Foster Care: Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act Poses
Difficult Challenges (Letter Report, 09/14/1998, GAO/HEHS-98-204).

Federal law prohibits consideration of race in making decisions about
where to place children in foster care. As a result, caseworkers have
had to set aside their personal views, which in many cases hold that
eliminating race as a factor will lead to placements that are not in the
best interests of children. GAO found lingering confusion among state
and local officials and caseworkers about allowable actions under the
law. GAO notes that all levels of government face three significant
challenges in changing placement practices. First, agencies need to
continue changing long-standing social work practices, such as the
beliefs of some officials and caseworkers that the interests of children
are best served when race is considered. Second, agencies need to
translate legal principles into practical advice for caseworkers.
Although officials and caseworkers GAO spoke with understood that the
law prohibits them from delaying or denying placement on the basis of
race, they also voiced confusion about allowable actions under the law.
Third, agencies need to develop information systems to monitor
compliance with restrictions on race in placement decisions. GAO
summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see: Foster Care:
Challenges Faced in Implementing the Multiethnic Placement Act, by Mark
V. Nadel, Associate Director for Income Security Issues, before the
Subcommittee on Human Resources, House Committee on Ways and Means.
GAO/T-HEHS-98-241, Sept. 15 (eight pages).

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-98-204
     TITLE:  Foster Care: Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement
	     Act Poses Difficult Challenges
      DATE:  09/14/1998
   SUBJECT:  Foster children
	     Child adoption
	     State law
	     Racial discrimination
	     Child custody
	     Federal/state relations
	     Families
	     Civil rights law
	     Parents
	     Minorities
IDENTIFIER:  HHS Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
	     Alameda County (CA)
	     San Diego County (CA)
	     California

******************************************************************
** 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.                         **
******************************************************************
GAO/HEHS-98-204

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

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

September 1998

FOSTER CARE - IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE MULTIETHNIC PLACEMENT ACT
POSES DIFFICULT CHALLENGES

GAO/HEHS-98-204

The Multiethnic Placement Act

(116013)

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

  AFCARS - Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services

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

B-279242

September 14, 1998

The Honorable E.  Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman:

At least one-third of the estimated 500,000 children currently in
foster care will never return to their birth parents, leaving those
children in need of permanent homes.  Certain groups of foster
children have waited longer than others to belong to a new family.
Minority children--who made up over 60 percent of those in foster
care nationwide in 1994--waited twice as long for permanent homes as
did other foster children.  The delay in placing minority children
may have been due in part to the common practice of matching the race
of a child with that of a parent in foster care and public agency
adoption placements--a practice that was customary and required in
many areas for the last 20 years.  Yet, the pool of available foster
and adoptive parents contained fewer minority parents than there were
minority children needing homes.  The Multiethnic Placement Act of
1994, as amended by the interethnic adoption provisions in 1996,
sought to decrease the length of time that children wait to be
adopted by eliminating race-related barriers to placement in
permanent homes.  The 1996 amendment strengthened the prohibition on
the use of race.  Whereas the original act explicitly permitted race
to be considered as one of a number of factors when making a
placement, the 1996 amendment removed that provision, thus making it
clear that race could not even be one of a group of reasons routinely
used when making placement decisions.  This law puts child welfare
agencies on notice that they are subject to existing civil rights
principles banning racial discrimination when making foster care or
adoption placement decisions.  Thus, agencies can no longer routinely
assume that placing children with parents of the same race is in the
best interests of a child or that same-race parents are more capable
of passing on a cultural heritage than parents of a different race.

You asked for information about implementation of the Multiethnic
Placement Act of 1994, as amended, at the federal level and in states
with large and ethnically diverse foster care caseloads.
Specifically, we are providing information on (1) efforts by federal,
state, and local agencies to implement the 1994 act in the areas of
foster care and adoption placement policy and guidance, and technical
assistance; (2) efforts by federal, state, and local agencies in
these same areas to implement the 1996 amendment to the act; and (3)
the challenges all levels of government face to change placement
practices.

