Department of Health and Human  Services 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
STATE  USE  OF  SPECIAL  NEEDS

ADOPTION  FUNDS  FOR

NONRECURRING  COSTS

S6RV1QS
d  %%
$.4 
$
# Jm  GIBBS  BROWN 
-J 
s  Inspector  General 
% 
%+  
AUGUST  1995 
>
4~difa
OEI-06-94-O0560  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
This  inspection  describes  states  experiences  inutilizing  funds  available  for  Special  Needs 
Adoption  (SNA)  nonrecurring  costs. 
BACKGROUND 
The  Foster  Care  and  Adoption  Assistance  programs,  authorized  under  Title  IV-E  of the

Social  Security  Act,  provide  care  for  children  who  need  placement  outside  their  homes.

Assistance  is available  for  children  with  special  needs  who  cannot  be returned  to their

homes  and  who  have  had  difficulties  being  adopted.  Adopting  parents  of  special  needs

children  may  receive  monthly  assistance  payments  which  vary  among  states.

Adopting  parents  may  also  receive  reimbursement  for  one-time  nonrecurring  costs  of

special  needs  adoptions.  These  nonrecurring  costs  include  adoption  fees,  court  costs,

attorney  fees  and  other  expenses  which  are  directly  related  to the  legal  adoption  of  special

needs  children.  States  must  report  their  use  of SNA  nonrecurring  funds  cm Federal  Form

IV-E-12,  but  are  not  required  to  separate  these  expenses  from  normal  administrative  costs.

This  study  was  requested  by  the  Administration  for  Children  and  Families  (ACF)  out  of a

concern  that  state  adoption  agencies  may  not  be fully  utilizing  the  nonrecurring  costs

provision  of the  Social  Security  Act.

This  examination  of the  use  of nonrecurring  costs  in facilitating  special  needs  adoptions

was  based  on  mail  surveys  completed  by  state  officials  knowledgeable  about  their  States

adoption  practices.  To  supplement  our  surveys  and  to clarify  key  issues,  we conducted

telephone  interviews  with  a number  of the  state  respondents.  However,  we  did  not talk  to

adoption  agent y staff,  case  workers,  or adopting  parents.  Forty-two  state  respondents

returned  surveys,  although  not  all  responded  to every  question.  We  also  reviewed

relevant  policy  documents  and  met  with  officials  in the  ACF.

FINDINGS 
Most  States  Utilize  Speciizl  Needs  Adoption  Nonrecumng  Funds,  however  this  is Not 
Always  Rejlected  on their  Federal  Repoting  Forms. 
Nonrecurring  SNA  cost  reimbursements  were  not  always  captured  on  Form  IV-E-12. 
Most  discrepancies  in the  amount  of reimbursements  recorded  and  the  amount  actually 
spent  were  due  to  state  payment  systems  not  separating  SNA  nonrecurring  costs  from 
normal  administrative  costs. 
At  least  17 percent  more  funds  were  spent  than  were  reported  as  SNA  nonrecurring  costs. 
An  additional  $924,185  was  spent  in FY1994  that  was  not  originally  reported  on the  Form 
IV-E- 12 reports  as SNA  nonrecurring  costs. 
i  Four  states  reported  not  using  Federal  matching  funds  for  special  needs  adoption 
nonrecurring  costs. 
Due  to changes  in the  new  reporting  system,  there  will  no longer  be any  Federal 
accounting  of SNA  nonrecurring  costs  beginning  in FY 1996. 
Most  Stales  Authorize  Reimbumements  for  Nonrecumng  Costs  up to the  Federal 
Maximum  of $2,000  per  Adoption. 
When  states  set reimbursement  levels  below  the  $2000  limit  this  was  most  often  due  to 
state  budget  constraints  or because  the  actual  costs  per  adoptive  family  were  typically 
much  lower.  In many  states,  expenses  such  as court  costs  and  attorney  fees  were  covered 
through  other  state  programs. 
Most  States  Were  Not  Proactive  in Informing  Parents  that  their  iVonrecumng  SNA 
Costs  Could  be  Reimbursed. 
Outreach  strategies  were  primarily  informal,  with  few  states  evaluating  the  effectiveness 
of their  outreach  efforts. 
State  Respondents  Judged  Reimbursement  of Nonrecumng  Costs  Helpful  in Facilitting 
Special  Needs  Adoptions. 
Respondents  believed  that  reimbursement  eliminated  some  financial  barriers  which  may 
have  delayed  or prohibited  adoptions,  thereby  expanding  the  pool  of adoptive  parents  to 
include  more  lower  and  middle  income  families. 
Respondents  Suggested  Allowing  a  Tm  Credit for  Adoptive  Families  or Paying  Service 
Providers  Directly  to Improve  the  Efficiency  of Nonrecumng  Costs  Disbursement. 
ii  INTRODUCTION 
PURPOSE 
This  inspection  describes  states  experiences  inutilizing  funds  available  for  Special  Needs 
Adoption  (SNA)  nonrecurring  costs. 
BACKGROUND 
The  Foster  Care  and  Adoption  Assistance  programs,  authorized  under  Title  IV-E  of the

