This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-290 
entitled 'Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on 
Implementation Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance 
to States' which was released on April 5, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States Government Accountability Office:

GAO:

April 2005: 

Indian Child Welfare Act: 

Existing Information on Implementation Issues Could Be Used to Target 
Guidance and Assistance to States: 

GAO-05-290: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-290, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In the 1960s and 1970s, American Indian children were about six times 
more likely to be placed in foster care than other children and many 
were placed in non-American Indian homes or institutions. In 1978, the 
Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to protect 
American Indian families and to give tribes a role in making child 
welfare decisions for children subject to ICWA. ICWA requires that (1) 
tribes be notified and given an opportunity to intervene when the state 
places a child subject to ICWA in foster care or seeks to terminate 
parental rights on behalf of such a child and (2) children be placed if 
possible with relatives or tribal families. This report describes (1) 
the factors that influence placement decisions for children subject to 
ICWA; (2) the extent to which, if any, placements for children subject 
to ICWA have been delayed; and (3) federal oversight of states’ 
implementation of ICWA. 

What GAO Found: 

Placement decisions for children subject to ICWA can be influenced by 
how long it takes to determine that ICWA applies, the availability of 
American Indian foster and adoptive homes, and the level of cooperation 
between states and tribes. While these factors are unique to American 
Indian children, other factors can affect decisions similarly for all 
children. Many states, for example, place all children with relatives 
if possible and may consider changing placements for all 
children—regardless of ICWA status—when relatives are identified after 
initial placement. Our survey showed few differences between children 
subject to ICWA and other children in how often states had to decide 
whether to move a child to another home. 

National data on children subject to ICWA are unavailable; data that 
were available from four states showed no consistent pattern in how 
long children subject to ICWA remained in foster care or how often they 
were moved to different foster homes compared to other children. In 
general, most children leaving foster care in fiscal year 2003 in the 
four states were reunified with their families, although children 
subject to ICWA were somewhat less likely to be reunified or adopted 
and were somewhat more likely to leave through a guardianship 
arrangement. 

Length of Stay for Children Exiting Foster Care in FY 2003 in Four 
States: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

ACF does not have explicit oversight responsibility for states’ 
implementation of ICWA and the information the agency obtains through 
its general oversight of state child welfare systems sometimes provides 
little meaningful information to assess states’ efforts. For example, 
the ICWA information states provided in their 2004 progress reports 
varied widely in scope and content and many states did not report on 
the effect of their implementation efforts. Further, while limited 
information from ACF’s reviews of states’ overall child welfare systems 
indicate some ICWA implementation concerns, the process does not ensure 
that ICWA issues will be addressed in states’ program improvement 
plans. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services’ 
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) consider using ICWA 
compliance information available through its existing child welfare 
oversight activities to target guidance and assistance to states. HHS 
disagreed with our recommendation. We continue to believe that ACF 
could use the information it gathers to help states improve their ICWA 
compliance. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-290. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 
512-8403 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Time Needed to Determine a Child's ICWA Status, Availability of 
American Indian Foster and Adoptive Homes, and Cooperation between 
Tribes and States Influence Placement Decisions for Children Subject to 
ICWA: 

Limited Data Show No Consistent Differences in Length of Stay or Other 
Foster Care Experiences for Children Subject to ICWA and Other 
Children: 

ACF Obtains Limited Information on ICWA Implementation through Its 
Oversight of States' Child Welfare Systems: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States, FY 2003: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Main ICWA Provisions: 

Table 2: Comparison of Legal Standards for Children Subject to ICWA and 
for Children Not Subject to ICWA: 

Table 3: States with (1) Highest Percentage of Children Served in 
Foster Care Who Are American Indian and (2) Highest Number of American 
Indian Children Served in Foster Care, FY 2003: 

Table 4: Tribal Membership Requirements for Selected Tribes, as 
Reported by Tribal Officials: 

Table 5: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting Challenges Related to 
the Availability of Foster Homes, FY 2003: 

Table 6: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting Challenges Related to 
the Availability of Homes for Adoption or Long-Term Guardianship, FY 
2003: 

Table 7: States Explicitly Addressing ICWA Compliance Requirements in 
Their 2004 Annual Progress and Services Reports: 

Table 8: States Reporting the Use of Activities Suggested by ACF to 
Comply with ICWA: 

Table 9: Relationship between ICWA Topics Discussed in States' 2004 
Annual Progress and Services Reports and Density of States' American 
Indian Population: 

Table 10: ICWA Concerns Raised in CFSR Final Reports and Program 
Improvement Plans by State: 

Table 11: Review of Tribal Notification and Placements in Cases 
Involving American Indian Children during Child and Family Services 
Reviews, 2002-2004: 

Table 12: American Indian CFSR Cases Where Item Related to Preserving a 
Child's Connections Was Judged "Needing Improvement" During Child and 
Family Services Reviews, 2001-2004: 

Table 13: Number and Percentage of Children with Unknown Ethnicity Who 
Exited Care in FY 2003 for Four States: 

Table 14: Criteria for Determining States' Tribal Population Density 
Categories: 

Table 15: Tribal Population Density Categorization by State: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: American Indian Population Density by State: 

Figure 2: Responses from 25 State Child Welfare Agencies on the 
Frequency with Which the State Requested Insufficient Information to 
Accurately Determine ICWA Status, FY 2003: 

Figure 3: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting the Frequency with 
Which Families Provided Information That Was Too Imprecise to Identify 
a Child's Specific Tribe, Requiring States to Send Membership Inquiries 
to Multiple Tribes, FY 2003: 

Figure 4: Survey Results from 19 Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on 
How Often They Face Decisions about Moving a Child from a Foster Home 
to Another Placement When a Relative Came Forward Late in a Case: 

Figure 5: Survey Results from 19 Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on 
How Often They Face Decisions to Move a Child from a Pre-adoptive 
Placement to Another Placement When a Relative Came Forward Late in a 
Case: 

Figure 6: Survey Results from 15 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting 
on How Often They Exempt Children from ASFA's 15 of 22 Provision, FY 
2003: 

Figure 7: Length of Stay for Children Exiting Foster Care in Four 
States, FY 2003: 

Figure 8: Survey Results from 16 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting 
How Many Children Remain in Foster Care Longer as a Result of Following 
ICWA Procedures, FY 2003: 

Figure 9: Survey Results from 10 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting 
on the Estimated Increased Time That Following ICWA Procedures Adds to 
a Child's Time in Foster Care, FY 2003: 

Figure 10: Survey Results from 22 State Child Welfare Agencies 
Reporting on the Effect of Specific ICWA Procedures on the Time to 
Place a Child in a Permanent Home Compared to Other Children in Foster 
Care, FY 2003: 

Figure 11: Survey Results from 19 State Child Welfare Agencies 
Reporting on How Often Courts Reject State Requests to Terminate 
Parental Rights for Children in Foster Care Because Evidence Does Not 
Meet Applicable Legal Standards, FY 2003: 

Figure 12: Number of Placements for Children Exiting Foster Care in 
Three States, FY 2003: 

Figure 13: Percentage of Children Exiting Foster Care in FY 2003 by 
Reunification in Four States: 

Figure 14: Children Exiting Foster Care through Adoption, FY 2003 in 
Four States: 

Figure 15: Percentage of Children Exiting Foster Care in FY 2003 by 
Guardianship in Four States: 

Figure 16: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in South Dakota: 

Figure 17: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Washington: 

Figure 18: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Oregon: 

Figure 19: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Oklahoma: 

Abbreviations: 

ACF: Administration for Children and Families: 
AFCARS: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System: 
APSR: Annual Progress and Services Report: 
ASFA: Adoption and Safe Families Act: 
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
CFSR: Child and Family Services Review: 
FY: fiscal year:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 
ICWA: Indian Child Welfare Act: 
PIP: program improvement plan: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

April 4, 2005: 

The Honorable Tom DeLay: 
Majority Leader: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Wally Herger: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Human Resources: 
Committee on Ways and Means: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Pete Stark: 
House of Representatives: 

In the 1960s and 1970s, American Indian children were roughly six times 
more likely to be separated from their families and placed in foster 
care than other children and many were placed in non-American Indian 
homes or institutions. A lack of understanding of tribal cultures and 
child-rearing practices by state child welfare agencies and courts was 
a significant factor in this widespread removal of American Indian 
children from their homes. In 1978, the Congress enacted the Indian 
Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (Pub. L. No. 95-608) to protect American 
Indian families from the unwarranted removal of their children and to 
give tribes a role in making child welfare decisions for children 
subject to the law. According to the most recently available HHS data, 
American Indian children represented about 3 percent of the over 
800,000 children who were in foster care in fiscal year 2003. The 
Census Bureau estimates that American Indian children comprised 1.8 
percent of the total U.S. population under the age of 18 in 2003. 

ICWA established criteria for determining whether the tribe or the 
state should have custody of a child and make placement decisions. 
Specifically, ICWA gives tribes exclusive jurisdiction for tribal 
children who reside on a tribal reservation (unless a state has 
previously been given jurisdiction by federal law) and gives both 
states and tribes jurisdiction for tribal children who do not live on 
the reservation. In addition, ICWA established requirements for child 
welfare proceedings involving an American Indian child in state 
custody. For example, whenever state officials are concerned about the 
possible abuse or neglect of a child who is, or is eligible to be, a 
tribal member and seek custody of the child, ICWA requires that the 
tribe be notified of any court hearings involving the child and given 
the right to intervene in the proceedings. In addition, the law 
requires that efforts be made to place children subject to ICWA with 
relatives or tribal families, unless a good reason exists not to follow 
these placement preferences. While ICWA did not explicitly grant any 
federal agency oversight authority regarding states' implementation of 
ICWA, the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration 
for Children and Families (ACF) monitors state compliance with federal 
child welfare laws. 

Proponents of ICWA believe that the law promotes the well-being of 
American Indian children by keeping them connected to their families, 
tribes, and cultural heritage. Others are concerned that ICWA's 
procedural requirements could result in American Indian children 
staying longer in foster care than they would in the absence of the 
law, working against the goals of more recent child welfare 
legislation. In 1997, the Congress enacted the Adoption and Safe 
Families Act (ASFA) (Pub. L. No. 105-89) to help states more quickly 
move children in foster care to safe and permanent homes. One key 
provision of the law requires states, with some exceptions, to file a 
petition to terminate parental rights for children who have been in 
foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months--a requirement that 
could conflict with the belief expressed by many tribes that a parent's 
relationship with a child can never be severed. 

Because of your interest in how ICWA affects the foster care 
experiences of children subject to the law, as well as how ICWA is 
working in conjunction with ASFA, we examined the following: (1) the 
factors that influence placement decisions for these children, 
particularly as they relate to ASFA's goals of safety, permanency, and 
well-being of children; (2) the extent to which delays, if any, have 
occurred in the foster or adoptive placement of children subject to 
ICWA due to issues related to the implementation of ICWA and how any 
such delays have affected children's experiences in care; and (3) the 
federal government's role in overseeing states' implementation of ICWA. 
We have not included information about children who are under exclusive 
tribal jurisdiction because they reside on a reservation. 

To answer these questions, we surveyed state child welfare agency 
officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia regarding their 
implementation of ICWA and their views on how ICWA's provisions 
affected children's experiences in foster care. We received responses 
from 47 states and the District of Columbia. We checked for obvious 
errors and asked some states follow-up questions, but did not 
independently verify states' responses. We also surveyed officials in 
all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine which states 
could identify children who were subject to ICWA in fiscal year 2003 
using their automated systems. Only five states--Oklahoma, Oregon, 
Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington--were able to provide these 
data. Because Rhode Island had so few children subject to ICWA who left 
foster care, we dropped this state from our comparative analysis. To 
obtain tribal input, we conducted nine tribal panels in four states and 
conducted telephone interviews with nine regional intertribal 
organizations. Furthermore, we sent a letter to 591 federally 
recognized tribal governments soliciting their input for our study and 
received responses from 74 tribes. We visited five states--California, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Rhode Island--where we interviewed 
state and local child welfare agency officials, state court officials, 
and officials from at least two tribes (except in Rhode Island, which 
has only one federally recognized tribe) to obtain more detailed 
information on ICWA implementation. We selected these states to 
represent a diversity of geographic locations, child welfare systems, 
and state-tribal relationships. Finally, we reviewed applicable laws 
and regulations; interviewed headquarters and regional officials from 
both ACF and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA); reviewed results from ACF's assessments of state child welfare 
agencies, known as Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR); reviewed 
program improvement plans (PIP) states submitted as part of the CFSR 
process; and reviewed annual reports that states are required to submit 
to ACF about their child welfare systems. We conducted our work between 
December 2003 and January 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. A more detailed discussion of our scope 
and methodology appears in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

Decisions regarding the placement of children subject to ICWA as they 
enter and leave foster care can be influenced by how long it takes to 
determine whether a child is subject to the law, the availability of 
American Indian foster and adoptive homes, and the level of cooperation 
between states and tribes. According to several child welfare 
officials, these factors, which are unique to American Indian children, 
can play an important role in placement decisions, including the 
characteristics of the foster home in which the child will be placed, 
the number of placements a child will have, and the duration of the 
stay. For example, if the ICWA status of a child subject to the law is 
not known or if no American Indian foster homes are available when such 
a child first enters foster care, the state may not be able to place 
the child initially with a tribal family and may subsequently move the 
child to another foster home. However, other factors can influence 
placement decisions similarly for all children regardless of whether 
they are subject to the law. For example, ICWA requires that children 
subject to ICWA be placed with relatives, unless good reason exists not 
to do so, but many states have a similar policy for all children. In 
both cases, the state may face decisions about whether to change a 
child's initial placement when a relative is identified or comes 
forward after a child's initial foster care placement. Our survey 
results from 19 states responding to a relevant question showed that 
states face decisions to change a child's foster or adoptive placement 
with similar frequency, regardless of a child's ICWA status. Decisions 
about how children subject to ICWA leave foster care are also 
influenced by how well states and tribes work together to blend ICWA 
and ASFA requirements for moving a child through the foster care 
system. While cultural beliefs of many tribes conflict with ASFA's 
provision to move a child to adoption within certain time frames, 
results from the 15 states responding to a relevant survey question 
showed little difference in how frequently children subject to ICWA 
were exempted from ASFA's provision compared to other children. 

Data from four states that could identify children subject to ICWA in 
their information systems showed no consistent differences when 
comparing the length of time they spent in foster care compared to 
Caucasian or other minority children who exited foster care in fiscal 
year 2003. In two states, these groups of children stayed in foster 
care for similar periods of time; in Washington, however, children 
subject to ICWA who exited care were less likely than other children to 
leave foster care within 2 years, while those in Oregon were more 
likely to leave foster care within this time period. While not showing 
consistent differences in the length of time in foster care, data 
showed some different experiences among children when comparing how 
often they were moved to different foster homes or how they left the 
foster care system. For example, children subject to ICWA who exited 
care lived in a similar number of foster homes as other children in two 
of the three states having such data, but experienced a higher number 
of placements in Washington. In addition, while the data from the four 
states showed that most children who left foster care in 2003 were 
reunified with their families, children subject to ICWA were somewhat 
less likely to leave foster care through reunification or adoption, and 
somewhat more likely to leave foster care through a guardianship 
arrangement compared to other children. 

While ICWA did not give any federal agency direct oversight 
responsibility for states' implementation of the law, ACF reviews some 
limited information reported by states under the agency's general 
oversight of state child welfare systems and its formal assessments of 
these systems in its Child and Family Services Reviews; however, the 
information is insufficient for ACF to assess states' efforts to 
implement the law's requirements. For example, while states are 
required to discuss ICWA implementation in their overall 5-year child 
and family services plans and in subsequent annual progress and 
services reports, ACF noted in its 2003 guidance that states were 
having difficulties reporting on ICWA adherence and reiterated that 
states needed to provide a description of the specific measures taken 
to comply with the law. While ACF's Child and Family Services Reviews 
have identified some ICWA concerns in states, the structure of this 
oversight tool was designed to review the overall performance of a 
state's child welfare system, rather than any particular law or 
program. As a result, it does not ensure that ICWA concerns will be 
addressed or that identified problems will be included and monitored in 
states' program improvement plans. For example, our review of 51 CFSR 
reports showed that 10 reports, generally from states with small 
American Indian populations, had no discussion of ICWA implementation, 
while 32 raised some concerns with how the law was implemented in the 
state, such as caseworkers receiving inadequate ICWA training or not 
consistently determining a child's ICWA status. Similarly, our review 
of 47 improvement plans provided by ACF as of December 2004 showed that 
12 of the 32 states with ICWA implementation concerns identified during 
the CFSR review did not report any planned corrective actions. 

