Deparment of Health and Human Services

OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

BARRIE .RS TO FREEING CHILDREN

FOR ADOPTION

Sf."VJCES.
1IJ' 
t-
Richard P. Kusserow 
1-
INSPECTOR GENERA 
"b 
FEBRUARY 1991
""" 30  and Human Services

Departll1ellt of Health 
OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

BARRIERS TO FREEING CHILDREN

FOR ADOPTION

f.RVI(,fS. 
Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
'0 
GEl -06-89-01640 
Jy -lItVd3C1  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION 
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 
This report is concerned with children in foster care who cannot return to their families. Its 
purpose is to identify problems in the process of terminating parental rights that delay or prevent 
children from leaving State-supervised foster care to enter permanent adoptive homes. 
272) introduced broad reforms 
The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (PL 96-
in the Federal funding and regulation of State foster care services. The Act provides incentives 
to 1) shorten the time 
for States to develop administrative strctures and remedial services 
children must spend in substitute care, and 2) return children expeditiously to their families. For 
those children who cannot return to their families, agencies are encouraged to investigate, in a 
timely manner, other options which offer the children a stable family relationship. Adoption is 
the preferred option for most children who cannot return home. 
Implementing plans of adoption takes longer than implementing other types of placement for 
children. The gravity of the issues and the complexity of the legal processes explain some of the 
professionals express concern 
additional implementation time. Child welfare and legal 
however, that the first part of the implementation process, freeing children from the legal ties to 
dopti 
their parents through termnation of parental rights, unnecessarly slows or di mr!.'; 
placements. Children often remain in foster care for extended periods after permanent placement 
fl!l adoptive 
plans have been established for them, undermining their opportunities for succe 
placement and placing them in a legal and psychological limbo in terms of fanlily identification. 
METHODOLOGY 
\.views of State laws 
For this inspection 
, we have collected three basic types of informari0il: 
relating to termination of parental rights, descriptions by key professionals of selected States 
barers in those processes, and 
processes for freeing children for adoption and of delays or 
reports of emerging practices that deal with some of the problems. 
FINDINGS 
, but there is evidence that 
States do not routinely track delays in freeing children for adoption
children remain in foster care too long. 
In States where special studies have been conducted, children with adoption plans 
generally remain in foster care between 3.5 and 5.5 years.  Slale$ have made legislath'e progress. 
Most States have basic legislation in place to guide the termination of parental rights 
process. 
Administrati,'e barriers ill the child welfare system cause the most excessive delays in freeing 
children for adoption. 
States are not timely or effective in meeting "reasonable efforts to reunite families 
requirements which are prerequisites to permanent placement. 
Limited management commitment and lack: of staff and services playa significant role in 
the failure to make "reasonable efforts. 
delays result in 
The consideration of long-term care options fQr children is delayed. These 
loss of valuable information for case records and poor planning for children. 
Many barriers and delays arise from the legal and judicial systems. 
Case documentation is frequently inadequate. 
Implementation of adoption plans often stops with pre-petition reviews. Decision-making 
hinges on the pOtential for legal success rather than the social service goals for the case. 
inadequate. 
The legal resources available for child welfare ca3es 2:. 
Scheduling and conducting court hearngs delay implementation of adoption plans. Delays

most frquently result from interrptions of proce uings for other civil matters, crowded 
of hearng paricipants. 
court dockets, and inability to coordinate (le-schedules of a varety 
Judicial biases or inaction often result in delays. 
The question of whether children are adoptable is asked several times during the process. 
The legal procedures in many States make contradictOry demands on State adoption 
servIces.  Some S.lales haJ'c deJ'e!oped new practices to expedite freeing children for adoption. 
States have developed specialized severance units, amended disjointed coun processes, 
created expedited tracks for freeing certain children, and developed forums for pre-trial 
mediation and settlement of termination cases. 
In a few Department of Health and Human Services demonstration projects, some States 
have developed contractual models for agency representation in court cases, or have put 
into place multi-disciplinary problem solving forums and training sessions. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Stale Governments should: 
Mandate by statute well-defined, expedited tracks for freeing children who wil clearly not 
return home in a reasonable period; 
Prescribe clear time and service requirements for "reasonable effons" and provide 
sufficient State funding for compliance; 
Provide adequate resources to enable State courts to hear and rule on child dependency 
cases in a timely manner; and 
Offer increased training on permanency planning, in general, and on termination of 
parental rights, in particular, for child welfare staff, judges, public attorneys, and the staffs 
of contractual service providers. 
The Administration for Children Youth and Families should:

Serve as a clearinghouse for information concerning permanency planning training and 
effective practices for implementing permanent plans; 
Explore staff retention strategies. Disseminate the results of such exploration to the States 
and agencies, and provide training and technical assistance for implementing appropriate 
strategies to the States;

Through the Department s discretionary funding authority, provide seed monies for 
implementation of treatment programs that deal with current family issues; and 
Move quickly to complete and implement the national child welfare data base. 
111  , "  , "

, '
NOTE:  Implementation of these recommendations would result in cost increases to bOth Fed
eral and State governments. However, these increases could be at least partially offset 
by savings in foster care maintenance costs and long-term administrative costs result
ing from reductions in the time children spend in foster care. Please refer to 
Appendix A  Federal Costs Offset. 
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 
We received comments from the Offce of Human Development Services (OHDS), the Assistant 
Secreta for Management and 
Secretary of Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Assistant 
Budget (ASMB), and two external agencies. Both OHDS and ASPE concurred with the 
, more detailed language on 
recommendations and offered suggestions for providing clearer
while generally supponive of the findings, 
certain findings or recommendations. ASMB 
believed greater emphasis should be placed on the costs associated with implementing the 
report s recommendations. On the basis of the reviewers' suggestions, we have made several 
important distinctions in others. 
modifications in the report to clarfy some sections and to make 
Please refer to Appendix B  OIG Response to Deparmental Comments," and to Appendix C 
which contains the full text of all comments.  ........ ....... ...................  " ........................
................................ ............ ........  .............................. .
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTR 0 D UCTI 0 N......................................... .......................................... ........ 
.......... 1 
Purpose......................................................... .......... 
.......... ................................... 1

Background............................................. ............................................................ 

Methodology..... .................................. .......................... .............. ....................... 4

FINDINGS .....  .................................. ..............,. 6

States Do Not Routinely Track Delays in Freeing Childrn for Adoption,

Ca 
But There Is Evidence Childrn Remai in Foster  Too Long .....................

States Have Made Legislative Progrss ...........................................................

Administrative Baners in the Child Welfare Delivery System Cause

the Most Excessive Delays in Freeing Childrn for 
Adoption........................... 11

Many Baners and Delays Arse From the Legal and Judicial Systems ............

Some States Have Developed New Practices to Expedte Freeing

Children for Adoption......... .................... 

RECO MMEND A TIO NS ......... .............. .......................... .................... ....................

END NOTES............................................................................................................. .

BIB LI 0 G RAPHY ......................................................................................... .......... .

APPENDIX A "Federal Costs Offset" ............................................................. A

APPENDIX B "OIG Response to Departmental Comments

APPENDIX C "Full Text of Comments" ........................................................
 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
This report is concerned with children in State-supervised foster care who cannot return to their 
families. Its purpose is to identify problems in the process of termnating parental rights that 
delay or prevent children from leaving foster care and entering permanent adoptive homes. 
BACKGROUND 
Permanency Planning and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 
Foster care is intended to be a temporar child welfar service providing assistance and 
residential care to children unable to live safely with their own parents. During the last two 
decades, these substitute care services have undergone substantial change. Many of these 
changes resulted from research in the preceding decades indicating that some children "drifted" 
in foster care for most or all of their formative years without effons to place them in permanent 
homes. 
Permanency planning is one of these substantive changes. It is a social services approach that 
attempts to insure that children do not become stranded in the child welfare system. Child 
welfare staff work with families to identify the problems that have brought their children into 
care and to secure services for families ranging from counsellng and social services to economic 
assistance to provision of specific commodities. Permanency planning emphasizes early 
consideration of the varous options that children have for pennanent placement, including 
planning for the possibility that some famlies wil not be reunified. Finally, this approach 
requires routine administrative review procedures and judicial intervention to insure that plans 
and decisions for foster childrn are made in a timely and effective manner. 
Public Law 96-272, The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, gave statUtory 
recognition to permanency planning procedures. The Act amended Title IV of the Social 
Security Act, providing for the first time a formal Federal role in monitoring the delivery as well 
as the financing of foster care services. Even more critically, the legislation shifted the emphasis 
for Federal financial paricipation in State foster care programs toward prevention and family 
reunification services.

In order to receive their full share of Federal appropriations under the Act, States must set 
permanent placement goals for all children in care, provide the services to the child and family to 
help them meet those goals, and establish procedures to monitor the appropriateness of foster 
in care unless these children 
care services. States can receive no reimbursement for children 
enter and remain in care despite "reasonable efforts" by the child welfare agency to reunite the 
children and their families.  The Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) has responsibility for regulating 
;lId m(;nitoring State compliance with the requirements of PL 96-272. Regional staffs are 
charged with conducting regular case record and State reviews in order to insure State child 
welfare agencies make long-term plans for children in their care and review these plans on a 
regular basis. 
Adoption as a Permanency Planning Option 
Federal legislation and policy clearly favor reunification of families as the preferred foster care 
outcome. States are required to make "reasonable efforts" (a term not defined in statute or 
regulation that relates to the sufficiency of the quality and level of remedial services provided to 
families) to maintain or reunify family units. A significant number of children, however, cannot 
return to biological parents because child welfare professionals judge that, even with the 
provision of social services or other assistance, their homes cannot be made safe within a 
reasonable amount of time. In such cases, other long-term options such as adoption 
guardianship, or permanent foster care become children s permanent plans. 
In fiscal year (FY) 1986, approximatel  13% of the children in foster care were identified as 
having a permanency plan of adoftion. Adoption takes considerably longer to implem  nt than 
other permanency arangements. Some delay is expected because of the additional activities 
required, and the larger number of individuals and organizations involved. Because of the social 
and legal status of families and the recognition of the importnce of biological ties, all 
practitioners are reluctant to sever family ties hastily. Child welfare practitioners and advocates 
report, however, that freeing children for adoption is a significant barer to the timely 
implementation of pennanent plans for children. AnecdOtal evidence indicates that the process 
takes longer than necessary, certainly longer than the best interests of the children dictate. 
Further, petitioning for such action is seen as having unpredictable outcomes. 
If the purpose of permanency planning is to insure that children leave foster care as safely and 
rapidly as possible, both the planning and implementation of long-range plans for children must 
proceed effciently and predictably. Given that children s ages are such a critical factor in 
adoptions, remaining in foster care well beyond the determination that adoption is the preferable 
option undermnes children s chances for successful adoptions. Funher, extended periods 
wherein parental rights are in dispute severely compromises the healthy development of these 
already fragile children.  FIGURE 1 
State Sources of Information 
tJP 
StatAe. Srwiezyedo fonr tah  Stuy: 
California Mississippi South Carolina 
Delaware Missouri  Texas
Rhode Island  Wisconsin 
Minnesota 
Hu 
State. wit Depart of Health and  Serices Tertion 
of Parental Rights Demonstration Projects:
Kentucky 
Michigan New York  Washington 
Idaho  Oregon 
T..tlon 
SureY8/Studies 
1i;, StaHtesa
 ve BeW h Coted  of Parenta Rlght8 
Louisiana  New Jersey  Washington. D.
i1. 
Nebraska  New Mexico  METHOOOLOGY 
Because the National Child Welfare Data Base has not yet been implemented (as mandated by 
PL 96-272), the absence of any consistent, comprehensive, "hard" national data on child welfare 
services and processes compelled us to diversify our data collection activities. We relied 
substantially on the infomled observations and judgments of professionals in the child welfare 
system and those who have regular and prolonged contact with the system, and on written data in 
the fonns of demonstration reports and laws. Thus, we collected and analyzed data from three 
sources: 1) reviews of the basic features of the various State laws relating to ternlination of 
parental rights, 2) descriptions by key professionals in selected States of the processes for freeing 
children for adoption and of delays or bariers in those processes, and 3) reports of emerging or 
tested practices which address some of the bariers. 
We reviewed parental custody statutes in all fifty states. The National Conference of State 
Termination of Parental
Legislatures provided copies of its 1989 State Legislative Report, 

and copies of legislative updates since the publication of that report. We used this 
Rights, 
material to determine State legislative status. 
We analyzed process, problem, and effective practice information from a total of twenty States 
and the Distrct of Columbia (See Figure 1. ). In ten States, we conducted telephone interviews 
and focus groups with seventy-six key child welfare and legal professionals to determne their 
spectrm 
perceptions concerning specific State processes and problems. In order to gain a broad 
of opinion, we interviewed child welfare administrtors, attorneys representing the child welfare 
4 , professionals involved in foster care review 
agencies, child advocates, judges , attorneys 
representing parents, and casework supervisors. . 
In the remaining ten States and the District of Columbia where research or demonstration 
projects are ongoing or have been completed, we examined wrtten documents. These provided 
more detailed descriptions of processes and emerging effective practices.  FIGURE 2 
Rights Process 
Basic Termination of Parental 
OUTCOMES 
Child R.mal.  Chd R.moved 
In &y.t.",  fro", &y.'.'" 
SI' goa'i lor -P'or f-'  11,,,n
trr.a.mlmllyet  ..wee.  10 famiy 
"".'10" 
paIl'acrneal.l...,e. 
tn8.ti08'8 
p8I',rIR8-l1'W.' 
a.gieorn..
eClp,oo
pIe..n, 
Rot",n
to leniy 
tr"I"'OI.e 
an"NiIIW1 
placemetS 
a'OIn/eOl'''
aaoptlO
placemnt  FINDINGS

