Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite Permanency Hearings and Placement
Decisions (Testimony, 02/27/97, GAO/T-HEHS-97-76).

GAO discussed: (1) state efforts to reduce the time frames within which
hearings must be held to determine permanent placements for foster
children; (2) state initiatives designed to expedite permanent
placements for foster children and the effectiveness of these
initiatives; and (3) key factors that facilitate changes in this part of
the child welfare system.

GAO noted that: (1) signaling the importance of permanent placement to
the well-being of children, 26 states have established more stringent
requirements on the timing of the first permanency hearing than has
federal law, which requires a hearing within 18 months; (2) in addition,
the states it reviewed undertook operational and procedural initiatives
to expedite the permanent placement process as well as make
well-informed permanent placement decisions; (3) although most of these
states did not systematically evaluate their initiatives, they reported
that many of the initiatives have contributed to reducing the time spent
in foster care or decreasing the total number of foster placements made
for a child; (4) state officials reported that the key factors in
successfully implementing these initiatives were the long-term
involvement of key officials, an extended commitment of resources, and
the need for a change in perspective of case workers and judges in order
to recognize that, in some cases, termination of parental rights is the
best solution for the child's future.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-HEHS-97-76
     TITLE:  Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite Permanency Hearings 
             and Placement Decisions
      DATE:  02/27/97
   SUBJECT:  Foster children
             Child adoption
             Parents
             Families
             Child custody
             Hearings
             State programs
             State law
             Planning
             Legal rights
IDENTIFIER:  Arizona Housing Assistance Program
             Arizona State Adoption Project
             Kentucky Termination of Parental Rights Project
             Ohio
             Colorado
             Minnesota
             District of Columbia
             Arizona
             Kansas
             Tennessee
             Georgia
             Kentucky
             
******************************************************************
** 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


Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and
Means, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10 a.m.
Thursday, February 27, 1997

FOSTER CARE - STATE EFFORTS TO
EXPEDITE PERMANENCY HEARINGS AND
PLACEMENT DECISIONS

Statement of Mark V.  Nadel, Associate Director
Income Security Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division

GAO/T-HEHS-97-76

GAO/HEHS-97-76T


(106715)


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


FOSTER CARE:  STATE EFFORTS TO
EXPEDITE PERMANENCY HEARINGS AND
PLACEMENT DECISIONS
============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss states' efforts to reduce
the time children spend in foster care and, where appropriate, to
facilitate adoption.  The federal cost for foster care was almost
$3.1 billion in fiscal year 1995 and is estimated to increase to
almost $4.8 billion in 2001.  Available data suggest that more than
40 percent of foster children stay in care for 2 years or more.  In
addition, almost 30 percent of children were placed in at least three
different settings while in foster care.  This situation is not in
the best interest of children who, without benefit of permanent homes
and stable caregivers, may be more likely to develop emotional,
intellectual, or physical problems. 

At your request, we are completing a report on progress states are
making to expedite the permanent placement of children.  My testimony
today will discuss (1) state efforts to reduce the time frames within
which hearings must be held to determine permanent placements for
foster children, (2) state initiatives designed to expedite permanent
placements for foster children and the effectiveness of these
initiatives, and (3) key factors that facilitate changes in this part
of the child welfare system.  My comments are based on an analysis of
statutory and policy changes in all states and the District of
Columbia regarding the time frames for the first hearing at which a
permanent placement for a foster child is to be determined and
discussions or visits with child welfare officials in seven states
about the programs they have implemented to address the length of
time children spend in foster care.\1

In summary, signaling the importance of permanent placement to the
well-being of children, 26 states have established more stringent
requirements on the timing of the first permanency hearing than has
federal law, which requires a hearing within 18 months.  In addition,
the states we reviewed undertook operational and procedural
initiatives to expedite the permanent placement process as well as
make well-informed permanent placement decisions.  Although most of
these states did not systematically evaluate their initiatives, they
reported that many of the initiatives have contributed to reducing
the time spent in foster care or decreasing the total number of
foster placements made for a child.  State officials reported that
the key factors in successfully implementing these initiatives were
the long-term involvement of key officials, an extended commitment of
resources, and the need for a change in perspective of caseworkers
and judges in order to recognize that, in some cases, termination of
parental rights is the best solution for the child's future. 


