Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 3:00 p.m. EST 

Tuesday, April 8, 2003 FOSTER CARE

States Focusing on Finding 

Permanent Homes for 

Children, but Long-Standing 

Barriers Remain 

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

GAO-03-626T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
ASFA’s goal was to increase permanent placements, such as adoption, for 

children in foster care, but determining ASFA’s impact is difficult. The 

annual number of adoptions have increased by 57 percent from the time 

ASFA was enacted through fiscal year 2000; however, the lack of comparable 

pre- and post-ASFA data make it difficult to determine ASFA’s role in this 

increase. In addition, states have improved their foster care data since 

ASFA, making it difficult to determine whether observed changes in 

outcomes are due to changes in data quality or changes in state 

performance. States have also pursued other child welfare reform efforts 

that may be contributing to outcome changes. HHS data on children who 

left foster care between 1998 and 2000 indicate that most were reunified 

with their families after spending a median of 1 year in care (although about 

33 percent returned to foster care within 2 years). Children who were 

adopted spent a median of 39 months in care. 

In response to a GAO survey, very few states were able to provide data on 

the number of children affected by ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions. 

Survey data, as well as information gathered from the six states GAO visited, 

suggest that states use the fast track provision infrequently and exempt a 

number of children from the 15 of 22 provision. During GAO’s site visits, 

state and local officials described circumstances, such as the reluctance on 

the part of some judges to allow a state to bypass reunification efforts, 

which made it difficult for these states to use fast track for more cases. In 

addition, these officials said that difficulties finding adoptive homes for 

certain children, such as adolescents, discouraged states from using the 15 

of 22 provision for these children. States reported exempting children 

placed with relatives and children who were expected to reunify shortly with 

their families. 

States are most frequently using ASFA’s two new adoption-related funds to 

recruit adoptive parents and provide post adoption services. Examples 

include purchasing advertisements on Spanish language television to recruit 

adoptive families for older Hispanic children and creating a statewide 

adoption resource center to provide support to adoptive families. 

The states GAO visited have implemented a variety of practices to address 

long-standing barriers—such as court delays and difficulties in recruiting 

adoptive families for children with special needs—to achieving permanency 

for foster children. To help address court delays, for example, Massachusetts 

has developed a mediation program to help birth families and potential 

adoptive parents agree on the permanent plan for a child. However, limited 

data are available on the effectiveness of these practices. 

In a related report, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services review the feasibility of collecting data on states’ use of 

ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions. 

FOSTER CARE

States Focusing on Finding Permanent 

Homes for Children, but Long-Standing 

Barriers Remain 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-626T.

To view this testimony, click on the link 

above. 

For more information, contact Cornelia M. 

Ashby at (202) 512-8403 or 

ashbyc@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-626T, a testimony 

for the Subcommittee on Human 

Resources, Committee on Ways and 

Means, House of Representatives 

April 8, 2003

In response to concerns that some 

children were languishing in 

temporary foster care, Congress 

enacted the Adoption and Safe 

Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) to 

help states move children in foster 

care more quickly to safe and 

permanent homes. ASFA 

contained two key provisions: (1) 

the “fast track” provision allows 

states to bypass efforts to reunify 

families in certain egregious 

situations and (2) the“15 of 22” 

provision requires states, with a 

few exceptions, to file a petition to 

terminate parental rights (TPR) 

when a child has been in foster 

care for 15 of the most recent 22 

months. Representative Wally 

Herger, Chairman of the House 

Ways and Means Subcommittee on 

Human Resources asked GAO to 

review (1) changes in outcomes for 

children in foster care since ASFA 

was enacted, (2) states’ 

implementation of ASFA’s fast 

track and 15 of 22 provisions, (3) 

states’ use of two new adoptionrelated funds provided by ASFA, 

and (4) states’ initiatives to address 

barriers to achieving permanency. 
Page 1 GAO-03-626T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the implementation of the 

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). As you are aware, this 

legislation was enacted in response to concerns that some children were 

languishing in temporary foster care while prolonged attempts were made 

to reunify them with their birth families. ASFA contained two key 

provisions that were intended to help states move children in foster care 

more quickly to safe and permanent homes. One of these provisions, 

referred to as “fast track,” allows states to bypass efforts to reunify 

families in certain egregious situations. The other provision, informally 

called “15 of 22,” requires states, with a few exceptions, to file a petition to 

terminate parental rights (TPR) when a child has been in foster care for 15 

of the most recent 22 months. In addition, ASFA emphasized the 

importance of adoption when foster children cannot safely and quickly 

return to the care of their birth parents. Toward that end, ASFA 

established incentive payments for states that increase their adoptions. In 

addition, the law provided a new source of funds for states to use to 

promote and support adoptions through the Promoting Safe and Stable 

Families (PSSF) Program. 

My testimony today will focus on four key issues: (1) changes in the 

outcomes and characteristics of children in foster care from the time 

ASFA was enacted through fiscal year 2000, (2) states’ implementation of 

ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions, (3) states’ use of adoptionrelated funds provided by ASFA, and (4) practices states are using to 

address barriers to achieving permanency for children in foster care. My 

comments are based on the findings from our June 2002 report, Foster 

Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent Homes 

for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain (GAO-02-585, June 28, 

2002). Those findings were based on our analyses of national foster care 

and adoption data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) for fiscal years 1998 through 2000;1

 site visits to Illinois, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas; and 

interviews with federal officials and child welfare experts. In addition, we 

conducted a survey of child welfare directors in the 50 states and the 

 1

Throughout this testimony, fiscal year refers to federal fiscal year, unless noted otherwise. 

In addition, we selectively updated information contained in this testimony. 
Page 2 GAO-03-626T 

District of Columbia.2 We received responses from 46 states, although they 

did not all respond to every question.3

In summary, while the annual number of adoptions has increased by 57 

percent from the time ASFA was enacted through fiscal year 2000, the lack 

of comparable pre- and post-ASFA data makes it difficult to determine 

ASFA’s role in this increase or changes in other foster care outcomes. 

However, HHS data on children who left foster care between 1998 and 

2000 provide some insight into the experiences of children in foster care. 

