Unnamed: 0
int64 0
4.52k
| report
stringlengths 7
512
|
|---|---|
600 | safely store, and dispose of these materials. It is a daunting challenge, involving the development of complicated technologies and costing about $220 billion over 70 years or more. DOE has reported completing its cleanup work at 74 of the 114 sites in the complex, but those were small and the least difficult to deal with. The sites remaining to be cleaned up present enormous challenges to DOE. DOE’s cleanup program is carried out primarily under two environmental laws. Under section 120 of CERCLA, EPA mus |
601 | t, where appropriate, evaluate hazardous waste sites at DOE’s facilities to determine whether the waste sites qualify for inclusion on the National Priorities List, EPA’s list of the nation’s most serious hazardous waste sites. For each facility listed on the National Priorities List, section 120(e) (2) of CERCLA requires DOE to enter into an interagency agreement with EPA for the completion of all necessary remedial actions at the facility. These agreements often include the affected states as parties to t |
602 | he agreements. These agreements may be known as Federal Facility Agreements or Tri- Party Agreements. Under amendments to RCRA contained in section 105 of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, DOE generally must develop site treatment plans for its mixed-waste sites. These plans are submitted for approval to states authorized by EPA to perform regulatory responsibilities for RCRA within their borders or to EPA if the state does not have the required authority. Upon approval of the treatment plans, th |
603 | e state or EPA must issue an order requiring compliance with the approved plan. The agreements are generally known as Federal Facility Compliance orders. DOE carries out its cleanup program through the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management and in consultation with a variety of stakeholders. These include the federal EPA and state environmental agencies, county and local governmental agencies, citizen groups, advisory groups, Native American tribes, and other organizations. In most cases, DOE’s re |
604 | gulators are parties to the compliance agreements. Other stakeholders advocate their views through various public involvement processes including site-specific advisory boards. Compliance agreements in effect at DOE sites can be grouped into three main types (see table 1). Agreements of the first type—those specifically required by CERCLA or by RCRA—are in effect at all of DOE’s major sites. They tend to cover a relatively large number of cleanup activities and have the majority of schedule milestones that |
605 | DOE must meet. By contrast, agreements that implement court-ordered settlements exist at only a few DOE sites, tend to be focused on a specific issue or concern, and have fewer associated schedule milestones. These agreements are typically between DOE and states. The remaining agreements are based on either federal or state environmental laws and address a variety of purposes, such as cleaning up spills of hazardous waste or remediating groundwater contamination, and have a wide-ranging number of milestones |
606 | . Most of the milestones DOE must meet are contained in the compliance agreements at its six largest sites—Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho Falls, Rocky Flats, Oak Ridge, and Fernald. These six DOE sites are important because they receive about two-thirds of DOE’s cleanup funding. In all, these sites account for 40 of the agreements and more than 4,200 milestones. DOE reported completing about two-thirds of the 7,186 milestones contained in its compliance agreements as of December 2001. Of the 4,558 milestone |
607 | s completed, about 80 percent were finished by the original due date for the milestone. The remainder of the completed milestones were finished either after the original due date had passed or on a renegotiated due date, but DOE reported that the regulators considered the milestones to be met. DOE’s six largest sites reported completing a total of 2,901 of their 4,262 milestones and met the original completion date for the milestones an average of 79 percent of the time. As table 2 shows, this percentage va |
608 | ried from a high of 95 percent at Rocky Flats to a low of 47 percent at Savannah River. Besides the 1,334 milestones currently yet to be completed, additional milestones will be added in the future. Although DOE has completed many of the milestones on time, for several reasons DOE’s success in completing milestones on time is not a good measure of progress in cleaning up the weapons complex. Specifically: Many of the milestones do not indicate what cleanup work has been accomplished. For example, many miles |
609 | tones require completing an administrative requirement that may not indicate what, if any, actual cleanup work was performed. At DOE’s six largest sites, DOE officials reported that about 73 percent of the 2,901 schedule milestones completed were tied to administrative requirements, such as obtaining a permit or submitting a report. Some agreements do not have a fixed number of milestones, and additional milestones are added over time as the scope of work is more fully defined. For example, one of Idaho Fal |
610 | ls’ compliance agreements establishes milestones for remedial activities after a record of decisionhas been signed for a given work area. Four records of decision associated with the agreement have not yet been approved. Their approval will increase the number of enforceable milestones required under that agreement. Many of the remaining milestones are tied to DOE’s most expensive and challenging cleanup work, much of which still lies ahead. Approximately two-thirds of the estimated $220 billion cost of cle |
611 | aning up DOE sites will be incurred after 2006. DOE has reported that the remaining cleanup activities present enormous technical and management challenges, and considerable uncertainties exist over the final cost and time frame for completing the cleanup. Even though schedule milestones are of questionable value as a measure of cleanup progress, the milestones do help regulators track DOE’s activities. Regulators at the four sites we visited said that the compliance agreements they oversee and the mileston |
