Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional Adoption
Process (Letter Report, 11/19/1999, GAO/HEHS-00-12).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on
interjurisdictional adoption issues, focusing on the: (1) number of
foster children who are available and waiting for an adoptive home to be
identified; (2) actions taken by state and county child welfare agencies
and nonprofit organizations to improve the adoption process when
prospective adoptive families and foster children live in different
jurisdictions; and (3) actions taken by the federal government to
improve the adoption process when prospective adoptive families and
foster children live in different jurisdictions.

GAO noted that: (1) at any given time about 1.5 percent of foster
children--about 8,000--are legally available for adoption and waiting
for an adoptive home but have no prospects for adoption; (2) this number
is small because, of those foster children who are adopted, about 78
percent are adopted by their foster parents or relatives; (3) virtually
all of the remaining foster children who are waiting for adoptive homes
are among the most difficult to place due to their older age, need to be
placed with siblings, or other special considerations; (4) because these
children are hard to place, they are likely to be candidates for
adoptive placement across jurisdictions; (5) public child welfare
agencies have directed their efforts toward the initial step in the
interjurisdictional adoption process--recruitment of prospective
adoptive families--and have done less to improve the other steps in the
adoption process because they are largely beyond their legal authority
to change; (6) for example, these agencies are using traditional
recruiting methods in new ways, as was the case in two of the three
states GAO visited; (7) these states enter into contracts with other
states to conduct recruitment activities in geographic areas outside the
public child welfare agency's jurisdiction; (8) the agencies also use
Internet web sites, which can be accessed from anywhere in the nation,
to reach beyond their borders to recruit prospective adoptive families
and publicize waiting children; (9) nonprofit organizations that are
working to improve interjurisdictional adoption processes have targeted
their efforts at those steps in the adoption process that correspond to
their professional interests; (10) such interests include nationwide
recruitment of adoptive homes for hard-to-place waiting foster children
as well as issues related to improvements in the use of homestudies and
the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) process; (11)
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership could
facilitate improvements in the interjurisdictional adoption process,
much of which is outside the legal authority of individual public child
welfare agencies; and (12) HHS has developed plans to address problems
in the interjurisdictional adoption process and implemented some
actions.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-00-12
     TITLE:  Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the
	     Interjurisdictional Adoption Process
      DATE:  11/19/1999
   SUBJECT:  Foster children
	     State programs
	     Federal/state relations
	     State/local relations
	     Child adoption
	     Interagency relations
IDENTIFIER:  Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children

******************************************************************
** 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 Congressional Requesters

November 1999

FOSTER CARE - HHS COULD BETTER
FACILITATE THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL
ADOPTION PROCESS

GAO/HEHS-00-12

Interjurisdictional Adoption

(116026)

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

  AAICPC - Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on
     the Placement of Children
  APHSA - American Public Human Services Association
  ASFA - Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  ICPC - Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children

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

B-281621

November 19, 1999

The Honorable William V.  Roth, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Finance
United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
The Honorable Charles B.  Rangel
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) is the most recent
federal legislation to emphasize the importance of permanence in the
lives of the 520,000 children in foster care and, in particular, the
importance of adoption when foster children cannot safely and quickly
return to the care of their birth parents.  This act includes a
provision prohibiting states from delaying or denying the adoption of
a foster child when an approved family is available in a jurisdiction
different from the one in which the child resides.  The Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) is responsible for monitoring states'
adherence to this prohibition and to other provisions in ASFA.  The
act also requires us to study and consider how to improve procedures
and policies to facilitate the timely and permanent adoptions of
children across state and county jurisdictions--referred to as
interjurisdictional adoptions. 

As agreed with committee staff, in response to the requirement in
ASFA that we report to the Congress on interjurisdictional adoption
issues, we are providing information on (1) the number of foster
children who are available and waiting for an adoptive home to be
identified, (2) the actions taken by state and county child welfare
agencies\1 and nonprofit organizations to improve the adoption
process when prospective adoptive families and foster children live
in different jurisdictions, and (3) the actions taken by the federal
government to improve the adoption process when prospective adoptive
families and foster children live in different jurisdictions.  In
particular, in ASFA the Congress identified four steps related to
timely and permanent interjurisdictional adoptions that our study
should address.  First, states and counties may need to improve
procedures to recruit prospective adoptive parents from states or
counties different from the one in which adoptable children reside. 
Second, states and counties may need to improve procedures for the
acceptance of homestudies when the studies are done in a different
state or county.\2 Third, states may need to assure their acceptance
of termination of parental rights orders and adoption decrees issued
by a court in a different state.\3 Fourth, states may need to improve
procedures for administering and implementing the Interstate Compact
on the Placement of Children (ICPC).\4 To develop this information,
we contacted federal, state, and county child welfare officials and
experts affiliated with nonprofit organizations interested in
interjurisdictional adoption issues.  We also conducted case studies
in three states--California, Florida, and Missouri.  Appendix I
describes our scope and methodology.  We conducted our review from
November 1998 to August 1999 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 

--------------------
\1 In this report, we use the phrase public child welfare agencies
to refer to both state and county child welfare agencies. 

