The INA defines U.S. parameters for intercountry adoptions. INA establishes criteria for children’s entry into the United States and eligibility requirements for prospective adoptive parents of children from foreign countries. A child is eligible for an immediate relative (IR) classification under the INA if the child meets the definition of an “orphan,” as stipulated in the act. In addition, adopting parents must meet certain requirements related to their age, financial status, and medical condition. Over the past 5 years, there have been legislative developments in the U.S. intercountry adoption process, with further changes proposed. The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA) provides the domestic legislation to implement the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co- operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, hereinafter referred to as the Hague Convention or the Convention in this report. The IAA designates State to serve as the Central Authority of the United States to carry out most responsibilities of the Convention, including accreditation of adoption service providers. Also in 2000, the United States enacted the Child Citizenship Act to allow automatic citizenship for eligible adopted children. Furthermore, in 2005 congressional legislation was introduced regarding the U.S. intercountry adoption process. Intercountry adoptions may be a viable alternative to domestic adoptions for parents interested in adopting an infant, according to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. In fiscal years 2002 to 2004, DHS reported that at least 40 percent of children adopted by U.S. parents were under age 1, and at least 42 percent were between the ages of 1 and 4. In the past 10 years, the annual number of U.S. intercountry adoptions has consistently increased and nearly tripled, from more than 8,000 in fiscal year 1994 to more than 22,000 in fiscal year 2004 (see fig. 1). The majority of children adopted into the United States between 1994 and 2004 have originated from four countries—China, Russia, South Korea, and Guatemala—which consistently ranked among the top five sending countries of children adopted by U.S. parents (see app. II for a listing of all intercountry adoptions by country in fiscal year 2004). In total, adoptions from these four countries accounted for over 70 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in the past 10 years (see fig. 2). Adoptions from China, Russia, and Guatemala increased significantly between fiscal years 1994 and 2004, accounting for the vast majority (92 percent) of the total increase (about 14,000) in U.S. intercountry adoptions during this time. The number of adoptions from South Korea has remained more consistent during this time (see fig. 3). Although the United States is one of the world’s leading receiving countries for intercountry adoptions, some U.S. children are adopted by foreigners. Statistics on the number of U.S. children adopted by foreigners are not currently collected on a national level, however, Canada, for example, reports adoptions of over 700 U.S. children from 1993 to 2002. In recent years, several countries, including the United States, have restricted intercountry adoptions from or to all or specified countries for various reasons, including concerns of fraud, medical concerns, natural disasters, and time allowed for a country to review safeguards in its intercountry adoption process. Although some of these restrictions have since been removed, such as those recently in China, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam, several remain in effect. Currently, the United States has a suspension on intercountry adoptions from Cambodia—the only U.S.- imposed suspension—which was issued in 2001 due to evidence of widespread corruption. Additionally, several foreign governments currently have restricted intercountry adoptions, in some cases because the countries are examining their adoption process (see table 1). The U.S. intercountry adoption process, which is defined by the INA and primarily implemented by USCIS and State, is complicated by a number of domestic and foreign government requirements and can be separated into three phases. First, USCIS determines the parents’ eligibility and fitness to adopt through its review of the prospective parents’ application, home study reports, and background checks. Next, USCIS—or State, in countries where USCIS has no offices—determines the child’s orphan status by examining documents and, when warranted, conducting overseas investigations. Finally, State’s overseas consular officers verify the child’s orphan status and eligibility for an immigrant visa. (Fig. 4 illustrates the three phases of the U.S. government’s process for intercountry adoptions.) Depending on the type of visa issued, children admitted to the United States may qualify for automatic citizenship. Various factors, such as different foreign government’s requirements, contribute to varying lengths of time required for the process and the varying costs incurred by adoptive parents. In the first phase of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, USCIS determines the potential parents’ suitability to adopt a child who resides outside of the United States. The INA defines qualifications for prospective adoptive parents. USCIS implements this requirement through its 68 domestic offices. Prospective parents submit to USCIS fingerprints; a filing fee; home study; proof of compliance with preadoption requirements of the prospective parent’s state of residence; other documents such as proof of citizenship, age, marriage license, and divorce decrees; and, in some cases, an Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition (Form I-600A). The home study is completed by a party approved under the laws of the prospective parent’s state of residence, such as an adoption agency, and includes interviews with the family and an assessment of the prospective parent’s suitability to adopt a child. After USCIS receives all required documents from parents, the agency reviews the documents, conducts background checks on all adult members living in the household, and makes its determination. If USCIS determines that the prospective parents are eligible to adopt and fit to provide the child with proper care, then it sends them a Notice of Favorable Determination Concerning Applications for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition (Form I-171H or I-797C). The second phase in the process requires U.S. federal agencies to determine the orphan status of the child to be adopted, as defined by the INA. Depending upon the location of the child, either an USCIS officer or State consular officer determines whether the prospective adoptive child meets the U.S. immigration law definition of an orphan. Once a child has been identified, adopting parents file a Petition to Classify the Orphan as an Immediate Relative (Form I-600), provide proof of the child’s age and identity, proof that the child is an orphan, and proof of a foreign government-issued