This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-863 
entitled 'Child Welfare: More Information and Collaboration Could 
Promote Ties Between Foster Care Children and Their Incarcerated 
Parents' which was released on September 26, 2011. 

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

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

United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2011: 

Child Welfare: 

More Information and Collaboration Could Promote Ties Between Foster 
Care Children and Their Incarcerated Parents: 

GAO-11-863: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-863, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Federal law sets timelines for states’ decisions about placing foster 
care children in permanent homes, and, in some cases, for filing to 
terminate parental rights. Some policymakers have questioned the 
reasonableness of these timelines for children of incarcerated parents 
and expressed interest in how states work with these families. GAO was 
asked to examine: (1) the number of foster care children with 
incarcerated parents, (2) strategies used by child welfare and 
corrections agencies in selected states that may support contact or 
reunification, and (3) how the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have helped these agencies 
support affected children and families. GAO analyzed national data, 
reviewed federal policies, interviewed state child welfare and 
corrections officials in 10 selected states that contain almost half 
of the nation’s prison and foster care populations, and visited local 
child welfare agencies and prisons. 

What GAO Found: 

Foster care children with an incarcerated parent are not a well-
identified population, although they are likely to number in the tens 
of thousands. HHS data collected from states show that, in 2009 alone, 
more than 14,000 children entered foster care due at least partly to 
the incarceration of a parent. This may be an undercount, however, due 
to some underreporting from states and other factors. For instance, 
the data do not identify when a parent is incarcerated after the child 
entered foster care—a more common occurrence, according to case 
workers GAO interviewed. HHS is currently developing a proposal for 
new state reporting requirements on all foster care children; however, 
officials had not determined whether these new requirements would 
include more information collected from states on children with 
incarcerated parents. 

In 10 selected states, GAO found a range of strategies that support 
family ties. Some state child welfare agencies have provided guidance 
and training to caseworkers for managing such cases; and local 
agencies have worked with dependency courts to help inmates 
participate in child welfare hearings by phone or other means. For 
their part, some corrections agencies ease children’s visits to 
prisons with special visitation hours and programs. In several cases, 
corrections agencies and child welfare agencies have collaborated, 
which has resulted in some interagency training for personnel, the 
creation of liaison staff positions, and video visitation facilitated 
by non-profit providers. 

HHS and DOJ each provide information and assistance to child welfare 
and corrections agencies on behalf of these children and families. For 
example, both federal agencies post information on their websites for 
practitioners working with children or their incarcerated parents, 
with some specific to foster care. The HHS information, however, was 
not always up to date or centrally organized, and officials from most 
of the state child welfare and corrections agencies GAO interviewed 
said they would benefit from information on how to serve these 
children. Further, DOJ has not developed protocols for federal prisons 
under its own jurisdiction for working with child welfare agencies and 
their staff, although GAO heard from some state and local child 
welfare officials that collaboration between child welfare and 
corrections agencies would facilitate their work with foster care 
children and their parents. This would also be in keeping with a DOJ 
agency goal to build partnerships with other entities to improve 
services and promote reintegration of offenders into communities. 

Figure: Examples of Strategies to Support Family Ties: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Video visit with incarcerated parent; 
Children’s visiting room in women’s prison. 

Source: © May 2011 The Osborne Association; photo by Jonathan Stenger 
(left); GAO (right). 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that HHS improve its data on the foster care children 
of incarcerated parents and that it more systematically disseminate 
information to child welfare agencies. GAO also recommends that DOJ 
consider ways to promote collaboration between corrections and child 
welfare agencies, including establishing protocols for federal prisons 
to facilitate communication between these entities. HHS and DOJ agreed 
with GAO’s recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-863]. For more 
information, contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Foster Care Children with an Incarcerated Parent Are Not a Well- 
Identified Population, but Available Data Suggest They Number in the 
Thousands: 

Strategies for Preserving Families Include Flexibility in Timelines 
for Terminating Parental Rights, Programs for Parents, and Interagency 
Collaboration: 

HHS and DOJ Provide Some Relevant Information and Assistance, but 
State Agencies Are Not Always Aware of These Resources: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Children with Parents in Residential Drug Treatment 
Facilities: 

Appendix III: Provisions from Selected State Statutes on Termination 
of Parental Rights and "Reasonable Efforts" That Specifically Address 
Incarcerated Parents: 

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

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Outcomes for Children Exiting Foster Care in Fiscal Year 2009: 

Table 2: Types of Correctional Facilities: 

Table 3: Children Removed from Home Due At Least Partly to Parental 
Incarceration, 2009 Open Cases, by Year of Removal, 2007-2009: 

Table 4: Information on Selected States: 

Table 5: RPG Performance Indicators: 

Table 6: Selected State Statutory Provisions Related to Incarcerated 
Parents and the Termination of Parental Rights: 

Table 7: Selected State Statutory Provisions Related to Incarcerated 
Parents and Reasonable Efforts to Preserve and Reunify the Family: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Sample Timeline for Child Welfare Agency and Dependency 
Court Actions after a Child Enters Foster Care: 

Figure 2: Estimated Number of Children under 18 of Inmates in Federal 
and State Prisons between 1991 and 2007: 

Figure 3: AFCARS Data Capture Only Those Children Who Are Removed from 
the Home and Placed into Foster Care Due at Least Partly to the 
Incarceration of a Parent: 

Figure 4: Estimates of the Percentage of Incarcerated Parents 
Reporting Care Arrangements for Children in 2002 and 2004 from BJS 
Surveys: 

Figure 5: Examples of Ways Child Welfare Agencies Can Work with 
Incarcerated Parents: 

Figure 6: Flyer on Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Incarcerated 
Parents: 

Figure 7: Reentry MythBusters Flyer: 

Figure 8: Responses from Selected State Corrections Agencies and BOP 
on the Extent that Additional Assistance from DOJ Would Be Useful: 

Figure 9: Potential Partners of Residential Drug Treatment Programs: 

Abbreviations: 

ACF: Administration for Children and Families: 

AFCARS: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System: 

ASFA: Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997: 

ASPE: Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation: 

BJS: Bureau of Justice Statistics: 

BOP: Bureau of Prisons: 

CFSR: Child and Family Services Reviews: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

PPW: Services Grant Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and 
Postpartum Women: 

RPG: Regional Partnership Grant: 

RWC: Residential Treatment for Women and their Children: 

SAMHSA: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 26, 2011: 

The Honorable Jim McDermott: 
The Honorable Charles Rangel: 
House of Representatives: 

Some of our nation's most vulnerable children are those who have been 
removed from their homes and placed in foster care, often due to 
neglect or abuse.[Footnote 1] At the end of fiscal year 2009, 423,773 
children were in foster care, according to the most recent available 
data from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Some 
researchers and advocates maintain that there has been a growth in the 
number of foster care children with an incarcerated parent, due in 
part to an increase in the number of incarcerated mothers over the 
years. While incarcerated fathers made up more than 90 percent of the 
809,800 parents in prison in 2007, according to the most recent 
estimates from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the number of mothers 
in prison more than doubled from 1991 to 2007 (29,500 to 65,600, 
respectively). Some researchers and advocacy groups have also 
questioned whether child welfare and corrections systems have 
overlooked the rehabilitation of these parents and the assessment of 
opportunities to preserve family ties, when appropriate. They have 
further raised concerns about whether federal foster care timelines 
for filing to terminate parental rights--intended to place children 
more quickly into permanent adoptive homes--have inappropriately 
affected these families, given the length of time some parents are 
incarcerated. Meanwhile, although states and local agencies have 
primary responsibility for administering child welfare services, the 
federal government provides about $8 billion annually to states for 
child welfare programs, including for foster care programs.[Footnote 
2] In addition, corrections agencies at the local, state, and federal 
level may play a role in efforts to establish bonds between 
incarcerated parents and their children through their policies and 
programs. 

In this context, you asked us to address the following questions: (1) 
How many children in foster care have an incarcerated parent? (2) What 
strategies have child welfare and corrections agencies in selected 
states used that could support contact or reunification, when 
appropriate, between these children and their incarcerated parents? 
(3) In what ways do HHS and DOJ help child welfare and corrections 
agencies in working with these children and their incarcerated parents? 

To address these questions, we used several methodologies. First, we 
reviewed relevant national data on foster care children maintained by 
HHS and on incarcerated parents from surveys, administered by DOJ's 
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), of inmates[Footnote 3] in state 
and federal prisons and local jails. We reviewed the methods and 
survey design used to produce the data from both of these sources, as 
applicable, and, through interviews with knowledgeable agency 
officials and our own analyses, we determined that the data we used 
were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Second, we conducted 
structured telephone interviews with state administrators of child 
welfare and corrections agencies in 10 selected states[Footnote 4] to 
gather relevant information on the extent to which states collect data 
on our target population, state policies and programs, and officials' 
perspectives on challenges and areas in which additional federal 
assistance would be useful. States were selected to represent nearly 
half of the prison inmates and foster care children in the United 
States and for geographic variation. Some states were also selected 
because they had been identified by researchers and professionals 
knowledgeable on these topics as having strategies (policies, 
programs, or practices) aimed at supporting parent-child ties either 
statewide or in localities within the state. For these 10 states, we 
also reviewed selected child welfare statutes and other policies. 
Third, to gather more in-depth information at the local level, we 
conducted site visits in 4 of the 10 states and interviewed local 
child welfare officials and caseworkers; dependency court judges; 
[Footnote 5] corrections staff primarily from prison facilities as 
well as a few jails; community service providers; and, in a few cases, 
incarcerated parents and former foster care youth. The information we 
gathered from our phone interviews and site visits is not 
generalizable to all states and localities. In addition, while we 
collected information about relevant strategies used in our selected 
states, we did not review how widespread these were practiced in each 
state. Fourth, we interviewed HHS and DOJ officials knowledgeable 
about pertinent agency activities and reviewed relevant federal laws, 
regulations, policies and other agency documentation. Last, we 
interviewed researchers and professionals from a range of national 
organizations, including family resource centers, corrections 
associations, and child welfare organizations, and reviewed available 
literature from these groups. See appendix I for additional 
information on our methodology. 

Background: 

Foster Care Children and the Child Welfare System: 

A child generally enters foster care after a dependency court and a 
child welfare agency have determined that the child should be removed 
from his or her home, for reasons such as substantiated abuse or 
neglect.[Footnote 6] Children in foster care may be temporarily placed 
in various types of out-of-home care arrangements, including in a 
foster home with relatives, in a foster home with nonrelatives, or in 
a group residential setting. Federal law requires that state child 
welfare agencies consider giving preference to placing children with 
qualified relatives, if consistent with the best interest of the 
child.[Footnote 7] Approximately one-quarter of children in foster 
care in fiscal year 2009 lived with relatives, according to HHS data. 
[Footnote 8] 

[Side bar: 
Sample elements in a case plan relating to parent-child contact or 
reunification: 
* Permanency goal (e.g., reunification); 
* Services for child (e.g., counseling or health services); 
* Services for parents (e.g., parenting classes or substance abuse or 
mental health treatment); 
* Visitation/communication schedules (e.g., between parent and child); 
* Target return dates, if reunification is the goal; 
* Plans for alternative placement if reunification goals are not met. 
End of side bar] 

Federal law also requires child welfare agencies to make "reasonable 
efforts" to preserve and reunify families in most cases,[Footnote 9] 
but leaves it to states to define what these efforts entail, on a case 
by case basis. However, at a minimum, child welfare agencies must make 
a diligent effort to identify and notify all adult relatives shortly 
after the child's removal from the custody of the parent.[Footnote 10] 
They must also develop a case plan for each foster care child which, 
among other requirements, must describe the services that will be 
provided to the parents, child, and foster parents to facilitate the 
child's return to his or her own home or permanent placement, and 
address the child's needs while in foster care.[Footnote 11] The plan 
may also specify goals for placing the child in a permanent home and 
the steps that a parent (or the principal caretaker) must take before 
a child can be returned home, if reunification is the goal. 