Social  Security  Act,  provide  care  for  children  who  need  placement  outside  their  homes.

The  purpose  of this  legislation  was  to enhance  the  foster  care  program,  strengthen  child

welfare  services  and  encourage  the  adoption  of children  with  special  needs.  A child  is

declared  special  needs  when  the  state  determines  that  the  child  cannot  be  returned  to the

parents  home  and  that  he/she  also  possesses  a factor  or condition  (such  as his/her  ethnic

background,  age,  physical  or  mental  disability,  or  membership  in a sibling  group)  that

may  cause  the  child  to  have  difficulty  being  adopted.

Special  needs  adoption  assistance  comes  in three  forms:  adopting  parents  of  special  needs

children  may  receive  medical  benefits,  monthly  maintenance  payments  which  vary  among

states,  and  they  may  also  receive  reimbursement  for  one-time  adoption  costs.  These

nonrecurring  costs  include  adoption  fees,  court  costs,  attorney  fees  and  other  expenses

which  are  directly  related  to the  legal  adoption  of  special  needs  children.  Examples  of

other  approved  costs  are  health  and  psychological  examinations,  placement  supervision

services,  and  the  costs  of the  childs  or familys  transportation,  food  and  lodging

necessary  to complete  the  adoption  process.

Adoptive  families  were  formerly  allowed  an itemized  tax  deduction  of up to $1,500  to aid

in the payment  of nonrecurring  costs.  This  practice  was  criticized  because  it was  viewed

as discriminating  against  families  who  did  not  itemize  their  tax  deductions.  The  Tax

Reform  Act  of  1986  repealed  the  tax  deduction  by amending  Title  IV-E  of the  Social

Security  Act.  The  new  ruling  requires  states  to reimburse  adoptive  parents  for

nonrecurring  SNA  costs  and  provides  50 percent  Federal  matching  funds  for  a total  outlay

of no more  than  $2,000  per  adoptive  placement.  Implementation  of this  new  policy  began

in  1988  with  the publication  of a Notice  of Proposed  Rulemaking  (NPRM).  An  important

component  of this  ruling  is the  requirement  that  a reasonable,  but  unsuccessful,  effort  first

be made  to place  the  child  without  providing  any  adoption  assistance.

Under  the  new  policy  of reimbursement,  adoptive  families  are  required  to  submit  receipts

for  costs  incurred  upon  finalization  of the  adoption  and  are  then  compensated  by the  state

or  local  agency.  Although  most  use  this  reimbursement  method,  a few  states  pay

providers  such  as attorneys  and  social  workers  directly  when  possible.  States  are  then

required  to  report  their  use  of  special  needs  adoption  nonrecurring  funds  on Federal  Form

IV-E- 12 which  tracks  money  spent  on Foster  Care  and  Adoption  Assistance  programs.