OVERVIEV\' OF THE PROCESS FOR FREEING CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION 
The ternlinatio!1 of parental rights process is guided by State law and State agency policies. 
Thus, wide variations exist in the models and methods employed in the various child welfare and 
judicial systems to free children in foster care for adoption. The State survey undertaken for this 
report shows, however, several elements in the service and adjudicatory processes are common 
to most jurisdictions. These common elements are shown in Figure 2. 
Conceptually, we can divide the process of moving children from foster care to permanent 
adoptive homes into three sequential stages. First, having been removed from their families as a 
result of abuse, neglect, abandonment6 or some other reason, children spend some time in the 
care of child welfare agencies. During the time in foster care, the agencies develop pernlanent 
plans for the children. For children whose pernlanent plans are adoption, implementation of 
these plans begins with the second stage  legal actions by the State to terminate parental rights 
Once the rights and 
Of to secure voluntary relinquishment of those rights from the parents. 
responsibilities between parents and fheir children are severed, the children enter the final stage 
of the process, legal adoption by another family. 
(TPR), the shaded 
The focus of this report is the second stage,  termination of parental rights 

section of Figure 2. This legal process cannot be considered in isolation, however. As the 
diagram illustrates, the three stages of the process are interdependent. The success and 
timeliness of actions to free children for adoption are directly related to I) the sufficiency and 
validity of the groundwork laid during the preceding time in foster care, and 2) the reliability of 
the system in delivering adoption placement services once parental rights are severed. 
Petitioners to termnate parental rights must prove to the court 1) the child was removed for good 
cause, 2) legally sufficient reunification efforts were unsuccessful and the child cannOt return 
home safely, and 3) ending legal ties between the child and family wil lead to a better, more 
stable home for the child. During the court proceeings, the States must present clear and 
convincing evidence on each of these three criteria. In regard to the first two criteria, the child 
welfare agency must build the body of evidence concem ng parental inability or inadequacy 
while simultaneously providing assistance to reunite families. The evidence for the third 
criterion rests largely upon the reputations of public and private adoption placement agencies for 
finding suitable homes for children freed for adoption.  / ,
/ / 
..  / ,
./.. .....  . ./.- ." ..",-. . .-. .....-.-. .". . " -.  ......'.-/ .... , /  . .. .. ........ /  /-//.  -/....---.---./ .-- .........,..  .'"  .....  ,...'..,. ...' p....,'. ".,., ". .,.,..,,.."...."..."...'. ..
FIGURE 3 
Time Spent in Foster Care by Children with Adoption Plans

Time In Months 
Steps To

Adoption 
Adoption After
Further Delay to
Identify Home 
Adoption Into an
Immediately Available 
/iia
Home 
/llla Court Grants Petition 
Petition for TPR 
Flied 
\\?:(\/\\/ff\/fl1I 
Adoption Determined

to be the Permanent 
Plan 
30 Months 

Child Enters 
Foster Care

Lower Estimate  Upper Estimate
 STATES DO NOT ROUTINELY TRACK DELAYS IN FREEING CHILDREN FOR 
ADOPTION, BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE CHILDREN REMAIN IN FOSTER CARE 
TOO LONG 
The interrelationship of the three stages for moving children from foster care to permanent 
adoptive homes is also important when we consider delays in completing them. The time spent 
hy the child welfare and judicial systems to complete required activities expand the total time 
children and their families remain under the uncertainties of foster care. Comparable, complete 
data on time-in-care for children who do not return home, and information concerning the time 
involved in the termination of parental rights process are not generally available. However 
based upon studies conducted in 11 States included in this analysis, we have some general 
indications of the timeframes from entering foster care to final implementation of permanent 
from these States. 
plans of adoption. Figure 3 presents information collected 
As early as six months after children enter foster care, child welfare agencies in most States may 
begin considering alternatives to family reunification. In actual practice, children are in care for 
periods ranging from 6 to 54 months (4.5 years) before agencies or courts specify adoption as 
their pemlanent plans. In most of the States providing detailed information, children spend an 
average of 30 to 42 months (2. 5 years) in foster care before the determination is made that 
5 to 3.
adoption is the best option for them. 
I n general, the process of moving from identification of adoption as children s long-term goal to 
filing petitions with the courts to terminate parental rights takes between 3 and 6 months. Some 
studies report, however, that backlogs in State or Distrct attorneys' offices result in delays in 
filing of 9 to 12 months. In some States, case reviews have uncovered cases in which children 
had an official plan of adoption for more than three years, but no petitions had been fied. 
Once petitions have been filed, case studies indicate that it can take from 3 to 12 months for the 
courts to hear evidence on those petitions. The average of the State average times to complete 
the court process from the filing of the petition until the court renders its findings is about 7. 
months. If families appeal lower court decisions, final dispositions of the appeals can take 
activity are not included in the 
anywhere from 2 months to 24 months. (The time ranges for this 
graph). 
Once the courts alter their legal status, children then must wait for the completion of the 
adoption process. In many cases, children are already conditionally placed in potential adoptive 
settings before the court renders its decision. These children can be fomlally adopted only after 
official waiting periods of anywhere from 3 to 12 months. (See "Adoption into an Immediately 
Available Home" in Figure 3). This delay serves two purposes: 1) it protects the final adoption 
from the threat of appeals, and 2) it allows adoption staff to observe and evaluate the placement.  .,
..,........ . ..................................... .... .... ..................... ......... .............. .. .................. ..  ". .........."..........'.......'.'.........'......'...'........'......'......'.....'..... ..'......'......'...... .'.. ............ ... .. ................................. ............................. ... ........ ............ .................,......................... ................... .................................................................. ...... .............................................. .. ................. ........... ................ ........".. .................................................  ................................................... .................. .. ................. . ....................... . ....................................................................... ..... ........................... .... ........................................... .......  . .. "........'.'.....'..'....'....'..'.....'..'......'..'......'...'.....'... '.... '.......'.'.......'..'......'...'......'....'. ..'.......'..'........'..'........'..'.......'......'...'.......'..'.....  .'...'......'... ...'..'.......'..'.......'.......'...'......'....'...., ...'..... .............. . ........ ........... ......................................................... .......... ............................. .......... ....................... ............. ........... ............. ....................................
....
TABLE 1

Major Components Of State Termination Of Parental Rights Statutes
SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL 
EVIUE!\CF 
! EQUIREMENTS- REQl;IRED 
STATES  GROUNDS 
Alabarna ....... .......... ............................x ......."......................... ............. .x ..... ............. ..... ........ .............. .....

Alaska ..  .x ............. ............. ... .......... ... 

Arzona ..... .......................................... .x ..................................................x .......... ... ..... ..... ...... .......... ... ........

Arkansas ..  .x .........................................x. ....... .......
...... ................ ...... ..... ........

Calif om ia .................. ........ ........... ..........x ....... ..................'''' .....  ...................................................................... x

Colorado.. ........... .......... .........................x .......................................... .........x ....... ..............,....... .....................

Connecticut ..... ...................................... .x ............. ..................................... .x ............. """"" ........ ........... ........

Delaware....... .............. ..... .................... .x ................................................. .x ....... .................. ............ ..............

Florida....... .............. ........................ ......x .................,........... ................ ..... .x ..... .................. ...........................

Georgia.......... ..... ................... ................ .x ..........."...... - .x ....... ................ ...... .....................

Hawaii .......  .x ..................................................x ....... ...................... ................ .....

Idaho ..... ........................................ ..........x ........................................x.. ...
... .......................... ... ........ ..... ...

Illinois.................................... ................x ..... .......... 

Indiana......................................... ..........x .,... ............. ................... .............. ., 

Iowa.. ..... ........................ .......... ..............x .......  .x ..... .................................. ...........

Kanas ...............  .x ............ ........ .......... ....................x ............. .....................................

Kentucky..................... ..... ........... .......... .x .... ....... ........ ............... ..... ..... ... .x ............. .....................................

Louisiana.................... .....  .x .... .......... ...................... .......... ... .x .... .."................................... .....

Maine............................................. ........x ..... ...........................................x ..................................................

Mar land  .x ............. .......... ........ ...... ..... ........

.x ...............................................

Massachusetts .......................................  .x .................. ................................ .x.

Michigan.............................................. .x ..............,  .x ..................................................

Minnesota ................................. ........ .....x ............ ...................... .......... .  .x ..... ............................................

Mississippi.................. '  .x ............... ........... ..... ...... .............x .. ........... .....................................

Missouri....................... ........ ........ ..... .....x ..  .x ..... ...... ..... ................................

Montaa.......................... ............ ...... .....x ..  .x ..... 

Nebraska .............................. .......... ......x ................. .......... ..... .......... ..... .x ..... ........................ ................ .....

Nevada............................................... .....x ..... ......... ...... ..... ........ ........ ........x .. ...............................................

New H arpshire............... ..........,..... ...... .x ....... ........ ...... 

New Jersey............. ........ ...................... .x .........................................x. ................
........ ..... .............. ..............

New Mexico ..... ........ ............................. .x .........................................x. ...............
......... ........ ................ ........

New York ...............................................x .........................................x. ................
......................... .......... .....

North Carolina........................ ........ .... .x ..... 
 .x .. 
North Dakota ............ .......,............. ...... .x ..... ........ .......... ............................x .. ........................... .....................

Ohio .......  .x ......... ............. ............. ............. .x ....... ................ ... ........ ..... ........ ...

Oklahoma ..... .,... .............  .x .. ........ ................ ........  .x ....................... ........... ........ .........

Oregon ....... ........ ... ........ ..... ....,. ........ .......x ................. ............ ....................x ....................... ................... ..... ...

Pennsy Iv ana...........................................x .............. ....................................x ...................................................

Puero Rico ..........  .x ..... .........................................x .............. ... ........... ........ .............

Rhode Island.. ..... ........ ........  .x ..... ........  .x .............. ... ........ 

South Carolina.......... .............................x ............... ............. ..................... ...... ........ 

South Dakota............................... ...........x ......... ..... ............... .................... ....... 

Tennessee................................. ..............x .................... ........ ........ ..... ........ .x ......................... ........................

Texas......... ........................................ ... .x ....... ...... ........ ..... 

Utah....................................................... 

Vermont ....................... ........ ................... ..... ............................................... 

Virginia ............... ........... ........ ..... ........... .x .............................. ................. .x ....................... ...... ........ ..... ........

Washington.. ............ ........ ..................... .x .......................... ........................ .x ................. ........................ ........

West Virginia .................,............. .......... .x .........................................x. .".".'''.''.''.''.'''
''''''''''''''''' 
Wisconsin .................... .......... ........... .....x ................................................. .x ................. ..... ........... ................

Wyoming ....... .............. .......................... .x .........................................x. ...............
.............. ...... .......... ........ ...

