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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.