Although  there  is a line  on the  Form  IV-E-12  speciilcally  for  recording  the  amount  spent

1  on  SNA  nonrecurring  costs,  states  are  not  required  to declare  this  amount  separately  and 
may  group  these  expenditures  with  other  administrative  adoption  costs.  This  study  was 
requested  by the  Administration  for  Children  and  Families  (ACF)  out  of a concern  that 
state  adoption  agencies  may  not  be fully  utilizing  the  nonrecurring  costs  provisions  of the 
Social  Security  Act. 
METHODOLOGY 
This  examination  of the  use  of nonrecurring  costs  in facilitating  special  needs  adoptions 
consisted  of mail  surveys  completed  by  state  officials  knowledgeable  about  their  states 
adoption  practices  (see  Appendix  A).  To  supplement  our  surveys  and  to clarify  key 
issues,  we conducted  telephone  interviews  with  a number  of the  state  respondents. 
However,  we did  not  talk  to adoption  agency  staff,  case  workers,  or adopting  parents. 
Forty-two  states  returned  surveys,  although  not all  responded  to every  question.  Prior  to 
the  survey  analysis,  we  reviewed  relevant  policy  documents  and  met  with  officials  in the 
ACF.  We  conducted  our  study  in accordance  with  the  Quality  Standards  for  Inspections 
issued  by the  Presidents  Council  on Integrity  and  Efficiency. 
2 FINDINGS

MOST  STATES  UTILIZE  SPECIAL  NEEDS  ADOPTION  NONRECURRING 
FUNDS,  HOWEVER  THIS  IS NOT  ALWAYS  REFLECTED  ON  THEIR  FEDERAL 
REPORTING  FORMS. 
Nonrecumng  SNA  costs  reimbumements  were  not  always  captured  on Fozm  IV-E-12. 
Of the  14 states  with  ~  recorded  nonrecurring  SNA  expenditures  in FY1994  on the  Form 
IV-E- 12,  five  states  actually  did  use  funds  (see  Appendix  B). 1  Discrepancies  in the 
reported  and  actual  expenditures  were  due  to  state  payment  systems  not  separating  SNA 
nonrecurring  costs  from  normal  administrative  adoption  expenditures. 
At  least  17 percent  more funds  were  spent  than  were  repotted  as  SNA  nonrecumng 
costs. 
An  additional  $924,185  was  spent  in FY1994  that  was  not  originally  reported  on the  Form 
IV-E- 12 reports  as SNA  nonrecurring  costs.  Based  on our  survey  report,  at least  $6.4 
million  was  spent  on nonrecurring  costs  in FY 1994  (see Appendix  B). 
Four  states  repotied  not  using  Federal  matching  finds  for  SNA  nonrecumng  costs. 
Reasons  for  not  using  nonrecurring  SNA  funds  in Fiscal  year  1994  (FY1994)  centered  on 
a lack  of need.  These  states  covered  all  or  most  adoption  costs  such  as legal  fees  and 
home  study  expenses  through  the  use  of  state  services,  requiring  little  to no out-of-pocket 
expenditure  by  adoptive  families.  In the  case  of one  state,  the  amount  requested  by 
families  was  so small  that  the  state  adoption  officials  decided  that  receiving  Federal 
matching  funds  was  not  worth  completing  the  necessary  paperwork. 
Due  to  changes  in the  new  repoting  system,  there  will  no  longer  be any  Federal 
accounting  of  SNA  nonrecumng  costs  be~nning  in FY1996. 
Form  IV-E-12,  the  current  tool  for  tracking  adoption  costs,  will  be replaced  in FY1996 
with  a new  reporting  form  entitled  431.  The  new  form  does  not  even  ask  states  to 
distinguish  nonrecurring  adoption  reimbursements  from  normal  administrative  costs. 
According  to officials  in the  ACF,  this  change  was  made  in order  to reduce  the 
administrative  burden  on  states. 
The  Adoption  and  Foster  Care  and  Analysis  Reporting  System  (AFCARS)  collects  data  on 
adoptions,  but  does  not  request  that  states  list  nonrecurring  costs  separately.  States  are 
required  to  report  through  AFCARS  the  number  of adoptions  where  the  state  agency  had 
any  involvement.  This  involvement  could  be the  reimbursement  of nonrecurring  costs, 
but  could  also  be foster  care,  monthly  maintenance  payments  or  other  adoption  assistance 
services.  Therefore,  there  will  be no Federal  method  for  capturing  state  use  of funds  for 
nonrecurring  adoption  costs  beginning  in FY 1996.  MOST  STATES  AUTHORIZE  REIMBURSEMENTS  FOR  NONRECURRING 
COSTS  UP  TO  THE  FEDERAL  MAXIMUM  OF  $2,000  PER  ADOPTION. 
Twenty-six  states  reimbursed  parents  at the  maximally  allowed  $2000  reimbursement