For example, children who left foster care during this time spent a median 

of nearly 1 year in care. Of these children, those who were adopted spent a 

median of approximately 3-1⁄2 years in foster care. Recent improvements in 

the quality of HHS data, however, make it difficult to determine if changes 

observed after 1998 are the result of changes in data quality or actual 

changes in the outcomes and characteristics of foster children. Similarly, 

data on states’ use of ASFA’s two key permanency provisions—fast track 

and 15 of 22—are limited, although some states described circumstances 

that hindered the broader use of these provisions. For example, state 

officials described several court-related issues, such as reluctance on the 

part of some judges to allow a state to bypass reunification efforts, which 

made it difficult for these states to use the fast track provision for more 

cases. 

In general, states are most frequently using the new adoption-related funds 

provided by ASFA to recruit adoptive parents and provide post adoption 

services. For example, Connecticut used its adoption incentive funds to 

buy advertisements on Spanish language television to recruit adoptive 

families for older Hispanic children and sibling groups to address a 

shortage of families for these children. Oregon used its PSSF funds to 

create a new, statewide resource center to provide information and 

referral services, support groups, and educational workshops to adoptive 

families. The states we visited have implemented a variety of practices to 

address long-standing barriers—such as court delays and difficulties in 

recruiting adoptive families for children with special needs—to achieving 

permanency for foster children. To help address court delays, for example, 

 2

Throughout this testimony, references to state survey responses include the District of 

Columbia. 

3

In addition, we requested survey data by federal fiscal year for 1999 and 2000. However, of 

the 46 states responding to our survey, 22 provided data for time periods other than federal 

fiscal years 1999 and 2000, such as calendar year or state fiscal year. 
Page 3 GAO-03-626T 

Massachusetts has developed a mediation program to help birth families 

and potential adoptive parents agree on the permanent plan for a child, 

thereby avoiding the time associated with a court trial and an appeal of the 

court’s decision. States are testing different approaches to address these 

barriers; however, limited data are available on the effectiveness of these 

practices. 

The foster care system has grown dramatically in the past two decades, 

with the number of children in foster care nearly doubling since the mid1980s. Concerns about children’s long stays in foster care culminated in 

the passage of ASFA in 1997, which emphasized the child welfare system’s 

goals of safety, permanency, and child and family well-being. HHS’s 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is responsible for the 

administration and oversight of federal funding to states for child welfare 

services under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. 

These two titles of the Social Security Act provide federal funding targeted 

specifically to foster care and related child welfare services.4

 Title IV-E 

provides an open-ended individual entitlement for foster care maintenance 

payments to cover a portion of the food, housing, and incidental expenses 

for all foster children whose parents meet certain federal eligibility 

criteria.5

 Title IV-E also provides payments to adoptive parents of eligible 

foster children with special needs.6

 Special needs are characteristics that 

can make it more difficult for a child to be adopted and may include 

emotional, physical, or mental disabilities; age; or being a member of a 

sibling group or a member of a minority race. Title IV-B provides limited 

funding for child welfare services to foster children, as well as children 

remaining in their homes. In fiscal year 2002, total Title IV-E spending was 

 4

In addition, Title XX provides funds under the social services block grant that may be used 

for many purposes, including child welfare. 

5

Certain judicial findings must be present for the child in order for the child to be eligible 

for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments. 

6

Special needs are defined as a specific factor or condition that make it difficult to place a 

child with adoptive parents without providing adoption assistance. States have the 

discretion to define the specifics of the special needs category. The existence of special 

needs is used to determine a child’s eligibility for adoption assistance under Title IV-E. To 

qualify for an adoption subsidy under Title IV-E, the state must determine that the child 

cannot or should not return home; the state must make a reasonable, but unsuccessful 

effort to place the child without the subsidy; and a specific factor or condition must exist 

that makes it difficult to place the child without a subsidy. 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-03-626T 

approximately $6.1 billion and total Title IV-B spending was approximately 

$674 million. 

HHS compiles data on children in foster care and children who have been 

adopted from state child welfare agencies in the Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). HHS is responsible for 

collecting and reporting data and verifying their quality. States began 

submitting AFCARS data to HHS in 1995. Twice a year, states are required 

to submit data on the characteristics of children in foster care, foster 

parents, adopted children, and adoptive parents. Prior to AFCARS, child 

welfare data were collected in the Voluntary Cooperative Information 

System (VCIS), operated by what was then called the American Public 

Welfare Association.7

 Since reporting to VCIS was not mandatory, the data 

in the system were incomplete. In addition, the data submitted were 

inconsistent because states used different reporting periods and different 

definitions for various data elements. 

ASFA included two key provisions intended to help states move into safe, 

permanent placements those foster children who are unable to safely 

return home in a reasonable amount of time. Under the fast track 

provision, states are not required to pursue efforts to prevent removal 

from home or to return a child home if a parent has (1) lost parental rights 

to that child’s sibling; (2) committed specific types of felonies, including 

murder or voluntary manslaughter of the child’s sibling; or (3) subjected 

the child to aggravated circumstances, such as abandonment, torture, 

chronic abuse, or sexual abuse. In these egregious situations, the courts 

may determine that services to preserve or reunite the family are not 

required. Once the court makes such a determination, the state must begin 

within 30 days to find the child an alternative permanent family or other 

permanent arrangement.8

The second provision requires states to file a TPR with the courts if (1) an 

infant has been abandoned; (2) the parent committed any of the felonies 

listed in the fast track provision; or (3) the child has been in foster care for 

15 of the most recent 22 months. ASFA allows for some exemptions from 

 7

In 1998, the American Public Welfare Association became the American Public Human 

Services Association. 

8

In addition, the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, as amended in 1996, requires 

states to expedite the termination of parental rights for abandoned infants in order to 

receive priority to obtain certain federal funds. 
Page 5 GAO-03-626T 

the 15 of 22 provision. Under ASFA, states are not required to file a TPR if 

the child is placed with a relative; the state has not provided services 

needed to make the home safe for the child’s return; or the state 

documents a compelling reason that filing a TPR is not in the child’s best 

interest. 

ASFA also created two new adoption-related funding sources. First, ASFA 

reauthorized the family preservation and family support program under 

subpart 2 of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, renaming it Promoting 

Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) and adding two new funding categories: 

adoption promotion and support services and time-limited family 

reunification services. The original family preservation program included 

only family preservation and community-based family support services. In 

January 2002, the PSSF program was reauthorized, authorizing $305 

million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, along with an additional 

$200 million in discretionary grant funds for each of those years. 

Second, ASFA created the adoption incentive payment program, which 

awards states $4,000 for each foster child who is adopted over a previously 

established baseline and an extra $2,000 for each adopted child 

characterized by the state as having a special need. States have earned a 

total of approximately $145 million in incentive payments for adoptions 

finalized in fiscal years 1998 through 2001. 