In general, returning children to their home is the preferred goal of 
state child welfare agencies, but this goal is still dependent on 
various factors, such as the extent that a parent has completed 
rehabilitative treatment or maintained a meaningful role in the 
child's life through visits or other forms of contact. In fiscal year 
2009, about half of the nation's children who exited foster care were 
reunified with their parent or primary caretaker (see table 1). 

Table 1: Outcomes for Children Exiting Foster Care in Fiscal Year 2009: 

Outcome: Reunification with parent or primary caretaker; 
Percentage of total: 51%; 
Number of children: 140,061. 

Outcome: Adoption; 
Percentage of total: 20%; 
Number of children: 55,684. 

Outcome: Emancipation[A]; 
Percentage of total: 11%; 
Number of children: 29,471. 

Outcome: Living with other relative; 
Percentage of total: 8%; 
Number of children: 21,424. 

Outcome: Guardianship[B]; 
Percentage of total: 7%; 
Number of children: 19,290. 

Outcome: Other; 
Percentage of total: 3%; 
Number of children: 8,849. 

Source: GAO presentation of HHS data. 

[A] Emancipation occurs when the child exits foster care because he or 
she has reached majority under state law, such as by getting married 
or reaching a certain age, typically 18 to 21 years old. See 45 C.F.R. 
pt. 1355 app. A § II. 

[B] Legal guardianship is a court-ordered relationship which is 
intended to be permanent and involves transferring some parental 
rights to the guardian, such as protection, education, caretaking, and 
decision-making, but it does not require termination of all parental 
rights. It is considered a permanent care arrangement under federal 
child welfare law. See 42 U.S.C. § 675 (5)(C)(i), 675(7). 

[End of table] 

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) was passed, in part, 
in response to concerns about the length of time children were 
spending in foster care and included provisions to facilitate child 
welfare agencies' ability to place children more quickly into safe and 
permanent homes.[Footnote 12] For example, the law requires child 
welfare agencies to hold permanency hearings within 12 months of the 
child's entering foster care to determine the permanent placement for 
the child and requires child welfare agencies to file a petition to 
terminate parental rights when a child has been in foster care for 15 
of the most recent 22 months[Footnote 13] (see figure 1). However, 
states are not required to file for termination of parental rights if 
a child is in the care of relatives, the state has not provided 
necessary services to the family consistent with the case plan, or the 
state agency documents a compelling reason why filing for termination 
is not in the best interests of the child.[Footnote 14] These 
timelines and possible exceptions are relevant for incarcerated 
parents who have children in foster care, as 44 percent of inmates 
released from state prisons in 2008 served sentences longer than a 
year.[Footnote 15] Since the enactment of ASFA, the number of children 
in foster care nationwide has declined by more than 100,000, based on 
HHS data collected on children in care at the end of each fiscal year. 

Figure 1: Sample Timeline for Child Welfare Agency and Dependency 
Court Actions after a Child Enters Foster Care: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Child removed from home: Dependency court determines that child should 
be removed. 

30 days after: 
Child welfare agency Identifies and notifies all adult relatives; 

60 days after: 

* Dependency court develops case plan that outlines steps needed to 
reunify child with parent or place in an alternative home; 
* Dependency court continues to work with family on case plan for 
first 12 months; 
Child welfare agency: 
* May approve foster care placement and case plan; 
* Determines if reasonable efforts to prevent removal were made or 
excused. 

Within 6 months: 

Child welfare agency: 
Reviews status of case,such as whether child’s placement is still 
appropriate and the progress with case plan goals. 

Within 12 months: 

Child welfare agency: 
* Holds a permanency hearing to determine whether reunification or 
other option should be pursued; 
* Determines whether reasonable efforts were made to finalize the 
permanency plan. 

Child has been in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months: 

Dependency court: 
Petitions court to terminate parental rights unless an exception 
applies. 

Child welfare agency: 
Sometime later, holds a hearing to terminate parental rights if 
determines appropriate. 

Sources: GAO analysis of federal laws and other information sources. 

Note: This timeline is illustrative. For example, it does not include 
instances in which a court determines that reasonable efforts to 
reunify the family are not required or when a child is removed through 
a voluntary placement agreement with the child's parent or legal 
guardian. As a result, this timeline may vary based on a child's 
individual circumstances. 

[End of figure] 

HHS administers federal grant programs and provides information, 
training, and technical assistance to state child welfare systems. It 
uses its Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 
(AFCARS) to capture, report, and analyze information collected by the 
states. On a semiannual basis, all states submit data to HHS 
concerning all foster care children for whom state child welfare 
agencies have responsibility for placement, care, or supervision. HHS 
also uses its Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) to regularly 
evaluate state child welfare systems' conformity with federal 
requirements and help states improve their provision of child welfare 
services.[Footnote 16] These reviews examine a range of outcomes and 
actions to assess states' performance and enhance their capacity to 
ensure children's safety, permanency, and well-being. For example, 
among many other factors, HHS examines states' attempts to preserve 
parent-child relationships and involve parents in discussions about 
the child's case plan. To help states provide child welfare services, 
HHS offers states training and technical assistance through its 
Children's Bureau, as well as through its regional offices and various 
National Resource Centers. HHS also provides information and resources 
through its website, "The Child Welfare Information Gateway," which is 
meant to serve as a comprehensive information resource for the child 
welfare field.[Footnote 17] 

Children of Incarcerated Parents and the Corrections System: 

Many children, not only those in foster care, have an incarcerated 
parent, and this number has grown over time. Since the early 1990s, 
the number of individuals in prison almost doubled from a little fewer 
than 800,000 in 1991 to more than 1.5 million in 2009. Many of these 
individuals have children.[Footnote 18] As of 2007, an estimated 1.7 
million children under the age of 18 had a parent in prison--an 
increase of almost 80 percent since 1991 (see figure 2). Fathers 
comprise more than 90 percent of the parents in prison and their 
numbers increased about 75 percent between 1991 and 2007. Meanwhile, 
the number of incarcerated mothers, who were more likely to be primary 
caretakers before incarceration, more than doubled during this 
time.[Footnote 19] Children who are minorities are disproportionately 
more likely to have an incarcerated parent than white children. In 
2007, compared to non-Hispanic white children, non-Hispanic black 
children were more than seven times more likely to have a parent in 
prison and Hispanic children were more than two times more likely. 

Figure 2: Estimated Number of Children under 18 of Inmates in Federal 
and State Prisons between 1991 and 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

 Color A Color B 

Fiscal year: 1991; 
Children of fathers in prison: 881,500; 
Children of mothers in prison: 63,900; 
Total: 945,400. 

Fiscal year: 1997; 
Children of fathers in prison: 1,252,200; 
Children of mothers in prison: 110,700; 
Total: 1,362,900. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Children of fathers in prison: 1,458,900; 
Children of mothers in prison: 131,200; 
Total: 1,590,100. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Children of fathers in prison: 1,559,200; 
Children of mothers in prison: 147,400; 
Total: 1,746,600. 

Sources: BJS estimates using data from surveys of inmates in federal 
and state prisons in 1991,1997, and 2004 and data from the prisoner 
custody populations by gender in each year. 

Note: BJS estimated the number of parents and children in 2007 based 
on findings from the 2004 surveys and counts of the prisoner 
population in 2007 by gender. 

[End of figure] 

Incarcerated parents may have a history of complex problems, such as 
substance abuse, mental illness, or past trauma. For instance, in 
2004, about two-thirds of parents in state prisons met clinical 
criteria for having substance dependence or abuse based on BJS's most 
recent available estimates. The federal government supports a number 
of residential treatment programs that focus specifically on the 
treatment of parents with substance abuse problems. Although these 
programs may require parents with substance abuse problems to live 
away from home, they generally serve nonincarcerated parents. (See 
appendix II for more information.) Mental health and medical problems 
were also common for incarcerated parents, although women reported 
these at higher rates. Incarcerated mothers were also much more likely 
than fathers to report past physical or sexual abuse (64 percent for 
mothers in state prison versus 16 percent for fathers). 

The Second Chance Act of 2007[Footnote 20] was enacted to, among other 
goals, reduce recidivism and provide for services to assist people 
transitioning back into the community from prisons and jails. The act 
amended existing federal grant programs and established new grant 
programs for state agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide a 
variety of programs or services that include employment assistance, 
substance abuse treatment, and help in maintaining or reestablishing 
family ties. 

DOJ's Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) oversees and establishes central 
policy for 116 federal prison facilities, but it does not have 
authority over or establish policies for state or local corrections 
agencies or facilities (see table 2). Nevertheless, DOJ provides 
assistance to these entities in the form of discretionary grants, 
technical assistance, and information. 

Table 2: Types of Correctional Facilities: 

Facility: Federal prisons; 
Description: Typically, inmates charged with or convicted of federal 
crimes[A]; 
Overseeing body: BOP; 
Number of inmates at year-end 2009: 208,118. 

Facility: State prisons; 
Description: Typically, inmates sentenced for state crimes; 
Overseeing body: State department of corrections; 
Number of inmates at year-end 2009: 1,405,622. 

Facility: Jails; 
Description: Typically, inmates who are pending trial, awaiting 
sentencing, or serving a sentence that is less than a year; 
Overseeing body: Typically, local law enforcement[B]; 
Number of inmates at year-end 2009: 760,400. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal laws and information from DOJ. 

[A] Federal crimes are acts made illegal by federal law. In 2009, the 
majority of federal inmates were in prison for drug-related and public-
order offenses, including those involving immigration and weapons, 
according to data from DOJ. 

[B] Some state corrections departments oversee some jail facilities in 
their state, such as by having integrated systems which combine 
prisons and jails. 

[End of table] 

Foster Care Children with an Incarcerated Parent Are Not a Well- 
Identified Population, but Available Data Suggest They Number in the 
Thousands: 

The complete number of foster care children with an incarcerated 
parent cannot be identified in the database that HHS employs as part 
of its oversight of state programs, but their numbers can be 
reasonably estimated as being in the many thousands. HHS has proposed 
changes to state reporting requirements that would shed more light on 
these children; however, the department is currently in the process of 
revising that proposal and officials had not yet determined if 
collecting additional data on incarcerated parents will be included in 
the new proposed requirements. Also, some states are attempting to 
better identify them and to determine their needs. 