Statutes specify particular parental conduct or conditions that warant terination of parental rights. 
3 SSttaattuutteess  rceoqnutairien  calte laera asnt db acsoinc vhienacriinngg  eavnidd ennocteic eto r egqraunirte am peenttisti.on for terination of parental rights.  Children for whom a home is not already identified must be matched with adults wanting to 
adopt. Estimates concerning the time necessary to find an adoptive home for children not 
adopted hy relatives or foster parents averaged 12 to 18 months. Children then must also wait 
for completion of an official waiting period, usually 6 to 12 months, before the adoption is final. 
Thus, the homefinding process adds average estimated times of 15 to 18 months to the total 
process. 
Finally, adoptive parents must petition the court to adopt the children in their care. Once these 
petitions are granted and proper notification is provided to State vital records offces, the 
children officially belong to families again. On average, children who are adopted leave the 
foster care system between 42 and 66 months (3.5 and 5.5 years) after they enter. 
STATES HAVE MADE LEGISLATIVE PROGRESS 
In developing one of the initial demonstrations of pem1anency planning techniques, planners in 
the State of Oregon in 1977 identified several barers to establishing permanent homes for 
that an essential element in a systemic approach to pennanent
children. Project staff noted 
8 Few

planning was a sound State statute to support casework and judicial decision,.making.
States had more than basic enabling legislation in place prior to the passage of PL 96-272 in 
1980. 
Since the passage of PL 96-272, the States have made significant progress in this area. (See 
Table 1). The majority of the States have statutes in place that directly require State agencies to 
make "reasonable efforts" to maintain children in their own homes.  , when removal is 
necessary, to reunite families. All but 3 States have statutes describing specific grounds for 
tem1inating parental rights, and 34 States regard time in foster care in excess of 1 or 2 years as 
grounds for dissolving legal bonds. Forty-four states spell out at least some basic procedural 
requirements including notice requirements, right to counsel, and hearng requirements. 
BUT BARRIERS STILL REMAIN TO FREEING CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION 
Despite the legislative foundation provided by PL 96-272 and the new State statutes enacted 
after its passage, barrers to the timely, predictable resolution of parental rights stil exist. 
Generally, States are able to free children for adoption when they petition the courts. The major 
concerns are the time it takes to complete the petition process, and whether States are failing to 
file petitions for some children for whom adoption is appropriate. 
For this report, we have divided barriers that delay or otherwise impede freeing children for 
adoption into two groups: those primarily associated with administration in the agencies 
delivering foster care services, and those associated with the legal and judiCial systems involved 
in adjudication of termination petitions.  ) )  g., 
ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS IN THE CHILD WELFARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 
CAUSE THE MOST EXCESSIVE DELAYS IN FREEING CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION 
SIllIes Are Not Timely or EffectiJ'e in Meetillg " Reasonable Efforts to Reunite Families 
Requirements Which Are Prerequisites to Permanent Placement 
Under PL 96-272, a state cannOt obtain Federal foster care funds for a child unless prior to 
immediately following removal of the child from his/her home the courts rule that reasonable 
efforts to maintain the child in the family were made. Continued Federal funding for foster care 
maintenance is contingent upon a State making reasonable efforts to reunite families. The 
specific definitions of "reasonable efforts to maintain" and "reasonable efforts to reunite" are left 
to the States.

PL 96-272 does not address requirements for termination of parental rights. However, States 
through legislation , and State Court systems through official procedures and practice, use the 
reasonable efforts" language of the child welfare legislation in tern1ination of parental rights 
proceedings. In most States, the standard for insuring protection of parents ' due process rights in 
tem1ination of parental rights proceedings is whether the State has made "reasonable effons to 
reunite e child with his/her family. State courts wil nOt termnate the rights of parents unless 
" th
the State agency can prove that the State has made adequate attempts to assist parents in 
resuming care for their children. 
Over 75% of the respondents in the State survey indicate that the inability of the child welfare 
agencies to meet the "reasonable efforts" standard to the satisfaction of State courts in a timely 
to implementing permanent plans of adoption.
manner is  the primary barrier 

Survey respondents cite a need for more specific parameters for the "reasonabl  efforts 
standard. Few States have in statUte a specific definition of what constitutes "reasonable efforts 
to reunite. " Without such a definition, State agencies and courts are left without guidance 
concerning the legally adequate level of help which they must provide to families in order to 
guarantee that parental rights to due process have been met. 
Respondents also contend that State child welfare agencies frequently remove children from 
their parents and then cannot or do not provide adequate, appropriate social services and support 
to remedy the conditions in these homes that brought the' children into care. The social services 
and assistance made available, generally, are not seen as well-focused on the problems of 
families and children. Treatment plans are crisis-oriented, and seem to be based upon only those 
treatment methods which are most available and most familiar to agency personnel. Agency 
policies do not insure that families can continue contact during the foster care placement to give 
parents and children a reasonable chance at reunification. Further, respondents report that State 
agencies rarely provide assistance to families to help them make use of available resources (e. 
transportation , supportive counseling, or advocacy) or to continue visitation. 
These service delivery shortcomings put some children in a double bind. In situations where the 
States make little or no effort to rehabilitate families, children s chances to return to their parents 
are sharly  , these children cannot be freed for adoption by Other 
reduced. By the same token parents because. hy not making sufficient efforts to rehabilitate families, the State agencies are 
t'lIable to meet coul1 requirements meant to insure that terminating parental rights is equitable 
the parents.

These problems with meeting the "reasonable efforts" standard delay implementation of 
adoption plans for many children and prevent it for others. Agencies do not pursue and courts do 
not grant petitions to ternlinate parental rights until State agencies develop evidence that they 
have exhausted all conceivable possibilities for keeping families together. This can take an 
enormous amount of time if the service effort is minimal at the start. 
Consideration of Long-Term Placement Options for Children Is Delayed 
Given that proving "reasonable efforts" is a time-consuming process in the best of 
circumstances, respondents note that planning and laying the groundwork for pOtential legal 
action should begin very soon after children are removed from their homes. Instead, key 
decisions are often made and acted upon only after childfen have been in care for considerable 
periods. The determination that a child may not return home is generally not made until after the 
first 6-month review. Often, this option is not considered until after time-limits on "reasonable 
efforts" to reunite have expired. Evaluation of the adequacy of the evidence in cases usually 
does not begin until this decision is made. Respondents note that this delay in long-range case 
planning sometimes results in lost opportunities to lay the groundwork for future legal actions. 
Another serious problem is agencies' failure to immediately collect and maintain information 
about the location of relatives and missing parents who are not actively involved in family 
treatment. Agencies frequently do not undertake searches for missing parents, whose 
participation in termination proceedings is legally necessar, until such proceedings are 
imminent. Also, staff do not routinely  care process to locate relatives who 
tr early in the foster 
might adopt children. By initiating such actions after children have been in care for considerable 
periods, agencies create a double delay: fIrst, the petition and hearng processes must wait until 
these activities are completed before proceeding; and secondly, these searches are likely to take 
considerably longer when they begin with dated information. 
Because the agencies do not consider long-term plans other than reunifIcation until some time 
after children enter foster care, staff often do not confront parents with other possible outcomes 
such as termination of parental rights and adoption until implementation of adoption plans 
begins. Many respondents state that parental rehabilitation attempts begin only when child 
welfare agencies make these possibil- ties clear to parents. Once parents show any effort to 
improve the family situation, few agencies or courts are willng to continue severance attempts 
until the success of these new efforts can be evaluated, halting the implementation of adoption 
plans.  Limiled Ma1lageme1l1 Commitmenl and Lack of Staff and Services Playa Signifcant Role 
Make "
fhe Failure 10  Rea!wllable Efforts 
While policy and practice problems within the administration of the child welfare system have a 
major effect on whether agencies meet the "reasonable efforts" standard, management. 
commitment and resources play an equally significant role. 
Respondents note that lack of management direction in State child welfare agencies results in 
significant delays in implementing permanent plans. Many respondents, both within and outside 
of State agencies, report that line staff frequently receive no guidance from administrators 
concerning timely resolution of foster care cases. While agencies ' policies contain demands for 
permanency planning, the specifics of these demands (e.g., rigorous treatment planning, timely 
decision-making, and routine monitoring) are frequently not supported or enforced in practice. 
Agency administrators have not shown great commitment to collecting and maintaining 
information concerning implementation of permanent plans. Few States were able to provide 
even basic data about termination of parental rights outcomes, and the limited data on processing 
time that do exist usually are available only through the court system or through special case 
review studies. 
The lack of experienced, stable staff in State agencies who can handle the volume of foster care 
' ability to meet " reasonable efforts to reunite" tests. In order to 
cases further restrcts States
provide effective foster care and family services, the Child Welfare League of America 
specifies that caseworkers should be responsible
(CWLA)  Standards for Foster Family Service 
9 By 
for no more than 30 children. contrast, 60% of the supervisors in this study note the 
average caseloads of staff in their units exceed this recommended level. Agency and non-agency 
respondents from urban areas report, and documents from varous States confirm, that foster care 
staff frequently cary caseloads more than double the CWLA standard. 
Related to the issue of high caseloads is high social service staf turnover rates. Respondents 
report rates of 25- in many jurisdictions. The high turnover leads to frequent
35%  per annum 

transfers of cases or long periods of service dormancy because cases are unassigned during 
lengthy transitions. During these transitions, tratment and pennanency goals become unclear 
and valuable information is lost. The sta in place frequently lack experience working with 
children and families. A 1989 survey of national child welfare staf confirms that over 50% of 
caseworkers have no previous experience working with children and families or in human 
service agencies. 11 This reduces staff capacity to appropriately plan and manage services. It 
also creates tremendous training needs for agencies. 
Respondents also state the shonage of cenain services reduces agency ability to respond 
adequately to family problems. In paricular they point out that the lack of adequate housing 
brings children into care. For parents who need them, agencies usually do not have sufficient 
substance abuse treatment resources, nor are they likely to offer services especially focused on 
the substance abusing parent or the chronically negligent parent. Finally, there is a general 
problem in securing transportation, affecting access to other services for parents living in rural 
areas and urban centers without extensive public transportation systems.  , .
MANY BARRIERS AND DELAYS ARISE FROM THE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL 
SYSTEMS 
Case f)oclImelltatiollls Frequelltly Inadequate 
Even when "reasonable efforts" are made by agencies to assist families in reunification, case 
records often do not contain legally acceptable documentation of these efforts. Respondents 
point to three specific causes of this problem: 1) case recording and collection of documentation 
are time-consuming tasks that are not seen as contrbuting to family progress, paricularly when 
as noted above  caseload size strains staff ability to cary-out assigned responsibilities; 2) 
frequent case transfers result in lost information or transitional periods in which no recording is 
done; and, 3) caseworkers do not have training or routine advice in legal procedures and do not 
maintain case records in a form that meets judicial standards for evidence. 
Some States have attempted to insure that records are useable in court by instituting severance 
units which have specially trained staff to prepare records for termnation proceedings. 
However, these units do not generally become involved in record preparation until children 
cases are well on the way to coun. If the State does not have severance units, children s cases 
frequently stall due to inadequate documentation, unnecessarly delaying the implementation of 
adoption plans. With or without such specialized stafs, children often spend needless time 
foster care while agencies prepare and re-prepare the documentation necessar for legal action. 
Plalls Often Stops with Pre-Petitioll Reviews 
/mplemelltatioll of A doptio 11 
Following the model in public prosecution of criminal cases, public prosecutors in termnation of 
parental rights cases reserve, or are given by default, the right to decide which cases will be filed 
in court and to set the legal goals for the cases. In nine of the ten surveyed States, the ultimate 
decisions about whether or not to undertae legal actions are made by public attorneys or by 
committees on which these attorneys are the primar decision-makers. The key consideration 
often becomes narowly focused on whether the agency or public attorneys believe the available 
evidence is sufficient to guarantee the success of the States ' petitions, rather than on the social 
service goals for cases. 
Over one-third of the respondents, including some of the agency attorneys, report that 
decision-making criteria tend to be very restrctive. In some localities, respondents report that 
from one-third to one-half of all cases referred for legal action are returned to child welfare staff 
The attorneys do not seem to be opposed to terminating parental 
as not appropriate for fiing. 
rights. Rather, the issue appears to center on reluctance to pursue cases with uncertain outcomes. 
In this climate, one negative ruling concerning specific procedural issues in one case, or an 
adverse appellate decision, has an enormous impact on all subsequent case reviews. 
While only a few of th  States collect and organize statistics on termination outcomes, those that 
do present a picture of frequent, almost routine, success of State petitions. The highest rate of 
denial of petitions in any State is 20%. Five of the six States with such infomlation show less 
than a 3% denial rate. Although attorneys for parents have become more aggressive in appealing 
termination decisions, these increased appeals apparently do not result in a significant number of  overturned decisions. Exact statistics are nOt available, but respondents say only a few States 
have had more than one or two reversals of lower court decisions within the last five years. 
The Le  al Resources AJ'ailable  Cases Are Inadequate 
for Child Welfare 
The legal staffs assigned to child welfare cases suffer from the same problems of high turnover 
inexperience and lack of training, and unmanageable caseloads as child welfare staffs. Attorneys 
responsible for child welfare cases are often the least senior members of public legal staffs. 
They are frequently responsible for a host of other administrative and family law issues , as well 
as parental rights questions. Respondents state this lack of experienced staff affects the process 
in several ways: I) it causes backlogs in filing petitions because there are not sufficient 
attorneys to review cases and prepare necessary legal documents; 2) it means that legal staff 
often do not have the time or ability to assist child welfare staff, particularly in the early phases 
of case planning, in preparng the proper groundwork for future legal action; and, 3) it results in 
poorly prepared or argued court cases. 
Scheduling and Conducting Court Hearings Delay Implementation of Adoption Plans 
While in some States child custody proceedings are given priority for docketing and scheduling, 
over half of the respondents report that scheduling hearngs is a serious delay. Respondents 
identify several reasons for these delays: 
In non-urban areas of most States, child custody cases are heard by courts of general 
jurisdiction sitting in juvenile session. These cases, therefore, compete with all other 
matters before the court for docketing and may be interrupted at any time for other civil 
matters. 
Court dockets of most State courts are crowded, straining court personnel and resources. 
Having cases heard becomes a paricular problem when dealing with circuit courts where 
the problems with crowded dockets are compounded by the limited availability of judges. 
Since the passage of PL 96-272, even specialized juvenile courts with permanently 
assigned judges have had to take on additional responsibilities for involvement in the child 
welfare system. However, respondents note that most coun systems have not received 
adequate funding to meet these responsibilities. 
The number of professional schedules that must be coordinated for hearings makes 
efficient scheduling extremely difficult. For even the most basic hearng, a judge must 
schedule hearings to insure the presence of one or two biological parents, three or more 
attorneys, a social worker, and one or more volunteer child advocates. If professional 
witnesses are required or foster parents and their representatives wish to playa role, the 
number of parties can grow to a dozen people. 
Continuances (interruptions and rescheduling of hearngs) can further delay proceedings. Most 
child custody proceedings, once on the court docket, wil be heard and decided in one day. 
However, since few States have court procedures requirng unified hearngs (i.  , continuous  Continuances (interruptions and rescheduling of hearings) can further delay proceedings. Most 
child custody proceedings, once on the court docket, wil be heard and decided in one day. 
However, since few States have court procedures requiring unified hearings (i.  , continuous 
hearing of the evidence without interruption by other cases), respondents report cases not heard 
in one session often extend over days, even months. Again, overcrowding in the courts and 
scheduling diffculties are the prime culprits. Since all parties are reported to make aggressive 
use of continuances as a legal strategy, such delays can become a major issue. 
Judicial Bia.lles or Illaction Of tell Result ill Delays 
Respondents report that some judges in every State refuse to hear or grant termination of 
parental rights petitions. Despite almost a decade of efforts by groups such as the National 
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, respondents in each State could name at least one 
judge who believes children s best interests are always served by remaining legally tied to their 
parents. 
Of equal concern is the inability or unwilingness of the courts to define and apply limits on 
reasonable efforts to reunite." A common judicial practice in many States is to "suspend 
judgment" on some cases. In this practice, judges do not grant or deny petitions, but instead 
order child welfare agencies to continue providing certain services for a specific period (usually 
6 months). At the end of this period a new hearng is scheduled at which the judge will 
determine if families have made sufficient progress to demonstrate they can be rehabilitated. 
Respondents also report judges issue orders requiring agencies to make additional efforts to 
assist families, or continue cases indefinitely while parents are given additional opportunities to 
improve their functioning. 
Another common practice is for agencies and their attorneys to time the fiing of petitions so that 
certain judges do nOt hear cases. This minimizes the impact of judges whom agencies perceive 
to be biased or unwiling to issue final dispositions on cases, but it also increases the time 
required to implement adoption plans as cases wait to come before specific judges. 
The Question of Whether Children Are Adoptable Is Asked SeJ erai Times During the Process 
Judges and other professionals are hesitant to termnate parental rights unless they are assured 
that the children so freed will be adopted. Respondents report that the determination of 
adoptability is made several times in the process by different types of professionals with 
different perspectives on what constitutes "adoptability. " Many respondents note that the 
individuals making these determinations, often judges without experience in juvenile matters, 
frequently have more limited views of which children can be adopted than experience indicates 
is true.