To improve the usefulness of the information states are required to 
provide on their ICWA compliance efforts, we are recommending that the 
Secretary of HHS direct the Administration for Children and Families to 
review ICWA implementation information available through the CFSRs and 
require states to discuss in their annual progress and services reports 
any significant ICWA issues not addressed in their program improvement 
plans. In addition, ACF should consider using the information on ICWA 
implementation in the Child and Family Services Reviews, annual 
progress reports, and program improvement plans to target guidance and 
assistance to states in addressing any identified issues. HHS disagreed 
with our recommendation, stating that it does not have the authority, 
resources, or expertise to address GAO's recommendation. Our report 
recognizes HHS's limited authority with respect to ICWA and our 
recommendation offers a way for the agency to assist states within its 
existing authority and resources as part of its current process for 
overseeing states' child welfare systems. 

Background: 

When the Congress enacted ICWA in 1978, it created certain requirements 
for child welfare proceedings involving American Indian children and 
established a number of protections for American Indian families. This 
differential treatment of American Indian children is not based on 
race, but on the child's political affiliation as a member or potential 
member of a tribe. As shown in table 1, the main ICWA provisions 
determine who is subject to the law and to which child custody 
proceedings the law applies. These provisions also address jurisdiction 
issues, tribal notification of child custody proceedings, and placement 
preferences for American Indian children entering foster and adoptive 
homes. 

Table 1: Main ICWA Provisions: 

Definition of a child subject to ICWA. 

ICWA defines a child as Indian if he or she is a member of a federally 
recognized tribe or if he or she is eligible for tribal membership and 
is the biological child of a tribal member. A child who has some 
American Indian blood, but not enough to qualify for membership in a 
federally recognized tribe, or who is a member only of a state 
recognized tribe, is not subject to ICWA. 

Definition of child custody proceedings. 

ICWA applies to the following child custody proceedings: (1) 
involuntary foster care placements; (2) petitions to terminate parental 
rights; (3) pre-adoptive placements; and (4) adoptive placements. ICWA 
does not apply to custody arrangements arising from divorce proceedings 
or placements by the juvenile justice system when a child commits an 
act that would be deemed a crime if committed by an adult. 

Jurisdiction. 

American Indian tribes with active tribal courts have exclusive 
jurisdiction over child welfare proceedings for an American Indian 
child who resides on the tribal reservation. 

States and tribes share jurisdiction over child welfare proceedings 
involving a child subject to ICWA who does not reside on the tribal 
reservation. If a tribe or parent requests that a child custody 
proceeding be transferred to the jurisdiction of the tribe, the 
proceeding should be transferred to tribal jurisdiction, unless either 
parent objects to the transfer or good cause exists to not transfer the 
case. The tribal court has the right to decline any transfer request. 

Notification and intervention. 

A tribe must be notified about any involuntary child welfare proceeding 
in state courts involving a child subject to ICWA and has the right to 
intervene in such cases. 

A tribe also has the right to intervene in cases in which a parent 
voluntarily relinquishes custody of a child subject to ICWA, but ICWA 
does not specifically require that tribes be notified about these 
cases. 

Placement in foster care. 

A child subject to ICWA cannot be placed in foster care unless clear 
and convincing evidence exists that continued custody by the parent is 
likely to result in serious damage to the child. 

Placement preferences[A]. 

An American Indian child placed in foster care or a pre-adoptive 
placement shall be placed in the least restrictive, most family-like 
setting in which the child's special needs, if any, may be met. The 
child shall be placed within reasonable proximity to his or her home 
and preference shall be given, absent good cause to the contrary, to a 
placement with: 

1. a member of the child's extended family; 
2. a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the tribe; 
3. an American Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized 
non-Indian licensing authority; or; 
4. an institution approved by a tribe or operated by an American Indian 
organization that has a program suitable to meet the child's needs. 

When placing an American Indian child for adoption, preference shall be 
given, absent good cause to the contrary, to a placement with: 

5. a member of the child's extended family, 
6. other member's of the child's tribe, or; 
7. other American Indian families. 

Source: Pub. L. No. 95-608. 

[A] States are prohibited by law from delaying or denying a foster or 
adoptive placement in order to place a child with a family of the 
child's race or cultural background, but children subject to ICWA are 
excluded from this prohibition. 42 U.S.C. § 1996b. 

[End of table]

ICWA also established other requirements for children subject to the 
law that differ from the requirements that apply to other children in 
foster care. As shown in table 2, ICWA requires states to provide 
active efforts to keep American Indian families together and to use 
more stringent legal standards for placing an American Indian child in 
foster care and terminating parental rights. 

Table 2: Comparison of Legal Standards for Children Subject to ICWA and 
for Children Not Subject to ICWA: 

To Prevent Break Up of Family and/or To Reunify Family; 
Standard for Children Subject to ICWA: ICWA requires states to make 
"active efforts" to provide services designed to prevent the break up 
of an American Indian family before an American Indian child can be 
placed in foster care or the parental rights of an American Indian 
parent can be terminated. However, the state can place an American 
Indian child in foster care if the child is in immediate danger and 
then must make active efforts to reunify the child with the family; 
Standard for Children Not Subject to ICWA: To receive foster care 
maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 
states must provide reasonable efforts to prevent the need for removing 
a child from his or her family and to reunify a child in foster care 
with his or her family. States are allowed to bypass reasonable efforts 
in certain egregious situations, such as when a parent has subjected a 
child to torture or sexual abuse. 

To Terminate Parental Rights; 
Standard for Children Subject to ICWA: Termination of parental rights 
cannot be granted unless the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable 
doubt that continued custody is likely to result in serious damage to 
the American Indian child; 
Standard for Children Not Subject to ICWA: State statutes have a 
variety of different legal grounds for terminating parental rights on 
behalf of non-American Indian children. Four of the five states we 
visited required that the statutory grounds be proven by clear and 
convincing evidence, a lower standard than required by ICWA. 

Source: Pub. L. No. 95-608, Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, and 
state laws. 

Note: Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest possible evidence 
standard and requires proof of such a convincing character that a 
person would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in 
the most important of his or her own affairs. To establish a finding by 
clear and convincing evidence, which is the next highest evidence 
standard, requires proof that the particular facts are highly probable 
or create a firm belief that the allegation in question is true. 

[End of table]

ICWA also authorizes grant funding to American Indian tribes for 
operating child and family service programs. In fiscal year 2004, BIA 
administered an estimated $10.9 million in ICWA grants to tribes. These 
grants generally range from about $26,000 to $750,000, with the average 
being $60,000. 

Interaction of ICWA with ASFA: 

While ICWA requires states to provide active efforts to reunify 
families, ASFA requires states to move children more quickly through 
the child welfare system. Enacted in 1997, ASFA created fundamental 
changes in the nation's child welfare system and established two major 
goals for all children: (1) to make a child's safety the most important 
consideration in child welfare decisions and (2) to compel child 
welfare systems to make timely decisions regarding adoption or other 
permanent arrangements for children who cannot safely return home. One 
key ASFA provision (the "15 of 22" provision) requires states to file a 
petition to terminate parental rights if a child has been in foster 
care for 15 of the most recent 22 months unless (1) it is not in the 
child's best interests, (2) the state has not provided necessary 
reunification services, or (3) the child is in the care of a relative. 

Key Participants in State Child Welfare Systems: 

State and local child welfare agencies and courts that hear child 
welfare cases all play a role in making placement decisions for 
children in foster care. Child welfare caseworkers receive and 
investigate reports of suspected maltreatment and recommend and locate 
appropriate social services. They also make recommendations to the 
court about whether a child should be removed from home, where the 
child should be placed, and where the child will ultimately reside. The 
judge assesses the information presented about a case and makes the 
placement decisions for children. For cases involving children subject 
to ICWA, the judge will review the recommendations of all parties 
involved in a case--the child welfare agency, the parents, the tribe, 
and any advocate appointed to represent the child's best interests--and 
determine the best placement option for the child. 

When placing a child in foster care, the state must ensure that the 
foster family can provide a safe environment that can meet a child's 
needs. To do this, each state develops its own standards and procedures 
for licensing foster homes. For example, a state may require foster 
parents to be emotionally stable and have no significant criminal or 
child abuse history. In addition, a state may require a home to meet 
certain physical requirements for safety purposes, such as having a 
smoke detector and being free of health and fire hazards. ICWA does not 
require American Indian homes to be licensed by the state. However, to 
be eligible to receive foster care maintenance payments under Title IV- 
E, families must meet state foster care standards or, for homes on or 
near Indian reservations, licensing standards established by the tribe. 

Federal Oversight of Child Welfare Programs: 

ACF is responsible for the administration and oversight of federal 
funding to states for child welfare services under Titles IV-B and IV- 
E of the Social Security Act. Title IV-B authorizes funds to states to 
provide a wide array of services to prevent the occurrence of abuse and 
neglect and to prevent the need for foster care placements. Some tribes 
are eligible for Title IV-B grants as well. Title IV-E provides an open-
ended individual entitlement for foster care maintenance payments to 
cover a portion of the food, housing, and incidental expenses for all 
foster children whose parents meet certain federal eligibility criteria 
and for whom certain judicial findings have been made. States can also 
be reimbursed for related administrative and child placement costs, 
including the recruitment and licensing of foster homes. Title IV-E 
also provides payments to adoptive parents of eligible children with 
special needs that can make it difficult for a child to be adopted, 
such as emotional, physical, or mental disabilities; emotional 
disturbance; being older than an age specified by the state; or being a 
member of a minority race. Under current law, ACF cannot provide Title 
IV-E funds directly to tribes. Some states have, however, established 
agreements with tribes to distribute Title IV-E funds to the tribes for 
tribal children who meet the Title IV-E eligibility requirements. As of 
June 2001, according to one study, 14 states and 75 American Indian 
tribal governments had Title IV-E agreements in place 
nationally.[Footnote 1]

To receive funds from Titles IV-B or IV-E, a state child welfare agency 
(or a tribe receiving Title IV-B funds) must submit the following 
reports, which are reviewed by ACF regional staff for compliance with 
all reporting requirements: 

* A 5-year child and family services plan (5-year plan) that describes 
the state's goals and objectives with regard to the needs and well 
being of children and families and the scope and adequacy of services 
available for children and families. 

* A description, developed in consultation with tribes and tribal 
organizations, of the specific measures taken by the state to comply 
with ICWA, which must be included in the state's 5-year plan, as 
required by amendments to the Social Security Act enacted in 1994 (Pub. 
L. No. 103-432). 

* An annual progress and services report (APSR) to discuss the state's 
progress in meeting the goals outlined in its 5-year plan and to revise 
the 5-year plan goals if necessary. 

In 2000, ACF established a new federal review system to monitor state 
compliance with Titles IV-B and IV-E requirements. One component of 
this system is the CFSR, which assesses state performance in achieving 
safety and permanency for children, along with well-being for children 
and families. The CFSR process includes a self-assessment by the state, 
an analysis of state performance in meeting national standards 
established by HHS, and an on-site review by a joint team of federal 
and state officials. Based on a review of statewide data, interviews 
with community stakeholders and some families receiving services, and a 
review of a sample of 50 child welfare cases, HHS determines whether a 
state achieved substantial conformity with: (1) outcomes related to 
safety, permanency, and well-being, such as keeping children protected 
from abuse and neglect and achieving permanent, stable living 
situations for children; and (2) key systemic factors, such as having 
an adequate case review system and an adequate array of services. 
States are required to develop program improvement plans to address 
identified shortcomings. ACF conducted its first state review in March 
2001 and completed on-site reviews in all 50 states and the District of 
Columbia by March 2004. States found to be operating in substantial 
conformity with Titles IV-B and IV-E must complete a full CFSR every 5 
years, while states that are not in substantial conformity must begin a 
full CFSR review two years after approval of their program improvement 
plans. 

ICWA provides BIA with responsibility for administering grants to 
tribes for a variety of child welfare purposes and assisting states in 
identifying the tribal affiliation of a child upon request. However, 
BIA has no oversight authority in terms of how state child welfare 
agencies or state courts implement the law for American Indian children 
in state custody. 

American Indian Demographics and Tribal Membership Requirements: 

According to Census estimates for 2003, approximately 4.4 million 
people in the United States report having some American Indian 
heritage, comprising 1.5 percent of the total population. This 
population includes individuals who may not be members or eligible for 
membership in a tribe, as well as individuals who are members of state 
recognized tribes. As shown in figure 1, the American Indian population 
is heavily concentrated in the West. In some cases, tribal members live 
in the same state as their tribe's reservation, and may live on or near 
the reservation. In other cases, tribal members live in states other 
than those where the tribe's lands are located. In other words, while a 
tribe's land may be located in a particular state, tribal members may 
live in many states around the country. 

Figure 1: American Indian Population Density by State: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

ACF collects information on the number of American Indian children in 
state foster care in its Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and 
Reporting System (AFCARS); however, states are not required to identify 
children who are subject to ICWA. According to the most recent AFCARS 
data provided by ACF, the percentage and number of American Indian 
children reported in foster care in fiscal year 2003 varied 
considerably from state to state.[Footnote 2] In 23 states, for 
example, American Indian children represented less than 1 percent of 
all children served in foster care in fiscal year 2003. In five states, 
however, at least one-quarter of the foster care population was 
American Indian, as shown in table 3. In addition, while Oklahoma and 
California reported serving over 3,000 American Indian children in 
foster care in 2003, Delaware, Vermont, and the District of Columbia 
reported serving fewer than five American Indian children each. 

Table 3: States with (1) Highest Percentage of Children Served in 
Foster Care Who Are American Indian and (2) Highest Number of American 
Indian Children Served in Foster Care, FY 2003: 

Percentage of children served in foster care who were American Indian: 

State: Alaska; Percentage: 62%; 
State: South Dakota; Percentage: 61%; 
State: Montana; Percentage: 35%; 
State: North Dakota; Percentage: 30%; 
State: Oklahoma; Percentage: 25%; 
State: Minnesota; Percentage: 15%; 
State: New Mexico; Percentage: 13%; 
State: Washington; Percentage: 11%; 
State: Nebraska; Percentage: 9%; 
State: Idaho; Percentage: 9%. 

Number of American Indian children served in foster care: 

State: Oklahoma; Number: 3,689. 
State: California; Number: 3,646. 
State: Minnesota; Number: 2,292. 
State: Alaska; Number: 1,735. 
State: Washington; Number: 1,690. 
State: South Dakota; Number: 1,603. 
State: Oregon; Number: 1,219. 
State: Montana; Number: 1,028. 
State: Nebraska; Number: 825. 
State: Arizona; Number: 798. 

Source: AFCARS data from HHS's Children's Bureau. 

[End of table]

Not all American Indian children who enter foster care are subject to 
ICWA. In Washington, for example, of the 1,690 American Indian children 
identified in foster care in fiscal year 2003, the state reported that 
about 450 were subject to ICWA. American Indian children are only 
subject to ICWA if they are members of, or eligible for membership in, 
1 of the over 500 federally recognized tribes. Federal recognition 
means that a tribe is formally recognized as a quasi-sovereign entity 
with a government-to-government relationship with the United States. 
With federal recognition, tribes become eligible to participate in 
federal assistance programs and can be exempt from state and local 
jurisdiction. About 40 other tribes are recognized by individual 
states, while other American Indian communities are not formally 
recognized as tribes by the United States or any individual state; 
children from these tribes are not subject to ICWA. Thirty-four states, 
most of which are located in the western portion of the United States, 
have federally recognized tribes. Five states, generally located in the 
eastern half of the country, have state recognized tribes, but no 
federally recognized tribes. Twelve states, also in the eastern half of 
the country, have no federally or state recognized tribes. 

As quasi-sovereign entities, tribes establish their own membership 
requirements, which can vary considerably, as shown in table 4. Two 
common conditions for enrollment are lineal descendency from a person 
named on a tribe's historical membership list (sometimes known as a 
"base roll") or a minimum amount of tribal blood (known as blood 
quantum). For example, to be eligible for membership in the Navajo 
Nation, individuals must have at least ¼ Navajo blood, meaning that 
they may have one grandparent who is full-blooded Navajo or two 
grandparents who are each half Navajo. Other conditions may include 
residing on the tribe's reservation or having continued contact with 
the tribe. 

Table 4: Tribal Membership Requirements for Selected Tribes, as 
Reported by Tribal Officials: 

Tribe: Mooretown Rancheria (California); 
Requirement: Descendency from 1 of 3 individuals responsible for 
distributing tribal assets when the tribe was terminated in 1958 
(federal recognition of the tribe was subsequently restored in 1983). 

Tribe: Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Morongo 
Reservation (California); 
Requirement: A 1/8 blood quantum and one parent enrolled in the Morongo 
tribe. 

Tribe: Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma; 
Requirement: Descendency from 1899- 1906 base rolls. 

Tribe: Pawnee Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Requirement: A 1/8 blood quantum. 

Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; 
Requirement: A 1/16 blood quantum and a parent enrolled at the time of 
the child's birth and at the time the child applies for enrollment 
(unless the parent is deceased). 

Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (Oregon); 
Requirement: One enrolled parent or grandparent and ¼ blood quantum in 
any federally recognized tribe. 

Tribe: Narragansett Indian Tribe (Rhode Island)[A]; 
Requirement: Descendency from 1880-1884 base roll. 

Tribe: Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation (South 
Dakota); 
Requirement: A ¼ blood quantum in a Sioux tribe and some Crow Creek 
blood. 

Tribe: Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation (South 
Dakota); 
Requirement: A ¼ blood quantum in a Sioux tribe and one parent is a 
member of the tribe. 

Source: GAO interviews with tribal officials. 

[A] Since 1995, the tribe has closed its enrollment to all individuals 
older than 12 months. 

[End of table]

Tribes may change their tribal membership criteria, thereby changing a 
child's eligibility for ICWA. For example, an official from the Pawnee 
Indian Nation said that the tribe had recently lowered its blood 
quantum requirement from 1/4 to 1/8. Since 1995, the Narragansett tribe 
has closed its enrollment for most individuals. 

Time Needed to Determine a Child's ICWA Status, Availability of 
American Indian Foster and Adoptive Homes, and Cooperation between 
Tribes and States Influence Placement Decisions for Children Subject to 
ICWA: 

Placement decisions for children subject to ICWA--including where a 
child should live upon entering foster care, how long the child should 
remain in care, and where the child should live permanently---can be 
influenced by the length of time it takes to determine a child's ICWA 
status, the availability of American Indian foster and adoptive homes, 
and how states and tribes work together to follow the provisions of 
ICWA and ASFA. These factors are unique to children subject to ICWA, 
but other factors--such as the timeliness in identifying relative 
caregivers and the availability of foster and adoptive homes--can 
influence placement decisions similarly for children who are not 
subject to the law. Similarly, while the cultural beliefs of many 
tribes may conflict with state implementation of ASFA provisions to 
move a child to adoption within certain time frames, our survey results 
from 15 states responding to a relevant question showed little 
difference in how frequently children subject to ICWA were exempted 
from ASFA's provision compared to other children. 

Identification of a Child's ICWA Status Can Be Challenging and Can 
Influence Placement Decisions: 

Before a child can be placed in accordance with ICWA's placement 
preferences, the state has to identify the child as being subject to 
the law. A number of state and tribal officials emphasized the 
identification of a child's ICWA status as an important factor in 
placement decisions, while some state officials also reported 
challenges in making such determinations in a timely manner. According 
to several child welfare officials, determining that a child is subject 
to ICWA after initial placement decisions have already been made can 
sometimes lead to a child having more placements or spending more time 
in foster care, because, as some of these officials explained, they 
have to process the new information about a child's ICWA status, 
rethink decisions already in place, and possibly make new placement 
decisions. 

States report that they are making efforts to encourage the appropriate 
determination of children's ICWA status. The five states we visited 
have policies and procedures intended to ensure that social workers 
properly identify children subject to ICWA. For example, all of these 
states except Rhode Island have special forms to help them collect 
information about a child's family history needed by tribes to 
determine a child's tribal membership status. Many, although not all, 
state child welfare officials surveyed also reported having policies 
and procedures to help social workers identify children subject to 
ICWA. Of the 48 states responding to our survey, 33 indicated that they 
provided ICWA guidelines to social workers, while 27 indicated that 
they provided mandatory ICWA training for newly hired social workers. 

However, tribes and states report that the appropriate determination of 
a child's ICWA status does not always occur. Several tribal 
representatives we spoke with reported that state caseworkers do not 
always accurately determine a child's ICWA status, noting that 
appropriate identification varies widely from state to state and among 
localities within a state. Similarly, our survey of state child welfare 
officials indicates that state child welfare workers sometimes fail to 
collect the information necessary to accurately identify whether a 
child is subject to ICWA (see fig. 2). Of the 25 state child welfare 
agencies that could answer the relevant survey question, 7 reported 
that they often requested insufficient information to accurately 
identify a child's tribal membership, while 12 states reported that 
this happened on occasion. Child welfare officials and tribal 
representatives from California reported that some caseworkers may 
incorrectly assume that children with certain characteristics--such as 
blond hair or blue eyes or a Hispanic surname--are not subject to ICWA 
and do not ask if they have American Indian heritage. 

Figure 2: Responses from 25 State Child Welfare Agencies on the 
Frequency with Which the State Requested Insufficient Information to 
Accurately Determine ICWA Status, FY 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey question was as follows: In fiscal year 2003, how 
often did your state experience any of the following circumstances 
related to identifying a child's ICWA status: state requested 
insufficient information to accurately identify a specific tribe?

Eighteen states responded "data not available" or "do not know."

[End of figure]

Child welfare officials told us that their ability to identify a 
child's ICWA status can depend on the receipt of complete information 
from families and the timely response from tribes to states' inquiries 
about a child's tribal affiliation. They noted that families are not 
always forthcoming with information about a child's American Indian 
heritage, either because they lack the information or are reluctant to 
share it. When families provide imprecise information, social workers 
may need to contact multiple tribes to try to confirm a child's ICWA 
status. As shown in figure 3, 13 states reported that family members 
often provided imprecise information about their American Indian 
heritage and 12 states reported often contacting multiple tribes to 
determine whether a child was subject to ICWA. 

Figure 3: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting the Frequency with 
Which Families Provided Information That Was Too Imprecise to Identify 
a Child's Specific Tribe, Requiring States to Send Membership Inquiries 
to Multiple Tribes, FY 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey questions were as follows: In fiscal year 2003, how 
often did your state experience any of the following circumstances 
related to identifying a child's ICWA status: (1) family or caregiver 
provided imprecise information to identify any specific tribe; and (2) 
family or caregiver provided imprecise information, requiring state to 
notify multiple tribes to determine if child was eligible for 
membership in one of them?

Eighteen states responded "data not available" or "do not know" about 
the inability to identify a specific tribe, while 19 reported "data not 
available" or "do not know" about the need to send inquiries to 
multiple tribes. 

[End of figure]

During our site visits, child welfare officials provided several 
reasons why parents are sometimes unable to provide information about a 
child's American Indian heritage. In some cases, according to an 
Oklahoma official, the mother may not know that the father is American 
Indian. A South Dakota social worker explained that a mother may not 
provide information about paternal relatives if she does not want the 
child placed with them. In other cases, officials from California and 
Oklahoma told us that families report that a relative may have American 
Indian heritage, but they do not know which tribe, making it difficult 
for child welfare workers to determine which tribe to contact. A county 
court worker in California, for example, said she has had parents who 
claimed some Sioux heritage, but did not know which Sioux tribe was 
involved. In these cases, she said she has to send inquiries to 16 
tribes to determine if the child is eligible for membership in any of 
them. Social workers can ask BIA to assist them in identifying the 
appropriate tribe of a child; however, BIA does not have tribal 
membership lists and both tribal and state officials explained that BIA 
can do little to help identify a child's tribal affiliation. 

Once a social worker believes a child might be American Indian, an 
inquiry is usually sent to the tribe with whom the child might be 
affiliated to determine if the child is a tribal member or eligible for 
membership. Officials from all of our site visit states except Rhode 
Island told us that tribes vary in how quickly they respond to 
inquiries about a child's membership status. They noted that some 
tribes do not respond to inquiries in a timely manner, which can 
increase the time it takes to determine whether the child is subject to 
ICWA, although they acknowledged that some tribes lack staff and 
resources to respond more promptly. When a tribe does not respond, 
child welfare staff have to make additional phone calls or send 
additional letters to encourage the tribe to provide the requested 
information. However, several tribal officials reported that some ICWA 
inquiries from child welfare agencies do not contain sufficient 
information for the tribe to determine a child's membership status. 
They explained, for example, that tribes may need to know the names and 
birthdates of a child's family members in order to determine if a child 
is eligible for tribal membership, but the child welfare agency does 
not always obtain this information from families and include it in 
their inquiry letters. 

Even if sufficient information is gathered to determine that a child 
meets ICWA's requirements, some state courts may invoke the "existing 
Indian family exception" to determine that a child is not subject to 
the law. Some judges have ruled that the law does not apply when 
neither the child nor the child's parents have maintained significant 
social, cultural, or political ties with the tribe, although ICWA does 
not include this language. Without this exception, these judges reason 
that ICWA is unconstitutionally discriminatory because it treats 
American Indian children differently based solely on their ethnicity, 
as opposed to the family's political affiliation with the tribe. While 
courts in some states use this exception, courts in other states have 
explicitly rejected it, reasoning that such an exception is not 
included in the language of ICWA and that it undermines ICWA's purpose 
by allowing state courts to impose their own subjective values in 
determining what constitutes American Indian culture and who is an 
American Indian. Several tribal officials stated that this exception 
hinders the effective implementation of ICWA because state courts can 
invoke the doctrine to disregard placement preferences under the act. 
Legislation was introduced in the Congress to amend ICWA to eliminate 
this exception, but it was not enacted. 

Availability of American Indian Foster and Adoptive Homes Is a Key 
Factor Influencing Placement Decisions for Children Subject to ICWA: 

State and tribal officials noted that the availability of American 
Indian foster and adoptive homes is a key factor in making placement 
decisions for children subject to ICWA that follow the law's placement 
preferences. When these children are initially placed with non-American 
Indian families, states and tribes have to make difficult decisions 
about whether to move the child if an American Indian foster or 
adoptive family later becomes available. However, many states have 
policies to place children with relatives whenever possible and, 
according to officials in two states, they face similar decisions about 
changing placements for children who are not subject to ICWA when 
relative caregivers become available after a child's initial placement 
with another foster family. 

Availability of American Indian Foster and Adoptive Homes: 

The availability of American Indian foster and adoptive homes 
influences whether states place children subject to ICWA with a tribal 
family, as preferred by law. However, child welfare officials in the 
five states we visited described having a shortage of American Indian 
homes because families do not meet state licensing standards or pass 
state background checks required to become eligible for federal 
financial support in caring for a foster child. For example, a social 
worker in a local child welfare office in California told us that some 
American Indian homes that do not meet the physical standards required 
of state licensed foster homes, such as having no more than two 
children share a bedroom or ensuring that each child has a separate 
bed, are not approved as foster homes. Several tribal officials said, 
however, that state licensing standards do not always recognize the 
communal living situations common in American Indian communities and 
exclude appropriate American Indian caregivers. State officials in 
South Dakota and California also noted that tribes can license foster 
parents themselves using their own licensing standards. 

Similarly, child welfare officials said that some American Indian 
families have previous criminal convictions or reports of possible 
child abuse or neglect, which preclude the state from approving them as 
possible foster or adoptive parents. Several tribal officials, however, 
stated that criminal background checks sometimes disqualify an 
otherwise appropriate American Indian relative from caring for a child 
subject to ICWA. In some cases, these offenses occurred many years ago 
and do not impact an individual's fitness to serve as a potential 
foster or adoptive parent. A child welfare official we visited in 
Oregon noted that these background checks may exclude potential 
caretakers. Officials from Rhode Island and California stated that they 
will make exceptions in certain cases for homes that do not pass the 
required background check. For example, potential foster parents in 
California with a criminal background (that does not include serious 
offenses such as murder, kidnapping, or rape) may be approved if they 
prove they are rehabilitated. State child welfare officials and others 
have previously noted that background checks required by the federal 
government sometimes exclude otherwise appropriate caregivers without 
regard to whether they are American Indian or of other races. 

Tribal officials described other obstacles to recruiting American 
Indian foster families. Several tribal officials told us that American 
Indian families sometimes view the state licensing process as intrusive 
and insensitive. Child welfare officials in South Dakota told us that 
they believe that some American Indian families distrust state agencies 
and are not willing to complete the process to become approved 
caretakers. One of these officials also said that some American Indian 
families are already providing informal kinship care for American 
Indian children and cannot care for additional foster children. In 
addition, a few tribal officials said that states rely on the tribe to 
find relatives and tribal foster families for children subject to ICWA; 
however, some officials stated that tribes have limited resources to 
conduct such searches and to recruit tribal foster families themselves. 
Some tribal officials pointed out that, without direct access to Title 
IV-E funds, many tribes do not have the resources to reimburse foster 
families. ICWA authorizes federal grants to tribes for providing child 
welfare services, including licensing foster homes, but several tribal 
child welfare officials said that they need funds directed for this 
specific purpose to efficiently recruit American Indian foster homes. 

On our survey, more states reported difficulties locating American 
Indian foster homes for children subject to ICWA compared to locating 
other foster homes (see table 5). Of the state child welfare agencies 
responding to a relevant survey question, 15 reported that an American 
Indian foster home was often not available for the placement of a child 
subject to ICWA, while 6 states reported that they often did not have 
any type of foster home available for these children. Eight states 
faced similar problems finding appropriate foster homes for children 
who were not subject to ICWA. 

Table 5: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting Challenges Related to 
the Availability of Foster Homes, FY 2003: 

Extremely often; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian foster home was not 
available: 2; 
For children subject to ICWA: Foster home (of any background) was not 
available: 0; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Foster home was not available: 0. 

Very often; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian foster home was not 
available: 8; 
For children subject to ICWA: Foster home (of any background) was not 
available: 3; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Foster home was not available: 2. 

Moderately often; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian foster home was not 
available: 5; 
For children subject to ICWA: Foster home (of any background) was not 
available: 3; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Foster home was not available: 6. 

On occasion; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian foster home was not 
available: 6; 
For children subject to ICWA: Foster home (of any background) was not 
available: 11; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Foster home was not available: 12. 

Seldom, if ever; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian foster home was not 
available: 2; 
For children subject to ICWA: Foster home (of any background) was not 
available: 8; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Foster home was not available: 6. 

Total states that could answer the question; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian foster home was not 
available: 23; 
For children subject to ICWA: Foster home (of any background) was not 
available: 25; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Foster home was not available: 26. 

Do not know or data not available; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian foster home was not 
available: 19; 
For children subject to ICWA: Foster home (of any background) was not 
available: 17; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Foster home was not available: 16. 

Source: GAO survey of state child welfare agencies. 

Note: The survey question was as follows: How frequently in fiscal year 
2003 did your state encounter each of the following challenges: (a) 
appropriate foster home (of any ethnic background) for an ICWA child 
was not available; (b) appropriate American Indian foster home for an 
ICWA child was not available; and (c) appropriate foster home for a non-
ICWA child was not available?

[End of table]

Of the state child welfare agencies responding to a relevant survey 
question, 14 reported that American Indian homes for adoption or long- 
term guardianship were often not available, and an additional 8 states 
reported that they often did not have any type of home available, as 
shown in table 6. However, 9 states faced similar problems finding 
homes for adoption or guardianship of children who were not subject to 
ICWA. 

Table 6: State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting Challenges Related to 
the Availability of Homes for Adoption or Long-Term Guardianship, FY 
2003: 

Extremely often; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian adoptive or long-term 
guardianship home was not available: 2; 
For children subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship home 
(of any background) was not available: 0; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship 
home was not available: 0. 

Very often; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian adoptive or long-term 
guardianship home was not available: 4; 
For children subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship home 
(of any background) was not available: 1; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship 
home was not available: 1. 

Moderately often; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian adoptive or long-term 
guardianship home was not available: 8; 
For children subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship home 
(of any background) was not available: 7; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship 
home was not available: 8. 

On occasion; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian adoptive or long-term 
guardianship home was not available: 5; 
For children subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship home 
(of any background) was not available: 9; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship 
home was not available: 13. 

Seldom, if ever; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian adoptive or long-term 
guardianship home was not available: 4; 
For children subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship home 
(of any background) was not available: 7; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship 
home was not available: 5. 

Total states that could answer the question; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian adoptive or long-term 
guardianship home was not available: 23; 
For children subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship home 
(of any background) was not available: 24; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship 
home was not available: 27. 

Do not know or data not available; 
For children subject to ICWA: American Indian adoptive or long-term 
guardianship home was not available: 20; 
For children subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship home 
(of any background) was not available: 18; 
For children not subject to ICWA: Adoptive or long-term guardianship 
home was not available: 17. 

Source: GAO survey of state child welfare agencies. 

Note: The survey question was as follows: How frequently in fiscal year 
2003 did your state encounter each of the following challenges: (a) 
appropriate adoptive or long-term guardianship home (of any ethnic 
background) for an ICWA child was not available; (b) appropriate 
American Indian adoptive or long term guardianship home for an ICWA 
child was not available; (c) appropriate adoptive or long-term 
guardianship home for a non-ICWA child was not available?