adoption decree or guardianship. In order to obtain adoption decree or guardianship in the foreign country, parents must meet the foreign government’s laws and requirements. Foreign governments may place additional requirements on prospective parents, including those regarding the prospective parents’ age and residency in country, as well as the requirement for parents to agree to provide post adoption information. The Russian government, for example, requires an agreement from adoptive parents to provide periodic and on time postplacement reports. However, Russian government officials have noted that American adoptive parents have not always complied with this requirement. USCIS or State officials review the documentation for Form I-600 and, depending on the specifics of the case, may also undertake a field investigation. Sometimes officers interview birth mothers or visit orphanages to verify the circumstances surrounding the child’s orphan status. Following the completed review, USCIS or State officials make a determination. If all documents are sufficient and the child has been determined an orphan, USCIS or State officials approve the I-600 petition and send parents a Notice of Approval of Relative Immigration Visa Petition (Form I-171). The third step of the process involves State’s issuance of an immigrant visa to the child for admission into the United States. With respect to state law, most states grant full recognition to a foreign adoption decree. In some instances, states require adoptive parents to validate the foreign decree. After parents have an approved Form I-600, they submit a completed Immigrant Visa application (Form DS-230, Parts I and II) along with the application fee and required documentation. The consular officer then examines the documents, which include the following: child’s birth certificate and passport (or other valid travel document); evidence of adoption or legal custody for purposes of emigration and adoption, as well as evidence of whether the adopting parents saw the child prior to or during adoption proceedings (if applicable); and record of medical exam from the embassy’s panel physician (this exam is largely to ensure that children with communicable diseases do not enter the United States; parents are advised by State to consult with other professionals for complete physical or mental evaluations of the orphan’s health). If significant health problems are uncovered, parents may be asked to sign an affidavit acknowledging their desire to continue with the case given the medical condition of the child and, in some cases, parents may be requested to sign an affidavit regarding their intent to obtain necessary vaccinations for the child upon entry to the United States. State consular officers then approve the child for an IR-3 or IR-4 immigrant visa, if all documentation for the orphan is in order. State provides an immigrant visa package for the child to be presented to the Customs and Border Protection officer at the U.S. port of entry. According to State officials, the visa issuance process usually takes about 1 or 2 days. The INA establishes the criteria by which foreign-born children adopted by U.S. parents become U.S. citizens. Foreign-born children under the age of 18 admitted to the United States and residing permanently in the United States based on an issued IR-3 visa automatically acquire U.S. citizenship as of the date of admission to the United States. USCIS reviews IR-3 visa packages and sends Certificates of Citizenship to eligible children without requiring any additional forms or fees. In most cases, children that receive IR-4 visas may automatically acquire U.S. citizenship at entry if there was a final adoption abroad by a U.S. citizen parent and the state where the child resides does not require readoption. Other children that receive IR-4 visas acquire U.S. citizenship upon full and final adoption in the United States. Various factors make it difficult to generalize the length of time required and exact costs incurred by adoptive parents for intercountry adoptions. Country-specific adoption requirements, particularly in the top sending countries of U.S. intercountry adoptions, may contribute to the different time frames it may take to adopt a child. For example, the Russian government requires adoptive parents to travel to Russia to meet the prospective adoptive child. Since Russia also requires that the child remain in Russia before the court hearing, adoptive parents may travel a second time to Russia to attend the court hearing and adopt the child. In addition, procedural requirements in the foreign country may be difficult to meet. For instance, in Guatemala, birth certificates of the adopted child and documents proving the identity of birth mothers may be difficult and time- consuming to locate. Other factors, such as the prospective parents’ ability to provide adequate and timely information to meet U.S. intercountry adoption requirements, may also contribute to the length of time it takes for U.S. government officials to approve adoptions. For example, prospective parents may file application forms for intercountry adoptions to USCIS, which allows prospective parents up to 12 months to submit supportive documentation, such as the home study. Estimated total adoption costs incurred by adoptive parents may also vary depending on the foreign country. Table 2 shows the variations on the estimated length of time that foreign governments take to approve typical U.S. intercountry adoption cases in country and estimated cost of an adoption incurred by adoptive parents among the top sending countries of U.S. intercountry adoptions. In 2002, an interagency task force on intercountry adoptions was created to examine ways to improve the U.S. intercountry adoption process, and USCIS and State implemented most of the priorities that the task force identified as necessary for improving the adoption process. USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the adoptions process but lacks a structured quality assurance program where results are summarized and communicated to senior agency officials. USCIS and State have taken several measures to improve the intercountry adoptions process. The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) made intercountry adoptions a priority for the agency in March 2002, after the Commissioner suspended orphan visa processing for Cambodia. The INS created an adoptions task force with State to comprehensively review the existing INS structure for handling intercountry adoptions. The task force identified several priorities to improve the intercountry adoption process, and the agencies have, over the past 3 years, addressed many of the priorities by taking the following actions: Improved interagency coordination: The task force suggested that coordination needed to continue and that USCIS consider how adoption work should be distributed and coordinated between USCIS and State. USCIS and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs have established a relationship to work together to address