\2 A homestudy is a written report used to approve individuals as
adoptive parents.  See the Background section of this report for a
further description of homestudies and their use in the adoption
process. 

\3 A court order to terminate parental rights severs the legal
relationship between parent and child, thus making the child eligible
for adoption.  An adoption decree finalizes the adoption process and
provides full parental rights to the adopting parent. 

\4 The ICPC is a uniformly enacted statute that provides the legal
framework for placing children in adoptive homes across state lines. 
The Background section of this report further describes this compact
and its process. 

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

At any given time, about 1.5 percent of foster children--about
8,000--are legally available for adoption and waiting for an adoptive
home but have no current prospects for adoption.  This number is
small because, of those foster children who are adopted, about 78
percent are adopted by their foster parents or relatives.  Virtually
all of the remaining foster children who are waiting for adoptive
homes are among the most difficult to place due to their older age,
their need to be placed with siblings, or other special
considerations.  Because these children are hard to place, they are
likely to be candidates for adoptive placement across jurisdictions. 

Public child welfare agencies have directed their efforts toward the
initial step in the interjurisdictional adoption process--recruitment
of prospective adoptive families--and have done less to improve the
other steps in the adoption process because they are largely beyond
their legal authority to change.  For example, these agencies are
using traditional recruiting methods in new ways, as was the case in
two of the three states we visited.  These states enter into
contracts with other states to conduct recruitment activities in
geographic areas outside the public child welfare agency's
jurisdiction.  The agencies also use Internet web sites, which can be
accessed from anywhere in the nation, to reach beyond their borders
to recruit prospective adoptive families and publicize waiting
children.  Nonprofit organizations that are working to improve
interjurisdictional adoption processes have targeted their efforts at
those steps in the adoption process that correspond to their
professional interests.  Such interests include nationwide
recruitment of adoptive homes for hard-to-place waiting foster
children as well as issues related to improvements in the use of
homestudies and the ICPC process. 

HHS leadership could facilitate improvements in the
interjurisdictional adoption process, much of which is outside the
legal authority of individual public child welfare agencies.  HHS has
developed plans to address problems in the interjurisdictional
adoption process and implemented some actions.  For example, as part
of its technical assistance efforts, HHS provided guidelines for
state legislation on termination of parental rights and assistance to
states on ICPC issues.  However, because the plans were made in
response to two presidential directives regarding adoption, HHS
Office of Inspector General recommendations, and the passage of ASFA,
they were implemented independently rather than as part of an
organized strategy.  We are recommending that HHS better coordinate
its efforts to facilitate improvements to the interjurisdictional
adoption process. 

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

ASFA established as a federal priority the safe and timely placement
of foster children in permanent homes, even if those homes are
located in a jurisdiction different from that of the waiting
children.  Among the many provisions in ASFA, three are specific to
interjurisdictional adoption issues.  First, the act requires state
plans\5 to specify that a state will not deny or delay the placement
of a child for adoption when an approved family\6 is available
outside of the jurisdiction with responsibility for handling the case
of the child.  Second, state plans\7 must contain assurances that the
state will develop plans for the effective use of
cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or
permanent placements for waiting children.  Third, the act
established a penalty against federal foster care funds for states
that are found to deny or delay the placement of a child for adoption
when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction, or
that fail to promptly grant a fair hearing to an individual who
alleges such a violation.  HHS has a limited role in determining the
policies and procedures used by child welfare programs, including
foster care programs.  HHS is responsible for issuing federal foster
care regulations containing minimal procedural requirements,
monitoring states' compliance with them, and administering federal
foster care funding. 

The public child welfare system, which oversees the adoption of
foster children, is composed mainly of state and local child welfare
agencies and state juvenile dependency courts.  State laws provide
more detail and specificity regarding the circumstances in which
adoptions may occur than do federal laws and set the parameters,
consistent with federal constitutional and statutory requirements,
under which child welfare systems operate.  For example, state laws
specify the legal grounds for terminating parental rights to free a
child to be adopted.  The child welfare agencies promulgate the
regulations, policies, and procedures for foster care programs and
administer those programs.  Thus, state child welfare agencies have a
central role in regulating the activities of foster care programs,
including the adoption of foster children.  In 12 states, that
responsibility is delegated to local child welfare agencies.  State
courts are responsible for reviewing child welfare agency actions for
individual foster children and their families and taking legal
actions as necessary to protect children.  Such actions include
ordering the placement of foster children in temporary homes,
presiding over periodic hearings to plan for a child's permanent
placement, terminating the parental rights of birth parents when
their children cannot be safely returned to their care, and granting
adoption decrees to adoptive parents. 