[End of table]

The availability of a foster home that provides services for a special 
needs foster child can also influence the placement of a child subject 
to ICWA. Some tribal and child welfare officials noted that some 
children are placed with non-American Indian families when they have 
special needs and require services that cannot be provided by most 
tribal homes. As social workers in a South Dakota child welfare office 
told us, tribes often agree that children with special needs, such as 
those stemming from fetal alcohol syndrome or reactive attachment 
disorder (a complex psychiatric illness that can affect young children 
and is characterized by serious problems in emotional attachments to 
others) should be placed within reach of the services they need, even 
if it means placing them with non-American Indian families. 

Decisions to Change a Child's Placement: 

A child subject to ICWA may be placed with a non-American Indian family 
if relatives or American Indian foster or adoptive homes are not 
available or if the child's ICWA status was not determined when the 
child first entered foster care. If, after a placement decision has 
been made, the state learns that a child is subject to ICWA or that a 
relative or an American Indian foster or adoptive home has become 
available, the state and tribe face the difficult decision regarding 
whether to change a child's foster or pre-adoptive placement. Late 
identification of relatives also occurs for non-American Indian 
children. Almost all states, including the five we visited, have a 
policy to place all children with relatives, if possible.[Footnote 3] 
Child welfare officials in three of these states said that relatives 
are sometimes reluctant to care for children initially and may only 
come forward once the state stops its efforts to reunify the family and 
begins to seek an adoptive family. Officials in these three states also 
noted that families coming forward later can occur with relatives of 
all children, regardless of their ICWA status. 

Our survey data indicate that states face decisions to change 
placements with similar frequency for children subject to ICWA and 
those not subject to ICWA. As shown in figure 4, 8 of the 19 states 
responding to a relevant question reported often having to make 
decisions about whether to keep children subject to ICWA with their 
current foster family compared to 9 states often facing these decisions 
for other children. 

Figure 4: Survey Results from 19 Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on 
How Often They Face Decisions about Moving a Child from a Foster Home 
to Another Placement When a Relative Came Forward Late in a Case: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey question asked: to what extent did your state face 
the following challenges, situations, or events for ICWA and non-ICWA 
children: relative came forward late in a case, prompting need to 
decide between current foster placement and placement with a relative?

Twenty-three states responded "data not available" or "do not know" for 
ICWA children, while 18 states responded "data not available" for non- 
ICWA children. 

[End of figure]

Our survey showed that fewer of these same 19 states were likely to 
face decisions about whether to change a child's pre-adoptive home to 
place the child with a relative and that these decisions occurred about 
as often for children subject to ICWA as for other children not subject 
to the law. As shown in figure 5, six states reported often facing 
decisions about whether to keep children subject to ICWA with their 
current pre-adoptive family, while seven states reported often facing 
these decisions for other children. 

Figure 5: Survey Results from 19 Child Welfare Agencies Reporting on 
How Often They Face Decisions to Move a Child from a Pre-adoptive 
Placement to Another Placement When a Relative Came Forward Late in a 
Case: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey question asked: to what extent did your state face 
the following challenges, situations, or events for ICWA and non-ICWA 
children: relative came forward late in a case, prompting need to 
decide between current adoptive placement and placement with a relative?

Twenty-three states responded "data not available" or "do not know" for 
ICWA children, while 18 states responded "data not available" for non- 
ICWA children. 

[End of figure]

Child welfare officials said that when facing decisions to change a 
child's placement, they would generally move a child to a home that was 
more in accordance with ICWA's preferences, unless this would create 
emotional problems for the child. For example, an assistant district 
attorney in Oklahoma said that she had a case in which the child had 
serious emotional issues as a result of witnessing a sibling's homicide 
at the hands of her mother. The attorney recommended against moving the 
child to a relative's home after 2 years of doing well living with a 
non-American Indian family. However, a few tribal officials said that 
they sometimes had difficulties getting state child welfare and court 
officials to move a child from an initial placement with a non-American 
Indian family, regardless of the circumstances. An Oklahoma tribe, for 
example, said a judge refused to move a child to an American Indian 
home after 3 days in a non-American Indian foster home because the 
child had already bonded with the foster family. 

Relationships with Tribes Can Affect Placement Decisions and How They 
Align with ASFA Provisions: 

How well states and tribes work together can also affect placement 
decisions, particularly in agreeing on the appropriate permanency plan 
for a child. For example, while ASFA encourages states to move children 
into permanent homes quickly and emphasizes adoption for children who 
cannot return to their families, many tribes do not believe in 
terminating parental rights and do not support adoption. When tribes 
are not satisfied with placement decisions being made by the state, 
they can seek tribal jurisdiction of a case, which gives the tribe 
authority to make placement decisions for a child. However, officials 
in the five states we visited reported that tribes do not frequently 
seek jurisdiction of children subject to ICWA. Differences in opinion 
between tribes and private adoption agencies about how ICWA's placement 
preferences apply to children who are voluntarily relinquished for 
adoption can also affect placement decisions. 

Tribal and State Relationships: 

The level of cooperation between tribes and states can affect placement 
decisions, particularly in agreeing on the appropriate permanency plan 
for a child. Tribal and state officials we interviewed described 
varying levels of communication and cooperation between tribes and 
child welfare agencies. In Oregon, for example, tribal, state, and 
local officials consistently reported that they worked closely together 
to make key placement decisions for children subject to ICWA. Social 
workers at the two local offices we visited emphasized that they 
consult with tribal staff about children subject to ICWA, work closely 
with them throughout a case, and give deference to the tribe's wishes 
about where the child should be placed and what the child's permanency 
goal should be. Because they work so closely with the tribes, some 
tribal and child welfare officials explained that they are generally 
successful in placing children subject to ICWA with relatives or 
American Indian families. 

Several tribal officials told us that they worked well with caseworkers 
in offices near the tribe, but not as well with social workers 
elsewhere. In Cherokee County in Oklahoma, for example, which includes 
the headquarters of the Cherokee Nation, state court and child welfare 
officials reported that they generally worked well with tribal 
officials and agreed on placements for children in foster care. 
Officials with the Cherokee child welfare program agreed that they had 
a good relationship with the local county child welfare staff, but 
stated that social workers in other counties and other states did not 
always work collaboratively with the tribe. Several other tribal 
officials added that some caseworkers will not involve the tribe in 
placement decisions and do not listen to the tribe's recommendations. 
Tribal officials said that when tribes and states work well together, 
children subject to ICWA are more likely to be placed with relatives or 
American Indian families. 

Tribal Cultural Beliefs and ASFA: 

Tribal cultural beliefs can also influence decisions about a child's 
permanent placement. These cultural beliefs sometimes conflict with 
ASFA's 15 of 22 provision, which requires states to file a petition to 
terminate parental rights for a child who has been in foster care for 
15 of the last 22 months. Officials from many tribes told us that their 
tribes do not believe that the connection between a parent and child 
can be severed and, therefore, they do not believe in the termination 
of parental rights. They expressed concern that states interpret ASFA 
to overemphasize adoption as a permanency goal when parents cannot 
reunify with their children. According to one tribal official, if a 
child is living with family members in a stable, long-term situation, 
the tribe considers that a permanent placement. Other tribal officials 
said that they would agree to adoption under certain circumstances, 
such as when relatives are adopting the child or if a parent has had no 
contact with a child in 2 years. 

Many of the tribal officials we spoke with also expressed concern that 
ASFA does not provide sufficient time for parents to reunify with their 
children. Some pointed out that ASFA's 15-month time frame for filing a 
petition to terminate parental rights does not provide sufficient time 
for American Indian parents to address difficult issues such as 
substance abuse. A previous GAO study reported on some of the 
difficulties state child welfare officials faced when applying ASFA's 
15 of 22 provision to any family dealing with substance abuse 
issues.[Footnote 4]

While a state can determine that tribal cultural beliefs is a 
compelling reason to exempt children subject to ICWA from ASFA's 15 of 
22 provision, our survey results, as well as previous work, indicate 
that children not subject to ICWA can also be exempted when adoption is 
not an appropriate plan. In our survey, for example, results from the 
15 states that could answer a relevant question show little difference 
in how frequently they exempt children subject to ICWA from the 15 of 
22 provision compared to children not subject to ICWA (see fig. 6). 
Similarly, in two previous GAO reports, data from a limited number of 
states indicated that many of these states exempted numerous children 
from ASFA's requirement to file a petition to terminate parental rights 
after a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 
months.[Footnote 5] According to two Oregon court officials we 
interviewed, all children who are unlikely to be adopted, such as those 
who have severe behavioral or mental health issues, are also exempted 
from this provision. One of these officials also said that both 
children subject to ICWA and those not subject to ICWA may be exempt 
when a child has been placed with grandparents who do not want to be 
part of terminating the parental rights of their own children. 

Figure 6: Survey Results from 15 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting 
on How Often They Exempt Children from ASFA's 15 of 22 Provision, FY 
2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey question was as follows: In fiscal year 2003, how 
often did the following situations or events occur with ICWA and non- 
ICWA children: state decided to exempt child who had been in foster 
care for 15 of the most recent 22 months from ASFA's requirement to 
file a petition to terminate parental rights?

Twenty-six states responded "data not available" or "do not know" for 
ICWA children, while 22 states responded "data not available" or "do 
not know" for non-ICWA children. 

[End of figure]

Tribal and State Jurisdiction Decisions: 

While several tribal officials told us that they will seek jurisdiction 
of a case and the associated authority to make placement decisions for 
a child if a tribe is not satisfied with the placement decisions being 
made by the state, officials from five states we visited told us they 
receive relatively few transfer requests for children subject to ICWA. 
Officials from many tribes we interviewed concurred that they do not 
request jurisdiction in many cases and discussed some factors they 
consider when deciding whether to transfer ICWA cases to tribal court. 
Tribal officials explained that they lack the resources to effectively 
provide for the needs of all children subject to ICWA and that states 
can generally offer more services for children than the tribes. 
However, officials from some tribes also said they will not request 
jurisdiction if the parent lives far from the reservation because the 
tribe will not be able to provide services or monitor the family. 
Officials from some tribes also told us that they allow children to 
remain in state custody with the state providing services if the state 
is working cooperatively with the tribe and if the tribe is satisfied 
with the decisions the state is making, but will seek a transfer if 
they have any concerns. 

When tribes do request a transfer of jurisdiction to tribal court, 
state, court, and tribal officials in four of the states we visited did 
not report any significant problems with tribal requests to transfer 
jurisdiction. However, child welfare and tribal officials in South 
Dakota described tensions relating to transfer requests. State, local, 
and court officials in the state expressed concerns that some tribal 
requests to transfer jurisdiction occur late in the case and often 
after the state has moved to terminate parental rights. Judges we 
interviewed in South Dakota said they would generally deny these 
requests as untimely. Officials from two South Dakota tribes we visited 
acknowledged that sometimes a parent who does not want to cooperate 
with the state will seek to transfer a case to the tribal court; one 
tribal official also noted that sometimes state courts do not provide a 
good reason for denying tribal transfer requests. During our tribal 
panels, tribal officials from other states also reported resistance at 
times from states with regard to transferring cases to tribal courts. 

Placement Decisions for Children Voluntarily Relinquished for Adoption: 

While ICWA's placement preferences also apply to children who are 
voluntarily relinquished by their parents for adoption, tribal and 
private adoption agency officials we spoke to reported varying 
practices in implementing the preferences for these children. We 
discussed voluntary adoptions with tribal officials and representatives 
from private adoption agencies in the five states we visited and they 
reported different perspectives about how ICWA placement preferences 
should be applied in these circumstances and whether tribal or parental 
preferences should prevail if the two are in conflict. Officials with 
some tribes indicated that when they are informed about a voluntary 
adoption case involving a child who is a member or potential member of 
their tribe, they generally do not become involved in the private 
adoption proceedings. Officials in other tribes reported that they will 
intervene in these types of cases and oppose adoption placements that 
do not follow ICWA's placement preferences. Several tribal officials 
expressed concern that the tribe loses many potential tribal members 
through voluntary adoptions. 

Most of the private adoption officials we spoke with reported that 
tribes frequently accept a birth parent's choice of a non-American 
Indian adoptive family. In some cases, however, they said a tribe will 
insist that a child subject to ICWA be placed with relatives or with a 
family from the tribe. Several private adoption officials reported that 
many birth parents do not want to place their child with a tribal 
family or relatives on the reservation; if a tribe opposes the parent's 
choice of adoptive family, the birth parent frequently chooses to 
parent the child. In the opinion of some of these officials, a parent's 
wishes should constitute good cause for not following ICWA's placement 
preferences. However, officials from two Oklahoma tribes told us that 
private agencies do not have many American Indian adoptive families 
because many American Indian families cannot afford the sizeable 
adoption fees they charge; as a result, American Indian mothers are 
generally not given an opportunity to choose an American Indian 
adoptive family when they seek to voluntarily relinquish a child 
through a private agency. 

Limited Data Show No Consistent Differences in Length of Stay or Other 
Foster Care Experiences for Children Subject to ICWA and Other 
Children: 

Limited data from four states showed that children subject to ICWA in 
some of these states had similar foster care experiences as children 
not subject to ICWA, while in other states, they had different 
experiences. In two of four states that could identify children subject 
to ICWA in their information systems, these children stayed in foster 
care for lengths of time similar to those of Caucasian children. In 
Washington, however, children subject to ICWA were less likely to leave 
foster care within 2 years compared to Caucasian and other minority 
children, while in Oregon children subject to ICWA and other minority 
children were somewhat more likely to do so compared to Caucasian 
children. In addition, differences in the number of placements and the 
exit destinations of children subject to ICWA compared to other 
children were evident. Many states reported in our survey that they did 
not have the information necessary to comment on children's experiences 
in foster care, but only 3 of the 10 states responding to a relevant 
question reported that following ICWA's requirements lengthened a 
child's stay in foster care by 5 months or more. Data were not 
available from these states to determine whether these longer time 
periods resulted in children experiencing a higher number of foster 
care placements or differences in how children left the foster care 
system--whether through adoption, transfer to another agency, or by 
other means. 

Data from the four states--which may not reflect the experiences of 
other states--have some limitations.[Footnote 6] For example, while the 
percentage of missing data was small for most of these states, Oregon 
was unable to determine the race, ethnicity, or ICWA status of about 15 
percent of children exiting foster care in fiscal year 2003. In 
addition, the data from Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota include some 
children in tribal custody, while children in tribal custody are not 
included in the data from Washington (see apps. I and II for more 
information about the data provided by these states). In addition, our 
analyses are based on children exiting foster care, which can influence 
the measurement of foster care outcomes.[Footnote 7] We have only 
reported differences between groups that are statistically 
significant.[Footnote 8]

Data from the Four States and Survey Results Show Different Patterns in 
the Length of Time Children Subject to ICWA Stay in Foster Care: 

While no national data exist, data from four states showed different 
patterns in the length of time children subject to ICWA spent in foster 
care compared to other children in fiscal year 2003. As shown in figure 
7, children exiting foster care who were subject to ICWA in two states 
(Oklahoma and South Dakota) stayed in foster care for about the same 
period of time as Caucasian and other minority children. In Washington, 
however, children subject to ICWA who exited care were more likely to 
have longer foster care stays in comparison; in Oregon, they had 
shorter stays compared to Caucasian children, but similar stays 
compared to other minority children.[Footnote 9] Differences in lengths 
of stay can also be observed among states. For example, in South 
Dakota, 81 percent of children subject to ICWA who exited care spent 2 
years or less in foster care compared to 63 percent of children subject 
to ICWA in Washington. 

Figure 7: Length of Stay for Children Exiting Foster Care in Four 
States, FY 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal 
year 2003 was 214 in Oregon, 1,534 in Oklahoma, 592 in South Dakota, 
and 169 in Washington. 

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not 
subject to ICWA. 

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for 
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included 
in our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who 
exited foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent 
in South Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in 
Oregon (14.7 percent). 

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, 
children who are in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a 
Title IV-E agreement with the state are included in the state's data. 
In addition, the South Dakota data include some children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and 
supervision. 

Due to rounding, figures may not add to 100 percent. 

[End of figure]

Most states were unable to respond to our survey questions about the 
effect of following ICWA procedures on the amount of time children stay 
in foster care. However, of the 16 state child welfare agencies that 
answered this survey question, 4 states reported that hardly any 
children experienced longer stays in foster care as a result of 
following ICWA procedures, while 7 reported that only some children 
remained longer in foster care. The remaining 5 states reported that 
half or more of the children were affected by the law's requirements 
(see fig. 8). 

Figure 8: Survey Results from 16 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting 
How Many Children Remain in Foster Care Longer as a Result of Following 
ICWA Procedures, FY 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey question was as follows: Compared to children not 
subject to ICWA, overall, for about how many children subject to ICWA 
has following ICWA procedures increased the amount of time required to 
be placed in a permanent home?

Twenty-six states responded "data not available" or "do not know."