and resolve adoption issues. For instance, the agencies hold quarterly meetings to coordinate implementing changes to regulations, discuss challenges to the process, and improve the forms used by officials in the process. In particular, USCIS and State officials regularly discuss specific adoption cases and issues that arise in overseas posts, as well as regulatory, administrative, and policy matters related to intercountry adoptions. Moreover, in April 2005, USCIS and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs officials met at a USCIS field office to establish a mechanism for sharing information on visa processing. Improved efforts to communicate with parents: The adoptions task force identified the need for USCIS and State to provide advisory notices for prospective adoptive parents. The task force suggested that emphasis should be placed on ensuring that parents were consistently informed about procedures, as well as prohibitions related to child buying in the process, and that parents receive the most current and complete information available on issues identified in countries where adoptions occur. To improve communications with parents, USCIS and State’s Office of Children’s Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs provide information on their Web sites, USCIS and State officials meet with adoption organizations and parents to discuss various issues and USCIS field offices have taken steps to provide customer service to parents. For example, USCIS and State Web sites provide information on the process in the United States and overseas, and the roles of both agencies, and alert parents to potential concerns through advisory notices about adoption procedures in other countries. USCIS and State’s Office of Children’s Issues provide outreach to parents and the adoption community by presenting information at regional and national conferences. In the two domestic USCIS field offices we visited, we found that officials had taken several actions to communicate with prospective adoptive parents, such as establishing procedures to meet prospective parents and providing telephone numbers for parents to directly contact the Adoption Adjudication Officer. Developed standard operating procedures: Another priority of the adoptions task force was for USCIS to provide consistent guidance for its field officers adjudicating orphan petitions by developing standard operating procedures on how to determine parents’ suitability to adopt and a child’s orphan status. The task force pointed out that, in some cases, an adjudicator may be the only person in the field office that handles adoptions and may have a supervisor reviewing their work who does not have expertise in adoptions. The task force also reported that, even among the best adjudicators, there was little procedural consistency in adjudicating adoptions and no centralized guidance from headquarters. To address this priority, in 2003, USCIS developed standard operating procedures on adoption adjudications and made them available to their staff electronically. We reviewed the standard operating procedures and found that they described in a very detailed manner the process for adjudicating orphan petitions. Furthermore, State provides guidance to consular officers on how to process orphan visa cases in its Foreign Affairs Manual. Conducted agency training: The task force noted that both USCIS and State officials sometimes lacked the training necessary to determine orphan status. In response, USCIS developed training materials for its domestic and overseas field adjudicators for determining orphan status and conducted an intercountry adoptions training course in 2002, which some State officials attended. We reviewed the training materials and found that they re-emphasized INA statutes for defining orphan status, defined the agency’s role and responsibilities for adjudicating orphan petitions, and provided details for conducting orphan investigations. In addition, to assist consular officers in their orphan investigations, State offers fraud training to help its officers ascertain whether information in documents for determining orphan status, such as birth certificates, is false or whether documents have been altered or falsified. According to a State official, State increased the frequency of the course from twice a year to 8 to 10 times per year in 2005. Streamlined the intercountry adoption process: The task force emphasized that the agency continue to demonstrate its commitment to maintaining the intercountry adoption process as a priority. USCIS streamlined some of its intercountry adoption procedures as a result. A USCIS official acknowledged that the agency is challenged to balance the prospective parents’ interest in creating their new family as quickly as possible with the need to review and process each application and the required documents in accordance with U.S. law. To address issues relating to timeliness, the agency has instituted a policy requiring completion of all immigration related applications within 6 months. Between October 2003 and July 2005, the agency has processed adoption applications in less than 4 months, on average. According to USCIS officials, many petitioners file an incomplete Advanced Orphan Petition (Form I-600A) or Orphan Petition (Form I-600) while they are in the process of completing their home study. Regulations allow the petitioner(s) up to 12 months to submit supportive documentation. The agency strives to process completed applications within 30 days of receiving all required documentation, according to USCIS officials. In addition, in November 2003, USCIS made efforts to eliminate its backlog of U.S. citizenship certificates by centralizing the process. USCIS advised its field offices that, if they needed assistance with their backlog, to send these cases to a central location for processing. According to a USCIS official, from November through December 2003, this central office processed 671 of the 700 backlogged cases—the remaining cases were either denied or returned to the field office for additional follow-up. In addition, to streamline and simplify the issuance of Certificates of Citizenship for adopted children who receive IR-3 visas and have their adoption finalized overseas, USCIS created the IR-3 Entrant Program in January 2004. The program eliminates the application and fee for citizenship certificates for about 70 percent of children adopted by U.S. citizens. A USCIS official noted that the agency has consistently met its goal to provide certificates within 45 days after the family has entered the United States. Further, in the intercountry adoption process, a system of checks and balances has developed that allows State, in the visa issuance phase, to review USCIS paperwork before issuing the visa to the child. Additionally, as a part of the streamlined process for issuing the citizenship certificates to adopted children, USCIS reviews IR-3 immigrant visa packages to verify that the child acquired automatic U.S. citizenship upon admission to the United States as