612 | es associated with those agreements provide a way to bring DOE into compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations. They said the agreements also help to integrate the requirements under various federal laws and allow regulators to track annual progress against DOE’s milestone commitments. Regulators have generally been flexible in agreeing with DOE to change milestone dates when the original milestone could not be met. DOE received approval to change milestone deadlines in over 93 percent of t |
613 | he 1,413 requests made to regulators. Only 3 percent of DOE’s requests were denied. Regulators at the four sites we visited told us they prefer to be flexible with DOE on accomplishing an agreement’s cleanup goals. For example, they generally expressed willingness to work with DOE to extend milestone deadlines when a problem arises due to technology limitations or engineering problems. Because regulators have been so willing to adjust milestones, DOE officials reported missing a total of only 48 milestones, |
614 | or about 1 percent of milestones that have been completed. Even in those few instances where DOE missed milestone deadlines and regulators were unwilling to negotiate revised dates, regulators have infrequently applied penalties available under the compliance agreements. DOE reported that regulators have taken enforcement actions only 13 times since 1988 when DOE failed to meet milestone deadlines. These enforcement actions resulted in DOE paying about $1.8 million in monetary penalties, as shown in table |
615 | 3. In addition to or instead of regulators assessing monetary penalties, several DOE sites agreed to other arrangements valued at about $4 million. For example, for missing a milestone to open a transuranic waste storage facility at the Rocky Flats site, the site agreed to provide a $40,000 grant to a local emergency planning committee to support a chemical-safety-in- schools program. At the Oak Ridge site, because of delays in operating a mixed waste incinerator, site officials agreed to move up the comple |
616 | tion date for $1.4 million worth of cleanup work already scheduled. Also, at three sites—Paducah, Kentucky; Lawrence Livermore Main Site, California; and Nevada Test Site, Nevada—the regulators either did not impose penalties for missed milestones or the issue was still under discussion with DOE at the time of our review. The President’s budget submitted to the Congress does not provide information on the amount of funding requested for DOE’s compliance requirements. DOE sites prepare budget estimates that |
617 | include compliance cost estimates and submit them for consideration by DOE headquarters. However, DOE headquarters officials evaluate individual site estimates and combine them into an overall DOE-wide budget, taking into account broader considerations and other priorities that it must address as part of the give-and-take of the budget process. As a result, the final budget sent to the Congress has summary information on DOE’s programs and activities, but it provides no information on the portion of the bud |
618 | get needed to fund compliance requirements. DOE is not required to develop or present this information to the Congress. The President’s budget typically states that the DOE funding requested is sufficient to substantially comply with compliance agreements, but it does not develop or disclose the total amount of funding needed for compliance. Officials at DOE headquarters told us that budget guidance from the Office of Management and Budget does not require DOE to develop or present information on the cost o |
619 | f meeting compliance requirements, and they said doing so for the thousands of milestones DOE must meet would be unnecessarily burdensome. They said their approach has been to allocate funds appropriated by the Congress and make it the sites’ responsibility to use the funds in a way that meets the compliance agreement milestones established at the site level. Individual DOE sites develop information on the estimated cost of meeting compliance agreements, but the annual estimates are a flexible number. Sites |
620 | develop these estimates because many of the compliance agreements require DOE to request sufficient funding each year to meet all of the requirements in the agreements. Also, DOE must respond to Executive Order 12088, which directs executive agencies to ensure that they request sufficient funds to comply with pollution control standards. Accordingly, each year DOE’s sites develop budget estimates that also identify the amount needed to meet compliance requirements. The sites’ process in developing these co |
621 | mpliance estimates shows that a compliance estimate is a flexible number. For example, two budget estimates typically completed by the sites each year are the “full requirements” estimate and the “target” estimate. The full requirements estimate identifies how much money a site would need to accomplish its work in what site officials consider to be the most desirable fashion. The target estimate reflects a budget strategy based primarily on the amount of funding the site received the previous year and is co |
622 | nsidered a more realistic estimate of the funding a site can expect to receive. For each of these budget estimates, DOE sites also include an estimate of their compliance costs. As a result of this process, DOE sites usually have at least two different estimates of their compliance costs for the same budget year. Table 4 shows how the compliance cost estimates related to compliance agreements changed under different budget scenarios at four DOE sites. The multiple estimates of compliance costs developed by |
623 | individual DOE sites indicate that DOE sites have alternative ways of achieving compliance in any given year. DOE site officials said that how much DOE plans to spend on compliance activities each year varies depending on the total amount of money available. Because many of the compliance milestones are due in the future, sites estimate how much compliance activity is needed each year to meet the future milestones. If sites anticipate that less money will be available, they must decide what compliance activ |
624 | ities are critical for that year and defer work on some longer-term milestones to future years. On the other hand, if more money is available, sites have an opportunity to increase spending on compliance activities earlier than absolutely necessary. DOE’s compliance agreements focus on environmental issues at specific sites and do not include information on the risks being addressed. As a result, they do not provide a means of setting priorities for risks among sites or a basis for decision-making across al |