limit,  while  15 states  reimbursed  at levels  ranging  from  $400  to $1,500

(see  Appendix  C) .2  States  reimbursed  at levels  below  the  $2000  limit  for  the  following

reasons:  1) costs  were  already  covered  in other  ways,  e.g.,  use  of  state-appointed

attorneys;  2)  states  had  mandated  lower  maximums  due  to budget  constraints;  and  3)

adoptive  families  often  requested  less  than  the  limit.

MOST  STATES  WERE  NOT  PROACTIVE  IN  INFORMING  PARENTS  THAT 
THEIR  NONRECURRING  SNA  COSTS  COULD  BE  REIMBURSED. 
Outreach  strategies  were primarily  informal. 
Although  states  used  a variety  of methods  to make  parents  aware  of SNA  funds,  informal 
woral-of-mouth  by  caseworkers  was  the  most  common.  As  stated  earlier,  Federal 
regulation  dictates  that  an effort  frost be made  by  adoption  agencies  to place  special  needs 
children  without  providing  any  financial  assistance.  Therefore  most  states  do  not  actively 
solicit  use  of the  nonrecurring  funds.  Outreach  methods  seem  to be mostly  ad  hoc  and 
unstructured. 
Most  agencies  informed  adoptive  parents  about  costs  reimbursement  during  the  interview 
or home  study,  either  verbally  or  with  brochures  (see Appendix  C).  Some  states  provided 
training  for  private  adoption  agencies  and  for  individual  adoptive  families,  while  others 
relied  on the  court  system,  parent  support  groups  or adoption  exchange  organizations  to 
publicize  available  fimds.  These  supplementary  groups  were  most  often  used  as 
reinforcements  rather  than  as primary  sources  of information.  Although  nearly  all  states 
sought  to inform  parents  of nonrecurring  funds,  only  one  used  the  existence  of funds  as a 
tool  for  recruiting  parents. 
Few  stales  evaluated  the  effectiveness  of their  outreach  effotis. 
Only  thirteen  states  sought  to  determine  the  effectiveness  of their  procedures  for  informing 
parents  of nonrecurring  SNA  costs  reimbursement.  These  evaluations  appeared  to be 
mostly  non-systematic.  Examples  included:  1) occasional  follow-up  interviews  with 
adoptive  parents;  2) discussions  with  caseworkers;  and  3) surveys  sent  to private  adoption 
agencies. 
STATE  RESPONDENTS  JUDGED  REIMBURSEMENT  OF  NONRECURRING 
COSTS  HELPFUL  IN  FACILITATING  SPECIAL  NEEDS  ADOPTIONS. 
A large  majority  of  state  respondents  considered  reimbursement  of nonrecurring  SNA 
costs  to be  helpful  in facilitating  special  needs  adoptions.  Financial  barriers  were  thought 
to delay  and  even  prohibit  adoptions,  particularly  when  families  were  required  to pay  legal 
fees  and  court  costs.  Many  state  respondents  argued  that  the  families  most  likely  to adopt 
4
 were  often  middle  to  lower  income  households  whose  limited  resources  were  needed  to 
meet  other  expenses  directly  related  to the  needs  of the  child,  such  as home 
modifications.  3 
STATE  ADOPTION  STAFF  RECOMMENDED  POLICY  CHANGES  TO  IMPROVE 
THE  EFFICIENCY  OF  NONRECURRING  SNA  COSTS  DISBURSEMENT. 
The  most  common  suggestion  given  by  state  respondents  for  improving  the  disbursement 
of nonrecurring  SNA  funds  was  to create  a system  which  grants  tax  credits  to adoptive 
families.  Unlike  the  previous  itemized  tax  deduction,  a tax  credit  could  be easily  used  by 
all adoptive  families.  They  cited  decreased  administrative  costs  and  reduced  paperwork  as 
incentives  to implement  a tax  credit  and  claimed  the  current  reimbursement  method 
created  an administrative  burden  on their  agencies  and  on families. 
Respondents  claimed  that  in many  cases  adoptive  families  had  difficulty  paying  for  costs 
in advance  and  then  waiting  to be  reimbursed.  others  recommended  encouraging  states  to 
pay  providers  directly  to avoid  families  initial  financial  outlays.  In addition  to the  issue 
of payment  methods,  some  respondents  felt  that  the  Federal  definition  of acceptable 
nonrecurring  expenses  should  be broadened  to  include  home  modifications  made  by 
adoptive  parents  to accommodate the  special  needs  child. 
5 EN  DNOTES

