Thus, under the law, the “best interests of a child” is defined on a narrow, case-specific basis, whereas child welfare agencies have historically assumed that same-race placements are in the best interests of all children. In addition, the two counties provided training on the act to caseworkers responsible for making placement decisions. Some states believed that HHS’ guidance regarding the use of race in placement decisions was more restrictive than provided for in the act. California Implementation Efforts

Implementation of the 1994 act required changes to law and regulations at the state level and to policies at the county level. However, that county has not formally revised its foster care or adoption policies in over 20 years, according to one county official. Both counties also incorporated training on the 1994 act into their curriculums for new caseworkers. HHS and California Were Slow to Respond to the 1996 Amendment

Following amendment of the act, HHS was slower to revise its policy guidance and provided less technical assistance to states than it did after the passage of the 1994 act. Although HHS did not repeat its technical assistance effort to assist states in understanding the amended law, the state and counties we reviewed provided some training on the amended act to staff. To date, the state has targeted the training to licensing and recruitment staff—who work with potential foster and adoptive parents—and not to caseworkers or supervisors who place children in foster and adoptive homes. HHS and the State Face Continuing Implementation Challenges

Officials at all levels of government face a diverse set of challenges as they continue to implement the amended act. Major issues that remain include changing caseworkers’ and practitioners’ beliefs about the importance of race-based placement decisions, developing a shared understanding at all levels of government about allowable placement practices, and developing an effective federal compliance monitoring system. The Act’s Removal of Race From Placement Decisions Not Consistent With Long-Standing Social Work Practice and Some Caseworkers’ Beliefs

The belief that race or cultural heritage is central to a child’s best interests when making a placement is so inherent in social work theory and practice that a policy statement of the National Association of Social Workers still reflects this tenet, despite changes in the federal law. State and Local Officials Need Information on How to Change Social Work Practice

State program officials in California are struggling to understand the amended act in the context of casework practice issues. Analysis of any administrative data will be hampered by difficulties in interpreting the results. While case files are another source of information about placement decisions, and such files are used in one type of review periodically performed by HHS, reviewing those files may provide little documentation to assist in determining whether placement decisions are consistent with the amended act’s restrictions on the use of race-based factors. Conclusions

The Multiethnic Placement Act, as amended, has been difficult for agencies to implement. The Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994

Interethnic Adoption Provisions Amending the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994

HHS Guidance on the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994

HHS Guidance on the Interethnic Adoption Provisions

HHS Clarification of Placement Practice Issues

Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contacts

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Patricia Elston led the federal fieldwork and coauthored the draft, and Anndrea Ewertsen led the California fieldwork and coauthored the draft.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended, at the federal level and in states with large and ethnically diverse foster care caseloads, focusing on: (1) efforts by federal, state, and local agencies to implement the 1994 act in the areas of assistance; (2) efforts by federal, state, and local agencies in these same areas to implement the 1996 amendment to the act; and (3) the challenges all levels of government face to change placement practices.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and California initiated collaborative, multipronged efforts to inform agencies and caseworkers about the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994; (2) HHS program officials recognized that the act requires child welfare agencies to undergo a historic change in how foster care and adoption placement decisions are made by limiting the use of race as a factor; (3) within 6 weeks of the act's passage, HHS took the first step in a comprehensive approach to implementation that involved issuing policy guidance and providing technical assistance; (4) some states believed that HHS' policy was more restrictive regarding the use of race in placement decisions than provided for in the act; (5) after enactment of the 1996 amendment, HHS did not update its policy guidance for 9 months, and it has done little to address casework practice issues; (6) California has yet to conform its state laws and regulations to the amended act; (7) the state provided training to some county staff, but the training was not targeted toward staff who have primary responsibility for placing children in foster or adoptive homes; (8) both counties have provided some training to caseworkers on the 1996 amendment, either through formal training sessions or one-on-one training by supervisors, however, only one county has begun to revise its policies; (9) changing long-standing social work practices, translating legal principles into practical advice for caseworkers, and developing compliance monitoring systems are among the challenges remaining for officials at all levels of government in changing placement decisionmaking; (10) the implementation of this amended act predominantly relies on the understanding and willingness of caseworkers to eliminate race from the placement decisions they make; (11) while agency officials and caseworkers understand that this legislation prohibits them from delaying or denying placements on the basis of race, not all believe that eliminating race will result in placements that are in the best interests of children; (12) state and local officials and caseworkers demonstrated lingering confusion about allowable actions under the law; (13) the state training session GAO attended on the amended act showed that neither the state nor HHS has provided clear guidance to caseworkers to apply the law to casework practice; and (14) federal efforts to determine whether placement decisions are consistent with the amended act's restrictions on the use of race-based factors will be hampered by difficulties in identifying data that are complete and sufficient.