625 | l DOE sites. Risk is only one of several factors considered in setting the milestones in compliance agreements. Other factors include the preferences and concerns of local stakeholders, business and technical risk, the cost associated with maintaining old facilities, and the desire to achieve demonstrable progress on cleanup. The schedules for when and in what sequence to perform the cleanup work reflect local DOE and stakeholder views on these and other factors and may not reflect the level of risk. For ex |
626 | ample, regulators at DOE’s Savannah River site told us that they were primarily concerned that DOE maintain a certain level of effort and they expected DOE to schedule cleanup activities to most efficiently clean up the site. DOE developed a decision model to determine how to allocate its cleanup dollars at Savannah River to achieve this efficiency. A group of outside reviewers assessing the system at the request of site management concluded that the model was so strongly weighted to efficiency that it was |
627 | unlikely that serious risks to human health or the environment could alter the sequencing of work. DOE officials said they revised the model so that serious risks receive greater emphasis. In response to concerns expressed by the Congress and others about the effectiveness of the cleanup program, DOE has made several attempts to develop a national, risk-based approach to cleanup, but has not succeeded. For example, in 1999, DOE pilot-tested the use of site risk profiles at 10 DOE offices. The profiles were |
628 | intended to provide risk information about the sites, make effective use of existing data at the sites, and incorporate stakeholder input. However, reviewers found that the site profiles failed to adequately address environmental or worker risks because the risks were not consistently or adequately documented. In 2001, DOE eliminated a support group responsible for assisting the sites with this effort, and the risk profiles are generally no longer being developed or used. A 1999 DOE-funded study to evaluate |
629 | its efforts to establish greater use of risk-based decision-making concluded that none of the attempts had been successful. Common problems identified by the study included poor documentation of risks and inconsistent scoring of risks between sites. The study reported that factors contributing to the failure of these efforts included a lack of consistent vision about how to use risk to establish work priorities, the lack of confidence in the results by DOE personnel, the unacceptability of the approaches t |
630 | o stakeholders at the sites, and DOE’s overall failure to integrate any of the approaches into the decision- making process. However, the study concluded that the use of risk as a criterion for cleanup decision-making across DOE’s sites not only was essential, it was also feasible and practical, given an appropriate level of commitment and effort by DOE. DOE plans to shift its cleanup program to place greater focus on rapid reduction of environmental risk, signaling yet again the need for a national risk-ba |
631 | sed approach to cleanup. Without a national, risk-based approach to cleanup in place, DOE’s budget strategy had been to provide stable funding for individual sites and to allow the sites to determine what they needed most to accomplish. However, in a February 2002 report, DOE described numerous problems with the environmental management program and recommended a number of corrective actions. The report concluded that, among other things, the cleanup program was not based on a comprehensive, coherent, techni |
632 | cally supported risk prioritization; it was not focused on accelerating risk reduction; and it was not addressing the challenges of uncontrolled cost and schedule growth. The report recommended that DOE, in consultation with its regulators, move to a national strategy for cleanup. In addition, the report noted that the compliance agreements have failed to achieve the expected risk reduction and have sometimes not focused on the highest risk. The report recommended that DOE develop specific proposals and pre |
633 | sent them to the states and EPA with accelerated risk reduction as the goal. DOE’s new initiative provides additional funds for cleanup reform and is designed to serve as an incentive to sites and regulators to identify accelerated risk reduction and cleanup approaches. DOE’s fiscal year 2003 budget request includes a request for $800 million for this purpose. Moreover, the Administration has agreed to support up to an additional $300 million if needed for cleanup reforms. The set-aside would come from a re |
634 | duction in individual site funding levels and an increase in the overall funding level for the cleanup program. The money would be made available to sites that reach agreements with federal and state regulators on accelerated cleanup approaches. Sites that do not develop accelerated programs would not be eligible for the additional funds. As a result, sites that do not participate could receive less funding than in past years. To date, at least five major DOE sites with compliance agreements have signed let |
635 | ters of intent with their regulators outlining an agreement in principle to accelerate cleanup—Hanford, Idaho, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Nevada Test Site. However, the letters of intent generally also include a provision that the letters do not modify the obligations DOE agreed to in the underlying compliance agreements. At Hanford, DOE and the regulators signed a letter of intent in March 2002 to accelerate cleanup at the site by 35 years or more. DOE and the regulators agreed to consider the greatest ris |
636 | ks first as a principle in setting cleanup priorities. They also agreed to consider, as targets of opportunity for accelerated risk reduction, 42 potential areas identified in a recent study at the site. While accelerating the cleanup may hold promise, Hanford officials acknowledged that many technical, regulatory, and operational decisions need to be made to actually implement the proposals in the new approach. DOE is proceeding with the selection and approval of accelerated programs at the sites, as well |