The National Foster Care Data System Offers Limited Information, but 
Shows Thousands of These Children Enter Foster Care Annually: 

HHS data provided by states identified at least several thousand 
children nationwide who entered foster care due to the incarceration 
of a parent in a recent year, but this does not include the total 
population of foster care children with incarcerated parents. Through 
its national data system, AFCARS, HHS collects information about the 
characteristics and experiences of children in the foster care system, 
such as their age, race, and the factors associated with their removal 
from the home and placement into foster care.[Footnote 21] One 
potential reason for a child's removal, among many others listed in 
AFCARS, is the incarceration of a parent.[Footnote 22] From this 
information, it is possible to identify some foster care children with 
an incarcerated parent--those who have entered foster care solely or 
in part for the reason of parental incarceration--but it is not 
possible to identify these children in other circumstances (see figure 
3). Our analysis of AFCARS information identified approximately 14,000 
children who entered foster care at least partly because of parental 
incarceration in 2009 alone (about 8 percent of all children entering 
foster care in 2009);[Footnote 23] however, this is an undercount of 
foster care children with an incarcerated parent for several reasons. 
First, this number does not include children who enter foster care in 
other circumstances, such as: 

* When a parent is incarcerated sometime before the child enters 
foster care. For example, a child welfare official and a researcher 
told us that some children are placed with a relative when a parent is 
incarcerated, and then enter foster care when this relative-care 
situation places the child at risk of abuse or neglect. 

* When a parent is incarcerated sometime after the child enters foster 
care.[Footnote 24] 

* When an incarcerated parent, such as a noncustodial father, was not 
the child's caretaker at the time of removal. 

Researchers and local officials we interviewed noted that these 
circumstances were more common than placement in foster care 
specifically due to parental incarceration. While such additional 
information about a parent's incarceration may be in the child's 
individual child welfare case file, it is not reported in the data 
conveyed to HHS and incorporated into AFCARS. 

Figure 3: AFCARS Data Capture Only Those Children Who Are Removed from 
the Home and Placed into Foster Care Due at Least Partly to the 
Incarceration of a Parent: 

[Refer to PDF for image: overlapping circles] 

All children with an incarcerated parent: 

All children in foster care: 

Overlap: 
Children in foster care with an incarcerated parent, regardless of 
reason for removal from home: 

AFCARS data capture only those children whose removal from the home 
and placement into foster care were due at least partly to the 
incarceration of a parent. 

Sources: GAO analysis of DOJ and AFCARS data. 

[End of figure] 

Second, state reporting on these children for AFCARS is not 
necessarily as complete as HHS requires. For example: 

* HHS's AFCARS regulations require state child welfare caseworkers to 
report all applicable actions or conditions associated with a child's 
removal from the home, but staff sometimes enter only one reason. One 
state official and one local official told us that, even if 
incarceration were involved, a case worker may opt for a more general 
reason, such as neglect.[Footnote 25] 

* New York, which has the second largest foster care population in the 
United States, has historically not reported data on any reasons for 
removal due to some localities' older data systems, according to HHS 
officials.[Footnote 26] 

* Similarly, a few states can report information on only one reason 
for removal due to older data systems and, therefore, have not 
regularly reported instances in which a second reason might apply. 

HHS officials noted that the department assists state efforts to 
comply with AFCARS reporting requirements in several ways. For 
example, HHS has assessed most states' AFCARS information systems to 
determine states' abilities to collect, extract, and transmit AFCARS 
data accurately, as well as to review the timeliness and accuracy of 
data entry by caseworkers. When an HHS review team determines that a 
state does not fully satisfy the AFCARS standards, the state must make 
corrections identified by that team. HHS regional offices also work 
with states to improve their reporting by implementing training, 
supervisory oversight, and quality assurance, according to HHS 
officials. 

The fact that foster care children of incarcerated parents are not a 
well-identified population nationally precludes analyzing those 
children's characteristics and experiences, or determining whether 
they differ from other foster care children in terms of their 
backgrounds, case management, or outcomes. 

Acknowledging that much of AFCARS information on the family's 
circumstances is gathered only at the time a child enters foster care--
when child welfare workers know the least about the family's 
situation--HHS, in January 2008, proposed changing its state reporting 
requirements to require both additional and more current information. 
[Footnote 27] Specifically, the department proposed collecting 
additional data on circumstances that affect the child and family, 
such as a caretaker's incarceration, at multiple times throughout a 
foster care case.[Footnote 28] However, due to significant statutory 
amendments made in October 2008 to the federal foster care and 
adoption assistance programs,[Footnote 29] in 2010, HHS announced 
plans to publish a new proposal to revise AFCARS and solicited 
suggestions about what case-level data would be important for agencies 
to collect and report to HHS.[Footnote 30] HHS officials told us that 
they are currently developing the new proposal for reporting 
requirements and estimated that it would be issued for public comment 
in February 2012. Officials had not yet determined whether the new 
proposed rule would include the same requirements on gathering 
additional information on a caretaker's incarceration at multiple 
times throughout the foster care case as had been included in the 2008 
proposal. Officials also said that they did not know when a final set 
of reporting requirements would be issued, as such timing is, in part, 
dependent on the comments received in response to the proposed rule. 

DOJ Survey Data Suggest Thousands of Foster Care Children Have an 
Incarcerated Parent: 

Although HHS data do not identify the complete number of foster care 
children with an incarcerated parent, BJS inmate surveys from 2004 and 
2002--the most recent years available--suggest that there are many 
thousands of these children. Specifically, based on the 2004 survey of 
federal and state prison inmates, we estimate that about 19,300 
inmates (about 13,700 men and 5,600 women)[Footnote 31] had at least 
one child in foster or agency care in 2004 and that the total number 
of these children likely exceeded 22,800.[Footnote 32] Similarly, a 
2002 survey of inmates in local jails estimated that approximately 
12,000[Footnote 33] of these parents in jail had at least one child in 
foster care or cared for through an agency in 2002.[Footnote 34] These 
surveys asked a nationally representative sample of inmates about 
their children, the care arrangements for those children, and other 
questions regarding their families' circumstances and experiences. 
[Footnote 35] The surveys also found that a higher percentage of 
mothers have at least one child in foster care; some state officials 
said that this is because fewer incarcerated mothers, compared to 
incarcerated fathers, have the option of having the other parent take 
care of the child (see figure 4). Nevertheless, close to 90 percent 
[Footnote 36] of all parents in state and federal prison (mothers and 
fathers) with a child in foster care reported that they had shared or 
had been providing most of the care for their child prior to their 
incarceration, based on the 2004 survey. 

Figure 4: Estimates of the Percentage of Incarcerated Parents 
Reporting Care Arrangements for Children in 2002 and 2004 from BJS 
Surveys: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Incarcerated mothers (state and federal prisons): 
Foster home/agency: 10.2% (margin of error: 5-15%); 
Other parent: 36.5% (margin of error: 30-45%); 
Other relative: 62.6% (margin of error: 55-70%). 

Incarcerated fathers (state and federal prisons): 
Foster home/agency: 2.1% (margin of error: 5%); 
Other parent: 88.5% (margin of error: 88-90%); 
Other relative: 16.1% (margin of error: 15-17%). 

Incarcerated mothers (local jails): 
Foster home/agency: 9.9% (margin of error: 8-10%); 
Other parent: 36.1% (margin of error: 30-40%); 
Other relative: 58.3% (margin of error: 55-65%). 

Incarcerated fathers (local jails:) 
Foster home/agency: 2.4% (margin of error: 1-3%); 
Other parent: 87.5% (margin of error: 86-88%); 
Other relative: 16.2% (margin of error: 15-17%). 

Sources: GAO analyses of data from BJS’s 2004 surveys of inmates in 
federal and state prisons and 2002 survey of inmates in local jails. 

Notes: Statistics may sum to more than 100 percent because some 
prisoners had multiple minor children living with multiple caregivers, 
including friends (not included in this chart). Error bars in this 
figure display 95 percent confidence intervals for estimates. 

[End of figure] 

Estimates of the number of inmates with children in foster care may be 
a conservative indicator of the number of children of inmates that are 
in foster care settings. This is because the inmate surveys do not 
fully account for inmates who have more than one child in foster 
care.[Footnote 37] Also, some of the children reported as living with 
relatives may be in relative care that is supervised by the child 
welfare system, according to two researchers we interviewed. Finally, 
prisoners may be generally reluctant to report that they have children 
or provide information on their children for various reasons, 
according to DOJ and several state and local officials.[Footnote 38] 
On the other hand, it is possible that incarcerated parents surveyed 
could report on the same child, since both mothers and fathers were 
survey subjects, though DOJ officials overseeing the survey and data 
said this situation was probably rare. 

Some States Are Gathering Additional Data to Understand the Population 
Better: 

Several state child welfare and corrections agencies are collecting 
additional data on foster care children with incarcerated parents to 
better understand such children and their parental circumstances. 
Officials from several states said that their state information is too 
limited to understand the population and that more data would be 
useful to help policymakers decide on policies or programs that might 
affect these children. Of the 10 state child welfare agencies we 
interviewed, three said they were collecting additional data not 
required by AFCARS that could help identify these children. For 
example, officials in New York's child welfare agency said the agency 
has begun to collect more information in its state child welfare 
information system that would indicate whether the parent is in a 
correctional facility, based on the parent's address.[Footnote 39] 
Moreover, officials at two corrections agencies in states we 
interviewed said they were collecting information on inmates' children 
and their care arrangements while the parent is incarcerated.[Footnote 
40] Oregon's Department of Corrections, for example, currently 
collects data on all prisoners regarding whether they have children 
and their children's living arrangements, though this information is 
not housed in an automated system. Officials from Oregon's Department 
of Corrections said that, based on surveys and interviews of offenders 
in Oregon state prisons in 2000, 2002, and 2008, about 10 percent of 
incarcerated mothers and about 6 percent of incarcerated fathers had 
children living in foster care.[Footnote 41] 

Child welfare officials from California informed us that they have 
done some limited analysis of the parental address information the 
state collects, in response to a request from the California 
legislature to provide numbers on the foster care children of 
incarcerated parents.[Footnote 42] At our request, California 
officials updated and expanded this research, and said that 2,288 of 
California's 52,561 children in foster care (about 4 percent) had an 
incarcerated parent as of January 1, 2011. Of those children, 1,268 
had an incarcerated father and 1,020 had an incarcerated mother, 
according to the California officials. Officials also said that 
children with a case plan goal of adoption were slightly more likely 
to have an incarcerated parent than children with a goal of 
reunification.[Footnote 43] 

Strategies for Preserving Families Include Flexibility in Timelines 
for Terminating Parental Rights, Programs for Parents, and Interagency 
Collaboration: 

In our examination of 10 states and their child welfare and 
corrections agencies, we found states employed a number of strategies 
to support family ties for all children of incarcerated parents, 
including some strategies designed specifically for children in foster 
care.[Footnote 44] These strategies are intended to address some of 
the challenges incarcerated parents may face related to maintaining 
their parental rights and contact with their children or to aid 
caseworkers in managing such cases.[Footnote 45] While state and local 
officials discussed examples of these strategies, we did not review 
how widely these strategies were used in each state, nor did we 
evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies. 

Several State Child Welfare Statutes Specifically Address the Special 
Circumstances of Incarcerated Parents: 

Termination of Parental Rights Provisions: 

Federal law allows for exceptions on a case-by-case basis to the 
requirement that states file to terminate parental rights when a child 
has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months.[Footnote 
46] In addition to these federal exceptions, some of the 10 states 
included in our review[Footnote 47] have enacted explicit statutory 
provisions[Footnote 48] that could prevent or delay filing for 
termination of parental rights for incarcerated parents in certain 
circumstances.[Footnote 49] For example: 

* Nebraska prohibits filing for termination of parental rights solely 
on the basis that the parent is incarcerated.[Footnote 50] 

* California and New York require child welfare agencies and courts to 
consider the particular barriers faced by incarcerated parents--such 
as whether parents are able to maintain contact with their children or 
whether they lack access to rehabilitative services that would support 
reunification--when making certain decisions regarding termination. 