To develop this information, we interviewed foster care and adoption
program officials at the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), the California Department of Social Services, and two
California counties with large foster care populations--Alameda and
San Diego.  We selected California for review because it has the
largest foster care population in the nation and minority children
made up 64 percent of its foster care caseload as of September 30,
1996.  Minority children compose 79 percent and 56 percent,
respectively, of the foster care populations in the two counties we
visited.  We reviewed laws, regulations, and documents relevant to
foster care and adoption policies, guidance, procedures, training,
and technical assistance.  We also reviewed selected activities of
federal contractors operating National Resource Centers who are
responsible for providing technical assistance on child welfare
issues to states, and federal grantees' proposed activities under the
Adoption Opportunities Grants program.  In addition, we examined the
use of an HHS database--the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS)--to monitor the implementation of the
amended act.  We also met with 25 county caseworkers to discuss the
processes they use to make placement decisions and their knowledge of
the amended act.  Finally, we reviewed articles published in law and
child welfare journals and interviewed researchers and practitioners
interested in the implementation of this law.  We conducted our
review from January 1998 to July 1998 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

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

HHS and the state of California initiated collaborative, multipronged
efforts to inform agencies and caseworkers about the Multiethnic
Placement Act of 1994.  HHS program officials recognized that the act
requires child welfare agencies to undergo a historic change in how
foster care and adoption placement decisions are made by limiting the
use of race as a factor.  Within 6 weeks of the act's passage, HHS
took the first step in a comprehensive approach to implementation
that involved issuing policy guidance and providing technical
assistance, including training state officials and working with them
to ensure that state laws conformed to the new federal legislation.
However, some states believed that HHS' policy was more restrictive
regarding the use of race in placement decisions than provided for in
the act.  For its part, the state of California issued a memorandum
to alert its counties to the new act, revised its adoption
regulations, and collaborated with county child welfare officials to
develop a strategy to implement the act.  In the two counties we
visited, the foster care and adoption units trained caseworkers on
the provisions of the act.

Unlike its efforts after the 1994 act, when the 1996 amendment was
enacted, HHS provided less help to the states and was slower to
revise its guidance to them.  After enactment of the 1996 amendment,
HHS did not update its policy guidance for 9 months, and it has done
little to address casework practice issues--a step necessary for
successful implementation.  HHS was less proactive after passage of
the amendment in 1996 than it had been in 1994 because agency
officials believed that the amendment affirmed HHS' interpretation of
the 1994 act.  That is, its original guidance was consistent with the
statutory and constitutional civil rights principles that are the
foundation of both the act and the amendment.  California has yet to
conform its state laws and regulations to the amended act.  The state
provided training to some county staff, but the training was not
targeted toward staff who have primary responsibility for placing
children in foster or adoptive homes.  Of the two counties we
reviewed, the adoption unit in one county has begun to revise its
policies, but the other units have not done so.  Both counties have
provided some training to caseworkers on the 1996 amendment, either
through formal training sessions or one-on-one training by
supervisors.

Changing long-standing social work practices, translating legal
principles into practical advice for caseworkers, and developing
compliance monitoring systems are among the challenges remaining for
officials at all levels of government in changing placement
decision-making.  The implementation of this amended act
predominantly relies on the understanding and willingness of
individual caseworkers to eliminate a historically important
factor--race--from the placement decisions they make.  While agency
officials and caseworkers understand that this legislation prohibits
them from delaying or denying placements on the basis of race, not
all believe that eliminating race will result in placements that are
in the best interests of children, which is a basic criterion for
placement decisions.  In addition, state and local officials and
caseworkers demonstrated lingering confusion about allowable actions
under the law.  The state training sessions we attended on the
amended act, in which presenters offered contradictory views of
allowable activities, showed that neither the state nor HHS has
provided clear guidance to caseworkers to apply the law to casework
practice.  Finally, federal efforts to determine whether placement
decisions are consistent with the amended act's restrictions on the
use of race-based factors will be hampered by difficulties in
identifying data that are complete and sufficient.

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

The Howard M.  Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 is one of
several recent congressional initiatives to address concerns that
children remain in foster care too long.\1 As originally enacted, the
law provided that the placement of children in foster or adoptive
homes could not be denied or delayed solely because of the race,
color, or national origin of the child or of the prospective foster
or adoptive parents.  However, the act expressly permitted
consideration of the racial, ethnic, or cultural background of the
child and the capacity of prospective parents to meet the child's
needs in these areas when making placement decisions--if such a
consideration was one of a number of factors used to determine the
best interests of a child.  Furthermore, it required states to
undertake efforts to recruit foster and adoptive families that
reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of children in need of care.