The ICPC provides the legal framework for the placement of children
across state lines by public and private agencies, courts, and--in
some cases--private individuals.  It is a statute enacted uniformly
by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S.  Virgin
Islands.  A nonprofit organization, the Association of Administrators
of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (AAICPC),
provides guidance to states in interpreting and revising ICPC.  Use
of ICPC ensures that appropriate state laws are followed before a
placement is made and that children placed out-of-state receive the
protections and services that would be provided if they remained in
their home states.  States provide these services on a reciprocal
basis.  Of the adoptive placements made under ICPC, few are
placements of foster children; almost all interstate adoptive
placements involve adoptions either between individuals or through
private adoption agencies.  However, all foster care placements
across state lines must be processed through the compact.  HHS has no
direct role in ICPC administration.  Figure 1 shows the ICPC process
for obtaining approval for an out-of-state placement for a foster
child.  Figure 2 shows the ICPC process once the decision has been
made to place a child out-of-state. 

   Figure 1:  ICPC Process to
   Request Homestudy and Placement
   of Foster Child Out-of-State

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a In a few states, responsibility for contacting the state where the
prospective adoptive parent resides has been delegated to the local
child welfare agency.  In those locations, the ICPC state compact
administrator receives copies of the paperwork but may not be
responsible for forwarding it. 

Source:  GAO analysis. 

   Figure 2:  ICPC Process After
   Homestudy Is Obtained and
   Placement of Foster Child Is
   Approved

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a In a few states, responsibility for contacting the state where the
prospective adoptive parent resides has been delegated to the local
child welfare agency.  In those locations, the ICPC state compact
administrator receives copies of the paperwork but may not be
responsible for forwarding it. 

Source:  GAO analysis. 

Prospective adoptive parents come into the foster child's life in a
variety of ways and through a long, complex process, particularly
when a hard-to-place child is involved.  Public child welfare
agencies engage in outreach and other recruitment efforts to attract
individuals to be foster and adoptive parents and undertake a variety
of concurrent activities so that a waiting foster child can be placed
with an appropriate prospective adoptive parent.  Most adoptive
parents begin their relationship with the child as the child's foster
parents.  Others are relatives of the foster child.  A small
percentage of adoptive parents come into the foster child's life
after the child's foster parents and relatives have declined to adopt
the child and another home must be sought for the child.  Regardless
of the way in which a prospective adoptive parent enters the process,
it can take a prospective adoptive parent 1 to 3 years from the
initial contact with a child welfare agency to finalization of an
adoption.  Appendix II shows how prospective adoptive parents enter
the child welfare system, general activities child welfare agencies
undertake to make an appropriate adoptive placement, and--when an
interjurisdictional placement is involved--when the ICPC is invoked. 

The homestudy is a key component in the process of becoming a foster
or adoptive parent.  Homestudies are written reports that are
generally prepared by a child welfare caseworker.  The studies assess
the financial situation, current and previous relationships, life
experiences, and parenting abilities of a person wishing to become an
adoptive parent.  The process also usually includes checks for
criminal activity by the prospective adoptive parent.  The homestudy
process is generally combined with mandatory training for prospective
foster or adoptive parents, a combination that typically takes 3
months to complete.  An applicant is approved as a foster or adoptive
parent only after the homestudy process is completed, a written
report of its findings is approved by a child welfare agency, and the
home is found to meet safety standards.  Agencies may then consider
whether a prospective adoptive parent would be an appropriate
caregiver for a particular foster child.  Homestudies must be
updated, in some locations as frequently as annually, in order for a
prospective adoptive parent to retain approved status.  In addition,
homestudies may need to be updated at the time a prospective adoptive
parent is considered as a placement for a specific foster child in
order to determine if the person can meet that child's special needs. 
Although no standardized national homestudy format exists, appendix
III contains an example of one state's recommended homestudy
format--an example that reflects the scope and detail typically found
in homestudies. 

--------------------
\5 State plans are required under title IV-E of the Social Security
Act in order for states to receive federal foster care funds for
maintenance of foster children, specific administration costs
associated with foster care programs, and adoption assistance. 

\6 Approved family generally refers to an individual with an
approved homestudy.  However, HHS has not issued regulations to
define this term as used in ASFA. 

\7 Other state plans are required under title IV-B of the Social
Security Act in order for states to receive federal funds for child
welfare services. 