1.	 Of the  nine  remaining  states  not  separating  nonrecurring  SNA  expenditures  for 
FY1994  on their  IV-E-12  form,  four  states  were  non-respondents,  four  states  did 
not  utilize  funds,  and  one  state  respondent  did not have fiscal information 
available. 
2.  The  one  remaining  state  described  its reimbursements  as  usual  and  customary.   
3  Under  existing  NPRM  regulation,  the  one-time  costs  for  alteration  of adoptive 
parents  homes  or properties  are  @  expenses  reimbursable  as a nonrecurring  costs 
expenditure. 
6 APPENDIX  A 
STATE  SURVEY  QUESTIONS  FROM  QUESTIONNAIRE 
STATE:

PERSONC OMPLETINFGO RM:

TELEPHONNEUMBER: (  )-

1.HOW much State and Federal  funds did you spend on nonrecuming  costs for special  needs adoptions  (SNA)  in fiscal year  1994? 
I  I  I I 1 
1st Qtr  2nd Qtr  3rd Qtr  4tb Qtr 
State  Federal  State  Federal  State  Federal  State  Federal 
$ $  $ $ $ $ $ $ 
2. If the money  amounts  you gave in question  1 above  are different  from the combined  Federal  and State amounts  we gave you in our cover  memo,  please  explain  the 
discrepancy,  (For example,  if we show zero amounts  in our cover  memo,  but you did spend monies  for nonrecurring  SNA costs,  explain  why the amounts  spent are 
not reflected  int he Form  WE-12  reports.) 
3 If  zero amounts  are accurately  shown  either  in the figures  we gave you in our cover page,  or in the figures  you gave us in question  1 above,  please  explain  why no 
funds are being used for nonrecuming  SNA  costs. 
4.What  is the maximum  amount  you will pay for SNA  nonrecurring  costs per child?  $ 
If it is not $2,000  ($1 ,000 State and $1,000  Federal  maximum),  why is it set at this rate! 
5 .What process  (mechanism)  do you use to claim  nonrecurring  SNA  costs?  (For example,  do you claim them as SNA costs or normal  administrative  costs?) 
6, What process  do you use to reimburse  parents  and how do you account  for these  amounts?  (For example,  are the parents  paid by the State or local agencies  and 
what documentation  is required?) 
7. Is the use of nonrecurring  costs  reimbursement  helpful  in getting  SNA children  adopted?  Yes  No  
Please  explain  you answer. 
8 Are  there barriera  to the use of nonrecurring  costs  reimbursement?  Yes   No  If yes,  what are they?
9 How  are SNA adoptive  parents  made aware  of nonrecurring  costs  reimbursement? 
Do you evaluate  the effectiveness  of your procedures?  Yea  No  _  If yes,  how?  What have the resuka  been? 
10. Other  than additional  funding,  what would  you recommend  to make reimbursement  of nonrecurring  costs of S NA adoptions  more effective  at either  the national  or 
State level? 
1
 APPENDIX  B 
FEDERAL  AND  STATE  FISCAL  YEAR  1994  EXPENDITURES 
FOR  NONRECURRING  COSTS  FOR  SPECIAL  NEEDS  ADOPTIONS 
Total State &  Total State &  Explanation of Differences Between 
Federal  Federal  the Reported Information on the 
Expenditure  Expenditure  IV-E-12 Form and Survey Information. 
for FY1994  for FY1994 
Reported on  Reported on 
IV-E-12 Form  Survey 
AL  $22,751  $22,751 