637 | as identifying the funding for those accelerated programs. At the same time, DOE is considering how best to develop a risk-based cleanup strategy. DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management said that in developing the risk-based approach, DOE should use available technical information, existing reports, DOE’s own knowledge, and common sense to make risk-based decisions. Because DOE’s approach to risk assessment is under development, it is unclear whether DOE will be able to overcome the barriers |
638 | encountered during past efforts to formalize a risk-assessment process. In the interim, DOE headquarters review teams were evaluating the activities at each site and were qualitatively incorporating risk into those evaluations. Compliance agreements have not been a barrier to previous DOE management improvements, but it is not clear if the agreements will be used to oppose proposed changes stemming from the February 2002 initiative. DOE has implemented or tried to implement a number of management initiativ |
639 | es in recent years to improve its performance and address uncontrolled cost and schedule growth. For example, in 1994, it launched its contract reform initiative; in 1995, it established its privatization initiative; and in 1998, it implemented its accelerated path- to-closure initiative. These initiatives affected how DOE approached the cleanup work, the relationship DOE had with its contractors, and, in some cases, the schedule for completing the work. Based on our review of past evaluations of these init |
640 | iatives and discussions with DOE officials and regulators at DOE sites, it appears that DOE proceeded with these initiatives without significant resistance or constraints as a result of the compliance agreements. Because DOE’s cleanup reform initiative is in its early stages, and site- specific strategies are only beginning to emerge, it is unclear how the site compliance agreements will affect implementation of DOE’s latest cleanup reforms. For example, it is not yet known how many sites will participate i |
641 | n DOE’s initiative and how many other sites will encounter cleanup delays because of reduced funding. However, early indications suggest caution. Parties to the agreements at the sites we visited were supportive of DOE’s overall efforts to improve management of the cleanup program, but expressed some concerns about proposals stemming from the February 2002 review of the program. They said that they welcome DOE’s efforts to accelerate cleanup and focus attention on the more serious environmental risks becaus |
642 | e such initiatives are consistent with the regulators’ overall goals of reducing risks to human health and the environment. Most regulators added, however, that DOE generally had not consulted with them in developing its reform initiative and they were concerned about being excluded from the process. Furthermore, they said DOE’s initiative lacked specific details and they had numerous questions about the criteria DOE will use to select sites and the process it will follow at those sites to develop an implem |
643 | entation plan to accelerate cleanup and modify cleanup approaches. Most regulators said they would not view as favorable any attempt by DOE to avoid appropriate waste treatment activities or significantly delay treatment by reducing funding available to sites. In such a case, these regulators are likely to oppose DOE’s initiative. They told us that they most likely would not be willing to renegotiate milestones in the compliance agreements if doing so would lead to delays in the cleanup program at their sit |
644 | es. In addition, these regulators said that if DOE misses the milestones after reducing the funding at individual sites, they would enforce the penalty provisions in the compliance agreements. The effect of compliance agreements on other aspects of DOE’s initiative, especially its proposal to reclassify waste into different risk categories to increase disposal options, is also unclear. Some of the proposed changes in waste treatment would signal major changes in DOE assumptions about acceptable waste treatm |
645 | ent and disposal options. For example, one change would eliminate the need to vitrify at least 75 percent of the high- level waste, which could result in disposing of more of the waste at DOE sites. In addition, DOE is considering the possibility of reclassifying much of its high-level waste as low-level mixed waste or transuranic waste based on the risk attributable to its actual composition. However, at all four sites we visited, regulators said that it is unclear how DOE’s proposed initiatives will be im |
646 | plemented, what technologies will be considered, and whether the changes will result in reduced cost and accelerated cleanup while adequately protecting human health and the environment. DOE generally did not seek input from site regulators or other stakeholders when developing its latest initiative. DOE’s review team leader said that when the review team visited individual sites, the team had not formulated its conclusions or recommendations and so did not seek regulators’ views. Furthermore, the team lead |
647 | er said that, during the review, DOE was holding internal discussions about improving ineffective cleanup processes, such as contracting procedures. To include regulators on the review team during these discussions, according to the team leader, could have created the impression that the criticism of DOE processes came from the regulators rather than from DOE and contractor staff. According to the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Budget, since the review team’s proposals were made publi |
648 | c in February, DOE has held discussions with regulators at all sites and headquarters about implementing the proposals. In summary, Mr. Chairman, DOE faces two main challenges in going forward with its initiative. The first is following through on its plan to develop and implement a risk-based method to prioritize its various cleanup activities. Given past failed attempts to implement a risk-based approach to cleanup, management leadership and resolve will be needed to overcome the barriers encountered in p |
649 | ast attempts. The second challenge for DOE is following through on its plan to involve regulators in site implementation plans. DOE generally did not involve states and regulatory agencies in the development of its management initiative. Regulators have expressed concerns about the lack of specifics in the initiative, how implementation plans will be developed at individual sites, and about proposals that may delay or significantly alter cleanup strategies. Addressing both of these challenges will be import |
650 | ant to better ensure that DOE’s latest management initiative will achieve the desired results of accelerating risk reduction and reducing cleanup costs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact (Ms.) Gary Jones at (202) 512-3841. Chris Abraham, Doreen Feldman, Rich Johnson, Nancy Kintner-Meyer, Tom Perry, Ilene Pollack, Stan Stenersen, and B |
651 | ill Swick made key contributions to this report. |
652 | An unregulated child custody transfer, commonly referred to as rehoming, is not an adoption. It is a practice in which parents seek new homes for their children and place them without the safeguards and oversight of the courts or the child welfare system. This practice does not pertain exclusively to adopted children; biological children may also be subject to unregulated transfers. However, media reports and child welfare and adoption organizations have focused on unregulated transfers of adopted children |
653 | that involve families who may be unable or unwilling to deal with the emotional and behavioral challenges that may be caused by a child’s pre-adoption conditions. For example, some adopted children may have histories of long-term institutionalization (e.g., orphanages), abuse, or other traumatic experiences that affect their behavior. An adoption may be terminated as a result of a disruption, which occurs before the adoption is finalized, or a dissolution, which occurs after the adoption has been finalized, |
654 | generally in a legal proceeding. Under these circumstances, the child would go into the child welfare system or be legally adopted by another family. In contrast, unregulated transfers occur when parents intend to permanently transfer custody of their child to a new family without following these steps. Sometimes the parents will use a document called a power of attorney to delegate to the new family certain authority for the care and control of the child, although such documents do not terminate the legal |
655 | relationship between the adoptive parents and the child. Because power of attorney arrangements are generally not overseen by any state or federal agency, information on the whereabouts of a child subject to an unregulated transfer using a power of attorney can be limited or unknown. In addition, because families who engage in an unregulated transfer do not follow the steps required for a legally recognized adoption, there may be no checks to ensure that the new home is an appropriate place for the child. |
656 | There are different ways that a child can be adopted in the United States. International adoptions involve a child who was born in another country. Domestic adoptions can be adoptions from foster care, which involve children in the child welfare system whose biological parents have had their parental rights terminated. Other domestic adoptions include those conducted through private adoption agencies, attorneys, and others. Most domestic adoptions handled through private adoption agencies, attorneys, and ot |
657 | hers primarily involve infants or adoptions by a stepparent. Unregulated transfers do not follow the adoption process, which generally involves many steps to help ensure that the child is legally adopted and placed in an appropriate and permanent home. While the adoption process can be different depending on the state and type of adoption, it typically consists of: a home study performed by a licensed professional to assess the suitability of the prospective parents, such as their health, finances, and crim |
658 | inal history; an immigration application and petition, in the case of an international pre-adoption training for prospective parents, either online or in- person, for a specified number of hours on topics such as the adoption process and issues related to attachment and bonding; final approval of the adoption by a court, either in the United States or the child’s country of origin; and post-placement or post-adoption services, in some cases, which can range from information and referral services and peer su |
659 | pport groups to more intensive services for children with severe behavioral needs. For example, these intensive services can include mental health counseling, respite care programs to provide temporary relief for caregivers by placing children in short-term accommodations outside the home, and residential treatment, which involves extended treatment services to children while they reside outside the home. Multiple federal, state, and other agencies can be involved in different stages of the adoption process |
660 | , depending on the type of adoption. Fees also vary by type of adoption; while foster care adoptions may not have any fees, international adoptions can involve substantial financial investments from families. International adoptions. As required under federal law and State Department regulations, international adoptions are generally conducted through accredited adoption agencies or approved persons. USCIS is involved in adjudicating immigration petitions for these children as well as setting federal home s |
661 | tudy requirements for international adoptions and determining the suitability and eligibility of prospective adoptive parents. The State Department also sets requirements for pre-adoption training that international adoption agencies and approved persons must provide for prospective parents. There are no federal requirements for post- adoption monitoring for international adoptions, according to State Department officials. However, officials said some countries of origin require adoptive families to provide |
662 | periodic reports (e.g., according to the State Department’s website, one country requires families to provide reports every 6 months for 2 years following an international adoption). Individual states may also have separate licensing requirements for international adoption agencies operating in their state. Foster care adoptions. Foster care adoptions are typically conducted by state, county, and local child welfare agencies or private adoption agencies with which they contract. For these adoptions, states |