      FEW FOSTER CHILDREN ARE
      AVAILABLE AND WAITING FOR
      ADOPTIVE HOMES BUT MOST WHO
      WAIT ARE DIFFICULT TO PLACE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

At any given time, an estimated 1.5 percent of foster children--about
8,000--are available for adoption and, as yet, no adoptive family has
been identified for them.  About one-third of foster children will
never return to their birth parents, leaving those children in need
of permanent homes.  Yet few of the children in need of new permanent
homes are, at any given time, legally freed from their birth parents
and thus available for adoption.  Furthermore, HHS estimates that of
the foster children who are adopted, 78 percent will be adopted by
their foster parents or relatives.  Figure 3 shows the likely
permanency outcomes for foster children in care at any given time. 

   Figure 3:  Anticipated Outcomes
   for Foster Children

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Other outcomes includes aging out of the foster care system at age
18 and, in some circumstances, legal guardianship.  While in foster
care, children who have other outcomes live in a variety of
arrangements including the homes of relatives, foster homes, group
homes, and residential care facilities. 

\b For this grouping in the figure, we expanded the information to
indicate the likely legal status of children in that grouping, at any
given time, prior to attaining the anticipated outcome. 

Source:  GAO analysis of HHS data. 

While estimates of the number of adoptions across state lines vary,
the number of interjurisdictional adoptions is likely small.  HHS
administrative data place the number of finalized adoptions of foster
children across state lines at less than 250 in 1998.  Furthermore,
the Office of Inspector General noted that one-half of states' ICPC
offices do not know how many children they place through ICPC due to
poor quality data and ineffective tracking techniques. 

The foster children who are not adopted by their foster parents or
relatives are among the most difficult to place.  Almost all of them
have special needs.  Typically, they are school age, have physical or
mental impairments, have siblings who should be placed with them, and
are children of color.  HHS reported that of the children freed for
adoption, more than 35 percent are teenagers and an additional 17
percent are between the ages of 9 and 12 years.  In general, within
the foster care population, only these hard-to-place and legally
freed children are likely to be candidates for adoptive placements
across jurisdictions. 

   PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES
   FOCUS ON RECRUITMENT WHILE
   NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ADDRESS
   A RANGE OF ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Public child welfare agencies have directed their efforts toward the
initial step in the interjurisdictional adoption process--recruitment
of prospective adoptive families--and have done less to improve the
other steps in the adoption process because changing those steps is
largely beyond their legal authority.  Nonprofit organizations
working to improve interjurisdictional adoption processes have
targeted their efforts at those steps in the adoption process that
correspond to the organizations' areas of interest.  Such interests
include nationwide recruitment of adoptive homes for hard-to-place
waiting foster children as well as issues related to improvements in
the use of homestudies and the ICPC process. 

      PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE
      AGENCIES FOCUS ON IMPROVING
      THE USE OF TRADITIONAL AND
      INTERNET RECRUITMENT METHODS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

In the initial step of the interjurisdictional adoption
process--recruitment of prospective adoptive families--public child
welfare agencies are attempting to reach beyond their borders by
using traditional recruitment methods.  In addition to using TV
spots, newspaper stories, and billboards, two of the three states we
visited also contract with other organizations for recruitment
services; the contracts include provisions for recruitment across
jurisdictional lines.  For example, Missouri contracts with other
organizations to recruit prospective foster and adoptive families
from several bordering states as well as from within the state.  In
Florida, Broward County contracts with other organizations for
recruitment within its borders and in adjoining counties.  Public
child welfare agencies also participate in voluntary
networks--referred to as adoption exchanges--to identify adoptive
families for hard-to-place foster children.  These voluntary networks
provide child welfare agencies with the opportunity to share
information about children who need adoptive homes and approved
families who want to adopt a foster child. 

Public child welfare agencies are also using the Internet to expand
their ability to recruit prospective adoptive families.  Almost all
state child welfare agencies have set up their own public Internet
web sites, which can be accessed from anywhere in the nation, to
promote adoption of foster children; 30 states include photolistings
of freed and waiting children.\8 Appendix IV lists public Internet
web sites set up by state child welfare agencies and a listing of the
types of information that the public can access.  States have taken a
variety of approaches in determining which children to publicize on
their child welfare web sites.  Some state web sites have
photolistings that picture and describe all foster children in a
state who have been freed and are waiting for an adoptive home; other
states show only the hardest-to-place children; still others show a
representative sample of their available foster children. 

In general, states have not evaluated the effectiveness of their
sites as a means of recruiting potential adoptive families
nationwide.  While many state web sites welcome inquiries from all
prospective adoptive families nationwide, three state web sites
specify that the state will consider only applicants from within the
state.  Finally, public child welfare agencies also use the Internet
to participate in privately operated adoption exchanges on
password-protected sites that can be accessed only by caseworkers. 