* New York and Colorado include provisions related to the requirement 
to file for termination of parental rights when a child has been in 
foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. New York allows child 
welfare agencies to delay filing for termination beyond standard 
timelines in certain cases where a parent is incarcerated. 
Specifically, in 2010, New York amended its statute to provide that 
the child welfare agency need not file for termination when a child 
has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months if, based 
on a case-by-case determination, the parent is incarcerated and 
maintains a meaningful role in the child's life. Colorado does not 
require courts to consider the fact that the child has been in foster 
care for 15 of the most recent 22 months when deciding whether to 
terminate parental rights if the reason for the child's length of stay 
is due to circumstances beyond the parent's control, such as the 
parent's incarceration "for a reasonable period of time."[Footnote 51] 

While many of the state child welfare officials we spoke to said that 
federal timelines were difficult to meet for parents serving lengthier 
sentences, many state and local child welfare officials as well as 
child advocacy representatives did not think that such timelines 
should be changed specifically for incarcerated parents. Officials we 
spoke with said these timelines are important for being able to place 
children, especially younger children, as soon as possible into 
permanent homes.[Footnote 52] On the other hand, several local child 
welfare officials and caseworkers in New York and California told us 
these exceptions can make the difference in whether some parents can 
meet requirements in a case plan needed to reunify with their children. 

Reasonable Efforts Provisions: 

Federal law requires that child welfare agencies make reasonable 
efforts to reunify foster care children with their families before 
filing for termination; however, these efforts are subject to certain 
exceptions.[Footnote 53] In managing a foster care case involving an 
incarcerated parent, child welfare agency staff may work with both the 
parent and corrections officials at several junctures, as shown in 
figure 5. 

Figure 5: Examples of Ways Child Welfare Agencies Can Work with 
Incarcerated Parents: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Child removed from home: Dependency Court determines child should be 
removed. 

Child welfare agency identifies and notifies all adult relatives: 
In trying to locate adult relatives, child welfare staff may find that 
a noncustodial parent is incarcerated or need to speak to an 
incarcerated parent to get information about possible relatives. 

Child welfare agency continues to work with family on case plan: 

Develops a case plan which may include: 
* Services to provide to parents (e.g. parenting classes, substance 
abuse treatment, counseling): Child welfare staff may need to offer
services to an incarcerated parent and ask corrections staff about
available services and the parent’s participation in such services; 
* Reunification goals are set (e.g. visitation schedules and target 
return dates): Child welfare staff may need to facilitate visits or
other communication between an incarcerated parent and child. 

Dependency Court may approve foster care placement and case plan; 
Reviews status of case; 
Holds a permanency hearing. 

Child welfare agency petitions court to terminate parental rights 
unless an exception applies. 

Dependency Court holds hearing to terminate parental rights if 
appropriate. 

During entire process: Child welfare staff may facilitate the 
participation of incarcerated parents in court hearings regarding the 
foster care case. 

Sources: GAO analysis of federal laws and selected state laws, 
policies, and interviews with officials. 

[End of figure] 

Federal law does not define what constitutes "reasonable efforts," 
leaving it to states to define, on a case-by-case basis. Among our 
selected states, California and New York specify in statute[Footnote 
54] what such efforts may entail with regard to incarcerated parents, 
[Footnote 55] such as: 

* Maintaining the parent-child relationship. New York law directs the 
child welfare agency to arrange for transporting the child to visit 
the correctional facility, if it is in the best interests of the 
child. California law provides examples of services that may be 
provided to incarcerated parents, which may include such things as 
facilitating parent-child telephone calls and transportation services, 
where appropriate. 

* Involving the parent in the child's case. Both states have statutes 
that may permit the use of videoconference or teleconference in 
certain circumstances, when such technology is available.[Footnote 56] 
In New York an incarcerated parent may use such technology to 
participate in developing the family service plan, including the 
child's permanency plan. In California, courts may allow incarcerated 
parents to use it to participate in certain court hearings.[Footnote 
57] 

* Identifying rehabilitative services for the parent or documenting if 
such services are not available. New York requires child welfare 
agencies to provide incarcerated parents with information on social or 
rehabilitative services, including wherever possible transitional and 
family support services in the community to which they will return 
upon their release. California requires the caseworker to document in 
the case plan the particular barriers faced by incarcerated parents in 
accessing court-ordered services (such as counseling, parenting 
classes, or vocational training). 

In 2008, California amended its law to allow courts to extend court- 
ordered services for recently released parents who are making 
significant progress in establishing a safe home for the child, if 
there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to 
the parent within the extended period or if reasonable services were 
not provided to the parent. A few caseworkers we spoke to considered 
this extension unfair to parents who had not been incarcerated. On the 
other hand, a dependency court judge we interviewed did not consider 
the law a "free pass" for incarcerated parents, since her decision 
would, as in other foster care cases, balance the likelihood that a 
parent could improve over time with a child's immediate need for 
stability. 

Some State Agencies Provide Guidance and Training, and Some Local 
Agencies Make Additional Efforts to Involve Parents in the Case or 
Contact Their Children: 

Agency Guidance and Training: 

Five of the 10 state child welfare agencies we spoke to have developed 
either statewide guidance or training on managing cases with children 
of incarcerated parents. California and New York officials said their 
general statewide training includes specific information for 
caseworkers on how to work with incarcerated parents in accordance 
with their state laws. New York officials said they also recently 
provided training on the new law that excuses filing for termination 
of parental rights under the standard timelines for certain 
incarcerated parents. Additionally, Michigan and Florida state child 
welfare officials said that new guidance to local agencies had 
resulted from recent state court cases involving incarcerated parents 
who had successfully appealed the termination of their parental 
rights. For example, Michigan officials reported holding a statewide 
webinar and providing information to local agencies after the Michigan 
Supreme Court reversed the termination of parental rights for an 
incarcerated parent because, among other reasons, the child welfare 
agency failed to provide sufficient reunification services.[Footnote 
58] 

Involving Parents and Increasing Contact with Their Children: 

State and local officials we interviewed reported a number of local 
initiatives that have been undertaken by child welfare agencies, 
dependency courts, and correctional facilities to address the 
logistical barriers, expense, and disincentives involved when 
including an inmate in a child's foster care case. For example, when 
the prison facility is located far from a county dependency court, 
transportation can be costly and require an extended absence from the 
facility. In the latter case, the parent can lose certain privileges 
or programming opportunities, according to child welfare and 
corrections officials. To address these barriers, dependency courts 
and several state prisons in Los Angeles, California, initiated, under 
a recently enacted state law,[Footnote 59] a pilot program that allows 
an inmate to participate in certain child welfare hearings via 
videoconference. Additionally, a few counties in Florida and 
Pennsylvania,[Footnote 60] while not guided by legislation, have begun 
to hold child welfare hearings via video or telephone for incarcerated 
parents, according to state officials. State officials we interviewed 
in Nebraska, Florida, and Michigan and local officials in California 
also described holding a child's case planning meetings at the jail or 
including the parent by phone in some situations. Further, to address 
some of the logistical barriers to contact between these parents and 
their children, several local child welfare agencies in New York and 
California said they used assistants to help drive children to prisons 
or to supervise parent-child visits. State child welfare officials in 
a few other states also said that they had policies to provide prepaid 
phone cards to incarcerated parents or policies to accept collect 
calls from the parents to discuss their child's case. 

Corrections Agencies Provided Programs and Facilitated Parent-Child 
Visits and Communication: 

Parenting and Rehabilitation Programs: 

[Side bar: 
Parenting Inside Out Program: 

[Figure: illustration: Source: Children’s Justice Alliance] 

Parenting Inside Out (PIO) is a behavioral parent training program 
developed by the non-profit Oregon Social Learning Center and used by 
prisons and jails in Oregon. PIO is offered for incarcerated or 
formerly incarcerated parents in jails, prisons, and community 
corrections programs. Oregon’s child welfare department has approved 
PIO as a parenting program for their clients with open child welfare 
cases. In addition, PIO was the subject of a five year randomized 
controlled study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. 
The study reviewed if participating parents had more visits from 
children and families during their incarceration and if they were more 
likely to have an active role parenting their children than the 
control group. (See A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Parent 
management Training Program for Incarcerated Parents: Proximal Impacts 
by J. Mark Eddy and Charles R. Martinez, Jr. in Relationship Processes 
and Resilience in Children with Incarcerated Parents. Poehlmann & J.M. 
Eddy (Eds.), Submitted for Publication). End of side bar] 

Officials with correctional departments we interviewed offered a range 
of services to their general inmate populations relevant to parent 
rehabilitation, such as parenting programs and substance abuse 
treatment. However, the extent of such services varied among states 
and facilities. Officials at all 10 state departments of correction we 
interviewed reported having parenting classes in at least at a few 
facilities, although most said such classes sometimes had wait lists 
and some were only at women's facilities. These parenting classes have 
been aimed at the general inmate population, although officials from a 
few facilities we visited told us that their parenting classes have 
covered the topic of parental rights, which may be more applicable to 
parents with children in foster care. Further, state corrections 
officials from Nebraska and Oregon told us that their agencies had 
taken steps to align their parenting curricula to meet child welfare 
standards and prevent parents from having to retake these classes to 
satisfy child welfare requirements upon release. 

Some corrections agencies we interviewed also administered treatment 
programs that allow incarcerated mothers to live with their young 
children who were not in foster care. For instance, some BOP 
facilities allow incarcerated women who are pregnant and meet certain 
criteria to go to a community program outside the facility for 3 
months after the child is born in order to promote bonding and 
parenting skills. Likewise, officials in five states reported having 
in-prison nurseries or similar programs in at least one of their 
correctional facilities. In these programs, mothers live with their 
infants at the facility for a period of time after birth, up to 18 
months, often receiving treatment and services, such as pre-and post-
natal care, parenting classes, and counseling. Eligibility criteria 
for mothers may include being classified as a low security risk or 
having a limited amount of remaining time on their sentence. A state 
prison official commented that their facility's 18-month nursery 
program affords mothers time to make amends with family members who 
may be more willing to care for the children while the mother 
completes her sentence. According to this official, most of these 
mothers give their infants to family caregivers without involving the 
child welfare system. In addition, state corrections agencies in 
California and Nebraska have allowed young children to live with their 
parents in residential drug treatment programs as an alternative to 
incarceration. For example, since 1999, California's corrections 
department has administered the Family Foundations Program which 
provides substance abuse treatment and other services to mothers with 
nonviolent convictions and sentences of 36 months or less.[Footnote 61] 

Visitation and Communication Strategies: 

[Side bar: 
Videoconferencing visits in New York: 

[Figure: photograph: Source: © May 2011 The Osborne Association;
photo by Jonathan Stenger] 

The Osborne Association (Osborne), a nonprofit community provider, 
working with the New York Department of Corrections recently set up 
video conferencing for children to ‘visit’ with their incarcerated
parents. Osborne currently has an agreement to conduct tele-visits 
with one state women’s prison. Fifteen to 20 children from 2–17 years 
of age currently participate to varying levels in tele-visits lasting 45
minutes to an hour, according to Osborne staff. During visits, parents 
and children usually participate in activities or crafts together 
similar to an in-person visit. End of side bar] 

Some corrections agencies had general policies or programs to mitigate 
the distance between prisoners and their families. Experts, advocates, 
and officials from both child welfare and correctional agencies we 
interviewed noted that the distance between incarcerated parents and 
their families was a major challenge for preserving family ties, 
particularly as prisons tend to be located far from urban areas. State 
corrections agencies in California, Pennsylvania, and Florida have 
formal policies to consider the location of an inmate's family when 
assigning the inmate to a facility. Circumstances such as mental 
health or security needs take precedent over proximity to family, 
according to officials, and such policies were generally not 
realizable for women due to the limited number of female prison 
facilities. In addition, some corrections agencies provided free bus 
transportation for families to visit inmates. For example, New York 
and Pennsylvania's departments of correction provide free or 
subsidized bus transportation between large cities and prison 
facilities hours away for children and adults visiting inmates. 