The Legal Procedures ill MallY States Make COlltradictory Demands Oil State Adoption 
Sen,ices 
The termination of parental rights process itself imposes certain constraints on securing adoptiOil 
placements for children. Judges frequently will not terminate parental rights until a specific  adoptive home is identified for a child. At the same time, agencies are prohibited from the most 
ressive home-finding methods (e.g., media advertising or placing the child' s picture or name 
in recruitment materials) until children are legally free for adoption. 
A few States avoid this conflct by separating the decision that parental rlghts should be 
restricted from the disposition of the petition to terminate parental rights. Agencies have some 
period after the initial finding that parents cannot regain custody to aggressively seek homes for 
children. If a home is found, the tem1ination petition is granted; if no potential adoptive parents 
can be found, the petition is denied but the rights to make major decisions on behalf of the child 
are granted to the State agency or to another adult. 
SOME STATES HAVE DEVELOPED NEW PRACTICES TO EXPEDITE FREEING 
CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION 
In efforts to deal with the issues noted above, several States have developed initiatives to 
improve the timeliness and effectiveness of their termnation of parental rights process. Some 
have worked well; others are stil in their demonstration and testing phases. 
Creation of Specialized SeJ'erance Units 
In Arizona and Oregon child welfare agencies have established severance units to prepare cases 
for legal action. These units are composed of staffs with particular expertise and experience in 
tne court process. The purpose of the units is to insure adherence to legally sufficient procedures 
and documentation before the State fies petitions. 
Amendment of Disjoillted Court Processes 
The State of California has recently passed legislation to amend its juvenile court processes so 
that parental rights questions are automatically considered as part of the judicial oversight in 
foster care cases. Once the court reviews children s cases and either concurs with agency 
recommendations that adoption is the appropriate permanent plan, or makes such dispositions on 
Termnation 
its own, new action is not required of the agency to begin termination proceedings. 
of parental rights hearngs are a continuation of the total court jurisdiction over foster care cases. 
Grounds for removal, records of periodic reviews, and service histories stay before the court so 
that past decisions are not re-litigated at each step and decision-making is consistent throughout. 
Creatioll of all Expedited Trackfor Freeillg Certaill Children 
Seventeen States have created expedited tracks for freeing children from families where the 
provision of reunification services is clearly inappropriate, such as when a parent has been 
criminally convicted of the death of another child. In seven States, the fact that a child is under 
one year old may be used as grounds for easing the requirements for "reasonable efforts.  Pre-trial Mediation and Settlement 
Minnesota has statutory clauses which pemlit pre-trial mediation and settlement of termination 
disputes. In States where "open adoption" is allowed or other alternative permanent 
arrangements are available, this offers a method of removing some adversarial elements from the 
permanent planning process. Mediation offers the opportunity for negotiating adoption 
placement details and increases the likelihood of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights. 
Private Contractual Model of Legal Representation 
As part of the Department of Health and Human Services demonstration effort in effective 
practices for freeing children for adoption, the University of Michigan Law School Child 
Advocacy Law Clinic has established a project to provide trained, independent counsel to county 
Such legal counsel has 
social service agencies in pursuing termination of parental rights cases. 
two unique features: first, attorneys follow a private model of legal representation, wherein the 
role of the attorney is to advise his/her client on legal goals and strategy but leaving ultimate 
authority for determining legal goals to the client agency; and second, these attorneys are 
available to agencies throughout child dependency cases to advise staff on proper procedures and 
records. 
Mult-disciplinary Problem SolJ'ing and Training 
Three other demonstration project areas are using multi-disciplinar problem-solving models to 
secure cooperation among social service, legal, and judicial staffs to move children s cases 
through the judicial system more quickly and smoothly. The provision of joint training to 
judges, lawyers, and social workers concerning the needs of children and families, as well as in 
the methods of permanency planning and implementation. is a key component in such projects.  RECOMMENDATIONS

should: 
lalc Gover1l11e1l1s 
Mandate by statute well-defined, expedited tracks for freeing children who will clearly not 
return home in a reasonable period. 
For some children, reunification with parents is clearly not possible, i.  , when parents have 
clearly abandoned the child or when the only known pareI)t has been convicted of killing or 
seriously injuring a child' s sibling. State termination statutes should specifically identify such 
situations, and allow ternlination of parental rights without requiring a period of service 
provision. As noted previously, seventeen States have such legislation. We recommend that 
other States adopt similar legislation. 
Prescribe clear time and service requirements for "reasonable efforts" and provide 
adequate State funding for compliance. 
Implementing permanent plans for children requires that, throughout children s time in care, 
agencies be legally accountable for making and carying out decisions in a timely manner. State 
laws should include time-frames and level of effort requirements for State agencies. Related 
policy must prescribe clear case assessment, case plan, and level of service requirements. These 
provisions will aid agencies and courts to make consist nt decisions about whether the State has 
made appropriate and suffcient efforts to reunify families before determining that children wil 
not be able to return home. 
Once such legislation is put into place, States should then tie funding for social services in the 
State to the level of assistance required to meet the "reasonable efforts" test for all families with 
children in care. Unless "reasonable efforts" requirements are tied to actual service availability, 
the State wil consign even larger numbers of children to indefinite periods of foster care. 
Provide adequate resources to enable State courts to hear and rule on child dependency 
cases in a timely manner. 
Since the passage of PL 96-272, State courts have faced increasing pressure from child welfare 
caseloads. However, few States have appropriated additional resources to meet these new 
demands. More judges are necessary to rigorously monitor permanent planning efforts and to 
hear child dependency cases. Further, the courts should be given significantly higher support 
funds to purchase the additional professional expertise they need to decide what actions are truly 
in the best interests of the children. 
Offer increased training on pemlanency planning, in general, and on termination of 
parental rights, in particular, for child welfare staff, judges, public attorneys, and the staffs 
of contractual service providers.  Personnel at all levels should receive more specific and accessible training on permanency 
planning issues. Such training should be interdisciplinary when possible. It should focus on both 
Ihe reasons and methods for pemlanency planning and provide information on principles as well 
as specific skills. Current training models should be evaluated, and successful programs 
replicated. 
Youth and Families (ACYF) should: 
The Adminislratioll for Childrell 
Serve as an infornlation clearinghouse on permanency planning training and effective 
practices for implementing pemlanent plans. 
Throughout the inspection process we were repeatedly asked by respondents for information 
concerning problems and practices in other States. While many organizations have developed 
training, there are gaps in covered topics, such as permanency planning for special populations 
of children and families, and permanency planning roles of specific professional groups. The 
lack of a central clearinghouse for permanency planning training and practice results in failure to 
identify training needs, and lack of full dissemination of effective practice models. ACYF, with 
its responsibility for overseeing PL 96-272 implementation, should serve as such a clearinghouse 
for information and training on permanency planning. 
Explore staff retention strategies. Disseminate the results of such exploration to the States 
and agencies, and provide training and technical assistance for implementing appropriate 
strategies to the States.

The inability of child welfare agencies to hire and retain experienced staff is a major impediment 
to quality child welfare services. ACYF should encourage and sponsor efforts to identify 
personnel and support methods to attract capable social work and legal practitioners to child 
welfare services, and to retain these individuals once they are found. ACYF should actively 
disseminate staff retention information and encourage States to implement retention programs by 
providing training and technical assistance to State agencies. 
Through the Department s discretionary funding authority, provide seed monies for 
implementation of treatment programs that deal with current family issues. 
Respondents continually point to increasing levels of drg dependency, chronic neglect, and 
homelessness as the roOts of many of the problems that result in children entering foster care. 
Practitioners note that efforts to reunify families frequently fail because the underlying 
addictions or psychological problems have not been adequately treated, and because assistance 
to remedy other family problems is not appropriately designed to help the substance abusing, 
neglectful, or homeless parent. Some adjustments in practice methods and services are needed. 
ACYF is in a unique position to encourage these new treatment models.  , "  , "

IHm' c quickly to complete and implemenl the national child welfare data base. 
Thl' Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (PL 96- 272) called for implementation 
o( a National Child Welfare Data Base. Ten years later the collection system for comprehensive 
information is still not in place. 
The lack of consistent national data on child welfare services and processes impedes any effoI1 to 
identify common problems in assisting families and children who require foster care services. 
Planners and administrators do not have sufficient information to measure the effect of policies 
and programs on families and systems. 
NOTE:  Implementation of these recommendations would result in cost increases to both 
Federal and State governments. However, these increases could be at least partially 
offset by savings in foster care maintenance costs and long-term administrative costs 
resulting from reductions in the time children spend in foster care. Please refer to 
Appendix A  Federal Costs Offset. 
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 
We received comments from the Office of Human Development Services (OHDS), the Assistant 
Secretary of Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Assistant Secretary for Management and 
Budget (ASMB), and two external agencies. Both OHDS and ASPE concurred with the 
recommendations and offered suggestions for providing clearer, more detailed language on 
certain findings or recommendations. ASMB , while generally supportive of the findings, 
believed greater emphasis should be placed on the costs associated with implementing the 
report s recommendations. On the basis of the reviewers' suggestions, we have made several 
modifications in the report to clarfy some sections and to make important distinctions in others. 
Please refer to Appendix B  010 Response to Deparmental Comments," and to Appendix C 
which contains the full text of all comments.  , "	 , "

. _
ENDNOTES

See, for examples, Maas, Henry S.  Children in Long- Tern1 Foster Care,  ChiLd We(fare 
4X (June, 1'1(9): pp. 321-333; Fanshel, David and Shinn , Eugene B.  ChiLdren in FOSler 
LongilUdinallnvestigacion  New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.
Care: 
Characteristics of Children in Substitute and  StatisticaL 
Tatara, Toshio, 
 Adoptive Care: 
Summary of the \lCIS NationaL ChiLd  Washington, DC: American 
Welfare Data Base, 
Public Welfare Association, 1990, p. 77. 
Olsen, Lawrence  Predicting the Permanence Status of Children in Foster  SociaL 
Care," 
20. 
Work Research and Abstracts  18 (Spring, 1982), pp. 9-
We were unable to interview a representative of the judiciary in Arizona. 
A representative of the Foster Care Review Board in States with such an organization was 
interviewed. 
Approximately 70 percent of foster children are removed from their families due to abuse, 
neglect or abandonment. See Tatara  p. 46.
op. cit., 