Public child welfare agencies do not have authority to specify the
contents of a homestudy prepared in another jurisdiction, but the
three states we visited have taken limited actions to increase the
acceptability of the ones they receive from other states.  For
example, if the public child welfare agency requests a homestudy on a
prospective adoptive parent in another jurisdiction, the requesting
agency notifies the agency preparing the homestudy of its specific
requirements so that they can be included in the study.  If the
public child welfare agency receives an approved homestudy from
outside the agency's jurisdiction, it contacts the agency that
prepared and approved the homestudy for additional information that
will allow the homestudy to meet local requirements and allow the
agency to assess the appropriateness of prospective adoptive parents. 
Additionally, in two of the states we visited that contract with
other agencies to conduct recruitment activities, the contracts
specify the content of the homestudies done by the contractors. 
Thus, homestudies done by the contractor will meet the criteria set
for local homestudies. 

As is the case with homestudies, public child welfare agencies also
have only limited authority to improve the acceptance of court orders
across jurisdictions.  The Constitution sets the framework for states
to accept the court orders of other states but neither the Congress
nor case law has specifically addressed acceptance of termination of
parental rights orders or adoption decrees.\9 In addition, the
Supreme Court has ruled that states are not obligated to honor
judicial actions of other states in situations where minimum
standards of due process have not been provided to those affected. 
HHS officials and experts told us that there is little to suggest
that interjurisdictional adoptions of foster children were delayed or
denied because termination of parental rights orders or adoption
decrees were not accepted across jurisdictions.  One of the states we
visited (Florida) specifies in its adoption statutes that the state
will accept such orders from any other state. 

Although public child welfare agencies can control only the steps in
the ICPC process that occur within their own state, two of the states
we visited, Florida and Missouri, have taken actions to avoid delays
within their ICPC offices.\10 Officials in the three states we
visited told us that they process ICPC requests promptly and Florida
has implemented performance goals to further improve the timeliness
of its processes.  In Florida, the ICPC office specified that ICPC
requests related to adoption are to be processed through its office
within 3 days.  Missouri has also instituted agreements with two of
its neighboring states with the goal of alleviating delays in
beginning homestudies requested through the ICPC office.  However,
the agreements--referred to as border agreements--have been used
infrequently, even though one of the agreements has been in place for
more than a year.  State officials were surprised that the 1-year-old
agreement was used infrequently.  Officials from the two states
involved have decided to review the agreement with their respective
staff to emphasize the agreement's value in speeding the start of the
homestudy process. 

--------------------
\8 Public child welfare agency's public Internet sites protect the
privacy of foster children listed on them.  In general, sites limit
information about the children to first name and age of a child and a
brief description of a child's special needs.  As an added safeguard,
courts must grant permission for public distribution of information
about the foster children under their jurisdiction. 

\9 The acceptance of court orders of other statesotherwise called
the granting of full faith and creditis governed by Article IV,
Section 1 of the U.S.  Constitution.  It states, Full faith and
credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and
judicial proceedings of every other State.  And the Congress may by
general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. In at least
five instances since 1948, the Congress passed laws to clarify the
application of this clause.  Clarifying legislation usually specifies
the instances in which full faith and credit is to be granted, such
as is the case with child support orders.  In one instance, the
Defense of Marriage Act, the legislation specifies that full faith
and credit need not be extended to marriages between certain parties. 

\10 For placement of children in out-of-state foster or adoptive
homes, California delegates responsibility for the in-state ICPC
process to its counties.  Only children whose out-of-state placements
are in group homes are handled by the state ICPC office. 

      NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ALSO
      ADDRESS ISSUES IN
      INTERJURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION
      PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Nonprofit organizations have initiated national efforts that cover
many of the steps in the interjurisdictional adoption process.  The
National Adoption Center, the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA), and its affiliate, AAICPC, are among the
nonprofit organizations leading such efforts.  The National Adoption
Center operates two recruitment-related Internet sites.  APHSA
initiated efforts to address issues related to homestudies, and its
affiliate provides recommendations to member states to improve the
ICPC process. 

The National Adoption Center established and maintains\11 two
recruitment-related Internet sites--a public national photolisting
service to publicize foster children who are currently available and
waiting for adoption, and a secure web site with additional resources
for use by child welfare agencies.\12 The public Internet web site,
called FACES OF ADOPTION:  America's Waiting Children,\13 listed
about 1,800 waiting children from about 38 states as of August 1999. 
The center anticipates that additional states will soon become
members, resulting in some increase in the number of children listed
on its site in the coming months.  Prospective adoptive parents can
request information about a specific child from the center.  The
center's private Internet web site, called NAE-Online, contains
additional information about the children and also contains
information about families with approved homestudies.  The site is
accessible only to child welfare agencies that pay a membership fee
to the center.  The center estimated that during a 2-month period in
summer 1999, about 30 foster children were placed for adoption as a
result of their listings being seen on FACES OF ADOPTION. 