The 1996 amendment clarified that race, color, or national origin may
be considered only in rare circumstances when making placement
decisions.\2 As amended, the act states that placement cannot be
denied or delayed because of race, color, or national origin.
Furthermore, the amendment removed language that allowed routine
consideration of these factors in assessing both the best interests
of the child and the capacity of prospective foster or adoptive
parents to meet the needs of a child.  An agency making a placement
decision that uses race, color, or national origin would need to
prove to the courts that the decision was justified by a compelling
government interest and necessary to the accomplishment of a
legitimate state purpose--in this case, the best interests of a
child.  Thus, under the law, the "best interests of a child" is
defined on a narrow, case-specific basis, whereas child welfare
agencies have historically assumed that same-race placements are in
the best interests of all children.  The amendment also added an
enforcement provision that penalizes states that violate the amended
act.  The penalties range from 2 percent to 5 percent of the federal
title IV-E funds the state would have received, depending upon
whether the violation is the first or a subsequent one in the fiscal
year.  HHS estimates that the maximum penalty for a state with a
large foster care population could be as high as $10 million in one
year.  Any agency, private or public, is subject to the provisions of
the amended act if it receives federal funds.  Agencies that receive
funds indirectly, as a subrecipient of another agency, must also
comply with the act.  Such funds include but are not limited to
foster care funds for programs under title IV-E of the Social
Security Act, block grant funds, and discretionary grants.

Before placements can be made, a child welfare agency must have an
available pool of prospective foster and adoptive parents.  In order
to become foster or adoptive parents in California, applicants
undergo a process that requires them to open all aspects of their
home and personal life to scrutiny.  Typically, these prospective
parents attend an orientation and are fingerprinted and interviewed.
They then attend mandatory training that can last up to 10 weeks.  If
they meet the minimum qualifications--such as a background free from
certain types of criminal convictions--their personal life is then
reviewed in detail by caseworkers.\3 This review is called a
homestudy.  According to one county, 20 percent or fewer applicants
reach this milestone.  A homestudy addresses the financial situation,
current and previous relationships, and life experiences of the
applicant.  It also addresses the abilities and desires of the
applicant to parent certain types of children--including children of
particular races--and other issues.  Only when the homestudy process
is completed, a written report of its findings approved by a child
welfare agency, and the home found to meet safety standards is an
applicant approved as a foster or adoptive parent.  Caseworkers may
then consider whether a prospective foster or adoptive parent would
be an appropriate caregiver for a particular foster child.

Social work practice uses the best interests of the child as its
guiding principle in placement decisions.  Caseworkers exercise
professional judgment to balance the many factors that historically
have been included when defining that principle.  When considering
what is in the best interests of the child, both physical and
emotional well-being factors such as the safety, security, stability,
nurturance, and permanence for the child are taken into
consideration.  In social work practice, the need for security and
stability has included maintaining cultural heritage.  The
caseworker's placement decision may also be affected by the
administrative procedures used in an agency, the size of the pool of
potential foster and adoptive parents, and, in some cases, individual
caseworkers' beliefs.  An agency may have a centralized system for
providing caseworkers with information on available homes, or it may
be left to the caseworker to seek out an available foster home.
Depending on the size of the pool of potential foster or adoptive
parents and the needs of the child, a caseworker may have few or many
homes to consider when making a placement decision.  In any case,
good casework practice includes making individualized, needs-based
placements reflecting the best interests of a child.

While the thrust of the act, as amended, is toward race-blind foster
care and adoption placement decisions, other federal policies that
guide placement decisions inherently tend toward placing children
with parents of the same race.  The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
grants Native American tribes exclusive jurisdiction over specific
Native American child welfare issues.  The Multiethnic Placement Act
does not affect the application of tribal jurisdiction.  Section 505
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 amended section 471(a) of the Social Security Act to
require states to consider giving priority to relatives of foster
children when making placement decisions.  Some states, such as
California, require that caseworkers first try to place a child with
relatives--known as kinship caregivers--before considering other
types of placement.  Consequently, the Multiethnic Placement Act
affects about one-half of the California foster care caseload--those
foster and adoptive children who are not under tribal jurisdiction or
cared for by relatives.

--------------------
\1 P.L.  103-382, secs.  551-553, 108 stat.  3518, 4056-57.  See app.
I for the text of the law.

\2 P.L.  104-188, sec.  1808, 110 stat.  1755, 1903-04.  See app.  II
for the text of the amendment.

\3 Kinship caregivers--the relatives of biological parents--may
undergo an abbreviated process.  For example, they may not be
required to attend orientation or training.

