African American Children In Foster Care: Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care
Published: 2007-07-11T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: A significantly greater proportion of African American children are in foster care than children of other races and ethnicities, according to HHS and other research. Given this situation, GAO was asked to analyze the (1) major factors influencing the proportion of African American children in foster care, (2) extent that states and localities have implemented promising strategies, and (3) ways in which federal policies may have influenced African American representation in foster care. GAO's methodologies included a nationwide survey; a review of research and federal policies; state site visits; analyses of child welfare data; and interviews with researchers, HHS officials, and other experts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: A higher rate of poverty is among several factors contributing to the higher proportion of African American children entering and remaining in foster care. Families living in poverty have greater difficulty accessing housing, mental health, and other services needed to keep families stable and children safely at home. Bias or cultural misunderstandings and distrust between child welfare decision makers and the families they serve are also viewed as contributing to children's removal from their homes into foster care. African American children also stay in foster care longer because of difficulties in recruiting adoptive parents and a greater reliance on relatives to provide foster care who may be unwilling to terminate the parental rights of the child's parent--as required in adoption--or who need the financial subsidy they receive while the child is in foster care. Most states we surveyed reported using strategies intended to address these issues, such as involving families in decisions, building community supports, and broadening the search for relatives to care for children. HHS provides information and technical assistance, but states reported that they had limited capacity to analyze data and formulate strategies, and states we visited told us they relied on assistance from universities or others. States reported that the ability to use federal funding for family support services was helpful in keeping African American children safely at home and that federal subsidies for adoptive parents helped move children out of foster care. However, they also expressed concerns about the inability to use federal child welfare funds to provide subsidies to legal guardians. As an alternative to adoption, subsidized guardianship is considered particularly promising for helping African American children exit from foster care. States were also concerned about the lack of flexibility to use federal foster care funds to provide services for families, although states can use other federal funds for this purpose if they consider it a priority.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Children of all races are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and neglect,  according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS)  National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS); however, HHS  data show that a significantly greater proportion of African American  children enter and remain in foster care than children of other races and  ethnicities. African-American children across the nation were more than  twice as likely to enter foster care compared with White children in 2004,  and African American children remained in foster care about 9 months  longer. On the last day of fiscal year 2004, African American children  totaled 162,911—or 34 percent—of the 482,541 children in foster care,  according to HHS data—about twice their proportions in the general child  population. Although there is great variability among and within the states,  data from nearly all states show some disproportionate representation of  African American children in foster care. State data also show patterns of  disproportionate representation in foster care for Native American  children and, in certain localities, Hispanics and Asian subgroups are also  disproportionately represented to some extent.
About 60 percent of children who enter foster care do so through reports  of child abuse or neglect provided to a state’s child welfare system. Child  welfare staff screen and investigate reports of child maltreatment, and  make decisions about whether a child can remain safely at home, with or  without family support services, or must be immediately removed and  placed in foster care. The decision to place a child in foster care is  subsequently presented before a judge who evaluates the evidence for  removal from home and either corroborates or overturns the decision.
After entering a child in foster care, child welfare staff develop case plans  that are approved by the courts outlining steps parents must take before a  child can return home or, for children the courts decide cannot safely be  returned home, establishing other permanency goals for them, such as  adoption or legal guardianship. States have the primary responsibility for  establishing the legal and administrative structures and programs of their  child welfare services; however, federal legislation and regulations  establish a framework within which states make their programmatic and  fiscal decisions. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is  the principal federal agency that provides federal oversight of states’ child  welfare systems. HHS administers about $8 billion in funds each year that  are dedicated to support states’ child welfare systems. HHS also  administers social services block grant programs, such as Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and states generally spend about  $12 billion of these funds to provide direct social services. States use these  block grant funds to benefit various populations, including child welfare  families.
Concerned about why African American children are overrepresented in  foster care, you asked us to analyze:  (1) The major factors that have been identified as influencing the  proportion of African American children entering and remaining in  foster care compared to children of other races and ethnicities;    (2) The extent that states and localities have implemented strategies that  appear promising in addressing African American representation in  foster care; and  (3) The ways in which key federal child welfare policies may have  influenced African American representation in foster care.
To address these three objectives, we used multiple methodologies,  including administering a state survey; conducting site visits; interviewing  researchers and federal agency officials; conducting a literature review;  and analyzing federal legislation and policies. Although we focused on  African American children in this report, we also noted points of similarity  or difference with children of other races and ethnicities as appropriate.  Specifically, we conducted a nationwide Web-based survey of state child  welfare administrators in 50 states and the District of Columbia between  November 2006 and January 2007 and received responses from 48 states.  In developing the survey, we relied upon a literature review to identify  issues, such as factors that contribute to disproportionality, as well as  interviews with child welfare researchers and others. To obtain a more in- depth understanding of issues, we conducted site visits to California,  Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and North Carolina, where we interviewed  state and local child welfare officials, juvenile court judges, and others  involved in the child welfare systems. In addition we conducted telephone  interviews with Texas state and local child welfare officials, service  providers, and a judge. When viewed as a group, the states we visited  reflected diversity in their rates of African American representation in  foster care, strategies and initiatives used to address this  disproportionality, program administration (state administered and county  administered), and geographic location. In addition, the states we selected  collectively covered nearly one-third of children in foster care across the  nation. To extend our understanding, we interviewed child welfare  researchers identified through our literature review and through  recommendations from child welfare officials and stakeholders for their  knowledge on issues of racial disproportionality in foster care. We also  interviewed HHS officials responsible for foster care programs and related  data, as well as federal officials at the Justice Department, Office of  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which is required  by law to address racial disproportionality in the juvenile justice systems.  In addition, we conducted an extensive literature review of research on  racial disproportionality in foster care and strategies used by states and  others to address this issue. In reporting our findings, we drew upon  research publications our methodologists considered generally reliable  and methodologically sound. We analyzed federal child welfare legislation  and policies relevant to foster care that our literature review and  interviews had indicated might have an impact on racial  disproportionality. Finally, we also analyzed HHS data on foster care and  adoptive children that state child welfare agencies submit biannually to  the agency under its foster care and adoption reporting system. We also  confirmed the reliability of these data for our purposes. We conducted our  work between June 2006 and June 2007 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The HHS National Incidence Study has shown since the early 1980s that  children of all races and ethnicities are equally likely to be abused or  neglected; however, African American children, and to some extent other  minority children, have been significantly more likely to be represented in  foster care, according to HHS data and other research. Nationally, African  American children made up less than 15 percent of the overall child  population in the 2000 Census, but they represented 27 percent of the  children who entered foster care during fiscal year 2004, and they  represented 34 percent of the children remaining in foster care at the end  of that year, as shown in figure 1.
African American children were more likely to be placed in foster care  than White or Hispanic children, and at each decision point in the child  welfare process the disproportionality of African American children  grows. Although racial disproportionality is most severe and pervasive for  African American children, Native American children also experience  higher rates of representation in foster care than children of other races or  ethnicities. Just over 2 percent of children in foster care at the end of fiscal  year 2004 were Native Americans, while they represented less than 1  percent of children in the United States. However, there can be significant  variation by state and county. It is especially important to understand local  variations for Hispanic and Asian children, since they are  underrepresented in foster care nationally and in most states, but are  overrepresented in some counties and states. For example, in a single  county in California, Hispanic children represented 30 percent of the  population but 52 percent of the county’s child welfare cases.
There are various options for placing children in temporary and  permanent homes through the child welfare system. Temporary options  include foster care with relatives or non-relatives—whether licensed or  unlicensed—and group residential settings. According to HHS,  approximately one-fourth of the children in out-of-home care are living  with relatives, and this proportion is higher for Hispanic and African  American families. For permanent placements, adoption and guardianship  are options under federal law in addition to the child’s reunification with  their parents. One important difference is that adoption entails terminating  parental rights, while guardianship does not. (See table 1.)
subsections: section_title: Federal Foster Care and Adoption Legislation
paragraphs: In the last decade, several federal laws have been enacted to help states  reduce the number of children who enter and remain in foster care. These  laws include the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended in 1996  by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions included in the Small Business Job  Protection Act (MEPA-IEP). MEPA-IEP is intended to eliminate race- related barriers to adoption by prohibiting foster care and adoption  agencies that receive federal funds from delaying or denying placement  decisions on the basis of race, color, or national origin of either the  adoptive or foster parent or child. MEPA-IEP also required states to  diligently recruit potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the  ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state who need foster care and  adoptive homes. MEPA-IEP was followed by the Adoption and Safe  Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), which established expedited time frames to  place children in permanent homes through reunification, adoption, or  guardianship and for terminating parental rights. ASFA recognized that  guardianship may be an appropriate permanency option for some children  in foster care and it encouraged adoption by establishing adoption  incentive payments for states. The Promoting Safe and Stable Families  (PSSF) program also created under ASFA supported the need to  strengthen and reunify families. This program expanded dedicated funding  for services that could help prevent the removal of children from their  homes or could expedite children’s return home from foster care. In  addition to family preservation and community-based support services,  PSSF services include time-limited reunification services and adoption  promotion and support services. States are required to allocate “significant  portions” of their funding for each of these four service categories. (See  table 2.)
One of the prerequisites to finding children temporary and permanent  homes is for states to ensure that criminal background checks have been  conducted for prospective foster care and adoptive parents. Congress had  prohibited states from receiving federal foster care or adoption assistance  support on behalf of eligible children who are placed in the home of a  foster or adoptive parent who had certain types of convictions. States  had been allowed to opt out of certain federal criminal background  requirements by providing alternative plans to ensure children’s safety,  which were assessed as part of an HHS review process. According to HHS,  eight states had been approved to use alternative plans. However,  requirements for conducting federal background checks have recently  changed: a provision of the Adam Walsh Safety and Protection Act of  2006, which was developed in response to concerns about child  predators, establishes additional federal requirements for criminal  background checks of prospective foster or adoptive parents and  eliminates states’ ability to opt out of the federal requirements, effective  October 2008.
section_title: Foster Care Financing
paragraphs: Federal funds account for approximately half of states’ total reported  spending for child welfare services, with the rest of funding coming from  states and localities. In fiscal year 2004, total federal spending on child  welfare was estimated to be $11.7 billion based on analysis of data from  over 40 states. These federal funds come from sources that are dedicated  to child welfare as well as those that are provided to states under the  federal block grant structure for broader purposes.