In February 1999, APHSA convened a task force called the Geographic
Barriers Task Force of APHSA to Identify Barriers to Placements
across State Lines to explore issues related to the use of
homestudies across jurisdictions.  The membership of the task force
is still evolving, although it is expected to include representatives
of state child welfare agencies, child welfare advocacy
organizations, the AAICPC, and the Association of Administrators of
the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance.\14 As of
August 1999, the task force had not set a time frame for completion
of its work or identified the scope of the work. 

AAICPC provides guidance to states in interpreting ICPC and
recommendations on procedures.  This group consists of
representatives of ICPC administrators from each state.  AAICPC
members implement procedures that they believe will increase the
timeliness of the ICPC process.  For example, ICPC Regulation 7
allows agencies to request an expedited homestudy when a child is
likely to be placed with a relative residing in another state. 

--------------------
\11 The Children Awaiting Parents, Inc., cosponsors the public web
site. 

\12 Similar to web sites set up by state child welfare agencies, the
center's web site protects the privacy of foster children in the
photolisting service by providing only general descriptive
information about the children listed. 

\13 The site can be found on the Internet at http://www.adopt.org. 

\14 The Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance
provides the legal framework to ensure that foster children who are
eligible for federal adoption assistance continue to receive medical
and other services after adoption.  The compact is a statute
uniformly enacted by 30 states.  The Association of Administrators of
the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance administers
this compact under a cooperative agreement with HHS. 

   HHS HAS IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS
   THAT AFFECT INTERJURISDICTIONAL
   ADOPTIONS BUT LACKS AN
   ORGANIZED STRATEGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

In response to presidential, legislative, and departmental actions,
HHS identified problems that ranged across the interjurisdictional
adoption process, but its plans were not part of an organized
strategy.  HHS identified problems ranging from a shortage of
adoptive families for special needs foster children to placements by
the courts that violate ICPC.  HHS' action plans did not address all
identified problems and other actions are behind schedule.  As the
federal government's primary agency for foster care and adoption
issues, HHS has a key role in providing leadership to assist states
in resolving interjurisdictional issues. 

Since1996, the following presidential, legislative, and departmental
actions have directed HHS' attention to issues related to
interjurisdictional adoption: 

  -- On December 14, 1996, the President issued a Presidential
     Executive Memorandum directing HHS to increase by 100 percent
     the number of foster children adopted within 5 years. 

  -- On November 19, 1997, ASFA was enacted, giving HHS
     responsibility for issuing regulations and enforcing penalties
     for, among other provisions, delaying or denying adoptive
     placements across jurisdictions when an approved family is
     available. 

  -- On November 24, 1998, the President issued a Presidential
     Executive Memorandum directing HHS to establish a national
     registry for freed foster children who need adoptive homes. 

  -- In November 1998, the HHS Office of Inspector General issued a
     report, The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children: 
     State Structure and Process, describing states' implementation
     of ICPC and the number of children affected by ICPC. 

  -- In March 1999, the Office of Inspector General issued a
     companion report, Interstate Compact on the Placement of
     Children:  Implementation, describing how well states have
     implemented ICPC and recommending HHS actions for improvement. 

HHS characterized its role in foster care adoptions in its response
to the President's memorandum on increasing adoptions:  The federal
role in this initiative [Adoption 2002] is largely one of supporting
states and communities by providing financial incentives, technical
assistance, policy and programmatic leadership, and recognition of
successful efforts.\15 For interjurisdictional adoption issues, HHS'
efforts to identify problems and develop action plans largely reflect
these areas. 

For recruitment, HHS determined that the pool of prospective adoptive
families who can care for children with special needs remained
insufficient.\16 To improve recruitment, and in response to the
presidential directive to establish a national registry, HHS
developed a plan to implement an Internet site publicizing freed and
waiting foster children.\17 HHS estimated the first-year cost of the
site at $1.5 million with annual operating costs of $1.25 million. 
The service is slated to begin operation on September 1, 2001. 
Although preliminary implementation actions were to be completed by
August 1999, HHS had not completed any of the steps outlined in its
plan by that date.  For example, it has not conducted focus groups to
identify concerns or established a standing work group to recommend
photolisting service policy.  However, HHS acknowledges that this
effort appears to duplicate much of the existing national
photolisting service maintained by the National Adoption Center and
now plans to reassess its approach to this effort. 