Further, because on-site visits were not always possible, a few 
correctional facilities in California, New York, and Pennsylvania were 
starting to use technology so that incarcerated parents could visit 
virtually with their children. Children participate through video 
equipment located at community service organizations or other sites 
such as local parole offices. 

Also, most corrections agencies had strategies to make visiting 
prisons more comfortable for children, sometimes specifically for 
foster care children. Officials representing seven different state 
departments of correction, as well as federal BOP officials, said that 
some of their facilities (often at least half) had special child-
friendly visiting areas--particularly for women's facilities. Several 
corrections agencies also had special procedures and trained staff to 
meet visiting children at the correctional facility entrance and guide 
them through a separate screening process. Also, corrections agencies 
in New York, California, Nebraska, and Colorado had specific policies 
for caseworkers and foster care children, such as visiting hours on 
weekdays in addition to usual weekend visitation so that caseworkers 
can transport the children. 

Extended visitation programs that allow parents and children to visit 
within the prison for longer periods of time, such as a full day or 
week, were offered in at least a few facilities within 8 of our 10 
states. Some of the programs have bonding activities where parents 
work on reunification and parenting strategies with their children. 
For example, corrections officials from 3 of our 10 states told us 
that the Girls Scouts Beyond Bars program occurred in one or more of 
their women's prisons.[Footnote 62] This program, originally developed 
by DOJ, typically provides regular visits and interaction between 
incarcerated mothers and their daughters.[Footnote 63] 

[Side bar: 
Visitation areas for children: three different facilities in the same 
state. 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs: 
* A designated child visiting area in a state correctional facility 
for men; 
* A child friendly visitation area in a female state correctional 
facility where children can visit parents; 
* A visitation area where any visitor, including children, can visit 
inmates who are not permitted contact visits. This area is in located 
in the same facility as the above photo; 
* A child friendly visitation area within a federal female facility. 
Source: GAO. [End of side bar; end of figure] 

Some Corrections and Child Welfare Agencies Have Collaborated to Align 
Their Program Requirements and Assign Liaisons: 

State Level Collaboration: 

Child welfare and corrections officials in 6 of our 10 states 
collaborated at the state level to clarify policies, develop 
procedures, and provide information to staff. For example, in response 
to a recent state supreme court case reversing the termination of 
parental rights for an incarcerated parent, Michigan's child welfare 
agency worked with state corrections officials to draft a memorandum 
to prison supervisors on ways to support child welfare staff who are 
working with incarcerated parents. Specifically, the memorandum 
required that corrections staff allow inmates to participate via phone 
in court hearings and planning meetings with child welfare officials, 
when requested, and any programs that will help improve their 
parenting skills. In New York, according to state officials, the 
recent legislation on filing for termination of parental rights for 
incarcerated parents was, in part, the impetus for the joint 
development of protocols for ways state corrections and child welfare 
agencies should coordinate. Per these protocols, child welfare staff 
must contact corrections staff to schedule meetings with parents and 
arrange children's visits while corrections staff should return such 
calls within one week. The agencies also collaborated to develop 
training on the protocols for their respective staffs. New York's 
state child welfare office also developed materials on the legal 
rights and responsibilities of parents that child welfare staff can 
use with incarcerated parents (see figure 6). 

Figure 6: Flyer on Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Incarcerated 
Parents: 

[Refer to PDF for image: flyer] 

You don't have to stop being a parent while you are incarcerated: 

Your parental rights: 

When a child is in foster care for an extended period of time, a 
social services or foster care agency can file a petition to terminate 
a parent's rights and free the child for adoption. However, the law 
allows the agency to decide not to file for termination of parental 
rights under certain circumstances, such as when the child is living 
with a relative foster parent, when there is a compelling reason why 
termination is not in the child's best interests, and when the parent 
is incarcerated or in a residential substance abuse treatment program 
and has maintained a meaningful rote In the child's life. These 
decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on the best 
Interests of the child.  

If your child is in foster care, you have with the right to: 

* Identify an appropriate person you would like to care for your 
child, such as a relative or friend.  

* Be informed about the foster care agency responsible for your 
child's care, the name of your child's caseworker, and how to contact 
the caseworker and his/her supervisor.  

* Know how to reach your family caseworker, if that person is 
different from your child's caseworker.  

* Participate in planning for your child.  

* Take advantage of services to help you address the issues that led 
to your child's placement in foster care (parenting classes, substance 
abuse treatment, etc.).  

* Participate in meetings about your Family Service Plan, which should 
address the special challenges facing you and your family due to your 
incarceration.  

* Receive information about family visiting and other services that 
can help you build a meaningful relationship with your child while you 
are incarcerated and after your release.  

* Visit with your child, unless a court order prohibits visits. Ask 
about video/teleconferencing if in-person visits are not possible. 

* Be kept up to data on your child's health, development, and progress 
in school.  

* Be informed about court proceedings and attend them, if possible. 

* Be assigned an attorney, if you are financially eligible. 

You have the responsibility to:   

* Make regular contact with your child and/or the foster care agency. 
Although this can be difficult while you are incarcerated, you are 
expected to make efforts to communicate with your child unless a court 
order prevents this. You must be able to show your caseworker and the 
judge that you have made this effort. 

* Show that you're planning for your child's future. Identify someone 
who can care for your child while you are away. 

* Stay in touch with your child's caseworker, your family caseworker, 
and your attorney. If you haven't had contact with the caseworker, 
Social Services, or the foster care agency for six months, it can be 
considered abandonment of your child and a petition could be filed to 
terminate your parental rights. 

* Complete any programs your Family Service Plan requires. 

* Participate in Family Court New York State proceedings. Contact your 
attorney if you are unable to attend a court proceeding. Make sure 
your attorney has copies of all of your relevant documents.  

New York State Office of Children & Family Services: 
[hyperlink, http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us] 

Source: New York State Office of Children & Family Services. 

[End of figure] 

In some instances, state legislation directed government agencies to 
collaborate to meet the needs of children with incarcerated parents. 
In Oregon, according to officials, legislation passed in 2001 led 
corrections and child welfare agencies to collaborate to gather and 
share data, conduct joint training and outreach sessions, and better 
coordinate services for released inmates. [Footnote 64] More recently, 
officials from Pennsylvania told us about a 2009 legislative 
resolution that directed the creation of an advisory committee to 
study children of incarcerated parents and recommend ways to assess 
their needs, the services available to them, and the barriers to 
accessing those services.[Footnote 65] 

Liaisons for Communication between Local Agencies: 

Many of the child welfare caseworkers we interviewed cited difficulty 
reaching staff at correctional facilities and navigating prison or 
jail policies as a challenge. However, we were told in interviews 
about examples of liaisons, in 5 of our 10 states, who facilitate 
communication between the agencies. These liaisons understand the 
procedures and operations of both agencies and work with officials to 
navigate each system and serve as a single point of contact. For 
example, in California, Texas, and Alabama, one or more state women's 
prisons have employed a social worker who helps child welfare 
caseworkers locate offenders or helps inmates enroll in classes or 
services that the child's case plan requires. More commonly, we heard 
of examples of cooperation between county jails and local welfare 
agencies due to their shared county jurisdiction and being 
geographically close. For example, in San Francisco, California, a 
liaison based at a county jail was responsible for notifying parents 
about their case; facilitating parent-child visits; and providing 
updates to parents, child welfare caseworkers, and jail staff about 
the visits. On a larger scale, staff of New York City's Children of 
Incarcerated Parents Program, supported by the city's child welfare 
agency, facilitate visits to 24 correctional facilities within New 
York. Such staff also prepare child welfare staff and foster parents 
for visits with incarcerated parents. Officials from agencies with 
liaison-type positions noted that they found the relationship helpful. 

HHS and DOJ Provide Some Relevant Information and Assistance, but 
State Agencies Are Not Always Aware of These Resources: 

HHS and DOJ each provide information and assistance to child welfare 
and corrections agencies related to children with incarcerated 
parents, albeit not usually focused on foster care children in 
particular. In the course of its on-site reviews of state and local 
foster care systems, however, HHS assesses whether state agencies have 
taken steps to work with incarcerated parents. Both HHS and DOJ post 
information on their websites relevant to practitioners working with 
children or their incarcerated parents. However, some state child 
welfare and corrections agencies we interviewed were not necessarily 
aware of these resources or told us that more information would be 
useful. Although the Second Chance Act gives DOJ discretionary 
authority to collect and disseminate information on best practices in 
collaboration between state corrections and welfare agencies, DOJ has 
not taken initiative in this area. 

HHS Encourages Child Welfare Agencies to Work with Incarcerated 
Parents but Has Not Promoted Available Information about Such Families: 

HHS examines how state and local child welfare agencies work with 
incarcerated parents in the course of its regular and recurring state 
performance reviews, the CFSRs.[Footnote 66] For instance, one of 
HHS's CFSR instruments assesses whether agencies have "encouraged and 
facilitated contact with incarcerated parents (where appropriate) or 
with parents not living in close proximity to the child," as part of 
its examination of a state's effort to strengthen parent-child 
relationships.[Footnote 67] HHS's most recent CFSR reports for our 10 
selected states (conducted between 2007 and 2010) also afford evidence 
of this oversight.[Footnote 68] For three states, HHS reviewers cited 
instances in need of improvement, such as when child welfare agencies 
in the state had not tried to facilitate visits between parents and 
their children or needed to improve their efforts to locate and 
involve a noncustodial incarcerated parent in case planning. HHS 
reviewers commended agencies in six states for their efforts to work 
with incarcerated parents, citing agencies in New York for 
facilitating parent-child visits, in Pennsylvania for enabling 
incarcerated parents to participate in group decision-making meetings 
by phone, and in Alabama for coordinating with other government 
agencies to help incarcerated mothers reenter communities and 
reconnect with their children.[Footnote 69] 

Most of HHS's support for foster care children with incarcerated 
parents is in the form of informational resources across multiple 
websites that are not centrally organized. HHS's Child Welfare 
Information Gateway posts reports under topic areas labeled "Children 
in Out-of-Home-Care With Incarcerated Parents" and "Services to 
Children & Families of Prisoners."[Footnote 70] When we reviewed these 
websites, most publications listed under these topic areas were from 
prior to 2006. Further, these topic area websites did not cross- 
reference other HHS-supported websites with more recent information. 
For example, HHS's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation has a list of citations on its website under "Research and 
Promising Approaches" for families with incarcerated parents. 
Additionally, the HHS-funded National Resource Center for Permanency 
and Family Connections posts research studies as well as various state-
produced resources on how to work with foster care children of 
incarcerated parents.[Footnote 71] Although the Gateway is meant to 
serve as a comprehensive informational resource for the child welfare 
field, its relevant topic areas, such as "Children in Out-of-Home-Care 
With Incarcerated Parents," did not cross-reference these other 
websites where we found more recent information. 