[End of figure]

Of the 10 states in our survey that reported on the estimated increase 
in the amount of time to place a child in a permanent home as a result 
of following ICWA, most reported that the additional time was minimal. 
As shown in figure 9, officials in seven states reported that, on 
average, children experienced no more than 1 to 2 additional months in 
foster care. Only three states said that following ICWA requirements 
delayed a child's permanent placement 5 months or more. 

Figure 9: Survey Results from 10 State Child Welfare Agencies Reporting 
on the Estimated Increased Time That Following ICWA Procedures Adds to 
a Child's Time in Foster Care, FY 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey question was as follows: On average, how much 
additional time does following ICWA procedures collectively add to the 
time it takes to place a child subject to ICWA in a permanent 
placement, compared to children not subject to ICWA?

Thirty-two states responded "data not available" or "do not know."

[End of figure]

When asked about the effect of individual ICWA requirements, officials 
in most of the 22 responding states reported that following each of 
five ICWA requirements did not increase, or only somewhat increased, 
the time needed to place a child in a permanent home, as shown in 
figure 10. No more than eight states reported that following a specific 
ICWA procedure was responsible for a moderate or larger increase in the 
time children spend in foster care. While responses were fairly similar 
for the five ICWA requirements, more states reported that finding 
foster and adoptive homes in accordance with ICWA's placement 
preferences influenced a child's time in foster care. 

Figure 10: Survey Results from 22 State Child Welfare Agencies 
Reporting on the Effect of Specific ICWA Procedures on the Time to 
Place a Child in a Permanent Home Compared to Other Children in Foster 
Care, FY 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey question was as follows: On average, how much have 
each of these required ICWA procedures increased, if at all, the total 
amount of time it takes to place ICWA children in a permanent placement 
compared to non-ICWA children?

Nineteen states responded "data not available" or "do not know" about 
the effect of locating foster homes that are in accordance with ICWA 
placement preferences, while 21 states responded "data not available" 
or "do not know" to the remaining questions regarding identifying 
children who are subject to ICWA, notifying tribes, locating adoptive 
homes, and meeting ICWA evidence standards. 

For the "at most somewhat increased" category, the following response 
categories were grouped together: hardly or not at all increased and 
somewhat increased. 

For the "at least moderately increased" category, the following 
response categories were grouped together: moderately increased, 
greatly increased, and very greatly increased. 

[End of figure]

One reason that some states may report few differences in length of 
stay for children subject to ICWA and other children is that officials 
in state child welfare agencies and courts may use similar standards 
that apply to all children, despite differences outlined in the law. 

* Active Efforts: ICWA requires states to provide "active efforts" to 
prevent the break up of an American Indian family, while states are 
only required to provide "reasonable efforts" for other children to 
receive federal funds. According to some state officials, as part of 
providing active efforts, caseworkers may offer extra assistance, such 
as transportation assistance or culturally-relevant services to 
American Indian families, and may spend more time trying to reunify the 
family, which can, in some cases, lead to a child remaining in foster 
care for a longer period of time. However, other state officials told 
us that the level of services offered to the general child welfare 
population has been increasing, blurring the line between active 
efforts and the "reasonable efforts" states are required to provide to 
all families whose children are taken into state custody. Officials in 
four states attributed this similarity to the influence of ASFA, noting 
that ASFA's time frames require states to provide more services upfront 
in order to decide after 15 months whether to reunify a family or 
terminate parental rights. Some tribal officials disagreed and told us 
that social workers do not always provide active efforts to children 
subject to ICWA. In some cases, they said, state caseworkers simply 
refer parents to services without providing any additional assistance-
-essentially providing the same level of services as they would for a 
non-American Indian family. 

* Evidence Standard for Terminating Parental Rights: Some child welfare 
officials we interviewed in one state believe that ICWA's higher 
evidence standard for terminating parental rights can make it more 
difficult to terminate parental rights and prolong a child's stay in 
foster care in some cases. Other child welfare officials, however, do 
not consider ICWA's evidence standard to be a significant factor in 
placement decisions, because they believe that judges and juries use a 
similar evidence standard for all children. Our survey results also 
suggest that petitions to terminate parental rights are not often 
rejected for children subject to ICWA due to the higher evidence 
standard. As shown in figure 11, most of the 19 states responding to a 
relevant question reported that petitions on behalf of children subject 
to ICWA are seldom, if ever, rejected by the courts due to insufficient 
evidence. In fact, these states reported that courts rejected these 
petitions due to insufficient evidence more often on behalf of children 
not subject to ICWA. 

Figure 11: Survey Results from 19 State Child Welfare Agencies 
Reporting on How Often Courts Reject State Requests to Terminate 
Parental Rights for Children in Foster Care Because Evidence Does Not 
Meet Applicable Legal Standards, FY 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey question was as follows: In fiscal year 2003, how 
often did the following situations or events occur with ICWA and non- 
ICWA children: court rejected the state's request to terminate parental 
rights because the state's case did not meet the appropriate legal 
sufficiency standard for evidence?

Twenty-four states responded "data not available" or "do not know" for 
ICWA children, while 19 states responded "data not available" or "do 
not know" for non-ICWA children. 

[End of figure]

Data from Four States Show Some Differences in How Children Subject to 
ICWA Move through Foster Care: 

While only three of the four states provided placement information, 
data from two of these states showed no differences in the number of 
placements experienced by children subject to ICWA and other children 
who exited foster care.[Footnote 10] In Washington, however, children 
exiting care who were subject to ICWA were more likely to have a 
greater number of placements than Caucasian or other minority children, 
as shown in figure 12. Additional statistical analyses of the state 
placement data showed children subject to ICWA in Washington were less 
likely than other children to have one or two placements and more 
likely to have four or more placements than Caucasian children. The 
analyses also showed that Oregon children subject to ICWA were less 
likely than Caucasian children to have four or more 
placements.[Footnote 11] These data also indicate differences among 
states in the number of placements. For example, South Dakota reported 
that 26 percent of children exiting foster care who were subject to 
ICWA had three or more placements while in foster care compared to 37 
percent in Washington. 

Figure 12: Number of Placements for Children Exiting Foster Care in 
Three States, FY 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal 
year 2003 was 214 in Oregon, 592 in South Dakota, and 169 in 
Washington. 

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not 
subject to ICWA. 

Washington could not identify the number of placements for two 
Caucasian children (less than 1 percent) and six minority children 
(less than 1 percent). 

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for 
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included 
in our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who 
exited foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent 
in South Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in 
Oregon (14.7 percent). 

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon and South Dakota, children who are 
in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a Title IV-E 
agreement with the state are included in the state's data. In addition, 
the South Dakota data include some children who are in the custody of a 
tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and supervision. 

[End of figure]

Data from the four states showed some differences in how children 
subject to ICWA left foster care compared to other children. When 
comparing whether they left the foster care system to reunify with 
their families, left under another type of permanent arrangement (such 
as adoption or guardianship), or left under different circumstances, 
most children in these states who left the foster care system in 2003 
were reunified with their families. However, some significant 
differences can be observed. In Washington, for example, reunification 
rates for children subject to ICWA were significantly lower compared to 
Caucasian or other minority children. In Oklahoma, children subject to 
ICWA and Caucasian children were less likely to be reunified than other 
minority children. Differences were also found based on the state where 
children lived. For example, the reunification rate for children 
subject to ICWA was 58 percent in Oklahoma, but only 36 percent in 
Washington. 

Figure 13: Percentage of Children Exiting Foster Care in FY 2003 by 
Reunification in Four States: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal 
year 2003 was 214 in Oregon, 1,534 in Oklahoma, 592 in South Dakota, 
and 169 in Washington. 

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not 
subject to ICWA. 

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for 
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included 
in our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who 
exited foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent 
in South Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in 
Oregon (14.7 percent). 

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, 
children who are in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a 
Title IV-E agreement with the state are included in the state's data. 
In addition, the South Dakota data include some children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and 
supervision. 

[End of figure]

Children subject to ICWA were somewhat less likely than Caucasian 
children, and about as likely as other minority children, to leave 
foster care through adoption in the four states, as shown in figure 14. 
Adoption rates for children subject to ICWA were fairly comparable 
among the states, ranging from 12 percent to 17 percent. 

Figure 14: Children Exiting Foster Care through Adoption, FY 2003 in 
Four States: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal 
year 2003 was 214 in Oregon, 1,534 in Oklahoma, 592 in South Dakota, 
and 169 in Washington. 

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not 
subject to ICWA. 

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for 
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included 
in our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who 
exited foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent 
in South Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in 
Oregon (14.7 percent). 

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota 
children who are in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a 
Title IV-E agreement with the state are included in the state's data. 
In addition, the South Dakota data include some children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and 
supervision. 

[End of figure]

Children subject to ICWA were somewhat more likely to exit foster care 
through a guardianship arrangement than either Caucasian or minority 
children, as shown in figure 15. Guardianship rates for children 
subject to ICWA were fairly similar in three states, ranging from 7 
percent to 9 percent, but were higher in Washington. 

Figure 15: Percentage of Children Exiting Foster Care in FY 2003 by 
Guardianship in Four States: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The number of children subject to ICWA exiting care in fiscal 
year 2003 was 214 in Oregon, 1,534 in Oklahoma, 592 in South Dakota, 
and 169 in Washington. 

Minority children can include American Indian children who are not 
subject to ICWA. 

Three of the states were not able to identify the race or ethnicity for 
all children exiting foster care and these children were not included 
in our analysis. The percentage of children with unknown ethnicity who 
exited foster care in 2003 was small in two of the states (0.2 percent 
in South Dakota and 1.7 percent in Washington), but was higher in 
Oregon (14.7 percent). 

The data from Washington do not include any children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, 
children who are in the custody of a tribal court and whose tribe has a 
Title IV-E agreement with the state are included in the state's data. 
In addition, the South Dakota data include some children who are in the 
custody of a tribal court, but for whom the state provides services and 
supervision. 

[End of figure]

While most children who exit foster care are placed in permanent homes, 
many leave foster care under different circumstances--for example, when 
they turn 18, run away, or are transferred to another agency. Children 
subject to ICWA in three states were significantly more likely than 
Caucasian children to be transferred to another agency. According to a 
child welfare official in South Dakota, the state does not have 
information to determine what type of agency these children were 
transferred to, but said that other agencies could include tribal 
courts, juvenile justice facilities, and agencies for the 
developmentally disabled. Officials in Oklahoma and Washington reported 
that most children subject to ICWA in this category are transferred to 
tribal court. 

While transfer rates for children subject to ICWA were generally 11 
percent or less, in Washington, transfer rates were nearly three times 
as high, and this was the second most common way for children subject 
to ICWA to leave foster care. Washington officials explained that the 
state seeks to identify a child's tribal affiliation and transfer a 
child to tribal jurisdiction whenever appropriate. They noted a 
relationship between the higher transfer rate and the lower 
reunification rate for children subject to ICWA in their state, 
pointing out that if the percentage of children reunified and the 
percentage transferred are combined, the total percentage is similar 
for all groups of children. We reviewed exit data using an alternative 
methodology that excluded transfers and found that differences among 
children subject to ICWA, Caucasian children, and other minority 
children were somewhat less. However, children subject to ICWA were 
still somewhat less likely to leave foster care through adoption and 
somewhat more likely to leave under a guardianship arrangement than 
other children. 

ACF Obtains Limited Information on ICWA Implementation through Its 
Oversight of States' Child Welfare Systems: 

While ICWA did not give ACF direct oversight responsibility for states' 
implementation of ICWA, the agency reviews limited information as part 
of its general oversight of states' child welfare systems; however, the 
monitoring processes in place sometimes provide little information that 
ACF can use to assess states' efforts to implement the law's 
requirements. States are required to discuss ICWA implementation in 
their overall 5-year child and family services plan and in their annual 
progress and services reports, but states are not required to use a 
standard reporting format and some states provide little meaningful 
information with respect to ICWA implementation. ACF's reviews of 
states' overall child welfare systems through its CFSR process have 
greater potential to identify state implementation issues, but the 
structure of this oversight process does not ensure that ICWA issues 
will be addressed in the various aspects of the review itself or that 
identified problems will be addressed and monitored in states' program 
improvement plans or through other means. 

ACF Has Limited Oversight Authority and Some States Report Little 
Information on ICWA Implementation: 

ICWA did not give any federal agency explicit oversight 
responsibilities with respect to states' implementation of the law nor 
did it require states to report on their implementation efforts. 
Recognizing the lack of reporting requirements, the Congress amended 
Title IV-B to require state child welfare agencies to report to ACF on 
their efforts to comply with ICWA in their 5-year plans and to develop 
these plans in consultation with tribal organizations in the state. 
This reporting requirement provides ACF with some limited oversight 
authority, since it monitors states' compliance with Title IV-B 
requirements. ACF officials emphasized that the agency does not 
administer ICWA and is not authorized to take any enforcement actions 
for failure to comply with the act, although they encourage states to 
comply with ICWA. ACF guidance issued for developing the 5-year plans 
covering fiscal years 2000 through 2004 required states to provide a 
description of the specific measures to be taken to comply with ICWA, 
which, at a minimum, must provide for (1) the identification of 
American Indian children, (2) the notification of tribes, and (3) 
giving preference to American Indian caregivers when determining out- 
of-home or permanent placements for American Indian children. 
Additional guidance issued in 2000 (1) required states to discuss ICWA 
implementation in their annual progress and services reports, which 
discuss progress made in implementing the 5-year plans; (2) emphasized 
the need for states to consult with tribal organizations; and (3) 
recommended that states with no federally recognized tribes consult 
with urban or national American Indian organizations in the development 
of their plans. 

In its guidance for states' 2003 annual progress and services reports, 
ACF noted that states appeared to be having difficulties reporting on 
ICWA adherence and reiterated that states needed to provide a 
description of the specific measures taken to comply with the law. 
However, as of December 2004, ACF had not established standard 
guidelines or tools for reviewing and evaluating the completeness of 
state ICWA compliance activity in these reports. Reviews of state 
reports have shown that they do not always include information that ACF 
would need to monitor states' implementation of the law, because they 
either do not include ICWA implementation information or do not 
explicitly address progress made to implement the law. A study of the 
1999 5-year plans and the 2000 annual progress and services reports by 
researchers from Washington University in St. Louis found that three- 
quarters of the states did not address all three of ACF's required 
measures and over half of the states failed to address any of the 
required measures.[Footnote 12] Our more recent review of 48 states' 
annual progress and services reports submitted to ACF in 2004 showed 
similar results in addressing all three areas (see table 7), although 
only 4 states did not address ICWA at all. While all states have the 
same reporting requirements, we noted that states having higher 
concentrations of American Indians were somewhat more likely to address 
all three ACF reporting requirements than other states. 

Table 7: States Explicitly Addressing ICWA Compliance Requirements in 
Their 2004 Annual Progress and Services Reports: 

Tribal Population Density Category[A]: I; 
All 3 required areas addressed: 3; 
2 required areas addressed: 0; 
1 required area addressed: 1; 
Addressed ICWA compliance, but not any required areas explicitly: 8; 
Did not address ICWA: 0; 
Total: 12. 

Tribal Population Density Category[A]: II; 
All 3 required areas addressed: 3; 
2 required areas addressed: 0; 
1 required area addressed: 1; 
Addressed ICWA compliance, but not any required areas explicitly: 6; 
Did not address ICWA: 0; 
Total: 10. 

Tribal Population Density Category[A]: III; 
All 3 required areas addressed: 1; 
2 required areas addressed: 1; 
1 required area addressed: 2; 
Addressed ICWA compliance, but not any required areas explicitly: 6; 
Did not address ICWA: 0; 
Total: 10. 

Tribal Population Density Category[A]: IV; 
All 3 required areas addressed: 2; 
2 required areas addressed: 4; 
1 required area addressed: 4; 
Addressed ICWA compliance, but not any required areas explicitly: 2; 
Did not address ICWA: 4; 
Total: 16. 

Tribal Population Density Category[A]: Total; 
All 3 required areas addressed: 9; 
2 required areas addressed: 5; 
1 required area addressed: 8; 
Addressed ICWA compliance, but not any required areas explicitly: 22; 
Did not address ICWA: 4; 
Total: 48[B]. 

Source: GAO review of states' 2004 annual progress and services 
reports. 

[A] Category I represents states with the highest tribal population 
densities and Category IV represents states with the lowest tribal 
population densities. See appendix I for more information about the 
creation of these categories and which states are included in each. 

[B] Approved annual progress and services reports for three states were 
not available at the time of our review. 