ASFA also expanded the use of federal child welfare demonstration 

waivers that allow states to test innovative foster care and adoption 

practices. In 1994, the Congress gave HHS the authority to establish up to 

10 child welfare demonstrations that waive certain restrictions in Titles IVB and IV-E of the Social Security Act and allow broader use of federal 

foster care funds. ASFA authorized 10 additional waivers in each year 

between fiscal years 1998 and 2002 to ensure more states had the 

opportunity to test innovations. States with an approved waiver must 

conduct a formal evaluation of the project’s effectiveness and must 

demonstrate the waiver’s cost neutrality—that is, a state cannot spend 

more in Titles IV-B and IV-E funds than it would have without the waiver. 

Projects generally are to last no more than 5 years. 
Page 6 GAO-03-626T 

The number of annual adoptions has increased since the implementation 

of ASFA; however, data limitations restrict comparative analysis of other 

outcomes and characteristics of children in foster care.9

 Foster care 

adoptions grew from 31,004 in fiscal year 1997 to 48,680 in fiscal year 2000, 

representing a 57 percent increase.10 However, current data constraints 

make it difficult to determine what role ASFA played in this increase. The 

lack of reliable and comparable pre- and post-ASFA data limits our ability 

to analyze how other foster care outcomes or children’s characteristics 

have changed. Current data do, however, provide some information about 

the characteristics and experiences of foster children after ASFA. For 

example, children leaving foster care between 1998 and 2000 spent a 

median of approximately 1 year in care. Of these children, those who were 

adopted spent more time in care—a median of approximately 3-1⁄2 years. 

Adoptions from state foster care programs have increased nationwide by 

57 percent from the time ASFA was enacted through fiscal year 2000, but 

changes in other outcomes are less clearly discernable. According to data 

available from HHS, the increase in adoptions began prior to the 

enactment of federal child welfare reforms (see fig. 1). For example, 

adoptions generally increased between 8 percent and 12 percent each year 

between 1995 and 2000, except in 1999 when they increased by 29 percent 

over 1998 adoptions. The increase in overall adoptions of children in foster 

care is accompanied by a parallel increase in the adoptions of children 

with special needs. 

 9

HHS officials believe that the adoption data available as early as 1995 are more reliable 

than early data on other outcomes because of the incentive payments that states can earn 

for increasing adoptions. They noted that states made great efforts to improve the accuracy 

of their adoption data when the incentive payment baselines were established. For 

example, HHS initially estimated about 20,000 adoptions for fiscal year 1997, but after 

states reviewed and submitted their adoption data, as required for participation in the 

adoption incentive program, they reported about 31,000 adoptions. 

10All HHS data are presented in terms of federal fiscal year. 

Limited Data are 

Available to Measure 

Changes in the 

Outcomes and 

Characteristics of 

Children Since ASFA 

Adoptions Have Increased 

Since ASFA, but Changes 

in Other Outcomes 

Unclear 
Page 7 GAO-03-626T 

Figure 1: Number of Children Adopted from Foster Care between Fiscal Years 1995 

and 2000 

Note: The percentages in parentheses represent the increase in finalized adoptions over the previous 

year. 

The role ASFA played in the increase in adoptions after 1997, however, is 

unclear. Similarly, whether the number of foster children being adopted 

will continue to rise in the future is unknown. For example, since our 

report was issued last June, HHS reported that 48,741 adoptions were 

finalized in 2001, which represents only a slight increase over adoptions 

finalized in 2000. While ASFA may have contributed to the adoptions of 

these children, other factors may have also played a role. For example, 

HHS officials told us that state child welfare reform efforts that occurred 

before ASFA might be linked to the observed increase in adoptions. Since 

it can take several years for foster children to be adopted, and ASFA has 

only been in existence for a few years, evidence of ASFA’s effect may not 

be available for some time. 

ASFA’s effect on other foster care outcomes, such as birth family 

reunifications, is also difficult to determine. Lack of comparable and 

reliable data on foster care children, before and after ASFA, make it 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Total adoptions

Adoptions of children with special needs

25,644

27,718

(8%)

31,004

(12%)

34,736

(12%)

44,952

(29%)

48,680

(8%)

18,796 20,532

(9%)

22,760

(11%)

24,960

(10%)

33,721

(35%)

36,947

(10%)

Source: Data from HHS's Children's Bureau used to determine adoption incentive payments.
Page 8 GAO-03-626T 

difficult to know how ASFA has affected the child welfare system. While 

HHS officials report that some data are reliable to provide a picture of 

children in foster care after ASFA, they state that the child welfare data 

covering pre-ASFA periods are not reliable due to problems such as low 

response rates and data inconsistencies. Since 1998, however, HHS data 

specialists have observed improvements in the data submitted to HHS by 

states and attribute the changes to several factors, including the provisions 

of federal technical assistance to the states on data processing issues, the 

use of federal financial penalties and rewards, and the use of outcome 

measures to evaluate states’ performance. According to HHS, these data 

improvements make it impossible to determine whether observed changes 

in outcomes from one year to the next are the result of changes in data 

quality or changes in state performance. HHS expects that the data will 

stabilize over time and can eventually be used as a reliable measure of 

state performance. 

Although pre-ASFA data are limited, current data do shed some light on 

the characteristics and experiences of the more than 741,000 children who 

exited foster care between 1998 and 2000.11 According to HHS data for this 

time period and results from our survey, the following outcomes and 

characteristics describe the experiences children had while in foster care: 

• Children left foster care after a median length of stay of approximately 

1 year, although the amount of time spent in care differed depending on 

where the children were permanently placed. For example, in 2000, the 

median length of stay for children exiting care was 12 months. In 

contrast, the median length of stay for adopted children was 39 months 

in 2000. 

• Many children have only one placement during their foster care stay, 

but a few experience five or more placements. Adopted children tend 

to have more foster care placements than other children, in part, 

because of their longer foster care stays. 

• Upon leaving foster care, most children returned home to the families 

they had been living with prior to entering foster care. However, 

approximately 33 percent of the children who went home to their birth 

 11According to HHS’s AFCARS data, 223,255 children exited foster care in fiscal year 1998 

from 44 states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico); 250,950 exited foster 

care in fiscal year 1999 from 51 states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico); 

and 267,344 exited foster care in fiscal year 2000 from 51 states (including the District of 

Columbia). 