Moreover, we found that some of the state child welfare agencies we 
interviewed were not aware of the HHS resources for working with 
foster care children and their incarcerated parents. Officials from 
few of our 10 selected states had used or were aware that the Child 
Welfare Information Gateway website had relevant information. 
Officials from four states said that, while they had used this website 
for other resources, they were not aware that it had any information 
about working with children in child welfare and their incarcerated 
parents. Additionally, state child welfare officials in 8 of the 10 
states said they would like to have more information for working with 
incarcerated parents.[Footnote 72] In particular, officials from 
several states said that they would like examples of what might 
constitute "reasonable efforts" with such parents. Similarly, a number 
of state child welfare officials we interviewed said that they would 
like to know of promising practices used by other states or localities 
such as how to better work with corrections agencies. 

[Side bar: 
Gender Informed Practice Assessment: 
[Figure: DOJ logo; Source: DOJ] 
DOJ’s National Institute of Corrections is developing a “Gender 
Informed Practice Assessment” designed to help correctional facilities 
develop policies and practices that are appropriate for female 
offenders; improve the safety and welfare of women; and, ultimately, 
reduce recidivism. Several items in the assessment recognize the role 
of children in female offenders’ lives such as designing visitation 
areas that are friendly and respectful to families, providing 
programming that facilitates healthy parent-child relationships, and 
informing women of their legal rights, including those involving 
custody of their children. According to the National Institute of 
Corrections, the assessment was developed based on evidence-based 
practices, standards in the field, and expert recommendations. The 
institute is developing the assessment in collaboration with the 
Center for Effective Public Policy, a nonprofit organization that 
provides training and technical assistance to practioners in criminal 
and juvenile justice issues. End of side bar] 

HHS has also administered two discretionary grant programs aimed at 
all children with incarcerated parents or the incarcerated parents, 
themselves. One is the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, 
authorized in 2002 in response to the growing number of children with 
an incarcerated parent. Through one-on-one community-based mentoring, 
the program was intended, in part, to help alleviate some of the 
behavioral and academic risks that these youth face, as a result of 
their parent's incarceration and other related factors.[Footnote 73] 
Until fiscal year 2010, HHS received about $50 million annually to 
administer grants to public and private entities operating the 
mentoring programs.[Footnote 74] However, this program was not funded 
for fiscal year 2011, according to HHS officials.[Footnote 75] The 
other program, known as the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible 
Fatherhood grant program, funds some projects which offer parenting 
and family strengthening services for incarcerated and formerly 
incarcerated fathers and their partners. HHS is currently evaluating 
12 such grant projects for incarcerated fathers to determine their 
effectiveness on outcomes such as marital stability, recidivism, and 
family financial well-being.[Footnote 76] 

DOJ Provides Some Assistance and Information to Corrections Agencies 
to Help Families, but Not on Ways to Work with Child Welfare Agencies: 

DOJ's relevant information and assistance to corrections agencies 
largely focuses on all offenders and their children. The department's 
National Institute of Corrections has provided information and 
technical assistance to state corrections agencies, for example, on 
setting up in-prison nursery programs, developing corrections training 
curricula about offenders' children and families, and developing 
practices specifically for female offenders, according to DOJ and 
state officials we interviewed.[Footnote 77] 

Officials with 8 of the 10 corrections agencies we interviewed 
reported using the National Institute of Corrections' general 
resources related to offenders with children. In addition, the 
National Institute of Justice--DOJ's research, development, and 
evaluation branch--has published and funded research on children of 
incarcerated parents, some of which has looked specifically at 
children in foster care. 

DOJ has engaged in some activities related to children of incarcerated 
parents under the Second Chance Act. For example, according to DOJ 
officials, the department administered about $7.4 million in grants in 
fiscal year 2010 to state and local government agencies serving 
incarcerated adults to incorporate family-based treatment practices in 
their facilities.[Footnote 78] A local sheriff's department in 
California, for instance, reported using grants from this program to 
support its jail-based parenting class program among other activities 
to promote family relationships for incarcerated parents who will 
reenter their communities. DOJ has also led the Federal Reentry 
Interagency Council that supports reentry efforts by enhancing 
communication, coordination, and collaboration across the federal 
government. Other federal departments represented on the council 
include HHS and the U.S. Departments of Labor, Education, and Housing 
and Urban Development. The council recently undertook an education 
campaign to clarify federal policies regarding the families of 
incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals, by producing one- 
pagers entitled, "Reentry Myth Busters." One such leaflet, developed 
through collaboration between HHS and DOJ, cites as "myth" the belief 
that child welfare agencies are required to terminate parental rights 
for incarcerated parents and explains that federal law gives child 
welfare agencies and states "discretion to work with incarcerated 
parents, their children and the caregivers to preserve and strengthen 
family relationships."[Footnote 79] (See figure 7.) 

Figure 7: Reentry MythBusters Flyer: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration of flyer] 

On Parental Rights: 

Reentry Myth Buster: 
A Product of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. 
  
Myth: Child welfare agencies are required to terminate parental rights 
if a parent is incarcerated. 
  
Fact: Important exceptions to the requirement to terminate parental 
rights provide child welfare agencies and states with the discretion 
to work with incarcerated parents, their children and the caregivers 
to preserve and strengthen family relationships.  

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires state child welfare 
agencies to initiate termination of parental rights if a child is in 
foster care for 15 out of the previous 22 months, unless one of 
several exceptions apply. The ASFA exceptions to the mandatory filing 
rule that are most relevant to incarcerated parents include: 

* at the option of the State, the child is being cared for by a 
relative; and; 

* the State agency has documented in the case plan... a compelling 
reason for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the 
best interests of the child. 

These exceptions provide child welfare agencies with flexibility to 
work within the requirements imposed by ASFA by recruiting relatives 
as caregivers for children and by developing carefully written case 
plans that document, as circumstances warrant, that the severance of 
the parent-child relationship would be contrary to the child's best 
interests. 

Because they are in federal statute, the exceptions provided in the 
law are available to every state, though not all use them in practice. 
Some states and the District of Columbia repeat the exceptions in 
their state statutes, emphasizing their applicability. These states 
include (as of February, 2010): Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 

For More Information: 

Child Welfare State Policies: [hyperlink, 
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/state/] 

Child Welfare Statutes: 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.childwelfare.qov/systemwiderlaws_policies/statutes/groundterm
in.cfrn] 

What is a Reentry Myth Buster? 

This Myth Buster Is one in a series of fact sheets intended to clarify 
existing federal policies that affect formerly incarcerated 
individuals and their families. Each year, more than 700,000 
individuals are released from state and federal prisons. Another 9 
million cycle through local jails. When reentry fails, the social and 
economic costs are high--more crime, more victims, more family 
distress, and more pressure on already-strained state and municipal 
budgets. 

Because reentry intersects with heath and housing, education and 
employment, family, faith, and community well-being, many federal 
agencies are focusing on initiatives for the reentry population. Under 
the auspices of the Cabinet-level interagency Reentry Council, federal 
agencies are working together to enhance community safety and well 
being, assist those returning from prison and jail in becoming 
productive citizens, and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct 
and collateral costs of incarceration.
For more information about the Reentry Council, go to: [hyperlink, 
http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/reentry-council] 

Source: Federal Interagency Reentry Council. 

[End of figure] 

However, beyond this activity, DOJ has not taken initiative to act on 
a provision of the Second Chance Act that authorizes DOJ, at its 
discretion, to collect and disseminate information on best practices 
for collaboration between child welfare and corrections agencies to 
support children of incarcerated parents, including those in foster 
care, and to support parent-child relationships, as appropriate. 
[Footnote 80] According to officials from the National Institute of 
Justice, which would be responsible for implementing this provision, 
no specific activities are planned. Officials said that no funds have 
been appropriated specifically for this provision, and although DOJ 
did receive a $10 million research appropriation in fiscal year 2010 
that could have been used to fund activities under this provision, 
that money was primarily used to fund three evaluation research grants 
related to reentry programs. These officials maintained that the 
National Institute of Justice has long supported research on children 
of incarcerated parents, typically in collaboration with HHS; 
nevertheless, neither it nor the National Institute of Corrections has 
taken steps to identify and disseminate examples of successful 
collaboration between child welfare and corrections agencies, as 
authorized by the act. 

BOP has also not developed any protocols to the federal prisons under 
its own jurisdiction for working with child welfare agencies and their 
staff. BOP has established some national standards and protocols for 
all of its facilities, such as for parenting classes and visiting 
areas. However, it has not set such protocols for how its facilities 
should deal with child welfare agencies trying to meet the needs of 
inmates with children in foster care, according to officials from 
BOP's Central Office. Although we found a few state and local 
corrections agencies that had taken initiative to facilitate 
communication with child welfare agencies, such as by having a 
designated point of contact, we did not find these efforts in the two 
federal prisons we visited. Moreover, a number of child welfare 
officials, local caseworkers, and dependency court judges told us that 
it can be particularly difficult to establish appropriate contact with 
federal prisons and several said that more collaboration from federal 
prisons would help facilitate their work with foster care children 
with incarcerated parents. Several judges we interviewed said that it 
could be difficult to have federal inmates participate in child 
welfare dependency hearings, for example, because prison officials 
were unresponsive. Several local child welfare officials said that it 
was challenging to reach staff at a federal prison to get information 
on an incarcerated parent. Neither of the two federal facilities we 
visited had a designated staff position or a process for handling 
child welfare inquiries. Officials from one facility said that, at any 
one time, a different official might field questions from child 
welfare workers or inmates with children who are involved in child 
welfare. A few incarcerated mothers with whom we spoke said 
corrections staff vary as to how helpful they are, and they expressed 
the view that a designated position would be helpful. Further, BOP 
Central Office officials said that establishing protocols on how its 
facilities should deal with child welfare agencies could enhance or 
facilitate communication between the two parties. This is in keeping 
with one of BOP's strategic planning goals that aims to build 
partnerships with other entities to help improve the effectiveness of 
its services and promote reintegration of offenders into communities. 
[Footnote 81] 

Moreover, among the officials from the 10 state corrections agencies 
and the BOP who we interviewed, 8 said that additional information 
from DOJ on how child welfare and corrections could better collaborate 
to address these children and their families would be very useful. 
Officials said that corrections agencies would benefit from practices 
that could improve prison visits for foster care children, tools that 
could facilitate communication between child welfare and corrections 
staff, and ways to share their data on affected families. State 
corrections and BOP officials we interviewed told us that they could 
use additional information from DOJ on other practices, programs, or 
policies that would support family ties between offenders and their 
children. (See figure 8.) 

Figure 8: Responses from Selected State Corrections Agencies and BOP 
on the Extent that Additional Assistance from DOJ Would Be Useful: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

Information on or examples of prison policies regarding offenders with 
children (e.g., visitation or communication): 
Responses: 
Very useful: 5; 
Moderately or somewhat useful: 4; 
Slightly useful: 2; 
Not at all: 0. 

Information on or examples of programming for offenders with children 
(e.g., parenting classes, or nursery programs): 
Responses: 
Very useful: 7; 
Moderately or somewhat useful: 3; 
Slightly useful: 1; 
Not at all: 0. 