required under the INA. Since April 2005, USCIS and State have established procedures to specifically address issues in visa classification decisions. The adoptions task force reported that USCIS should adopt a quality assurance program for orphan adjudications. Although USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, we found that USCIS has not developed a formal quality assurance process, similar to the programs used in other areas of the agency. The activities of the quality assurance program could include such procedures as the review of random cases adjudicated by field officers to determine whether they are following agency guidance and procedures, as well as the evaluation of statistics to determine average processing times of orphan petitions by field offices. The task force reported that, even among the best officers, there was little procedural or substantive consistency in approach or a centralized source of guidance from headquarters. In 2003, USCIS developed standard operating procedures that detailed a step by step approach for adjudicating orphan petitions with the goal of improved consistency among its adjudications, but the agency has not provided training to adjudicating officers on these new procedures. The task force also reported that problems in adjudicating orphan petitions can be traced to the fact that individuals train their successors as best as they can, but there is no routine mechanism for obtaining feedback on written work from someone with specialized adoption expertise. In the field offices we visited, we found that the adjudicators had learned the process for adjudicating adoption petitions mostly through on-the-job training and mentoring. USCIS held intercountry adoptions training in 2002 as a result of the task force’s suggestion; however, not all adjudicators who process adoption cases attended the training. A USCIS official stated that the agency plans to hold similar training in fiscal year 2006, but no dates have been set. In January 2004, as part of the Child Citizenship Act Program, the USCIS Buffalo office began its review of adoption documents for children who received IR-3 visas to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information relating to the adoption process. This review process accounts for about 70 percent of the adoption cases, with the remaining 30 percent not included. The USCIS Buffalo office has an informal process for addressing individual cases by sending e-mails to relevant officials at USCIS and State. We reviewed several of the e-mails sent by the USCIS Buffalo office, which identified issues such as insufficient documentation, misclassifications of visas, and inconsistent interpretation of INA regulations. While USCIS Buffalo’s review process has merits, the results of the review are not summarized and formally reported to either senior USCIS or State officials. Moreover, USCIS does not have a structured approach that would allow the agencies to assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time, ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the results, and identify opportunities where additional training or guidance may be warranted. The conditions in foreign environments can contribute to potential abuses in the intercountry adoptions process. USCIS and State have taken steps to increase safeguards and mitigate the potential for fraudulent adoptions, though USCIS has not formally and systematically documented specific problematic incidents to help USCIS adjudicators better understand the potential pitfalls in some intercountry adoptions. While the U.S. immigration law covering intercountry adoptions is designed to ensure that adopting parents are suitable and fit to provide proper care of the child and that the foreign-born child is an orphan, conditions in some countries—such as corruption and the lack of a legal framework over intercountry adoptions—may lead to abuses in the intercountry adoption process. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), such abuses are more likely to occur in countries where legislative provisions are nonexistent, inadequate, or plagued with gaps and loopholes. UNICEF research also identified that risk for abuses significantly increased when government entities that oversee the adoption process are absent, insufficient, or when the prospective parents act through intermediaries that may not be licensed. For example, State has received a growing number of complaints concerning adoption facilitators operating in various countries. Licensing of agents and facilitators is done in accordance with local law. However, not all foreign governments require that agents and facilitators be licensed. Accordingly, it can be difficult to hold facilitators accountable for fraud, malfeasance, or other bad practices in general. According to USCIS, State, and UNICEF, there have been some known cases of abuse in intercountry adoptions, which include exchanging a child for financial or material rewards to the birth family, or “child buying”; deliberately providing misleading information to birth parents to obtain providing false information to prospective adopters; obtaining favorable adoption decisions from corrupt local or central government officials. Past difficulties with intercountry adoptions in foreign countries, most notably in Cambodia, illustrate the potential effect of high-risk adoption environments. The United States issued a suspension on intercountry adoptions from Cambodia in December 2001 after receiving complaints from nongovernmental organizations in Cambodia that criminals were involved in “baby buying” for adoptions. From 1997 to 2001, the conspirators operated a scheme to defraud U.S. citizens who adopted some 700 children from Cambodia. The conspirators received approximately $8 million dollars from adoptive parents in the United States. The conspiracy involved assorted crimes, including alien smuggling, visa fraud, and money laundering, and included schemes such as the use of baby buyers obtaining children from birth parents by informing the birth parents that they may have their child back at any time, then obtaining false Cambodian passports to enable the children to leave the country. In 2004, after a DHS investigation, a U.S. adoption facilitator pled guilty to conspiracy to commit visa fraud and conspiracy to launder money. The United States has also noted ongoing concerns with intercountry adoptions in certain countries, as of the date of this report. These countries include Guatemala, where a large number of U.S. adopted children originate from, as well as Nepal, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. In Guatemala, USCIS and State noted on their Web sites that the use of a false birth mother to release her child is the usual method chosen by unscrupulous operators to create a paper trail for an illegally obtained child. USCIS and State officials acknowledged the known problems in Guatemala of birth mothers who are paid by private adoption attorneys to relinquish their children for adoption. According to State, problematic