Titles IV-E and IV-B of the Social Security Act are the principal sources of  federal funds dedicated for child welfare activities. Title IV-E provides the  majority of dedicated federal funds for support payments to foster  families, adoption assistance, and related administrative costs on behalf of  children who meet certain federal eligibility criteria. Title IV-E foster care  maintenance and adoption assistance payments are authorized as open- ended entitlements. States may claim federal reimbursement for a  specified amount of the costs for every eligible child who is placed in a  licensed foster home. In addition, Title IV-E established subsidies paid to  families who provide adoptive homes to children who states identify as  having special needs that make placement difficult. In 2003, 2004, and  2005, states designated more than 80 percent of adoptions as special needs  adoptions enabling families to receive federal financial subsidies,  according to HHS data. Total federal expenditures, including  administrative costs, for Title IV-E programs were about $6.8 billion in  fiscal year 2006. Title IV-B authorizes funds to states for broad child  welfare purposes, including child protection, family preservation, and  adoption services. In contrast to Title IV-E funds, Title IV-B funds are  appropriated annually and totaled about $700 million in 2006.
Federal block grants such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (TANF) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) provide additional  sources of funds that states can use for child welfare purposes. Block  grants and other sources of non-dedicated funds made up about 44 percent  of total federal funds spent on child welfare in 2004, or about $5.2 billion,  according to the most recent research available. Under these block  grants, states have discretion to provide direct social services for various  populations, including child welfare families, the elderly, and people with  disabilities. (See fig. 2.)
In 1994, the Congress authorized the use of flexible funding demonstration  waivers to encourage innovative and effective child welfare practices.  These waivers, typically authorized for 5 years, allowed states to use Title  IV-E funds to provide services and supports other than foster care  maintenance payments. For example, states could use waivers to provide  subsidies to legal guardians or services to caregivers with substance abuse  problems. Waiver demonstrations must remain cost-neutral to the federal  government and they must undergo rigorous program evaluation to  determine their effectiveness. As of May 2007, according to HHS, 14 states  have one or more approved Title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration  projects, involving one or more programmatic components, such as  subsidized guardianship. With regard to guardianship specifically, four  states have completed demonstrations that involved subsidized  guardianships as of May 2007, seven states have active guardianship  demonstrations, and one state has not yet implemented its guardianship  demonstration. HHS’s ability to approve new Title IV-E waivers expired in  2006, however, and Congress has not reauthorized this program.
The Administration’s fiscal year 2008 budget proposes, for the fifth  consecutive year, to implement a “Child Welfare Program Option,” which  would restructure the Title IV-E foster care program. Under this proposal,  states could forego open-ended entitlement foster care funding in  exchange for a pre-determined grant. Unlike the open-ended funds, the  grant could be spent on the entire range of child welfare purposes and for  any child (regardless of the child’s federal foster care eligibility status).  States taking this option would need to continue to ensure child safety  protections, maintain existing state funding for child welfare, and  participate in federal assessments of state child welfare programs, known  as Child and Family Services Reviews. Under this proposal, the Title IV-E  Adoption Assistance program would continue as an entitlement program,  according to an HHS official. In 2006, HHS approved two states to pilot the  program option over the next 5 years under its Title IV-E waiver  demonstration authority, which expired in that year. Final evaluation  results for these pilots will not be available for at least 5 years.
section_title: HHS Assessments of State Programs and Technical Assistance to States
paragraphs: States are required to enact policies and meet certain federal standards  related to child welfare programs, and HHS evaluates how well state child  welfare systems achieve these federal standards through its Child and  Family Services Reviews (CFSR). Implemented in 2001, these reviews  focus on states’ performance in ensuring children’s safety, permanency,  and well-being over a range of child welfare services, using various  outcome measures. To address any areas identified as not in substantial  conformity with these outcome measures, the state develops a program  improvement plan. To evaluate states’ performance on these measures,  HHS also relies, in part, on its Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and  Reporting System (AFCARS) to capture, report, and analyze information  collected by the states. In addition, AFCARS is used to generate annual  reports on foster care and adoption programs nationwide.
HHS provides states with training and technical assistance to help them  develop and implement their CFSR performance improvement plans, build  state agency capacity, and improve the state child welfare system.  Technical assistance providers in this network include HHS’s Children’s  Bureau, 10 regional offices, and various National Resource Centers. An  additional resource is the department’s Child Welfare Information  Gateway, a Web site that provides access to information and resources to  help protect children and strengthen families.
section_title: States Report Poverty and Difficulty in Finding Permanent Homes Are among Major Factors Influencing African Americans’ Entry and Length of Stay
paragraphs: A complex set of interrelated factors influence the disproportionate  number of African American children who enter foster care as well as  their longer lengths of stay, and our review found that poverty and the lack  of appropriate homes are particularly influential. Major factors affecting  children’s entry into foster care included African American families’ higher  rates of poverty, families’ difficulties in accessing support services so that  they can provide a safe home for vulnerable children and prevent their  removal, and racial bias and cultural misunderstanding among child  welfare decision makers. Factors often cited as affecting African American  children’s length of stay in foster care included the lack of appropriate  adoptive homes for children, greater use of kinship care among African  Americans, and parents’ lack of access to supportive services needed for  reunification with their children.
subsections: section_title: Higher Rates of Poverty, Lack of Support Services, and Racial Bias Viewed as Increasing African American Children’s Entry into Foster Care
paragraphs: In responding to our survey, states considered three main groups of  factors as contributing to African American children’s entry into foster  care:  These groups included high rates of poverty and other poverty- related issues, challenges in accessing supports and services in  impoverished communities, and racial bias or cultural misunderstanding  among decision makers.
subsections: section_title: Higher Rates of Poverty
paragraphs: Of the many factors that have been found to influence African American  children’s disproportionate entry into foster care, the most often cited  factors that emerged in our survey were African American families’ higher  rates of poverty and issues related to living in poverty. Poverty-related  factors included the large number of single parents among African  American households, a high rate of substance abuse, and greater contact  with public officials who have mandatory responsibilities to report  incidents of abuse and neglect. (See fig. 3.)
In our survey, poverty was cited as a key factor for entry: 33 states  reported that high rates of poverty in African American communities may  increase the disproportionate number of African American children  entering foster care compared to children of other races and ethnicities.  Researchers and child welfare officials in states we visited also noted the  importance of poverty as a contributing factor. Across the nation, an  estimated 23 percent of all African American families lived below the  poverty level compared to only 6 percent of Whites, making African  Americans nearly four times more likely to live in poverty, according to  U.S. Census data. Since foster care programs primarily serve children  from low-income families, this could account for some of the  disproportionate number of African American children in the foster care  system. However, our review of our survey results, interviews, and studies  indicate that factors unrelated to poverty are also at play in foster care  placements.
In addition, child welfare directors in 25 states reported that the greater  number of African American single-parent households was also a factor  contributing to African American children’s entry into foster care to at  least a moderate extent. According to the most recent National Incidence  Study, children of single parents had a 77 to 87 percent greater risk of  harm than children from two-parent families. Across the nation, 35  percent of African American family households were headed by single  females with children under 18 years of age compared to 9 percent for  Whites and 19 percent for Hispanics, according to U.S. Census data. In  addition, nearly half of the child welfare directors responding to our  survey considered higher rates of substance abuse in African American  households as contributing to the proportion of African American children  in foster care. (See fig. 3.) Despite this perception, national data show that  African Americans have nearly the same rate of substance abuse as  Whites. However, 65 percent of African American children were removed  from their homes because of parental substance abuse and placed in foster  care, compared to 58 percent of White children, according to our analysis  of AFCARS fiscal year 2004 data. Finally, child welfare directors in 14  states responded that African American children’s greater contact with  officials mandated to report child abuse and neglect played a role in the  children’s entry to foster care. Several researchers we interviewed noted  that low-income families come into contact with a greater number of  mandated reporters because they have more interaction with some public  services. In fact, as noted in an HHS report, the top three sources of  reports to child protective services hotlines in 2003 were educational staff,  law enforcement officials, and social services personnel, of which the  latter two disproportionately interact with low-income individuals.
section_title: Challenges in Accessing Supports and Services
paragraphs: In our survey, African American families’ challenges in accessing supports  and social services was also viewed as influencing African American  children’s entry to foster care. African American and other families living  in impoverished neighborhoods often do not have access to the kinds of  supports and services that can prevent problems in the home from leading  to abuse or neglect. Such supports and services include affordable and  adequate housing, substance abuse treatment, and family services such as  parenting skills and counseling. Access to legal representation in courts  responsible for making decisions about children reported to have been  abused or neglected was also as a factor as influencing African American  children’s entry into foster care. (See fig. 4.)
According to our survey, child welfare directors in 25 states reported that  the lack of affordable housing options was a factor that may increase the  proportion of African American children entering foster care to at least a  moderate extent. For low-income families, affordable public housing is a  critical support that can help families stay together and allow for in-home  services, thereby decreasing the chances of children being removed from  their families, but in some areas, there is a shortage. For example, child  welfare officials in a California county told us they have a waiting list  estimated at around 20,000 applicants for public housing. Families  involved in the child welfare system often live in communities that lack  resources and services, including drug treatment services and job training,  which they either do not receive or must travel long distances to obtain,  according to an HHS study. In our survey, 25 states reported that the lack  of substance abuse treatment and 24 states reported that the limited  access to preventive services were factors that may increase the  proportion of African American children entering foster care to at least a  moderate extent. The state survey responses may reflect the fact that a  higher percentage of African American families live in impoverished  neighborhoods that lack such resources. Child welfare officials in all of  the states we visited as well as researchers noted that lack of adequate  supportive services contributed to disproportionality. For example, during  a site visit, a Minnesota child welfare official noted that wealthier families  may be able to draw upon support services, like family and substance  abuse counseling, that can help keep the children with their families.  However, poorer families, without access to supportive services, may have  a more difficult time weathering a problem such as substance abuse or  emotional issues. Even after they are reported to child welfare, families  can have difficulty in gaining access to the types of services that would  allow a child to remain with the family and risk being removed to foster  care. According to HHS’s 2005 Child Maltreatment report, about 40 percent  of children identified as victims of maltreatment do not receive services  such as counseling and family support services. With regard to substance  abuse treatment services, one study found significant gaps in services for  families involved with the child welfare system, with only 31 percent of at- risk children and families with substance abuse problems receiving  treatment. There is also some evidence that African American families, in  particular, are not offered the same amount of support services when they  are brought to the attention of the child welfare system. As one study  found, race was a significant factor in whether families received mental  health related services, even after controlling for age, type of  maltreatment, behavior of the child, and gender. A Texas state child  welfare official reiterated this point, telling us that in her experience,  African American children are less likely than children of other races or  ethnicities to receive in-home services.
