United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Human Resources, Committee on

Ways and Means, House of

Representatives

May 1997 FOSTER CARE

State Efforts to

Improve the

Permanency Planning

Process Show Some

Promise

GAO/HEHS-97-73

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-270234 

May 7, 1997

The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.

Chairman, Subcommittee on

 Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The mid-1980s through the mid-1990s witnessed dramatic increases in the

number of children placed in foster care to protect them from abuse and

neglect at home. From fiscal year 1984 to 1995, the foster care population

rose from an estimated 276,000 children to 494,000.1

 In 1995, states

received more than $2.8 billion in federal assistance for approximately half

of these 494,000 children in foster care.2

 The Congressional Budget Office

estimates that by 2001, federal costs will rise to $4.8 billion with caseloads

of federally assisted foster care children increasing by almost 26 percent.

Longer stays in foster care have contributed to these rising costs. Many of

these children are among the nation’s most at risk for future problems,

having suffered the effects of both physical and emotional abuse, and

poverty.

The continued growth in the foster care caseload and its associated costs,

as well as the likely adverse effects of long stays in foster care on children,

increase the importance of quickly finding permanent placements for

children. These placements can range from reuniting children with their

parents, to finding adoptive homes and, in increasing numbers, to placing

foster children with relatives. Yet navigating the child welfare system in

pursuit of permanent homes for these children can be a daunting task.

State child welfare agencies—working with many players that include the

courts and public and private service providers—guide a child through

temporary or shelter placements, multiple court hearings, and, as often

happens, more than one foster family placement. This circuitous and

burdensome route to a permanent placement can often take years, cost

1

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.

2

Under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, federal matching funds are provided to states for foster

care maintenance costs for children from families eligible for Aid to Families With Dependent Children

(AFDC). Although legislation passed in 1996 eliminated the AFDC program, children who meet the

1995 eligibility criteria for AFDC will continue to be eligible for title IV-E assistance. The states incur

all foster care costs for children not eligible for federal support.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

thousands of dollars for each child, and have serious emotional

consequences for the children.

The federal government plays an important role in financing foster care

and establishes minimum procedural requirements for the placement

process. The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 

(P.L. 96-272) requires that states conduct a permanency hearing within 18

months after a child enters foster care to determine the future status of the

child.3

 If a final decision is not made, then additional hearings must be

held at least every 12 months. During this time, to be eligible for federal

foster care funds, states are required to facilitate the reunification of

parent and child or, if those efforts fail, begin the process of terminating

parental rights or finding a long-term foster care placement.

Because of your concerns about the length of the permanency planning

process and your interest in improving foster care, you asked us for

information about state efforts to hasten the process and ultimately reduce

the time a child spends in foster care. More specifically, you asked us to

determine (1) what statutory and policy changes states have made to limit

the time allowed to determine permanent placements for foster children,

(2) what changes states or localities have made in their operations in an

attempt to achieve more timely permanent placements and what the

impact of those changes has been, and (3) what factors officials believe

helped them meet the challenges of achieving more timely permanent

placements.

In conducting this work, we collected and summarized state statutory and

policy changes that limited the time allowed for permanent placement

hearings. We also interviewed officials and collected program information

from six states—Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, and

Tennessee—on initiatives that had been implemented between 1987 and

1992 and were expected to achieve more timely permanent placements for

foster children. A complete discussion of our scope and methodology

appears in appendix I.

3

At the permanency hearing, the choices that can be made regarding the future status of the child can

include reunifying the child with his or her family, continuing the child in foster care for a specified

period, placing the child for adoption, or continuing the child in foster care on a permanent or

long-term basis because of the child’s special needs or circumstances. This hearing must be held in a

family or juvenile court or another court of competent jurisdiction or by an administrative body

appointed or approved by the court. Although the hearing must be held, the law does not require that a

final decision on the status of the child be made.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

Results in Brief Signaling the importance of a permanent placement to the well-being of

children, 23 states have enacted laws establishing requirements regarding

the timing of the permanency hearing that are more stringent than those

under federal law. Federal law requires a hearing within 18 months after

the child’s entry into foster care. An additional three states, while not

enacting such statutes, have imposed similar requirements as a matter of

policy.

