Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) - California State ... Revision April 2006 Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) About the training The Federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, and the

Curriculum Revision April 2006

Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA)

Curriculum Revision April 2006

Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) About the training The Federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, and the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 prohibit discrimination in adoptions and foster care placement. Participants will learn about the Requirements of MEPA, and have the opportunity to examine their daily practice.

Acknowledgements This curriculum was developed with support and collaboration of: California Department of Social Services Children and Families Services Division Office of Human Rights U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Region IX The American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law National Resource Center on Legal and Court Issues Federal Office for Civil Rights, Region IX University of California, Davis The Center for Human Services, University Extension

CCTA l Common Core l MEPA/IEP l Trainee’s Manual l Version 1.0, April 2006 i

MULTIETHNIC PLACEMENT ACT (MEPA) / INTERETHNIC ADOPTIONS PROVISIONS (IEP)

California Common Core Curricula for Child Welfare Workers

CORE COMPETENCY AND LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CORE COMPETENCY

The trainee will understand the three basic requirements of the Multiethnic Placement Act and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions, including their intent, application to practice, and consequences for non-compliance.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Knowledge: K1. The trainee will be able to recognize key concepts of the Multiethnic Placement Act

of 1994 as amended by the Interethnic adoption Provisions (1996, P.L. 104-188, Sec. 1808, Removal of Barriers to Interethnic Adoption).

K2. The trainee will be able recount the three basic requirements of the Multiethnic

Placement Act:

a. It prohibits states, foster care and adoption agencies, and other federally assisted entities involved in child placement from delaying, denying or otherwise discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin in making a placement decision.

b. It prohibits states and federally assisted entities from categorically denying the

opportunity for any person to become an adoptive or foster parent on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent or the child.

c. It requires states to develop plans for the diligent recruitment of potential foster

and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed.

K3. The trainee will be able explain the intent of each of the three basic requirements of

the Multiethnic Placement Act as represented in K2a, K2b, and K2c. above. K4. The trainee will be able to recognize key components of the compliance review

process as conducted by the Office of Civil Rights and the California State Department of Social Services.

CCTA l Common Core l MEPA/IEP l Trainee’s Manual l Version 1.0, April 2006 ii

Skill: S1. Given a case example, the trainee will be able to apply knowledge of MEPA/IEP in

order to make a legally-informed decision regarding placement of a child in foster care.

Values: V1. The trainee will value an understanding of how discrimination based on the race,

color, or national origin of foster children, foster parents or adoptive parents can negatively impact children who are being adopted or placed in foster care.

V2. The trainee will value the importance of recruiting foster and adoptive families that

reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the child welfare population in their county or region.

V3. The trainee will value the importance of implementing MEPA/IEP regulations when

making placement decisions.

CCTA l Common Core l MEPA/IEP l Trainee’s Manual l Version 1.0, April 2006 iii

MULTIETHNIC PLACEMENT ACT (MEPA) / INTERETHNIC ADOPTIONS PROVISIONS (IEP)

California Common Core Curricula for Child Welfare Workers

AGENDA

I. Review Competencies and Learning Objectives

II. Background

III. Children in Placement

IV. Requirements of MEPA

V. Recruitment

VI. Daily Practice

VII. Enforcement

VIII. Placement Issues

IX. Case Studies

X. GAO Questions

&&7$�_�&RPPRQ�&RUH�Ň0(3$��,(P | Trainee’s Guide l Curr. Rev. April 2006 1

Table of contents Background ............................................................................................................. 2 Children in Placement ......................................................................................... 4 Requirements of MEPA ........................................................................................ 6 Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 9 Daily Practice ........................................................................................................ 13 Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 16 Placement Issues ................................................................................................. 20 Case Studies .......................................................................................................... 23 GAO Questions .................................................................................................... 31 Appendix ............................................................................................................... 41


Background The Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) was enacted in 1994 amid spirited and sometimes contentious debate about transracial adoption and same-race placement policies. At the heart of this is a desire to promote the best interests of children by ensuring that they have permanent, safe, stable and loving homes that will meet their individual needs. This desire is thwarted by the persistent increases in the number of children within the child protective system waiting for, but often not being placed in, adoptive families. Of particular concern are the African American and other minority children who dramatically over-represented at all stages of this system, wait far longer than Caucasian children for adoption, and are at a far greater risk of never experiencing a permanent home. Among the many factors that contribute to placement delays and denials, Congress found that the most salient are racial and ethnic matching policies and the practice of public agencies which have historically discouraged individuals from minority communities from becoming foster or adoptive parents. MEPA addressed these concerns by prohibiting the use of a child’s or a prospective parent’s race, color, or national origin to delay or deny the child’s placement and by requiring diligent efforts to expand the number of racially and ethnically diverse foster and adoptive parents. MEPA was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act. In April 1995, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a detailed Guidance to assist states and agencies in implementing MEPA and understanding its relationship to the equal protection and anti-discrimination principles of the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In 1996, MEPA was amended by the provisions for Removal of Barriers to Interethnic Adoptions (IEP) included in the Small Business Job Protection Act. As explained in the Information Memoranda on IEP issued by HHS in June 1997, and May 1998, the amendments remove potentially misleading language in MEPA’s original provisions and clarify that “discrimination is not to be tolerated,” whether directed at children in need of appropriate, safe homes, at prospective parents, or at previously “underutilized” communities who could be resources for placing children. The IEP also strengthens compliance and enforcement procedures, including the withholding of federal funds and the right of any aggrieved individual to seek relief in federal court against a state or other entity alleged to be in violation of the Act.


Although MEPA-IEP does not explicitly incorporate a “bests interests” standard for making placements, the 1997 and 1998 HHS Guidance’s note that “the best interests of the child remains the operative standard in foster card and adoption placements.” Nonetheless, to be consistent with constitutional “strict scrutiny” standards, for any racial or ethnic classification, as well as with MEPA-IEP, a child’s race, color, or national origin cannot be routinely considered as a relevant factor in assessing the child’s best interests. Only in narrow and exceptional circumstances arising out of the specific needs of an individual child appear to compel consideration of these factors, caseworkers cannot assume that needs based on race, color, or national origin can be met only by a racially or ethnically matched parent. Much will depend on the nature of the child’s specific needs and on the capacity of the individual prospective parents to respond to these needs. MEPA-IEP is fully consistent with President Clinton’s Adoption 2002 Initiative, with its goal of doubling by the year 2002 the number of adoptions of children who cannot return to their biological parents. MEPA-IEP also complements the emphasis of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act on a child’s health and safety as the paramount concern in the child welfare decisions. This emphasis implies that no factors, including racial or ethnic factors, should be taken into account in placement decisions unless they have a specific and demonstrable bearing on the child’s health and safety. In conjunction with these and other federal policies, MEPA-IEP offers child welfare agencies an unprecedented opportunity to make early and individualized assessments of a child’s needs, expand the providing appropriate care givers for children who have suffered serious neglect or abuse. Nonetheless, much of the difference is probably due to same race matching policies that preclude others from adopting these children and recruitment practices that, however well intended, discouraged African American and other minority families from pursuing adoption. In addition, the Adoption and Safe Family Act (ASFA – signed into law in November 19, 1997, by President Clinton) prohibits states and adoption agencies from delaying or denying the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction which has responsibility for handling the case of the child. (Jurisdiction refers to the state or the county.) The law also provides for fair hearings for complainants and fiscal penalties against the agency or the state when violations are found to exist.


Children in Placement Children in Out-of-Home Care In enacting MEPA, Congress found that there are nearly 500,000 children in out-of-home care, of whom many tens of thousands are waiting for adoption, and that children who are eventually adopted wait an average of 2.67 years after they are legally available for permanent placement. More recent data shows that compared to while children, African-American and American Indian/Alaskan children typically spend considerably more time in foster care before being adopted. African American children are vastly over represented within the child welfare system compared to their proportion within the population as a whole. They also constitute more than half of the children legally free for adoption, and wait significantly longer than other children for an adoptive placement. According to HHS-VCIS data, nearly 60,000 children in out-of-home care at the end of 1994 had a goal of adoption, of who around 16,000 were legally free. Of those children, 54% were African American, 42% were white, and 1.3% were Hispanic. Most of these children were over six years of age, but nearly a third were between one and five years of age. Of the total number of children in out-of-home care at the end of fiscal year 1995, estimates are that more than 45% were African American, 36.5% white, 11.3% Hispanic, 1/6% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 1.0% Asian/Pacific Islander and around 4% of unknown racial or ethnic origin. The annual number of finalized adoptions in the 1990’s has not exceeded 18,000-19,000, or not quite 4% of the total number of children in out-of-home care. The striking 72% increase since 1986 in the number of children in the child protective system is not necessarily attributed to the larger number of infants under age one who are entering care, but to the declines in the rate of children who leave care. In California, for example ¼ of all children under age six entering non-kinship foster care are likely to be there six years later, without having been reunited with their birth parents and without being adopted by foster parents or other non-related individuals. After age six, African American children were more than twice as likely to be in care than to have been adopted. For white children the ratios were reversed: they were twice as likely to be adopted as to remaining in care. Hispanic children were about as likely to remain in care as to be adopted.


Who are the children in Foster Care? Children in out-of-home placement 1990 1996 Nationwide: 403,782 530,496 California: 79,482 104,406 Can you describe the children in foster care placement? In California in 1995 45% of children placed were with relatives with the remaining children placed in non-relative homes. 35% Caucasian 36% African American 25% Hispanic Children legally adopted through public agencies 1995 1996 Nationwide: 27,115 22,817 California: 3,983 N/A

In 1995 over 7,000 children in foster care in California had case plan goals of adoption. Of the children available for adoption nationwide 4.1% were between the ages of 0-1 29.7% were between the ages of 1-5 37.8% were between the ages of 6-12 28.3% were between the ages of 13-17


Requirements of MEPA Who must comply with MEPA? 1. Any agency or entity that receives federal assistance in adoption or foster

placement. 2. All state and county child welfare agencies. 3. Any private agencies involved in placement that receive Health and Human

Services funds from any source. Does MEPA impact the Indian Child Welfare Act? MEPA has no effect on the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978.

Five principles for the enactment of MEPA

1. Affirm the client’s or applicant’s rights to receive the same services,

consideration and equal treatment given to all other persons regardless of race, color or national origin.

2. Decrease the time children wait for a permanent home.

3. Increase the number of children who are adopted.

4. Completely eliminate any avoidable delays in placement.

5. Facilitate the recruitment and retention of foster and adoptive parents

who can meet the distinctive needs of children awaiting placement. The three requirements of the Multiethnic Placement Act 1. It prohibits States and other entities that are involved in foster care or

adoptive placements, and that receive federal financial assistance under Title IV-E, Title IV-B, or any other federal program, from delaying or denying a child’s foster care or adoptive placement on the basis of a child’s or the prospective parent’s race, color, or national origin, or place of residence.


2. It prohibits these States and entities from denying to any individual the opportunity to become a foster or adoptive parent on the basis of the prospective parent’s or the child’s race, color, or national origin, or place of residence; and

3. It requires that, to remain eligible for federal assistance for their child

welfare programs, states must diligently recruit foster and adoptive parents who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the children in the state who need foster and adoptive homes.

MEPA is consistent with longstanding Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process and with federal and state Civil Rights laws that prohibit discrimination and require diligent efforts to overcome the effects of prior discrimination. The three overriding considerations of MEPA 1. Decrease the length of time that children wait to be adopted, 2. Facilitate the recruitment and retention of foster and adoptive parents

who can meet the distinctive needs of children awaiting placement, and 3. Eliminate discrimination on the basis of the race, color, or national origin

of the child or the prospective foster or adoptive parent. What is required of agencies to be in compliance with MEPA? 1. Review state law and agency policies and practices for compliance with

MEPA. 2. Have one file that is available to staff with written policies and practices

for compliance with MEPA. 3. Provide training as needed to staff to ensure compliance. 4. Review and implement the state plan for diligent recruitment of potential

foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State.

5. Develop a system for supervision and technical assistance for workers to

promote compliance that meets the best interest of the children.


What practices can agencies consider implementing to ensure compliance with MEPA? 1. Agencies should consider monitoring the timeliness of their process of

transracial or transethnic placement. 2. Agencies should consider monitoring all children at each stage of the child

protection process to ensure that no child is disproportionately held back from foster care or adoptive placement.

3. Agencies should consider undertaking a comprehensive and well-

documented assessment of each child’s placement needs as promptly as possible.

4. Agencies should consider monitoring and documenting the rates at which

minority children leave care, and the kinds of placements they experience. How do these rates compare to the rates of white children?


Recruitment What elements should be considered in developing a recruitment plan for potential foster and adoptive parents? Exemplary Title Iv-B Recruitment Plan Elements States are to provide for the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed. Both general and targeted recruitment should be used. When using targeted recruitment a State must insure that the children being recruited for are also included in the State’s general recruitment activities. An adequate recruitment process has a number of features. Recruitment efforts should be designed to provide to potential foster and adoptive parents throughout the community information about the characteristics and needs of the available children, the nature of the foster care and adoption processes, and the supports available to foster and adoptive families. To help States to meet MEPA’s diligent efforts requirements, the following examples of Recruitment Plan features are offered for State consideration: Recruitment Plan Elements Characteristics of the waiting children should be clearly described, including: � age

� gender

� membership in a sibling group

� culture and ethnicity

� special developmental, behavior or medical needs

� child’s attitudes, habits, and daily routines

Recruitment strategies could include but not be limited to the following recruitment methods:


� decals

� bus and taxi cab placards

� slogans or themes on bookmarks, pencils, balloons, key chains, rain hats, t-

shirts, etc.

� displays in store windows and libraries

� information booths at meetings or gatherings

� placemats in restaurants m

� flyers, handouts, and bill inserts

� notices in congregational and community bulletins

� calendars

� newsletters

� special events, carnivals or fairs

� picnics or ice cream socials

� theme night activities

� puppet shows

� speakers’ bureau, scheduling presentations

� awards programs

� appreciation nights and banquets

� welcome wagon packets

� teas, drop-ins, or open houses

� door to door canvassing

� surveys in shopping malls


� television and newspaper feature stories

� television public service announcements or community interest stories

� interview programs

� radio spot announcements

� direct mailing and ad coupons

� display ads in the phone book

� recruitment films

� messages on business marquees

� adoption day in court

� adoptive mother and father of the year

Methods of disseminating both general and targeted recruitment information should utilize mass media and printed materials. Public service announcements, talk shows and news programs should be utilized to illuminate the needs and provide foster children with visibility and delineate their unique characteristics. Efforts could be undertaken to develop ongoing newspaper columns concerning the plight of children and the need for adoptive and foster families. This should include both major dailies and local weeklies. Ongoing columns have been effective because of their predictability. Work with reporters and editors to stimulate relevant news and feature articles. Press releases could be prepared and disseminated to weeklies, neighborhood newspapers, trade papers, employee magazines, and the newsletters of unions, clubs, fraternities, sororities, and churches. Posters, flyers and brochures could be developed for distribution throughout communities. They could be distributed through churches, clubs and other organizations and to doctors’ offices, hospital and clinic waiting rooms, libraries, beauty parlors, barber shops, laundromats, community centers, etc. Agencies could consider decentralizing services so that prospective parents may have physical access to the agency. Agency procedures and practices should be congruent with the cultural and social values of the target population. Adoption


agencies should have hours of service that facilitate access by all members of the community. Agencies should have a fee structure that is non-discriminatory. It should allow families of various income levels the opportunity to adopt. Fees should be charged according to a sliding scale, based on a family’s ability to pay. The ability to pay a fee should not influence the choice of the most appropriate family for a child.


Daily Practice How does MEPA impact daily practice? Case workers will make individual decisions based on sound child welfare practice and the best interest of the child. What factors may be considered in the placement of children? Federal and California laws allow preferences to be given to a child’s adult relatives, provided they are suitable caregivers and meet all relevant child protection standards. � Length of time with current caregiver and depth of child’s attachment to

this caregiver; � Child’s age, sex, cognitive capacities, special talents, educational needs; � Child’s religious preferences, if any, and linguistic or other cultural needs; � Child’s physical condition, health and dental needs; � Child’s emotional and psychological condition, specific developmental

needs as related to personal experience of abuse, neglect, or other maltreatment.

� Geographical proximity to parents if reunification services are being

provided; � Caregiver’s ability to maintain contact between child and siblings. Can race ever be taken into consideration in making placements? When? On rare occasions, the distinctive needs of an individual child may warrant consideration of the child’s race, color, or national origin. Any consideration of these factors must pass the strict scrutiny test: Is it necessary to take into account the child’s needs related to race, color, or national origin in order to make a placement that serves this particular child’s best interest? If it appears that the child does have these distinctive needs, caseworkers should document their responses to the following questions:


� What are the child’s special or distinctive needs based on race, color, or national origin?

� Why is it in the best interest to take these needs into account? � Can the child’s needs related to race, color, or national origin be taken into

account without delaying placement or placing the child at risk of other harms.

� Can these needs be met by a prospective foster or adoptive parent who does

not share the child’s racial or ethnic background? � Can these needs be met only by a same race/ethnic placement? If so, is some

delay justified in searching for a parent of the same race or ethnicity if an appropriate person is not available in the agency’s current files?

� In foster care placement, can the child’s special needs be taken into account

without denying the child an opportunity to be cared for in a readily available foster home?

� What are the child’s other important needs? Even when the facts of the particular case allow some consideration related to race, color, or national origin, this consideration should not predominate. Among other needs to be considered, and typically to be given the most weight are: the child’s age, ties to siblings and other relatives, health or physical condition, educational, cognitive and psychological needs, and cultural needs, including religious, linguistic, dietary, musical, or athletic needs. In addition, the child may have personal preferences that he or she can articulate and discuss.


Daily Practice

1. Case management 2. Placement 3. Adoptions 4. Concurrent planning


Enforcement What is the enforcement role of the Federal Office of Civil Rights with MEPA? � Individual adults or children who believe they have been discriminated

against may file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights. � Even without a complaint from a specific individual or a group of people,

OCR may initiate an independent review of any private or public agency or entity that receives federal funds and that is involved in foster or adoptive placement activities.

� If HHS-ACF learns of a possible violation of MEPA §471(a)(18), it will

refer the case to OCR for investigation. � If OCR finds a violation by a State agency or other entity after appropriate

notice and investigation, it will seek voluntary compliance. � If the agency or entity does not comply voluntarily, OCR may bring

administrative proceedings to terminate federal funds or may refer the matter to the Justice Department for initiation of judicial proceedings.

What is the process of the Office of Civil Right’s complaint investigation? � Ascertain jurisdiction � Notify receipt of complaint � Collect data � Interview witnesses � Issue letter of findings � If violation, secure remedy


Individuals or the Justice Department can enforce MEPA-IEP through administrative action by HHS or through litigation. Noncompliance may result in loss of federal funds, in injunctive relief, and, in certain cases, in an award of money damages. 1. Administrative enforcement

A. Title VI

Failure to comply with MEPA-IEP's prohibitions against discrimination is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The 1995 Guidance suggests that failure to engage in appropriate recruitment efforts could also constitute a violation of Title VI. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal assistance. Anyone who believes he or she has been subjected to discrimination in a program funded by HHS may file a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Information about how to file a complaint is available from HHS or any of its regional offices. OCR must investigate promptly whenever it receives a complaint or other information indicating that a violation of Title VI has occurred. OCR can also initiate its own compliance reviews to determine whether any Title VI violations have occurred. OCR staff reviews the policies and practices the entity receiving federal funds, the circumstances that led to the complaint, and other information about a possible violation. If OCR determines that a violation of Title VI has occurred, it will notify the entity involved and seek voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance is not forthcoming, HHS may bring administrative proceedings to terminate federal assistance. These proceedings provide the state or the agency with a formal due process hearing to determine whether a violation has occurred and whether fiscal sanctions should be imposed. In the alternative, OCR may refer the matter to the Justice Department with a recommendation to initiate judicial proceedings. HHS is required to seek the cooperation of recipients of federal funds in obtaining compliance with Title VI, and HHS is committed to working closely with covered agencies to promote voluntary compliance. An agency may agree to come into voluntary compliance at any point during the investigation or any action to terminate funding.

B. Title IV-B


In order to receive title IV-B funds for child welfare services, promoting safe and stable families, and family preservation and support services, States and Tribes must develop a plan that meets the requirements of IV-B including the requirements for a recruitment plan. States and Tribes are required periodically to submit new plans under title IV-B. Failure to develop a recruitment plan could result in the loss of title IV-B funding. Before granting federal assistance, HHS must determine whether a state plan complies with federal statutes, regulations and guidelines. This determination must be completed within ninety days of the date the state submits the plan. After the initial plan is approved, HHS may withhold future payment of federal funds if the plan no longer complies with federal law, either because of changes in federal requirements or because of plan amendments submitted by the state. Federal funds also may be withheld if the state fails to administer the plan in substantial compliance with federal law. However, HHS is working jointly with States and Tribes to achieve voluntary compliance, and could afford States and Tribes an opportunity for corrective action before withholding funds. C. Title IV-E

The 1996 Interethnic Placement Provisions added MEPA-IEP provisions to title IV-E. States found to be in violation of these provisions are subject to graduated financial penalties that will vary depending on the amount of title IV-E funding the state receives and the frequency and duration of violations. States will have the opportunity to avoid a financial penalty through a corrective action process if the violation is cured within six months. HHS estimates that penalties will range from under $1,000 to over $10 million. Other covered entities that violate MEPA-IEP will have to repay the amount of money they received from the state during each quarter in which a violation occurs. ACF will start screening for indications of MEPA-IEP compliance as part of the child welfare review process starting in 1999. OCR will continue to address compliance by investigating complaints and conducting independent reviews. ACF and OCR are working together to develop common protocols and review standards along with policies and procedures for monitoring compliance, developing corrective action plans, and imposing penalties. The formal review standards and protocols will be published in the Federal Register. 2. Private law suits MEPA-IEP expressly provides a federal cause of action for any individual who is aggrieved by a violation of the title IV-E provisions of MEPA-IEP. This gives anyone who is adversely affected by a violation the right to file a lawsuit within


two years after the violation occurs. Another provision removes an obstacle to bringing an action for failure to comply with the recruitment plan requirements under title IV-B. In addition, the 1995 Guidance suggests that the failure to implement an appropriate recruitment plan could give rise to a discrimination claim under Title VI. Other violations of MEPA-IEP that constitute discrimination may also give rose to civil rights claims based on the Constitution and Title VI. Litigation can result in court orders requiring the Defendant State or agency to comply with the law and an award of attorney's fees if the person bringing the lawsuit is successful. Monetary compensation, known as "damages", may also be available in certain circumstances to individuals who are harmed by discriminatory policies and practices. What is the role of California Department of Social Services Civil Rights Bureau? 1. California Department of Social Services Civil Rights Bureau may initiate

a review of any adoption or foster care agency or program that received HHS funds.

2. CDSS is available to provide technical assistance to agencies or counties

seeking assistance.


Placement Issues Can state law or policy include a preference for racial or ethnic matching so long as no child or prospective parent is precluded from being considered for placement of the basis of their race, color, or national origin, or place of residence? MEPA does not allow state laws or policies to be based on blanket preferences for racial or ethnic matching. General or categorical policies that do not derive from the needs of a specific child are not consistent with the kinds of individualized decisions required by MEPA. Policies or practices that establish orders of preference based on race, color, or ethnicity or that requires caseworkers to justify departures from these preferences violate MEPA and Title VI. Can agencies honor the preference of birth parents based on race, color, or national origin? Because agencies subject to MEPA may not deny or delay placement on the basis of race, color, or national origin, they cannot honor a biological parent’s preference for placing the child in a family with a similar racial or ethnic background. However, agencies may honor general preferences expressed by birth parents, including religion, language, and level of education. Does MEPA prevent states from having a preference for placing a child with a relative? MEPA does not prohibit a preference for placing a child with relatives, if the placement is in the best interests of the child and not in conflict with the requirements that the child’s health and safety be the paramount concern in child placement decisions. In 1996, Congress added a section to the title IV-E state plan requirements that States are to consider giving preference to an adult relative over a non-related foster or adoptive parent, provided that the relative meets all relevant state child protection standards. Many states include preferences for relatives in their foster care or adoptive placement statues or administrative regulations. Nonetheless, caseworkers should not use general preferences for placing children with relatives as a device for evading MEPA. All placement decisions should be specific to the needs of the individual child.


Does MEPA apply to Caucasian children? MEPA applies to all children regardless of race or ethnicity. For example, if a worker determines an African American family can best meet the needs of a Caucasian child, denying the child that placement on account of race would be illegal? How does MEPA apply to infants? MEPA applies regardless of the age of the child. The 1995 and 1997 guidance suggests that the age of the child may be a factor in determining the effects of race or ethnicity on the best interest of the child. For example, an older child may have a strong sense of identity with a particular racial or ethnic community; an infant may not have developed such needs. However, the 1998 Guidance notes that, regardless of age, racial or ethnic factors can seldom determine where a child will be placed. Can agencies conduct targeted recruitment? MEPA requires diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children who need homes. Therefore, states must develop strategies that reach the communities of these families. At the same time, states and other entities must ensure that they do not deny anyone the opportunity to adopt or foster a child on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The 1995 federal guidance discussed targeted recruitment efforts as part of a comprehensive strategy aimed at reaching all segments of the community. The 1995 guidance provides that information should be disseminated to targeted communities through organizations such as churches and neighborhood centers. It further suggests agencies develop partnerships with community groups that can help spread the work about waiting children and identify and support prospective adoptive and foster parents. In addition, the 1998 guidance states that targeted recruiting cannot be the exclusive means for a state to identify families for particular categories of children. For example, while a state may contract with a private agency to make public announcements in Spanish to recruit Hispanic foster and adoptive parents, the state may not rely exclusively on that private agency to place Hispanic children. Rather, in identifying a potential pool of foster or adoptive


parents for a child, the state must consider individuals listed with agencies that recruit parents from all ethnic groups. Do prospective adoptive parents have the right to adopt a particular child? Under MEPA, individuals cannot be denied an opportunity to be considered as a potential adoptive parent. They have a right to an assessment of their suitability as adoptive parents, which is not based on discriminatory criteria. If accepted into the pool of qualified applicants for an agency, a state, or an interstate exchange, they have a right to be considered as a possible adoptive parent for children for whom they have expressed an interest, and whose needs they believe they can meet. However, neither they nor anyone else has an absolute right to adopt a particular child. When foster parents seek to adopt a child who has been in their case for a significant period of time the child’s attachment to them and the child’s need for permanence may suggest that they are the most appropriate parents for the child. Nonetheless, this decision must be based on the agency’s and the court’s assessment of the child’s best interests and not on an alleged “right” of the foster parents to adopt this child. Can agencies include a preference for adoptive families who live in the same county or state that the adoptive child lives? In seeking an approved family, the agencies may not delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption solely because the prospective adoptive family resides outside the jurisdiction of the department or the licensed adoption agency. (AFSA Act, 1997)


Case Studies


CASE STUDY #1 1. Susie, an African American infant, was abandoned on the steps of Local

Hospital shortly after her birth. Medical tests indicate that she tested positive for cocaine but, except for early withdrawal symptoms, is generally in good health. So far the caseworkers have no leads on who the mother, father, or other family members might be. Hospital staff says Susie will be ready for discharge in ten days and you have to find a short term foster home until Susie’s legal status is clarified. Your immediate options are a Caucasian couple who have cared for at least a dozen infants in the past five years who were considered “medically fragile” and a single African American women who is eager to become a fost-adopt parent but has had no prior experience with infants or with drug-exposed children. You are also aware of a mixed African American-Latino couple in an adjacent county who have three other foster children, aged six months to three years. With whom will you recommend that Susie be placed?


CASE STUDY #2 2. Carlos, a four-year-old Latino child, has been living with a single Caucasian

foster mother since he was six months old. The foster parent, who is fluent in Spanish, has a five-year-old biological daughter and lives in an ethnically diverse community. The court has terminated reunification services for Carlos’ birth parents. The foster parent is eager to adopt Carlos, but the caseworker has just learned that Carlos has a paternal aunt, whom he has never met, but who is now expressing an interest in adopting him. The aunt lives in a mostly Latino community with her husband and their three children. How should you proceed?


CASE STUDY #3

3. Jimmy, a seven-year-old African American child, has been in foster care for

nearly his entire life. For several years, he lived with his maternal grandmother, but she became too ill to care for him. He then lived for a while with his mother and his half-siblings, but was removed from her custody because of severe neglect and placed with a Caucasian couple who refused to facilitate visits with his siblings or mother. Caseworkers next moved him to the home of an African American couple who had begun to care for two of his siblings. Within a few months, this couple asked that Jimmy be removed because of his wild behavior. In the past year, he has been in and out of four more foster homes and has not seen any members of his family. In his last placement, he attacked one of the other foster children with a kitchen knife. You have been told that his parents are no longer seeking his custody and willing to relinquish parental rights. What are your recommendations for Jimmy’s permanency plan?


CASE STUDY #4

4. Pete, a five-year-old African American child, with severe developmental delays has been living with an African American couple for two years. During this time, they have cared for a number of other African American, Latino, and mixed race children. Pete’s parents have been in and out of drug treatment programs and the court is likely to terminate reunification services. The foster couple wants Pete to continue living with them, but are not interested in adoption. Pete has been under treatment by a pediatric neurologist, who has recently expressed an interest in adopting him. The neurologist is a Caucasian male who lives with his African American male partner, a pediatrician. Pete’s parents are willing to relinquish their parental rights but are adamantly opposed to his placement with a homosexual parent. What are your recommendations for Pete?


CASE STUDY #5 5. Julie, a three-year-old Caucasian-Latino child with fetal alcohol syndrome,

has been in foster care with the same unmarried African American couple since she was an infant. Although their home is designated as an emergency home only, she has never been moved. Her parents are not able to care for her, but want her placed with married relatives who live in another state and who have adopted the parents’ older healthier son. What are your recommendations for Julie?


CASE STUDY #6 6. Larry is a five-year-old child whose mother is Vietnamese American and

whose father is African American. He has been living with his paternal grandparents and several cousins since he was removed from his parents’ custody for severe neglect. His mother has requested that he be moved to her old sister’s home, which she says is in a “less crime infested neighborhood with much better schools.” Her sister is married to another Vietnamese American and has two younger children. How do you respond to Larry’s mother?


CASE STUDY #7 7. Melanie is a two-year-old Latino-African American child whose mother is

dead and whose father is enrolled in parenting classes and is eager to raise her. Melanie has been living with an unmarried Latino woman and her Caucasian partner who were initially willing to facilitate visits with Melanie’s father, but have since become concerned about what they describe to caseworkers as “his violent temperament and obvious hatred for women.” Two other foster placements may be available, if you decide to move Melanie. One is with an unmarried Caucasian woman whose three foster children were recently reunited with their parents and who is strongly committed to concurrent planning. The other is with a married African American couple who are eager to adopt and who are strongly opposed to concurrent planning. Will you recommend that Melanie be moved from her current placement, and if so, with whom do you think she should be placed?


GAO Questions

Answers to GAO QUESTIONS Regarding The Multiethnic Placement Act, as Amended

1. May public agencies allow foster parents to specify the race, color,

national origin, ethnicity or culture of children for whom they are willing to provide care?

And

2. May public agencies allow adoptive parents to specify the race, color,

national origin, ethnicity or culture of children of whom they are willing to adopt?

A. In making decisions about placing a child, whether in an adoptive

or foster setting, a public agency must be guided by considerations of what is in the best interests of the child in question. The public agency must also ensure that its decisions comply with statutory requirements. Where it comes to the attention of a public agency that particular prospective parents have attitudes that relate to their capacity to nurture a particular child, the agency may take those attitudes into consideration in determining whether a placement with that family would be in the best interests of the child in question.

The consideration of the ability of prospective parents to meet the needs of a particular child should take place in the framework of the general placement decision, in which the strengths and weaknesses of prospective parents to meet all of a child’s needs are weighed so as to provide for the child’s best interests, and prospective parents are provided the information they need realistically to assess their capacity to parent a particular child. An important element of good social work practice in this process is the individualized assessment of a prospective parent’s ability to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. This assessment can include an exploration of the kind of child with whom a prospective parent might comfortably form an attachment. It is appropriate in the context of good practice to allow a family to explore its limitations and consider frankly what conditions (for example, disabilities in


children, the number of children in a sibling group, or children of certain ages) family members would be able or willing to accept. The function of assessing the needs and limitations of specific prospective foster or adoptive parents in order to determine the most appropriate placement considering the various individual needs of a particular child is an essential element of social work practice, and critical to an agency’s ability to achieve the best interests of that child. The assessment function is also critical, especially in adoptive placements, to minimizing the risk that placements might later disrupt or dissolve.

The assessment function must not be misused as a generalized racial or ethnic screen; the assessment function cannot routinely include considerations of race or ethnicity. The Department generally does not distinguish between foster and adoptive settings in terms of an agency’s consideration of the attitudes of prospective parents. However, it is possible that a public agency may attach different significance in assessing the best interests of a child in need of short term or emergency placement. As noted in the Department’s original guidance on MEPA, agencies are not prohibited from discussing with prospective adoptive and foster parents their feelings, capacities and preferences regarding caring for a child of a particular race or ethnicity, just as they discuss other individualized issues related to the child. However, as the Department has emphasized, any consideration of race or ethnicity must be done in the context of individualized placement decisions. An agency may not rely on generalizations about the needs of children of a particular race or ethnicity, or on generalizations about the abilities of prospective parents of one race or ethnicity to care for a child of another race or ethnicity.

3. May public agencies assess the racial, national origin, ethnic and/or cultural needs of all children in foster care, either by assessing those needs directly or as part of another assessment such as an assessment of special needs?

A. Public agencies may not routinely consider race, national origin

and ethnicity in making placement decisions. Any consideration of these factors must be done on an individualized basis where special circumstances indicate that their consideration is warranted. A


practice of assessing all children for their needs in this area would be inconsistent with an approach of individually considering these factors only when specific circumstances indicate that it is warranted.

Assessment of needs of children in foster care, and of any special needs they may have that could help to determine the most appropriate placement for a child, is an essential element of social work practice for children in out-of-home care, and critical to an agency’s ability to achieve the best interests of the child. Section 1808 of Public Law 104-188 by its terms addresses only race, color, or national origin, and does not address the consideration of culture in placement decisions. There are situations where cultural needs may be important in placement decisions, such as where a child has specific language needs. However, a public agency’s consideration of culture would raise Section 1808 issues if the agency used culture as a proxy for race, color or national origin. Thus, while nothing in Section 1808 directly prohibits a public agency from assessing the cultural needs of all children in foster care, Section 1808 would prohibit an agency from using routine cultural assessments in a manner that would circumvent the law’s prohibition against the routine consideration of race, color or national origin.

4. If no to question 3, may they do this for a subset of all children in foster

care?

A. As noted above, Section 1808 prohibits the routine consideration of race. It permits the consideration of race on an individualized basis where circumstances indicate that it is warranted. The question suggests that assessment of race, color, or national origin needs would not be done for all children in foster care, but for a subset. If the subset were derived by some routine means other than where specific individual circumstances suggest that it be warranted, the same considerations discussed above would apply.

5. May public agencies assess the racial, national origin, ethnic and/or

cultural capacity of all foster parents, either by assessing that capacity directly or as part of another assessment such as an assessment of strengths and weaknesses?


No. Race, color and national origin may not routinely be considered in assessing the capacity of particular prospective foster parents to care for specific children. However, assessment by an agency of the capacity of particular adults to serve as foster parents for specific children is at the heart of the placement process, and essential to determining what would be in the best interests of a particular child.

6. If yes to question 5, may public agencies decline to transracially place

any child with a foster parent who ha unsatisfactory cultural competency skills?

A. Not applicable; the answer to question 5 is no.

7. If no to question 5, may public agencies decline to transracially place a

child who has documented racial, national origin, ethnic and/or cultural needs with a foster parent who has unsatisfactory cultural competency skills?

A. As noted in the answer to questions No. 1 and 2 above, good

practice requires an assessment of the capacity of potential foster parents to accommodate all the needs of a particular child. It is conceivable that in a particular instance race, color or national origin would be a necessary consideration to achieve the best interests of the child. However, any placement decision must take place in a framework that assesses the strengths and weaknesses of prospective parents to meet all of a child’s needs so as to provide for the child’s best interests. As noted in the answer to Questions 1 and 2, prospective parents should be offered, typically through training provided by an agency, information sufficient to confirm or broaden their understanding of what types of children they might most appropriately provide a home for.

8. May public agencies honor the request of birth parents to place their

child, who was involuntarily removed, with foster parents of a specific racial, national origin, ethnic and/or cultural group?

A. No.

9. Would the response to question 8 be different if the child was

voluntarily removed?

A. No.


10. If an action by a public agency will not delay or deny the placement of a child, may that agency use race to differentiate between otherwise acceptable foster placements?

A. No.

11. May public agencies assess the racial, national origin, ethnic and/or

cultural capacity of all adoptive parents, either by assessing that capacity directly or as part of another assessment such as an assessment of strengths and weaknesses?

A. No. The factors discussed above concerning the routine assessment

of race, color, or national origin needs of children would also apply to the routine assessment of the racial, national origin or ethnic capacity of all foster or adoptive parents.

12. If yes to question 11, may public agencies decline to transracially place

any child with an adoptive parent who has unsatisfactory cultural competency skills?


practice requires an assessment of the capacity of potential foster parents to accommodate all the needs of a particular child. It is conceivable that in a particular instance race, color or national origin would be a necessary consideration to achieve the best interests of the child. However, any placement decision must take place in a framework that assesses the strengths and weaknesses of prospective parents to meet all of a child’s needs so as to provide for the child’s best interests.

13. If no to question 11, may public agencies decline to transracially place a

child who has documented racial, national origin, ethnic and/or cultural needs with an adoptive parent who has unsatisfactory cultural competency skills?


practice requires an assessment of the capacity of potential foster parents to accommodate all the needs of a particular child. It is conceivable that in a particular instance race, color or national origin would be a necessary consideration to achieve the best interests of the child. However, any placement decisions must take place in a framework that assesses the strengths and weaknesses of prospective parents to meet all of a child’s needs so as to provide


for the child’s best interests. As noted in the answer to Questions 1 and 2, prospective parents should be offered, typically through training provided by an agency, information sufficient to confirm or broaden their understanding of what types of children they might most appropriately provide a home for.

14. If no to question 11, how can public agencies assure themselves that

they have identified an appropriate placement for a child for whom racial, national origin, ethnic and/or cultural needs have been documented?

A. Adoption agencies must consider all factors that may contribute to

a good placement decision for a child, and that may affect whether a particular placement is in the best interests of the child. Such agencies may assure themselves of the fitness of their work in a number of ways, including case review conferences with supervisors, peer reviews, judicial oversight, and quality control measures employed by State agencies and licensing authorities. In some instances it is conceivable that, for a particular child, race, color or national origin would be such a factor. Permanency being the sine qua non of adoptive placements, monitoring the rates of disruption or dissolution of adoptions would also be appropriate. Where it has been established that considerations of race, color or national origin are necessary to achieve the best interests of a child, such factor(s) should be included in the agency’s decision-making, and would appropriately be included in reviews and quality control measures such as those described above.

15. May public agencies honor the request of birth parents to place their

child, who was involuntarily removed, with adoptive parents of a specific racial, ethnic and/or cultural group?

A. No.

16. Would the response to question 15 be different if the child was

voluntarily removed?

A. No. 17. If an action by a public agency will not delay or deny the placement of a

child, may that agency use race to differentiate between otherwise acceptable adoptive parents?


A. No. 18. May a home finding agency that contracts with a public agency, but that

does not place children, recommend only homes that match the race of the foster or adoptive parents to that of a child in need of placement?

A. No. A public agency may contract with a home finding agency to

assist with overall recruitment efforts. Some home finding agencies may be used because of their special knowledge and/or understanding of a specific community and may even be included in a public agency’s targeted recruitment efforts. Targeted recruitment cannot be the only vehicle used by a State to identify families for children in care, or any subset of children in care, e.g., older or minority children. Additionally, a home finding agency must consider and include any interested person who responds to its recruitment efforts.

19. May a home finding agency that contracts with a public agency, but that

does not place children, dissuade or otherwise counsel a potential foster or adoptive parent who has unsatisfactory cultural competency skills to withdraw an application or not pursue foster parenting or adoption?

A. No. No adoptive or foster placement may be denied or delayed

based on the race of the prospective foster or adoptive parent or based on the race of the child.

Dissuading or otherwise counseling a potential foster or adoptive parent to withdraw an application or not pursue foster parenting or adoption strictly on the basis of race, color or national origin would be a prohibited delay or denial.

The term “cultural competency,” as we understand it, is not one that would fit in a discussion of adoption and foster placement. However, agencies should, as a matter of good social work practice, examine all the factors that may bear on determining whether a particular placement is in the best interests of a particular child. That may in rare instances involve consideration of the abilities of prospective parents of one race or ethnicity to care for a child of another race or ethnicity.

20. May a home finding agency that contracts with a public agency, but that does not place children, assess the racial, national origin, ethnic and/or cultural capacity of all adoptive parents, either by assessing that


capacity directly or as part of another assessment such as an assessment of strengths and weaknesses?

A. No. There should be no routine consideration of race, color or

national origin in any part of the adoption process. Any assessment of an individual’s capacity to be a good parent for any child should be made on an individualized basis by the child’s caseworker and not by a home finding agency. Placement decisions should be guided by the child’s best interest. That requires an individualized assessment of the child’s total needs and an assessment of a potential adoptive parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs.

21. If no to question 20, may they do this for a subset of adoptive parents,

such as white parents?

A. No. 22. If a black child is placed with a couple, one of whom is white and one

of whom is black, is this placement classified as interracial or transracial?

23. If a biracial black/white child is placed with a white couple, is this

placement classified as interracial or transracial? 24. Would the response to question 22 be different if the couple were

black?

A. The statute applies to considerations of race, color or national origin in placements for adoption and foster care. The Department’s Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) collects data on the race of the child and the race of adoptive and foster parents, as required by regulation tat 45 CFR 1355, Appendix A. AFCARS uses racial categories defined by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The Department of Commerce does not include “biracial” among its race categories; therefore no child would be so classified for AFCARS purposes. The Department of Health and Human Services does not classify placements as being “interracial” or “transracial.”


25. In seeking an approved adoptive family, may agencies include a preference for adoptive families who live in the same county or state that the adoptive child lives?

In seeking an approved family, the agencies may not delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption solely because the prospective adoptive family resides outside the jurisdiction of the department or the licensed adoption agency.

26. How does HHS define “culture” in the context of MEPA guidance?

A. HHS does not define culture. Section 1808 addresses only race, color, or national origin, and does not directly address the consideration of culture in placement decisions. A public agency is not prohibited from the nondiscriminatory consideration of culture in making placement decisions. However, a public agency’s consideration of culture must comply with Section 1808 in that it may not use culture as a replacement for the prohibited consideration of race, color or national origin.

27. Provide examples of what is means by delay and denial of placement in

foster care, excluding situations involving adoption.

Following are some examples of delay or denial in foster care placements:

A. A white newborn baby’s foster placement is delayed because the social worker is unable to find a white foster home; the infant is kept in the hospital longer than would otherwise be necessary and is ultimately placed in a group home rather than being placed in a foster home with a minority family.

B. A minority relative with guardianship over four black children

expressly requests that the children be allowed to remain in the care of a white neighbor in whose care the children are left. The state agency denies the white neighbor a restricted foster care license, which will enable her to care for the children. The agency’s license denial is based on its decision that the best interests of the children require a same-race placement, which will delay the permanent foster care placement. There is no individualized assessment or evaluation indicating that a same-race placement is actually in the best interests of the children.


C. Six minority children require foster placement, preferably in a family foster home. Only one minority foster home is available; it is only licensed to care for two children. The children remain in emergency shelter until the agency can recertify and license the home to care for the six children. The children remain in an emergency shelter even though a white foster home with capacity and a license to care for six children is available.

D. Different standards may be applied in licensing white versus

minority households resulting in delay or denial of the opportunity to be foster parents.

E. Foster parent applicants are discouraged from applying because

they are informed that waiting children are of a different race.

F. There are placement delays and denials when states or agencies expend time seeking to honor the requests of biological parents that foster parents are of the same race as the child.


Appendix

1. Title VI Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994


Title VI Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 Part E Multiethnic Placement Subpart 1—Multiethnic Placement SEC. 551. Short title. This subpart may be cited as the “Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994” SEC. 552. Findings and purpose (a) Findings. Congress finds that:

(1) nearly 500,000 children are in foster care in the United States; (2) tens of thousands of children in foster care are waiting for adoption; (3) 2 years and 8 months is the median length of time that children wait to be

adopted; (4) child welfare agencies should work to eliminate racial, ethnic, and

national origin discrimination and bias in adoption and foster care recruitment, selection, and placement procedures; and

(5) active, creative, and diligent efforts are needed to recruit adoptive and foster parents of every race, ethnicity, and culture in order to facilitate the placement of children in foster and adoptive homes which will best meet each child’s needs.

(b) Purpose. It is the purpose of this subpart to promote the best interests of children by: (1) decreasing the length of time that children wait to be adopted; (2) preventing discrimination in the placement of children on the basis of

race, color, or national origin; and (3) facilitating the identification and recruitment of foster and adoptive

families that can meet children’s needs. SEC. 553. Multiethnic placements. Section 553 was repealed by 1996 amendments…so do not use it in stating the law. California statutes use this language, but in fact, this language is changed by 1996 amendments, see below. (a) Activities.

(1) Prohibition. An agency, or entity, that receives Federal assistance and is involved in adoption or foster care placements may not categorically deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent,


solely on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child involved; or (A) delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care,

or otherwise discriminate in making a placement decision, solely on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved.

(2) Permissible consideration. An agency or entity to which paragraph (1) applies may consider the cultural, ethnic, or racial background of a child and the capacity of the prospective foster or adoptive parents to meet the needs of a child of such background as one of a number of factors used to determine the best interests of a child.

(3) Definition. As used in this subsection, the term “placement decision” means the decision to place, or to delay or deny the placement of, a child in a foster care or an adoptive home, and includes the decision of the agency or entity involved to seek the termination of birth parent rights or otherwise make a child legally available for adoptive placement.

(b) Equitable Relief. Any individual who is aggrieved by an action in violation of subsection (a), taken by an agency or entity described in subsection (a), shall have the right to bring an action seeking relief in a United States district court of appropriate jurisdiction.

(c) Federal Guidance. Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of health and Human Services shall publish guidance to concerned public and private agencies and entities with respect to compliance with this subtitle.

(d) Deadline for Compliance. OTHER SUBSECTIONS OF SECTION 553 OMITTED…ALL OF 553 WAS REPEALED in 1996.

SEC. 554 Required recruitment efforts for child welfare services programs. Section 422(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 622(b)) is amended (1) by striking “and” at the end of paragraph (7) (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting “;and”; and (3) by adding at the end the following: “(9) provide for the diligent recruitment

of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed."”[THIS IS STILL INCLUDED IN THE LAW]

Subpart 2 Other Provisions SEC. 555 Effect of failure to carry out state plan (a) In general part A of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 13011320b13)


is amended by inserting after section 1122 the following:

“SEC. 1123. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CARRY OUT STATE PLAN. In an action brought to enforce a provision of the Social Security Act, such provision is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of the Act requiring a State plan or specifying the required contents of a State plan. This section is not intended to limit or expand the grounds for determining the availability of private actions to enforce State plan requirements other than by overturning any such grounds applied in Suter v. Artist M., 112 S. Ct. 1360 (1992), but not applied in prior Supreme court decisions respecting such enforceability; provided, however, that this section is not intended to alter the holding in Suter v. Artist M. that section 471(a)(15) of the Act is not enforceable in a private right of action.

(b) Applicability. The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to actions

pending on the date of the enactment of this Act and to actions brought on or after such date of enactment.

CCTA l &RPPRQ�&RUH�,�0(3$�Ň�7UDLQHH¶V�*XLGH�Ň-XO\�� 45 (Curr. Rev. 4/2006)

MEPA II Public law 104-188,1996 Interethnic Placement Act SEC. 1808. Removal of barriers to interethnic adoption (a) State Plan Requirements. --Section 4719(a) of the Social Security Act (42

U.S.C. 671(a)) is amended— (1) by striking “and” at the end of paragraph (16); (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (17) and inserting “;and”;

and (3) by adding at the end the following:

“(18) not later than January 1, 1997, provides that neither the State nor any other entity in the State that receives funds from the Federal Government and is involved in adoption or foster care placements may— “(A) deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the person, or of the child, involved; or “(B) delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved.”.

(b) Enforcement. –Section 474 or such Act (42 U.S.C. 674) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(d)(1) If, during any quarter of a fiscal year, a State’s program operated under this part is found, as a result of a review conducted under section 1123A, or otherwise, to have violated section 471(a)(18) with respect to a person or to have failed to implement a corrective action plan within a period of time not to exceed 6 months with respect to such violation, then, notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section and any regulations promulgated under section 1123A(b)(3), the Secretary shall reduce the amount otherwise payable to the State under this part, for that fiscal year quarter and for any subsequent quarter of such fiscal year, until the State program is found, as a result of a subsequent review under section 1123A, to have implemented a corrective action plan with respect to such violation, by— “(A) 2 percent of such otherwise payable amount, in the case of the 1st such finding for the fiscal year with respect to the State; “(B) 3 percent of such otherwise payable amount, in the case of the 2nd such finding for the fiscal year with respect to the State; or “(C) 5 percent of such otherwise payable amount, in the case of the 3rd or subsequent such finding for the fiscal year with respect to the State.

In imposing the penalties described in this paragraph, the Secretary shall not

CCTA l &RPPRQ�&RUH�,�0(3$�Ň�7UDLQHH¶V�*XLGH�Ň-XO\�� 46 (Curr. Rev. 4/2006)

reduce any fiscal year payment to a state by more than 5 percent. “(2) Any other entity which is in a State that receives funds under this part and which violates section 471(a)(18) during a fiscal year quarter with respect to any person shall remit to the Secretary all funds that were paid by the State to the entity during the quarter from such funds. “(3)(A) Any individual who is aggrieved by a violation of section 471(a)(18) by a State or other entity may bring an action seeking relief from the State or other entity in any United States district court. “(B) An action under this paragraph may not be brought more than 2 years after the date the alleged violation occurred. “(4) This subsection shall not be construed to affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.”

(c) Civil Rights Act: Title VI— (1) Prohibited conduct. –A person or government that is involved in

adoption or foster care placements may not— (A) deny to any individual the opportunity to become an adoptive or

foster parent, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the individual, or of the child, involved; or

(B) delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved.

(2) Enforcement. –Noncompliance with paragraph (1) is deemed a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(3) No effect on the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. –This subsection shall not be construed to affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare act of 1978.

(d) Conforming Amendment.—Section 553 of the Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 5115a) is repealed.

1

1

Welcome

MultiEthnicPlacementAct

Presented By CCTA

2

MuM

MultiEthnic Placement Act

Presenter:

3

Agenda

• Curriculum- every wordapproved

• History why MEPA• What is MEPA• Practice issues• Violations

2

4

Hear MEPAThink?Feel?

5

MEPAGoal:

• To provide an understanding of the three basic requirements of the Multiethnic Placement Act and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions, including their intent, application to practice, and consequences for non-compliance.

6

Where it all began

• P.L. 96-272. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) 1980

• The federal framework state and local child welfare agencies now operate in

• Introduced the concept of permanence

3

7

Heart of 96-272Permanency

• Permanency ”to discourage excessive reliance on foster care however :

– mid-1990’s,: significant increases in number of children entering out-of-home care.

– disappointing decrease in children–especially minority children–reunified or adopted.

8

Which brings us to ASFAAdoption and Safe Families act

What do you remember about ASFA?

9

Movie

4

10

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

• The Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) of 1994, as amended in 1996, is one of a series of federal statutes and programs initiated in the late 1990’s to end the gridlock that characterized the child welfare system.

• The most far-reaching of these initiatives is the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), P.L. 105-89, which amends the AACWA and Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.

11

Key Principles of ASFA

• The child’s HEALTH and SAFETY shall be the paramount concern of all child welfare services.

• Foster care should be temporary; children should be promptly reunited,adoption or in an alternative permanent living arrangement;

• Strict time limits are mandated for developing case plans and initiating actions to terminate parental rights.

12

ASFA SUCCESS IS:

5

13

Key Principles of ASFA (cont)

• Permanency planning efforts should begin as soon as a child enters care

• time-limited reunification services and concurrent planning,

• reasonable efforts not warranted to complete permanency plan whenreunification is pre- and post-adoptionservices for child’s new family.

14

Key Principles of ASFA (cont)

• Preference to an adult relative

• Child welfare system should focus onimproved outcomes and accountability.

• ASFA authorizes adoption incentive payments

15

• RE shall be made to preserve and reunify families:– RE to prevent or eliminate the need to

remove children from their families, and– RE to enable child to return home safely

“Reasonable Efforts” requirements under ASFA

6

16

“Reasonable Efforts” requirements under ASFA – cont’d

Reunification services shall not be required if court finds “aggravated circumstances” [see e.g. Cal. WIC §361.5(b)(1)-(14)].

17

“Reasonable Efforts” requirements under ASFA (cont)

• If RE to preserve or reunify child’s family are inconsistent with permanency plan, RE shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in a permanent living arrangement and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the child’s permanent placement.

• RE to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian may be made CONCURRENTLY with RE to reunify the child’s family.

18

7

19

The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994The Purpose

The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the Interethnic Provisions of 1996 (MEPA) is one of several recent federal initiatives and laws aimed at removing the barriers to permanency for the hundreds of thousands of children who are in the child protective system, and especially, for the minority children who are disproportionately represented in out-of-home care in California and elsewhere, and who wait longer than others for permanent homes.

20

21

These permanency indices are computed by dividing the number of childrenexiting foster care to permanency in a given year (reunification, adoption, guardianship, or total permanency) by the total number of children in careat any time during the year.

What Is Permanency Indices????

8

22

The specific intentions of MEPA are to:

1. decrease the length of time that children wait to be adopted

2. facilitate the recruitment and retentionof foster and adoptive parents who can meet the distinctive needs of children awaiting placement, and

3. eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the child or the prospective foster or adoptive parent.

23

To achieve its specific goals, MEPA has three basic mandates.

9FirstProhibits States from delaying or denying a child’s foster care or adoptive placement on the basis of the child’s or the prospective parent’s race, color, or national origin;

24

To achieve its specific goals, MEPA has three basic mandates (cont)

9Second

It prohibits these states from denying to

any individual the opportunity to become

a foster or adoptive parent on the basis of

the prospective parent’s or the child’s race,

color, or national origin; and

9

25

To achieve its specific goals, MEPA has three basic mandates (cont)

9Third

It requires that states ( to get fed $) must diligently recruit foster and adoptive parents who reflect the racial and ethnicdiversity of the children in the state who need foster and adoptive homes.

26

To summarize

1. Can not deny child or potential caregiver placement based on race,color or national origin

2. Want to keep federal dollars (4e)must recruit

27

Activity: Let’s see how it works!

• Choose a leader

• Answer the question in your envelope

• Give yourselves 10 minutes

10

28

What Kinds of Agency Policies or Practices violate MEPA? (cont)

Policies or Practices NOT permitted:

1. setting a specific time period during which only searches for a racially or ethnically matching placement will occur;

2. establishing a list of placement preferences based on racial or ethnic factors;

29

What Kinds of Agency Policies or Practices violate MEPA? (cont)

3. requiring caseworkers to justify transracial placements but not require the same kind of justification for same race placements;

4. other procedures that directly or indirectly delay placements before or after termination of parental rights in order to find a racially or ethnically matched family.

30

What about ICWA

NOTE: Just because MEPA does not apply to placements subject to the ICWA, agencies must follow ICWA’s placement preferences for children who meet ICWA’s definition of “Indian child,” unless there is “good cause” for making a different placement.

11

31

Can Race, Color, or National Origin ever be considered in Making Placement

Decisions?

• Race, color, or national origin of child or

foster or adoptive parent may not be

routinely considered.

32

Can Race, Color, or National Origin ever be considered in Making Placement Decisions?

• Any consideration of these factors must pass the “strict scrutiny” test:

• Does a particular child’s distinctive needs require that these factors be considered?

• Is it necessary to consider these factors in order to achieve a “compelling state interest”?

• In some specific cases, the “best interests of the child” test may require consideration of these factors and, if narrowly tailored to the needs of the particular child, may be a compelling state interest that meets the strict scrutiny test.

33

Can Race, Color, or National Origin ever be considered in Making Placement

Decisions (cont)• Child welfare workers can work within the strict

scrutiny legal standard by asking:

*What are the distinctive needs of this

particular child?

*Are any of them based on racial or ethnic

factors?

*Can these needs be documented?

12

34

Can Race, Color, or National Origin ever be considered in Making Placement Decisions

(cont)

• If the child has distinctive and documented needs related to race, color, or national origin, how can they be met?

• Can these needs be met by a foster or adoptive parents who does not share the child’s racial or ethnic background? Can these needs be met only by someone from a similar background?

35

Can Race, Color, or National Origin ever be considered in Making Placement Decisions

(cont)

NOTE: MEPA does not require transracial

placements and does not prohibit same-

race placements. MEPA requires

decisions that promote the best interest of

each individual child.

36

What Factors May be Considered in Making Placement Decisions for a child?

Federal and California laws allow preferences to be given to a child’s adult relatives, provided they are suitable caregivers and meet all relevant child protection standards.

Other factors to consider include:

13

37

What Factors May be Considered in Making Placement Decisions for a child? (cont)

1. Length of time with current caregiverand depth of child’s attachment to this caregiver;

2. child’s age, sex, cognitive capacities, special talents, education needs;

3. Child’s religious preferences, if any, and linguistic or other cultural needs;

38


4. Child’s physical condition, health and dental needs;

5. Child’s emotional and psychologicalcondition, specific developmental needs as related to personal experience of abuse, neglect, or other maltreatment;

39


6. Geographical proximity to parents if

reunification services are being provided;

7. Caregiver’s ability to maintain contact

between child and siblings.

14

40

What About Culture?

• MEPA, as well as the Constitution and Civil Rights laws, do not treat “culture” as a suspect category and do not prohibitconsideration of a child’s culturalbackground and experience in making placement decisions.

41

What About Culture? (cont)

• However, “culture” needs to be defined

carefully and cannot be used simply as a

proxy for unlawful consideration of race,

color, or national origin.

42


• Agencies should not rely on standard

assumptions or stereotypes about a

person’s cultural needs based on the color

of the person’s skin or the person’s ethnic

heritage.

15

43


• Agencies should not assume that foster or adoptive parents have to share a child’scultural experience in order to develop the child’s awareness and appreciation of that culture.

• See USDHHS/ACF May 1998 Questions & Answers and, especially, Nos. 3, 7, and 19.

44

Can Agencies Honor a Birth Parent’s Placement Preferences?

• Role of birth parent’s preferences in voluntary relinquishments? Relevant “best practice” standards?

• Role of birth parent’s preferences in involuntary terminations? Relevant “best practice” standards?

45

Can Agencies Honor a Birth Parent’s Placement Preferences? (cont)

• Can an agency honor birth parent’s preferences if

based on racial or ethnic factors?

– NO, agency cannot facilitate

unlawful discrimination, but can

honor preferences based on other

factors.

16

46

Can Agencies Honor a Birth Parent’s Placement Preferences (cont)

• Can an agency honor parent’s request for placement of a child with a relative? What about placement of child with someone of same religion as parent or child? – YES, agency may honor these preferences, if

individuals are otherwise appropriate and suitable.

47

Can Agencies Honor a Birth Parent’s Placement Preferences? (cont)

• What about “kinship adoption agreements”?

–These are legally recognized, Cal. Fam. Code §8714.7

48

Do Prospective Adoptive Parents have a “Right” to Adopt a Particular Child?

• Important to distinguish the opportunity to be considered as a prospective adoptive parent from a “right” to adopt a particular child.

• Opportunity to be considered cannot be denied on basis of individual’s race, color, or national origin; but no one has right to adopt particular child, regardless of whether child is of same or different racial or ethnic background.

17

49

Do Prospective Adoptive Parents have a “Right” to Adopt a Particular Child? (cont)

• Agencies must evaluate ALL applicants’capacities to raise children, including children with special needs, and cannot limit this evaluation to applicants of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds.

• If agencies offer training to prospective foster and adoptive parents, the training must be available to all applicants without regard to race, color, or national origin.

50

Do Prospective Adoptive Parents have a ” Right” to Adopt a Particular Child? (cont)

• See USDHHS/ACF May 1998 Questions & Answers and, especially Nos. 1-2 and 5-7

51

Third part of MEPA

Diligent Recruiting

18

52

Meeting MEPA-IEP Requirements for Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Parents

• Develop comprehensive recruitment plan based on characteristics of waiting children;

• Target recruitment strategies to meet needs of underserved children and train staff, including interpreters and counselors, to work with applicants from diverse backgrounds;

53

Meeting MEPA-IEP Requirements for Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Parents

(cont)

• Design procedures to welcome applicantsand ensure them timely access to home study process, hold meetings in different community facilities, accommodate applicants’ work schedules, return phone calls;

• Use non-discriminatory fee structure;

54

Meeting MEPA-IEP Requirements for Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Parents (cont)

• Consistent with ASFA as well as MEPA-IEP, make use of adoption exchanges, interagency recruitment programs, internet placement services.

• Targeted recruitment is appropriate, but agencies must allow individuals outside the targeted communities to participate.

19

55

Let’s try it on

• In your group read the case and decide what is best for this child

• Point out the MEPA issues

56

MEPA-IEP Presents Opportunity to Improve Child Welfare Practices and Create Permanent Families for

More Children

• MEPA-IEP enables caseworkers and agency administrators to get beyond stereotypical thinking about the needs of children in out-of-home care and to focus on the distinctive needs of individual children;

57

MEPA-IEP Presents Opportunity to Improve Child Welfare Practices and Create Permanent Families for More Children

(cont)

• MEPA-IEP alerts caseworkers to the risks of serious harm to children whose placements are delayed because of generalized assumptions about race or ethnicity that may have no bearing on the children’s actual needs;

20

58

MEPA-IEP Presents Opportunity to Improve Child Welfare Practices and Create Permanent Families for More Children (cont)

• MEPA-IEP encourages sensitive to serving the needs of children based on their actual life experiences and particular behavioral, physical, emotional, and cultural needs;

59

MEPA-IEP Presents Opportunity to Improve Child Welfare Practices and Create Permanent Families for More Children (cont)

• MEPA-IEP enlists agencies in a welcome effort to expand the pool of suitable foster and adoptive parents for children who might otherwise never have a secure and loving family to call their own.

• MEPA-IEP IS ENABLING AND INCLUSIONARY!!

60

21

61

Office of Civil Rights Investigation and Enforcement

• Individual adults or children who believe they have been discriminated against may file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR)

• Even without a complaint from a specific individual or a group of people, OCR may initiate an independent review of any private or public agency or entity that receives federal funds and that is involved in foster or adoptive placement activities.

62

Office of Civil Rights Investigation and Enforcement (cont)

• If HHS-ACF learns of a possible violation of MEPA §471(a)(18), it will refer the case to OCR for investigation.

• IF OCR finds a violation by a State agency or other entity after appropriate notice and investigation, it will seek voluntary compliance.

63

Office of Civil Rights Investigation and Enforcement (cont)

• If the agency or entity does not comply voluntarily, OCR may bring administrative proceedings to terminate federal funds or may refer the matter to the Justice Department for initiation of judicial proceedings.

22

64

Other Enforcement Options and Remedies

• Any individual who is aggrieved by a violation of MEPA’s prohibitions under Title IV-B or under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act may bring a private action in federal district court seeking injunctive or monetary relief from the State or other entity.

65

Other Enforcement Options and Remedies (cont)

• HHS-ACF is screening for compliance with

MEPA’s Title IV-E and IV-B provisions as

part of the child welfare review process; see

65 Fed. Reg. 4020 et seq. (Jan 25, 2000).

66


• States found to be in violation of MEPA’s Title IV-E provisions by discriminating against an individual, or by maintaining “any statute, regulation, policy, procedure, or practice that, on its face is a violation,” are subject to graduated and potentially substantial financial penalties, unless they cure the violation within a specified time; see 45 CFR 1355.38 and 1355.39.

23

67


• States found not to be in “substantial conformity” with the State Plan requirements, including the §422(b)(9) requirement for diligent recruitment of foster and adoptive parents, will be subject to loss of some Title IV-B funds if they fail to complete a program improvement plan; see 45 CFR 1355.31 - 1355.37.

68

What I take with me(besides the binder)

• What do you want to remember?

• How do you want to bring back to your practice?

�8�6��'HSDUWPHQW�RI�+HDOWK�DQG�+XPDQ�6HUYLFHV��$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�IRU�&KLOGUHQ�DQG�)DPLOLHV��

$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�RQ�&KLOGUHQ��<RXWK�DQG�)DPLOLHV��&KLOGUHQV�%XUHDX��ZZZ�DFI�KKV�JRY�SURJUDPV�FE�

The AFCARS Report 3UHOLPLQDU\�)<��(VWLPDWHV�DV�RI�-XO\��1R��

6285&(��$GRSWLRQ�DQG�)RVWHU�&DUH�$QDO\VLV�DQG�5HSRUWLQJ�6\VWHP��$)&$56��)<��GDWD��

Numbers At A Glance � ��

1XPEHU�LQ�IRVWHU�FDUH�RQ�6HSWHPEHU��RI�WKH�)<� ��

1XPEHU�HQWHUHG�IRVWHU�FDUH�GXULQJ��)<� ��

1XPEHU�H[LWHG�IRVWHU�FDUH�GXULQJ�)<� ��

1XPEHU�ZDLWLQJ�WR�EH�DGRSWHG�RQ�6HSWHPEHU��RI�WKH�)<� ��

1XPEHU�ZDLWLQJ�WR�EH�DGRSWHG�ZKRVH�SDUHQWDO�ULJKWV��IRU�DOO�OLYLQJ�SDUHQWV��ZHUH�WHUPLQDWHG�GXULQJ�)<��

1XPEHU�DGRSWHG�ZLWK�SXEOLF�FKLOG�ZHOIDUH�DJHQF\�LQYROYHPHQW�GXULQJ�)<� ��

Children in Foster Care on September 30, 2011 N=400,540��

$JH�DV�RI�6HSWHPEHU��WK�

0HDQ�$JH� �� 0HGLDQ�$JH� ��

/HVV�WKDQ��<HDU� �� <HDU� �� <HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� ��

�

��6H[�

0DOH� �� )HPDOH� ��

� � �

3ODFHPHQW�6HWWLQJV�

3UH�$GRSWLYH�+RPH� �� )RVWHU�)DPLO\�+RPH��5HODWLYH�� )RVWHU�)DPLO\�+RPH��1RQ�5HODWLYH�� *URXS�+RPH� �� ,QVWLWXWLRQ� �� 6XSHUYLVHG�,QGHSHQGHQW�/LYLQJ� �� 5XQDZD\� �� 7ULDO�+RPH�9LVLW� ��

� � �

&DVH�*RDOV�

5HXQLI\�ZLWK�3DUHQW�V��RU�3ULQFLSDO�&DUHWDNHU�V�� /LYH�ZLWK�2WKHU�5HODWLYH�V��

��$GRSWLRQ� ��

��/RQJ�7HUP�)RVWHU�&DUH� �� (PDQFLSDWLRQ� �� *XDUGLDQVKLS� �� &DVH�3ODQ�*RDO�1RW�<HW�(VWDEOLVKHG� ��

�

�

��µ)<¶�UHIHUV�WR�WKH�)HGHUDO�)LVFDO�<HDU��2FWREHU��VW�WKURXJK�6HSWHPEHU��WK��'DWD�IURP�ERWK�WKH�UHJXODU�DQG�UHYLVHG�$)&$56�ILOH�VXEPLVVLRQV�UHFHLYHG�E\�-XO\��DUH�LQFOXGHG�LQ�WKLV�UHSRUW��0LVVLQJ��GDWD�DUH�H[FOXGHG�IURP�HDFK�WDEOH��7KHUHIRUH��WKH�WRWDOV�ZLWKLQ�HDFK�GLVWULEXWLRQ�PD\�QRW�HTXDO�WKH�WRWDO�SURYLGHG�IRU�WKDW�VXESRSXODWLRQ��H�J��QXPEHU�LQ�FDUH�RQ�6HSWHPEHU��WK�PD\�QRW�PDWFK�WKH�VXP�DFURVV�DJHV�IRU�WKDW�JURXS��

2 | 3 D J H �

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb Preliminary Estimates for FY 2011 as of July 2012 (19), Page 2�

�5DFH�DQG�(WKQLFLW\�

$PHULFDQ�,QGLDQ�$ODVNDQ�1DWLYH�� $VLDQ�� %ODFN�RU�$IULFDQ�$PHULFDQ��

1DWLYH�+DZDLLDQ�2WKHU�3DFLILF�,VODQGHU�� +LVSDQLF��RI�DQ\�UDFH�� :KLWH�� 8QNQRZQ�8QDEOH�WR�'HWHUPLQH� �� 7ZR�RU�PRUH�5DFHV��

�127(: $OO�UDFHV�H[FOXGH�FKLOGUHQ�RI�+LVSDQLF�RULJLQ��&KLOGUHQ�RI�+LVSDQLF�HWKQLFLW\�PD\�EH�DQ\�UDFH��

�

�7LPH�LQ�&DUH�

0HDQ�0RQWKV� �� 0HGLDQ�0RQWKV� ��

/HVV�WKDQ��0RQWK� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� ��

��0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV�RU�0RUH� ��

�

�

Children Entering Foster Care during FY 2011 N=252,320��

$JH�DW�(QWU\�


/HVV�WKDQ��<HDU� ��

��<HDU� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��

��<HDUV� ��


$PHULFDQ�,QGLDQ�$ODVNDQ�1DWLYH��

$VLDQ��

%ODFN�RU�$IULFDQ�$PHULFDQ��

1DWLYH�+DZDLLDQ�2WKHU�3DFLILF�,VODQGHU��

+LVSDQLF��RI�DQ\�UDFH��

:KLWH��

8QNQRZQ�8QDEOH�WR�'HWHUPLQH� ��

7ZR�RU�PRUH�5DFHV�� 127(: $OO�UDFHV�H[FOXGH�FKLOGUHQ�RI�+LVSDQLF�RULJLQ��&KLOGUHQ�RI�+LVSDQLF�HWKQLFLW\�PD\�EH�DQ\�UDFH��

��

3 | 3 D J H �



Children Exiting Foster Care during FY 2011 N=245,260��

$JH�DW�([LW�




� � �

7LPH�LQ�&DUH�

0HDQ�0RQWKV� ��0HGLDQ�0RQWKV� ��

/HVV�WKDQ��0RQWK� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV�RU�0RUH� ��

�



$VLDQ��




:KLWH��


7ZR�RU�PRUH�5DFHV�� 127(: $OO�UDFHV�H[FOXGH�FKLOGUHQ�RI�+LVSDQLF�RULJLQ��&KLOGUHQ�RI�+LVSDQLF�HWKQLFLW\�PD\�EH�DQ\�UDFH��

5HDVRQV�IRU�'LVFKDUJH��5HXQLILFDWLRQ�ZLWK�3DUHQW�V��RU�3ULPDU\�&DUHWDNHU�V��

/LYLQJ�ZLWK�2WKHU�5HODWLYH�V��

$GRSWLRQ� ��

(PDQFLSDWLRQ� ��

*XDUGLDQVKLS� ��

7UDQVIHU�WR�$QRWKHU�$JHQF\� ��

5XQDZD\� ��

'HDWK�RI�&KLOG� ��

��

4 | 3 D J H �



Children Waiting to be Adopted3 on September 30, 2011 N=104,236��

$JH�DV�RI�6HSWHPEHU��WK�



��<HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� ��

� � �

3ODFHPHQW�7\SHV�

3UH�$GRSWLYH�+RPH� �� )RVWHU�)DPLO\�+RPH��5HODWLYH�� )RVWHU�)DPLO\�+RPH��1RQ�5HODWLYH��

*URXS�+RPH� �� ,QVWLWXWLRQ� �� 6XSHUYLVHG�,QGHSHQGHQW�/LYLQJ� �� 5XQDZD\� �� 7ULDO�+RPH�9LVLW� ��

� � �6H[�


�

�$JH�DW�(QWU\�LQWR�)RVWHU�&DUH�



��<HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV� ��

� � �

5DFH�DQG�(WKQLFLW\�


$VLDQ��




:KLWH��


7ZR�RU�PRUH�5DFHV��


�

��

��:DLWLQJ�FKLOGUHQ�DUH�LGHQWLILHG�DV�FKLOGUHQ�ZKR�KDYH�D�JRDO�RI�DGRSWLRQ�DQG�RU�ZKRVH�SDUHQWV¶�SDUHQWDO�ULJKWV�KDYH�EHHQ�WHUPLQDWHG��&KLOGUHQ��\HDUV�ROG�DQG�ROGHU�ZKRVH�SDUHQWV¶�SDUHQWDO�ULJKWV�KDYH�EHHQ�WHUPLQDWHG�DQG�ZKR�KDYH�D�JRDO�RI�HPDQFLSDWLRQ�KDYH�EHHQ�H[FOXGHG�IURP�WKH�HVWLPDWH��

5 | 3 D J H �



��1RWH�WKDW�WKH�DGRSWLRQ�GDWD�UHSRUWHG�LQ�WKLV�VHFWLRQ�DUH�IURP�WKH�$)&$56�$GRSWLRQ�ILOH��7KHUHIRUH��WKH�QXPEHU�RI�DGRSWLRQV�UHSRUWHG�KHUH�PD\�QRW�HTXDO�WKH�QXPEHU�UHSRUWHG�DV�GLVFKDUJHV�WR�DGRSWLRQ�IURP�IRVWHU�FDUH��

�

7LPH�LQ�&DUH�



��0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV�RU�0RUH� ��

��

�

2I�&KLOGUHQ�:DLWLQJ�IRU�$GRSWLRQ�ZKRVH�3DUHQWV¶�3DUHQWDO�5LJKWV�KDYH�EHHQ�7HUPLQDWHG��1 ��7LPH�HODSVHG�VLQFH�WHUPLQDWLRQ�RI�SDUHQWDO�ULJKWV�DV�RI�6HSWHPEHU��

��


�

Children Adopted with Public Agency Involvement in FY 20114 N=50,516��

�$JH�DW�$GRSWLRQ�




��

� �

�7LPH�HODSVHG�IURP�7HUPLQDWLRQ�RI�3DUHQWDO�5LJKWV�WR�$GRSWLRQ�



��0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� 0RQWKV� �� <HDUV� �� <HDUV�RU�PRUH� ��

� � �

5DFH�DQG�(WKQLFLW\�

$PHULFDQ�,QGLDQ�$ODVNDQ�1DWLYH�� $VLDQ�� %ODFN�RU�$IULFDQ�$PHULFDQ��

1DWLYH�+DZDLLDQ�2WKHU�3DFLILF�,VODQGHU�� +LVSDQLF��RI�DQ\�UDFH�� :KLWH�� 8QNQRZQ�8QDEOH�WR�'HWHUPLQH� �� 7ZR�RU�PRUH�5DFHV��


��

�

6 | 3 D J H �



�

$GRSWLYH�)DPLO\�6WUXFWXUH�

0DUULHG�&RXSOH� �� 8QPDUULHG�&RXSOH� �� 6LQJOH�)HPDOH� ��

6LQJOH�0DOH� ��

� � �

5HODWLRQVKLS�RI�$GRSWLYH�3DUHQWV�WR�&KLOG�3ULRU�WR�$GRSWLRQ�

1RQ�5HODWLYH� �� )RVWHU�3DUHQW� �� 6WHSSDUHQW� ��

2WKHU�5HODWLYH� ��

��

6H[�


� � �5HFHLYH�$GRSWLRQ�6XEVLG\�

<HV� �� 1R� ��

��

BACK to form. No Frame for DataDude URL. Center for Social Services ResearchUniversity of California at Berkeley2012 Disparity Indices by Ethnicity Ages 0 to 17

California

Numbers(1) Census Numbers Disparity Indices (DI)

Type of Analysis Ethnicity n % n % Rate per1,000 DM(2) Compared

with BlackComparedwith White

Comparedwith Latino

Comparedwith Asian

Allegations Total 487,016 100.00 9,170,526 100.00 53.11

Black 64,755 14.72 507,530 5.79 127.59 2.54 1.00 2.72 2.54 7.47

White 117,601 26.73 2,504,870 28.57 46.95 0.94 0.37 1.00 0.93 2.75

Latino 237,000 53.86 4,716,718 53.81 50.25 1.00 0.39 1.07 1.00 2.94

Asian 17,091 3.88 1,000,576 11.41 17.08 0.34 0.13 0.36 0.34 1.00

Native American 3,590 0.82 36,590 0.42 98.11 1.95 0.77 2.09 1.95 5.74

Other/Missing 46,979 404,243

Sub. Allegations Total 81,764 100.00 9,170,526 100.00 8.92

Black 11,527 14.70 507,530 5.79 22.71 2.54 1.00 2.85 2.46 8.71

White 19,947 25.44 2,504,870 28.57 7.96 0.89 0.35 1.00 0.86 3.05

Latino 43,526 55.51 4,716,718 53.81 9.23 1.03 0.41 1.16 1.00 3.54

Asian 2,609 3.33 1,000,576 11.41 2.61 0.29 0.11 0.33 0.28 1.00

Native American 801 1.02 36,590 0.42 21.89 2.45 0.96 2.75 2.37 8.40


Entries Total 30,483 100.00 9,170,526 100.00 3.32

Black 5,524 18.34 507,530 5.79 10.88 3.17 1.00 3.33 3.39 12.80

White 8,183 27.17 2,504,870 28.57 3.27 0.95 0.30 1.00 1.02 3.84

Latino 15,125 50.21 4,716,718 53.81 3.21 0.93 0.29 0.98 1.00 3.77

Asian 851 2.83 1,000,576 11.41 0.85 0.25 0.08 0.26 0.27 1.00

Native American 439 1.46 36,590 0.42 12.00 3.49 1.10 3.67 3.74 14.11

Other/Missing 361 404,243

In care on July 1, 2012 Total 51,672 100.00 9,170,526 100.00 5.63

Black 11,807 22.91 507,530 5.79 23.26 3.96 1.00 4.51 4.43 18.53

White 12,931 25.10 2,504,870 28.57 5.16 0.88 0.22 1.00 0.98 4.11

Latino 24,746 48.03 4,716,718 53.81 5.25 0.89 0.23 1.02 1.00 4.18

Asian 1,256 2.44 1,000,576 11.41 1.26 0.21 0.05 0.24 0.24 1.00

Native American 786 1.53 36,590 0.42 21.48 3.65 0.92 4.16 4.09 17.11

Other/Missing 146 404,243

Data Source: CWS/CMS 2012 Quarter 4 Extract.Population Data Source: California Department of Finance. Please see: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/population.aspx(1) The percent calculations by ethnicity exclude children with missing ethnicity from the total.For child welfare data (Allegations, Substantiated Allegations, Entries, Children in care), "Other/Missing" is missing race/ethnicity in CWS/CMS.For population data, this category indicates "Multi-race" responses on the Census.(2) DM = Disproportionality Metric

CITATIONS:The suggested way to cite the above data is as follows:Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Williams, D., Yee, H., Hightower, L., Lou, C., Peng, C., King, B.,& Henry, C. (2012) Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved [month day, year], from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/>

BACK to form. No Frame for DataDude URL. Center for Social Services ResearchUniversity of California at Berkeley1998 through 2012 Child Welfare Allegations by EthnicityDisparity Indices Ages 0 to 17

California

Allegations(1) Census Numbers Disparity Index

Year Ethnicity n % n % Rate per1,000 DM(2) Compared

with BlackComparedwith White

Comparedwith Latino

Comparedwith Asian

1998 Total 429,801 100.00 9,203,660 100.00 46.70

Black 70,121 17.40 733,403 7.97 95.61 2.18 1.00 2.10 2.37 6.46

White 155,154 38.51 3,410,932 37.06 45.49 1.04 0.48 1.00 1.13 3.07

Latino 158,412 39.32 3,920,286 42.59 40.41 0.92 0.42 0.89 1.00 2.73

Asian 15,377 3.82 1,038,254 11.28 14.81 0.34 0.15 0.33 0.37 1.00

Native American 3,843 0.95 100,783 1.10 38.13 0.87 0.40 0.84 0.94 2.57

Other/Missing 26,894 0

1999 Total 441,262 100.00 9,243,367 100.00 47.74

Black 71,252 17.39 740,763 8.01 96.19 2.17 1.00 2.13 2.30 6.15

White 151,078 36.87 3,347,733 36.22 45.13 1.02 0.47 1.00 1.08 2.89

Latino 166,904 40.73 3,996,602 43.24 41.76 0.94 0.43 0.93 1.00 2.67

Asian 16,449 4.01 1,052,272 11.38 15.63 0.35 0.16 0.35 0.37 1.00

Native American 4,054 0.99 105,996 1.15 38.25 0.86 0.40 0.85 0.92 2.45

Other/Missing 31,525 0

2000 Total 467,175 100.00 9,226,715 100.00 50.63

Black 72,156 16.76 661,014 7.38 109.16 2.27 1.00 2.29 2.43 6.02

White 153,703 35.70 3,227,350 36.01 47.63 0.99 0.44 1.00 1.06 2.62

Latino 183,479 42.62 4,083,634 45.57 44.93 0.94 0.41 0.94 1.00 2.48

Asian 17,027 3.96 938,377 10.47 18.15 0.38 0.17 0.38 0.40 1.00

Native American 4,140 0.96 51,344 0.57 80.63 1.68 0.74 1.69 1.79 4.44


2001 Total 472,302 100.00 9,351,040 100.00 50.51

Black 70,382 16.21 654,098 7.22 107.60 2.25 1.00 2.26 2.37 6.18

White 152,302 35.07 3,193,579 35.23 47.69 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.05 2.74

Latino 190,865 43.95 4,212,042 46.47 45.31 0.95 0.42 0.95 1.00 2.60

Asian 16,650 3.83 956,223 10.55 17.41 0.36 0.16 0.37 0.38 1.00

Native American 4,063 0.94 48,677 0.54 83.47 1.74 0.78 1.75 1.84 4.79


2002 Total 487,648 100.00 9,439,641 100.00 51.66

Black 71,012 15.89 644,673 7.06 110.15 2.25 1.00 2.29 2.34 6.34

White 151,372 33.87 3,152,413 34.51 48.02 0.98 0.44 1.00 1.02 2.76

Latino 203,587 45.56 4,326,205 47.36 47.06 0.96 0.43 0.98 1.00 2.71

Asian 16,773 3.75 964,823 10.56 17.38 0.36 0.16 0.36 0.37 1.00

Native American 4,118 0.92 46,421 0.51 88.71 1.81 0.81 1.85 1.89 5.10


2003 Total 490,906 100.00 9,522,125 100.00 51.55

Black 71,528 15.95 634,358 6.90 112.76 2.31 1.00 2.40 2.39 6.36

White 145,599 32.48 3,103,878 33.74 46.91 0.96 0.42 1.00 0.99 2.64

Latino 209,902 46.82 4,440,874 48.28 47.27 0.97 0.42 1.01 1.00 2.66

Asian 17,287 3.86 974,683 10.60 17.74 0.36 0.16 0.38 0.38 1.00

Native American 4,023 0.90 44,735 0.49 89.93 1.85 0.80 1.92 1.90 5.07


2004 Total 489,617 100.00 9,559,942 100.00 51.22

Black 69,966 15.58 621,879 6.74 112.51 2.31 1.00 2.40 2.37 6.52

White 142,790 31.80 3,045,977 33.03 46.88 0.96 0.42 1.00 0.99 2.71

Latino 215,144 47.92 4,532,148 49.14 47.47 0.98 0.42 1.01 1.00 2.75

Asian 16,917 3.77 979,618 10.62 17.27 0.35 0.15 0.37 0.36 1.00

Native American 4,180 0.93 43,149 0.47 96.87 1.99 0.86 2.07 2.04 5.61


2005 Total 480,615 100.00 9,551,284 100.00 50.32

Black 68,775 15.49 607,462 6.60 113.22 2.35 1.00 2.47 2.39 6.57

White 136,146 30.65 2,974,859 32.32 45.77 0.95 0.40 1.00 0.97 2.66

Latino 218,071 49.10 4,598,698 49.97 47.42 0.98 0.42 1.04 1.00 2.75

Asian 16,892 3.80 980,526 10.65 17.23 0.36 0.15 0.38 0.36 1.00

Native American 4,253 0.96 41,780 0.45 101.79 2.11 0.90 2.22 2.15 5.91


2006 Total 482,414 100.00 9,550,173 100.00 50.51

Black 69,183 15.34 595,062 6.47 116.26 2.37 1.00 2.56 2.37 6.57

White 132,369 29.35 2,911,834 31.68 45.46 0.93 0.39 1.00 0.93 2.57

Latino 228,108 50.59 4,658,641 50.69 48.96 1.00 0.42 1.08 1.00 2.77

Asian 17,415 3.86 983,849 10.71 17.70 0.36 0.15 0.39 0.36 1.00

Native American 3,856 0.86 40,917 0.45 94.24 1.92 0.81 2.07 1.92 5.32


2007 Total 491,933 100.00 9,549,093 100.00 51.52

Black 68,587 14.87 583,892 6.36 117.47 2.34 1.00 2.56 2.31 6.45

White 130,895 28.39 2,855,496 31.11 45.84 0.91 0.39 1.00 0.90 2.52

Latino 239,907 52.03 4,711,232 51.33 50.92 1.01 0.43 1.11 1.00 2.80

Asian 17,981 3.90 987,544 10.76 18.21 0.36 0.16 0.40 0.36 1.00

Native American 3,731 0.81 40,437 0.44 92.27 1.84 0.79 2.01 1.81 5.07


2008 Total 486,212 100.00 9,525,912 100.00 51.04

Black 67,954 14.90 573,526 6.27 118.48 2.38 1.00 2.64 2.34 6.38

White 125,489 27.52 2,796,296 30.57 44.88 0.90 0.38 1.00 0.89 2.42

Latino 240,436 52.74 4,748,172 51.91 50.64 1.02 0.43 1.13 1.00 2.73

Asian 18,373 4.03 989,273 10.81 18.57 0.37 0.16 0.41 0.37 1.00

Native American 3,670 0.80 40,154 0.44 91.40 1.83 0.77 2.04 1.80 4.92


2009 Total 471,767 100.00 9,307,822 100.00 50.69

Black 65,983 14.93 545,047 6.11 121.06 2.44 1.00 2.67 2.44 6.77

White 120,574 27.28 2,654,374 29.75 45.42 0.92 0.38 1.00 0.91 2.54

Latino 234,433 53.04 4,718,325 52.88 49.69 1.00 0.41 1.09 1.00 2.78

Asian 17,260 3.91 965,249 10.82 17.88 0.36 0.15 0.39 0.36 1.00

Native American 3,725 0.84 39,093 0.44 95.29 1.92 0.79 2.10 1.92 5.33


2010 Total 479,289 100.00 9,270,132 100.00 51.70

Black 66,604 14.93 526,897 5.94 126.41 2.52 1.00 2.69 2.52 7.54

White 120,450 27.00 2,560,554 28.84 47.04 0.94 0.37 1.00 0.94 2.81

Latino 238,472 53.45 4,745,294 53.45 50.25 1.00 0.40 1.07 1.00 3.00

Asian 16,873 3.78 1,006,931 11.34 16.76 0.33 0.13 0.36 0.33 1.00

Native American 3,764 0.84 37,540 0.42 100.27 1.99 0.79 2.13 2.00 5.98


2011 Total 475,477 100.00 9,214,425 100.00 51.60

Black 65,139 14.90 517,366 5.87 125.91 2.54 1.00 2.70 2.55 7.56

White 117,980 26.98 2,534,407 28.75 46.55 0.94 0.37 1.00 0.94 2.80

Latino 233,870 53.48 4,727,795 53.64 49.47 1.00 0.39 1.06 1.00 2.97

Asian 16,620 3.80 998,034 11.32 16.65 0.34 0.13 0.36 0.34 1.00

Native American 3,657 0.84 36,859 0.42 99.22 2.00 0.79 2.13 2.01 5.96


2012 Total 487,016 100.00 9,170,526 100.00 53.11

Black 64,755 14.72 507,530 5.79 127.59 2.54 1.00 2.72 2.54 7.47

White 117,601 26.73 2,504,870 28.57 46.95 0.94 0.37 1.00 0.93 2.75

Latino 237,000 53.86 4,716,718 53.81 50.25 1.00 0.39 1.07 1.00 2.94

Asian 17,091 3.88 1,000,576 11.41 17.08 0.34 0.13 0.36 0.34 1.00

Native American 3,590 0.82 36,590 0.42 98.11 1.95 0.77 2.09 1.95 5.74


Data Source: CWS/CMS 2012 Quarter 4 Extract.Population Data Source: California Department of Finance. Please see: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/population.aspx(1) The percent calculations by ethnicity exclude children with missing ethnicity from the total.For child welfare data (Allegations), "Other/Missing" is missing race/ethnicity in CWS/CMS.For population data, this category indicates "Multi-race" responses on the Census.(2) DM = Disproportionality Metric

CITATIONS:The suggested way to cite the above data is as follows:Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Williams, D., Yee, H., Hightower, L., Lou, C., Peng, C., King, B.,& Henry, C. (2012) Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved [month day, year], from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/>

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDhnRXgyWHJtLTFmb1FLbHQ1cG9ONXc6MA#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDFlZW9BX2VoRGk1TWUwOWFjLWxRWFE6MQ#gid=0

Documents

Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) - California State ... Revision April 2006 Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) About the training The Federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, and the