According to 20 states responding to our survey, once African American  families come into contact with the child welfare system, they often have  difficulties obtaining adequate legal representation in court, and this  contributed to their disproportionate numbers in foster care. Local court  officials and others we interviewed observed that higher income families  can afford private legal representation, which can help prevent their  child’s removal to foster care, but lower-income parents usually do not  have this option. In one state we visited, we were told that public  attorneys assigned to child welfare families often do not meet parents  before they appear in court and have little time to review case files, putting  parents at a disadvantage in unfamiliar legal settings. In addition, the Pew  Commission on Children in Foster Care found that parents in dependency  hearings were often inadequately represented because of a lack of time,  preparation, and resources, including attorney compensation.
section_title: Distrust and Racial Bias or Cultural Misunderstanding
paragraphs: Coupled with African American parents’ greater distrust of the child  welfare system, racial bias or cultural misunderstanding among decision  makers also emerged in our survey as major factors contributing to the  disproportionate number of African American children entering foster  care. These decision makers include mandated reporters, child welfare  caseworkers, and those involved in judicial rulings about these children.  (See fig. 5.)
Families’ distrust of the child welfare system was cited by child welfare  directors in 28 states as a factor contributing to the entry of African  American children into foster care to at least a moderate extent. According  to state child welfare officials and some researchers we interviewed,  African American families’ distrust of the child welfare system stems from  their perception that the system is unresponsive to their needs and racially  biased against them. Child welfare officials and researchers said that many  African Americans in poor communities perceive child welfare  caseworkers as more intent on separating African American parents from  their children than on working within their communities to address child  safety issues. As an example of how this dynamic might occur, a  neighborhood-based service provider we interviewed in California  described a situation in which a mother fleeing domestic violence at home  did not seek public services for herself and her children—despite the  evident need for clothing and therapy—because child welfare had once  before removed her children and she did not trust the system to be helpful.
These experiences in turn can shape the families’ dynamics in their initial  contacts with mandated reporters, caseworkers, and judges. Casey Family  Programs staff in an interview noted that African American families in  such circumstances may not seek services because of such distrust, which  in turn increases the risk of a child’s removal.
In our survey, 23 state child welfare directors reported that they  considered racial bias or cultural misunderstanding on the part of those  reporting abuse or neglect, such as teachers, medical professionals, or  police officers, as a factor in the disproportionate representation of  African American children entering foster care to at least a moderate  extent. In support of this view, some studies have found that medical  professionals are more likely to report low-income or minority children to  child protective services, even controlling for other factors, such as type of  abuse. In addition, bias or cultural misunderstanding on the part of child  welfare caseworkers and juvenile and family court judges are viewed as  playing a role in the proportion of African American children entering  foster care. In our survey, child welfare directors in 21 states reported that  caseworker bias, cultural misunderstanding, or inadequate training was a  factor that contributes to entry. To a lesser extent, bias or cultural  misunderstanding was considered a factor in judicial rulings as well. HHS  and a few state child welfare officials we interviewed also noted that class  and educational differences between caseworkers and families also  contributed to cultural misunderstandings. As one researcher noted, even  well-meaning decision makers at any stage of the child welfare process  may have faulty assumptions about racial, ethnic, or socio-economic  groups.
Studies that have tried to control for other factors to determine if race or  racial bias was a predictor for entry into foster care have produced varied  results. One study using California data found that, after controlling for  poverty and maltreatment, African American children were more likely to  be removed from their homes and placed in foster care compared to White  children, when income was accounted for. However, another study using  Baltimore, Maryland, data found African American children did not have  an increased likelihood of being removed from their homes and placed in  foster care. Although research on racial bias or race as a predictor for  entry into foster care is not always consistent, a recent review of the  current literature by the Casey-Center for the Study of Social Policy  Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child Welfare System concluded that race  is an important factor that affects the decision to place children into foster  care.
section_title: Difficulties in Finding Permanent Homes and Achieving Reunification May Increase Time in Foster Care for African American Children
paragraphs: In responding to our survey, states considered certain groups of factors as  contributing to African American children’s length of stay in foster care,  thereby increasing their disproportionality:  These included challenges in  finding appropriate adoptive homes for those unable to be reunified with  their families, the impact of kinship foster care on length of stay, and other  challenges affecting children’s ability to exit foster care to be reunified  with their families.
subsections: section_title: Challenges in Finding Appropriate Adoptive Homes
paragraphs: Certain factors made finding permanent homes for African American  children more challenging, according to states responding to our survey,  thereby contributing to longer lengths of stay for African American  children. These factors included an insufficient number of appropriate  adoptive homes, difficulties in finding families that will adopt older  African American children, and the belief that African American children  are more likely to be diagnosed as having special needs. (See fig. 6.)
State officials from 29 states cited the insufficient number of appropriate  adoptive homes as a factor that may increase African American children’s  length of stay in foster care to at least a moderate extent. For African  American children, lengths of stays in foster care averaged 9 months  longer compared to White children in 2004, according to our analysis of  AFCARS data. This is partly due to the fact that African American children  constituted nearly half of the children legally available for adoption in 2004  and waited significantly longer than other children for an adoptive  placement. State officials we interviewed described challenges in  recruiting appropriate adoptive families for African American children.  These challenges include the difficulty many states have in recruiting  adoptive families of the same race and ethnicity of the children waiting for  adoption and the unwillingness of some families to adopt a child of  another race. An additional challenge was finding adoptive African  American families who are able to meet state licensing requirements,  including housing and background checks, for an appropriate adoptive  home. In New York, for example, local officials explained that state  requirements for a certain number of bedrooms can prevent poor African  American families from being able to meet licensing requirements needed  for adoption—this can be especially an issue in high-cost urban areas in  which there is limited affordable housing. In three states we visited, child  welfare officials also told us that African American families who were  interested in adopting were sometimes prevented from doing so because a  member of the household had a prior criminal record, even though child  welfare officials had determined that the person would not be a risk to the  child.
The age of foster children awaiting adoption also contributes to the  challenges in finding appropriate adoptive families, with greater  difficulties in placing older children. According to research, prospective  adoptive parents are more inclined to adopt younger children, and older  children may also have less interest in being adopted. In our survey, 21  states reported that a factor accounting for the longer lengths of stay for  African American children waiting to be adopted was that many of them  were also older. According to a 2003 study comparing a cohort of  children whose parents’ rights were terminated at the same time, children  who were both older and African American had longer wait times between  the termination of parental rights and adoption. State officials we visited  echoed this finding, noting that child welfare agencies have a difficult time  trying to find adoptive homes, particularly for older African American  children.
In our survey, 16 states also considered the greater likelihood of African  American children being diagnosed as having medical and other special  needs as a factor affecting African American’s length of stay to at least a  moderate extent. According to HHS data, African American children in  foster care in 2004 were only slightly more likely to have been diagnosed  as having medical conditions or other disabilities (28 percent) than White  children in foster care (26 percent). Children with special needs may  require additional support services, and some African American families  may have less access to support services that would enable them to take  on this extra responsibility. The impact on African American children is  supported by HHS adoption data that shows that 23 percent of African  American children who were adopted out of foster care had a medical  condition or disability, compared to 31 percent of White children in the  same category.
section_title: Kinship Care
paragraphs: African American children are more likely than White and Asian children  to enter into the care of relatives. Although kinship care is associated  with longer lengths of stay, child welfare researchers and officials we  interviewed consider these placements to be positive options for African  American children because they are less stressful to the child and maintain  familial ties. In addition, some researchers associate the use of kinship  care with fewer foster care placements and lower rates of re-entry.  Kinship care also has some drawbacks. For example, a 1999 GAO study  found that kinship care might increase a child’s risk of harm because  caregivers may be unwilling to enforce court-ordered restrictions on  parental visits. In responding to our survey, 18 states reported that the  use of kinship care was a factor contributing to longer lengths of stay in  foster care for African American children to at least a moderate extent.  This view is supported by research findings indicating that children living  with relatives generally spend more time in foster care than children living  with non-relatives. For example, a study cited in a HHS report showed that  42 percent of children in foster kinship care remain there for more than   2 years compared to 36 percent of children in non-kin foster care.
Moving a child from kinship foster care to adoption can be difficult for  caregivers who need financial assistance or wish to retain family ties.  Several child welfare officials said that there is a financial disincentive to  adopt children who are only eligible for financial subsidies and services  while they are in foster care, especially for grandparents and others living  on a fixed income. Even when states offer financial subsidies to help  families adopt these children, relatives may be reluctant to terminate their  relatives’ rights. An alternative is for these caregivers to provide a  permanent home for their relative’s children through legal guardianship in  which caregivers are afforded legal decision-making authority over the  child without terminating the birth parent’s rights.
section_title: Difficulty in Achieving Reunification
paragraphs: Some of the same factors that states view as contributing to African  American children’s entry also contribute to their difficulties in exiting  foster care and being reunified with their families. In our survey, nearly  half of the states considered the lack of affordable housing, distrust of the  child welfare system, and lack of substance abuse treatment as factors  contributing to African American children’s longer lengths of stay. The  lack of such supports and other services in many poor African American  neighborhoods contributes to children’s longer stays in foster care  because services can influence a parent’s ability to reunify with their child  in a timely manner, according to our survey, interviews, and research. (See  fig. 7.)
In our survey, nearly half of the states reported a lack of affordable  housing options for African American parents, and state and county child  welfare officials said that housing issues often delay family reunification,  resulting in longer lengths of stay in foster care. According to child welfare  officials and researchers we interviewed, poor families can lose their  housing once their children have been removed because the TANF  program requires children to be living with caregivers for them to qualify  for TANF child-only benefits. For example, a county official in California  noted that about 70 percent of families in that county experience a  housing crisis when their children are removed. If families cannot afford  to remain in their homes without TANF benefits, then they must seek  other alternatives to create homes suitable for reunification with their  children. Furthermore, if families do maintain their housing or find other  housing they can afford, the standards that parents must meet before their  children can be returned home from foster care are often higher than  when the children were removed.  According to a private foundation that  assists 13 state and local child welfare agencies around the country in  addressing disproportionality, a parent living in poverty might be unable to  meet housing requirements needed for reunification, such as having a  bedroom for each child, even though the appropriateness of the parent’s  housing had not been the original basis for a child’s removal.
According to 25 states in our survey, parents’ distrust of the child welfare  system was also a factor contributing to African American children’s  longer length of stay in foster care to at least a moderate extent. We were  told that African American families in some communities do not trust child  welfare agencies because families in their communities have had  adversarial relationships with various public organizations, including  schools, public health, and criminal justice systems.
The lack of substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and other  support services in African American communities are additional factors  that can slow African American children’s reunification with their parents,  thereby contributing to longer stays in foster care. According to our  survey, 23 state child welfare administrators reported the lack of  substance abuse treatment services as factors contributing to African  American children’s longer stays in foster care to at least a moderate  extent. An HHS study found that state officials lack the resources to  provide substance abuse and other types of treatment services sufficient  to help African American families and those of other racial and ethnic  minorities move toward reunification and adoption. Court officials in  California said that initiatives to refer drug offenders to treatment  programs instead of incarceration have increased competition for  accessing publicly funded substance abuse programs, adding to the  difficulties families may face in making changes needed for reunification.  In addition, when services are available, it may take 2 years for a parent to  complete a substance abuse treatment program, and entry into such  programs may be delayed if there are waiting lists for services.
section_title: States Implemented a Range of Strategies Considered Promising for Addressing Disproportionality, but Fewer States Specifically Focus Attention on Issue
paragraphs: Most states we surveyed reported implementing a range of child welfare  strategies–often good practices generally–that researchers and experts  believe may also be promising for reducing the number of African  American children in foster care. These strategies are intended to reduce  bias in decision making and increase access to supportive services for  families and the availability of permanent homes for foster children. Fewer  states reported focusing attention on disproportionality through such  actions as convening task forces or passing state legislation to study the  issue. States that did more directly address disproportionality agreed that  certain key elements were central to their efforts: these elements were  data analysis to identify problems and strategies to address them,  leadership to sustain change across time, and collaboration with different  social services agencies to access programs and resources needed outside  the child welfare system. HHS has provided some support to states for  reducing the proportion of African American children in foster care  through conferences, workshops and various Web sites, but states  reported that they would benefit from having additional guidance in  analyzing information and from the dissemination of strategies that other  states have found promising.
subsections: section_title: States Implement a Range of Strategies Expected to Have an Impact on Disproportionality
paragraphs: Researchers and child welfare administrators stressed that no single  strategy was sufficient to fully address disproportionality. Some strategies  states reported on have the potential to reduce bias or improve decision  making. Other strategies are intended to improve access to support  services for parents, and still others could increase the availability of  permanent homes for children waiting in foster care (see table 3).
To help mitigate the influence of racial and other forms of bias in child  welfare decision making processes, states implemented a range of  strategies such as including family members in discussions of placement  options, providing training for case workers to strengthen their cultural  competency, implementing tools to help caseworkers make more  systematic decisions, and reaching out to educate mandated reporters  about reporting requirements. (See fig. 8.) Among these strategies, states  expected that including families in the decision making process and  training culturally competent staff would most reduce disproportionality.
All states we surveyed had implemented strategies to include families in  the decision making process to some degree, and every state we visited  told us they were using this method to help address disproportionality.  There may be differences in the extent to which states involved families,  ranging from occasional discussions with family members to more formal  approaches of “family group conferencing,” which follows a specific  model of engaging family members in decisions about the child’s  placement through three phases including monitoring and follow up. This  approach can help address caseworker bias, as one researcher explained,  because it increases caseworkers’ exposure to the lifestyles of the  community they are serving and helps bridge misunderstandings. Some  studies of this strategy show that it holds promise for African American  families. According to an evaluation in Texas, family group decision  making led to a reduction in foster care placements and an increase in  placements with relatives for all children; these findings were especially  pronounced for African American and Hispanic children. Specifically,   32 percent of African American children whose families attended such a  conference returned home compared to 14 percent whose families  received traditional services.
Almost all states (45) reported conducting training for caseworkers to  strengthen their understanding of different cultures, known as cultural  competency training. Such training could include workshops on cultural  differences to enable caseworkers to better interpret behaviors and  interactions with their clients. Somewhat fewer states (36) reported using  initiatives to recruit and retain culturally competent staff. To address bias  among caseworkers, some of the states we visited required that their child  welfare workers take an intensive program called “Undoing Racism.”  This program has participants analyze the ways in which structural racism  may affect their decisions through dialogue, reflection, role-playing, and  presentations. In addition, officials pointed out that, beyond cultural  understanding, caseworkers need to understand the challenges of living  with economic disadvantages so that they can work effectively with their  clients. For example, one county agency in Iowa required its child welfare  workers to spend 1 day using public transportation to get to social service  appointments their clients must attend to better understand the time and  transportation constraints some people face. Although most survey  respondents expected cultural competency training to have an impact on  disproportionality, there is little research linking cultural competency  training programs to improved outcomes for African American children.  However, one 3-year evaluation of a comprehensive cultural competency  program in Washington state, which was initiated specifically to address  the causes of disproportionality, found that families served by staff trained  in this approach had a higher rate of children returning home than African  American children in other areas.
Because some state data have shown that disproportionality in foster care  starts with the differing rates of reporting among races, most states (37)  are also conducting educational outreach for those who work with  children, such as teachers, health care providers, and social workers, who  are required to report suspected abuse and neglect. These efforts may help  ensure that mandated reporters are not inappropriately referring families  to child welfare. Illinois conducted a widespread public awareness  campaign for mandated reporters about how to identify abuse and neglect.  Although some child welfare officials expect this outreach strategy to  reduce disproportionality, none of the studies we examined assessed its  effectiveness in that regard.
Over half of states (29) reported using risk assessment tools, which can  help caseworkers make more systematic decisions about a child’s safety  and the need to remove a child from the home. Caseworkers use these  tools when investigating an allegation of child maltreatment to  systematically collect information about a family and, based on this  information, more objectively assess the level of risk in keeping the child  at home. Without such tools, workers may err on the side of unnecessarily  removing a child from its family, according to some child welfare officials.  Two studies found particular risk assessment tools to be both race-neutral  and more accurate predictors of future harm than caseworker judgment  alone. A 2004 study of five counties in California found that minority  groups often showed a lower risk than Whites when the assessment tool  was applied, which means it could help to reduce the representation of  some groups in the child welfare system, according to the author.  However, some researchers express concern that other risk assessments  that rely too heavily on information related to social conditions and  poverty might actually contribute to racial bias. Despite the promising  research about the value of specific risk assessment tools, only about one- third of the child welfare administrators surveyed who were using this  strategy expected it to reduce disproportionality.
subsections: section_title: States’ Strategies to Improve Families’ Access to Services
paragraphs: Child welfare agencies are taking action to improve access to services,  such as providing or arranging for mental health treatment, medical care,  and housing assistance for low-income people. The strategies states are  using for this purpose include collaborating with neighborhood-based  services, establishing interagency agreements to improve access to these  services, and implementing an alternative approach to the removal of  children—known as alternative, dual, or differential response. Just over  half of the states who used each strategy reported in the survey that they  expected it to reduce disproportionality. (See fig. 9.)
Thirty-eight states reported using neighborhood-based support  organizations to improve access to and use of support services.  Neighborhood-based services can improve access to supports for parents  because they are often more conveniently located to parents’ homes and  more likely to be staffed by people familiar with issues particular to their  ethnic community. For example, child welfare officials in Los Angeles  County told us that they went door to door in minority neighborhoods to  find service providers beyond those with whom they have historically  contracted. They subsequently heard that this collaboration helped to  increase trust between the community and the child welfare system and  increased use of these services. Similarly, one county in North Carolina  convened a task force of schools, police, and community groups to  examine and identify what support services were available to families. An  HHS report synthesizing the views of child welfare workers in eight states  noted that working with community-based services holds promise for  reducing disproportionality because they are more accessible and provide  services in a culturally appropriate context.
Interagency agreements, used by 34 states, may improve families’ ability to  obtain services and supports they need from agencies outside of child  welfare, which are primarily provided and funded through other state  agencies. To address gaps in the provision of services like substance abuse  treatment and financial supports, agencies can work with one another in  any of the following ways: training staff jointly, sharing information and  tracking systems, using common intake and assessment forms,  coordinating case management, and placing staff from multiple agencies in  the same office. Some child welfare officials told us they were reluctant to  share information about overlapping clients because of federal privacy  laws, while other local officials described methods they use to share  information across systems. For example, the child welfare agency in San  Francisco uses court agreements with other agencies, such as juvenile  justice and mental health, to share information about families who are  involved in multiple systems, and county officials report that these  agreements enable them to better serve these families. Although we found  no studies on the effectiveness of inter-agency agreements in reducing  disproportionality, many child welfare officials expected that this strategy  could have an impact.
Another approach used by slightly more than half of states is differential  or alternative response, which is a way for states to provide services to  families when the risk of abuse and neglect is judged to be lower in lieu of  removing children from their homes. Differential response can be used  when maltreatment is not related to physical and sexual abuse, but instead  to conditions of chronic poverty, chemical abuse, or domestic violence.  For example, some California counties have three tracks for assessing  families, depending on a family’s situation. In the first track, if the case  involves abuse and neglect and the risk is considered moderate to high for  continued abuse, the caseworker may take action to remove the child with  or without the family’s consent, court orders may be involved, and  criminal charges may be filed. In the second track, if the risk of continued  abuse and neglect is lower, families work with representatives of county  child welfare agencies to identify services for improving child and family  well-being. In the third track, if an allegation is not considered abuse, the  family is linked to services in the community through expanded  partnerships with local organizations. Evaluations of alternative response  in some states have shown this strategy to have promise for addressing the  factors that may lead to the disproportionate number of African American  children in care. Evaluations in Missouri and Minnesota found that use of  alternative response increased cooperation between families and the child  welfare agency. The Minnesota study also found that families who  participated in the alternative response system received significantly  greater access to support services and also a lower rate of new  maltreatment reports than families in a control group.
section_title: States’ Strategies for Increasing the Availability of Permanent Homes
paragraphs: States are also devising strategies to increase the number of permanent  homes for African American children who cannot be reunified with their  parents so as to reduce the length of time they remain in foster care and  increase the likelihood that they will be adopted. To do this, many states  are increasing the search for fathers and paternal kin, making efforts to  recruit more African American adoptive parents, and providing financial  subsidies for caregivers (often relatives) who are willing to act as  permanent guardians for foster children. (See fig. 10.)
Almost all states surveyed reported that they take action to search for  paternal kin when making decisions on where to place a child. Until  recently, caseworkers did not routinely gather information on fathers,  according to child welfare workers we spoke with. As foster care agencies  have placed greater reliance on placing children with relatives, however,  fathers and paternal relatives are increasingly being viewed as potential  caregivers. Greater efforts to locate fathers and paternal kin are  particularly relevant for African American families who are less likely to  have a father living with the family at the time of their involvement with  the child welfare agency. Officials we visited in Illinois, North Carolina,  and New York told us that they had instituted changes so that searching  for paternal kin was routine. One county in North Carolina requires social  workers to use a structured protocol in contacting and gathering  information from the father about family members as potential resources.  This approach can allow fathers and other paternal relatives to take a  much more active role in their child’s life to prevent out-of-home  placements. About two-thirds of states using this strategy expected it to  reduce disproportionality, but there is relatively little research on the role  of fathers in child welfare cases in general.
Although 38 states reported that, to some extent, they are recruiting  African American adoptive families, states still face challenges. States are  required by law to diligently recruit foster and adoptive parents who  reflect the racial and ethnic backgrounds of children. States have adopted  various strategies, such as contracting with faith-based organizations and  convening adoption support teams, to recruit greater numbers of African  American adoptive parents. However, despite these efforts the overall  number of African American children adopted by African American  parents has not substantially increased in the past 8 years. In addition,  HHS’s 2001–2004 review found that only 21 of 52 states were sufficiently  recruiting minority families, and a recent report found that the recruitment  of minority families was one of the greatest challenges for nearly all states.
Using subsidized guardianship as an alternative to adoption may hold  particular promise for reducing disproportionality, and more than half of  the states surveyed (30) reported using this strategy. African Americans  are more likely than White children to be placed with relatives for foster  care, and relative foster care is generally longer term. These relative  caregivers are also more likely than non-relative foster parents to be low- income. They may be unwilling to adopt because they may find it difficult  financially to forego foster care payments or because adoption entails  terminating the parental rights of their kin. However, states can provide a  way for foster children living with relatives to convert this to a more  permanent arrangement by creating subsidized guardianship programs.  These programs provide financial subsidies for foster parents (often  relatives) who agree to become legally responsible for children, but are  unable or willing to adopt. When Illinois and California implemented two  of the largest of such programs, they subsequently saw an increase in  permanent placements for all children. After instituting their subsidized  guardianship programs, over 40 percent of children who were in long-term  relative foster care in both states found permanency. In Illinois, this  decrease also coincided with a reduction in disproportionate numbers of  African American children in foster care. HHS officials also pointed out  that these programs can be cost-neutral because the administrative costs  associated with maintaining a child in foster care are no longer incurred  with permanent legal guardianships. All seven states that used federal  waivers to subsidize their guardianship programs with Title IV-E funds did  so in a cost-neutral manner, as required by the waivers.
section_title: Fewer States Implemented Strategies That Focused Attention Specifically on Disproportionality
paragraphs: Although many states we surveyed are employing the types of strategies  that hold promise for reducing the proportion of African American  children in foster care, fewer states were focusing attention specifically on  disproportionality as a policy issue. Such strategies included establishing  councils on disproportionality, requiring child welfare contractors to  address disproportionality, and targeting preventive services to African  American families. While these strategies may not necessarily be more  effective than other strategies, they do represent a public acknowledgment  of the issue and may be considered a starting point for further activity.  States were much less likely to use these strategies compared with other  strategies in our survey. A total of 15 states had established  disproportionality councils or commissions that can provide leadership in  addressing the issues. According to a report by the National Council of  State Legislatures, the Illinois African-American Family Commission has  the broad mandate to monitor legislation and programs, and assist in  designing new programs on behalf of African American families, as well as  facilitate the participation of African Americans in establishing  community-based services. In addition, 13 states reported in our survey  that they were targeting preventative services to African American  families, and 11 states had some requirements for contracted agencies to  address disproportionality. For example, child welfare officials in  Kentucky reported that they were making a concerted effort to contract  with service providers that can demonstrate their knowledge or  understanding of the issue of disproportionality.
section_title: Data, Leadership, and Working across Social Service Systems Are Key Elements to Address Disproportionality
paragraphs: Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data were considered  fundamental aspects of states’ efforts to address disproportionality. These  data can include not only disproportionality rates (as described in  appendix II), but also information that identifies the extent to which  disproportionality occurs, among ages, along the child welfare process,  and geographically. For example, a researcher at the University of  California at Berkeley has used state data to show that African American  infants enter at a much higher rate than other children (see fig. 11).  However, this disproportionality grows as children get older, because  African American children are also less likely to exit foster care; and the  foster care population for all ages then becomes disproportionally African  American (see fig. 12). Child welfare officials in most of the states we  visited used their data to show that as a child moved through the child  welfare process from having a case reported, then investigated, then being  removed from the home, disproportionality increased at each decision  point. Lastly, researchers in Illinois learned that disproportionality rates  were actually higher in the rest of the state than in Cook County, the main  urban county containing Chicago and over half of the state’s foster care  population.
Using data is considered crucial in identifying where disproportionality  occurs in the child welfare process in order to devise strategies to most  effectively address the issue. For example, when they analyzed state-level  data, Texas officials realized that it was difficult to find foster care  placements in close proximity to the birth family, making it difficult for  African American children to be reunified with their families. To address  this problem, Texas provided automated support for tracking the  vacancies of foster homes and facilities. Data can also be useful for  building consensus among community leaders, practitioners and policy- makers. Researchers in Illinois shared data on disproportionality with  child welfare supervisors and caseworkers to increase their awareness  that once an African American child is removed from the home, they are  more likely to spend longer time in foster care. In Guilford County, North  Carolina, child welfare officials shared data to show teachers, who are  also mandated reporters, how disproportionality increases as a child  moves from being referred, to investigated, to placed into foster care.  Despite the importance of data collection, 18 states we surveyed reported  that they were not regularly using data in their efforts to address  disproportionality.
In states we visited, child welfare officials also agreed that sustained  leadership was fundamental to the process of identifying and addressing  disproportionality. Members of the Child Welfare League of America’s  Cultural Competence and Racial Disproportionality and Disparity of  Outcomes Committee told us that initiatives generally take root through  the efforts of a person or organizations that champion the issue. All of the  states we visited had some support from the Casey Foundation, and four  states were involved with Casey’s Breakthrough Series Collaborative,  which focuses specifically on having child welfare professionals test new  ideas and strategies to address racial disproportionality. Without such  leadership, officials who have many competing priorities may be reluctant  to tackle a politically sensitive issue. For example, child welfare workers  in one county expressed concern that their efforts to address  disproportionality would diminish when their Social Services Director — who was highly committed to addressing disproportionality—retired.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, six states have  enacted state legislation to address disproportionality. These laws  generally create commissions or task forces, require a study of the issue,  or fund special projects to address disproportionality. For example, a  Texas law required an analysis of data to determine whether child welfare  enforcement actions were disproportionately initiated against any racial or  ethnic group. In addition, some states included some discussion of  African American disproportionality in their state child welfare plans.  California, for example, pledged to meet the target of increasing the  service provisions specifically for Native American and African American  children.
Finally, state child welfare officials, researchers, and other experts  stressed the need to work across different social service systems because  many of the factors that contribute to disproportionality lay outside the  child welfare system. For example, one child welfare official we  interviewed observed that efforts to address disproportionality in one  system (e.g., child welfare) can be undone by lack of diligence in another  (e.g., housing). Additionally, some state officials said that there was a need  for collaboration among social service agencies, such as juvenile justice  and education, because disproportionality in child welfare often results  when families have not had their service and support needs met by other  agencies.
section_title: Although HHS Has Provided Assistance and Guidance, States Report That More Information and Technical Assistance Is Needed
paragraphs: HHS has made available technical assistance, guidance, and information to  states on disproportionality at conferences, workshops and through  various HHS Web sites. Since 2004, disproportionality and cultural  competency have been discussed at training and technical assistance  meetings attended by members of HHS’s network of National Resource  Centers, and since 2006 these issues have been a priority area for the  network, according to HHS officials. Currently, HHS provides states and  localities with information on disproportionality through various National  Resource Center Web sites and the Children’s Bureau Information  Gateway Web site, such as links to literature examining various strategies  and audio files of past teleconferences discussing disproportionality. HHS  also provides guidance and information on promising approaches as well  as technical assistance and training to improve states’ efforts to find  minority foster care and adoptive parents through its AdoptUsKids  initiative and Web site. In 2003, HHS’s Children’s Bureau also published a  study examining disproportionality and the Office of Planning, Research  and Evaluation summarizes other published and unpublished research  findings on disproportionality on its Web site.
Although HHS does not require states to collect or report information on  disproportionality, the agency has included state-based data on  disproportionality in its Annual Child Welfare Outcomes Report to  Congress. In addition, through an initiative known as the Culturally  Competent Practice Knowledge Management Initiative, the agency is  compiling an inventory of tools and best practices for addressing  disproportionality. According to HHS officials, the agency plans to make  this information available to consultants within its network of National  Resource Centers to use in providing training and technical assistance to  states and localities, but as of April 2007, HHS had not determined whether  or how to make this information publicly available.
As a whole, child welfare administrators we surveyed reported that in  their view, their own states should be doing more to address  disproportionality but added that having additional resources, including  information on promising practices and technical assistance, would be  useful in their efforts. Forty-two states reported that additional resources  were needed to apply known strategies to reduce the disproportionality of  African American children. All six states we visited were using funds from  a private foundation, Casey Foundation, to support their initiatives.  Similarly, 41 states reported that having information on best practices to  address racial disproportionality would be at least moderately helpful to  them. In responding to the survey, officials from one state noted that  Casey Family Programs had developed helpful strategies to address the  issue, and officials from another state noted that having a central federal  repository to share information across states, including descriptions and  evaluations of promising strategies, would help them more effectively  address disproportionality.
Twenty-five states also reported that receiving technical assistance from  HHS in calculating disproportionality and tracking it over time would be  useful. Some of these states volunteered through written comments that  this additional assistance would be useful because state and local agencies  have limited capacity to analyze or track disproportionality-related data.  Nearly all of the states we visited had assistance from local universities or  research institutes in analyzing data on disproportionality. California state  child welfare officials told us that without the aid of a university  researcher, they would not have the ability to help counties that lack the  capacity to collect and analyze their data. At the time of our survey,  eighteen states reported that they were not regularly analyzing or using  data in their efforts to address disproportionality.
Some child welfare officials and researchers we interviewed reported that  the leadership and efforts made by the Department of Justice, Office of  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), to address the  disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system  could serve as a model for child welfare. In response to similar issues with  racial disproportionality, the Justice Department has overseen states’  efforts in addressing disproportionality in the juvenile justice system, as  mandated. To carry out its mission, OJJDP has established reporting  requirements for states; provided guidance, technical assistance, and  information on promising practices through a centralized location on the  OJJDP Web site; and conducted regular conferences and training sessions  for over a decade on the issue. According to a key official from OJJDP and  a few state juvenile justice coordinators we interviewed, because of the  legal mandate and federal funding provided over time, OJJDP’s efforts  have helped states implement strategies intended to reduce  disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system. As of  2005, nearly all eligible states and territories have devised plans to address  disproportionality and regularly submit reports to OJJDP.
section_title: States Reported That Some Current Federal Policies May Reduce the Disproportion of African American Children in Care, While Other Policies May Increase It
paragraphs: Federal policies that support services to families and adoption were  generally considered helpful in reducing the proportion of African  Americans in foster care, but policies that limit funds for prevention and  legal guardianship were reported to have a negative effect, according to  our review. Although it is difficult to isolate the effect of any one policy,  many states reported that federal block grants that can be used to provide  services to families help reduce disproportionality. At the same time, even  more states reported that other policies constraining the use of federal  child welfare funds work against this goal. States generally reported that  policies promoting adoption–such as subsidies to families adopting  children with special needs and the requirement to recruit minority  adoptive parents–have been helpful, but wanted more support for legal  guardianship. In particular, states considered the federal policy  recognizing legal guardianship as helpful in enabling children to exit foster  care, but policies limiting the use of federal funds to pay subsidies to  guardians as a barrier. Federal policies that impose time frames on  caseworkers for making permanency decisions may shorten the time  children remain in care but may also impede states’ ability to reunify  children with their parents.
subsections: section_title: Policies That Support Services to Families Were Considered Helpful, but Some Funding Policies Constrain States’ Ability to Reduce Disproportionality
paragraphs: According to states we surveyed, having federal block grant funds  available to provide services to families contributes to reducing the  proportion of African American children in foster care compared to  children of other races and ethnicities. However, policies that limit federal  child welfare funds for preventive services or other purposes besides  maintenance payments to foster care families are viewed as having a  negative effect. (See fig. 13.)
In our survey, 23 states reported that the ability to use TANF block grant  funds to provide parenting classes, substance abuse treatment programs,  and payments to guardians who are relatives contributes to a reduction in  the proportion of African American children in care in their states. Many  officials and researchers we interviewed told us that having an adequate  level of preventive services and family supports was particularly relevant  for African American families living in poverty. However, as with all block  grants, state officials determine the use of these funds and their program  priorities. TANF funds used for child welfare in 2004 ranged from zero  percent in eight states to 51 percent of Connecticut’s total federal funds  for such purposes, according to an Urban Institute report. Some officials  from local child welfare agencies we interviewed also noted that because  they did not have a steady source of funds for child welfare activities, it  was difficult to plan for and provide preventive and family support  services to these families. In a recent GAO report, states cited such  services as the ones most in need of greater federal, state or local  resources.
Other policies constrain the amount of federal child welfare funds states  can spend on services to support families, and states reported that these  policies contributed to the disproportion of African American children in  foster care. Of particular concern to 28 states were limitations on the use  of federal funds under Title IV-B, which funds preventative and family  support services. Under this part of the law, states are entitled to no more  than their specified share of annual funding regardless of the number of  families they serve in a year. These IV-B prevention funds can help divert  children from foster care by providing services to their families and also  help children exit foster care by providing supports to adoptive families  and guardians. Yet the majority of federal funding for child welfare is  distributed as payments for maintaining children already in foster care  homes under another part of the law, Title IV-E.
Twenty-five states we surveyed reported that the limited use of Title IV-E  funds for other purposes besides making maintenance payments to foster  care families, such as providing services to families, contribute to the  proportion of African American children in care. According to California  and Minnesota officials, because the majority of federal child welfare  funds are used for foster care payments instead of preventive services,  federal funding policies did not align with states’ efforts to reduce the  number of children entering foster care by serving at-risk children safely in  their homes. Previous GAO work as well as other research has noted that  federal child welfare funding favors reimbursement for foster care  placements, while providing less support for services to prevent such  placements. Every year since fiscal year 2004, the administration has  proposed in its budget the creation of a Child Welfare Program Option  under which states would have the option to receive federal foster care  funds in the form of flexible grants, which they could use to fund a range  of child welfare services and activities. This proposal has not been  introduced as legislation.
section_title: States Generally Viewed Federal Policies on Adoption as Helpful, but Other Policies Limit State Efforts to Find Alternate Placements or Reunify Families
paragraphs: In responding to our survey, states considered certain federal policies as  helpful in reducing disproportionality, especially adoption policies and the  recognition of guardianship.  However, states viewed the lack of subsidies  for guardianship and policies affecting the licensing of foster care and  adoptive families as contributing to disproportionality. Views were mixed  on federal policies that impose time frames for making permanency  decisions.
subsections: section_title: Adoption and Guardianship
paragraphs: Among federal policies that affect states’ ability to find permanent homes  for children, those that promote adoption were believed to reduce the  proportion of African American children in foster care, according to our  survey results. Although the recognition of guardianship as a placement  option under federal law was also considered helpful, state and local  officials reported that the lack of federal reimbursement for subsidies to  guardians constrained their ability to place children in such arrangements.  (See fig. 14.)
In our survey, 22 states reported that the requirement to diligently recruit  minority families contributes to a decrease in the proportion of African  American children in care. According to officials from Illinois, New York,  and North Carolina, the requirement to diligently recruit minority families  has had a positive impact on moving African American children into  permanent homes. For example, this requirement broadened the role and  use of extended family as possible caregivers for children, according to an  HHS survey of child welfare workers.
State officials told us that it was a challenge to recruit a racially and  ethnically diverse pool of potential foster and adoptive parents, as  evidenced by the fact that more than half of states are not meeting HHS  performance goals for recruitment. State officials noted the shortage of  willing, appropriate, and qualified parents to adopt African American  children, particularly older children, and researchers also cited a lack of  resources among state and local agencies and federal guidance to  implement new recruiting and training initiatives. Perhaps because of  these challenges, 9 states in our survey reported that the policy requiring  diligent recruitment had no effect on the proportion of African American  children in care, and 15 states reported that they were unable to tell. Over  the last 5 years, African American children as well as Native American  children have consistently experienced lower rates of adoption than  children of other races and ethnicities, according to HHS adoption data.  (See fig. 15.)
Providing adoption incentive payments to states generally helps reduce  the proportion of African American children in care, according to our  survey; however, these benefits may not be sustainable over time. In our  survey, 20 states reported that these federal incentive payments provided  to states for increasing adoptions contributes to reducing the proportion  of African American children in care. A state official from Texas’s child  welfare agency told us that in 2005 the state received the highest adoption  incentive payments among all states and that the number of African  American children adopted has increased each year since 2004. However,  states face challenges under this program because they must reach higher  benchmarks each year to continue to earn adoption incentive payments.  While the total number of adoptions nationally increased significantly in  the late 1990s, since 2000 adoption rates have reached a plateau, according  to HHS data and other research.
Twenty states reported that the federal policy that provides subsidies to  parents who adopt a child considered as having special needs contributes  positively to reducing the proportion of African American children in  foster care. Of African American children who were adopted from foster  care in 2004 who states classified as having special needs, the child’s race  provided the basis for the classification in 20 percent of cases. In contrast,  race was the basis for the classification of about 10 percent of Hispanic,  Asian, and Native American adopted children who were determined to  have special needs in that year.
The federal policy encouraging race-neutral adoptions was believed to  have less effect than other policies on the proportion of African American  children in foster care. Intended to eliminate race-related barriers to  adoption, MEPA-IEP prohibits foster care and adoption agencies that  receive federal funds from delaying or denying placement decisions on the  basis of race, color or national origin. Although 15 states reported that  encouraging race-neutral adoptions would help reduce disproportionality,  18 states responded that this policy had no effect, and an additional 12  states reported that they were unable to tell. An HHS 2003 study of child  welfare agencies, staff, and partner agencies noted that confusion and a  general lack of knowledge regarding what the law allowed or prohibited  hindered its implementation. In support of this finding, child welfare  officials we spoke with in Illinois and Texas also noted that child welfare  workers may misunderstand or fear that they are not complying with the  law’s prohibition. These officials stated that in some cases child welfare  workers may be less likely to place African American children with  relatives or in African American adoptive homes because they mistakenly  believe that the law prohibits or discourages same-race adoptions. Other  researchers and officials told us they opposed the law’s intent and were  concerned about the detrimental effects of placing children with parents  of another race on a child’s well being. Some officials we interviewed  stated that race should be given first priority in placing African American  children in families for care as is done for Native American children under  the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). According to a judge we  interviewed in North Carolina, the encouragement of race-neutral  adoptions led in some cases to African American children being placed in  cross-racial homes in which they felt disconnected from their heritage.
In addition to adoption, many child welfare officials and researchers we  interviewed considered legal guardianship a particularly important way to  help African American children exit foster care. Legal guardianship was  formally recognized under federal law as another option for placing  children in permanent homes. Some African American families,  especially relatives, are reluctant to adopt because they do not want to  terminate the parental rights of the child’s parent, according to officials  and researchers we interviewed. Legal guardianship allows a household to  establish a permanent home for a child without terminating the parental  rights of the birth parents. Seventeen states in our survey reported that  this federal policy was believed to help decrease the proportion of African  American children in their states’ foster care systems. In California and  Illinois, subsidized guardianships have been found to reduce the number  of children in foster care, including African American children. In  California about 16,000 children exited the state foster care system  between 2000 and 2005 through their kinship guardianship program, and  about 43 percent of these children were African American, according to  data from state officials. Based on the results of the Illinois waiver and  other states with waivers, subsidized guardianships have also been found  to be at least cost neutral.
However, according to state child welfare directors we surveyed and  interviewed, the lack of federal reimbursement for subsidies to guardians  constrained states’ ability to place African American children in  guardianship arrangements. In many cases, families that could otherwise  serve as guardians lack the financial stability to permanently care for  children without support, according to officials and researchers we  interviewed. However, unless states are one of the seven that have a  current federal demonstration waiver for assisted guardianship or kinship  permanency programs, states cannot use federal child welfare funds to  provide subsidies to legal guardians.
According to state and local child welfare officials, states would like to  have more flexibility to use Title IV-E funds for supporting guardianship  placements, as is done with adoption. In discussions with us, HHS officials  stated that the Administration’s proposed Child Welfare Program Option  would provide states with the flexibility to use Title IV-E funds for the  entire range of child welfare purposes, including assisted guardianship.  However, although an HHS official said that guardianship was not  considered as permanent as adoption, the results for the child have been  found to be essentially the same. In the Illinois evaluation, guardianship  and adoption both provide comparable levels of stability for the child and  showed similar outcomes in terms of children’s emotional and physical  health.
section_title: Licensing and Time Frames
paragraphs: Federal policies regarding licensing, such as those that limit  reimbursement for costs associated with the use of unlicensed relative  caregivers and require criminal background checks on prospective  caregivers, contribute to the disproportionality of African American  children in foster care, according to states we surveyed. To a lesser extent,  state officials reported that federally mandated time frames determining a  child’s permanency plan and whether parental rights should be terminated  also had a negative effect. (See fig. 16.)
States considered federal policies on the licensing and the use of relatives  to provide foster care as increasing the proportion of African American  children in foster care. In some cases, states permanently place children  with unlicensed relatives who are neither adoptive parents nor guardians;  however, states cannot claim federal reimbursement for such kinship  care. In our survey, 20 states reported that this policy limiting  reimbursement for costs associated with the use of unlicensed relative  caregivers contributed to the disproportionality of African American  children by hindering their ability to place children with relatives.  According to researchers and state officials we interviewed, such policies  have a disproportionate impact on African American children because  they are more likely to live with unlicensed relatives. These relatives may  be able to provide safe homes for children but may also be more likely  have lower incomes and have difficulty meeting foster care licensing  requirements, such as having a certain number of bedrooms.
Eighteen states reported that federal policies requiring states to perform  criminal background checks on prospective caregivers, including relatives,  contributes to disproportionality, while other states reported that these  policies had no effect. Among child welfare officials and others we  interviewed, some were concerned that federal law requiring states to  conduct fingerprinting checks for prospective parents or other types of  background checks on all adults in the household may deter some African  American relatives from stepping forward as caregivers. However, 16  states saw federal policy on criminal checks as having no effect. This may  be in part due to the fact that most states have their own requirements  regarding background checks that are similar to or more stringent than  federal requirements.
Until recently, states could opt out of federal requirements for criminal  background checks on prospective foster care and adoptive parents, but  that provision was eliminated by the recently enacted Adam Walsh Child  Safety and Protection Act. For the eight states that opted out of the federal  requirements, federal regulations require them to verify that safety  considerations with respect to the prospective foster or adoptive parents  have been addressed. Some officials were concerned that the federal  policy would limit their ability under previous policy to place African  American and other children with relatives and other families. California  and New York officials told us that their alternative plans allow them the  flexibility to make exemptions case-by-case for foster care, adoptive, or  guardianship families, typically relatives, that have past convictions that  would otherwise be automatically prohibited by federal law. Although  such exemptions make up a comparatively small proportion of total  placements for children, state and county officials in California told us  that their inability to make these exemptions beginning October 2008— when the prohibition on states’ ability to opt out of federal requirements  goes into effect—may have a disproportionate impact in the placement of  African American children with relatives or other families who they  consider safe and appropriate for children.
State officials had mixed views on federal policies that impose time frames  on permanency decisions that affect whether children will be reunified  with their parents or placed in an alternative home. About a third of  states reported that federal policy requiring that states adhere to certain  time frames for initiating plans to place children in permanent  arrangements and for terminating parental rights contributed to an  increase in the proportion of African American children in care. Some  state officials and researchers we interviewed said that these time frames  were not reasonable for some African American parents who have  complex problems, such as substance abuse and mental health issues, that  require more time to resolve or if they have difficulty in accessing  services. When parental rights are terminated, some children become  “legal orphans” and remain in foster care longer than if parents had been  given more time to complete their reunification plans. According to an  HHS official’s analysis of AFCARS data, the percentage of children who  have had their parental rights terminated but who did not find a  permanent home and ultimately emancipated out of the foster care system  increased from 3.3 percent in 2000 to 6.7 percent in 2005. On the other  hand, some child welfare officials reported that the ASFA time frames  have been helpful in ensuring that children do not languish in care and  have helped reduce the proportion of African American children in care.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Issues surrounding the disproportionate representation of African- American children in foster care are pervasive, continuing, and complex.  They cut across different points in the child welfare process—from before  entry to exit from foster care—and they affect nearly all states in this  nation to varying degrees.
In efforts to reduce African American representation in foster care, state  and local child welfare agencies face numerous challenges. These  challenges include ensuring that decisions to place a child in foster care  are not influenced by bias or cultural misconceptions about families or  communities, and that parent’s difficulties in accessing support services  do not prevent a child from returning home. Adding to these challenges is  the fact that many supports and services are provided through multiple  social service systems and require actions outside the responsibility of  child welfare agencies, such as the ability to obtain timely substance abuse  treatment for parents or the availability of affordable housing. To facilitate  access to services, state and local agencies bear the primary responsibility  for coordinating and administering these services.
To some extent, federal policies on adoption have supported states’ efforts  to reduce the foster care population, but among policies aimed at reducing  the number of minority children in foster care, many states experienced  challenges recruiting sufficient minority families that reflect the foster  care population. African American children have generally seen lower  adoption rates than children of other races, and in recent years the  adoption rate for all children has reached a plateau. States report being  constrained by the lack of federal subsidies for legal guardianship similar  to those provided for adoption. Many consider legal guardianship to be  more reflective of the cultural values held by some African Americans and  other families of color and better suited to the needs of African American  and Hispanic families who want to permanently care for related children  without necessarily adopting them. As a strategy, subsidizing  guardianships has demonstrated its value in providing permanent families  for children and in reducing the number of African American children in  foster care. It may also be cost-effective, given the experiences of the  states that implemented this strategy using federal waivers. This may  therefore be the time to reconsider the current distinctions that provide  subsidies for adoption but not for guardianship.
The importance of collecting and analyzing data by race is considered a  crucial first step for addressing racial disparity within child welfare and  other systems. Yet some states and localities report a lack of capacity to  collect or analyze data that would better allow them to identify the  strategies that would be most useful in addressing the problems in their  state. HHS provides assistance to states on data analysis and practices  through its technical assistance network and related Web sites, although  the agency lacks the directive and funding that Department of Justice  officials said were instrumental to their efforts to analyze data by race and  provide guidance on promising practices. In response to this directive,  states that have identified disproportionality in juvenile justice as an issue  have regularly submitted reports to OJJDP and have devised plans to  address the issue. In child welfare, states identified as being in the  forefront of efforts to address disproportionality are relying on private  organizations to provide financial and technical assistance. In the absence  of research-based evidence on strategies that work for addressing  disproportionality, states are seeking out promising practices used in  other states. Despite the steps that HHS has taken to disseminate  information about these strategies, states report that they need further  information and technical assistance to strengthen their current efforts in  addressing disproportionality.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To assist states in increasing the number of homes available for the  permanent placement of African American and other children from foster  care, we suggest that Congress consider amending federal law to allow  federal reimbursement for legal guardianship similar to that currently  provided for adoption.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance states’ ability to reduce the proportion of African American  children in foster care, the Secretary of HHS should further assist states in  understanding the nature and extent of disproportionality in their child  welfare systems and in taking steps to address the issue. These actions  should include:    Encouraging states to regularly track state and local data on the racial  disproportionality of children in foster care and use these data to  develop strategies that can better enable them to prevent children’s  entry into foster care and speed their exit into permanent homes. HHS  should also encourage states to make increased use of HHS’s National  Resource Centers as a source of technical assistance on this issue.
Completing and making publicly available information on  disproportionality that the agency is developing under its Culturally  Competent Practice Knowledge Initiative so that states have easier  access to tools and strategies useful for addressing the issue.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Response
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment. HHS’s  written comments are provided in appendix III of this report.
Our draft report included a recommendation that HHS pursue specific  measures to allow federal reimbursement for legal guardianship. In  commenting on the draft report, HHS disagreed with the recommendation,  stating that the administration had already proposed a broad restructuring  of child welfare funding, known as the Child Welfare Program Option,  which would allow states to use federal funds for legal guardianship.  Under this proposed restructuring of child welfare, states could choose to  remain under the current foster care funding structure or they could  instead receive a capped grant for a period of 5 years. States choosing the  grant option would have the flexibility to use these funds for a wide range  of child welfare purposes, including subsidizing guardianships. The  current adoption assistance program would remain the same under this  proposal. However, HHS has presented this option in its budget proposals  each year since 2004, but no legislation has been offered to date to  authorize it.  Moreover, if enacted, it is unknown how many states would  choose a capped grant that would allow greater program flexibility instead  of the current title IV-E foster care entitlement funding. In light of these  factors, we suggest that Congress consider taking action to allow adoption  assistance payments to be used for legal guardianship. Current evidence  indicates that such a change could help states increase the number of  permanent homes available for African American and other children in  foster care. Furthermore, some states have demonstrated this change can  be achieved without increasing program costs. We have changed the final  report to delete our recommendation to HHS and to include instead this  matter for congressional consideration.