Statutory or policy changes alone, however, are not sufficient to resolve

the final placement of foster children more quickly. The states we

reviewed have made changes in their operations to facilitate reunifying

children with their families, expedite terminating parental rights when

reunification efforts have failed, or modify the role and operations of the

court both to streamline the process and to make well-informed

permanent placement decisions. While these initiatives focus on certain

stages of the permanency planning process, such as when a child first

enters foster care, two states are implementing major changes to their

overall foster care systems.

Although initiatives are in place, most of these states have not

systematically evaluated the impact of them, and data concerning these

efforts were limited. However, most states did report that many of these

initiatives contributed to reducing the time spent in foster care or

decreasing the total number of placement changes while a child is in foster

care. For example, Tennessee’s Wraparound Funding Project focused on

removing economic barriers to reunification. State officials credited the

effort with helping to reunite children with their families more quickly by

allowing caseworkers to provide services such as payment for respite

care, rent, utility bills, or car repairs, which they were previously unable to

provide because of restrictions on the use of foster care funds. In

Kentucky, a state report indicated that once the decision to terminate

parental rights was made, the Termination of Parental Rights Project

reduced the time it takes to complete the termination procedure by about

1 year, making it possible for adoption proceedings to begin earlier.

State officials identified a number of factors that helped them meet the

challenges involved in making changes. In some cases, child welfare

officials and staff had to undergo significant culture change, modifying

long-held views about the merits of pursuing termination of parental rights

versus family reunification. They found that changing the way they

approached making decisions about the well-being of children and their

families was a lengthy process. To implement these initiatives

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

successfully, program officials believed that it was necessary to have the

long-term and active involvement of key officials at all levels, including the

governor, legislators, and agency officials as well as caseworkers, service

providers, attorneys, and judges. This participation was essential to define

the problem and reach consensus. Doing so required considerable

coordination efforts and an extended commitment of resources.

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

and programs designed to protect children. Today, these systems must

respond to growing numbers of children from families with serious and

multiple problems. Many of these families also need intensive and

long-term interventions to address these problems. 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. In

addition, the continued growth in caseloads expected over the next few

years will give child welfare agencies little relief.

When parents or guardians are unable to care for their children, state child

welfare agencies face the difficult task of providing temporary placements

for children while simultaneously working with a wide array of public and

private service providers, as well as the courts, to determine the best

long-term placement option. The permanency planning process is guided

by federal statute and typically occurs in stages requiring considerable

time. Finding an appropriate placement solution is extremely difficult

because it often involves numerous steps and many different players.

In each case, states must make reasonable efforts to prevent the

placement of a child in foster care. If the child must be removed from the

home, states are required under the Adoption Assistance and Child

Welfare Act to take appropriate steps to make the child’s safe return home

possible. Once removed, if reunification with the parents cannot be

accomplished quickly, a child will be placed in temporary foster care while

state child welfare agencies and community service providers continue to

work with the parents in hope of reunification. To be eligible for federal

funding, the state must demonstrate to the appropriate court that it has

made reasonable efforts to prevent out-of-home placement and to reunify

the family. Federal law further requires that placement be as close as

possible to the parent’s home in the most family-like setting possible.

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

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

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

the state develop a case plan for each child within 60 days of the time the

state agency begins providing services to the child. This plan must

describe services to be provided to aid the family and must outline actions

that will be expected of various agencies and family members to make

reunification possible. States are then required to hold reviews every 6

months before a court or administrative panel to evaluate progress made

toward reaching a permanency goal.4

 If progress toward reunification

cannot be made, state agencies often face the arduous task of either

preparing a case for the termination of parental rights or finding a

long-term foster care placement. The federal requirement of conducting a

permanency hearing within 18 months serves to ensure that child welfare

agencies focus on determining a permanent placement, including return to

the family or adoption, in a timely manner rather than continuing a child in

foster care.