AK  $81,198  $107,081  An additional $25,883 paid as State-only 
SNA for children  outside  the  Federal 
definition  of Special  Needs. 
AZ  $58,893  $58,893 
AR  $5,772  $5,773 
CA  o  $284,824  Expenditures  were  made,  but claimed  as 
administrative  costs  on the IV-E-12  form. 
co  o  Unknown  Expenditures  were  made,  but claimed  as 
administrative  costs  on the IV-E-12  form. 
However,  the exact  amount  spent  on 
nonrecurring  costs  is unknown. 
CT  $4,023  NR  Non-respondent 
DE  o  0  All special  needs  adoptions  are  done  directiy 
by the state  so there  are  no costs  to the 
adoptive  family. 
DC  o  NR  Non-respondent 
FL  $55,864  $55,864 
GA  $163,459  $163,454 
HI  o  0  Some  expenditures  were  made  out of state 
funds,  but not claimed  for  Federal 
reimbursement  t. 
ID  $37,786  $37,806 
IL  o  NR  Survey  completed,  however  fiscal 
information  not submitted 
IN  $171,828  NR  Non-respondent 
1A  $87,179  $87,179 
B-1
 Total State &  Total State &  Explanation of Differences Between 
Federal  Federal  the Reported  Information  on the 
Expenditure  Expenditure  IV-E-12  Form  and  Survey  Information. 
for  FYl 994  for  FY1994 
Reported  on  Reported  on 
IV-E-12  Form  Survey 
KS  $161,458  $161,458  The  information  on the IV-E-12  form 
originally  was  $297,654.  However,  this 
amount  included  all adoption  assistance 
administration  expenditures  instead  of only 
nonrecurring  expenditures. 
KY  $30,644  $30,646 
LA  $131,720  $131,720 
n 
ME  o  System  for reimbursing  parents  not  in 
place  yet. 
MD  .$32,252  NR  Non-respondent 
MA  o  $5,000  Expenditures  were  made,  but  claimed  as 
administrative  costs  on the IV-E-form 
MI  o  NR  Non-respondent 
MN  $195,870  $195,870 
MS  $974  $18,964  Nonrecurring  costs  not cIaimed  to Federal 
government  due  to reporting  problem  with 
computer  system.  The  problem  has  since 
been resolved. 
MO  $327,871  $327,921 
MT  $7,742  NR  Non-respondent 
NB  $37,797  $37,797 
Nv  $18,196  $18,196 
NH  o  $30,017  Expenditures  were  made,  but claimed  as 
administrative  costs  on the IV-E-12  form. 
NJ  o  $553,122  Delay  in the completion  of the  Cost 
Allocation  Plan  for  FY 1994. 
NM  $44,723  $44,723  The information  on the IV-E-12  form 
originally  was  $22,360.  However,  this 
number was  later corrected. 
NY  $1,666,634  $1,666,634 
NC  $38,866  NR  Non-respondent 
B-2
 Total  State  &  Total  State  &  Explanation  of Differences  Between 
Federal  Federal  the Reported  Information  on the 
Expenditure  Expenditure  IV-E-12  Form  and  Survey  Information. 
for  FY1994  for  FY1994 
Reported  on  Reported  on 
IV-E-12  Form  Survey 
ND  o  $7,760  Payment  and  claims  system  has  no method 
of separating  amount  paid  for nonrecurring 
costs.  Calculation  made  on survey  required 
manual  case  reviews. 
OH  $547.035  $547,036 
OK  $103,753  $103,753 
OR  $100,290  $100,830  Transposed  numbers  during  4th quarter,  so 
$540  was  inadvertently  not  re~orted. 
PA  $117,687  $117,687 
RI  o  0  All special  needs  adoptions  are  done  directly 
by the agency  so there  are  no costs  to the 
adoptive  family. 