cases may further be complicated by high incidence of corruption and civil document fraud in Guatemala. In Nepal, visa fraud is a significant problem facing potential adoptive parents, according to State’s Web site. State also emphasized that document and identity fraud related to adoptions are serious concerns in Nigeria, and a high rate of adoption fraud has been uncovered in Sierra Leone. USCIS and State have taken various steps to strengthen safeguards against abuses associated with adoptions from foreign countries. USCIS and State’s Office of Children’s Issues coordinate to provide publicly available information to alert prospective adoptive parents to country-specific adoption processes and serious problems that may develop or already exist in foreign adoption processes State officials also hold diplomatic discussions with foreign countries regarding intercountry adoptions. Through discussions between the United States and Vietnam, for example, intercountry adoptions, which had been suspended, resumed after the two countries signed an agreement of cooperation in June 2005. In addition, USCIS has established written guidance for ways to identify fraud in intercountry adoption cases. The guidance provides that USCIS officers consider specific fraud indicators, such as documentary deficiencies and delays in registering birth certificates. Furthermore, State has provided fraud prevention management training to State consular officers, and USCIS officials said that all USCIS officers receive training, which includes an antifraud segment, when hired. USCIS and State have established procedures for determining the orphan status of the child based on the conditions that exist in the country relating to the intercountry adoption process. These procedures may add to the length of time for the adoption process. For example, in countries where the adoption process is clear and transparent, and when officers deal with adoption agencies with high standards, USCIS allows the field investigation to be completed through a documentary review. In some instances, however, deficiencies or inconsistencies in the documentation presented will require in-depth field investigations. In certain countries, these investigations can include additional steps, such as interviews with the birth mother, DNA testing when necessary and feasible, and interviews with adoption entities such as facilitators, orphanage directors, and local officials. In Guatemala, for example, USCIS requires DNA testing in all cases where the child is released by an identified birth mother due to concerns over the use of false birth mothers to release illegally obtained children. In Nigeria, where document and identity fraud related to adoptions are serious concerns, all adoptions are required to undergo full field investigations to verify the authenticity of the information provided in the adoption decrees and U.S. orphan petitions. These added steps in the process may contribute to a lengthier completion time for intercountry adoptions, but may also help the U.S. government in ensuring the legitimacy of information provided on the adopted child and in detecting fraud. Both USCIS and State publicize general knowledge of the risk environment in foreign countries. However, while State has documented specific concerns via cable communication, USCIS has not established a procedure to systematically document instances of individual problematic situations identified through its intercountry adoption work in foreign countries, including its staff’s knowledge of unscrupulous adoption attorneys and facilitators, as well as disreputable orphanages and adoption agencies. Although USCIS officials informed us that they discuss the risk environment in foreign countries with overseas staff on a periodic and informal basis, agency officials’ knowledge of specific incidents of concern may be better captured in a systematically documented method. In Guatemala, for example, USCIS staff informed us of instances where facilitators may have provided substantial funds to birth mothers who have relinquished their children for adoption. A USCIS official had also banned specific adoption attorneys in Guatemala from submitting intercountry adoption cases due to the USCIS official’s suspicions of the attorneys’ fraudulent practices. This information, however, is communicated anecdotally to other USCIS officials without being specifically and systematically documented. In addition, while USCIS provides information for State’s publicly available notices documenting country conditions, individual and detailed accounts of concern are not systematically captured. USCIS officials also noted that they have access to cables prepared by State officials that discuss concerns with intercountry adoptions in foreign countries. Contents in State’s documented cables range from documentation of general risks to intercountry adoptions in foreign countries to findings during orphan investigations in specific adoption cases. GAO internal control standards specify that agencies consider adequate mechanisms to identify risks arising from external factors, including careful considerations of the risks resulting from interactions with other federal entities and parties outside the government. Our standards also note that agency management should establish a formal process to analyze these risks. Documentation by USCIS staff of specific problematic incidents would provide a systematic method to retain institutional knowledge, analyze trends in the occurrence of these problems, and share critical information. The Hague Convention, which governs intercountry adoptions, establishes minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated with foreign governments’ adoption processes. The United States has signed the Convention and taken key steps toward implementation but has not yet formally ratified it, while some U.S. top sending countries have also not ratified the Convention. The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoptions is designed to help alleviate some of the risks associated with the adoption process by establishing international minimum standards that sending and receiving countries must abide by. In particular, the objectives of the Convention are (1) to establish safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights as recognized in international law; (2) to establish a system of cooperation among Contracting States to ensure that those safeguards are respected and thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children; and (3) to secure the recognition in Contracting States of adoptions made in accordance with the Convention. Standards of the Convention will only be applicable for intercountry adoptions in which both the sending and receiving country have ratified the Convention. More specifically, the Convention’s safeguards include the required designation of a Central Authority in each country to implement Convention procedures, as well as requirements regarding prospective parents, adoptable children, and other involved entities. These