   THE 1994 ACT LAUNCHED EFFORTS
   TO END DISCRIMINATORY PLACEMENT
   ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

HHS, the state of California, and foster care and adoption agencies
in the two counties we reviewed took actions to inform agencies and
caseworkers about the passage of the 1994 act.  HHS also provided
technical assistance to states, including working with states to
ensure that state laws were consistent with the act.  California
changed state law and regulations, and the two counties we reviewed
also changed policies to conform to the new law.  In addition, the
two counties provided training on the act to caseworkers responsible
for making placement decisions.

      HHS IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

HHS recognized the significance of the change in casework practice
that the 1994 law would require of child welfare agencies by
restricting the use of race in placement decisions.  In response, HHS
launched a major effort to provide policy guidance and technical
assistance.

The underpinning for HHS' actions was coordination among its units
that do not customarily issue joint policies--such as the Children's
Bureau and the Office for Civil Rights--to ensure that the agency
provided consistent guidance.  These two units have the
responsibility within HHS for implementing the act.  The Children's
Bureau administers programs of federal financial assistance to child
welfare agencies and has responsibility for enforcing compliance with
the laws authorizing that assistance.  The Office for Civil Rights
has the responsibility for enforcing compliance with civil rights
laws.  HHS officials told us that this internal coordination was also
essential because the agency itself needed to undergo cultural
changes.  For example, in order to provide joint guidance, officials
in the Office for Civil Rights needed to understand a social work
perspective on the role of race in making placement decisions, and
officials in the Children's Bureau needed to understand civil rights
principles in the context of their programs.  Officials told us that
they also notified agency grantees of the act and reviewed selected
documents to see that they were consistent with it.\4

Within 6 weeks of enactment of the new law, HHS issued a memorandum
to states that summarized the act and provided its text.  About 5
months later--and 6 months before the act went into effect--HHS
issued its policy guidance.  (See app.  III for the text of the
guidance.) The guidance, jointly issued by the Children's Bureau and
the Office for Civil Rights, was based on legal principles in title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The guidance introduced key
legal concepts and identified certain illegal practices, such as the
use of a time period during which a search would occur only for
foster or adoptive parents of the same race as the foster child.
Some states believed that HHS' guidance regarding the use of race in
placement decisions was more restrictive than provided for in the
act.  However, HHS maintained that its guidance accurately reflected
the statutory and constitutional civil rights principles involved.
To assist states in understanding what they must do to comply with
the act, officials from the Children's Bureau and the Office for
Civil Rights jointly provided training to state officials and
discussed the new law with state child welfare directors in at least
10 states.  In addition, HHS contracted with a National Resource
Center for a monograph on the new law; the monograph was released at
the time the act went into effect and provided additional guidance
for states' use when implementing the act.  Finally, HHS made other
information and resources available to states from its contracted
Resource Centers, including assistance to individual states.

To ensure that state laws were consistent with the act, the Office
for Civil Rights reviewed each state's statutes, regulations, and
policies.  It then worked with states whose laws did not conform to
initiate corrective action.  The review found that the statutes,
rules, or policies of 28 states and the District of Columbia did not
conform.  All of them completed changes to comply with the 1994 law.
Furthermore, as part of its ongoing efforts to determine whether
agency policies and caseworker actions comply with civil rights law,
including the act, the Office for Civil Rights continued to
investigate complaints of discrimination that were filed with the
agency.  Past complaints have consisted, for example, of charges
brought by foster parents who were not allowed to adopt a child who
had been in their care; the denial of the opportunity to adopt the
child was allegedly because the child was of a different race than
the foster parents.

--------------------
\4 We reviewed summaries of grants awarded in 1997 under the Adoption
Opportunities Grants program to determine whether that program is
consistent with the act.  The request for proposals included
information about compliance with the act.  Of the 20 summaries we
reviewed, all but one grantee appeared to conduct programs that were
consistent with the intent of the act.

      CALIFORNIA IMPLEMENTATION
      EFFORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Implementation of the 1994 act required changes to law and
regulations at the state level and to policies at the county level.
The state of California began its implementation efforts in August
1995 by issuing an informational memorandum to alert counties to the
act before it went into effect.\5 In addition, state officials began
a collaborative effort with an association of county child welfare
officials to devise an implementation strategy.  The state also began
the process of amending its state law to comply with the federal
statute.  When amended, the state law eliminated a discriminatory
requirement that same-race placements be sought for 90 days before
transracial placements could be made.  The state also revised its
adoption regulations after the state law was passed.  State officials
told us that it was not necessary to revise the foster care
regulations because they were already consistent with the act.
Although the change in state law eliminated the requirement to seek
same-race placements, that provision had not previously been included
in the foster care regulations.  In addition, state officials believe
that the act focused primarily on adoption issues.  Thus, adoption
regulations required revision, whereas foster care regulations did
not.  In the counties we reviewed, one county finished revision of
its foster care and adoption policies in February 1996.  The other
county issued a memorandum to its staff in January 1996 to alert them
to the new law.  However, that county has not formally revised its
foster care or adoption policies in over 20 years, according to one
county official.