663 | set requirements for home studies, pre-adoption training, and post-adoption services. Private domestic adoptions. States also set requirements for home studies, pre-adoption training, and post-adoption services for private domestic adoptions, generally through state licensing standards and other requirements for private adoption agencies, attorneys, and others. Some federal funding is available for adoption services, in addition to any funding from state, local, or other sources. Funding appropriated for T |
664 | itle IV-E of the Social Security Act makes up the large majority of federal funding dedicated to child welfare, comprising about 89 percent of federal child welfare appropriations (approximately $7.4 billion of nearly $8.3 billion) in fiscal year 2015, according to the Congressional Research Service. While the majority of these Title IV-E funds support children in the foster care system, the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program provides grants to states for a portion of their costs to support families who |
665 | adopted children with special needs, generally from foster care. For example, states provide ongoing monthly Adoption Assistance payments (subsidies) to eligible families that can be used to help pay for the costs of care for the child, which might include therapy and other post-adoption services. Funds appropriated for this program totaled about $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2015, comprising about 34 percent of Title IV-E program funding. In addition, Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, which is the prim |
666 | ary source of federal child welfare funding available for child welfare services, also provides funds that states can use to support adoptions by any family. For example, states may use funds to support pre- and post- adoption services, although funds can also be used for a variety of other purposes to keep children safe and in stable families. Federal appropriations for Title IV-B comprised about 8 percent of dedicated federal child welfare appropriations (approximately $664 million of nearly $8.3 billion) |
667 | in fiscal year 2015. Table 1 provides a summary of federal child welfare funding that states can use for adoption services, including programs under Title IV-E and IV-B of the Social Security Act. In addition to these programs, states may use savings generated from changes made to the eligibility criteria for the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program for adoption services. These changes made additional children eligible for federal Title IV-E Adoption Assistance payments, thereby potentially freeing up st |
668 | ate funds previously used for this purpose. The Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act requires states to use 30 percent of these savings for post- adoption and related services. In addition, states may use different combinations of federal funds not specifically dedicated to child welfare to support adoption services, such as funds available under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grants, Medicaid, and Social Services Block Grants. While states can use federal funds to sup |
669 | port adoption services for families, we reported in January 2013 that federal funding for services designed to prevent children from entering foster care—such as adoption support services—can be limited. HHS does not collect information on how much states spend in federal funds specifically for post-adoption services. In addition, our prior work has shown that some states may not have information on the extent to which they use these federal funds for adoption services. Although states are to use savings ge |
670 | nerated from changes to the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program for child welfare services, we reported in May 2014 that only 21 states reported calculating these savings for fiscal year 2012, and 20 states reported difficulties performing the calculations. In 2014, the Donaldson Adoption Institute attempted to collect information on states’ annual post-adoption service budgets, excluding Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program subsidies. However, it reported that some states were unable to distinguish th |
671 | is budget item, especially when the primary programs that served adoptive families also served other families. It also reported that states with county-administered child welfare programs were unable to report total state budgets for post-adoption services. The Institute reported that annual budgets for these services ranged from $85,000 to $11.2 million in the 21 states that provided responses to the survey it conducted. International adoptions in the United States have changed over time from a system that |
672 | predominantly involved the adoption of infants and toddlers to one that has involved an increasing proportion of older children and those with special needs. According to State Department data, less than 8 percent of children adopted internationally in fiscal year 2013 were younger than 1 year compared to over 40 percent in fiscal year 2004. In addition, one study reported in 2013 that nearly half of more than 1,000 parents surveyed who adopted internationally said their children had diagnosed special need |
673 | s. The State Department, HHS, and others have reported that the changing landscape of international adoptions is attributable to many different factors, including positive cultural factors and socio-economic conditions in other countries that have made it easier for biological families to take care of their children or to adopt domestically—decisions that have impacted the number of children eligible for adoption by U.S. families. About 7,000 children were adopted internationally in fiscal year 2013 compare |
674 | d to nearly 23,000 in fiscal year 2004 (see fig. 1). Children in foster care may also be more likely to have special needs than children in the general population. According to a national survey conducted in 2008 and 2009, more than 42 percent of children ages 18 months to 17 years who were placed in a foster family home following an investigation of abuse and neglect were found to be at risk for an emotional or behavioral problem and potentially in need of mental health services. Multiple studies have show |