For abused and neglected children, living with their parents may be

unsafe. Yet foster care is not an optimal situation, especially not as a

permanent solution. State child welfare agencies and the courts are

confronted with the dilemma of whether to reunite families as quickly as

possible or keep the children in foster care with the expectation of future

reunification. They must also determine at what point to abandon hope of

reunification, terminate the parents’ rights, and initiate a search for an

adoptive home or other permanent placement for the child. If children are

reunited with their families too quickly, they may return to foster care

because the home environment may still be unstable. On the other hand,

when children remain in foster care too long, it is difficult to reestablish

emotional ties with their families. Furthermore, the chances for adoption

can be reduced because the child is older than the most desirable adoption

age or has developed behavioral problems.

Determining an appropriate placement option for children quickly is of

twofold importance. First, finding permanent placements for children

removed from their families is critical to ensure their overall well-being.

Children without permanent homes and stable caregivers may be more

likely to develop emotional, intellectual, and behavioral problems. A

second reason for placing children more quickly is the financial costs of

children remaining in foster care. The federal share of the average monthly

maintenance payment for title IV-E was $574 in 1996. While some options

4

During these periodic reviews, states must determine if continued temporary placement is necessary

and appropriate, whether the permanency plan is being adequately followed, and what degree of

progress has been made toward reunifying the family. States must also project a likely date for

achieving a permanency goal. If not reviewed by a court, these periodic reviews may be held before

panels including those formed by a child welfare agency or a panel of area citizens.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

for permanent placements, such as providing long-term support to a

relative to care for a child, may not realize cost savings, other options,

such as adoption, will reduce foster care costs. Title IV-E payments,

between fiscal years 1984 and 1996, increased from $435.7 million to an

estimated $3.1 billion.

Statutory and Policy

Changes Require

States to Hold First

Permanency Hearing

Sooner

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

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

months the time between entry into foster care and the first permanency

hearing at which permanent placement is considered. As shown in figure

1, 23 states have enacted such laws, with a majority of these requiring the

hearing to be held within 12 months. In two states, the shorter time frame

applies only to younger children. Colorado requires the permanency

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

requires the hearing to be held within 12 months for children 10 years old

or younger. An additional three states, while not enacting such statutes,

have policies requiring permanency hearings earlier than 18 months. For a

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

appendix II. The remaining 24 states and the District of Columbia have

statutes consistent with the federal requirement of 18 months.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

Figure 1: States That Require a Permanency Hearing Earlier Than the Federal Government, as of December 31, 1996

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

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

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, this requirement was

included in an effort to expedite the permanency planning process and

reduce the time children spend in foster care. However, state officials also

believed that this requirement may have had the unintended result of

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-only funds dropped from 1,301 in 1990 to

779 in 1995, long-term placements for children supported with federal

funds rose from 1,657 to 2,057 for the same period. The reasons for the

difference between these two groups are unknown.

States Make Changes

in Permanency

Planning Process With

Some Positive Results

for Foster Care

Children

Although the states we reviewed did not systematically evaluate the

impact of their initiatives, they implemented a variety of operational and

procedural changes to expedite and improve the permanency process.

Other efforts made changes to the operation of the courts and the use of

resources available to them for making permanency decisions. These

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 efforts

were determined to be unfeasible—thus 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 they

lived. States are also addressing changes in the permanency planning

process through larger reform efforts of their child welfare systems.

However, because these efforts were only recently implemented or were

still in the initial implementation stage, no evaluation information on their

effect was available.

New Service Strategies

Help Reunification Efforts

Two states we reviewed implemented low-cost and creative methods for

financing and providing services that address specific barriers to

reunification. For example, Arizona’s Housing Assistance Program focused

on families where children had been removed and placed in state custody

and the major barrier to reunification was inadequate housing for the

family. In 1989, the state enacted a bill authorizing the use of state foster

care funds to provide special housing assistance. According to state

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

reports summarizing the program and statistics provided by Arizona

Department of Economic Security officials, between 1991 and 1995, 939

children were reunited with their families as a result of this program,

representing almost 12 percent of those children reunified during this

period. This program saved the state over $1 million in foster care-related

costs between 1991 and 1995.