[End of table]

Even when states do provide ICWA information on the three required 
areas, our review revealed that the reports varied widely in scope and 
content, making it sometimes difficult to determine what progress 
states were making in implementing the law. For example, North Dakota's 
report discussed numerous ICWA-related topics, including contacting 
tribes to elicit suggestions for increasing relative or tribal 
placements. However, the state did not provide information on the 
extent to which it was successful in giving preference to American 
Indian caregivers when placing American Indian children. In other 
cases, reports are missing information on state actions taken to 
implement ICWA. During our site visit to Oregon, for example, we noted 
that the state had procedures to identify ICWA children, notify tribes, 
and follow ICWA's placement preferences that were not reflected in the 
state's 2004 annual progress and services report submitted to ACF. 

ACF guidance issued in 2000 lists several suggested ICWA activities 
that states may choose to address in their 5-year plans. Addressing 
these activities is not required, but could provide a better picture of 
efforts states are taking to improve how ICWA is being implemented. 
These activities include training programs, development of caseworker 
expectations, recruitment of American Indian foster homes, and 
agreements to recognize and use tribal foster homes. While some states 
included information on some of these suggested activities in their 
annual progress and services reports, they often did not discuss the 
relative success of their efforts, which limited the usefulness of this 
information for oversight purposes. For example, while table 8 shows 
that 31 states discussed their ICWA training efforts, our review showed 
that only 2 states reported how many staff were trained. 

Table 8: States Reporting the Use of Activities Suggested by ACF to 
Comply with ICWA: 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: Training programs for state 
employees; 
Number of states: 31. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: Forms/procedures that 
include tribal affiliation and notification; 
Number of states: 36. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: Development of state 
caseworker compliance expectations or measures; 
Number of states: 1. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: ICWA-related collaborations 
with local agencies to provide services to American Indian children; 
Number of states: 12. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: State partnership agreements 
with tribes; 
Number of states: 23. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: Culturally appropriate 
standards for foster home licensing; 
Number of states: 1. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: Recruiting of American 
Indian foster homes; 
Number of states: 14. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: Promotion of relative 
placements for American Indian children; 
Number of states: 5. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: Recognition and use of 
foster homes licensed by tribes; 
Number of states: 4. 

Suggested ICWA Activities in ACF Guidance: Other[A]; 
Number of states: 32. 

Source: GAO review of states' 2004 annual progress and services 
reports. 

[A] Other activities states reported include hiring ICWA specialists 
and holding ICWA conferences. 

[End of table]

As shown in table 9, on average, states with higher American Indian 
population densities discussed more ICWA activities in their annual 
progress and services reports than states with lower population 
densities. 

Table 9: Relationship between ICWA Topics Discussed in States' 2004 
Annual Progress and Services Reports and Density of States' American 
Indian Population: 

American Indian population density category[A]: I; 
Average number of ICWA measures discussed in APSR: 4.0. 

American Indian population density category[A]: II; 
Average number of ICWA measures discussed in APSR: 4.1. 

American Indian population density category[A]: III; 
Average number of ICWA measures discussed in APSR: 3.5. 

American Indian population density category[A]: IV; 
Average number of ICWA measures discussed in APSR: 2.2. 

Source: GAO review of 2004 annual progress and services reports. 

[A] The states included in each category are listed in appendix I. 
Category I includes states with the highest densities of American 
Indians in their populations, while category IV includes states with 
the lowest densities. 

[End of table]

The range of ICWA information included in the annual progress and 
services reports may also be related to how closely ACF regional staff 
review states' activities for information related to ICWA 
implementation. ACF's regional offices are responsible for reviewing 
the ICWA information that states report in their 5-year plans and in 
their annual progress and services reports to ensure that states have 
followed ACF guidance, including whether they contain information on 
how tribes or tribal organizations were consulted in the development of 
these documents. If information initially submitted by states about 
their consultation with tribes or efforts to comply with ICWA is 
lacking or unclear, regional officials said they generally require 
states to provide additional clarification concerning their ICWA 
activities prior to approving the state's 5-year plan or annual 
progress reports. Four regions had a staff member designated as the 
tribal liaison for the region (two others designated a tribal liaison 
during the course of our review). ACF staff in some regions reported 
conducting some additional oversight activities with regard to ICWA or 
tribal issues. In one ACF region with 69 tribes, the tribal child 
welfare specialist told us that she checked the policy and procedures 
manuals for each state to ensure that they included guidance on 
following ICWA. In another region with some tribes but relatively few 
children subject to ICWA, the tribal program specialist has sponsored 
several ICWA training sessions for state child welfare and judicial 
staff, in part because of continued resistance to ICWA on the part of 
some state child welfare and judicial staff. In other regions, ACF 
staff reported relying on reviews of states' plans and annual progress 
reports, with no additional monitoring activities. 

ACF's Child and Family Services Reviews Do Not Focus on ICWA and Do Not 
Ensure That States Address ICWA Problems: 

The structure of ACF's CFSR reviews of states' overall child welfare 
systems does not ensure that ICWA issues will be addressed in the 
various aspects of the review itself or that identified problems will 
be addressed and monitored in states' program improvement plans. 
Information about states' ICWA efforts may be obtained in three 
different parts of the review process: 

* In the CFSR statewide assessment process: A state must discuss how 
effective it has been in implementing ICWA. 

* In interviews with stakeholders by the CFSR review team: These 
interviews may discuss how the child welfare agency complies with ICWA 
provisions concerning notification of tribes, observing placement 
preferences, and working with tribes and courts concerning decisions 
for American Indian children in foster care. 

* As part of the onsite review of child welfare case files: The review 
determines if the case involves an American Indian child and if so, 
will then determine if (1) the state notified the tribe of the child's 
placement in a timely manner and (2) the child was placed with extended 
family or with an American Indian family. Our review of the self- 
assessments submitted by 51 states showed that all but 2 states 
addressed their efforts to implement ICWA, but the submitted 
information was somewhat limited to assess states' performance. One 
state, for example, noted that it had American Indian children in state 
custody, but did not discuss any ICWA compliance measures. In general, 
states with higher concentrations of American Indians were more likely 
to discuss a greater number of ICWA implementation efforts in their 
statewide assessments. 

Our review of CFSR final reports disclosed that 32 of 51 state reports 
raised some concerns about ICWA implementation, as shown in table 10. 
CFSR reports for 10 states--generally those with low densities of 
American Indians--had no discussion of ICWA implementation. Concerns 
raised in the reports included inadequate training of state social 
workers, shortages of American Indian homes for foster and adoptive 
placements, and identification and notification issues. For example, 
the Alaska CFSR final report notes that stakeholders commented on the 
lack of sufficient tribal involvement in ICWA training, despite a 5- 
year emphasis on this training. The Arizona report noted that 
compliance with ICWA is not always consistent with the intent or spirit 
of the law from district to district, and that efforts are not made to 
determine the applicability of ICWA in all cases. Similarly, in the 
Nevada report, some stakeholders expressed concern that some judges in 
the state do not follow the provisions of ICWA. In Utah, reviewers 
noted that stakeholders expressed different opinions about the 
consistency with which caseworkers identified American Indian children 
and notified tribes when these children are in state custody. Montana's 
report stated that stakeholders noted that the child welfare agency is 
in need of American Indian foster homes, but does not do any specific 
recruiting for these homes. 

Table 10: ICWA Concerns Raised in CFSR Final Reports and Program 
Improvement Plans by State: 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Alaska; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Arizona; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Idaho; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Minnesota; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Montana; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: New Mexico; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: North Dakota; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Oklahoma; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Oregon; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: South Dakota; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Washington; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Wyoming; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: California; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Colorado; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Kansas; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Maine; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Michigan; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Mississippi; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Not received[B]. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Nebraska; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Nevada; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: North Carolina; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Rhode Island; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Not received[B]. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Utah; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

State: Wisconsin; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Tribal population density 
category: Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Alabama; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Connecticut; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Florida; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Iowa; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Indiana; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? NA; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Louisiana; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Massachusetts; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: New York; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: South Carolina; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes[C]; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

StateIV: Texas; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Arkansas; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Delaware; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? N[A]; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: District of Columbia; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Georgia; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? N[A]; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Hawaii; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? N[A]; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Illinois; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Not received[B]. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Kentucky; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? N[A]; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Maryland; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Not received[B]. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Missouri; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: New Hampshire; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: New Jersey; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Ohio; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Pennsylvania; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Tennessee; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? Yes; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Vermont; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? N[A]; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Virginia; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? N[A]; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

State State: West Virginia; 
ICWA discussed in final CFSR report? N[A]; 
ICWA implementation concerns raised in final CFSR report? No; 
ICWA concerns in CFSR addressed in PIP? NA. 

Source: GAO review of Child and Family Services Review final reports 
and available state program improvement plans. 

[A] Only ICWA related statement was that the state has no federally 
recognized tribes. 

[B] ACF had not provided GAO with approved plan as of December 31, 
2004. 

[C] Report notes that concern was resolved. 

[End of table]

The CFSR process is not designed to ensure that these types of ICWA 
problems are addressed. ACF requires states to develop program 
improvement plans to address problems identified during the CFSR 
process, specifically, areas in which ACF determines that the state is 
not in compliance with the CFSR standards. An issue can be discussed in 
the CFSR report without ACF necessarily finding that the state was not 
in compliance with these standards. The goal of the CFSR is for states 
to address the most pressing problems that are contributing to poor 
outcomes for children. ACF does not specifically review or rate ICWA 
implementation as part of the CFSR process; instead, ICWA issues are 
formally addressed as part of the CFSR measure relating to preserving 
family relationships and community connections. If a state is able to 
pass this overall measure based on performance on other aspects of the 
measure, ACF would not generally require states to address ICWA 
implementation issues in their program improvement plan. For example, 
Michigan's CFSR final report noted that the state did not have enough 
Native American foster homes and that the procedures used to identify 
Native American children and notify tribes were insufficient. However, 
because the "preserving connections" factor was assessed as a strength, 
the state did not discuss any specific corrective actions concerning 
identification of American Indian children, notification of tribes, or 
recruitment of Native American foster homes. 

While states may voluntarily address ICWA implementation issues in 
their program improvement plans, our review of 47 approved plans 
provided to us by ACF as of December 2004 showed that states did not 
always identify corrective actions they would take to improve ICWA 
compliance. As shown in table 10, 12 of the 32 states with ICWA 
implementation concerns identified during the CFSR did not report plans 
to address ICWA implementation problems in their program improvement 
plans. 

Similarly, the reviews of case files during the CFSR do not ensure that 
ICWA implementation is reviewed because cases involving American Indian 
children are not always included. During CFSR onsite visits, ACF 
requires officials to visit three sites in a state and randomly select 
a total of 50 case files for their review. During these case reviews, 
if a child appears to have American Indian heritage, the CFSR reviewers 
are then to determine if the tribe was notified and if the child was 
placed with the tribe or extended family. Under this methodology, 
states with fewer children subject to ICWA in the child welfare system 
are less likely to have an ICWA case selected for review of their 
compliance with the law. In some states, however, sites where tribes 
were located were intentionally selected to increase the probability 
that cases involving American Indian children would be selected for 
review. 

The limited information gathered from the case file reviews may not 
accurately reflect a state's implementation of ICWA. In the CFSRs 
conducted from 2002 to 2004,[Footnote 13] ACF's review of 72 cases 
involving American Indian children in foster care showed that states 
often did not implement one or more ICWA provisions, but whether these 
children were actually subject to ICWA is unknown. As shown in table 
11, CFSR reviewers concluded that the child's tribe was not notified in 
over one-fourth of the cases reviewed and the child was not placed with 
a relative or the tribe over one-half of the time. The reviewers made 
these determinations for all American Indian cases reviewed, whether or 
not the children were subject to ICWA. Most of the states that had 
cases with identified ICWA issues did include efforts to improve ICWA 
implementation in their improvement plans, including four of the states 
with the highest concentrations of America Indians. 

Table 11: Review of Tribal Notification and Placements in Cases 
Involving American Indian Children during Child and Family Services 
Reviews, 2002-2004: 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Alaska; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 16; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 2; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 9; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Idaho; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 6; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 1; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 1; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Montana; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 13; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 3; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 5; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Oklahoma; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 3; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 0; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 0; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Not applicable. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Washington; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 5; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 1; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 3; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

StateII: Wyoming; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]II: 4; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notifiedII: 3; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribeII: 3; 
[Empty]; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: California; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 1; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 0; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 1; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Colorado; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 1; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 0; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 0; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Not applicable. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Michigan; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 1; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 0; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 0; 
Tribal population density category: [Empty]; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Not applicable. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Mississippi; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 2; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 2; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 2; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? PIP not received. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Nebraska; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 2; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 1; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 1; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Nevada; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 1; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 0; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 1; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Rhode Island; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 1; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 1; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 1; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? PIP not received. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Utah; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 4; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 0; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 2; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

StateIII: Wisconsin; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]III: 3; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notifiedIII: 2; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribeIII: 1; 
Tribal population density categoryIII: [Empty]; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Tribal population density categoryIII: Yes. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Connecticut; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 1; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 0; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 0; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Not applicable. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Iowa; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]IV: 2; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notifiedIV: 0; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribeIV: 1; 
Tribal population density categoryIV: [Empty]; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Tribal population density categoryIV: Yes. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Hawaii; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 1; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 1; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 1; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Maryland; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 1; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 1; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 1; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? PIP not received. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Missouri; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 2; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 1; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 2; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Ohio; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 2; 
Cases where child's tribe was not notified: 1; 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribe: 2; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Yes. 

StateState: Total; 
Number of cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]Number of 
cases reviewed involving American Indian children[A]: 72 (100%); 
Cases where child's tribe was not notifiedCases where child's tribe was 
not notified: 20 (27.8%); 
Cases where child was not placed with relative or tribeCases where 
child was not placed with relative or tribe: 37 (51.4%); 
Tribal population density category37 (51.4%): [Empty]; 
If tribe not notified or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA 
issues in PIP? Tribal population density categoryIf tribe not notified 
or child not placed with relative or tribe, ICWA issues in PIP? 
[Empty]. 

[End of table]

Source: GAO review of state program improvement plans and data provided 
by James Bell Associates, which is under contract with ACF to compile 
Child and Family Services Review results. 

Notes: ACF does not have case specific data on tribal notification and 
placement for cases involving American Indian children for CFSRs 
completed in 2001. 

These cases involve American Indian children who may or may not be 
formally subject to ICWA. 

[A] Includes children who are part American Indian. 

The case review questions involving tribal notification and placement 
are included as part of the CFSR's assessment of how well the state 
preserves the child's connections with family members and the child's 
community. Based on the responses to these and other questions, ACF 
rates the area either as a strength, as needing improvement, or not 
applicable. Of the 2,600 total case files ACF reviewed during the CFSRs 
conducted from 2001 through 2004, 87 cases from 20 states involved 
children who were American Indian as shown in table 12. The CFSR 
reviewers judged 23 of the 87 cases as needing improvement with regard 
to preserving a child's connections in half of these states. While most 
of the states that had cases rated as needing improvement addressed 
ICWA implementation issues in their program improvement plans, two 
states having higher concentrations of American Indians did not report 
any planned corrective action. 

Table 12: American Indian CFSR Cases Where Item Related to Preserving a 
Child's Connections Was Judged "Needing Improvement" During Child and 
Family Services Reviews, 2001-2004: 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Alaska; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 14; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 4; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Idaho; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 5; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Minnesota; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 10; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 1; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Montana; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 10; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 2; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: North Dakota; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 2; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? 
-. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: New Mexico; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 4; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Oregon; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 2; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: South Dakota; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 21; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 6; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: I; 
State: Washington; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 1; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0. 

State: Wyoming; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 2; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 1; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Maine; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 1; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? -. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Michigan; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 1; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Nebraska; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 2; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 1; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: II; 
State: Utah; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 2; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0. 

State: Wisconsin; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 3; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 3; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? No. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Iowa; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 1; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0. 

Tribal population density category: III; 
State: Louisiana; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 1; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 1; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Arkansas; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 2; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 2; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? Yes. 

Tribal population density category: IV; 
State: Missouri; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 1; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 0. 

State: Ohio; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 2; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 2; 
If case(s) needing improvement, ICWA implementation issues in PIP? Yes. 

Total; 
State: 20; 
American Indian CFSR cases reviewed[A]: 87; 
American Indian CFSR cases rated needing improvement in preserving a 
child's connections: 23. 

Sources: James Bell Associates and GAO review of state program 
improvement plans. 

[A] Does not include children of "two or more races."

[End of table]

Conclusions: 

ICWA created important protections to prevent state child welfare 
agencies and courts from inappropriately separating American Indian 
children from their families. More than 25 years after it was enacted, 
however, we know very little about the effect of this law on moving 
American Indian children in foster care to permanent homes in a timely 
manner, while ensuring their safety and well-being. The scarcity of 
data on outcomes for children subject to the law, along with variations 
in how individual states, courts, social workers, and tribes interpret 
and implement ICWA, make it difficult to generalize about how the law 
is being implemented or its effect on American Indian children. Our 
discussions with tribal officials, as well as our review of the limited 
information on ICWA implementation from the CFSRs, indicate that some 
problems with ICWA implementation are occurring, although we cannot 
estimate how extensive such problems are. 