The figures graphed in Figure 3 are the highest and lowest of the individual State average 
times provided in the State studies of tern1ination of parental rights processes. The 
adoption placement figures are estimates provided by State administrators. The cumulative 
figures are the totals of the lower and upper averages, and not necessarily the cumulative 
average time for the process in anyone State. 
In the discussion which follows, we also have included for some activities and for the 
complete process smaller ranges which include completion times for more than half of the 
States providing the information. 
Permanent Planning for Children in 
Regional Resource Center for Human Services, 

Foster Care. A Handbookfor Social  Washington, DC: DHEW, 1977, p. 6. 
Workers, 
Washington , DC: 
Child Welfare League of America, 	 Standards for Fqster Family Service, 

Child Welfare League of America, 1975, p. 91. 
Looking Outfor the 
10.	 See
, for examples, Nebraska State Foster Care Review Board, 
Children: Sixth AnnuaL Report Lincoln, NE: December, 1988; Association for Children of 
Newark, NJ: June, 1988; Senate (CA) Health and Human 
New Jersey,  SpLintered Lives, 

Services Committee and Senate Select Committee on Children and Youth  Hearing on 
Impact of Substance-Exposed Infants on Child Welfare  Sacramento, CA: 
Services, 
California Legislature, October 20, 1989.  I L	 Lieberman, A. , Russell , M. National Survey of Child Welfare Workers 
, and Hornby, H. 
1988, POI1land, ME: University of Southern Maine, 1988, as referenced in Ooms 
Theodora  The Crisis in Foster Care: New Directions for the 1990' Background Briefing 
s, 
Report and Meeting Highlights, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, 
Washington, DC, January, 1990
, p. 17.  , " , "

, " ), 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barh, Bar, "Outcomes Under Pennanency Planning,  61 (March
Social Services Review 

1987): 71-90. 
Besharov, Douglas, "The Misuse of Foster Car: When the Desire to Help Outrns the Ability 
Improve Parental Functioning,  20 (Summer, 1986): 213-231.
Family Law Quarterly 

An Unfonunate Misunderstanding,  Child Abuse
Sanrosky  v.  Kramer: 
7 (Winter, 1983): 117-122. 
and Neglect 

Blumenthal, Karen and Weinberg, Anita (eds.  Esrablishing Parental Involvement in Foster 
Care Agencies, 
 New York: Child Welfar League of America, 1984. 
Cahalan, Margaret, Cook, Ronna, and Dodson Comparative Study of Case Review 
, Diane, 
Systems Phase II: Dispositional Hearings National Survey,  vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Westat, 
Inc., and the National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection, American Bar 
Association, 1983. 
Chisolm , Roben  Pennanent Planning and Child Placement Law and Policy,  Journal of 
18 (Summer, 1987): 207-230. 
Comparative Family Studies 

Coyne, Ann, Russell, Robin, and Stin, Carol,  Idenrifing Systemic Delays in the Adoption of 
unpublished paper, State of Nebraska Foster 
Developmentally Disabled Children in Foster Care, 
Care Review Board, 1990. 
Dodson, Diane and Hardin Newton Upper Fals, MA:
, Mark,  Foster Children in the Courts, 

Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1983. 
Downs, Glen, Downs, Susan, Emlen Overcoming 
, Arthur, Lahti, Janet, and McKay, Alec, 
Barriers to Planning for Children in Foster Care,  Portand, OR: Regional Research Institute for 
Human Services, Portland State University, 1978. 
Fanshel, David, and Shinn Children in Foster Care: A Longituinal  New 
, Eugene,  Investigation, 
York: Columbia University Press, 1978. 
Fein, Edith, "Outcomes of Permanency Planning for Childrn,  62 (1983):
Child Welfare 

485-557.

GAO (U. Implementation and Effects of Foster Care Reform,

S. General Accounting Office), 
GAO-PEMD-89-17, Washington, DC: August, 1989.

Harson, Michael  Why Terminate Parental Rights?"  Stanford Law Review  35 (Februar, 
1983): 423-496.  Hardin, Mark  Several Perplexing Legal Issues Raised by the Adoption Assistance and Child 
Washington, DC: National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and 
clfara Act of 1980, 

Protection, 1981. 
Hubell  Foster Care and Familes:  Philadelphia, PA: 
, Roben,  Conflicting Values and Policies, 
Temple University Press, 1981. 
Knitzer, Janet, Allen, Mar  Children Withouc Homes: 
Lee, and McGowan, Brenda, 
Examination of Public Responsibilty co Children in Out-of- Washington, DC: 
Home Care, 
Children s Defense Fund, 1978. 
Lincoln, James, " A Model Statute for Tennination of Parental Rights, 
Juvenile Justice

(November, 1976): 7-12. 
Warn 
Lowery, Marcia, "Derrng-Do in the 1980's: Child Welfar Impact Litigation After the 
Years  20 (Summer, 1986): 255-280. 
Family Law Quarterly 
Maas, Henry, "Childrn in Long-Tenn Foster Car,  Child Welfare  48 (June, 1969): 321-333. 
Maas, Henry, and Engler New York: Columbia
, Roben, Jr.,  Children in Need of Parents, 

University Press, 1959.

McMurt, Stephen  Overcoming Barriers  Adoption Among Children in Substitute Care, 
CO 
Tempe, AZ: School of Social Work, Arzona State 
University, 1989. 
Meezan, Wiliam and Shireman,  Albany, NY: State University of
Joan,  Care and Commitment, 

New York Press, 1985. 
Termination of Parental Rights: A Real and
Minnesota Depanment of Human Services, 
Grievous Matter  unpublished, 1986. 
Murry, Lawrnce, "A Review of Selected Foster Care-Adoption Research from 1978 to 
mid-1982,  Child Welfare  63 (1984): 113-124. 
Judicial Review of Child Placement
National Council of Juvenile and Family Coun Justices, 
Deskbook,  unpublished, 1981. 
Neal, Tommy, "Termination of Parenta Rights: State Legislative Report 14, " National 
Conference of State Legislatures, 1989. 
Olsen, Lawrnce, "Predicting the Pennanence Status of Childrn in Foster Care,  Social Work 
Research and Abstracts  18 (Spring, 1982): 9-20. 
Reasonable Efforts: A  Washington, DC: Legal Resource 
Ratterman, Debra, 
 Manualfor Judges, 
Center for Child Advocacy and Protection, American Bar Association, 1987.  , "

, "
Regional Resource Center for Human Services  Permanent Planning for Children in Foster 
c;are: A, Handbook/or Social Workers,  Washington, DC: Deparment of Health, Education and 
Welfare, 1977.

Seaberg, James, "Reasonable Efforts Towar Implementation of Pennanency Planning,  Child 
Welfare  65 (September/October, 1986): 469-479. 
Schetky, Dianne, Angell, Richard, and Morrson, Carl  Parnts Who Fail: A Study of 51 Cases 
of Tennination of Parntal Rights, 
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 

(1979): 366-383. 
Seltzer, Marcia and Bloksberg, Leonard, "Pennanency and Its Effect on Foster Childrn: A 
Review of the Literature, 
32 (JanuarlFebruar, 1987): 65-68.
Social Work 

Shennan, Edmund, Neuman, Renee, and Shyne, Ann  New York
Children Adrif in Foster Care, 

NY: Child Welfare League of America, 1973. 
Stein, Theodore and Comstock Reasonable Efforts: A Report on Implementation by Child 
, Gar, 
Washington, DC: National Legal Resource Center for Child 
Welfare Agencies in  States, 
Advocacy and Protection, American Bar Association, 1987. 
Stein, Theodore, Gambrill, Eileen New York, 
, and Wiltse, Kennit,  Children in Foster Homes, 
NY: Praeger Prss, Inc., 1978. 
Sosin, Michael  Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin 
Administrative Issues in Substitute Care,

Press, 1986. 
Tatara, Toshio, 
 Characteristics of Children in Substitute and Adoptive Care: A Statistical 
Summary of the VCIS National  Washington, DC: American Public 
Child Welfare Data Base, 
Welfare Association, 1990. 
Wald, Michael  State Intervention on Behalf of Neglecte Childrn: Stadas for Removal of 
Children from Their Homes, Monitoring the Status of Childrn in Foster Cae, and Tennination 
of Parental Rights,  28 (April, 1976): 623-629.
Stanford Law Review 
 STATE REPORTS

California 
Senate (CA) Health and Human Services Committee and Senate Select Comminee on Children

and Youth  Impact of Substance-Exposed Infants on Child Welfare  Sacramento,

Services, 
California Legislature, October, 1989.

Kentucky 
Kentucky Deparment of Social  Report of the Termination of Parental Rights 
Services, 
Demonstration Project Survey of Process  Franord, KY, May, 1989. 
Delays, 
Louisiana 
Stein New York, NY, American Civil 
, Theodore,  Del A.  v.  Edwin Edwards Casereading, 
Liberties Union, 1988. 
Minnesota 
St. Paul, MN, 
Child Protection System Study Commission,  Final Report of the Commission, 

Februar, 1990.

Minnesota Deparment of Human Services, 
 Permnency Planning in Minnesota,  S1. Paul, MN, 
March, 1989. 
Michigan 
Fund: 
University of Michigan Law CeSntere,  ptembeProrpo,sal for1 F9ede8ra8l D.em ons
tration  Termination of 
Parental Rights, 

Nebraska 
Looking Out for the Children: Sixth Annual Report, 
Nebraska State Foster Care Review Board, 

Lincoln, NE, December, 1988. 
New Jersey 
Newark, NJ, June, 1988. 
Association for Children of New Jersey,  Splintered Lives, 

New Mexico 
Stein Joseph A V. New Mexico Department of Soci New 
, Theodore,  al Services Casereading, 
York, NY, American Civil Liberties Union, July-August, 1988.  APPENDIX A

FEDERAL COSTS OFFSET 
We recognize that our recommendations for States to tie resources to 
strct time and service 
requirements, provide additional court resources, and enhance 
trning wil incrase State and 
Federal costs. It is likely, however, that at least some (perhaps all) of the additional service and 
training expenditures could be offset by savings in the foster 
car program. 
We believe our recommendations would result in more timely adoption of foster children who 
cannot return home. While we are unable to preict how much faster children 
wil be adopted 
the process for tenninating parenta rights 
the 
-is made more rational and timely, we can  ilustrate 
savings in foster care costs that would result if time in foster 
car was reduced by one year. On 
average, children who leave foster care for adoptive homes in the States reviewed for this report 
do so between 3.5 and 5. 5 years after they enter the foster car system. According to the 
American Public Welfare Association s Voluntar Child Infonnation System, the medan time in 
care for all children in FY 1986 was 1.5 years. Funher, as shown in Figure 3, the 
implementation process for adoption plans can be completed in an average of 30 months if the 
system works at its most .effcient pace. Therefore, using the reduction of one year in foster car 
as the basis, it is not unreasonable to ilustrte the potential savings offset. 
If we assume that the time spent in foster care by children with a pennanency plan of adoption 
wil be reduced on average by one year through implementation of these recommendations, the 
Federal foster care maintenance costs would be reduced by .$37.4 milion. States could achieve 
similar savings in foster care expenses. 
Additional Federal savings could also result in reduced administrative costs. A recent review by 
the Offce of Audit Services, OIG, indicated that about 80% of foster car administrtive costs 
are for child placement-related services. (See Management Advisory Repon: CIN- 90-00274). 
Therefore, reduction of time in car for these children would afect foster care administrtive 
costs. Savings of $51.5 milion in administrtive costs could result from the one-year reduction 
in foster car. 
Since title IV-E also covers costs for adoption assistace for special nees childrn, removig 
such children from the foster care system into adoptive homes mitigates the savigs realized 
more timely placements. Federal costs for subsidized adoptions ar about one-third the costs of 
foster care. However, we cannot estimate the percentage that wil go into subsidized adoption. 
In our savings estimate we took the more conservative approach of assuming that 
al would 
indeed receive such subsidies, resulting in $9.9 milion in subsidies. 
Total one-year Federal savings for maintenance payments and administrative costs are 
estimated at $79 milion ($37.4 millon + $51.5 millon - $9.9 milion).  Savings Calculation

The one-year savings calculation was derived as follows: 
Maintenance Payments 
Total number of foster care childrn covered by Title IV-E, 1988 = 120,00.

(Data from OIG report A-90-(0274)

Annual Federal costs per child for foster car maintenance = $4 500.

(Data from OIG report A-90-oo274)

About 13% of children in foster care have pennanency plans of adoption. Therefore, the

total number of children with adoption plans = 15,600.

(The 13% figure is for FY 1985, as cited in the American Public Welfare Association

publication listed in ENDNOTE #2.

Total annual foster car maintenance costs for children with adoption plans = $70. 
milion ($4 500 x 15,600). 
00 
Federal title IV-E adoption assistance maintenance payments for 35, subsidize

adoptions totalled $75 milion in 1988. Therefore, title IV-E adoption assistace payments

averaged $2 100 per child in 1988 ($75 million! 35,00 = $2, 1(0).