--------------------
\1 These states are Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky,
Ohio, and Tennessee. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

State child welfare systems consist of a complicated network of
policies and programs designed to protect children.  With growing
caseloads over the past decade, the systems' ability to keep pace
with the needs of troubled children and their families has been
greatly taxed.  From fiscal year 1984 through 1995, the foster care
population grew from an estimated 276,000 children to 494,000.\2 In
1995, about 261,000 of these children were supported by federal funds
through title IV-E of the Social Security Act.\3

The federal government plays an important role in financing foster
care and establishes minimum procedural requirements for the
placement process.  As required by the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L.  96-272), states must make reasonable
efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing children from
their homes.  Once a child is removed from the home, the state must
also provide services to the family and the child with the goal of
reuniting them.  If reunification is not possible, the state is to
find permanent placement for the child outside the family home. 

To guide the permanency planning process by which a state is to find
permanent placements for foster children, the act also requires that
the state develop a case plan for each child.  Each case plan must be
reviewed at least every 6 months and, within 18 months, a permanency
hearing must be held to determine the future status of the child.  If
a final decision is not made at this hearing, federal law provides
that additional hearings must be held at least every 12 months. 
Options for the child's future status can include, but are not
limited to, reuniting the child with his or her family, placing the
child for adoption, continuing temporary foster care, or continuing
foster care permanently or long term because of the child's special
needs or circumstances.  Increasingly, children are being placed with
their own relatives, who then may sometimes receive foster care
subsidies. 


--------------------
\2 The American Public Welfare Association estimated these numbers on
the basis of data voluntarily reported by the states; it designated
the 1995 number as preliminary. 

\3 Under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, federal funds are
provided to states to cover a portion of the food, housing, and
incidental expenses of children in foster care.  To be eligible for
federal support, children must be from families who met the 1995
eligibility criteria of the now terminated Aid to Families With
Dependent Children program.  The states incur all foster care costs
for children not eligible for federal support. 


   SEVERAL STATE STATUTORY AND
   POLICY CHANGES REQUIRE
   PERMANENCY HEARINGS SOONER
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The prolonged stays of children in foster care have prompted 26
states to enact laws or policies to shorten to less than the
federally allowed 18 months the time between entering foster care and
the first permanency hearing.  Twenty-three of these states have
enacted such laws, while three others have done so by administrative
policy.  A majority of these states require the hearing within 12
months.  In two states, the shorter time frame applies only to
younger children.  Colorado requires that the permanency hearing be
held within 6 months for children under age 6, and Washington
requires the hearing to be held within 12 months for children aged 10
or younger.  The remaining 24 states and the District of Columbia
have statutes consistent with the federal requirement of 18 months. 
(For a description of the 26 state statutes, policies, and time
requirements, see app.  I.)

The state laws, like federal law, do not require that a final
decision be made at the first hearing.  Ohio and Minnesota, however,
do require that a permanency decision be determined after a limited
extension period.  Ohio, for example, requires a permanency hearing
to be held within 12 months, with a maximum of two 6-month
extensions.  At the end of that time, a permanent placement decision
must be made.  According to officials in Ohio's Office of Child Care
and Family Services, the requirement for earlier permanency hearings
was made to expedite the permanent placement process and reduce the
time children spend in foster care.  State officials also believed,
however, that this requirement may have unintentionally resulted in
increasing the number of children placed in long-term foster care
because other placement options could not be developed.  State data,
in part, confirmed this observation.  While long-term foster care
placements for children supported with state funds dropped from 1,301
in 1990 to 779 in 1995, long-term placements for children from
low-income families who are supported in part with federal funds rose
from 1,657 to 2,057 in the same period. 