For homestudies, HHS found that differing state laws and requirements
for the content of homestudies hamper acceptance of homestudies
across jurisdictions.\18 HHS has not published plans to address this
issue.  However, officials told us that they are supportive of
APHSA's efforts to provide leadership on interjurisdictional
homestudy issues. 

Although HHS did not identify a specific need to improve the
acceptance of termination of parental rights orders and adoption
decrees, it planned, as part of its technical assistance efforts to
states, to develop and disseminate guidelines for state legislation
relating to terminating parental rights.\19 While not prepared in
response to a concern about parental rights orders, HHS' recently
released guidelines help states review their laws and develop
statutes and policies that reflect the best practices in child
welfare, including guidance on the termination of parental rights.\20

For ICPC, HHS identified several problems.  According to HHS, some
child welfare agency staff as well as judges and attorneys do not
understand ICPC and lack training on its purpose and function.\21
Delays may occur in the placement process, including adoptive
placements, thus lengthening the multistep process, when key people
do not comply with ICPC.\22 Furthermore, when placements in violation
of ICPC\23 occur, states are sometimes unaware that children are
placed in their jurisdiction.\24 For example, judges sometimes
disregard the ICPC process and order out-of-state placements without
ICPC.  To improve the administration of ICPC, HHS planned to work
with its National Resource Centers\25 to determine how to promote
awareness of ICPC, provide training to state agency staff who operate
ICPC, and support development of model procedures to help ICPC
operate more effectively.\26 To promote awareness of ICPC and provide
training, HHS invited other organizations, such as AAICPC, to make
presentations about ICPC at HHS-sponsored workshops and meetings.  To
support development of model procedures, HHS included improvement of
ICPC as an example of an interjurisdictional adoption issue that
could receive funding under the Adoption Opportunities grant
program.\27 Although HHS received proposals for fiscal year 1998, HHS
determined that none of the proposals had sufficient merit to be
recommended for funding.  HHS revised its request for proposals on
interjurisdictional adoption issues and listed both collaborative
planning to increase interjurisdictional adoptions and support for
improving implementation of ICPC as areas of special interest for
fiscal year 1999 grants.  HHS awarded five grants in those areas of
special interest. 

--------------------
\15 Adoption 2002:  A Response to the Presidential Executive
Memorandum on Adoption, U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services
(Washington, D.C.:  Dec.  14, 1996), p.  9. 

\16 Adoption 2002, p.  6. 

\17 Plan to Implement a National Internet Adoption Photolisting
Service, U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services (Washington,
D.C.:  n.d.), www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/special/photolts/toc.htm. 

\18 Plan to Implement a National Internet Photolisting Service, p. 
8. 

\19 Adoption 2002, p.  11. 

\20 Adoption 2002:  The President's Initiative on Adoption and Foster
Care, Guidelines for Public Policy and State Legislation Governing
Permanence for Children, U.S.  Department of Health and Human
Services (Washington, D.C.:  June 1999). 

\21 Photolisting Service, p.  9; and Interstate Compact on the
Placement of Children:  Implementation, U.S.  Department of Health
and Human Services Office of Inspector General, OEI-02-95-00044
(Washington, D.C.:  Mar.  1999), p.  7. 

\22 Interstate Compact Implementation, pp.  2 and 8. 

\23 Interstate Compact Implementation, p.  8. 

\24 The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children:  State
Structure and Process, U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General, OEI-02-95-00041 (Washington, D.C.:  Nov. 
1998), p.  9. 

\25 National Resource Centers are operated by contractors who are
responsible for providing technical assistance on child welfare
issues to states. 

\26 Interstate Compact Implementation, pp.  11-12. 

\27 The Adoption Opportunities grant program is designed to provide
support for demonstration projects that facilitate the elimination of
barriers to adoption and provide permanent loving homes for children
who would benefit from adoption, particularly children with special
needs. 

   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The 8,000 foster children who, at any given time, are freed and
waiting for an adoptive home are not readily adoptable because of
their special needs.  Searching across jurisdictional lines for an
adoptive family for these hard-to-place children may increase the
likelihood that a foster child can be matched with an appropriate
family.  However, the interjurisdictional adoption process is longer
and more complex than the adoption process within a jurisdiction. 
Thus, opportunities for successful outcomes from interjurisdictional
searches for adoptive families depend, in large measure, on the
soundness of the process itself.  While states have the primary
responsibility to regulate adoptions, nonprofit organizations are
also actively involved in developing needed improvements.  However,
states' authority does not extend beyond their own borders and
nonprofit organizations cannot directly change the process.  As a
result, the states and organizations cannot effect change in all
steps of the interjurisdictional adoption process.  While HHS has
made some efforts to assist states in improving this process in areas
such as provision of technical assistance, a more organized strategy
and a widely available plan could facilitate dialogue and
collaboration among all who have an interest in improvements to the
interjurisdictional adoption process.  For example, such a plan could
present strategies to promote the standardization of homestudies and
assist states in their use of web sites. 