The state and counties planned training on the 1994 law, but only the
counties actually conducted any.  The state planned to roll out
training, but suspended the planned training when the act was amended
in August 1996.  State officials told us that they needed to revise
the training to reflect the amendment.  The two counties, however,
developed their own training programs by relying on information they
obtained from the county child welfare association.  In both
counties, supervisors in the adoption unit took the lead in
developing and presenting one-time training sessions to foster care
and adoption caseworkers.  Most, if not all, foster care and adoption
caseworkers in the two counties received training.  Both counties
also incorporated training on the 1994 act into their curriculums for
new caseworkers.

--------------------
\5 Because California's state law would not be in conformance with
the act until January 1, 1996, HHS extended the date by which
California was to comply with the act, postponing the deadline from
October 21, 1995, to January 1, 1996.

   HHS AND CALIFORNIA WERE SLOW TO
   RESPOND TO THE 1996 AMENDMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Following amendment of the act, HHS was slower to revise its policy
guidance and provided less technical assistance to states than it did
after the passage of the 1994 act.  While California informed its
counties of the change in federal law, it did not do so until 3
months after HHS issued its policy guidance on the amended act.
Although HHS did not repeat its technical assistance effort to assist
states in understanding the amended law, the state and counties we
reviewed provided some training on the amended act to staff.

      HHS POLICY ON THE 1996
      AMENDMENT REITERATES CIVIL
      RIGHTS FOCUS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

HHS did not notify states of the change in the law until 3 months
after its passage and did not issue policy guidance on the amendment
until 6 months after the notification.  (See app.  IV for the text of
the guidance.) As was the case with the policy guidance on the
original act, HHS' revised guidance was issued jointly by the
Children's Bureau and the Office for Civil Rights.  The policy
guidance noted changes in the language of the law, such as the
elimination of the provision that explicitly permitted race to be
considered as one of a number of factors.  The guidance also
described the penalties for violating the amended act and emphasized
civil rights principles and key legal concepts that were included in
the earlier guidance on the original act.  The new guidance expressed
HHS' view that the amended act was consistent with the constitutional
and civil rights principles that HHS used in preparing its original
guidance.  However, it was not until May 1998, when we submitted a
set of questions based on concerns that county officials and
caseworkers raised with us, that HHS issued guidance answering
practical questions about changes in social work practice needed to
make casework consistent with the amended act.  (See app.  V for a
list of the questions and answers.) The guidance on social work
practice issues clarified, for example, that public agencies cannot
use race to differentiate between otherwise acceptable foster
placements even if such a consideration does not delay or deny a
child's placement.  The agency did not repeat the joint outreach and
training to state officials that it provided for the 1994 act.  While
the technical assistance provided by the Resource Centers is ongoing,
the monograph on the act has not yet been updated to reflect the
amendment.

The Office for Civil Rights took several actions to ensure that state
actions were consistent with the amended act.  It addressed
case-by-case complaints of violations and, in 1997, began reviews in
selected locations.  Officials told us that it was not necessary to
conduct another comprehensive review of state statutes because they
said they would work with states on a case-by-case basis.  In
addition, officials explored the use of AFCARS to monitor foster care
and adoption placements.  HHS officials who work with AFCARS
confirmed that neither the historical data needed to determine
placement patterns related to race that may have existed before the
1994 act's effective date nor the current information on most states'
foster children--including California's--was sufficiently complete or
adequate to allow its consideration in determining whether placement
decisions included use of race-based criteria.

      STATE AND COUNTY
      IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
      FOR THE 1996 AMENDMENT UNDER
      WAY BUT INCOMPLETE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Passage of the amendment in 1996 again required changes in state law,
regulations, and policy.  A bill was introduced in the California
legislature in February 1998 to make California State law consistent
with the federal amendment.  The bill originally contained language
to delete a nonconforming provision in state law that explicitly
allows consideration of race as one of a number of factors in a
placement decision.  However, state officials told us the bill has
been stalled in the legislative process and its passage is uncertain.
Although federal law takes precedence over state law when such
situations arise, an HHS Office for Civil Rights official told us
that HHS encourages states to pass conforming legislation.
Furthermore, state officials told us that state regulations on
adoption and foster care placement cannot be changed until this bill
becomes law.  Therefore, California regulations continue to reflect
only the 1994 law.  In September 1997, the state notified its
counties of the amendment to the act.  Although counties can change
their own policies without state actions, in the two counties we
visited, only one has begun that process:  in that county, the
adoption unit has begun to update its regulations, but the foster
care unit has not done so.