   STATES MAKE CHANGES IN
   PERMANENCY PROCESS WITH SOME
   PROMISING RESULTS FOR FOSTER
   CHILDREN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Although the states we reviewed did not systematically evaluate the
impacts of their initiatives, they have implemented a variety of
operational and procedural changes to expedite and improve the
permanency process.  The states reported that these actions have
improved the lives of some children by (1) reuniting them with their
families more quickly; (2) expediting the termination of parental
rights when reunification is not feasible, making it possible for
child welfare agencies to begin looking for an adoptive home sooner;
or (3) reducing the number of different foster care placements in
which children live. 


      NEW SERVICE STRATEGIES HELP
      REUNIFICATION PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

Some states implemented low-cost, creative methods for financing and
providing services that address specific barriers to reuniting
families.  Arizona's Housing Assistance Program focused on families
in which the major barrier to reunification was inadequate housing
for the family.  According to reports and data from the Arizona
Department of Economic Security, between 1991 and 1995, as the result
of the program, 939 children were reunited with their families,
representing almost 12 percent of the children reunified during this
period.  State officials estimated that this program saved the state
over $1 million in foster care-related costs between 1991 and 1995. 


      STATES STREAMLINE
      TERMINATION PROCEDURES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2

Arizona and Kentucky placed special emphasis on expediting the
process by which parental rights could be terminated.  Arizona's
Severance Project focused on cases in which termination of parental
rights was likely or reunification services were not warranted and
for which a backlog of cases had developed.  In April 1986, the state
enacted a law providing funds for hiring severance specialists and
legal staff to work on termination cases.  The following year, in
1987, the state implemented the Arizona State Adoption Project, which
focused on identifying additional adoptive homes, including
recruiting adoptive parents for specific children and contracting for
adoptive home recruitment services.  State officials reported that
the Adoption Project resulted in a 54-percent increase in the number
of new homes added to the state registry in late 1987 and 1988.  In
addition, they noted that the Severance Project contributed to a more
than 32-percent reduction in the average length of stay between
entering care and the filing of the termination petition for fiscal
years 1991 through 1995. 

To reduce a backlog of pending cases, Kentucky's Termination of
Parental Rights Project focused on reducing the time required to
terminate parental rights once a decision has been made to do so. 
This effort included retraining caseworkers, lawyers, and judges on
the consequences of long stays in foster care and streamlining and
improving the steps caseworkers must follow when collecting and
documenting the information required for termination procedures.  A
report on this effort indicated that between 1989 and 1991, the state
decreased the average time to terminate parental rights by slightly
more than 1 year.  In addition, between 1988 and 1990, the average
length of stay for children in foster care decreased from 2.8 years
to 2.0 years and the average number of different foster care
placements for each child decreased from four to three.\4 However, as
the number of children available for adoption rose, the state was
forced to focus its efforts on identifying potential adoptive homes
and shifted its emphasis to strategies to better inform the public
about the availability of adoptive children. 


--------------------
\4 Report on Improving Practice:  Termination of Parental Rights
(Frankfort, Ky.:  Kentucky Department for Social Services, Sept. 
1991). 


      CONCURRENT PLANNING CAN LEAD
      TO GREATER EFFICIENCY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3

Some states are experimenting with concurrent planning.  Under this
approach, child welfare officials work toward reuniting a family
while developing an alternate plan for permanently removing the child
if reunification efforts fail.  By working on the two plans
simultaneously, caseworkers reduce the time needed to prepare the
paperwork for terminating parental rights if reunification efforts
fail.  Under a concurrent planning approach, caseworkers emphasize to
the parents that if they do not adhere to the requirements set forth
in their case plan, parental rights can be terminated.  Some state
officials attributed obtaining quicker permanent placements in part
to parents making more concerted efforts to make the changes needed
to have their children returned home. 