(Data on adoption assistance payments from the Offce of Human Develop-ment Services)

Total annual adoption assistance maintenance payments assuming that 
al chidren with a 
ar 
pennanency plan of adoption require and  eligible for such subsidies = $2, 100 x 15,600 
8 milion. 
= $32.
Maintenance cost reuction = $70.2 milion - $32.8 milion = $37.4 
Administrative Costs 
Annual per child Federal foster care adminisn-tive costs = $3,300.

(Data from OIG report A-90-00274)

Total number of foster care childrn with pennanency plans of adoption = 15,600.

Total administrative costs for foster car children with pennanency plans of adoption =

$51.5 milion (15,600 x $3,300).  Adoption Subsidy COS1.

Annual per child Federal subsidized adoption administrative costs = $629 
($22 million administrative/ 35,000 children = $629). 
1$22 million figure obtained from OHDS for FY 1995J 
TOtal administrative costs for subsidized adoption = $9.9 million (15,600 x $629). 
Total estimated Federal  milion 
Financial Participation Savings  = $79 
(maintemmce savings of $37.4 milion + administrative savings of $51.5 - adoption 
subsidy costs of $9.9 million). 
A - 3  APPENDIX 

OIG RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 
We received comments from the Offce of Human Development Services (OHDS), the Assistant 
Secretar for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Assistant Secreta for Management and 
Budget (ASMB), and two external agencies. Please refer to Appendix C for the full texts of the 
comments. 
Offce of Human Development Services 
The OHDS concurred with the report. They recommended several changes in language in the 
recommendations and findings. 
We have adopted the language suggested by OHDS either within the recommendations in 
question or within the explanatory text. 
The OHDS agreed with the recommendation to the States concerning adequate resoures for 
curnt 
State courts to handle termination of parenta rights cases, but urged that States examine 
court functioning to detennine "whether courts nee to be involved in routine reviews. 
We agree that the OHDS should encourage States to review their utilzation of their court 
systems in child welfare cases. The recommendtion calls upon States to provide the 
resources to the courts to carry out the functions assigned to them. 
The OHDS agres with the recommendations addrssed to the Adminstration for Children 
Youth and Familes (ACYF), and notes that preliminar planning is underway for implementig 
these recommendations. 
We are pleased that the OHDS ha begun preliminary planning to implement the 
recommendations. We urge the ACYF to pay partcular attention to the need/or 
aggressive efforts to disseminate the informtion gainedfrom the various research, 
demonstration, and pilot programs, and to the States' needs for support in imlementing 
We are hom:.ful that projects funded to imrJlement 
successful features of these programs. 

treatment vrof/rams wil be focused on the full array Q.ffamily rJroblems that bring 
children into care and not on direct foster care services, except as part of a larger 
treatment plan that is also part of the funded program. 
The Assistant Secretary For Management and Budget 
The ASMB pointed out the imponance of distinguishing among the issues relating to 
reasonaqle efforts to reunite." These issues ar insuffcient documentation, ambiguity 
surrounding what constitutes "reasonable effons , and failure to provide services.  We maintain that all three factors should be considered in understanding the problem, and 
we believe the report adequately reflects and distinguishes these factors. Failure to

provide adequate services not only undermines the possibilty that children wil ever 
return home, it jeopardizes the State s abilty to place the child permanently in another 
home. Unless well-focused, intensive services are provided, the State agency has no 
grounds for its contention in termination proceedings that parents were given the 
opportunity to improve their functioning but did not. We have added language to the 
discussion of the "reasonable effort" finding that explicitly explains this double bind into 
which the current system places children. 
The ASMB noted there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of new State practices such as 
expedited tracks and training. 
We agree. The report describes a number of promising initiatives that are worthy of 
further testing and evaluation.

The ASMB provided extensive comments regarding our estimate of $79 milion in savings. The 
ASMB states that our estimate completely ignores the cost of implementing our 
recommendations. 
The report clearly states that such cost increases ma occur. The ilustration was of 
potential savings in Title N-E costs that could be used to offset the increased costs of the 
recommended changes. We have amended the language in the cost section to more clearly 
make this point. We believe that, while it is important to acknowledge the needfor 
additional expenditures, it is also important to recognize that the changes in child welfare 
practices which we advocate could reduce the time and costs offoster care. 
The ASMB was also concerned that we had not demonstrated that our recommendations would 
result in shoner foster care stays. 
ilustrate the potential impact of more 
Our one year savings estimate was developed to 

timely permnency placements. We have mae some changes in the text to more clearly 
indicate that the savings estimate was used as an exmple of the potential cost offset of 
foster care administrative and maintenance cost reductions. 
Finally, the ASMB notes that our cost reduction analysis should not include administrative costs 
because It. . . they are much more a function of State claiming practices than of the number of 
children or length of time in car. 
We agree that State claiming practices affect total adinistrative costs biled to the 
Federal government. But these costs are also directly related to foster care caseload. 
recent review by the Offce of Audit Services, DIG, indicated that about 80% offoster care 
administrative costs are for child placement services such as the following: development 
of the case plan, case management and supervision, referral to services, preparation for 
and participation in judicial decisions, and placement of the child. (Please refer to 
Management Advisory Report: CIN- 90-00274).  The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 
The ASPE agreed conditionally with the repon. 
The ASPE was concerned that the report note the 
harship of extended delays on children 
awaiting adoption, panicularly on harder to place childrn. 
We have substituted in the background section the ASPE's language concerning the effect 
on children of extended periods awaiting implementation of permnent plans. 
The report found no distinction in the barriers facing special populations of children in 
going through the termination of parental rights process, except, as noted in the report, 
when various decision-makers' perceptions of adoptabilty influence their wilingness to 
free children for adoption. 
The ASPE suggested expanding several of the fmdings as stated in the Executive Summar. In 
parcular, they urged more detal in the findings concerning scheduling and conducting court 
hearngs and the development of new practices in some States. 
We agree with these recommendtions and hae aded more detail to the Executive 
Summary. 
The ASPE noted the need for the Administttion for Childrn Youth and Familes to suppon 
State effons to improve the process of freeing childrn for adoption. 
We agree. Our recommendations call upon ACYF to perform specifc functions to guide 
and support State efforts such as serving as a clearinghouse for informtion, and 
providing demonstration and seed monies to assist in developing new practice and 
administrative models. 
tie requi 
Finally, the ASPE expressed severa concerns about the figure concerning  for 
varous activities (Figure 3) and the corrspondig text 
The times specifed as lower and upper estimates are the ranges of State averages for each 
individual activity. We have added explanatory text, and have mae the other corrections 
as requested by ASP E to make the section clearer and more consistent. 
OIG RESPONSES TO EXTERNAL AGENCY COMMENTS 
We also received comments from the American Public Welfar 
Association (APW A) and the 
National Council of Juvenile and Family Cour Justices (NCJFCJ. Please refer to Appendix C 
for the full text of their comments.  The American Public Welfare Association 
The APWA stated that the recommendations for removing some of the barers to freeing 
children for adoption provided a "useful staning point for future policy making considerations. 
They expressed several reservations, however, with the findings and recommendations 
concerning the definition and implementation of "reasonable effons" requirements. The APWA' 
concern was that the treatment of "reasonable efforts" in the report gave too broad a mandate to 
public child welfare agencies, while simultaneously implying that government should ration 
services by prescribing limits on the level of services each family can receive. 
We do not hold public child welfare agencies responsible for remediation of the whole 
array of ils that bring children into care. The point of the "reasonable efforts" discussion 
is to indicate that in many of the jurisdictions surveyed the lack of consistent standards 
means that the court system frequently does hold State foster care programs responsible 
for meeting needs well beyond their public mandte. 
The report does not callfor prescribed limits on services for familes. Infact, our intent is 
to call attention to the need not only for 
aditional services but for better planning and
delivery of those services as well. The purpose of the callfor State definitions of 
reasonable efforts" is to provide guidance to social workers, attorneys, and judges in 
making determinations of whether State effons hae adequately protected the rights of the 
parents. The vagueness in the current situation meets the needs ofno one, least of all 
those olthe children. 
We have added additional language to make the discussion of the "reasonable efforts 
question clearer. 
The APWA urged greater attention to the question of which childrn are adoptable. 
We agree, and intend that the recommendtions to ACYF 
for improved information 
dissemination would address this issue. 
The APWA urged that the report review the Notice of Prposed Rulemakg 
(NPRM) for the
national child welfare data base" and make recommendations on implementation reuiements 
for such a system. 
Such a recommendation would be beyond the scope of this repon. 
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Justices 
The NCJCJ concurred with the repon s findings and recommendations. 
B  APPENDIX 

DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS AND COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES

C - 1
 . - ," ' ..  .
... ~~~
.;..--;"... " ' =-!,.(	!":'-" ... . .. ".  -). .\. \ \.. \.'  (..) :'  ,.''  ",\ . -(." :": .='.- :'
Assistant Secretary 

W.. 2020' \ h 
",ng!on 
DEC 2' 190  :rIG 
; )W 
DIG-Jil 
DIG
DI3-0:L  , I 
A!G :".. ,\S" 
TO:  Richard Kusserow  GG: . 
Inspector General  zz :.  C:-=  I.. 
.J\ 
",1. \:.. I 
FROr-1 :  Ass i stant Secretary for 
Human Development Services

eIG Draft Report: "  for 
SUBJECT:	 Barriers to Freeing Children 
-06-89-01640 
Adopt ion  , eEl 
We have reviewed the draft of the Inspector General'

s report on

barriers to freeing children for adoption. We 
find the report 

to be quite comprehensive and appreciate the fact that much time 	 )rL
and effort went into this critical study. We have the following

comments: 
eIG Finding 
Administrative barriers in the child welfare delivery

system cause the most excessive delays in freeing

children for adoption.

The consideration of long-term placement 
delayed. 
options for children is  (p. 12) 
eHDS comrnen t : 
ad: 
the sentence to r 
We recommend reword i ng  The 
care 
options for children 
consideration of long-term 
is delayed.

OIG Recommendation: 
Governments should: 
Sta te 
Prescribe clear time and service 
requirements for " reasonable efforts " and 
for 
provide sufficient State funding 
compliance. 
(p. 20) 
OHDS comment:

read as follows:

We suggest this statement 
and service

Prescribe clear case assessment, case plan 
requirements.. . 
We also recommenc an additional bullet, as follo
 Page 2 - Richard Kusserow

Provide necessary resources to enable State agencies

and services to 
to ensure adequate case assessments 
l-i e s . 
ami 
OIG Recommendation: 
3 . 
State Governments should: 
Provide ade uate resources to enable

State courts to hear and rule on child

dependency cases in a timely manner.

(1:. 21)

OHDS comment: 
We agree with the recommendation. However, we suggest 
involved 
that States examine whether courts need to be 
in routine reviews especially where a change of legal 
status is not involved. 
tion:
OIG Recommenda 

should: 
The Administration for Children Youth and Families 
Serve as a clear inghouse for information 
training 
concerning permanency planning 
and effective practices for implementing

permanent plans. (p. 21)

OHDS comment: 
In response to the OIG report, ACYF is proposing to

fund up to three proj  FY 1991 which will focus

cts  in 
on permanency planning. Specifically, these projects 
focus available resource materials to 
will compile and 
the child welfare, legal

better address barriers  in 
and judicial systems which inhibit and delay the

ich children are reunited with their 
processes by w 
famil ies, placed in adopti ve homes, or established 
placements. 
other permanen  These projects will be 
conducted by existing National Child Welfare Resource 
Centers which already have in place extensive 
mechanisms for dissemination.  page 
3 - Richard Kusserow 
01 G commen 
The Administration for Children, Youth and Families should:

strategies. 
Explore staff retention 
(p. 22)

comment: 
OHDS 
In response to the OIG report, in FY 1991 ACYF

fi ve two-year projects to 
proposes to fund up to 
demonstra te ways to reduce staff turnover, improve 
employee morale, and improve child welfare service

deli very, 
including child protection. The projects 
disseminated to 
will be evaluated and findings will be 
the field. In addition, the National Child Welfare

Resource Centers provide information to States and

agencies on staff retention, (especially the National

Administration). 
Resource Center for Management and 
OIG Recommendation: 
should: 
The Administration for Children, Youth and Families 
Through the Department' s discretionary

funding  authority, provide seed monies 
for implementation of treatment programs 
tha t deal wi th current family issues. 
(p. 22)

OHDS comment:

We agree wi th the recommendation to provide seed 
monies for implementing treatment programs focusing on
family issues. 
Through the years, ACYF has funded 
projects addressing treatment for families and 
children to prevent out-of-home placement of children
and to facili 
tate the return home of children already 
in out-of-home placement. In FY 1991, ACYF proposes 
to func up to three projects to develop or replicate 
family foster 
model programs to provide specialized 
who neec a 
homes for drug ana alcohol affected infants 
specia::zec :evel of care that their families are 
unable to provide. These projects will also address
e rehab:li  at:o  c: parents ane reunification c:  Page 
4 - Richard Kusserow 
ACYF proposes to fund up to

families.  In  addition, 
five projects to develop model programs for the

provision of day treatment for children who would

otherwise be removed from tneir homes and placed 

reEidential care: or to facilitate the reunification

of children who can be returned from residential care

ices. 
ear 1 i  r wi th the support of day treatment se rv 
In contrast to residential care, day treatment

services permit extensive involvement of family

program. 
members in the treatment 
OIG Recommendation: 
7 . 
should: 
The Administration for Children, Youth and Families 
Move quickly to complete and implement

the national child welfare database.

(p. 22 

OHDS commen t : 
recommendation. 
We agree with the 
Thank you for  the opportunity to comment on the draft report. 
.-/h  Gall 
v!-1ary !S  ~~~ . .
..lL	 : ". q :'.: :
tfJ 
mOM 
::'Z	
W.shi  . 200 
DIG
NOV  1""""  AIG
OGC/IG  i,/
lc P. 
MEMORAUM TO:  RiCh  Kusserow  EX SEC 
Inspector General  ATE SEN  fli 
b, . 
FROM  ". Kevin E. Moley  Secretary r 
' Ass istant  Managem 
Report: 
SUBJECT	 ASMB Comments on the Draft OIG 
"Barriers to Freeing Children for Adoption" 
ol(P 
()cl- C/r -
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
While 
OIG report: "Barriers to Freeing Children for Adoption" 
the report contains some important and interesting discuss ions on 
the problems encountered in moving a child through the child 
welfare system and into an adoptive placement, we believe it has 
some flaws which should be corrected to preserve the integrity of 
problems and needed changes are 
these discussions. The 
highlighted below under the headings of Report Findings, Report 
Savings. 
Recommendations and Budget 
Report FindinO's 
Failure to make "reasonable efforts to reunite families" in an 
effective and timely manner should not be cited as a "barrier" to 
freeing children for adoption. 
A clear distinction needs to be 
made in the OIG report between insufficient documentation of 
reasonable efforts, ambiguity surrounding what constitutes

reasonable efforts" , both of which are administrative barriers 
that cause delays in the adoption process, and the failure to 
provide services, which is a barrier to achieving the best 
possible outcome for the child and family (which could be a 
adoption. 
return home), but should not be considered a barrier to 
services, or delays in providing 
In fact, failure to provide 
services could allow already fragileS famuily mrelatiaonsrhiyps t.o  _
deteriorate completely, resulting in the need for adoptive :. 
! (:' c: 
placement. This distinction should be reflected in both the, pocly
; 7'
of the report and in the Executive 
. ri
::; r-= 
Report Recommendations

::"1 
Two of the four recommendations for State action, mandating 

expedi ted tracks for freeing certain children for adoptions,ta afnfd, 

increasing multi-disciplinary training for child welfare 
judges, attorneys and contractual service providers, are based on

tiati 	 States. 
actions and ini  ves already undertaken in many 
Al though the report describes these efforts already underway on 
it offers no evaluation results that would lead 
pages 19 and  20, 
to a conclusion that they decrease barriers and should be

implemented on a national basis. If evaluation results are

making 
available, the report should include them as a basis for 
these recommendations. If evaluations are not available, then

the report should recommend that evaluations be done before every

State takes on these efforts.  ~~~~~~
Page - cnara 
Budqet Savinqs

We disagree with the OIG' s estimate of $79 million in budget

sav ings associated with the recommendations contained in the

reasons: 
report for the following 
These savings would result in Title IV-E "if time in foster

care was reduced by one year" for children with adoption

plans, according to the report. It is true that some

savings in the Title IV-E program would occur if time in

foster care is reduced, but the report offers no basis for

assuming that the eIG' s rceacroemm.e ndations will result in

shorter stays in foster 
The report may state that 
stays are reduced by one year, there may be some savings in 
Ti tle IV-E, but these savings should not be tied to the
report I s recommendations. 
The $79 million savings figure assumes savings of $41. 
million from Fostcear rCea.r e Administrative costs due to shorter 
stays in foster  Administrative cost savings should 
not be included because they are much more a function of 
numer of children 
state claiming practices than of the 
e in care. 
length of ti  There is no evidence of correlation 
numer of 
between claims for administrative costs and the 
lengt of stay in care. 
foster children or the  In fact, it 
is more likely that States would attempt to increase claims 
for foster care administrative costs if more intensive 
efforts to free children for adoption were made. 
The  OIG' s savings estimate completely ignores the cost of 
implementing its recommendations which will increase State 
and Federal costs dramatically: providing adequate State 
funding for compliance with "reasonable efforts" 
requirements: providing adequate resources to enable State 
courts to hear and rule on child dependency cases in a 
timely manner: and increasing training for all professionals 
in the child welfare field. Although it is difficult to 
estimate the total cost of these efforts, we believe it 
IV-E. 
would exceed by far any savings achieved in Title 
Any recalculation of Title IV-E savings estimates should be 
coordinated with either OHDS or the Budugseet dO.f fice in ASHB so 
Estimates are 
that the most up-to-date costs can be 
revised every six months, and using data from another eIG 
report, as this report does, will not allow for accurate
calculations.  , -
J(L--.- .......  '/	 . (, \,.. . '- . . :....,'  ../. ..:-. . .. -:., ." ". '.. -,, ... .'  :  :-,.   ...--...
-1U- ./ 
::::;'i	
Washington. D.C. 202cn. 
MEMORADUM 
NOV I 9 193.  ,,'::i\ 
TO:	 Richard P. Kusserow 
c :. 
Inspector General	 I .

r: 
Assistant Secretary for

FROM:	
Planning and Evaluation  . I, ;

SUBJECT :	 OIG Draft Report: "Barriers to Freeing Children for  O/-0t-
Adoption" -- CONDITIONAL  tf9- ()16 
CONCUNCE 	
I concur with the report sent for my review provided that my 
addressed. In 
concerns outlined below are  general I found the 
report to be very thorough and informative. The report could be 
strengthened by including several findings that other studies 
adoption. 
These are 
have documented concerning children awaiting 
The second 
discussed in the first section of this memorandum. 
I s 
section focuses on the study  findings and recommendations, and 
numer of edits which would improve the 
the third elaborates a 
report I s readabili ty . 
tion 
Children waitina Ado 
The report clearly shows that adoptable children are 
unnecessarily spending many months, and even years, in foster 
care. 
Apart from the concerns you raised with this in the 
report, the study should also make clear that the perpetuation of 
this problem takes a terrible additional toll on children who 
have already been victimized by their original parents. 
suggest that the background section specify that extended 
unnecessary stays in foster care also severely compromises the 
children. In 
addition, it 
healthy development of these fragile 
has been well-documented that older and minority children face 
adoption. This fact should also 
the largest barriers to timely 
be included on page 10 which only addresses how long the average 
child must wait. I think it is important to provide both of 
Sumary of the report as well. 
these facts in the Executive 
Findinas and Recommendations

The body of the report contains many excellent findings that

Sumary.
should be made more readily accessible in the Executive 
" in non-urban 
For instance, on page 16, the report states that 
areas of most states, child custody cases... may be interrpted at 
This sentence could serve as 
any time for other civil matters. 
an excellent addition to the bullet associated with the finding

in the Executive Sumary which currently reads  scheduling and 
conducting court hearings delay implementation of adoption
plans. 
.. In fact, virtually all of the findings in the Executive 
PDIG 
DIG
DIG-EI 
DIG-
AlG-l!P 
OGC/IG 
EX SEC
 Sumary could 
be made more explicit if an additional sentence or 
each. 
two were taken from the body of the report and added to 
The recommendations for actions to be taken by State governments 
and the Administration for Children Youth and Families (ACYF) 
approach.
should be strengthened to provide for an integrated 
Currently, two of the report' s recommendations specify that State 
governments "prescribe clear time and service requirements for 
reasonable efforts" and "offer increased training... for child 
welfare staff, judges, public attorneys, and the staffs of
contractual providers. II I suggest that similar recommendations 
areas. 
For 
be made for ACYF to support State efforts in these 
instance 
, ACYF could provide needed guidance to States attempting 
to define reasonable efforts by sponsoring a study of St 
practices in this area and issuing a set of recommendations and 
legislation. In 
perhaps even model State  terms of training, ACYF 
could develop training modules which States could utilize to 
provide much-needed training. 
Edi torial Comments 
section, 
(Page ii). Unlike the other headings in the "Findings" 
II Some states 
there are no bullets under the heading that reads 
II A few brief bullets on the 
have developed new practices. 
findings under this heading would be helpful and appropriate to

this section.

(Page iii). In the note at the bottom 9f this page, the

capitalization of the words I'maintenance" and "administrative" 
consistent. 
(in reference to foster care costs) should be made 
3). 
process, 
Even though they describe the same 
(Figues 2  and  figues to each
it is hard to relate the information in these two 
other. 
For instance 
, it is not clear where the "family 
reunification determined infeasible" step to adoption in Fiq-.e 
is shown in Figure :2, which is a flow chart of the entire 
figues 
adoption process. Labels in both  should be made 
istent. 
cons 
(Figue 3). It is uncle r how the upper and lower range of 
derived. 
estimates in this figure was  For instance, do these 
represent average State differences (meaning an average or median 
(meaning 
was found for each State) or is this an absolute range 
the highest and lowest case-specific estimates across (or perhaps 
This should be explained in 
even within) States are compared? 
Fiqure. 
the text of the report or in a footnote to the 
(Page 8). It is very h3ar.d  to follow the discussion on this page

in relation to Figue  Briefly, Figure 3 estimates the entire 
The second paragraph
108 months. 
adoption process takes 30 to 
sta'tes II in actual practice" children are in care from "six months 
to 4. 5 years  (54 months) before adoption is specified in the 
permanent plan. Moreover, the next sentence states that II in most 
of the states providing detailed information" children spend "  5 years" 
to 3.  (30 to 42 months) in foster care before ina terest. 
determination is made that adoption is in their best 
if: 
one, the text and the f 
It would be helpful  iqure gave these
f iqures consistently in either years or months (or supplied a 
translation in parentheses as I have done above); and two, 
addi tional explanatory text was provided that included direct 
comparisons of the differing estimates to help account for their 
differences thereby providing the reader a better-defined context 
wi th which .to interpret these numers. 
The final two lines of text on page 10 should be deleted as they

also appear at the top of the next page.

(Page 15). A word appears to be missing in the second sentence

of the first paragraph.
 \? 
.,- .. . - - -  (?  . "' 
.-. ..-. .- - ...: : - -.-.  '- ,.  .,:.=: - -:=  "' - ~~:~.: --..:. .-- , :=---._. -.~\,.."'.~.'' --"~-'-  \. -'  ''". . -  ... . -:---", -#- ~."  "~... .~..: -'.:.-.=-. .-....--  : ),.. .":.\, -! -.#....;  -.". .. ....'-; "'"
h.L/ 
fERIC.AN  PUBLIC  WELFARE  ASS 0 C !' A T ION 
c. c. S 
C- C. 
) R
haidc 
Ruth 
;'''t,
A. Sidnt' Jo  onJl, mc.Vtivc Diraor  ,. \\; i..  r;
f""", 
1..\ 
.I. Vn. 
 b,  S:
7= 
De::e;.bE:,r :2,  j. 990  -:1 /
O': 
':V 
,,7 
, 6 
r.  r; 
ichard ? Kusserow 
Inspcc  eral 
or Ge 
epa=  men  0 f Health and Human Se=v  ces 
lnS?ec  General
WOfficae sofh  i  D. C.o:  2020l 
=. K sserow: 
Dea: 
ank you for the C?po:  nity to review and co  ent on you=
c.:af  Bar::.ers to ==eeing Children fo: Adoption.
The :-e=cepoc:-t  dat  hese bar= ers
ons for how to rempve  fo= f  ome 0: 

p=ov  de a use! l s  arting ?oi  ure policy mak:.n 
cor.siders::.':or.s. 
ajor 
a:-ea of concern wi  h the recommenda ions is over

he disc  e reasonable efforts req :.=ement

slsi onl :aega:wding 
.  sta  hat 
in :ede=  he one ha  the re?or 
On  es
aoe:nciE:s freauerl'::ly remove children :::ore 
c::ild we::a=t: 
provide adequate, 
he:ir ?a=e  s and then canno  cr do nc 
appro?=iatE: social services and support to remedy the
II: o(nps.  i1 :)t hese homes thc  =roucht the children :.nto 
ca:e.  o say t  a shortage of ce:- ain 
goes on 
services reduces agency abili  o respond adequately to
ily  d insuff  =ient
p:-C  ch as adeq  e housing a 
subs-:a:i.:e  lcffS  rea'Cmen': resou=ces.  14). 
a:C-.se 
:he re ort seems to im  v tha

.. Q  o.._..- ":i :- I;J_: _---S _eqt,.J_  ..,in  oCrduer  to. m:eet 
 we_.are aaenC.les
s::o-.':= 1:: res?oZs's,i ble for  '" v; Ii' T"  - ndin - "n.o 
.=n;-e c:  r:. ::e  in::: '\di::; hous in; an: substancei= aibl"i.
 se 
es igna  espo 
: h 
hich  s no  ed 
e :e=eral :-eascn  l: e::v= s =equi=emen

does 
?=es==  hes: c= a y c  e= se=7ices be ?=ov 
id: f  d;=, 
: :=c  = :0= =oe
$ee=s  vic  s wh  ci65i  ons unoe=o vide awll ch:ic  :ld 
=h add=ess 

'C ---- "C. .. .. p"." ,.,, C",."  a"" , e 
I,""w  ., t:c-.  - s C 81  e -= 

c==  ecog  e C  =a=e 
agency =a  ec =by ea s?c  := add:-essi ; all c  ese
le 
c:, (, ::'P\"'. c: ....-- C:.pwo- .:r,f\ "  r "'nnr~  ""r'::  f':C"-: . r,  ."i."\ ?:-,-",-:".. ; ..-,. '.- :-...q-..='-:= .-   --.--: --:..=~..; .:~.:.~.-.-..--.- ...- -.-\.- .- -!--') '.-~-.-g...~- ..-~_-...:- ~.-  .-... ~..~_~",.~. "~-~-...- ~."~".=- .-,  ':.','- --- ---.--..--.-.-:=.-.'--.--"--;""""-..--  --- --  -'-".:.  .;-.  ---:-, .:-.-_ ~.=.:...~.'-: .-~,.,:.. =- -  ..  ~~~ .:. .:-:'-~~-- ,~-.:--::..-:'-..".:.-;''..-  .-.
?:. c::  l:SS e 
'f'
De =emDE: r  :. 2,  990 
P age Two 
ce=  0 b=  ocial a d eco  ic F=o=le
a=  bility  o: all
i:ies m  e sha=ed =es?o 
JE:  S ,.  ..-t:  be  'tc:- L--.._vC.' '-I .. -4\.o.  com:nc
-a"'''.g''.-..'e'1 :!"c:.es c.c "  clea.= ti;r,e an: 5e=-" ;.:;e 
E=:"evq'e :;i.l"i : s:.a:,' s :0= . =ec.  :::;o.:::c Ee:.:s :c  t.s  1" -=:-.Lese ;:ec;  :.=e:-e:-..:.s 
c: :  o i  serv  ull 
de a  s :hat mee 
kely  the
ge 0: :am  = re?c=  o =ecog 
ly  eec5.  neecs
Mc=e irepor=antly,  wh c:.'t  is lack  g in your reco  enda  icr.s 
a ci  cussio  abou  F.ow  overnmen  can =os
he fede=al 

es wh  e h  -ruice ne wEc=k-.  so 
?=c:t;  ems c  Co!  "1"t  - :2o c m', s \: 
=he re5?O  reccmmer.d  ACYF ?rovice seed
T,:ci :;:.es  =:c:-e=:! "se.s.   ?le!!e  a t. i u0:e: s c:  =(:ieoor. au   =er-?rod9ugc:   ive  ti1 !C' . t. tl-c.iae,E, .l 
:.lc  :.:=e  he mc  .ap 
aS$U:TE:S  .;c: ..  i/:e  ;s  re =:" C::' :

a9=:-.c:.e  ?=c\. icie  hese isree=  ACY:  o=uc  i ve 
ic:s.
=:Jacr.  t:2.d be  re=  er federal 
=io 
age:,::ies,  such as  : substan se Pre 
Of:ice  ccoe  orcina 
a.r..  ,..-.-C_:..U.ht-:;   \.:10c::=..  .. -::lreD  ar;  Dev8 e. .!O?me!. O:-::,  'tO
 er:o\;:.n; -::ie"  ir=:.e=s :'0
c:':
r" - -' 
 -: ems  :. e s  su=  as ca-:egorical fun 
el igi  y reqa cuo:  i =,\,e.:r. ner.=s  more ap?ropr  (?-:e  anc. 
v:.sio  iali ry way of fos eri  a(:=ess  -:0 'the =ange c: se:-. ices 
E:e::.
:E.:-i2iE:s 
=c\.=lec  im?lica 
i.J_e ..- e- E. =  ;. c  e2 ca e:-=l ey s  he =eas=o:!''a -b:lhee   ef:ort reicnc eof
   enda  ic!':
::...- c:_  .c: ..  p=esc=ibe  C.Lear  and  s-srvi ce

s:.a-:=  gove=-:1:==  crl  "1", -; 
re:'e::  On i  s _ace, such a. =ecorr.men  ':o:J :: -

er?  e\:e  o mea  gove=  rnen  should ra  ion presc=ibed 
doses of services. If  ily and child = il 
 ail
o be = =ed
e p es::  ec ?e= oc,  ne  reE.  rnen  e=sr i c  :cn 
cve= : 
i:d is re  :ly  and ve:' ;:he f 
i:'sti 
=oc=ec.ings ar:  e=. i!:!neciia-:ely. Gi  c-; :.ha

=eatmen  and service 
s new k 
w- e? =rvees!=:  i er;s  imcCo  
 2.i:ri -:sII  C  =e Ist c=: va::..iic 2e. s  ;S::-0!: I.a CY.e mss  desirmec . 
;a;E: in  :"c;: g:.:;ee  ..w.._i_ :ci._e_.s   c::s  s .i ":  c:  c.:
'C-..  :. s  :"::;;.1:'c  :;0"::":):: -:  :arr.se:-ies -._1l  5CT:.er.
:!::e  k lo=  5 e::-':' ce

..e-C"  =::se::  =easc:-.a=l  e =fc =': E "

=:::'.. $; :. =.e =-
v:t_  :7.  i ""-'"-'=  5-==\7':=-=l cg I :. '"  :c.  Oa?:"?e =cf ?a: ::i.1s. .
 :e 
c:ceS:EE=:.l  MJ:-C o-..  :. s  =E.: 
- __a ...  .. -- 
-. ...  ...--- .. -  ; , . - 
. ./. '."-'  \ ,/  .~~ -:.. "-~~ -~~~;- ~-"-~-~ '.  -~ ~ ,-.-~..".~? -..;'--"-.~-'--~:-. "_-_~"~-:.y' ."~-~"...'':; .,=..._'=.' ~"-~ ...=-:~~,,"~~.,...~..   ..~-..~....-~."_.=- '-  ----""-:.'. :., --.  .-- .;-:~--" . -~,=.-..~".-!" .- :~,-.-  .,-~~. ,~~-.-- : .~ ."--."  .' '"' -:- '"-.  .....' "..- ,.-"." ..;. . ::-:  ,".. -..  .--;--  :----.=p...:.-":--. - .   ',.". -.-' '.- -  -. ." .-- ..... .-',.:.' .'-::'  ,--~--,  -~-':  ~  ~-~~.~~.-~~-
R:cha:c ?  erow 
990 
pDecaem=g:e:e 12 , 
T::=ce 
Our !i al area of concer  with the discussion o! :easc able 
scu  ecel  .: l.n ...
-..w -- or:  .Le 
vis a I vis its p:esence as a legal re 
docume 
L.  he ci=aft report notes i-: 
96"'272. (Page 2 of  link
he la  ; page 11 disc  s a pro;ramr.atic issue). hs
sses 
you kno  Sec  27 :eview requires tha  for every
ion 
: os  er care, the case record must note that
reas10o    r i ::crts have =:een made. !: such a nctatic  :ails
a=le  fiscal 
to appe  the case recc:c, the s ate is subject to 
penali t:es. Because 0:  ust necessarily seek 
this, states 
to assu:e that they can documen  that reasonable effo= 
have in fact been made. Thus ( i  is important t.o make: not.e 
repo=t. 
of this =equireme t in your 
':J1o-:ner a.rea which reauires a-:t'eI'tion \i0s  crest.io:1 of
e.. . c - - t.he 
""n-:u _h--_.:_c 1 : -. -.,.  ..P,,\ _UI:': 'I'.._.  ..... w --'- _.".iu.... --cE:: _- .. we -i-  ",rI ,1  ..wa\..-'-.d. r- co - :I .. 
withou  ex?e  ce in juver.ile ma t.e=s, freque  ly have more 
imi  ec views of which childre  car. be  han 
adopted 
::-:perie!1ce i::c.icates is t.='Je  he:;e is:
 thiso .c oErnrce:osuproangciini:gi: ; 
reco  =!1datio  for ho  to deal wi  ilc 
states to eSta.blish a icelines fer de  at a = 
thics:  ::_c:_- .o _c. w r"e"C?o o-= .,.1s:h "o'''u  ld enceorrninuina rage bwct(r:.  a..d cc.pw ..i. v_ e 
?a=en ?==blerea.  cvocate orgar.izations  rec 
and ACYF to I s 
cons  derable at  entio  e 1990  to br ng v  cn anc

=la  issue.

= repo=: re fer  ces t  e " national child welf

Finally, yo  L. 96-2'2.
ata b  is = lled  o= in P. Sec:ion
SeC  ..""\.1  ame:ldec ;,n  the Omnibus Sudget 
Re=c  :iatic  of 1986,  called fo= the esta  ishme 
c;'; ""!:,, 
c .. - .lC:1 c:.... -
vste!n. ':he No-:ice of ? =c:  sec: Rule-ma.kinc (N?RM) for :.h 
1990. The date 
issued bv AC  . O  e1r9ne9= 12.7  
:c= i  ?:c  ion Is Octobe:  The da a eleme 
called fc= i  =inal 
is  EYS  y ?=cvide er, 
he ir.:::=!:.  ion needed :c= ?clicy mak  purposes. Howe" 
we a=e =
 ed abcc  la=k of adequa e =  ; =0=
s sy  he s  :si   :  CY:  hoe EP:=O 
syiCE  
 s a

=" '" c:  :yz :evelo? 
age  ..c. -

=ene=  e s 
is  :t  : c ::e  b\' 
t,::-. So:' yl0.  :1eCE: S s a r;. 
-:::e  !'iP  !.r::: ==:::TE:  ': i::  erne 
== =2  Sc.  ~~~
.. .
Ri=hard ? 

:2, : 

Fo\;r 
F (;S': 
I hope 'Chese CC::"Te!'''  a::e useful for yc:.r :inal re?o:: 
:er 
?2.ease :eel  c cal: Jenr.  Mi:2.cr 2  (202) 6E2-C:OC ;
:ree: 
27e a  s cr need mo::e inforca  ion. 
S'::1=crely 
!hj
. Shcl:e  2e= 
ove::  ment A::ai=s 
Director 0: 
ell 
ssea 
0 I Con  -----.
NATJ  IL OF JUVENILE AND 
FAMI  Ol!RT 
IVERSITY OF srV ADA P.O. BOX 8970 RE."-O  V fj9 O' 17021 784  12 FAX r7021 7  -6.28 
October 
29, 1990 
Richard 
P. Kusserow 
Inspector General

Depar  ment of HCea.l th and Human Services 
Washington, D.  20201 
Dear General Kusserow:

in 
the 
F! raeme inc rCehceiildptre 0n:  for d=aft reportt ion  puBbarlirs:h.eerds  itno

Adc 
September 
1990 and recently disseminated for review
and comment.  for the 
Thank you 
opportuni ty
respond to this timely publication. 
A most salienti tfsea ture of this report on barriers to 
call for 
adoption is 
increased training and
technical 
judges 
assistance to  assigned to hear
cases involving abused and neglected children. 
The
Otfo: ibcee  orfi gInhstp eocnto r General (tOhIGe)i rr esearchers appear
point in  recommendations,
including the conclusion that "
increased training on
permanency planning, in general, and on termination 
of parental rights, in particular, for child welfare
staf::, judges, 
public a 
 tornIeI yiss,  and the staff
con  ractual service providers  needed nationwide.
It 
to 
was most gratifying  read the 
report I s
recognition of "
almost a decade of efforts by groups
such as the National Council of Juvenile and Familv

Court Judges, " bu  also disturbing to 
our  reali::e ho

widespread is 
ion I  needs for con:.inu:.ng
judicial education in 
this area. 
54th Annual Conference July 14- l8. 1991 Rapid City, Sourh Dakota  Richard P. Kusse 
October 29, '990 
Page Two

e report se ves as a pointed reminder to those of
us i:1volvec i:1 judi:::.al  the 
education of  i::.pac-:
which judges a:1Qi cloi erst .s ys  s have on the lives 
cthhield ren and  The membership and s  aff of
tio  a 1 Council remain 
Na  com  all  the
challenge of perllanency plann1:1g foir t ted  ctho  ilc.ren
courts. 
who come before t.he r.a t.ion I  This report
provides new anc :1eeded emphasis on the judicial and
interdisc1ip.l inary cooperation necessary to achieve 
your 
tthhies  goa  Tha:1k you for  leader ship role in
and  this vi tal
compila t10n  dissemination of 
information. 
Sincerely, 
ouis w. McHardv 
Executive Director /Dean 
LWMcE:am