Despite the lack of a change in state law, the state resumed its
training activities in February 1998, when it offered its first
training seminar on the amended act.  A limited number of county
workers in the southern portion of the state attended that seminar,
which included 3 hours of training.  The state held two additional
training sessions in the state and plans to include training on the
amended act at two other seminars.  To date, the state has targeted
the training to licensing and recruitment staff--who work with
potential foster and adoptive parents--and not to caseworkers or
supervisors who place children in foster and adoptive homes.  But it
is these latter staff who are most directly responsible for placement
decisions and thus for complying with the amended act's provisions.
Finally, one of the two counties we visited is now developing written
training material to reflect the 1996 amendment and has provided
formal training on it to some workers.  The other county charged its
supervisors with training their staff one-on-one.

   HHS AND THE STATE FACE
   CONTINUING IMPLEMENTATION
   CHALLENGES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Officials at all levels of government face a diverse set of
challenges as they continue to implement the amended act.  Major
issues that remain include changing caseworkers' and practitioners'
beliefs about the importance of race-based placement decisions,
developing a shared understanding at all levels of government about
allowable placement practices, and developing an effective federal
compliance monitoring system.

      THE ACT'S REMOVAL OF RACE
      FROM PLACEMENT DECISIONS NOT
      CONSISTENT WITH
      LONG-STANDING SOCIAL WORK
      PRACTICE AND SOME
      CASEWORKERS' BELIEFS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

The belief that race or cultural heritage is central to a child's
best interests when making a placement is so inherent in social work
theory and practice that a policy statement of the National
Association of Social Workers still reflects this tenet, despite
changes in the federal law.  Matching the race of a child and parent
in foster care placements and public agency adoptions was customary
and required in many areas for the last 20 years.  The practice was
based on the belief that children who are removed from their homes
will adapt to their changed circumstances more successfully if they
resemble their foster or adoptive families and if they maintain ties
to their cultural heritage.  In this context, the childrens' needs
were often considered more compelling than the rights of adults to
foster or adopt children.  One state official made this point
directly, stating that her purpose is to find families for children,
not children for prospective parents.

Officials' and caseworkers' personal acceptance of the value of the
act and the 1996 amendment varies.  Some told us that they welcomed
the removal of routine race-matching from the child welfare
definition of best interests of a child and from placement decisions.
Those who held this belief said the act and the 1996 amendment made
placement decisions easier.  Others spoke of the need for
children--particularly minority children--always to be placed in
homes that will support a child's racial identity.  For those
individuals, that meant a home with same-race parents.  Furthermore,
some who value the inclusion of race in placement decisions told us
that they do not believe that the past use of race in the
decision-making process delayed or denied placements for children.

      STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
      NEED INFORMATION ON HOW TO
      CHANGE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

State program officials in California are struggling to understand
the amended act in the context of casework practice issues.  They are
waiting for the HHS Children's Bureau or the federal National
Resource Centers to assist them in making the necessary changes in
day-to-day casework practices.  In particular, the use of different
definitions by caseworkers and attorneys of what constitutes actions
in a child's best interests makes application of the act and the
amendment to casework practice difficult.  State officials
characterized the federal policy guidance as "too legalistic."
Furthermore, although officials from the Office for Civil Rights have
provided training to state officials and continue to be available to
conduct training, these state officials do not consider Office for
Civil Rights officials capable of providing the desired guidance on
how to conduct casework practice consistent with the amended act; as
a result, state officials are hesitant to request such guidance from
the Office for Civil Rights.