Central Authorities must coordinate with each other, provide evaluation reports on their country’s adoption experiences to other countries, and take the appropriate measures to prevent improper financial gain from an intercountry adoption, among other responsibilities. Additionally, under a Hague adoption, a prospective adoptive parent must apply for an adoption through the sending country’s Central Authority. To meet these requirements, the sending country must establish that a child is eligible for adoption by ensuring that adoption is in the best interest of the child and that appropriate counseling and consents, not induced by payment, have been provided, while the receiving country must determine that the prospective parents are eligible and suitable to adopt. Moreover, the Convention requires the receiving country to ensure that the child will be authorized to enter and permanently reside in the country before the adoption takes place, though this is not a prerequisite to parent-child contact. Under the Convention, the Central Authority may delegate certain functions to a public authority or an accredited body, as long as this body pursues only nonprofit objectives, is staffed by qualified persons, and is subject to supervision. The Convention also permits many Central Authority functions to be performed by other bodies or persons who meet certain ethical, training, and experience standards. Although the Convention establishes minimum standards, it does not establish formal means to determine whether countries are complying with them. The United States has monitoring mechanisms, outlined in the IAA, to ensure it adheres to the standards of the Convention. However, the Convention does not include mechanisms to determine whether other countries are doing so as well. For example, although the Convention requires the sending countries to prepare a report for each child, it is up to the sending country to ensure that its report is factual. Although State has taken some key steps to implement the Convention, several remain. The United States signed the Convention in 1994. In 2000, the Senate gave its advice and consent, but the United States will not formally ratify the Convention until it is able to carry out the obligations required of it by the Convention. That same year, the United States passed the implementing legislation, the IAA, which established State as the U.S. Central Authority for intercountry adoptions. Following passage of the legislation, State has taken several steps to prepare for implementation, including drafting and issuing regulations for comment as required by IAA, hiring staff to carry out some of the responsibilities of the Convention, and requesting applications for accrediting entities, which under IAA are responsible for accrediting adoption service providers. However, some key steps remain, which include finalizing regulations, deploying case registry software to track adoption cases, and signing agreements with accredited entities. Implementation of the Convention is one of State’s highest priorities, according to State officials. Figure 5 provides a detailed time line of the United States’ implementation of the Convention. State officials said the implementation of the Convention is a long-term project and attributed its lengthiness to several challenges. First, IAA required that State consider the standards or procedures developed or proposed by the adoption community before issuing regulations. Once regulations were issued to the public for comment, State received about 1,500 comments from more than 200 entities expressing a wide range of views, some calling for more stringent standards and others for less stringent. State revised the regulations, including responses to comments, and sent them to Office of Management and Budget. Second, State is further challenged in drafting agreements with accrediting entities because such entities could be either state licensing bodies or nonprofits, both of which entail a variety of different restrictions, such as state laws. Finally, State must complete some steps in sequential order. For example, agreements with accrediting entities can not be signed until the regulations are finalized. Further, although State’s target date for implementation is fiscal year 2007, agency officials stated that they could not predict how long it will take accrediting entities to approve adoption service agencies. According to officials, State will have completed its work needed to implement the Convention by the end of 2005, at which time the adoption service providers will have to apply for accreditation. In addition, USCIS must revise regulations to implement the Convention, and, according to USCIS, they are currently in the process of making the revisions. Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the Convention. Three out of four top sending countries for U.S. intercountry adoptions—Guatemala, Russia, and South Korea—have not ratified the Convention. In September 2005, China, the top sending country of U.S. adoptions, ratified the Convention. State officials said that Russia is working toward ratification of the Convention. Guatemala acceded to the Convention in 2002, but, in 2003, the Guatemalan court ruled the accession to be unconstitutional based on technicalities. South Korea has not signed the Convention. See appendix IV for the countries that have implemented the Convention, as well as the total number of U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004 from these countries, as well as the top four sending countries. Following implementation of the Convention, the United States plans to continue adoptions with non-Hague Convention countries, according to State officials. However, State officials told us that prior to U.S. implementation of the Convention, other Hague Convention countries could potentially suspend adoptions with the United States. For example, Costa Rica announced the suspension of non-Hague adoptions in 2003, though the country has continued to allow some adoptions by U.S. citizens, according to State officials. With more and more U.S. citizens expanding their families by adopting children who live in other countries, it is important for the U.S. government to have procedures in place that provide prospective parents with transparent and accessible information on adoptions, coordination between the two primary agencies responsible for implementing U.S. immigration law on intercountry adoptions, and mechanisms to evaluate the suitability of prospective parents and to determine the child’s status as an orphan and eligibility to immigrate to the United States. The United States has such procedures in place, and the designated agencies have worked to improve them. While U.S. adoptive parents desire a smooth and expedited adoption process, agency officials are challenged to balance the importance of prioritizing and expediting intercountry adoption cases with the need to conduct thorough investigations to ensure the legitimacy of each adoption. In recent years, State and USCIS have taken