Colorado began using concurrent planning formally in 1994 for
children under age 6 in conjunction with the implementation of the
law requiring that for children under age 6, the permanency hearing
must be held within 6 months of the child's entering care.  The
program has been implemented in five counties.  Preliminary data from
an ongoing evaluation in Jefferson County shows that 65 out of 78
children, or 87 percent, achieved permanent placement within 1 year
of initial placement as compared with 50 of 71 children, or 70
percent, in a control group.  State Department of Human Services
officials told us that concurrent planning was a key factor that
contributed to the success of children's being placed more quickly in
permanent homes. 


      STREAMLINED PROCEDURES
      IMPROVE COURT FUNCTIONING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.4

All decisions regarding both the temporary and final placement of
foster children come through states' court systems.  Therefore,
Hamilton County, Ohio, juvenile court officials focused attention on
the court's involvement in achieving permanency more quickly by
developing new procedures to expedite case processing.  To do so, in
1985, they revised court procedures by (1) designating lawyers
specially trained in foster care issues as magistrates to hear cases;
(2) assigning one magistrate to each case for the life of that case
to achieve continuity; and (3) agreeing at the end of every
hearing--with all participants present--to the date for the next
hearing. 

According to court officials, the county saved thousands of dollars
because it could operate three magistrates' courtrooms for about the
cost of one judge's courtroom.  Also, a report on court activities
indicated that because of these changes, between 1986 and 1990, the
number of children (1) placed in four or more different foster care
placements decreased by 11 percent and (2) the percentage of children
leaving temporary and long-term foster care in 2 years or less
increased from 37 to 75 percent. 


      STATES HAVE NOT ASSESSED THE
      IMPACT OF INITIATIVES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.5

Our efforts to assess the overall impact of these initiatives were
hampered by the absence of evaluation data.  We found that the states
generally did not conduct systematic evaluations of their programs,
and outcome information was often limited to state reports and the
observations of state officials.  Although many of these efforts
reported improvements, for example, in speeding the termination of
parental rights once this goal was established, the lack of
comparison groups or quality data from the period before the
initiative made it difficult to reach definitive conclusions about
the initiatives' effectiveness. 


   KEY FACTORS ESSENTIAL FOR
   MEETING GOALS OF INITIATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

States increased their chances of successfully developing and
implementing initiatives when certain key factors were a part of the
process.  When contemplating changes, state officials had to take
into consideration the intricacies of the foster care process, the
inherent difficulty that caseworkers and court officials face when
deciding whether a child should be returned home, and the need, in
some cases, for caseworkers and judges to recognize that termination
of parental rights should be pursued. 

When Kentucky officials, for example, initiated a project to shorten
the process for terminating parental rights, they faced the challenge
of changing the way caseworkers and members of the legal system had
viewed termination of parental rights.  Many caseworkers saw the
termination of parental rights as a failure on their part because
they were not able to reunify the family.  As a result, they seldom
pursued termination and instead kept the children in foster care.  In
addition, judges and lawyers were often not sufficiently informed of
the negative effects on children who do not have permanent homes. 
Thus, as part of this project, newsletters and training were provided
about the effects on children of delaying termination of parental
rights. 

Officials in the states we reviewed recognized that improving the
permanency planning process requires concerted time and effort,
coordination, and resources.  These officials identified several
critical, often interrelated factors required to meet these
challenges.  These included (1) long-term involvement of officials in
leadership positions; (2) involvement of key stakeholders in
developing consensus and obtaining buy-in about the problem and its
solution; and (3) the availability of resources to plan, implement,
and sustain the project. 


   OBSERVATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

With the expected rise in foster care caseloads through the start of
the next century further straining state and federal child welfare
budgets, increasing pressure will be placed on states to develop
initiatives to move children into permanent homes more quickly.  Many
of these initiatives will need to address the difficult issues of
deciding under what circumstances to pursue reunification and what
time period is appropriate before seeking the termination of parental
rights. 

We found promising initiatives for changing parts of the permanency
process so that children can be moved from foster care into permanent
placements more quickly.  Developing and successfully implementing
these innovative approaches takes time and often challenges
long-standing beliefs.  To succeed, these initiatives must look to
local leadership involvement, consensus building, and sustained
resources. 