   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We recommend that the Secretary of HHS develop and make widely
available an action plan to address areas that would facilitate the
interjurisdictional adoption of foster children.  The plan should
critically assess planned and ongoing activities by HHS and others
and, at a minimum, should include strategies to

  -- Encourage collaborative partnerships among governments and
     others to promote standardization of homestudies and additional
     training on ICPC and its process, and

  -- Provide technical assistance to states on the effective use of
     adoption web sites to recruit adoptive families for
     hard-to-place foster children. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided HHS and state child welfare officials in the three states
we visited with the opportunity to comment on a draft of this report;
we received comments from HHS and the state of California.  In its
comments on a draft of the report, HHS acknowledged that the
interjurisdictional adoption process is not functioning optimally. 
It expanded on two topics addressed in the report--HHS' discretionary
grantmaking activities and Internet activities--and discussed why HHS
does not believe that our recommended action is necessary.  In
discussing the use of discretionary grants, such as Adoption
Opportunities grants, to improve the interjurisdictional adoption
process, HHS reiterated its position on its discretionary grantmaking
activities and provided additional information about the grants that
were awarded for fiscal year 1999.  In addition, HHS noted that it
considers the grantmaking process to be its mechanism for
coordinating with others to improve the interjurisdictional adoption
process.  In discussing Internet activities, HHS noted that interest
in Internet activity regarding adoption is high, the interest comes
from a variety of sources, and adoption agencies have struggled to
keep up with the rapidly growing Internet technology.  Furthermore,
HHS seeks to support Internet-based efforts that do not exceed
states' capacities to respond and that do not duplicate efforts by
the private sector. 

In responding to our recommendation that HHS develop and make widely
available an action plan to facilitate the interjurisdictional
adoption of foster children, HHS stated that it has not had a need to
create such a plan given the changing nature of technology and the
continuous efforts it is making to facilitate the interjurisdictional
adoption process.  We believe that the value of a more organized
strategy and a widely available action plan lies in the increased
dialogue, and resulting collaboration, such a plan can generate
between HHS and the many public agencies and private organizations
that have an interest in improving the interjurisdictional adoption
process.  Particularly in light of HHS' stated desire to avoid
duplicating the efforts of others and its recent decision to reassess
the value of its plan for a national photolisting service, a
mechanism that would keep interested parties abreast of HHS' plans is
warranted.  HHS also made technical comments, which we incorporated
where appropriate.  The full text of HHS' comments is contained in
appendix V. 

The state of California agreed with our report and noted its interest
in being involved in future efforts to improve the
interjurisdictional adoption process. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services and program officials in California, Florida, and
Missouri.  We will also make copies available to others on request. 

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215.  Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

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

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

To obtain a national perspective on interjurisdictional issues, we
interviewed officials at the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) about the department's role and actions relevant to
interjurisdictional adoption issues.  We also interviewed experts and
advocates affiliated with nonprofit organizations interested in
interjurisdictional adoption issues about their organizations'
related activities.  These organizations included the American Public
Human Services Association, the Association of Administrators of the
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, the Association of
Administrators of the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical
Assistance, the National Adoption Center, and the American Bar
Association.  In addition, we reviewed the public Internet web sites
maintained by the National Adoption Center and state child welfare
agencies to determine the types of information available to
prospective adoptive parents regardless of their geographic location. 

To obtain a state and county child welfare perspective on
interjurisdictional issues, we conducted case studies in three
states--California, Florida, and Missouri.  We chose those states
because they are among the 10 states with the largest foster care
populations and they have varying levels of experience with the
placement of foster children across state lines.  In each state, we
met with state foster care and adoption officials and their local
counterparts in one county with a large foster care population. 
Those counties were Contra Costa County, California; Broward County,
Florida; and Jackson County, Missouri. 

We conducted our review from November 1998 to August 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

THE ADOPTION PROCESS FOR FOSTER
CHILDREN
========================================================== Appendix II

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

SAMPLE HOMESTUDY FORMAT
========================================================= Appendix III

The specific content and format of homestudies vary by agency.  This
suggested format, developed by Florida, reflects the scope and detail
typically found in homestudies. 

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

CHILD WELFARE-RELATED STATE WEB
SITES AS OF AUGUST 1999
========================================================== Appendix IV

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix VI

GAO CONTACTS

David D.  Bellis, (202) 512-7278
Kerry Gail Dunn, (415) 904-2234

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to the individuals named above, Ann T.  Walker, Karen E. 
Lyons, and Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean made key contributions to this
report. 

*** End of document. ***