Also, Tennessee’s Wraparound Funding Program allowed caseworkers to

use state funds to provide services that removed economic barriers to

reunification. These services were not typically associated with traditional

reunification services and prior to this program were not allowable foster

care expenditures. Examples include home or car repairs, utilities or rent

payments, and respite care. According to a report summarizing the

program, during one 6-month period in 1995, the program provided

services to 1,279 children. A state Department of Children’s Services

official estimated that had these children remained in care as long as the

average child in foster care, the state would have incurred an additional

$700,000 in state and federal foster care maintenance payments.

States Streamline

Termination Procedures

Regarding other changes, Arizona and Kentucky placed special emphasis

on expediting the process by which parental rights could be terminated.

Arizona’s Severance Project focused on cases where 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 bill 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. This project focused on

identifying additional adoptive homes, including recruiting adoptive

parents for specific children and contracting for adoptive home

recruitment activities. 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 entry into 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 this permanency goal was established. This effort included

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

stays in foster care and streamlining and improving the steps caseworkers

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

must follow when collecting and documenting the information required for

the 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 over 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 years, and the number of different foster care placements for each

child decreased from four to three.5

 However, as the number of children

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

identifying potential adoptive homes and shifted its emphasis to strategies

to better inform the public about the availability of adoptive children.

Concurrent Planning Can

Lead to Greater Efficiency

Tennessee’s Concurrent Planning Program allowed caseworkers to work

toward achieving family reunification while at the same time developing

an alternate permanency plan if reunification efforts did not succeed.6

 The

goal was to obtain permanency for the child by either (1) strengthening

the family and reducing the risks in the home so that the child can be

reunified with his or her family; or (2) verifying that the family cannot

protect the child, meet the child’s needs, or reduce the risks to the child in

a timely manner and that termination of parental rights should be pursued.

By working on the two plans simultaneously, caseworkers reduced the

time required to prepare the necessary paperwork to terminate parental

rights if reunification efforts failed.

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. Since this program was

initiated in 1991, state officials report that 70 percent of the children in the

program obtained permanency, primarily through reunification, within 12

months of placement in foster care. Without this program the children

would have stayed in foster care longer than 12 months. The officials

attributed obtaining quicker permanency in part to parents making more

concerted efforts to make the changes needed to have their children

return home.

5

Report on Improving Practice: Termination of Parental Rights, Kentucky Department for Social

Services (Sept. 1991).

6

The program was used in cases involving children aged 8 and under.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

Use of Community

Resources and Streamlined

Procedures Improve Court

Functioning

All decisions regarding both the temporary and final placement of foster

care children come through states’ court systems. As a result, some states

and counties focused attention on the courts’ involvement in achieving

permanency more quickly. Georgia’s Citizen Review Panel Program

created local advisory panels of private citizens within the child’s

community to assist judges in their review and decisions regarding foster

care placements for each child in care. The objective of these panels is

(1) to gather additional information regarding the placement options for

each foster child—often information that cannot be collected by state

agencies because of large caseloads and limited staff resources—and

(2) to review compliance with court-ordered case plans to ensure that the

state agencies are working toward permanent placements. The program

operates in 56 counties and, in 1996, covered over 42 percent of Georgia’s

foster care population. The state reported that between 1994 and 1996, the

review panels recommended that 5,855 children be placed for adoption,

10,845 children be reunified with their families, and 3,048 children remain

in foster care.

In 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. 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 consistent rulings,

and (3) agreeing at the end of every hearing—while all participants are

present—to the date for the next hearing. According to court officials, the

county saved thousands of dollars because it could operate three

magistrates’ courtrooms for 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 placed in four or more different

foster care placements decreased by 11 percent and the percentage of

children leaving temporary and long-term foster care in 2 years or less

increased from 37 percent to 75 percent.

Even where improvements have been made, there can still be problems

that are beyond the control of officials. According to reports prepared by

court officials, between 1986 and 1989 the number of children in care in

Hamilton County decreased 15 percent. However, in 1992, the number

returned to the 1986 level of about 1,100 children and continued to

increase through the first half of 1996 to about 1,500. According to court

officials, a dramatic rise in crack cocaine use in the county contributed to

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

this sharp increase. Child welfare agencies were unable to readily arrange

for the increased services that these families needed.