As these initiatives become a part of the complex child welfare
system, however, they can also create unintended consequences. 
Identifying appropriate cases for the expeditious termination of
parental rights and processing them faster--thereby making more
children available for possible adoption--can create difficulties if
efforts to develop more adoptive homes have not received equal
emphasis. 

We also observed that a critical feature of these initiatives was
often absent:  Many of them lacked evaluations designed to assess the
impact of the effort.  The availability of evaluation information
from these initiatives would not only point to the relative success
or failure of an effort but also help identify unintended outcomes. 
The lack of program and evaluation data will continue to hinder the
ability of program officials and policymakers to fully understand the
overall impact of these initiatives. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks.  I will be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have. 


   CONTRIBUTORS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

For more information on this testimony, please call Gale C.  Harris,
Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7235.  Other major contributors are
David D.  Bellis, Social Science Analyst; Shellee S.  Soliday and
Octavia V.  Parks, Senior Evaluators; Julian Klazkin, Senior
Attorney; and Rathi Bose, Evaluator. 


STATES THAT REQUIRE A PERMANENCY
HEARING EARLIER THAN THE FEDERAL
REQUIREMENT OF 18 MONTHS (AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1996)
=========================================================== Appendix I

                Requirement for
                holding the           Year law                           State policy/
                permanency           or policy  State law                regulation
State           hearing\a          was enacted  citation                 citation
--------------  ----------------  ------------  -----------------------  ----------------
Arizona         12 months                 1995  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.,
                                                Section 8-515.C.(West
                                                Supp. 1996)

Colorado        6 and 18                  1994  Colo. Rev. Stat.,
                months\b                        Section 19-3-
                                                702(1)(Supp. 1996)

Connecticut     12 months                 1995  Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.,
                                                Section 46b-129(d),(e)
                                                (West 1995)

Delaware        17 months                 1987                           Child Protective
                                                                         Service
                                                                         Directive Policy
                                                                         #3026\

Georgia         12 months                 1996  Ga. Code Ann., Section
                                                15-11-419 (j),(k)(1996)

Illinois        16 months                 1993  705 Ill. Comp. Stat.
                                                Ann., 405/2-22(5)(West
                                                Supp. 1996)

Indiana         12 months                 1996  Ind. Code Ann., Section
                                                31-6-4-19(c)(Michie
                                                Supp. 1996)

Iowa            12 months                 1987  Iowa Code Ann., Section
                                                232.104 (West 1994)

Kansas          12 months                 1994  Kan. Stat. Ann.,
                                                Section 38-
                                                1565(b),(c)(1995)

Louisiana       12 months                 1991  La. Ch. Code Ann.,
                                                Arts. 702,710(West
                                                1995)

Michigan        15 1/2 months\c           1988  Mich. Stat. Ann.,
                                                Section
                                                27.3178(598.19a) (Law
                                                Co-op Supp. 1996)

Minnesota       12 months                 1993  Minn. Stat. Ann.,
                                                Section 260.191 Subd.
                                                3b(West Supp. 1997)

Mississippi     12 months                 1985  Miss. Code Ann.,
                                                Section 43-21-613
                                                (3)(1993)

New Hampshire   12 months                 1987                           New Hampshire
                                                                         Court Rules
                                                                         Annotated, Abuse
                                                                         and Neglect,
                                                                         Guideline 39
                                                                         (Permanency
                                                                         Planning
                                                                         Review)\d

New Mexico      6 months                  1993                           State official's
                                                                         statement\e

New York        12 months                 1989  N.Y. Jud. Law, Section
                                                1055(b)(McKinney Supp.
                                                1997)

Ohio            12 months                 1989  Ohio Rev. Code Ann.,
                                                Sections 2151.353(F)
                                                2151.415 9 (A)
                                                (Anderson 1994)

Pennsylvania    6 months                  1986  42 Pa. Cons. Stat.
                                                Ann., Section 6351(e-
                                                g)(West Supp. 1996)