Current Data Describe 

Characteristics and 

Experiences of Children 

Who Exited Care between 

1998 and 2000 
Page 9 GAO-03-626T 

families in 1998 subsequently returned to foster care by 2000, for 

reasons such as additional abuse and neglect at home. 

• Our survey results indicated that the median percentage of children 

abused or neglected while in foster care during 1999 and 2000 was 0.60 

percent and 0.49 percent, respectively.12 Maltreatment rates in foster 

care ranged from a high of 2.74 percent in the District of Columbia to a 

low of 0.02 percent in Nebraska.13

Children exit foster care in a number of ways, including reunifying with 

their families,14 being adopted, emancipation,15 or entering a guardianship 

arrangement.16 Although most children reunify with their families, the 

second most common way of exiting foster care is through adoption. The 

children adopted from foster care have a wide variety of characteristics, 

yet the data indicate some general themes. 

• On average, 85 percent of the children adopted in 1998, 1999, and 2000 

were classified as having at least one special need that would qualify 

them for adoption subsidies under Title IV-E.17 According to results 

 12Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 16 provided data on the percentage of 

foster children who had a substantiated report of abuse or neglect in fiscal year 1999, 2 

provided data for calendar year 1999, 1 provided data for state fiscal year 1999, 18 provided 

data for fiscal year 2000, 1 provided data for calendar year 2000, and 2 provided data for 

state fiscal year 2000. 

13According to HHS’s Child Welfare Outcomes 1999: Annual Report, the median 

percentage of foster children abused and neglected while in care was 0.5 percent for the 20 

states reporting. Maltreatment rates in foster care range from a high of 2.3 percent in 

Rhode Island to a low of 0.1 percent in Arizona, Delaware, and Wyoming. 

14In AFCARS, reunification is defined as the child returning to the family with whom the 

child had been living prior to entering foster care. 

15A child is emancipated from foster care when the child reaches majority age according to 

state law. 

16Guardianship arrangements occur when permanent legal custody is awarded to an 

individual, such as a relative. 

17While current AFCARS data indicate that 85 percent of children adopted in fiscal years 

1998 through 2000 have at least one special need, the adoption incentive data presented 

earlier in figure 1 indicate a lower proportion of children with special needs adopted from 

foster care. An HHS official explained that this discrepancy is due to the timing of the 

measurement of the data. The data in figure 1 were measured at an earlier point in time and 

the numbers are not updated since adoption incentive payments are awarded to states 

based on the number of finalized adoptions reported at the end of each fiscal year. The data 

presented here reflect changes to AFCARS based on states resubmitting previous data after 

the initial reporting periods and are as recent as April 2002. 
Page 10 GAO-03-626T 

from our survey, 18 states reported that, on average, 32 percent of the 

children adopted from foster care in 2000 had three or more special 

needs.18

• Children adopted from foster care are equally likely to be male or 

female, slightly more likely to be black, and much more likely to be 

under age 12. The gender and race/ethnicity distributions of children 

adopted from foster care are similar to those of the general population 

of children in foster care. However, children adopted from foster care 

tend to be younger than the general population of children in foster 

care. 

• Our survey results indicate that in fiscal year 2000 adopted children 

spent an average of 18 months living with the family that eventually 

adopted them prior to their adoption being finalized.19

As noted for other outcomes, the lack of reliable and national pre-ASFA 

data make it difficult to determine whether the rate at which adoptions 

encountered problems has changed since ASFA was enacted.20 However, 

limited data suggest that problems occur in a small percentage of foster 

care adoptions. According to our survey,21 about 5 percent of adoptions 

planned in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 disrupted prior to being finalized.22

States also reported that approximately 1 percent of adoptions finalized in 

these years legally dissolved at a later date and that about 1 percent of the 

children who were adopted in these years subsequently re-entered foster 

 18One of the 18 states reporting on the number of children adopted with three or more 

special needs provided data based on calendar year 2000. 

19Of the 46 states responding to our survey, 22 provided fiscal year data on the length of 

time children lived with the family that eventually adopted them and 1 provided data for 

calendar year 2000. 

20Studies on adoption problems prior to ASFA’s enactment have several limitations, such as 

small samples sizes, coverage of a few locations, and a focus on narrowly defined groups of 

children. 

21Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 17 provided data on adoption disruptions 

for fiscal year 1999, 2 provided data for calendar year 1999, 18 provided data on adoption 

disruptions for fiscal year 2000, and 2 provided data for calendar year 2000. 

22For example, Illinois reported a 12.4 percent disruption rate for fiscal year 1999 on our 

survey. In comparison, one study (Robert Goerge and others, Adoption, Disruption, and 

Displacement in the Child Welfare System, 1976-1995 (Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for 

Children at the University of Chicago, 1995)) reviewed all planned and finalized adoptions 

in Illinois between 1981 and 1987. During that time, an average of 9.9 percent of adoption 

plans for Illinois foster children disrupted. 
Page 11 GAO-03-626T 

care.23 However, little time has elapsed since these adoptions were 

finalized, and some of these adoptions may fail at a later date. 

While few states were able to provide data on the numbers of children 

affected by ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions, some reported on 

circumstances that make it difficult to use these provisions for more 

children. In addition, HHS collects very little data on the use of these 

provisions. Data from four states that provided fast track data in response 

to our survey indicate that they do not use this provision frequently. 

However, they described several court-related issues that make it difficult 

to fast track more children, including court delays and a reluctance on the 

part of some judges to relieve the state from reunification efforts. Survey 

responses from the few states that provided data on the 15 of 22 provision 

indicate that these states do not file TPRs for many children who are in 

care for 15 months. Officials in the six states we visited reported that they 

determine that filing a TPR under this provision for many children is not in 

the children’s best interests. The determination is based on a variety of 

factors, such as difficulties in finding adoptive parents. 

Few states were able to provide data on their use of the fast track 

provision in response to our survey and HHS does not collect these data 

from the states. As a result, we do not have sufficient information to 

discuss the extent to which states are using this provision. Survey data 

reported by four states suggest the infrequent use of fast track. In fiscal 

year 2000, for example, about 4,000 children entered the child welfare 

system in Maryland, but only 36 were fast-tracked. Child welfare officials 

in the six states we visited told us that they used ASFA’s fast track 

provision for a relatively small number of cases. Three states indicated 

that they fast-tracked abandoned infants, while four states reported using 

fast track for cases involving serious abuse, such as when a parent has 

murdered a sibling; however, some state officials also noted that few child 

welfare cases involve these circumstances. In addition, five states reported 

 23Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 18 provided data on dissolutions for fiscal 

year 1999, 19 provided data on dissolutions for fiscal year 2000 and 1 provided data for 

calendar year 2000. In addition, 21 states provided survey data on foster care re-entries by 

children adopted in fiscal year 1999, 22 provided data for children adopted in fiscal year 

2000, and 1 provided data for children adopted in calendar year 2000. Our survey results 

indicate that of all the children with finalized adoptions in fiscal year 1999, 0.55 percent 

returned to foster care in fiscal year 1999 or 2000. Of all the children with finalized 

adoptions in fiscal year 2000, 1.43 percent returned to foster care in fiscal year 2000. 