675 | n that abuse and other maltreatment can cause changes in the brain development of children, and these changes may leave them more vulnerable to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other behavioral or mental health issues. Studies show that children who are institutionalized—for example, in orphanages prior to being adopted by a family—are often subject to deprivation and neglect. Young children with a history of institutional care often show poor attention, hyperactivity, difficulty with emotion |
676 | regulation, elevated levels of anxiety, and increased rates of attachment disorders. For example, they may develop Reactive Attachment Disorder, which is characterized by serious problems in emotional attachments to others. The physical, emotional, and social problems associated with this disorder may persist as the child grows older. Families who adopt children with severe behavioral or mental health issues may face situations which can put the family in crisis. For example, the adopted child may be viole |
677 | nt toward siblings or parents. One study reported in 2014 that in 23 percent of cases where adoptions were dissolved, the adopted child was a threat to the safety of other children in the home. Families may choose an unregulated child custody transfer because they were not sufficiently prepared for the challenges they experienced in their adoption, according to many child welfare and adoption stakeholders we interviewed. This lack of preparation may include inadequate information about the child’s health, a |
678 | n insufficient home study to make a good match, and minimal pre-adoption training for parents. Many stakeholders we interviewed—including officials from selected states, child welfare and adoption organizations, and adoption agencies— expressed concern with the adequacy of the information provided to prospective parents on the behavioral and mental health conditions of a child adopted internationally. Access to accurate information is critical to ensuring that a family is aware of the type of ongoing suppor |
679 | t they may need for the child. However, officials from 11 of 19 child welfare and adoption organizations and 5 of 15 adoption agencies said families who adopt internationally often do not receive complete information on a child’s medical and behavioral needs before adopting. State Department officials explained that some low-income countries lack sufficient mental health care providers, making it difficult for international adoption agencies to ensure that children are accurately evaluated prior to adoption |
680 | . USCIS officials also said some countries do not allow prospective adoptive parents to review medical history documents until after an adoption is finalized for privacy reasons. Many stakeholders also expressed concern that families may not have undergone an adequate home study to ensure they are a good match for their adopted child, and several noted that the home study is a critical point in the pre-adoption process, when social workers or adoption agency staff try to determine how families will handle c |
681 | hallenges when parenting their adopted child. According to HHS officials, requirements for what should be assessed during a home study are determined by individual states for foster care adoptions. Home study requirements are determined by USCIS and the State Department for international adoptions. However, officials from 4 of 7 selected states and 8 of the 15 adoption agencies we interviewed expressed concerns about inconsistencies in the quality of home studies conducted by child welfare and adoption agen |
682 | cies across states. For example, Ohio officials said all child welfare and adoption agencies in their state are required to use a detailed home study format. They said they may not accept home studies conducted in other states that have less stringent requirements unless additional supporting documentation is provided, such as a background check and safety check of the home. Families also may not have received sufficient or targeted pre-adoption training to ensure they were prepared for their child’s specif |
683 | ic needs, particularly for international adoptions, according to most stakeholders we interviewed. For foster care adoptions, states each set their own training requirements for prospective parents, according to HHS officials. About half of all states require agencies facilitating these adoptions to provide prospective parents with at least 27 hours of training, according to data obtained from HHS officials in May 2015. Our seven selected states have requirements of 18 to 47 hours of training for foster car |
684 | e adoptions with some in-person required training in each state, according to state officials. Many of our selected states also use similar training models for foster care adoptions, including Parent Resources for Information, Development, and Education (PRIDE) and Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting (MAPP), which were developed by various child welfare organizations. In contrast, State Department regulations require 10 hours of training for international adoptions, all of which can be online. This |
685 | training must cover topics defined by the federal regulations. Officials we interviewed from 5 of our selected states, 12 child welfare and adoption organizations, and 11 adoption agencies told us that this training may be insufficient, particularly since an increasing proportion of children adopted internationally are older and have special needs due to an extensive history of institutionalization and trauma. State Department officials told us they are considering revisions to pre-adoption training require |
686 | ments for international adoptions, which we discuss later in the report. States may set training requirements for international adoptions above the 10-hour minimum or may have required training topics. Two of our seven selected states require more than 10 hours of training, according to state officials. For example, Wisconsin officials told us the state requires 18 hours of training, and the same topics are required for international and foster care adoptions. This training covers issues such as attachment |
687 | in adoptive placement, the effects of abuse and neglect, and cultural sensitivity. In addition, this training includes opportunities to cover issues specific to the individual child (see table 2). State Department officials said international adoption agencies may also have their own training requirements beyond those of federal and state agencies. For example, officials from one international adoption agency said they require 30 hours of training for parents wishing to adopt abroad. This includes training |