Rhode Island    12 months                 1985  R.I. Gen. Laws, Section
                                                40-11-12.1(1990)

South Carolina  12 months                 1983  S.C. Code Ann., Section
                                                20-7-766(Law. Co-op.
                                                Supp. 1996)

Utah            16 months                 1995  Utah Code Ann., Section
                                                78-3a-312, (1996)

Virginia        12 months\f               1994  Va. Code Ann., Section
                                                16.1-282(Michie 1996)

Washington      12 and 18                 1994  Wash. Rev. Code Ann.,
                months\g                        Section 13.34.145(3)(4)
                                                (West Supp. 1997)

West Virginia   12 months                 1984  W. Va. Code Sections
                                                49-6-5, 49-6-8(1996)

Wisconsin       12 months                 1981  Wis. Stat. Ann.,
                                                Sections 48.355(4);
                                                48.38; 48.365(5)(West
                                                1987)

Wyoming         12 months                 1995  Wyo. Stat. Ann.,
                                                Section 14-6-229
                                                (k)(Michie Supp. 1996)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Generally, a permanency hearing must be held within the indicated
number of months after the child enters foster care. 

\b Colorado law requires that for children under age 6, the
permanency hearing be held within 6 months from when the child enters
care.  The time frame to hold the permanency hearing was calculated
by adding the days needed to conduct the adjudicatory, dispositional,
and permanency planning hearings.  This expedited procedures program
will be implemented on a county-by-county basis and will be fully
implemented in the state by June 30, 2004.  For children aged 6 and
older, the permanency hearing is held within 18 months of placement. 

\c Michigan's time frame to hold the permanency hearing was
calculated by adding the days needed to conduct the preliminary
hearing, trial, dispositional hearing, and the permanency hearing. 

\d New Hampshire law is unclear regarding the time frame to hold the
permanency hearing; therefore, we relied on the "New Hampshire Court
Rules Annotated--Statutory Requirements and Guidelines for Abuse and
Neglect," Guideline 39, which requires that a permanency hearing be
held within 1 year of the child's placement in foster care. 

\e New Mexico law does not refer to permanency hearings.  It does
require that a dispositional hearing be conducted every 6 months to
review the permanency plan of the child.  During this review, a
permanency decision for the child can be made, but this is not
required. 

\f Virginia's time frame to hold the permanency hearing was
calculated by adding the number of months required to file the
petition to hold the permanency hearing plus the number of days
within which the court is required to schedule the hearing. 

\g Washington's law requires the permanency hearing to be held no
later than 12 months after a child is placed in foster care for
children 10 years old and under.  For children over age 10, the
permanency hearing must be held no later than 18 months after a child
is placed in foster care. 


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
=========================================================== Appendix 1

Child Welfare:  Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services
(GAO/HEHS-95-208, Sept.  26, 1995). 

Child Welfare:  Opportunities to Further Enhance Family Preservation
and Support (GAO/HEHS-95-112, June 15, 1995). 

Foster Care:  Health Needs of Many Young Children Unknown and Unmet
(GAO/HEHS-95-114, May 26, 1995). 

Foster Care:  Parental Drug Abuse Has Alarming Impact on Young
Children (GAO/HEHS-94-89, Apr.  4, 1994). 

Residential Care:  Some High-Risk Youth Benefit, But More Study
Needed (GAO/HEHS-94-56, Jan.  28, 1994). 

Foster Care:  Services to Prevent Out-of-Home Placements Are Limited
by Funding Barriers (GAO/HRD-93-76, June 29, 1993). 

Foster Care:  State Agencies Other Than Child Welfare Can Access
Title IV-E Funds (GAO/HRD-93-6, Feb.  9, 1993). 

Foster Care:  Children's Experiences Linked to Various Factors;
Better Data Need (GAO/HRD-91-64, Sept.  11, 1991). 

Child Welfare:  Monitoring Out-of-State Placements (GAO/HRD-91-107BR,
Sept.  3, 1991). 


*** End of document. ***