The officials in the two counties we visited said their
implementation efforts were hampered by the lack of guidance and
information available to them from federal and state sources.  The
questions on casework practice that we submitted to HHS arose in the
course of our discussions with county officials and caseworkers.
County officials stressed that they began their implementation
efforts with little federal and state technical assistance to help
them understand the implications of the act for making foster care
and adoption placement decisions; they relied instead on an
association of county child welfare officials to obtain the
information they needed.  Despite the counties' efforts to
independently obtain information to proceed with implementation,
documents we reviewed in both counties reflected a lack of
understanding of the provisions of the amended act.  For example, in
one county, a draft informational document that was being prepared to
inform caseworkers about the amended act included permission for
caseworkers to consider the ethnic background of a child as one of a
number of factors in a placement decision, even though the 1996
amendment removed similar wording from federal law.  In addition,
while the caseworkers we interviewed were aware that the act and the
1996 amendment do not allow denial or delay of placements related to
race, color, or national origin, some caseworkers were unsure how and
when they are allowed to consider such factors in making placement
decisions.

The need for clear guidance on practical casework issues was
demonstrated in a state-sponsored training session we attended in
February 1998.  The training consisted of presentations from four
panelists:  an attorney from the HHS Office for Civil Rights, an
attorney from a National Resource Center, and two representatives
from private agencies that recruit minority foster and adoptive
parents for the state of California.  While the panelists'
presentations noted that placements could not be denied or delayed
for race-based reasons, they offered contradictory views of
permissible activities under the law.  For example, the panelists
were asked if race could be used to choose a placement when two
available families are equally suitable to meet the needs of a child
but one family is of the same race as the child.  The attorney from
the Office for Civil Rights advised that race could not be used as
the determining factor in that example, whereas the attorney from the
Resource Center said that a case could be made for considering race
in that circumstance.  The state has since modified the training
session to provide a more consistent presentation.  However, the
paucity of practical guidance contributes to continued uncertainty
about allowable actions under the amended act.  For example, although
the act and the 1996 amendment apply equally to foster and adoption
placements, some state and county officials told us that they believe
it applies primarily to adoption placements.

      DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLIANCE
      MONITORING SYSTEM HAMPERED
      BY LACK OF DATA AND
      DOCUMENTATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

Federal officials will need to seek new ways to identify appropriate
data and documentation that will allow them to effectively determine
whether placement decisions conform to the provisions of the amended
act.

Federal AFCARS information is the primary source of federal
administrative data about foster care and adoption.  It allows HHS to
perform research on and evaluate state foster care and adoption
programs, and it assists HHS in targeting technical assistance
efforts, among other uses.  However, AFCARS data are not sufficient
to determine placement patterns related to race that may have existed
before the 1994 act's effective date.  Our examination of AFCARS
indicated that the future use of this database for monitoring changes
in placement patterns directly related to the amended act is
unlikely.  For example, the database lacks sufficient information on
the racial identity of foster and adoptive children and their foster
parents to conduct the type of detailed analysis of foster care and
adoption patterns that would likely be needed to identify
discriminatory racial patterns.\6

Analysis of any administrative data will be hampered by difficulties
in interpreting the results.  Data showing a change in the percentage
of same-race placements would not, alone, indicate whether the
amended act was effective in restricting race-based placement
practices.  For example, an increase in the percentage of same-race
placements for black foster children could indicate that the amended
act is not being followed.  Conversely, the same increase could mean
that the amended act is being followed but more black foster and
adoptive parents are available to care for children because of
successful recruitment efforts.  If relevant information on changes
in the pool of foster and adoptive parents is not available for
analysis--as is the case with AFCARS data--then it would not be
possible to rule out the success of recruitment efforts as a
contributor to an increase in same-race placements.

While case files are another source of information about placement
decisions, and such files are used in one type of review periodically
performed by HHS, reviewing those files may provide little
documentation to assist in determining whether placement decisions
are consistent with the amended act's restrictions on the use of
race-based factors.  In the two counties we visited, the processes
caseworkers described for making placement decisions generally lacked
a provision for documenting the factors considered, the placement
options available, or the reason a particular placement was chosen.
Our review of a very limited number of case files in one county, and
our experience reading case files for other foster care studies,
confirmed that it is unlikely the content of placement decisions can
be reconstructed from the case files.

--------------------
\6 AFCARS has three drawbacks to its use as a monitoring tool for the
act.  First, AFCARS contains limited information on racial identity.
In particular, it uses racial categories established by the Bureau of
the Census, which lack a biracial category.  Without the ability to
analyze biracial individuals separately from those of a single race
or, at least, to be assured that they are consistently categorized,
such racial distinctions are likely to blur results of an analysis.
Second, although AFCARS contains racial information on adoptive
parents and children, different combinations of variables are
available in two separate databases that are not linked to allow
matching of the information.  For example, the database on adopted
children contains the needed racial information, but it also contains
information on adopted children who were not in foster care, such as
children adopted by stepparents.  While it is possible to identify
children whose adoption involved a state agency, such a designation
may not be sufficient to ensure that only adoptions of foster
children are analyzed.  Third, general outcome data--such as the
average length of time children wait between entry into foster care
and termination of parental rights or adoption--will reflect the
influence of many initiatives.  Among those influences are activities
for the President's Adoption 2002 initiative, and the shortened time
frames for permanency hearings as mandated by the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997.  It is unlikely that an analysis of AFCARS data
could isolate the effect of a particular initiative on outcomes.

