efforts to put statutory and administrative changes into
practice, in June 1999 we attended the First National Roundtable on
Implementing ASFA in Portland, Maine.  In addition, we reviewed
relevant literature and interviewed child welfare experts from the
National Resource Centers and other national nonprofit organizations
about implementation issues related to ASFA. 

To obtain information about changes in social work practices as well
as explore legal and procedural changes in greater detail, we visited
the state child welfare agency and one county-level child welfare
agency in each of three states--California, Florida, and Missouri. 
We selected these states because of their large populations of foster
children in the federal title IV-E foster care program, their
geographic location in different regions of the country, and their
mix of state- and county-administered child welfare systems.\20
Moreover, because their legislatures met soon after the passage of
ASFA, we expected these states to have had an opportunity to begin
applying the provision on terminating parental rights for their
foster children who were already in care when the law was enacted. 
In each state, we also selected one county that comprised a large
share of the state's foster care population.  In a
county-administered state like California, counties have considerable
autonomy to establish their own policies and procedures within broad
state guidelines.  In state-administered states such as Florida and
Missouri, child welfare workers located in local county or district
offices put state policies and procedures into day-to-day practice. 
We visited Contra Costa County in California, Broward County in
Florida, and Jackson County in Missouri. 

To determine the status of states' early implementation of the two
key provisions, we surveyed all 50 states and the District of
Columbia.  The survey focused on the number of affected
children--particularly those who were already in foster care when the
law was enacted--and related actions.  We discussed development of
the survey instrument with program managers and data analysts from
several state child welfare agencies as well as senior officials at
the National Resource Center for Permanency Planning at Hunter
College in New York City.  We also pretested the survey instrument in
California and Missouri.  In early June 1999, we sent a copy of the
survey to the child welfare director in each of the 50 states and the
District of Columbia.  We received responses from 46 state agencies
and the District of Columbia.  We did not verify the information
obtained through the survey, except that we contacted state
respondents to clarify responses, as needed.  In addition, we
obtained more detailed and qualitative information from our state and
county visits. 

To determine states' progress in meeting mandated time frames for
applying the provision on terminating parental rights for the
caseload of foster children who were already in care when ASFA was
enacted, we relied primarily on two data sources.  First, from the
National Conference of State Legislatures and state contacts, we
identified the start date of each state's first legislative session
that occurred after passage of the act.  On the basis of these dates,
we calculated the dates that states were required to complete each of
the three mandated phases.  Second, our survey on states' early
implementation of the two provisions asked states to identify which
phases they had completed and the respective completion dates. 

We visited the three states--California, Florida, and Missouri--to
obtain firsthand information about their implementation of the two
key provisions established by ASFA.  In each state, we interviewed
state and county-level officials from the child welfare agency as
well as the agency or office responsible for filing petitions to
terminate parental rights.  Depending on the state or county,
representatives from these entities were within the child welfare
agency, attorney general's office, or were juvenile officers of the
court.  We obtained information and reviewed relevant documents about
the agencies' approach to implementing the two provisions; ongoing or
existing initiatives to reform their child welfare systems; adoption
recruitment and retention efforts; administrative changes related to
capacity, management, and oversight activities; and early results. 
At the state level, we primarily focused on legal and administrative
changes.  At the local level, we also obtained information about
local implementation of state-level changes and their views on the
social work practice changes that had occurred or were needed. 

To identify actions HHS has taken to assist states and monitor
implementation of the two provisions, we interviewed cognizant
officials at HHS headquarters and at several regional offices.  We
also reviewed relevant reports, guidance, and proposed regulations. 

--------------------
\20 California has a state-supervised, county-administered child
welfare system; Florida has a state-administered system, but its
local districts have considerable autonomy; and Missouri has a
state-administered system. 

KEY PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT AS AMENDED BY ASFA
========================================================== Appendix II

This appendix provides excerpts from the United States Code on the
two ASFA provisions addressed in this report (amended language is in
bold lettering). 

   PROVISION ON NOT REQUIRING
   EFFORTS TO PREVENT REMOVAL FROM
   OR TO RETURN A CHILD HOME
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

Sec.  471 (42 U.S.C.  671).  State plan for foster care and adoption
assistance. 

(a) Requisite features of State plan.  In order for a State to be
eligible for [federal payments for foster care and adoption
assistance], it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which--. 
.  . 

(15) provides that--

(A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a
child, as described in this paragraph, and in making such reasonable
efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount
concern;

(B) except as provided in subparagraph (D), reasonable efforts shall
be made to preserve and reunify families--

(i) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or
eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home; and

(ii) to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child's
home;

(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the type described in
subparagraph (B) is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency
plan for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the
child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan, and
to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent
placement of the child;

(D) reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B)
shall not be required to be made with respect to a parent of a child
if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that--

(i) the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances
(as defined in State law, which definition may include but need not
be limited to abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse);

(ii) the parent has--

(I) committed murder (which would have been an offense under section
1111(a) of title 18, United States Code, if the offense had occurred
in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United
States) of another child of the parent;

(II) committed voluntary manslaughter (which would have been an
offense under section 1112(a) of title 18, United States Code, if the
offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial
jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent;

(III) aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit
such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter; or

(IV) committed a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury
to the child or another child of the parent; or

(iii) the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been
terminated involuntarily;

(E) if reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B)
are not made with respect to a child as a result of a determination
made by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with
subparagraph (D)--

(i) a permanency hearing (as described in section 475(5)(C)) shall be
held for the child within 30 days after the determination; and

(ii) reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely
manner in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete
whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of
the child; and

(F) reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal
guardian may be made concurrently with reasonable efforts of the type
described in subparagraph (B);

(16) provides for .  .  .  a case review system which meets the
requirements in [the definitions section] with respect to each such
child; .  .  .  . 

   PROVISION ON TERMINATING
   PARENTAL RIGHTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

Sec.  475 (42 U.S.C.  675).  Definitions. 

As used in [the program providing federal payments for foster care
and adoption assistance] or [child welfare services]; .  .  . 

(5) The term "case review system" means a procedure for assuring
that--.  .  . 

(E) in the case of a child who has been in foster care under the
responsibility of the State for 15 of the most recent 22 months, or,
if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined a child to be an
abandoned infant (as defined under State law) or has made a
determination that the parent has committed murder of another child
of the parent, committed voluntary manslaughter of another child of
the parent, aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to
commit such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter, or committed a
felony assault that has resulted in serious bodily injury to the
child or to another child of the parent, the State shall file a
petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's parents (or,
if such a petition has been filed by another party, seek to be joined
as a party to the petition), and, concurrently, to identify, recruit,
process, and approve a qualified family for an adoption, unless--

(i) at the option of the State, the child is being cared for by a
relative;

(ii) a State agency has documented in the case plan (which shall be
available for court review) a compelling reason for determining that
filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the
child; or

(iii) the State has not provided to the family of the child,
consistent with the time period in the State case plan, such services
as the State deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the
child's home, if reasonable efforts of the type described in section
471(a)(15)(B)(ii) are required to be made with respect to the child;
.  .  . 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
========================================================== Appendix II

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

GAO CONTACTS

David D.  Bellis, (202) 512-7278
Karen E.  Lyons, (916) 486-6442

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, Kerry Gail Dunn, Rodina S.  Tungol,
Craig H.  Winslow, Jon K.  Ling, and Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean also made
key contributions to this report. 

*** End of document. ***