Facilitation of information sharing among corrections agencies on 
practices to support offenders’ contact with their children: 
Responses: 
Very useful: 7; 
Moderately or somewhat useful: 3; 
Slightly useful: 1; 
Not at all: 0. 

Additional research on programming or services for offenders with 
children: 
Responses: 
Very useful: 8; 
Moderately or somewhat useful: 2; 
Slightly useful: 0; 
Not at all: 1. 

Information on ways to collaborate or coordinate with child welfare 
agencies: 
Responses: 
Very useful: 8; 
Moderately or somewhat useful: 2; 
Slightly useful: 1; 
Not at all: 0. 

Training resources for corrections staff related to offenders with 
children: 
Responses: 
Very useful: 9; 
Moderately or somewhat useful: 1; 
Slightly useful: 1; 
Not at all: 0. 

Source: GAO structured interviews with officials of 10 state 
corrections agencies and the BOP. 

[End of figure] 

Conclusions: 

For children in foster care with an incarcerated parent, reunification 
is often not possible or appropriate, especially if the prison 
sentence is long or the parent-child tie is already compromised by 
abuse, neglect, or other complex problems such as substance abuse. 
Yet, for children and parents who have the potential for reunification 
or who would benefit from maintaining their parent-child ties, the 
lack of information about these cases may affect policymakers' 
decisions and limit opportunities to improve these families' outcomes. 
Given concerns about whether incarcerated parents can maintain their 
parental rights under federal child welfare timelines, as well as 
state legislation to address the special circumstances of children 
with incarcerated parents, the lack of complete data leaves 
legislators less able to assess the impact of these policies on this 
group of children. 

Meanwhile, although not seemingly widespread, pockets of activity 
among child welfare agencies, corrections departments, courts, and 
community providers are occurring that may support children in foster 
care and their incarcerated parents. As evidenced by the Second Chance 
Act, there is growing attention in the field of corrections on keeping 
offenders connected with their families to facilitate reentry and, 
ultimately, lower recidivism. Many parties may be interested in 
learning about new ways to serve the often invisible children in child 
welfare with incarcerated parents and to help address some of the 
serious challenges that these children face. Given fiscal constraints 
and competing demands placed on agencies at every level, however, 
initiatives made on behalf of these families are likely to be hindered 
without information about existing practices and available resources 
that they could leverage. Moreover, while this group of children and 
their parents are likely a relatively small part of the larger systems 
of child welfare and corrections, they are greatly affected by these 
systems and their practices. Without more proactive efforts to create 
awareness and share information about these families, opportunities to 
improve their future may be easily overlooked. 

Recommendations: 

We are making two recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services: 

1. To better understand the magnitude of the population and inform 
federal or state initiatives that affect children in foster care with 
incarcerated parents, the Secretary of HHS should identify ways to 
strengthen the completeness of state-reported data on those children. 
For example, in implementing new reporting requirements for the AFCARS 
system, the agency could take into consideration its 2008 proposed 
changes in which states would be required to provide additional 
information on each foster care child and his or her family 
circumstances, including a caretaker's incarceration, at several times 
during the child's stay in foster care and not only when a child first 
enters care. 

2. To improve outcomes for these children, the Secretary of HHS should 
take steps to more systematically increase awareness among state and 
local child welfare agencies about available resources for children in 
child welfare with incarcerated parents. For example, HHS could: 

* take steps to update and more centrally organize relevant 
information posted on the Child Welfare Information Gateway, which is 
meant to serve as a comprehensive information resource for the child 
welfare field, such as by regularly updating the information listed 
under the Gateway's relevant topic areas (e.g., "Children in Out-of-
Home-Care With Incarcerated Parents") with links to more recent 
material posted on other HHS-supported websites; 

* identify or provide additional information on promising approaches, 
such as those listed by the Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning 
and Evaluation; 

* use relevant findings from the CFSR process as an opportunity to 
remind states about available resources and post information on 
promising approaches identified in the reviews; or: 

* facilitate awareness among all child welfare agencies about HHS's 
available resources through an e-mail or a teleconference/webinar that 
would allow state and local agencies to share information on practices 
or strategies. 

We are also making two recommendations to the U.S. Attorney General: 

1. To better address the needs of children with incarcerated parents, 
including those in foster care, the U.S. Attorney General should 
consider including--among DOJ's ongoing and future information 
collection and dissemination efforts--activities that would assist 
state and local corrections agencies share promising practices for 
these children, including those that involve communication and 
coordination with child welfare agencies. For example, using some of 
the informational resources it already makes available to state and 
local corrections agencies, DOJ could compile and publicize examples 
of successful collaboration between corrections and child welfare 
agencies. 

2. To improve collaboration between federal correctional facilities 
and state and local child welfare agencies and help federal inmates 
maintain important family relationships, the U.S. Attorney General 
should direct BOP to consider developing protocols for facilities 
regarding offenders who have children in the child welfare system. 
These protocols could include: 

* responses/actions when child welfare agency workers contact BOP 
facilities to confirm an inmate's location, request to communicate 
directly with inmates, or inquire about inmates' current or future 
participation in programs or services that may be part of a child 
welfare case plan; 

* processes for responding to requests for inmates' participation in 
child welfare hearings or ways to facilitate participation when 
desired by the inmate, such as setting up teleconferencing abilities; 
or: 

* whether facilities could designate a specific staff position to 
address all such inquiries or questions, including those from child 
welfare agencies, dependency courts, or offenders. 

If developed, these protocols could be shared with states and local 
corrections agencies as examples. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to HHS and DOJ for review and 
comment. HHS' comments are reproduced in appendix IV. DOJ did not 
provide written comments; however, in an e-mail dated September 13, 
2011, from the agency liaison, DOJ agreed with our two recommendations 
for the department. HHS and DOJ also provided written technical 
comments which we incorporated as appropriate. 

In its comments, HHS concurred with our two recommendations for the 
department. Specifically, HHS agreed that it was important to better 
understand the circumstances and needs of foster care children with 
incarcerated parents and would consider our recommendation on 
strengthening state-reported data in developing the final rule for 
AFCARS. HHS also agreed with our recommendation to more systematically 
increase awareness of available resources to improve outcomes for 
these children. For example, HHS said it would take steps to update 
and more centrally organize relevant information posted on the Child 
Welfare Information Gateway, as well as facilitate awareness among 
child welfare agencies and states about available resources, such as 
through newsletters or links to new information. HHS also agreed that 
it would use relevant findings from the CFSR process as an opportunity 
to remind states about available resources and post information about 
promising approaches. 

Finally, both HHS and DOJ noted that, as part of their participation 
on the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, they would continue to 
collaborate to clarify policies, remove barriers, and promote 
promising practices in order to help ex-offenders reintegrate into 
their communities. Both agencies noted that addressing issues on 
children and families with an incarcerated parent was a core part of 
this collaboration and that they would work together to help criminal 
justice and child welfare systems make well-informed decisions for 
affected families. 

We will send copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees and the Secretary of HHS, the U.S. Attorney General, and 
other interested parties. The report also will be available at no 
charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Kay E. Brown: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of methods. 
Specifically, we: 

* examined pertinent data from two federal data sources; 

* conducted phone interviews with 10 state child welfare and 
corrections agencies and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and 
reviewed relevant state laws and policies pertaining to children in 
foster care with incarcerated parents; 

* conducted site visits in 4 of the 10 phone interview states; and: 

* conducted interviews with federal agencies, as well as professionals 
from a range of national organizations, including family resource 
centers, corrections associations, and child welfare organizations. 

HHS and DOJ Data Sources: 

To examine the extent to which the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) collects information on the number of foster care 
children with incarcerated parents, we reviewed relevant national data 
on children in foster care from HHS's Adoption and Foster Care 
Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). HHS uses AFCARS to capture, 
report, and analyze information collected by the states concerning all 
foster care children for whom the state child welfare agency has 
responsibility for placement, care, or supervision, and all adopted 
children who were placed by the state agency or for whom the state 
agency is providing adoption assistance, care, or services. We looked 
at the AFCARS variable that denotes "parental incarceration" as a 
reason for a child's removal from the home and entry into foster care, 
which is the only variable in AFCARS that captures information about 
parental incarceration. 

We reviewed AFCARS data for all cases that were active in fiscal year 
2009 and had usable information on reason codes (615,040 in all), the 
most recent data available, and identified cases in which children had 
been removed from their home and entered foster care for reasons 
including a reason of parental incarceration.[Footnote 82] For all of 
these cases active in 2009--regardless of when the child most recently 
entered foster care--42,890 cases (about 7 percent) were children who 
were removed solely or in part due to the incarceration of a parent. 
We analyzed active 2009 cases by the year that the child entered 
foster care, to get an indication of how prior years' cases that 
involved an incarcerated parent as a reason for entry could 
accumulate.[Footnote 83] (See table 3.) 

Table 3: Children Removed from Home Due At Least Partly to Parental 
Incarceration, 2009 Open Cases, by Year of Removal, 2007-2009: 

Year removed from home: 2009; 
Total number of children with active cases at some point in 2009: 
189,921; 
Number of these children for whom parental incarceration was a reason 
for removal: 14,346. 

Year removed from home: 2008; 
Total number of children with active cases at some point in 2009: 
143,795; 
Number of these children for whom parental incarceration was a reason 
for removal: 9,736. 

Year removed from home: 2007; 
Total number of children with active cases at some point in 2009: 
87,255; 
Number of these children for whom parental incarceration was a reason 
for removal: 5,956. 

Year removed from home: Total; 
Total number of children with active cases at some point in 2009: 
420,971; 
Number of these children for whom parental incarceration was a reason 
for removal: 30,038. 

Source: GAO analysis of AFCARS data. 

[End of table] 

We excluded from our analyses any case that did not contain data on 
the reason the child was removed from the home, those cases with 
problematic entry dates (such as entry dates occurring subsequent to 
exit dates), and data from three states that contained almost no cases 
that identified "parental incarceration" as a reason.[Footnote 84] 
Taken together, we excluded about 11 percent of all cases from our 
analyses. To confirm the reliability of these data, social science 
methodologists at GAO reviewed documentation about the collection and 
reporting of AFCARS data and conducted electronic testing of AFCARS 
data. We also interviewed relevant HHS officials to clarify data 
elements, procedures, and reasons for missing information. The AFCARS 
data were found to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 
engagement. 

In addition to our review of the AFCARS data, we also reviewed 
relevant national data on incarcerated parents and their children from 
surveys of inmates in state and federal prisons and local jails, 
administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) through its Bureau of 
Justice Statistics (BJS). We used these surveys to estimate inmate 
characteristics, such as the percentage of inmates with minor children 
reported to be in foster care or in other placement settings.[Footnote 
85] Specifically, we estimated numbers and characteristics of inmate 
populations using the 2004 Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional 
Facilities, the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional 
Facilities, and the 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails.[Footnote 86] 

We also used these surveys to estimate a conservative lower bound on 
the number of children of inmates who are in foster care.[Footnote 87] 
Based on our analysis of the 2004 surveys, we are 95 percent confident 
that the number of state and federal inmates' children in foster care 
in 2004 exceeded about 22,800. Further, based on the 2002 survey of 
jail inmates, we are 95 percent confident that between 4,634 and 
19,060 inmates had at least one child in a foster care setting in 
2002. While the jail inmate survey covers a different time period than 
the federal and state inmate survey, it does provide an indication 
that additional children of inmates (beyond what was found in the 
state and federal inmate surveys) may be in foster care settings. 