   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The Multiethnic Placement Act, as amended, has been difficult for
agencies to implement.  Successful implementation requires changing

  -- state laws, policies, and regulations;

  -- organizational and personal beliefs in the value of race as a
     significant factor in making foster and adoptive placements; and

  -- casework practices so that they incorporate civil rights
     principles into the definition of a child's best interests.

The federal and state agencies we reviewed began the administrative
portion of this task immediately after enactment in 1994.  But early
prompt action was not sustained after the act was amended.
Furthermore, our discussions with California state officials, and our
observation of state-sponsored training sessions, suggest that
federal policy guidance was not sufficiently practice-oriented to
allow caseworkers to understand how to apply the law to the placement
decisions they make.

Because foster care and adoption placement decisions are largely
dependent upon the actions of individual caseworkers, their
willingness to accept a redefinition of what is in the best interests
of a child is critical to the successful implementation of this
legislation.  While some caseworkers welcomed the new law, others
frankly discussed with us their concerns about eliminating almost all
racial considerations from placement decisions.

HHS and the state of California face the challenge to better explain
to practitioners how to integrate social work and legal perspectives
on the role of race in making decisions that are in a child's best
interests.  Because these perspectives are not compatible, tension
between them is inevitable.  Without a resolution to that tension,
full implementation of the amended act may be elusive.

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

We provided HHS, the state of California, and the two counties in
California that we reviewed with the opportunity to comment on a
draft of this report.  We received comments from HHS, the state of
California, and San Diego County.

In commenting on a draft of the report, HHS expanded on two topics
addressed in the report:  technical assistance, including training;
and monitoring for compliance with the act and its amendment.  In
discussing technical assistance, HHS reiterated its implementation
efforts as described in our report, provided information on related
actions it has taken in states other than California, and noted that
it expects to publish the updated monograph on the amended act in the
fall of 1998.  In commenting on the challenge of developing a
compliance monitoring system, HHS described its pilot efforts to
integrate monitoring of compliance with the amended act into its
overall monitoring of child welfare outcomes and noted that it
expects to publish a notice of its proposed monitoring processes in
the Federal Register in October 1998.  We agree that an integrated
approach to compliance monitoring of child welfare issues could be an
effective one.  However, because we have not seen HHS' proposal, we
cannot assess whether the proposed monitoring will be sufficient to
ensure that foster care and adoption placements are consistent with
the requirements of the amended act.  In this regard, HHS agreed that
AFCARS data have limited utility in tracking state compliance with
the amended act.  HHS also made technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate.  The full text of HHS' comments are
contained in appendix VI.

The state of California and San Diego County provided technical
comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.

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

As agreed with your office, we will make no further distribution of
this report until 30 days from the date of this letter.  At that
time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services and program officials in California.  We will also
make copies available to others on request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed
in appendix VII.

Sincerely yours,

Mark V.  Nadel
Associate Director
Income Security Issues

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
THE HOWARD M.  METZENBAUM
MULTIETHNIC PLACEMENT ACT OF 1994
============================================================== Letter

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
INTERETHNIC ADOPTION PROVISIONS
AMENDING THE MULTIETHNIC PLACEMENT
ACT OF 1994
============================================================== Letter

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
HHS GUIDANCE ON THE MULTIETHNIC
PLACEMENT ACT OF 1994
============================================================== Letter

(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.)

(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.)

(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.)Appendix IV
HHS GUIDANCE ON THE INTERETHNIC
ADOPTION PROVISIONS
============================================================== Letter

(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.)

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
HHS CLARIFICATION OF PLACEMENT
PRACTICE ISSUES
============================================================== Letter

(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.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

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

(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.)

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================= Appendix VII

GAO CONTACTS

David D.  Bellis, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7278
Kerry Gail Dunn, Evaluator-in-Charge, (415) 904-2000

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, Patricia Elston led the federal
fieldwork and coauthored the draft, and Anndrea Ewertsen led the
California fieldwork and coauthored the draft.

*** End of document. ***