Some Initiatives Attempt

Systemwide Changes to

Improve the Permanency

Process

Some states are also addressing the need for quicker permanency as part

of larger initiatives designed to make major changes in their foster care

programs. One state plans to privatize foster care services. Another state

has redesigned its foster care operating policies and procedures to

improve outcomes for children. Because these efforts are recent, no

information on results was available.

Privatization Proposes

Incentives for Speedier

Placements

In 1996, Kansas began privatizing most child welfare services, including

foster care. Two events contributed to this decision. First, because of

rising state costs, the Governor directed all state agencies to consider

privatizing services to reduce the size of the state workforce. Second, the

state had settled a suit brought by the Kansas chapter of the American

Civil Liberties Union citing unacceptable increases in the number of

children in foster care and lengthy stays in care. The goal of privatization

is to allow children in out-of-home placements to experience a minimal

number of placements or to achieve permanency in their lives in the

shortest time possible.

Kansas contracted with private social services agencies for family

preservation services, foster and residential care, and adoption services.

State officials continue to be responsible for determining if the original

charges of dependency, neglect, or abuse are substantiated and to monitor

contractor performance. The contracted service providers are responsible

for providing all services to the families.

Under the contracts, providers will be paid a per-child rate, with a

payment structure that pays contractors for results. For example, in the

foster care contract, 25 percent of costs will be paid at the time of referral,

25 percent upon receipt of the first 60-day progress report, and 25 percent

upon receipt of the 180-day formal case plan. The final 25 percent will not

be paid until reunification or a permanent placement is achieved. If a child

reenters care before 12 months have passed, the contractor is responsible

for all the foster care maintenance costs for out-of-home placement.

Agency Redesign Intended to

Expedite Placement Decisions

Arizona also is pursuing major changes to its child welfare system.

Arizona’s Project Redesign was prompted by a number of fatalities of

young children in foster homes in a very short time. Begun in 1994, this

project focused on writing and implementing new child welfare policies

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

and procedures with a goal of increasing caseworker contact with foster

families and reducing caseworkers’ caseloads and the length of time

children spend in foster care.

The major activities of Project Redesign included rewriting policies and

licensing rules, preparing a new supervisors’ handbook, creating a

mentoring program for new supervisors, developing and implementing a

method to more equitably distribute workload among staff, and creating

the Uniform Case Practice Record. This record methodically guides

caseworkers through all the steps necessary to make a permanent

placement decision. This helps ensure that all the needed information is

available to the courts, thus preventing delays in the process.

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. In general, we found that the states did

not conduct evaluations of their programs, and outcome information was

often limited to state reports and the observations of state officials. While

many of these efforts reported improvements, for example, in speeding the

termination of parental rights once this permanency goal was established,

the lack of comparison groups or quality pre-initiative data made it

difficult to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of these

initiatives.

Several national efforts are under way that may improve the information

available on foster children and facilitate states’ design and

implementation of systematic evaluations in the future. Nationwide, most

states are currently designing or implementing Statewide Automated Child

Welfare Information Systems as required under the title IV-E foster care

program. These systems are to include case-specific data on all children in

foster care and all adopted children placed or provided adoption

assistance by the state or its contractors. From 1994 to 1996, federal funds

have provided up to 75 percent of the costs of planning, design,

development, and installation of these state systems. The Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193),

enacted in August 1996, continues this enhanced federal match through

1997, at which time the federal match rate will be reduced to 50 percent. In

addition, P.L. 104-193 appropriated funds for a national longitudinal study

based on random samples of children at risk of abuse or neglect or

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

determined by a state to have been abused or neglected. This study is to

include state-level data for selected states.7

Key Factors Essential

for Meeting Goals of

New Initiatives

States increased their chances for successfully developing and

implementing new 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 if a child

should be returned home; and the need in some cases to change the

culture of caseworkers and judges to recognize that, in certain cases,

termination of parental rights should be pursued. Some experts believe

that current child welfare practices often discourage caseworkers from

finding permanent placements other than with the biological parents.