Gathering additional data from states about children subject to ICWA 
could provide a clearer picture about ICWA's effect on children's 
experiences in foster care and help determine the extent of any 
systemic problems with state implementation of the law. However, any 
new data collection effort would have to consider the differential 
burden and costs to the states of collecting this information, given 
that many states have few or no American Indians subject to the law in 
their child welfare systems. With clear oversight authority, ACF would 
be better able to directly monitor states' implementation of ICWA. 
However, even with its current authority, the agency has not made the 
most effective use of the relevant data it is able to gather as part of 
its oversight of states' overall child welfare systems. For example, 
ACF already collects some information on states' implementation of ICWA 
through the CFSRs as part of its assessment on how well states preserve 
the child's connections with family members and the child's community; 
a review of the findings related to ICWA implementation could provide 
an opportunity to further identify problems states are having 
implementing the law and any systemic problems existing across states 
that could be addressed with more specific guidance or technical 
assistance. Similarly, the existing annual progress and services 
reports provide an opportunity for states and tribes to address ICWA 
implementation issues raised during the Child and Family Services 
Reviews that have not already been addressed in states' program 
improvement plans. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To improve the usefulness of the information states are required to 
provide on their ICWA compliance efforts, the Secretary of HHS should 
direct the head of ACF to (1) review the ICWA implementation issues 
identified in its CFSRs, (2) require states to discuss in their annual 
progress reports any significant ICWA issues not addressed in their 
program improvement plans, and (3) consider using the information on 
ICWA implementation in the CFSRs, annual progress and services reports, 
and program improvement plans to target guidance and assistance to 
states in addressing any identified issues. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to HHS and the Department of the 
Interior for comments and their responses are reproduced in appendices 
III and IV, respectively. HHS also provided technical comments, which 
we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of the Interior's BIA 
stated that it had no comments on the report as it has no oversight 
authority for states' implementation of ICWA; 
however, it noted that the report's information on ICWA grant funding 
is accurate. 

HHS disagreed with our conclusions and recommendation. While HHS stated 
that it shares GAO's concerns regarding states' implementation of ICWA, 
it emphasized that it does not have the authority, resources, or 
expertise to address GAO's recommendation. HHS also questioned GAO's 
assumption that ACF is the most appropriate oversight agency for ICWA 
instead of another federal agency, such as BIA. HHS further commented 
that there were limitations in data collection because we focused on 
states' implementation of ICWA, while HHS's Indian Health Service 
stated that there is inadequate knowledge on which to base a realistic 
improvement plan and proposed an expanded study examining both state 
and tribal ICWA issues. 

Our report recognizes HHS's limited authority with respect to ICWA and 
our recommendation offers a way for the agency to assist states within 
its existing authority and resources as part of its current process for 
overseeing states' child welfare systems. While HHS does not have 
specific oversight authority with respect to ICWA, it is responsible 
for ensuring that states provide meaningful information about their 
ICWA compliance efforts as part of Title IV-B's reporting requirements 
and, in fact, has issued guidance to states on ICWA implementation. We 
continue to believe that HHS could better use the ICWA information it 
already gathers during its CFSR reviews to improve the usefulness of 
states' submissions on ICWA compliance. The information gathered by 
HHS, along with issues identified by tribes and states, suggest that 
some states could benefit from additional guidance on effective ICWA 
implementation. Given that the Department of the Interior does not have 
any authority with respect to states' implementation of ICWA and given 
HHS's child welfare expertise and its existing systems for analyzing 
child welfare data and providing assistance to states, we believe that 
HHS is in the best position to continue to assist states in their ICWA 
reporting and implementation efforts. Further, we believe that action 
to improve state efforts using existing information should not wait 
until further study of state and tribal issues provides more 
comprehensive information about ICWA implementation. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of HHS, the 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, appropriate congressional 
committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions or wish to discuss this report further, 
please call me at (202) 512-8403 or Lacinda Ayers at (206) 654-5591. 
Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

We used several different methodologies to examine the factors 
influencing placement decisions for children subject to ICWA, the 
foster care experiences of these children compared to those of other 
children, and federal oversight of states' implementation of ICWA. 
Specifically, we collected information by: 

* Analyzing data from states with information systems that could 
identify children subject to ICWA;

* Surveying state child welfare officials through a web-based 
questionnaire;

* Conducting site visits to five states;

* Interviewing ACF and BIA central office and regional officials;

* Reviewing applicable laws and regulations;

* Reviewing 2004 Annual Progress and Services Reports for 50 states and 
the District of Columbia;

* Reviewing final CFSR reports for all states and the District of 
Columbia and Program Improvement Plans for 47 states; 
and: 

* Soliciting input from federally recognized tribes by conducting 
tribal panels, interviewing regional intertribal organizations, and 
sending letters to federally recognized tribes requesting their input. 

While our report focused on children involuntarily removed from their 
home and placed in state foster care due to abuse or neglect, we also 
gathered some limited information about how ICWA is implemented with 
regard to children who are voluntarily relinquished by their parents 
for adoption. In addition to discussing voluntary adoptions with tribal 
officials we interviewed, we interviewed officials at nine private 
adoption agencies that handle ICWA cases in the states we visited, 
interviewed attorneys with the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys 
(AAAA), and communicated with six other AAAA members who responded to 
our e-mail on the AAAA listserv regarding private adoptions. 

We conducted our review between December 2003 and January 2005 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Data on Children Subject to ICWA: 

To compare the experiences of children subject to ICWA with those of 
other children in foster care, we reviewed data from HHS' AFCARS 
database for federal fiscal years 2000-2003 to determine whether these 
data on American Indian children would be appropriate for the purposes 
of our review. However, these information systems do not collect data 
specifically on children subject to ICWA; instead, they only require 
states to report on the race and ethnicity of children in foster care-
-including American Indian/Alaskan Native--but not all American Indian 
children are subject to ICWA. Furthermore, previous GAO work indicates 
that the race data reported in AFCARS are not always accurate.[Footnote 
14] As a result, we were unable to use these data to learn about the 
foster care experiences of children subject to ICWA. However, we did 
use AFCARS data for background information on American Indian children 
in foster care. 

We then surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia to 
determine which states collected automated data on children subject to 
ICWA in fiscal year 2003. Only five states--Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode 
Island, South Dakota, and Washington--were able to provide these data. 
Because so few children subject to ICWA left foster care in Rhode 
Island in fiscal year 2003, however, we are not reporting these data as 
they may not be representative of the experiences of children subject 
to ICWA in the state. We shared our analyses of the state data with 
each state to verify their accuracy. When appropriate, we adjusted the 
data to reflect comments from the states. We tested the data for 
statistical significance using the chi square test and only reported 
differences between groups that were statistically significant at the 
95 percent confidence level. 

The data provided by the four states have several limitations. Three of 
the states were unable to determine the ethnicity or ICWA status for 
all children who exited foster care in 2003. Table 13 shows that, 
except for Oregon, the number of unidentified children represented less 
than 5 percent of the total children exiting foster care in these 
states. Generally, states were able to provide the length of stay, 
number of placements, or exit destinations for children with known 
racial or ICWA characteristics who exited care in fiscal year 2003. 
When this did not occur, the unknown percentage for a specific group 
rarely exceeded 1 percent of those exiting care. The unknown 
percentages were higher in a few cases. For example, Oregon could not 
identify the exit destination for 4 percent of Caucasian children, 5 
percent of other minority children, and 3 percent of children subject 
to ICWA. 

Table 13: Number and Percentage of Children with Unknown Ethnicity Who 
Exited Care in FY 2003 for Four States: 

States: South Dakota; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: ICWA: 592; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Caucasian: 401; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Minority: 117; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Ethnicity not 
specified/ICWA status unknown: 2; 
Total: 1,112. 

States: Percentage; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: ICWA: 53.2%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Caucasian: 36.1%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Minority: 10.5%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Ethnicity not 
specified/ICWA status unknown: 0.2%; 
Total: 100%. 

States: Washington; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: ICWA: 169; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Caucasian: 3,856; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Minority: 2,183; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Ethnicity not 
specified/ICWA status unknown: 109; 
Total: 6,317. 

States: Percentage; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: ICWA: 2.7%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Caucasian: 61.0%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Minority: 34.6%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Ethnicity not 
specified/ICWA status unknown: 1.7%; 
Total: 100%. 

States: Oregon; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: ICWA: 214; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Caucasian: 2,638; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Minority: 965; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Ethnicity not 
specified/ICWA status unknown: 655; 
Total: 4,472. 

States: Percentage; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: ICWA: 4.8%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Caucasian: 59.0%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Minority: 21.6%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Ethnicity not 
specified/ICWA status unknown: 14.7%; 
Total: 100%. 

States: Oklahoma; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: ICWA: 1,534; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Caucasian: 3,224; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Minority: 1,732; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Ethnicity not 
specified/ICWA status unknown: 0; 
Total: 6,490. 

States: Percentage; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: ICWA: 23.6%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Caucasian: 49.7%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Minority: 26.7%; 
Number of children who exited foster care in FY 2003: Ethnicity not 
specified/ICWA status unknown: 0.0%; 
Total: 100%. 

Source: Data provided by child welfare agencies in these states. 

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table]

In addition, the data from Washington includes only children who are 
subject to ICWA and who are in state custody. In contrast, the data 
from Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota include some children who are 
in the custody of a tribal court. All three states had some tribal 
Title IV-E agreements in 2003 and, as a result, children who are in 
tribal custody and whose tribe has a Title IV-E agreement with the 
state are included in the state's data. In addition, the South Dakota 
data also include some children who are in the custody of a tribal 
court, but for whom the state provides services and supervision. 

Survey of State Child Welfare Officials: 

To obtain information on states' ICWA policies and procedures and their 
experiences with children subject to ICWA, we surveyed all 50 states 
and the District of Columbia using a web-based survey. To ensure the 
relevance and appropriateness of the survey questions and to test that 
they were consistently and reliably interpreted before they were 
administered, we pre-tested the survey instrument in Idaho, Oklahoma, 
Ohio, and Utah and received input from the Association on American 
Indian Affairs, Casey Family Programs, and the National Indian Child 
Welfare Association. In May 2004, we e-mailed a notification to the 
child welfare director in each state, alerting them that a survey was 
forthcoming. This notification was followed by our e-mail to the 
directors containing the web link to the survey and a unique user 
identification and password to access the survey. To encourage as many 
states as possible to complete the survey, we conducted follow-up calls 
to states that did not respond to our survey by the initial deadline. 

We received responses from 47 states and the District of Columbia; 
we did not receive responses from Kentucky, Hawaii, and Minnesota. 
However, many states were unable to respond to all of our survey 
questions and frequently responded that they did not know the answer or 
that the data requested was not available at the state level. The 
majority of states (28 of the 48) reported that their survey responses 
were for all American Indian children involved in the child welfare 
system, without regard to ICWA status. Two states reported that their 
responses were based on the state, rather than federal, definition of 
who is subject to ICWA. Only 14 states reported that their survey 
responses were for children who are subject to the federal law. We did 
not independently verify any information obtained through the survey. 
However, we conducted logic tests for certain responses to corroborate 
the consistency of responses within a state and contacted individual 
states to clarify all identified inconsistencies. The results we report 
for states that provided responses to our survey questions cannot be 
generalized to nonresponding states. In many cases, less than 50 
percent of the states that completed the survey responded to an 
individual question, meaning that results could change to the extent 
that nonresponding states differed from those that responded. 

State Categorizations by Tribal Population: 

We analyzed data according to the density of the tribal population in 
each state to determine the extent to which state responses or data 
findings were correlated with tribal density. As shown in table 14, 
these categories take into account the tribal population of a state as 
estimated by the Census and the tribal population within the state 
eligible for BIA services. 

Table 14: Criteria for Determining States' Tribal Population Density 
Categories: 

Category: I; 
Criteria: >1% Tribal enrollment density or >1% population eligible for 
BIA services density; 
Number of states: 12. 

Category: II; 
Criteria: 0.1%-1% Tribal enrollment density; 
Number of states: 12. 

Category: III; 
Criteria: 0%- 0.1% Tribal enrollment density; 
Number of states: 10. 

Category: IV; 
Criteria: 0% Tribal enrollment density and 0% population eligible for 
BIA services density; 
Number of states: 17. 

Source: 2001 Census estimates and BIA data on the percentage of people 
within each state who are (1) enrolled in a tribe or (2) eligible for 
BIA services. 

Notes: Indiana was placed in category III; although it had 0 percent 
tribal enrollment, it had a 0.1 percent population eligible for 
services. None of the other category II or III states had 0 percent 
tribal enrollment. 

To be eligible for BIA services, an individual must be a member of a 
federally recognized tribe or possess one-half or more American Indian 
blood quantum from a tribe indigenous to the United States. 

[End of table]

Each of the 50 states and District of Columbia was assigned to one of 
four population density categories, as shown in table 15. These 
categories allow us to factor in both individuals who self-identify as 
possessing American Indian heritage and individuals who are tribal 
members or have blood ties to a tribe. The categories were based on the 
maximum of either tribal population density or density of those 
eligible for services. Density was calculated as a percentage of state 
population (estimated by the Census Bureau). 

Category I includes states that have the greatest tribal population 
density or population eligible for BIA services. States placed in 
Category I had tribal enrollment densities or population eligible for 
BIA services densities that exceeded 1 percent. States in categories II 
and III have between 0 and 1 percent tribal population in their states, 
while category IV consists of states that have no tribal population and 
no population eligible for BIA services. 

Table 15: Tribal Population Density Categorization by State: 

Category: I; 
State: Alaska; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 18.88; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 21.38. 

Category I; 
State: Arizona; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 4.78; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 4.04. 

Category I; 
State: Idaho; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.77; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 1.35. 

Category I; 
State: Minnesota; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 1.04; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.69. 

Category I; 
State: Montana; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 7.02; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 5.03. 

Category I; 
State: North Dakota; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 8.74; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 5.43. 

Category I; 
State: New Mexico; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 8.95; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 6.58. 

Category I; 
State: Oklahoma; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 18.19; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 13.26. 

Category I; 
State: Oregon; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.59; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 1.40. 

Category I; 
State: South Dakota; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 14.14; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 12.56. 

Category I; 
State: Washington; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.81; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 1.45. 

Category I; 
State: Wyoming; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment densityII: 2.13; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 2.19. 

Category: II; 
State: California; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.15; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.17. 

Category II; 
State: Colorado; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.08; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.12. 

Category II; 
State: Kansas; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.36; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.25. 

Category II; 
State: Maine; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.57; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.26. 

Category II; 
State: Michigan; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.52; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.27. 

Category II; 
State: Mississippi; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.31; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.29. 

Category II; 
State: North Carolina; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.15; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.09. 

Category II; 
State: Nebraska; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.84; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.45. 

Category II; 
State: Nevada; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.65; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.58. 

Category II; 
State: Rhode Island; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.25; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.25. 

Category II; 
State: Utah; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.66; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.52. 

Category II; 
State: Wisconsin; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.98; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.63. 

Category: III; 
State: Alabama; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.05; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.05. 

Category III; 
State: Connecticut; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.06; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.06. 

Category III; 
State: Florida; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.02; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.02. 

Category III; 
State: Iowa; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.04; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.05. 

Category III; 
State: Indiana; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.01. 

Category III; 
State: Louisiana; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.06; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.02. 

Category III; 
State: Massachusetts; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.02; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category III; 
State: New York; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.10; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.10. 

Category III; 
State: South Carolina; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.06; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.04. 

Category III; 
State: Texas; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.01; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.01. 

Category: IV; 
State: Arkansas; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: District of Columbia; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Delaware; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Georgia; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Hawaii; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Illinois; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Kentucky; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Maryland; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Missouri; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: New Hampshire; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: New Jersey; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Ohio; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Pennsylvania; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Tennessee; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Virginia; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: Vermont; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Category IV; 
State: West Virginia; 
2001 Total tribal enrollment density: 0.00; 
2001 Total population eligible for BIA services density: 0.00. 

Source: 2001 Census estimates based on 2000 Census data and BIA data on 
the percentage of people within each state who are (1) enrolled in a 
tribe or (2) eligible for BIA services. 

[End of table]

Site Visit to States: 

To obtain a more detailed understanding of how states implement ICWA, 
we conducted site visits to California, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, 
and South Dakota. We selected states based on geographic diversity, the 
nature of state-tribal relations, the number of federally recognized 
tribes, and the size of the American Indian population. During our site 
visits, we interviewed state and local child welfare staff, tribal 
officials from at least two federally recognized tribes in each state 
(except in Rhode Island, which has only one federally recognized 
tribe), state court judges, and representatives from private adoption 
agencies that handle ICWA cases. We collected and reviewed relevant 
documentation from these site visits. In addition, we spoke with a 
variety of people in the child welfare field about their knowledge of 
the effect of states' implementation of ICWA on children subject to the 
law, including academic researchers, attorneys, child welfare 
advocates, and a state court judge from Utah. 