measures to enhance the intercountry adoption process. However, the development of an intercountry adoptions quality assurance program would help to ensure that U.S. intercountry adoption procedures are consistently followed domestically and worldwide. Moreover, because foreign governments play a prominent role in U.S. intercountry adoptions, the U.S. government is limited in its ability to mitigate against abuses that take place abroad. Although the U.S. government has taken measures to address some risks to intercountry adoptions, a systematic documentation of such incidents in foreign countries would allow for a formal mechanism for retaining and sharing specific information among staff working on adoption cases. To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following actions working with the Director of USCIS to formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time, ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the outcomes of the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities where additional training or guidance may be warranted; and consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper activities. The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written comments on a draft of this report (see apps. V and VI). GAO incorporated technical comments from both agencies as appropriate. Both DHS and State generally agreed with the report draft’s observations and conclusions. DHS agreed with our two recommendations for USCIS to formalize its quality assurance mechanisms and for USCIS to consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions identified in foreign countries. DHS also commented that the report accurately describes the process and responsibilities of both agencies in the intercountry adoption process. DHS noted that both agencies have improved interagency coordination and efforts to communicate with parents, developed standard operations procedures, conducted training, and streamlined the process. State commented that the department and USCIS have established procedures that provide prospective adoptive parents with transparent and accessible information, ensure coordination between their distinct supportive roles, and meet the requirements of U.S. law. State also noted that the report outlines the separate responsibilities of each agency and recognizes the steps that both agencies have taken to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place within the context of strong safeguards. State replied that it is deeply concerned about the welfare of children around the world and regards the Hague Convention as an important means of promoting strong safeguards and ensuring that intercountry adoption remains a viable option for children around the world who seek permanent family placements. The department also discussed its action on implementing the Hague Convention and indicated that it plans to complete the tasks necessary to ratify the Convention in 2005 and to enable adoption service providers to be accredited in time for the United States to be able to ratify the Convention in 2007. Also, State provided additional information regarding its outreach efforts to the adoption community that we added to the report and provided supplementary information on Department of State Actions on Intercountry Adoptions in Selected Countries. We will send copies of this report to appropriate Members of Congress, the Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland Security and State, and the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 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 VII. To describe the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we met with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of State (State) officials in Washington, D.C., with responsibilities for managing intercountry adoptions cases. Specifically, we met with officials in USCIS’ Offices of Field Operations and International Operations, and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Offices of Children’s Issues and Visa Services. We reviewed documents on U.S. intercountry adoptions, including information on USCIS and State Web sites, which outlined specific procedures for prospective adoptive parents to complete during the intercountry adoption process, as well as information on the child’s eligibility for citizenship. Furthermore, we reported on the varying intercountry adoption completion times and costs incurred by adoptive parents in the top four sending countries based on discussions with officials from State’s Office of Children’s Issues, who obtained this information from State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs officers handling intercountry adoption cases in the four overseas locations. These Bureau of Consular Affairs officers provided approximate time frames based on their experiences in reviewing intercountry adoption cases. We did not test the reliability of this data. To assess the U.S. government agencies’ efforts to manage the intercountry adoption process, we interviewed USCIS and State officials in Washington, D.C. We reviewed a USCIS task force report from June 2002, which assessed the U.S. intercountry adoption process and identified areas for improvements. We discussed actions taken to address these issues with USCIS officials. We further reviewed USCIS and State documents to understand their procedures for handling intercountry adoptions cases and their management of the process. These documents include USCIS Standard Operating Procedures and Adjudicator’s Field Manual, as well as State’s Foreign Affairs Manual. Additionally, we reviewed USCIS and State’s caseload data, documentation of communication and coordination between the two agencies, as well as training materials provided to USCIS and State officials related to intercountry adoptions. The estimate of the time that USCIS officials took to process intercountry adoption applications relies on their Performance Analysis System (PAS). GAO tested the reliability of the PAS data and found that it was sufficiently reliable at the aggregate level to identify overall trends. We also visited USCIS offices in New York and Los Angeles to see how USCIS implements domestic procedures related to intercountry adoptions. Both of these offices ranked in the top 20 percent of domestic offices for the number of adoption cases received in fiscal year 2004 and demonstrate geographic diversity. Additionally, we visited Guatemala City, Guatemala, and Moscow, Russia, to see how USCIS and State implement intercountry adoption procedures overseas. Our reasons for selecting those two countries are discussed below. Furthermore, we contacted U.S. adoption organizations and agencies to understand their roles, as well as some adoptive parents who belonged to national adoptive parent support groups and were willing to respond to us, to hear about their experiences with the U.S. intercountry adoption process. To understand the intercountry adoption process and the adoption environment in overseas locations, we visited Guatemala City and Moscow; we selected these locations for various reasons. Both countries were consistently ranked among the top five sending countries for U.S. intercountry adoptions from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2004. In Guatemala City, USCIS officials adjudicate all orphan petitions to determine the eligibility of the adopted children while State officials issue visas to the adopted children. In contrast, State officials with designated responsibility in Moscow approve the eligibility of the adopted children and issue their visas. In addition, USCIS and State officials noted concerns with intercountry adoptions abuses in Guatemala, which research conducted for United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) corroborated. In both countries, we interviewed USCIS and State Bureau of Consular Affairs officials managing the U.S. intercountry adoption process. We also met with foreign government officials and private adoption facilitators and visited orphanages to learn about their respective roles in the adoption process and their views on the risks associated with intercountry adoptions in Guatemala and Russia. The information on foreign law in this report does not reflect our independent legal analysis, but is based on interviews and secondary sources. To describe the Hague Convention and the statuses of U.S. and top sending countries’ implementation of the Convention, we analyzed the text of the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption to identify the purpose and standards of the Convention. We also analyzed the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, which provides for the implementation of the Convention by the United States. We also reviewed State’s Web sites and documents regarding the status of its implementation of the Convention, including comments on draft regulations and State’s Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Summary. In addition, we interviewed USCIS and State officials to determine the status of the U.S. implementation of the Convention. Finally, we obtained data on other countries’ ratification of the Convention from the Web site of The Hague Conference on Private International Law, which tracks the statuses of countries that have signed and ratified the Convention. To verify that this data on the Web site was current, we interviewed an official from the member of the permanent bureau of the Convention. Furthermore, we discussed the implementation statuses of the Convention in their own countries with Guatemalan and Russian government officials. We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Congo, Democratic Republic of the 13 (Continued From Previous Page) Great Britain and Northern Ireland Hong Kong S.A.R. Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Rep. of Marshall Islands, Republic of the 32 (Continued From Previous Page) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 17 (Continued From Previous Page) Sub Office under Bangkok District Office Sub Office under Bangkok District Office Sub Office under Bangkok District Office Sub Office under Bangkok District Office Sub Office under Bangkok District Office Sub Office under Bangkok District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Mexico City District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Sub Office under Rome District Office Although USCIS has a Sub Office in Moscow, Russia, USCIS officials in Moscow do not handle U.S. intercountry adoption cases. Instead, State’s consular officers approve these cases in Moscow. The following are GAO’s comments on the letter from the Department of State dated October 12, 2005. 1. State commented that the draft report’s table of countries that currently maintain restrictions on intercountry adoptions included countries affected by the 2004 South Asian tsunami. The department did not believe that it was appropriate to do so because the region was following accepted international practices rather than imposing restrictions on intercountry adoptions in contrast to the other countries included in the table. We removed this listing from the table. 2. State provided additional information regarding its outreach efforts to the adoption community, which we added to the report. In addition to the individual named above, Phyllis Anderson, Assistant Director; Joe Carney; Tracey Cross; Mark Dowling; Joel Grossman; Rhonda Horried; and Victoria Lin made key contributions to this report.

Summary: U.S. intercountry adoptions nearly tripled from more than 8,000 to more than 22,000 between fiscal years 1994 and 2004. While the Department of State (State) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) manage the process, factors ranging from corruption to inadequate legal frameworks in foreign countries could lead to abuses such as the abduction of children. GAO (1) describes the U.S. intercountry adoption process, (2) assesses the U.S. government's efforts to manage the intercountry adoption process, (3) assesses U.S. efforts to strengthen safeguards and mitigate against the potential for fraudulent adoptions, and (4) describes the Hague Convention (Convention) and the statuses of U.S. and top sending countries' implementation of the Convention. Adoptive parents must meet domestic and foreign government requirements to complete intercountry adoptions. However, factors such as foreign governments' procedures may contribute to varying time frames for adoptions. USCIS and State are the domestic agencies responsible for intercountry adoptions. USCIS and State made efforts to enhance the process by improving interagency coordination and communication with parents and developing additional guidance on adoptions. In addition, USCIS streamlined the intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees for parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible children. While USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, GAO found that the agency does not have a formal quality assurance program in place where results are summarized and reported to senior agency officials so that an assessment of the quality of the intercountry adoption process can be made over time. Factors in foreign countries' environments may allow for abuses in adoptions. To reduce the likelihood of such abuses, USCIS and State have taken such steps as holding diplomatic discussions with foreign governments and imposing additional U.S. procedural requirements. However, USCIS has not established a formal and systematic process for documenting specific incidents of problems in foreign countries. Such a process would allow for a systematic approach to analyze problematic trends and retain institutional knowledge. The Hague Convention governing intercountry adoptions establishes minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated with the adoption process. The United States has signed the Convention and taken several steps toward implementing the Convention; however, key steps remain, including formal ratification of the Convention. Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the Convention.