In response to our recommendation that HHS take certain actions to  further assist states in understanding and addressing the nature and extent  of racial disproportionality in their child welfare systems, HHS stated that  these actions were consistent with their current technical assistance  efforts to encourage and assist states in addressing racial  disproportionality. For example, HHS cited the variety of technical  assistance available to states in areas such as data analysis and cultural  competency. However, HHS did not address the specific actions that we  recommended related to encouraging states to regularly track and use  child welfare data on racial disproportionality and completing and making  publicly available the information on disproportionality that it is  developing through its Culturally Competent Practice Knowledge  Initiative.  We continue to believe that it is important for HHS to take these  actions to further equip states to address this complex issue.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, copies of this report will be sent to the Secretary  of HHS, relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties.  We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions  about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in  appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Objectives
paragraphs: For this study, we were asked to analyze (1) the major factors that have  been identified as influencing the proportion of African American children  entering and remaining in foster care compared to children of other races  and ethnicities;  (2) the extent that states and localities have implemented  strategies that appear promising in addressing African American  representation in foster care; and (3) the ways in which key federal child  welfare policies may have influenced African American representation in  foster care. Although we focused on African American children in this  report, we also noted points of similarity or difference with children of  other races and ethnicities as appropriate.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Overall, to address these three objectives, we used multiple  methodologies, including administering a state survey; conducting site  visits; interviewing researchers and federal agency officials; conducting a  literature review using various criteria; and analyzing federal legislation  and policies. More specifically, we conducted a nationwide Web-based  survey of state child welfare administrators in 50 states and the District of  Columbia between November 2006 and January 2007. To obtain a more in- depth understanding of the issues, especially of any promising strategies  to address disproportionality of African American children, we conducted  site visits to California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and North Carolina,  and in addition, conducted telephone interviews with state and local child  welfare officials, service providers, and court officials in Texas. These  states were selected in accordance with various criteria discussed below.  To extend our understanding, we interviewed child welfare researchers  identified by others as knowledgeable on issues of racial  disproportionality in foster care as well as representatives from national  child welfare organizations, such as the Casey Family Programs; the Child  Welfare League of America; Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Inc.;  and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, on these matters. In addition,  we participated in child welfare-related conferences with sessions relevant  to these objectives. We also conducted an extensive literature review and  analyzed published research on racial disproportionality in foster care and  strategies used by states and others to address this issue, and selected the  research for this review based on particular criteria described below. At  the federal level, we interviewed HHS officials responsible for foster care  programs and related data, as well as officials at the Department of  Juvenile Justice, which is required by law to address racial  disproportionality in the juvenile justice systems. Finally, we analyzed  federal child welfare legislation, agency documentation, and policies  relevant to foster care that may have an impact on racial  disproportionality. We conducted our work between June 2006 and June  2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: Web-Based Survey
paragraphs: To obtain state perspectives on our objectives and the relative priority  state child welfare agencies place on the challenges they face, we  conducted a Web-based survey of child welfare directors in the 50 states  and the District of Columbia. The survey was conducted using a self- administered electronic questionnaire posted on the Web. We contacted  directors via e-mail announcing the survey and sent follow-up e-mails and  made telephone calls as well to encourage responses. The survey data  were collected between November 2006 and January 2007. We received  completed surveys from 47 states and the District of Columbia (a 92  percent response rate). The states of New Jersey, Maryland, and Rhode  Island did not return completed surveys.
To develop the survey questions, we relied on information gathered  through interviews with researchers, professional associations, and our  literature review (see criteria for selecting literature). In addition, in July  2006, we solicited comments from various researchers and other experts  on elements used in our survey to ensure their completeness. These  elements included a list of factors that contribute to, strategies to address,  and federal policies that may affect the disproportionality of African  American children in foster care. We received comments on these  elements from the Center for the Study of Social Policy, the Black  Administrators in Child Welfare, and Westat, and made modifications  accordingly. We worked closely with social science survey specialists to  develop and pretest the questionnaire. Because these were not sample  surveys, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of  conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as  nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question  is interpreted, in the sources of information that are available to  respondents, or how the data are entered into a database can introduce  unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the  development of the questionnaires, the data collection, and data analysis  to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, prior to administering  the survey, we pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with  five states to determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2)  the terms used were precise, (3) respondents were able to provide the  information we were seeking, and (4) the questions were unbiased. We  made changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire based  on pretest results. Because these were Web-based surveys in which  respondents entered their responses directly into our database, there was  a reduced possibility of data entry error. We also performed computer  analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses and other indications of  error. In addition, an independent analyst verified that the computer  programs used to analyze the data were written correctly.
section_title: Site Visits
paragraphs: To obtain a more in-depth understanding of issues, we conducted site  visits to California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and North Carolina. In  addition we conducted telephone interviews with Texas state child  welfare officials, a researcher a service provider, and a judge in Texas.  When viewed as a group, the states we visited reflected diversity in  geographic location, rates of African American representation in foster  care, strategies and initiatives used to address this disproportion, and  program administration (state administered and county administered). In  addition, the states we selected collectively covered nearly one-third of  children in foster care across the nation. During these visits, we  interviewed state and local child welfare officials; juvenile court judges  and other child welfare-related legal representatives, such as attorneys and  public guardians; community service providers; and others involved in the  child welfare systems, such as academic researchers. We also collected  information, reports, and data on disproportionality and initiatives to  address this issue from state and local child welfare agencies and others  during these visits. We cannot generalize our findings beyond the states we  visited.
section_title: Literature Review of Published Research on Disproportionality
paragraphs: To learn more about the major factors, strategies, and federal policies  influencing whether African American children enter and remain in foster  care compared to children of other races and ethnicities, we conducted a  literature review. The literature we reviewed included research articles we  identified through databases, such as Lexis-Nexis, J-STOR, and the  National Clearinghouse on the Child Abuse and Neglect Information. We  used various search terms, such as disproportionality, African American,  foster care, child welfare system, and over-representation in searching  these databases. We also reviewed literature cited in these studies and  those we found on Web sites related to child welfare and  disproportionality, as well as literature recommended to us from our  interviews. In addition, we conducted a more intensive review about 50  studies identified through these methods that focused on factors affecting  entry and length of stay in foster care. For each selected study, we  determined whether the study’s findings were generally reliable. Two GAO  social science analysts assessed each study’s research methodology,  including its research design, sampling frame, selection of measure, data  quality, limitation, and analytic techniques for its methodological  soundness and the validity of the results and conclusions that were drawn.
section_title: Interviews with Researchers and Child Welfare Organizations
paragraphs: For all three objectives we also conducted interviews with academic  researchers and other experts on disproportionality issues, such as child  welfare-related organizations. We identified child welfare researchers for  our interviews through our literature review and through  recommendations from child welfare officials and stakeholders as  knowledgeable on issues of racial disproportionality in foster care. For  this study we interviewed academic researchers affiliated with the  following universities and research centers: Chapin Hall at the University  of Chicago, Children and Family Research Center at the University of  Illinois School of Social Work, Jordan Institute for Families at the  University of North Carolina, School of Social Welfare at the University of  California at Berkeley, University of Minnesota School of Social Work,  University of Texas School of Social Work, and Hunter College School of  Social Work of the City University of New York. We also interviewed  researchers and other staff at the following organizations: Black  Administrators in Child Welfare, Casey Family Programs, Center for the  Study of Social Policy, Child Welfare League of America, National  Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, National Council of  Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Nestor Associates, and Westat.  To  obtain clarification on the findings of the National Incidence Surveys, we  also interviewed the principal investigator of these studies for HHS, also at  Westat.
section_title: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
paragraphs: To obtain children welfare data we requested and analyzed the U.S.  Children’s Bureau AFCARS data from the National Data Archive on Child  Abuse and Neglect at Cornell University (NDACAN). AFCARS is a federal  database that provides case level data on all children covered by Title IV-B  and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. On a bi-annual basis, all states  submit data to the Children’s Bureau concerning each child in foster care  and each child who has been adopted under the authority of the state’s  child welfare agency. To confirm the reliability of the data, social science  methodologists at GAO conducted electronic data testing, comparing our  figures with HHS and others who have reported similar data. We also  interviewed several officials with NDACAN and HHS who were  responsible for the data. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this report.
In calculating the adoption rates reported in figure 15, we used estimates  from HHS’s Web site of the total estimated count of adoptions with public  agency involvement finalized at year end divided by the number of  children waiting to be adopted on the last day of the prior year. Children  waiting to be adopted are defined by HHS as those children who have the  case goal of adoption and/or have parental rights terminated. According  to an HHS official familiar with AFCARS data, the HHS reported numbers  of children waiting to be adopted may be imprecise because of variations  among states and over time. Accordingly, we also calculated the adoption  rate by using the number of children in foster care on the last day of the  prior year as the denominator. Under both analyses, African American and  Native American children had lower adoption rates between 2001 and 2005  than children of other races and ethnicities. We chose not to report the  findings under the second method of analysis because the numbers of  children in foster care on the last day of the prior year include many  children who are not waiting to be adopted, such as children who have a  case goal of reunification and later reunify with their parents, which would  greatly underestimate adoption rates.
section_title: Appendix II: Disproportionality Indexes of Children in Foster Care by Race and State
paragraphs: Among researchers and others, disproportionality indexes or ratios are  used to characterize the extent of disproportionality in a particular area,  whether nationwide, within a state, or within a county or metropolitan  area. Table 4 represents the proportion of African American, White,  Hispanic, Asian, and Native American children in the foster care system in  each state when compared to the overall population of each racial  category of children in that state. (See table 4.) In the table, we present  disproportionality indexes by state for children in foster care on the last  day of fiscal year 2004. In this table, for example, an index number of  below 1.00 indicates an under-representation of African American in foster  care in a state compared to African American children’s proportions in the  general child population in that state, while a number above 1.00 indicates  an over-representation of African American children in foster care in a  state compared to African American children’s proportions in the general  child population in that state. This table also displays this indexing  methodology for the other four racial and ethnic categories.
Overall, the disproportionality index nationwide for African American  children is 2.26, which means that African American children were over- represented in foster care nationally in 2004 at a rate of more than twice  their proportions in the U.S. child population. In fiscal year 2004, a total of  36 states had disproportionality indexes of 2.0 or more, and 16 states had  disproportionality indexes of 3.0 or more for the number of African  American children in foster care at the end of the fiscal year (indexes of  2.0 or more are bolded in the table 4). Within states, disproportionality  rates may vary considerably, as noted earlier.
To derive each state’s disproportionality index, for example, we divided  the proportion of African American children in foster care (the number of  African American children in foster care divided by the total number of  children in child foster care) by the proportion of the African American  children in the general population (the number of African American  children in the population divided by the total number in the general  population). According to HHS AFCARS data from fiscal year 2004, there  were 498,981 children ages 17 years and under in foster care in the United  States on September 30, 2004. Of these children, 162,991 were African  American. Census population estimates for 2004 show there were  73,258,205 children 17 years old and under in the general population, of  which 10,805,487 children were African American. Using the methodology  described, we obtained a disproportionality index of 2.26 nationally for  African American children in foster care at the end of the fiscal year for  2004. This methodology was used for the other four racial categories.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Cindy Ayers (Assistant Director) and Deborah A. Signer (Analyst-in- Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Christopher T. Langford,  Theresa Lo, and Kimberly Siegal made significant contributions to this  report, in all aspects of the work. Interns Lisa McMillen and Ashley Gilbert  also contributed with data collection and analysis. In addition,   Charles Willson assisted in the message and report development;   Jay Smale contributed to the initial design of the engagement and, together  with Luann Moy, assessed studies for the literature review; William R.  Chatlos provided technical assistance in the development and pre-testing  of the Web-based survey; Carolyn Boyce provided technical support in  survey research and statistical analysis; George Quinn provided data  analytic support; and James Rebbe, Attorney, provided legal support.