Officials in the states we reviewed recognized that addressing these

challenges required 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 concerning the

nature of the problem and the solution; and (3) the availability of

resources to plan, implement, and sustain the project. The following two

examples illustrate these concepts.

Statewide Involvement

Culminates in New Child

Welfare Legislation

In the mid-1980s, Ohio officials began a multiyear effort that culminated

with the state enacting a new child welfare law that became effective in

January 1989. Before enacting this law, the legislature created a task force

whose members were involved in planning throughout the drafting and

passage of legislation. The task force was cochaired by a state senator and

a representative. Other members included state and county child welfare

agency officials, juvenile court judges, attorneys, and county

commissioners. In addition, public hearings were held throughout the

state that provided a forum for input from all parties interested in child

welfare, including private citizens, service providers, caseworkers, judges,

attorneys, and foster care parents.

By involving all interested parties and by providing numerous

opportunities for input, state officials were able to develop consensus on

the problems and solutions and obtain buy-in to the proposed solutions

7

The law states that the study yield data reliable at the state level for as many states as the Secretary of

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines is feasible.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

from program staff. For example, there were numerous discussions about

whether a specific time frame for remaining in temporary foster care

should be stipulated. They ultimately compromised on 12 months plus two

6-month extensions.

Statewide Efforts Shorten

Termination of Parental

Rights Process

In 1988, to shorten the termination of parental rights process, the

Kentucky Department of Social Services collaborated with seven other

agencies to obtain a federal grant to develop new approaches to address

this issue. As part of this effort and to ensure buy-in, the Secretary of

Human Resources appointed a multidisciplinary advisory committee

chaired by a chief Circuit Court judge. Other members of the committee

included representatives from social service agencies, court officials,

attorneys, the legislature, and child welfare advocacy groups. The

committee met quarterly throughout the 2-year project.

Committee members recognized they needed to change the way

caseworkers and members of the legal system viewed termination of

parental rights. Many caseworkers had viewed terminating parental rights

as a failure on their part because they were not able to reunify the family.

As a result, they were reluctant to pursue termination and instead kept the

children in foster care. Also, often judges and lawyers were not sufficiently

informed of the negative consequences for children who do not have

permanent homes. Thus, as part of this project, newsletters and training

were provided about the effects on the child of delaying termination of

parental rights.

After 2 years, many meetings, and retraining caseworkers, state officials

reported that they had reduced the time to complete the termination of

parental rights process by 1 year. Among the changes they believed

contributed to this reduction were (1) simplifying the process caseworkers

follow when providing termination of parental rights information to the

attorneys that handle these cases and (2) using an absent parent search

handbook, which was developed to assist caseworkers in conducting more

timely and complete searches.

Conclusions Many of the children in foster care are among the nation’s most vulnerable

citizens. The consequences of long spells in foster care and multiple

placements, coupled with the effects of poverty, highlight the need for

quick resolution of placement questions for these children. With the

expected rise in foster care caseloads through the start of the next century

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

further straining state and federal child welfare budgets, increasing

pressure will be placed on states to develop strategies to move children

into permanent placements more quickly. Many of these initiatives will

need to address the difficult issues of deciding under what circumstances

to pursue reunification and what time 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 out of 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 new initiatives become a part of the complex child welfare system,

however, they can also create unintended consequences. For example, if

states are identifying appropriate cases for the quicker termination of

parental rights and processing them more expeditiously—thereby freeing

more children for possible adoption—additional problems can occur if

efforts to develop more adoptive homes have not been given equal

emphasis. Also, if states require more stringent time frames for holding

permanency hearings, they must adjust to this shorter time to avoid

placements based on expedience rather than careful deliberation about

what is best for the child.

We also found 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

such information could assist in identifying unintended outcomes. The

absence 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. Efforts are under way, however, to improve the

availability of information on foster children.

Agency Comments In its written comments on a draft of this report, HHS generally concurred

with the conclusions in this report. It agreed that efforts to improve the

timeliness of permanent placements are important and indicated that they

are a priority of the department. HHS also commented that it would be

useful to include a definition of permanency planning in the report, and we

revised the report in response to this comment. Although federal

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
B-270234 

requirements establish some guidelines, variation in state policies and

priorities make the development of a single definition difficult. Finally, the

department recognized the benefits of presenting different approaches to

speeding the permanency planning processes while stressing the need for

systemic changes. Because of the complex nature of the child welfare

system, we agree that states and localities must consider the entire system

when attempting to make reforms.