While Little Data are 

Available on Key 

ASFA Permanency 

Provisions, Some 

States Describe 

Circumstances That 

Limit Their Broader 

Use 

While Data on Fast Track 

Are Limited, Some States 

Report Court-Related 

Issues That Hinder the Use 

of the Fast Track Provision 

for More Children 
Page 12 GAO-03-626T 

that they would fast track certain children whose parents had involuntarily 

lost parental rights to previous children if no indication exists that the 

parents have addressed the problem that led to the removal of the 

children. 

Officials in five of the states we visited described several court-related 

issues that they believe hindered the greater use of the fast track 

provision. However, because of the lack of data on states’ use of fast track, 

we were unable to determine the extent of these problems. Officials in 

these states told us that some judges or other legal officials are at times 

reluctant to approve a state’s fast track request. For example, child 

welfare staff for a county in North Carolina described a case in which a 

judge approved a fast track request involving a child who had suffered 

from shaken baby syndrome, but refused a similar request on a sibling 

who was born a few months after the shaking episode. County staff said 

that the judge’s decision was based on the fact that the parents had not 

hurt the newborn and should be given an opportunity to demonstrate their 

ability to care for this child. State officials in North Carolina also told us 

that delays in scheduling TPR trials in the state undermine the intent of 

fast tracking. They noted that the agency may save time by not providing 

services to a family, but the child may not be adopted more quickly if it 

takes 12 months to schedule the TPR trial. Officials in Massachusetts 

expressed similar concerns about court delays experienced in the state 

when parents appeal a court decision to terminate their parental rights. 

Other difficulties in using fast track to move children out of foster care 

more quickly are related to the specific categories of cases that are eligible 

to be fast-tracked. Officials in five states told us that they look at several 

factors when considering the use of fast track for a parent who has lost 

parental rights for other children. If a different birth father is involved, 

child welfare officials told us that they are obligated to work with him to 

determine if he is willing and able to care for the child. According to 

Maryland officials, if the agency is providing services to the father to 

facilitate reunification, pursuing a fast track case for the mother will not 

help the child leave foster care more quickly. In addition, child welfare 

officials in Massachusetts and Illinois emphasized that a parent who has 

addressed the problems that led to a previous TPR should have an 

opportunity to demonstrate the ability to care for a subsequent child. 

Regarding the fast track category involving parents who have been 

convicted of certain felonies, child welfare officials in Massachusetts and 

Texas described this provision as impractical due to the time it takes to 

obtain a conviction. Massachusetts officials told us that, in most cases, the 
Page 13 GAO-03-626T 

children are removed at the time the crime is committed, and judges will 

not approve the fast track in these cases until the parent is actually 

convicted, which is usually at least a year after the actual crime. Finally, in 

Massachusetts, Texas, and Maryland, officials reported that it can be 

difficult to prove that a parent subjected a child to aggravated 

circumstances, such as torture or sexual abuse. According to these 

officials, the time and effort to go through additional court hearings to 

demonstrate the aggravated circumstances is not worthwhile; instead, the 

child welfare agency chooses to provide services to the family. 

Most states do not collect data on their use of ASFA’s 15 of 22 provision. In 

response to our survey, only nine states were able to provide information 

on the number of children for whom the state filed a TPR due to the 15 of 

22 provision or the number of children who were in care for 15 of the most 

recent 22 months and for whom a TPR was not filed. In addition, HHS 

does not systematically track these data, although it does collect some 

limited information on the 15 of 22 provision as part of its review of state 

child welfare agencies. The survey responses from 9 states indicated that 

they did not file a TPR on a number of children—between 31 and 2,919 in 

2000—who met the requirements of the 15 of 22 provision. For most of 

these nine states, the number of children for whom a TPR was not filed 

greatly exceeded the number of children for whom a TPR was filed. For 

example, while Oklahoma filed over 1,000 TPRs primarily because the 

child had been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, it did not 

file a TPR for an additional 2,900 children. 

Officials in all six states we visited told us that establishing specific 

timeframes for making permanency decisions about children in foster care 

has helped their child welfare agencies focus their priorities on finding 

permanent homes for children more quickly. Two of the states we 

visited—Texas and Massachusetts—created procedures prior to ASFA to 

review children who had been in care for a certain length of time and 

decide whether continued efforts to reunify a family were warranted. 

Other states had not established such timeframes for making permanency 

decisions before the 15 of 22 provision was enacted. The director of one 

state child welfare agency told us that, prior to ASFA, the agency would 

work with families for years before it would pursue adoption for a child in 

foster care. Officials in Maryland, North Carolina, and Oregon said that the 

pressure of these new timeframes has helped child welfare staff work 

more effectively with parents, informing them up front about what actions 

they have to take in the next 12 to 15 months in order to reunify with their 

children. Private agency staff in three states, however, expressed concern 

Although Little Data Exist 

on 15 of 22, Some States 

Report That They Do Not 

File TPRs on Many 

Children 
Page 14 GAO-03-626T 

that pressure from these timeframes could push the child welfare agency 

and the courts to make decisions too quickly for some children. 

Child welfare officials in the six states we visited described several 

circumstances under which they would not file a TPR on a child who was 

in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. In five of the six states, these 

officials told us that the provision is difficult to apply to children with 

special needs for whom adoption may not be a realistic option, such as 

adolescents and children with serious emotional or behavioral problems. 

Officials from Maryland and North Carolina reported that, in many cases, 

the child welfare agency does not file a TPR for children who have been in 

care for 15 of the most recent 22 months because neither the agency nor 

the courts consider it to be in the children’s best interest to be legal 

orphans—that is, to have their relationship to their parents legally 

terminated, but have no identified family ready to adopt them.24 State 

officials in Oregon told us that state law requires that parental rights be 

terminated solely for the purposes of adoption, so as to avoid creating 

legal orphans. 

Officials in four states noted that many adolescents remain in long-term 

foster care. In some cases, they have strong ties to their families, even if 

they cannot live with them, and will not consent to an adoption.25 In other 

cases, the teenager is functioning well in a stable situation with a relative 

or foster family that is committed to the child but unwilling to adopt.26 For 

example, officials in a child welfare agency for a county in North Carolina 

told us about a potentially violent 16-year old foster child who had been in 

a therapeutic foster home for 10 years. The family was committed to 

fostering the child, but did not want to adopt him because they did not 

have the financial resources to provide for his medical needs and because 

they did not want to be responsible for the results of his actions. 

 24In North Carolina, child welfare agency staff may recommend to the court that a TPR not 

be filed on a child who has been in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months; however, 

according to state officials, North Carolina requires that a judge determine that one of the 

ASFA exceptions exists. 

25All the states we visited require that children over a certain age consent to their adoption. 

For example, Maryland requires that children 10 years or older consent to their adoption. 

26ASFA specifically allows states to exempt children placed with relatives from the 15 of 22 

provision. 
Page 15 GAO-03-626T 

Child welfare staff from two states told us that some parents need a little 

more than 15 months to address the problems that led to the removal of 

their children. If the child welfare agency is reasonably confident that the 

parents will be able to reunify with their children in a few months, the 

agency will not file a TPR for a child who has been in foster care for 15 

months. In addition, child welfare officials in four states observed that 

parents must have access to needed services, particularly substance abuse 

treatment, soon after a child enters care in order for the child welfare 

system to determine if reunification is a realistic goal by the time a child 

has been in care for 15 months. Officials in Maryland, Oregon, and Texas 

reported that the lack of appropriate substance abuse treatment programs 

that address the needs of parents makes it difficult to get parents in 

treatment and stable by the 15th month. 

States reported in our survey that they most commonly used their 

adoption incentive payments and PSSF adoption promotion and support 

services funds to recruit adoptive families and to provide post adoption 

services (see table 1). Child welfare officials in all of the states we visited 

reported that they are struggling to recruit adoptive families for older 

children and those with severe behavioral or medical problems. To meet 

this challenge, states are investing in activities designed to match specific 

foster care children with adoptive families, as well as general campaigns to 

recruit adoptive families. Child-specific recruitment efforts include: 

featuring children available for adoption on television, hosting matching 

parties for prospective adoptive parents to meet children available for 

adoption, and taking pictures and videos of foster children to show to 

prospective families. For example, Massachusetts used its incentive 

payments to fund recruitment videos to feature the 20 children who had 

been waiting the longest for adoptive families. General recruitment efforts 

being funded by states include promoting adoption through National 

Adoption Month events, hiring additional recruiters, and partnering with 

religious groups. 

New ASFA AdoptionRelated Funds Most 

Commonly Used to 

Recruit Adoptive 

Families and Provide 

Post Adoption 

Services 
Page 16 GAO-03-626T 

Table 1: Main Uses of Adoption Incentive Payments and PSSF Adoption Promotion 

and Support Funds 

Activity 

Number of states using 

adoption incentive 

payments 

(FY 1999 and FY 2000) 

Number of states

using PSSF adoption 

promotion and support 

funds (FY 2000)

Recruitment of adoptive families 19a 16b

Post adoption servicesc 17a 21b

Preadoptive counseling d 15

Hiring/Contracting additional 

social work staff 

13e d 

Training 11 4

Source: GAO survey. 

Note: Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 34 provided data on the use of FY 1999 and FY 

2000 incentive payments and 26 provided information on the use of FY 2000 PSSF funds. 

a

One state provided data for calendar year 1999. 

b

One state provided data for calendar year 2000. 

c

Post adoption services include: counseling, respite care (short-term specialized child care to provide 

families with temporary relief from the challenges of caring for adoptive children), support groups, 

adoption subsidies, and adoption preservation services. 

d

This activity was not included as a response for this funding source. 

e

One state provided data for state fiscal years 1999 and 2000. 

States are also investing adoption incentive payments and PSSF funds in 

services to help adoptive parents meet the challenges of caring for 

children who have experienced abuse and neglect. During our site visits, 

officials in Massachusetts and Illinois pointed out that the population of 

adopted children had increased significantly in recent years and that the 

availability of post adoption services was essential to ensure that these 

placements remain stable. Approximately 60 percent of the states 

responding to our survey used their adoption incentive payments or their 

PSSF funds or both for post adoption services, such as post adoption 

counseling, respite services, support groups, and recreational activities. 

For example, California has used some of its adoption incentive funds to 

pay for therapeutic camps and tutoring sessions for adopted children. In 

addition, Minnesota has used PSSF funds to teach adoptive parents how to 

care for children with fetal alcohol syndrome and children who find it 

difficult to become emotionally attached to caregivers. 

Although the 46 states responding to our survey reported that they are 

most frequently using the money for the activities described above, about 

two-thirds of them also reported that they are investing some of these 
Page 17 GAO-03-626T 

funds in a variety of other services. Many states are using PSSF funds to 

provide pre-adoptive counseling to help children and parents prepare for 

the emotional challenges of forming a new family. Similarly, some states 

are using incentive payments and PSSF funds to train foster families, 

adoptive families, and service providers. For example, Arkansas used its 

incentive payments to help families attend an adoptive parent conference, 

while Kentucky used its incentive funds to train judges and attorneys on 

adoption matters. Finally, some states are using their adoption incentive 

payments to hire or contract additional child welfare and legal staff. 

States have been developing a range of practices to address long-standing 

barriers to achieving permanency for children in a timely manner—many 

of which have been the subject of our previous reports. Both 

independently and through demonstration waivers approved by HHS, 

states are using a variety of practices to address barriers relating to the 

courts, recruiting adoptive families for children with special needs, placing 

children in permanent homes in other jurisdictions, and the availability of 

needed services. Because few of these practices have been rigorously 

evaluated, however, limited information is available on their effectiveness. 

Our previous work, officials in all the states we visited, and over half of 

our survey respondents identified problems with the court system as a 

barrier to moving children from foster care into safe and permanent 

homes.27 In 1999, we reported on systemic problems that hinder the ability 

of courts to produce decisions on child welfare cases in a timely manner 

 27Of the 29 states that reported an insufficient number of judges or court staff, 18 reported 

that the problem represented either a moderate, great, or very great hindrance to finding 

permanent homes for children. Of the 28 states that reported insufficient training for court 

staff, 20 reported that the problem represented a moderate or great hindrance. Of the 23 

states that reported that judges were not supportive of ASFA’s goals, 10 reported that the 

problem represented either a moderate, great, or very great hindrance. Of the 46 states that 

responded to our survey, 40 reported on the insufficient number of judges and court staff, 

41 reported on the lack of training for judges and court staff, and 39 reported on judges not 

being supportive of ASFA’s goals. 

States Develop 

Practices in Response 

to Long-Standing 

Barriers That 

Continue to Hamper 

Efforts to Promote 

Permanency for 

Foster Children 

Systemic Court Problems 

Continue to Delay Child 

Welfare Cases 
Page 18 GAO-03-626T 

that meet the needs of children.28 The barriers included inadequate 

numbers of judges and attorneys to handle large caseloads, the lack of 

cooperation between the courts and child welfare agencies, and 

insufficient training of judges and attorneys involved in child welfare 

cases. 

During our visit to Massachusetts, state officials told us that the courts 

experienced significant delays in court hearings and appeals due to a lack 

of court resources. As an alternative to court proceedings, Massachusetts 

implemented a permanency mediation program—a formal dispute 

resolution process in which an independent third party facilitates 

permanency planning between family members and potential adoptive 

parents in a nonadversarial setting. By avoiding trials to terminate parental 

rights, Massachusetts officials reported that permanency mediation helps 

reduce court workloads, eliminate appeals, and more effectively uses 

limited court resources. A preliminary evaluation of the Massachusetts 

program suggested that cases involved in the mediation program needed 

less time and fewer court resources to reach an agreement than cases that 

go to trial. However, the evaluation did not directly compare outcomes, 

such as the length of time a child spent in foster care, for mediation and 

nonmediation cases. 

Texas officials identified court barriers in rural areas that negatively affect 

both the timeliness and quality of child welfare proceedings—specifically, 

the lack of court time for child welfare cases and the lack of judges with 

training and experience in child welfare issues. In response to these 

barriers, Texas developed the visiting judge cluster court system, an 

approach in which a judge trained in child welfare issues is assigned to a 

cluster of rural counties. The judge travels from county to county 

presiding over all child welfare cases. This approach may create more 

court time in rural areas and allows knowledgeable and experienced 

judges to make the best possible decisions for children in foster care. 

While Texas officials believe this approach has been helpful in moving 

children to permanency, no formal evaluation of the approach has been 

conducted. 

 28U.S. General Accounting Office, Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve 

Maltreated Children, GAO/HEHS-99-13 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 1999). 
Page 19 GAO-03-626T 

Officials in five states we visited, along with the majority of the 

respondents to our state survey, reported that difficulties in recruiting 

families to adopt children with special needs is a major barrier to 

achieving permanent placements for these children.29 Our survey revealed 

that states relied on three main activities to recruit adoptive families for 

children who are waiting to be adopted: listing a child’s profile on state 

and local Web sites, exploring adoption by adults significantly involved in 

the child’s life, and featuring the child on local television news shows.30

Several states we visited are using recruitment campaigns targeted to 

particular individuals who may be more likely to adopt children with 

special needs. For example, the child welfare agencies in Illinois, 

Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas are collaborating with local churches 

to recruit adoptive families specifically for minority children. However, an 

Illinois recruitment report noted that little information exists on what 

kinds of families are likely to adopt children with specific characteristics. 

While the states we visited used a variety of recruitment efforts to find 

families for special needs children, they generally did not collect data on 

the effectiveness of their recruiting efforts. 

In addition to the activities described above, some demonstration waivers 

are testing a different approach to finding permanent homes for children 

in foster care.31 Seven states are using demonstration waivers to pay 

subsidies to relatives and foster parents who become legal guardians to 

foster children in their care. These states hope to reduce the number of 

children in long-term foster care by formalizing existing relationships in 

which relatives or foster parents are committed to caring for a child but 

adoption is not a viable option. Evaluation results from Illinois’s waiver 

suggest that offering subsidized guardianship can increase the percentage 

 29Of the 46 states responding to our survey, 43 states reported on the sufficiency of 

adoptive homes for children with special needs. All 43 states reported that they did not 

have enough adoptive homes for children with special needs, with 39 reporting that the 

problem represented a moderate, great, or very great hindrance to finding permanent 

homes for children. 

30Of the 46 states responding to our survey, 44 answered the question about recruitment 

activities used in their states. 

31HHS is authorized to approve child welfare demonstration projects in up to 10 states for 

each of the 5 fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Under these projects, HHS waives certain 

restrictions in title IV-E and allows broader use of federal foster care funds. 

Permanency for Children 

with Special Needs 

Hindered by Lack of 

Adoptive Families 
Page 20 GAO-03-626T 

of children placed in a permanent and safe home. Results from most of the 

other guardianship waiver projects are not yet available. 

Many states encounter long-standing barriers in placing children with 

adoptive families in other states. As we reported previously, these 

interjurisdictional adoptions take longer and are more complex than 

adoptions within the same child welfare jurisdiction.32 Interjurisdictional 

adoptions involve recruiting adoptive families from other states or other 

counties within a state, conducting comprehensive home studies of 

adoptive families in one jurisdiction, sending the resulting home study 

reports to another jurisdiction, and ensuring that all required legal, 

financial, and administrative processes for interjurisdictional adoptions 

are completed. Five states we visited reported frequent delays in obtaining 

from other states the home study reports necessary to place a child with a 

potential adoptive family in another state. According to recent HHS data, 

children adopted by out-of-state families typically spend about 1 year 

longer in foster care than children adopted by in-state families. 

Child welfare agencies have implemented a range of practices to facilitate 

adoptions across state and county lines. In our survey, the most common 

practices for recruiting adoptive families in other jurisdictions included 

publicizing profiles of foster care children on websites, presenting profiles 

of children in out-of-state media, and contracting with private agencies to 

recruit adoptive parents in other states.33 States have also developed 

practices to expedite the completion of home studies and shorten the 

approval processes for interstate adoptions. The two primary practices 

cited by states on our survey were working with neighboring states to 

facilitate interstate placements and contracting with private agencies to 

conduct home studies in other states.34

States we visited have implemented several of these practices to overcome 

barriers to interjurisdictional adoptions. In Oregon, the state child welfare 

 32U.S. General Accounting Office, Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the 

Interjurisdictional Adoption Process, GAO/HEHS-00-12 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 1999). 

33Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 22 reported that they publicized profiles of 

foster children in media in other states, 41 reported that they publicized profiles of foster 

children on web sites, and 15 reported that they contracted with private agencies to recruit 

adoptive parents in other states. 

34Of the 46 states responding to our survey, 35 reported that they worked with neighboring 

states to facilitate interstate placements and 19 reported that they contracted with private 

agencies in other states to conduct home studies. 

Placing Children Across 

Jurisdictions Remains 

Problematic for States 
Page 21 GAO-03-626T 

agency works with neighboring states in the Northwest Adoption 

Exchange to recruit adoptive parents for children with special needs. In 

Texas, the state contracts with private agencies to place foster care 

children with out-of-state adoptive families. In Illinois, the state works 

with a private agency in Mississippi to conduct home studies because 

families in Mississippi adopt many Illinois children. 

Officials in four states told us that making decisions about a child’s 

permanent home within a year is difficult if the parent has not had access 

to the services necessary to address their problems, particularly substance 

abuse treatment. We have previously reported on barriers to working with 

parents who have a substance abuse problem, including inadequate 

treatment resources and a lack of collaboration among substance abuse 

treatment providers and child welfare agencies.35 Similarly, 33 states 

reported in our survey that the lack of substance abuse treatment 

programs is a barrier to achieving permanency for children.36

To address this issue, four states have developed waiver projects to 

address the needs of parents with substance abuse problems. By testing 

ways to engage parents in treatment and to provide more supportive 

services, these states hope to increase the number of substance abusing 

parents who engage in treatment, increase the percentage of children who 

reunify with parents who are recovering from a substance abuse problem, 

and reduce the time these children spend in foster care. For example, 

Delaware’s waiver funds substance abuse counselors to help social 

workers assess potential substance abuse problems and engage parents in 

treatment. Final evaluation results were published in March 2002 and 

concluded that the project successfully engaged many parents in 

substance abuse treatment and resulted in foster care cost savings, 

although it did not achieve many of its intended outcomes. For example, 

children participating in the waiver project spent 31 percent less time in 

foster care than similar children who were not part of the waiver project, 

 35U.S. General Accounting Office, Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable 

Homes for Children of Substance Abusers, GAO/HEHS-98-182 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 

1998). 

36Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 39 reported on the lack of substance abuse 

treatment programs. Of the 33 states that reported that not enough drug treatment 

programs were available, 26 reported that the problem represented either a moderate, 

great, or very great hindrance to finding permanent homes for children. 

Poor Access to Services 

Can Impede Permanency 

Decisions 
Page 22 GAO-03-626T 

although the project’s goal was a 50 percent reduction. Evaluation results 

for the other states are not yet available. 

Most of the states we visited reported that ASFA has played an important 

role in helping them focus on achieving permanency for children within 

the first year that they enter foster care. However, numerous problems 

with existing data make it difficult to assess at this time how outcomes for 

children in foster care have changed since ASFA was enacted. While an 

increasing number of children have been placed in permanent homes 

through adoption during the last several years, we know little about the 

role ASFA played in the adoption increases or other important outcomes, 

such as whether children who reunify with their families are more or less 

likely to return to foster care or whether these adoptions are more or less 

stable than adoptions from previous years. 

The availability of reliable data, both on foster care outcomes and the 

effectiveness of child welfare practices, is essential to efforts to improve 

the child welfare system. In the past few years, HHS and the states have 

taken important steps to improve the data available to assess child welfare 

operations. In addition, evaluation data from the demonstration waivers 

should be available in the next few years, providing key information on 

child welfare practices that are effective and replicable. However, 

important information about ASFA’s impact on children in foster care is 

still unavailable. For example, the lack of comprehensive and consistent 

data regarding the fast track and 15 of 22 provisions make it difficult to 

understand the role of these new provisions in reforming the child welfare 

system and moving children into permanent placements. To obtain a 

clearer understanding of how ASFA’s two key permanency provisions are 

working, we recommended in our June 2002 report that the Secretary of 

HHS review the feasibility of collecting data on states’ use of ASFA’s fast 

track and 15 of 22 provisions. In commenting on that report, ACF generally 

agreed with our findings and recommendation. ACF officials report that 

they are currently in the process of reviewing child welfare data issues, 

which includes an internal review of AFCARS and obtaining input from the 

states through focus groups. In addition, GAO is currently conducting an 

engagement for the Senate Finance Committee and the House Majority 

Leader on states’ implementation of automated information systems and 

reporting of child welfare data to HHS. I expect this report to be released 

in July. 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 23 GAO-03-626T 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions that you or other members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

For further contacts regarding this testimony, please call Cornelia M. 

Ashby at (202) 512-8403. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony include Diana Pietrowiak, Sara L. Schibanoff, and Michelle St. 

Pierre. 

GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 24 GAO-03-626T 

Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare 

Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. Washington, D.C.: March 

31, 2003. 

Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding 

Permanent Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. 

GAO-02-585. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002. 

Child Welfare: New Financing and Service Strategies Hold Promise, but 

Effects Unknown. GAO/T-HEHS-00-158. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2000. 

Foster Care: HHS Should Ensure That Juvenile Justice Placements Are 

Reviewed. GAO/HEHS-00-42. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2000. 

Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and 

Safe Families Act. GAO/HEHS-00-1. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 1999. 

Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional 

Adoption Process. GAO/HEHS-00-12. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 

1999. 

Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown. 

GAO/HEHS-00-13. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1999. 

Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues. GAO/HEHS99-32. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 1999. 

Foster Care: Increases in Adoption Rates. GAO/HEHS-99-114R. 

Washington, D.C.: April 20, 1999. 

Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children. 

GAO/HEHS-99-13. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2000. 

Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable Homes for 

Children of Substance Abusers. GAO/HEHS-98-182. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 1998. 

Foster Care: State Efforts to Improve the Permanency Planning Process 

Show Some Promise. GAO/HEHS-97-73. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 1997. 

Child Welfare: States’ Progress in Implementing Family Preservation 

and Support Activities. GAO/HEHS-97-34. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 

1997. 

Related GAO Products 
Page 25 GAO-03-626T 

Permanency Hearings for Foster Children. GAO/HEHS-97-55R. 

Washington, D.C.: January 30, 1997. 

Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services. 

GAO/HEHS-95-208. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 1995. 

Child Welfare: HHS Begins to Assume Leadership to Implement National 

and State Systems. GAO/AIMD-94-37. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 1994. 

(130258)