Federal Oversight: 

To learn about the federal government's role in overseeing states' 
implementation of ICWA, we examined relevant federal regulations and 
guidelines, as well as ACF's program instructions to states and tribes 
related to ICWA. We interviewed officials from ACF's central office and 
all 10 of its regional offices. We also interviewed officials from 
BIA's central office and social workers from 8 of its regional offices. 
To examine the extent to which states report their progress in 
implementing ICWA to ACF, we also reviewed excerpts of the 2004 Annual 
Progress and Services Reports states submitted to ACF covering their 
ICWA compliance activities during federal fiscal years 2000-2004 for 
all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

To determine the extent to which the CFSRs evaluated ICWA activities in 
the states, we reviewed final CFSR reports for all 50 states and the 
District of Columbia. We also reviewed Program Improvement Plans from 
47 states to determine the extent to which states attempted to correct 
ICWA weaknesses surfaced in the CFSR final reports. 

Tribes and Tribal Organizations Contacted: 

During the course of this review, we communicated with 161 tribes and 
20 tribal organizations about states' implementation of ICWA. We 
visited officials from 10 tribes as part of our site visits and spoke 
with representatives from 87 tribes and tribal organizations at 
multiple panel discussions we conducted at American Indian conferences 
and site visits (the number of tribes that participated in the panels 
may be undercounted because some participants did not sign in). We held 
two panel discussions during our site visit to Oklahoma in March 2004 
at Norman and Tulsa; three panel discussions at the National Indian 
Child Welfare Association conference in April 2004 at Denver, Colorado; 
two panel discussions at the California State ICWA Conference in June 
2004 at Lakeside, California; and two panel discussions at the National 
Congress of American Indians 2004 Mid-Year Session in June 2004 at 
Uncasville, Connecticut. In addition, we collaborated with 9 regional 
intertribal organizations to organize telephone conferences, during 
which we spoke to representatives from 44 tribes. 

To ensure the receipt of sufficient tribal input, we sent a letter in 
July 2004 to 591 federally recognized tribal governments, informing 
them of our review and requesting their input. Representatives from 74 
tribes and 5 tribal organizations called, wrote, or e-mailed us in 
response to this letter. We asked tribes to respond to four questions: 
(1) In general, how well does your state implement ICWA and how 
frequently do problematic situations arise? (2) What benefits does ICWA 
provide to Indian children in state custody in terms of safety, 
permanency, and well-being and in what ways, if any, does ICWA delay or 
hinder your state's ability to keep Indian children safe and to place 
them in permanent homes in a timely manner? (3) Are there any 
challenges that exist to the effective implementation of ICWA and do 
you have any suggestions for federal action that could improve the 
placement of Indian children in permanent homes in a more timely 
manner? (4) Is there any other information you would like to provide 
about your tribe's experiences with ICWA? Because we did not specify a 
particular format for tribes to use, the responses we received varied 
in length, type, and content. 

Following are the names of the tribes and tribal organizations with 
whom we had contact through our site visits, tribal panels, telephone 
conferences, or our letter asking for tribal input. 

Tribes: 

* Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma: 
* Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 
Reservation, California: 
* Apache Tribe of Oklahoma: 
* Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming: 
* Asa'carsarmiut Tribe, Alaska: 
* Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, 
Montana: 
* Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan: 
* Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California: 
* Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California: 
* Big Lagoon Rancheria, California: 
* Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana: 
* Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon: 
* Caddo Nation of Oklahoma: 
* Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes, Alaska: 
* Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, 
California: 
* Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma: 
* Chevak Native Village, Alaska: 
* Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South 
Dakota: 
* Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma: 
* Chickaloon Native Village, Alaska: 
* Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma: 
* Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan), Alaska: 
* Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana: 
* Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana: 
* Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma: 
* Cocopah Tribe of Arizona: 
* Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene Reservation, Idaho: 
* Comanche Nation, Oklahoma: 
* Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 
Montana: 
* Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington: 
* Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Washington: 
* Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington: 
* Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon: 
* Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon: 
* Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon: 
* Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Washington: 
* Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota: 
* Crow Tribe of Montana: 
* Delaware Nation, Oklahoma: 
* Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California: 
* Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, Connecticut (Not a federally recognized 
tribe): 
* Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of 
Montana: 
* Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt 
Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon: 
* Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona: 
* Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada: 
* Galena Village (aka Louden Village), Alaska: 
* Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, 
Arizona: 
* Gulkana Village, Alaska: 
* Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona: 
* Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine: 
* Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona: 
* Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California: 
* Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe of Washington: 
* Karuk Tribe of California: 
* Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma: 
* Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma: 
* Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon: 
* La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the La Jolla Reservation, 
California: 
* La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 
Reservation, California: 
* Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of 
Wisconsin: 
* Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du 
Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin: 
* Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, Michigan: 
* Lumbee-Cheraw Tribe of North Carolina (Not a federally recognized 
tribe): 
* Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, Washington: 
* Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan: 
* Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin: 
* Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve, Alaska: 
* Miami Tribe of Oklahoma: 
* Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Leech Lake Band): 
* Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (White Earth Band): 
* Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California: 
* Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation, 
California: 
* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington: 
* Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma: 
* Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island: 
* Native Village of Ambler, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Buckland, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Eyak (Cordova), Alaska: 
* Native Village of Kiana, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Kotzebue, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Koyuk, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak), Alaska: 
* Native Village of Larsen Bay, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Mekoryuk, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Noatak, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Port Graham, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Port Lions, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Ruby, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Selawik, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Tanacross, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Tazlina, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Unalakleet, Alaska: 
* Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Artic Village and Native 
Village of Venetie), Alaska: 
* Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah: 
* Newhalen Village, Alaska: 
* Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho: 
* Ninilchik Village, Alaska: 
* Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington: 
* Noorvik Native Community, Alaska: 
* Oneida Nation of New York: 
* Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin: 
* Organized Village of Kwethluk, Alaska: 
* Osage Tribe, Oklahoma: 
* Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma: 
* Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada: 
* Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation, 
California: 
* Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona: 
* Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine: 
* Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma: 
* Penobscot Tribe of Maine: 
* Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana: 
* Ponca Tribe of Nebraska: 
* Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico: 
* Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico: 
* Pueblo of San Juan, New Mexico: 
* Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma: 
* Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & 
Arizona: 
* Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation, Washington: 
* Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin: 
* Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada: 
* Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation, 
California: 
* Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota: 
* Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma: 
* Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan: 
* Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River 
Reservation, Arizona: 
* Samish Indian Tribe, Washington: 
* San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona: 
* Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa Ysabel 
Reservation, California: 
* Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska: 
* Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, Connecticut (Not a federally recognized 
tribe): 
* Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: 
* Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria 
(Verona Tract), California: 
* Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation, 
Washington: 
* Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho: 
* Smith River Rancheria, California: 
* St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York: 
* Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota: 
* Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin: 
* Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington: 
* Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North 
Dakota: 
* Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona: 
* Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington: 
* United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma: 
* Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota: 
* Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New 
Mexico & Utah: 
* Village of Crooked Creek, Alaska: 
* Village of Dot Lake, Alaska: 
* Village of Kalskag, Alaska: 
* Village of Old Harbor, Alaska: 
* Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) of Massachusetts: 
* Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville 
Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community, & Washoe Ranches): 
* White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona: 
* Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), 
Oklahoma: 
* Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Wyandotte Nation, Oklahoma: 
* Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona: 
* Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, 
Nevada: 
* Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas: 
* Yupiit of Andreafski, Alaska: 
* Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California: 

Tribal Organizations: 

* Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians: 
* Alaska Inter-Tribal Council: 
* Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association: 
* All Indian Pueblo Council: 
* Association of Village Council Presidents, Inc.: 
* California Tribal TANF Partnership: 
* Great Lakes Intertribal Council: 
* Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.: 
* Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada: 
* Kodiak Area Native Association: 
* Maniilaq Association: 
* Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes: 
* Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council: 
* National Indian Child Welfare Association: 
* Southern California Indian Center: 
* Tanana Chiefs Conference: 
* Two Feathers Native American Family Services: 
* United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.: 
* United Tribes Technical College: 
* Urban American Indian Involvement, Inc. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Children Exiting Foster Care in Four States, FY 2003: 

Figure 16: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in South Dakota: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: South Dakota was not able to identify the race or ethnicity for 
all children who exited foster care. The percentage of children with 
unknown ethnicity who exited foster care in fiscal year 2003 was less 
than 0.2 percent. 

[End of figure]

Figure 17: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Washington: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: Washington was not able to identify the race or ethnicity for all 
children who exited foster care. The percentage of children with 
unknown ethnicity who exited foster care in fiscal year 2003 was 1.7 
percent. 

[End of figure]

Figure 18: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Oregon: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: Oregon was not able to identify the race or ethnicity for all 
children exiting foster care. The percentage of children with unknown 
ethnicity who exited foster care in fiscal year 2003 was 14.7 percent. 

[End of figure]

Figure 19: FY 2003 Foster Care Exits in Oklahoma: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of figure]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: 
Office of Inspector General:

Washington, D.C. 20201:

MAR 21 2005:

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Ashby:

Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled, "Indian Child 
Welfare Act Existing Information on Implementation Issues Could Be Used 
to Target Guidance and Assistance to States" (GAO-05-290). The comments 
represent the tentative position of the Department and are subject to 
reevaluation when the final version of this report is received. 

The Department provided several technical comments directly to your 
staff. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Daniel R. Levinson: 
Acting Inspector General:

Enclosure:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point and coordinator for U.S. Government 
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent 
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on 
them. 

COMMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S DRAFT REPORT. "INDIAN CHILD WELFARE 
ACT-EXISTING INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES COULD BE USED TO 
TARGET GUIDANCE AND ASSISTANCE TO STATES" (GAO-05-290):

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on the Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO's) draft report. 

GAO Recommendation:

To improve the usefulness of the information States are required to 
provide on their Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance efforts, 
the Secretary of HHS should direct the head of ACF to: (1) review the 
ICWA implementation issues identified in its Child and Family Service 
Reviews (MR); (2) require States to discuss in their annual progress 
reports any significant ICWA issues not addressed in their program 
improvement plans; and (3) consider using the information on ICWA 
implementation in the CFSRs, annual progress and services reports, and 
program improvement plans to target guidance and assistance to States 
in addressing any identified issues. 

HHS Comments:

While we share GAO concerns regarding ICWA and how States are adhering 
to and implementing this mandate, HHS disagrees with the conclusions 
and recommendations of this report. HHS does not agree that merely 
identifying ICWA problems more systematically would better position HHS 
to provide guidance and technical assistance. GAO has clearly 
identified in its report that the primary issue with ICWA compliance, 
from a Federal perspective, is the lack of specific oversight authority 
and the attendant resources. 

Some of GAO's recommendations for remedial action by Congress or HHS 
rely on the assumption that HHS, Administration for Children and 
Families (ACF), which monitors State compliance of Federal child 
welfare laws, is the most appropriate oversight agency for ICWA, rather 
than the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of Interior. The 
report notes on page 2, first paragraph, line 4, that "..ICWA did not 
explicitly grant any Federal agency oversight authority regarding 
States' implementation of ICWA.." A similar statement appears in the 
last paragraph on page 4. The assumption of ACF's responsibility is a 
significant one, given the action items for ACF recommended in the 
report. 

ACF does not have the authority, resources, or expertise to provide the 
level of effort to address the recommendations GAO identified. ACF's 
current "oversight" of ICWA is commensurate with ACF's authority, 
expertise, and resources. 

Since this study was initiated to determine the States' implementation 
and compliance with ICWA, there were many limitations in the collection 
of meaningful data as well as in the survey's comprehensiveness. The 
study's primary contribution is in its validation of the need for 
further study. 

The HHS, Indian Health Service feels that without an examination of 
both the State and Tribal issues involved, there is inadequate 
knowledge on which to base a realistic improvement plan on the issues 
of Indian Child Welfare. 

The study's purposes should be expanded to include the following:

(1) The interaction process involving the Tribal issues and the States' 
child welfare systems;

(2) Determination of barriers to the Tribes' exercising their 
jurisdictional options to intervene in custody cases;

(3) An assessment of Tribal foster care and adoption resources;

(4) An assessment of the Tribal Title IV-E demonstration projects;

(5) An evaluation of training of the States' child protection; staff 
regarding ICWA; and:

(6) An assessment of the impact on Tribes' nonreceipt of Title IV-E 
funds in comparison to the States' receipt of this funding. 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior:

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY: 
Washington, DC 20240:

MAR 22 2005:

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Ms. Ashby:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs appreciates the opportunity to provide 
comments on the draft report of the Government Accountability Office 
entitled INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. Existing Information on 
Implementation Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance 
to States. 

As discussed in the draft report; the Bureau's responsibilities under 
the Indian Child Welfare Act include administering grants to Indian 
tribes and tribal organizations for operating child and family service 
programs and assisting states in identifying the tribal affiliation of 
a child upon request. The Bureau has no oversight authority for a 
state's implementation of the Act. As such, the Bureau has no comments 
to offer on the report findings or recommendation. other than to note 
that the information regarding grant funding is accurate. 

If you require additional information., please contact Mr. Larry Blair. 
Chief, Division of Human Services, at (202) 513-7621. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

[Signature unreadable]

Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget:

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Lacinda Ayers (206) 654-5591; 
Michelle St. Pierre (617) 788-0558: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to those named above, Jerry Aiken, Elizabeth Caplick, 
Shirley Hwang, and Bob Sampson made key contributions to this report. 
Carolyn Boyce, Corinna Nicolaou, and Diana Pietrowiak provided key 
technical assistance; Daniel Schwimer provided legal assistance. 

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Eddie F. Brown and others, "Using Tribal/State Title IV-E 
Agreements to Help American Indian Tribes Access Foster Care and 
Adoption Funding," Child Welfare, vol. LXXXIII, no. 4 (2004). 

[2] However, previous GAO work indicates that the race and ethnicity 
data reported in AFCARS are not always accurate. See GAO, Child 
Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide Information Systems, but 
the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could be Improved, GAO-03-809 
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003). In addition, while AFCARS data do 
not usually include American Indian children in tribal custody, these 
children are included in the AFCARS data for some states, affecting the 
comparability of state data on American Indian children. For example, 
when a tribe receives Title IV-E payments for children in tribal 
custody, these children are also included in a state's AFCARS data. 

[3] Urban Institute, The Continuing Evolution of State Kinship Care 
Policies (Washington, D.C., 2002). 

[4] See GAO, Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on 
Finding Permanent Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers 
Remain, GAO-02-585 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002). 

[5] See GAO, Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the 
Adoption and Safe Families Act, GAO/HEHS-00-1 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 
22, 1999) and GAO-02-585. 

[6] Rhode Island also provided data on children subject to ICWA. 
However, we are not reporting this information because so few children 
subject to ICWA left foster care in Rhode Island in fiscal year 2003 
and this data may not be representative of the experiences of children 
subject to ICWA in the state. 

[7] When collecting data on children who exit care, data on children 
currently in foster care are not included and children with shorter 
foster care stays are overrepresented, biasing the measured outcomes. 
For example, the overall lengths of stay for children exiting care tend 
to appear shorter due to this overrepresentation. 

[8] We tested the data for statistical significance using the chi 
square test and have reported differences between groups that are 
statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. 

[9] According to Washington officials, children who are subject to ICWA 
in their state are less likely to exit foster care within 30 days than 
other children, but are slightly more likely to exit care when they 
remain in care for more than 30 days. Oregon officials noted that 
children subject to ICWA in their state are less likely to exit care 
during their first month of foster care than other children. However, 
by the 24TH month of care, the percentage of children subject to ICWA 
and other minority children exiting foster care exceeds the percentage 
of Caucasian children exiting foster care. 

[10] Oklahoma did not include data on number of placements for children 
subject to ICWA in response to our data request. 

[11] Oregon officials explained that, compared to children subject to 
ICWA, a higher percentage of Caucasian children remain in foster care 
for more than 24 months, which may be a factor in Caucasian children 
being more likely to have four or more placements. They said that their 
data show that children subject to ICWA and Caucasian children have a 
similar number of placements during their first 12 months in foster 
care. 

[12] Brown, E. F; Limb, G. E; Munoz, R; and Clifford, C. A; Title IV-B 
Child and Family Services Plans: An Evaluation of Specific Measures 
Taken by States to Comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (Seattle, 
Wash.: Casey Family Programs, 2001). 

[13] ACF does not have case specific data on tribal notification and 
placement for cases involving American Indian children for CFSRs 
completed in 2001. 

[14] GAO, Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide 
Information Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be 
Improved, GAO-03-809 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

	

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: