United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources,

Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10 a.m.

Thursday, February 27, 1997

FOSTER CARE

State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and

Placement Decisions

Statement of Mark V. Nadel, Associate Director

Income Security Issues 

Health, Education, and Human Services Division

GAO/T-HEHS-97-76

Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and Placement

Decisions

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss states’ efforts to reduce the time

children spend in foster care and, where appropriate, to facilitate

adoption. The federal cost for foster care was almost $3.1 billion in fiscal

year 1995 and is estimated to increase to almost $4.8 billion in 2001.

Available data suggest that more than 40 percent of foster children stay in

care for 2 years or more. In addition, almost 30 percent of children were

placed in at least three different settings while in foster care. This situation

is not in the best interest of children who, without benefit of permanent

homes and stable caregivers, may be more likely to develop emotional,

intellectual, or physical problems.

At your request, we are completing a report on progress states are making

to expedite the permanent placement of children. My testimony today will

discuss (1) state efforts to reduce the time frames within which hearings

must be held to determine permanent placements for foster children,

(2) state initiatives designed to expedite permanent placements for foster

children and the effectiveness of these initiatives, and (3) key factors that

facilitate changes in this part of the child welfare system. My comments

are based on an analysis of statutory and policy changes in all states and

the District of Columbia regarding the time frames for the first hearing at

which a permanent placement for a foster child is to be determined and

discussions or visits with child welfare officials in seven states about the

programs they have implemented to address the length of time children

spend in foster care.1

In summary, signaling the importance of permanent placement to the

well-being of children, 26 states have established more stringent

requirements on the timing of the first permanency hearing than has

federal law, which requires a hearing within 18 months. In addition, the

states we reviewed undertook operational and procedural initiatives to

expedite the permanent placement process as well as make well-informed

permanent placement decisions. Although most of these states did not

systematically evaluate their initiatives, they reported that many of the

initiatives have contributed to reducing the time spent in foster care or

decreasing the total number of foster placements made for a child. State

officials reported that the key factors in successfully implementing these

initiatives were the long-term involvement of key officials, an extended

commitment of resources, and the need for a change in perspective of

1

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

Page 1 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and Placement

Decisions

caseworkers and judges in order to recognize that, in some cases,

termination of parental rights is the best solution for the child’s future.

Background State child welfare systems consist of a complicated network of policies

and programs designed to protect children. With growing caseloads over

the past decade, the systems’ ability to keep pace with the needs of

troubled children and their families has been greatly taxed. From fiscal

year 1984 through 1995, the foster care population grew from an estimated

276,000 children to 494,000.2

 In 1995, about 261,000 of these children were

supported by federal funds through title IV-E of the Social Security Act.3

The federal government plays an important role in financing foster care

and establishes minimum procedural requirements for the placement

process. As required by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of

1980 (P.L. 96-272), states must make reasonable efforts to prevent or

eliminate the need for removing children from their homes. Once a child is

removed from the home, the state must also provide services to the family

and the child with the goal of reuniting them. If reunification is not

possible, the state is to find permanent placement for the child outside the

family home.

To guide the permanency planning process by which a state is to find

permanent placements for foster children, the act also requires that the

state develop a case plan for each child. Each case plan must be reviewed

at least every 6 months and, within 18 months, a permanency hearing must

be held to determine the future status of the child. If a final decision is not

made at this hearing, federal law provides that additional hearings must be

held at least every 12 months. Options for the child’s future status can

include, but are not limited to, reuniting the child with his or her family,

placing the child for adoption, continuing temporary foster care, or

continuing foster care permanently or long term because of the child’s

special needs or circumstances. Increasingly, children are being placed

with their own relatives, who then may sometimes receive foster care

subsidies.

2

The American Public Welfare Association estimated these numbers on the basis of data voluntarily

reported by the states; it designated the 1995 number as preliminary.

3

Under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, federal funds are provided to states to cover a portion of

the food, housing, and incidental expenses of children in foster care. To be eligible for federal support,

children must be from families who met the 1995 eligibility criteria of the now terminated Aid to

Families With Dependent Children program. The states incur all foster care costs for children not

eligible for federal support.

Page 2 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and Placement

Decisions

Several State

Statutory and Policy

Changes Require

Permanency Hearings

Sooner

The prolonged stays of children in foster care have prompted 26 states to

enact laws or policies to shorten to less than the federally allowed 18

months the time between entering foster care and the first permanency

hearing. Twenty-three of these states have enacted such laws, while three

others have done so by administrative policy. A majority of these states

require the hearing within 12 months. In two states, the shorter time frame

applies only to younger children. Colorado requires that the permanency

hearing be held within 6 months for children under age 6, and Washington

requires the hearing to be held within 12 months for children aged 10 or

younger. The remaining 24 states and the District of Columbia have

statutes consistent with the federal requirement of 18 months. (For a

description of the 26 state statutes, policies, and time requirements, see

app. I.)

The state laws, like federal law, do not require that a final decision be

made at the first hearing. Ohio and Minnesota, however, do require that a

permanency decision be determined after a limited extension period. Ohio,

for example, requires a permanency hearing to be held within 12 months,

with a maximum of two 6-month extensions. At the end of that time, a

permanent placement decision must be made. According to officials in

Ohio’s Office of Child Care and Family Services, the requirement for

earlier permanency hearings was made to expedite the permanent

placement process and reduce the time children spend in foster care. State

officials also believed, however, that this requirement may have

unintentionally resulted in increasing the number of children placed in

long-term foster care because other placement options could not be

developed. State data, in part, confirmed this observation. While long-term

foster care placements for children supported with state funds dropped

from 1,301 in 1990 to 779 in 1995, long-term placements for children from

low-income families who are supported in part with federal funds rose

from 1,657 to 2,057 in the same period.

States Make Changes

in Permanency

Process With Some

Promising Results for

Foster Children

Although the states we reviewed did not systematically evaluate the

impacts of their initiatives, they have implemented a variety of operational

and procedural changes to expedite and improve the permanency process.

The states reported that these actions have improved the lives of some

children by (1) reuniting them with their families more quickly;

(2) expediting the termination of parental rights when reunification is not

feasible, making it possible for child welfare agencies to begin looking for

an adoptive home sooner; or (3) reducing the number of different foster

care placements in which children live.

Page 3 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and Placement

Decisions

New Service Strategies

Help Reunification Process

Some states implemented low-cost, creative methods for financing and

providing services that address specific barriers to reuniting families.

Arizona’s Housing Assistance Program focused on families in which the

major barrier to reunification was inadequate housing for the family.

According to reports and data from the Arizona Department of Economic

Security, between 1991 and 1995, as the result of the program, 939 children

were reunited with their families, representing almost 12 percent of the

children reunified during this period. State officials estimated that this

program saved the state over $1 million in foster care-related costs

between 1991 and 1995.

States Streamline

Termination Procedures

Arizona and Kentucky placed special emphasis on expediting the process

by which parental rights could be terminated. Arizona’s Severance Project

focused on cases in which termination of parental rights was likely or

reunification services were not warranted and for which a backlog of

cases had developed. In April 1986, the state enacted a law providing funds

for hiring severance specialists and legal staff to work on termination

cases. The following year, in 1987, the state implemented the Arizona State

Adoption Project, which focused on identifying additional adoptive homes,

including recruiting adoptive parents for specific children and contracting

for adoptive home recruitment services. State officials reported that the

Adoption Project resulted in a 54-percent increase in the number of new

homes added to the state registry in late 1987 and 1988. In addition, they

noted that the Severance Project contributed to a more than 32-percent

reduction in the average length of stay between entering care and the filing

of the termination petition for fiscal years 1991 through 1995.

To reduce a backlog of pending cases, Kentucky’s Termination of Parental

Rights Project focused on reducing the time required to terminate parental

rights once a decision has been made to do so. This effort included

retraining caseworkers, lawyers, and judges on the consequences of long

stays in foster care and streamlining and improving the steps caseworkers

must follow when collecting and documenting the information required for

termination procedures. A report on this effort indicated that between

1989 and 1991, the state decreased the average time to terminate parental

rights by slightly more than 1 year. In addition, between 1988 and 1990, the

average length of stay for children in foster care decreased from 2.8 years

to 2.0 years and the average number of different foster care placements for

each child decreased from four to three.4

 However, as the number of

4

Report on Improving Practice: Termination of Parental Rights (Frankfort, Ky.: Kentucky Department

for Social Services, Sept. 1991).

Page 4 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and Placement

Decisions

children available for adoption rose, the state was forced to focus its

efforts on identifying potential adoptive homes and shifted its emphasis to

strategies to better inform the public about the availability of adoptive

children.

Concurrent Planning Can

Lead to Greater Efficiency

Some states are experimenting with concurrent planning. Under this

approach, child welfare officials work toward reuniting a family while

developing an alternate plan for permanently removing the child if

reunification efforts fail. By working on the two plans simultaneously,

caseworkers reduce the time needed to prepare the paperwork for

terminating parental rights if reunification efforts fail. Under a concurrent

planning approach, caseworkers emphasize to the parents that if they do

not adhere to the requirements set forth in their case plan, parental rights

can be terminated. Some state officials attributed obtaining quicker

permanent placements in part to parents making more concerted efforts to

make the changes needed to have their children returned home.

Colorado began using concurrent planning formally in 1994 for children

under age 6 in conjunction with the implementation of the law requiring

that for children under age 6, the permanency hearing must be held within

6 months of the child’s entering care. The program has been implemented

in five counties. Preliminary data from an ongoing evaluation in Jefferson

County shows that 65 out of 78 children, or 87 percent, achieved

permanent placement within 1 year of initial placement as compared with

50 of 71 children, or 70 percent, in a control group. State Department of

Human Services officials told us that concurrent planning was a key factor

that contributed to the success of children’s being placed more quickly in

permanent homes.

Streamlined Procedures

Improve Court Functioning

All decisions regarding both the temporary and final placement of foster

children come through states’ court systems. Therefore, Hamilton County,

Ohio, juvenile court officials focused attention on the court’s involvement

in achieving permanency more quickly by developing new procedures to

expedite case processing. To do so, in 1985, they revised court procedures

by (1) designating lawyers specially trained in foster care issues as

magistrates to hear cases; (2) assigning one magistrate to each case for the

life of that case to achieve continuity; and (3) agreeing at the end of every

hearing—with all participants present—to the date for the next hearing.

Page 5 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and Placement

Decisions

According to court officials, the county saved thousands of dollars

because it could operate three magistrates’ courtrooms for about the cost

of one judge’s courtroom. Also, a report on court activities indicated that

because of these changes, between 1986 and 1990, the number of children

(1) placed in four or more different foster care placements decreased by

11 percent and (2) the percentage of children leaving temporary and

long-term foster care in 2 years or less increased from 37 to 75 percent.

States Have Not Assessed

the Impact of Initiatives

Our efforts to assess the overall impact of these initiatives were hampered

by the absence of evaluation data. We found that the states generally did

not conduct systematic evaluations of their programs, and outcome

information was often limited to state reports and the observations of

state officials. Although many of these efforts reported improvements, for

example, in speeding the termination of parental rights once this goal was

established, the lack of comparison groups or quality data from the period

before the initiative made it difficult to reach definitive conclusions about

the initiatives’ effectiveness.

Key Factors Essential

for Meeting Goals of

Initiatives

States increased their chances of successfully developing and

implementing initiatives when certain key factors were a part of the

process. When contemplating changes, state officials had to take into

consideration the intricacies of the foster care process, the inherent

difficulty that caseworkers and court officials face when deciding whether

a child should be returned home, and the need, in some cases, for

caseworkers and judges to recognize that termination of parental rights

should be pursued.

When Kentucky officials, for example, initiated a project to shorten the

process for terminating parental rights, they faced the challenge of

changing the way caseworkers and members of the legal system had

viewed termination of parental rights. Many caseworkers saw the

termination of parental rights as a failure on their part because they were

not able to reunify the family. As a result, they seldom pursued termination

and instead kept the children in foster care. In addition, judges and

lawyers were often not sufficiently informed of the negative effects on

children who do not have permanent homes. Thus, as part of this project,

newsletters and training were provided about the effects on children of

delaying termination of parental rights.

Page 6 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and Placement

Decisions

Officials in the states we reviewed recognized that improving the

permanency planning process requires concerted time and effort,

coordination, and resources. These officials identified several critical,

often interrelated factors required to meet these challenges. These

included (1) long-term involvement of officials in leadership positions;

(2) involvement of key stakeholders in developing consensus and

obtaining buy-in about the problem and its solution; and (3) the availability

of resources to plan, implement, and sustain the project.

Observations With the expected rise in foster care caseloads through the start of the

next century further straining state and federal child welfare budgets,

increasing pressure will be placed on states to develop initiatives to move

children into permanent homes more quickly. Many of these initiatives will

need to address the difficult issues of deciding under what circumstances

to pursue reunification and what time period is appropriate before seeking

the termination of parental rights.

We found promising initiatives for changing parts of the permanency

process so that children can be moved from foster care into permanent

placements more quickly. Developing and successfully implementing these

innovative approaches takes time and often challenges long-standing

beliefs. To succeed, these initiatives must look to local leadership

involvement, consensus building, and sustained resources.

As these initiatives become a part of the complex child welfare system,

however, they can also create unintended consequences. Identifying

appropriate cases for the expeditious termination of parental rights and

processing them faster—thereby making more children available for

possible adoption—can create difficulties if efforts to develop more

adoptive homes have not received equal emphasis.

We also observed that a critical feature of these initiatives was often

absent: Many of them lacked evaluations designed to assess the impact of

the effort. The availability of evaluation information from these initiatives

would not only point to the relative success or failure of an effort but also

help identify unintended outcomes. The lack of program and evaluation

data will continue to hinder the ability of program officials and

policymakers to fully understand the overall impact of these initiatives.

Page 7 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite

Permanency Hearings and Placement

Decisions

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I will be happy to

answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may

have.

Contributors For more information on this testimony, please call Gale C. Harris,

Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7235. Other major contributors are David

D. Bellis, Social Science Analyst; Shellee S. Soliday and Octavia V. Parks,

Senior Evaluators; Julian Klazkin, Senior Attorney; and Rathi Bose,

Evaluator.

Page 8 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Page 9 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Appendix I 

States That Require a Permanency Hearing

Earlier Than the Federal Requirement of 18

Months (as of December 31, 1996)

State

Requirement for

holding the

permanency hearinga

Year law

or policy

was enacted

State law

citation

State policy/

regulation citation

Arizona 12 months

1995

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann., Section

8-515.C.(West Supp. 1996)

Colorado 6 and 18 monthsb

1994

Colo. Rev. Stat., Section

19-3-702(1)(Supp. 1996)

Connecticut 12 months

1995

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann., Section

46b-129(d),(e) (West 1995)

Delaware 17 months

1987

Child Protective Service

Directive Policy #3026

Georgia 12 months

1996

Ga. Code Ann., Section

15-11-419 (j),(k)(1996)

Illinois 16 months

1993

705 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.,

405/2-22(5)(West Supp. 1996)

Indiana 12 months

1996

Ind. Code Ann., Section

31-6-4-19(c)(Michie Supp.

1996)

Iowa 12 months

1987

Iowa Code Ann., Section

232.104 (West 1994)

Kansas 12 months

1994

Kan. Stat. Ann., Section

38-1565(b),(c)(1995)

Louisiana 12 months

1991

La. Ch. Code Ann., Arts.

702,710(West 1995)

Michigan 15 1/2 monthsc

1988

Mich. Stat. Ann., Section

27.3178(598.19a) (Law Co-op

Supp. 1996)

Minnesota 12 months

1993

Minn. Stat. Ann., Section

260.191 Subd. 3b(West Supp.

1997)

Mississippi 12 months

1985

Miss. Code Ann., Section

43-21-613 (3)(1993)

New Hampshire 12 months

1987

New Hampshire Court

Rules Annotated, Abuse

and Neglect, Guideline

39 (Permanency

Planning Review)d

New Mexico 6 months 1993 State official’s statemente

New York 12 months

1989

N.Y. Jud. Law, Section

1055(b)(McKinney Supp. 1997)

Ohio 12 months

1989

Ohio Rev. Code Ann., Sections

2151.353(F) 2151.415 9 (A)

(Anderson 1994)

Pennsylvania 6 months

1986

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.,

Section 6351(e-g)(West Supp.

1996)

(continued)

Page 10 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Appendix I 

States That Require a Permanency Hearing

Earlier Than the Federal Requirement of 18

Months (as of December 31, 1996)

State

Requirement for

holding the

permanency hearinga

Year law

or policy

was enacted

State law

citation

State policy/

regulation citation

Rhode Island 12 months

1985

R.I. Gen. Laws, Section

40-11-12.1(1990)

South Carolina 12 months

1983

S.C. Code Ann., Section

20-7-766(Law. Co-op. Supp.

1996)

Utah 16 months

1995

Utah Code Ann., Section

78-3a-312, (1996)

Virginia 12 monthsf

1994

Va. Code Ann., Section

16.1-282(Michie 1996)

Washington 12 and 18 monthsg

1994

Wash. Rev. Code Ann.,

Section 13.34.145(3)(4) (West

Supp. 1997)

West Virginia 12 months

1984

W. Va. Code Sections 49-6-5,

49-6-8(1996)

Wisconsin 12 months

1981

Wis. Stat. Ann., Sections

48.355(4); 48.38;

48.365(5)(West 1987)

Wyoming 12 months

1995

Wyo. Stat. Ann., Section

14-6-229 (k)(Michie Supp.

1996)

aGenerally, a permanency hearing must be held within the indicated number of months after the

child enters foster care.

bColorado law requires that for children under age 6, the permanency hearing be held within 6

months from when the child enters care. The time frame to hold the permanency hearing was

calculated by adding the days needed to conduct the adjudicatory, dispositional, and

permanency planning hearings. This expedited procedures program will be implemented on a

county-by-county basis and will be fully implemented in the state by June 30, 2004. For children

aged 6 and older, the permanency hearing is held within 18 months of placement.

cMichigan’s time frame to hold the permanency hearing was calculated by adding the days

needed to conduct the preliminary hearing, trial, dispositional hearing, and the permanency

hearing.

dNew Hampshire law is unclear regarding the time frame to hold the permanency hearing;

therefore, we relied on the “New Hampshire Court Rules Annotated—Statutory Requirements and

Guidelines for Abuse and Neglect,” Guideline 39, which requires that a permanency hearing be

held within 1 year of the child’s placement in foster care.

eNew Mexico law does not refer to permanency hearings. It does require that a dispositional

hearing be conducted every 6 months to review the permanency plan of the child. During this

review, a permanency decision for the child can be made, but this is not required.

f

Virginia’s time frame to hold the permanency hearing was calculated by adding the number of

months required to file the petition to hold the permanency hearing plus the number of days within

which the court is required to schedule the hearing.

gWashington’s law requires the permanency hearing to be held no later than 12 months after a

child is placed in foster care for children 10 years old and under. For children over age 10, the

permanency hearing must be held no later than 18 months after a child is placed in foster care.

Page 11 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Related GAO Products

Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services

(GAO/HEHS-95-208, Sept. 26, 1995).

Child Welfare: Opportunities to Further Enhance Family Preservation and

Support (GAO/HEHS-95-112, June 15, 1995).

Foster Care: Health Needs of Many Young Children Unknown and Unmet

(GAO/HEHS-95-114, May 26, 1995).

Foster Care: Parental Drug Abuse Has Alarming Impact on Young Children

(GAO/HEHS-94-89, Apr. 4, 1994).

Residential Care: Some High-Risk Youth Benefit, But More Study Needed

(GAO/HEHS-94-56, Jan. 28, 1994).

Foster Care: Services to Prevent Out-of-Home Placements Are Limited by

Funding Barriers (GAO/HRD-93-76, June 29, 1993).

Foster Care: State Agencies Other Than Child Welfare Can Access Title

IV-E Funds (GAO/HRD-93-6, Feb. 9, 1993).

Foster Care: Children’s Experiences Linked to Various Factors; Better

Data Need (GAO/HRD-91-64, Sept. 11, 1991).

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

3, 1991).

(106715) Page 12 GAO/T-HEHS-97-76
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100