We have incorporated the department’s technical comments into our

report where appropriate. See appendix III for HHS’ comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of HHS, state child

welfare agencies, and other interested parties. Copies also will be made

available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions

about this report, please call me at (202) 512-7215. Other major

contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Mark V. Nadel

Associate Director,

Income Security Issues

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

20

Appendix II 

States That Require a

Permanency Hearing

Earlier Than the

Federal Requirement

of 18 Months, as of

December 31, 1996

22

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Department of Health

and Human Services

24

Appendix IV 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

26

Related GAO Products 28

Figure Figure 1: States That Require a Permanency Hearing Earlier Than

the Federal Government, as of December 31, 1996

7

Abbreviations

AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Page 19 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

To identify states that have enacted laws or implemented policies

establishing requirements regarding the timing of the first permanency

hearing that are more stringent than those under federal law, we reviewed

pertinent state legislation and policies of 50 states and the District of

Columbia. We also discussed those laws and state policies with state legal

and child welfare officials. Federal law allows the hearing to be held as

late as 18 months after the child’s entry into foster care, but state laws

vary widely in the terms they use for various hearings. In cases where state

law did not specifically identify a hearing as a permanency hearing, we

asked for further clarification from state officials. If we determined that

the state law was consistent with the federal requirement, we treated the

required hearing as a permanency hearing.

To determine what changes states and localities have made to achieve

more timely permanent placements and factors that contributed to their

success, we first reviewed literature on foster care and permanency

planning. In addition, we discussed permanency planning and permanent

placement decisions with experts in the field, including child welfare

officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In the course of our

discussions with state officials and experts, we identified specific state

and local initiatives that were attempting to permanently place foster care

children in a more timely manner.

We selected six states that had implemented initiatives that addressed

making more timely permanent placements for children in foster care. The

states were Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Each state selected had at least one initiative that was implemented

between 1989 and 1992, ensuring that we would be able to obtain

historical information about the planning and implementation of those

initiatives and that the initiatives had been in place long enough to have

some impact. We included states that had initiatives that addressed

different aspects of the permanency process. We also included states with

statutory requirements for holding the first permanency hearing that were

stricter than the federal requirement as well as states with requirements

that were consistent with the federal requirement.

We conducted site visits in four of the six states—Georgia, Kansas,

Kentucky, and Tennessee—and obtained information from Arizona and

Ohio through telephone interviews. We interviewed state and county

foster care and adoption officials and juvenile court officials and collected

information on the initiatives, including descriptions of program goals and

objectives and factors that facilitated change, reports on program results,

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

and other statistical information on the foster care population. We did not

verify program data from these states.

We did our work between January 1996 and January 1997 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Appendix II 

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 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 (A)

(Anderson 1994)

Pennsylvania 6 months 1986 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann., Section

6351(e-g)(West Supp. 1996)

Rhode Island 12 months 1985 R.I. Gen. Laws, Section

40-11-12.1(1990)

(continued)

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Appendix II 

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 was

enacted State law citation

State policy/ regulation

citation

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., Sections

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 must be held within

6 months from the time a 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 for holding the permanency hearing;

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

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 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 23 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Appendix IV 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Gale C. Harris, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7235

Shellee S. Soliday, Evaluator-in-Charge, (404) 679-1950

Staff

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Diana Eisenstat served as an adviser;

David D. Bellis, Octavia V. Parks, and Rathi Bose coauthored the report

and contributed significantly to all data-gathering and analysis efforts.

Also, Julian P. Klazkin provided legal analysis of state statutes.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Page 27 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
Related GAO Products

Child Welfare: States’ Progress in Implementing Family Preservation and

Support Activities (GAO/HEHS-97-34, Feb. 18, 1997).

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).

(106710) Page 28 GAO/HEHS-97-73 State Efforts Show Some Promise
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