688 | on grief and loss, the child’s country of origin and cultural differences, the impact of institutionalization, and potential challenges and service needs. These officials said this expanded training is more costly for both the agency and prospective parents, and that some prospective parents thought the training was too cumbersome or expensive. Officials in most of the selected states, child welfare and adoption organizations, and adoption agencies we interviewed expressed concern that families may choose a |
689 | n unregulated transfer when they cannot access post-adoption services to help them cope with or avoid reaching a crisis point in their adoption. Several of these stakeholders explained that an adopted child may deal with continuing issues of attachment, identity, and loss of previous caregivers or biological parents. While services to help adoptive families can include information, referrals, and peer support groups, families who adopted children with severe behavioral needs may need more intensive services |
690 | , such as mental health counseling, respite care, and residential treatment. Many stakeholders we interviewed suggested that families considering unregulated transfers may particularly need these intensive services. All seven of our selected states provide some kind of post-adoption services for families who adopted from foster care and internationally. For example, Wisconsin officials said the state provides parent training, a 24-hour information hotline, referral services, and mechanisms to link families |
691 | to support groups and mentors, which are available to all adoptive families. Other types of services these selected states provide include lending libraries, newsletters, and brochures for parents. However, the seven selected states offered limited intensive services, particularly for international adoptions, according to our analysis of the information gathered from selected state officials. Officials from three states said their state offers counseling and other intensive services, such as case management |
692 | and crisis intervention, to both families who adopted from foster care and internationally. However, officials from the six states that offer respite care and the four states that provide residential treatment told us their states provide these services exclusively to families who adopted from foster care. Some of these services have maximum time limits or are offered on a case-by-case basis. For example, Louisiana officials said their state offers respite care for up to 1 month, and Florida and Illinois o |
693 | fficials said their states offer residential treatment services to families who adopted from foster care on a case-by-case basis. In addition, our seven selected states provide varying levels of financial support to eligible adoptive families through subsidies and cash assistance programs, according to the information gathered from selected state officials. For example, Ohio officials described a state program that uses Title IV-B and state revenue funds to provide up to $10,000 per child per year to pay se |
694 | rvice providers in 2014, with an additional $5,000 available per year if the child is recommended for residential treatment by a mental health provider. In addition, all of our selected states received federal funds under the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program to provide subsidies to eligible adoptive families; the maximum subsidy amounts ranged from $400 to $2,700 per month in 2014. However, they are generally only available to eligible families who adopted children with special needs from foster care, |
695 | and information is limited on how much families use their subsidies for services, such as counseling, versus other expenses for their adopted child, such as food, clothing, and day care. The Donaldson Adoption Institute reported in April 2014 on a variety of post-adoption services provided by 49 states that responded to survey questions about such services. It found that about one-third of these states offered almost no post-adoption services other than a subsidy for adoptive families. In addition, the rep |
696 | ort found that the majority of these states had services that were open exclusively to families who adopted from foster care. Officials in four of our seven selected states told us that the need for post- adoption services exceeded the funding available from state and federal programs. Our prior work has shown that child welfare agencies have struggled to meet the service needs of families. Our 2013 report found that local child welfare officials in four states we reviewed reported service gaps in multiple |
697 | areas, including counseling and mental health services. We also reported that state and local child welfare agencies may face difficult decisions when determining which activities—aimed at preserving families and preventing a child from entering foster care—to prioritize and fund, particularly in light of the ongoing fiscal challenges these agencies face. Similar to our selected states, officials from 12 of the 15 adoption agencies we interviewed said they provide some level of post-adoption services to fam |
698 | ilies, such as information and referrals. Officials in 4 of the 15 adoption agencies said they provide intensive services, ranging from trauma-focused therapy to a weekend respite care program. Officials from six adoption agencies noted that resource constraints have affected their ability to provide post-adoption services. Officials from the Council on Accreditation—the organization responsible for accrediting agencies for international adoptions—said some international adoption agencies have struggled to |
699 | maintain their businesses due to the decrease in the number of international adoptions overall (a decrease of 70 percent between fiscal years 2003 and 2014). They said while some larger agencies have been better able to provide services because they are financially stable, this can be a challenge for other agencies. Another limitation to accessing post-adoption services that many stakeholders expressed concern about was the cost of intensive services, which can be expensive for all families. Officials in 3 |
Subsets and Splits