Sc  $179,212  $179,212 
SD  $50,856  $50,856 
TN  $82,144  $82,144 
TX  $519,564  $518,564 
UT  $54,536  $54,536 
VT  $24,557  $24,556 
VA  $27,091  NR  Survey  completed,  however  fiscal 
information  not  submitted 
WA  $258,748  $258,748 
Wv  $1,255  NR  Non-respondent 
WI  $70,394  $70,394 
WY  0  NR  Non-respondent 
Total  $5,520,622  $6,161,760  $924,195  = Amount  of additional 
+  283,0571  expenditure  that 
was  not captured  on 
$6,444,817  Form  IV-E-12  as SNA 
nonrecurring  costs. 
R  State  did not  submit  information 
Represents  the total  amount  claimed  by states  on the IV-E-12  form  not  responding  to our  survey. 
B-3
 APPENDIX  C 
COMPARISON  OF  STATE  POLICIES  & PRACTICES  REGARDING 
USE  OF  SPECIAL  NEEDS  ADOPTION  FUNDS  FOR  NONRECURRING  COSTS 
Maximum  State  Type  of  Outreach  Conducted  by 
Amount  Reimbursed  Reimbursement  State  Regarding 
Reimbursed  Parents  for  Process  Availability 
Per  Child  Nonrecurring  (State/Local)  of Nonrecurring  Costs 
Costs  in  Reimbursement 
FY1994 
AL  $1,000  d  State  workers  inform  parents 
AK  $2,000  J  State  workers  inform  parents 
AZ  $2,000  J  State  training,  in policy  material 
AR  $1,500  d  State  workers  inform  parents 
CA  $400  J  Local  workers  inform  parents 
co  $800  No  Local  workers	 inform  parents,  in 
brochure 
CT  NR  NR  NR  NR 
DE  $2,000  No  * * 
DC  NR  NR  NR  NR 
FL  $2,000  J  State  workers  inform parents 
during training 
GA  $2,000  d  Local  workers  inform parents 
during training 
HI  $2,000  No  State  workers  inform parents, 
on application 
ID  $2,000  J  State  workers  & court attorneys 
inform  parents 
IL  $1,500  NR  State  workers  inform  parents 
IN  NR  NR  NR  NR 
IA  usual  J  State  workers  inform  parents 
Customary 
Ks  $2,000  J  Local  workers  & private  adoption 
agencies  inform  parents 
c-1  Maximum  State  Type  of  Outreach  Conducted  by 
Amount  Reimbursed  Reimbursement  State  Regarding 
Reimbursed  Parents  for  Process  Availability 
Per Child  Nonrecurring  (State/Local)  of Nonrecurring  Costs 
Costs  in  Reimbursement 
FY1994 
KY  $1,000  J  State  in handbook,  county  court 
clerks 
LA  $1,000  J  State  workers  inform  parents 
ME  $2,000  No  * workers  inform parents 
MD NR  NR  NR  NR 
MA  $400  J  State  workers  inform parents, 
in adoptive  parent newsletter 
MI  NR  NR  NR  NR 
MN  $2,000  J  State  workers	 inform  parents,  in 
brochure 
MS  $1,000  J  State  workers  inform  parents 
(State  only) 
MO  $2,000  d  State  workers  inform  parents,  in 
flyer 
MT NR  NR  NR  NR 
NB  $1,500  J  State  adoption  agencies  & 
attorneys  made aware 
NV  $2,000  J  State  workers  inform parents, 
in booklets  & part of training 
NH  $2,000  d  State  State agency  informs 
parents in writirg 
NJ  $2,000  d  State  written  notification  to parents 
NM  $2,000  J  State  workers  inform  parents 
NY  $2,000  /  Local  local  agency  training, 
workers  inform  parents 
NC NR  NR  NR  NR 
ND  $2,000  d  Local  workers  inform  parents 
OH  $2,000  d  Local  booklet  given  to parents 
OK  $2,000  J  State  training  & information  given 
to courts 
c-2