In addition, for background purposes, we present BJS published 
estimates of the number of inmates and children of inmates for 1991, 
1997, 2004, and 2007.[Footnote 88] Although the BJS report describes 
its estimation methodology and several adjustments[Footnote 89] that 
were made to produce estimates that would be comparable over several 
years, it does not include estimates of sampling error for those 
estimates. However, we were able to calculate and report the 
confidence intervals for other estimates produced from the 2004 
surveys elsewhere in this report. Since the 1991-2007 estimates are 
based on similar surveys and on information developed from the 2004 
survey, we report these BJS estimates for background purposes only and 
without accompanying confidence intervals. 

BJS data are limited because they do not distinguish between 
children's temporary or permanent living arrangements, including 
various types of relative care, such as relatives who provide foster 
homes overseen by the child welfare system, relatives who are 
informally caring for children with no involvement of the child 
welfare system, and relatives who serve as permanent legal guardians. 
BJS data also do not fully distinguish children's current living 
arrangements when inmates are reporting on multiple children. 
Additionally, as noted in this report, some prisoners may be inclined 
to under report how many minor children they have for various reasons, 
such as avoiding having to pay child support, according to several 
state and DOJ officials we interviewed. Finally, BJS surveys are 
conducted intermittently, limiting our ability to compare results 
across years. A GAO social science analyst with expertise in survey 
methods and a statistician reviewed the methods and survey design used 
in these studies and, through interviews with knowledgeable DOJ and 
BJS officials and our own analyses, we determined that the data we 
used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this engagement. 

State Phone Interviews: 

We administered structured telephone interviews to both the state 
child welfare and corrections agencies in 10 selected states. We 
selected these states based on several criteria (see table 4). First, 
states were selected to represent nearly half of the total foster care 
and prison populations in the United States (47 and 48 percent, 
respectively). We selected the six states with the largest child 
welfare population, which are also among the highest in terms of state 
prison populations.[Footnote 90] Other states with smaller populations 
of foster care children and prisoners were selected for variation. 
Additionally, selected states differed in their geographic location 
and whether child welfare services in the state were administered at 
the state or local level. Finally, some states were selected because 
they were identified in our interviews with researchers and 
professionals knowledgeable on these topics as having policies, 
programs, or practices aimed at supporting parent-child ties at the 
state level or in localities within the state. We also administered 
the corrections phone interview to officials from BOP's Central Office. 

Table 4: Information on Selected States: 

State: California; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 15%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 12%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: Local. 

State: New York; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 6%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 4%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: Local. 

State: Texas; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 6%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 12%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: State. 

State: Florida; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 5%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 7%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: State. 

State: Michigan; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 4%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 3%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: State. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 4%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 4%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: Local. 

State: Oregon; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 2%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 1%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: State. 

State: Colorado; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 2%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 2%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: Local. 

State: Alabama; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 2%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 2%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: State. 

State: Nebraska; 
Percentage of total U.S. foster care population[A]: 1%; 
Percentage of total U.S. prison population[B]: 0.3%; 
Type of child welfare administration[C]: State. 

Sources: HHS data, DOJ data, and American Public Human Services 
Association information. 

[A] On September 30, 2008. 

[B] On June 30, 2009. 

[C] Local means child welfare services are administered by localities, 
usually counties, and supervised by the state. State means that child 
welfare services are administered and supervised at the state level. 

[End of table] 

For our interviews, we developed two structured protocols--one for 
child welfare officials and one for corrections officials. Using these 
protocols, we asked officials about the extent their agencies track 
whether foster care children have an incarcerated parent or whether 
inmates have children and if their children are in foster care. 
Additionally, we asked about relevant statewide policies, challenges 
to supporting family contact or reunification, and strategies employed 
in their state that may help address challenges. Last, we inquired 
about relevant types of federal assistance received and areas in which 
additional assistance might be useful. We developed our protocols by 
interviewing researchers, professionals, and associations, as well as 
reviewing their documents and other literature. In addition, we asked 
several researchers and professionals we interviewed to review our 
protocols and pretested these protocols with child welfare and 
corrections officials in one state. We asked these parties for input 
on the clarity and objectivity of the questions and whether 
respondents could provide the information we sought and revised the 
protocols, accordingly.[Footnote 91] 

In addition to our interviews with state officials, we reviewed 
selected child welfare statutes and policies of our 10 selected 
states. For example, we examined whether state child welfare statutes 
related to federal requirements, such as efforts to reunify children 
in foster care with their families and timelines to file for 
termination of parental rights, included specific guidelines for 
incarcerated parents. Our review was limited to state child welfare 
statutes pertaining to termination of parental rights and reasonable 
efforts to preserve and reunify the family; we did not examine other 
statutes, regulations, or case law, unless specifically identified as 
relevant by state officials or other experts. See appendix III for 
summaries of the selected provisions of the 10 states' child welfare 
statutes and more detailed information on our methodology in 
conducting and verifying this research. We also verified other 
relevant corrections and child welfare policies identified through our 
state phone interviews by reviewing agency documents. 

Site Visits: 

To gather more in-depth information from local child welfare agencies, 
correctional facilities, and others, we conducted site visits to four 
of the ten states we interviewed: California, New York, Oregon, and 
Texas. We selected these states because they capture a large portion 
of the foster care and prison populations nationally, represent 
geographic variation, and include some states with promising or 
innovative strategies at the state or local level, as identified by 
researchers and professionals knowledgeable on the subject. We also 
based these selections on the type of child welfare program 
administration (state administered and locally administered with state 
supervision); the number of children in foster care; the number and 
security level of inmates in the facility; and recommendations from 
experts we interviewed. 

In each state, we spoke with local child welfare officials from at 
least two localities, one large urban area and one non-urban county 
when possible. Specifically, we met with local child welfare officials 
and staff in San Francisco and Stanislaus counties in California; 
Dutchess county and New York City in New York; Marion, Multnomah, and 
Washington counties in Oregon; and Bell and Harris counties in Texas. 
During these interviews, we collected information on state and local 
processes for collecting and reporting data, policies and procedures, 
and challenges and strategies related to cases specifically involving 
children in foster care with incarcerated parents. We also interviewed 
several dependency court judges, attorneys, and community 
organizations that provided services for foster care children. Across 
the states, we interviewed officials at nine state prisons (seven 
women's and two men's), two federal women's prisons, and three local 
city or county correctional facilities or jails.[Footnote 92] At most 
correctional facilities we were able to tour the facility, and in a 
few instances we observed their implementation of strategies such as 
nursery programs and parenting classes. At a few facilities, we also 
interviewed inmates about contact with their children and, if children 
were in foster care, their interactions with child welfare agencies or 
the courts. 

On the basis of our site visit information, we cannot generalize our 
findings beyond the states or localities we visited. Information we 
gathered on our site visits represents only the conditions present in 
the states and local areas at the time of our site visits. We cannot 
comment on any changes that may have occurred after our fieldwork was 
completed. 

Interviews with Agencies, Researchers, and Others: 

We interviewed officials from HHS and DOJ about their programs 
pertaining to foster care children with incarcerated parents, and 
reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, guidance, and other 
agency documentation. Additionally, we interviewed researchers and 
professionals from a variety of national organizations, including 
family resource centers, corrections associations, and child welfare 
organizations, and reviewed available literature from these groups. 
These included the American Bar Association Center on Children and the 
Law, the American Public Human Services Association, the Annie E. 
Casey Foundation, the National Association of Social Workers, American 
Correctional Association, the National Center on Substance Abuse and 
Child Welfare, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 
Judges, the National Resource Center for Children and Families of the 
Incarcerated, National Resource Center on Permanency and Family 
Connections, the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, and the Sentencing 
Project, among others. We also interviewed two former foster care 
youth whose parents had been incarcerated. In addition, two analysts, 
one with specialized expertise in social science, reviewed several 
studies (one unpublished) and found them to be sufficiently reliable 
for our purposes. 

Children with Parents in Residential Drug Treatment Programs: 

To describe the approaches and outcomes of residential drug treatment 
programs that may support family reunification presented in appendix 
II, we interviewed staff from four family-centered residential drug 
treatment programs. We conducted site visits to three of the programs 
and their community partners in Maryland and Illinois and interviewed 
officials with the fourth program in California via telephone. During 
the site visits, we toured program facilities; spoke with 
representatives from the programs' community partners, such as social 
services agencies and transitional housing providers; and also spoke 
with some program clients. In selecting these four family-centered 
residential drug treatment programs, we considered criteria including 
expert recommendations, receipt of federal grants, and geographic 
location. We obtained expert recommendations on specific programs to 
interview from a number of federal and nonprofit organizations. Those 
organizations include several offices within HHS--such as the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 
the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the Assistant 
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)--and nonprofit 
organizations, such as the Rebecca Project for Human Rights. Staff 
with SAMHSA, ACF, ASPE, and the Rebecca Project for Human Rights 
provided examples of family-centered treatment programs that 
emphasized family reunification or program evaluation. In addition, 
during our interviews with officials from SAMHSA, ACF, ASPE, and the 
Rebecca Project for Human Rights, we discussed the practices of family-
centered residential drug treatment programs and federal efforts to 
fund and evaluate them. 

We reviewed relevant HHS reports on substance abuse and child welfare, 
family-centered treatment for women with substance abuse disorders, 
and best practice guidance for substance abuse treatment. We reviewed 
grant documentation for two federal grant programs that fund and 
evaluate family-centered residential drug treatment programs: the 
Services Grant Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and 
Postpartum Women administered by SAMHSA and the Regional Partnership 
Grant Program administered by ACF. We chose to focus on these programs 
because they target family-based treatment for parents and their 
children, as opposed to other grant programs that provide funds for 
different treatment types and populations. To describe the outcomes 
that these programs track and assess, we reviewed grant documentation, 
including the notices of funding availability, grant evaluations, and 
the Regional Partnership Grant program's First Annual Report to 
Congress. We also reviewed documents from the four residential 
treatment programs that we contacted, which included descriptions of 
program rules, practices, and outcome studies. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 through September 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Children with Parents in Residential Drug Treatment 
Facilities: 

HHS estimates that approximately one-third to two-thirds of children 
involved in the child welfare system have at least one parent with a 
substance abuse problem, such as alcohol abuse or drug addiction. 
[Footnote 93] In addition, a study of 2,639 clients from 44 drug 
treatment programs in California reported that 29 percent of these 
parents had one or more children removed from their custody by child 
welfare services.[Footnote 94] Children whose parents have substance 
use disorders may experience parental neglect and be at risk of 
social, emotional, and behavioral disorders. Parents with substance 
use disorders, including those who come to the attention of the child 
welfare system--predominately mothers--may face additional challenges 
such as co-occurring mental disorders and involvement with the 
criminal justice system. Successfully addressing the multiple needs of 
these parents and their children takes time, which, as with children 
with incarcerated parents, can conflict with the timelines set by the 
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 to make decisions about a 
child's permanent placement and to file for termination of parental 
rights. 

Historically, women with children have faced barriers to entering 
substance abuse treatment programs. In our past work, we noted that 
state child welfare directors were dissatisfied with the low level of 
services, including substance abuse treatment services, provided to at-
risk families in the child welfare system.[Footnote 95] In addition, 
we noted that, according to state child welfare directors, families 
living in impoverished neighborhoods often do not have access to 
substance abuse treatment services, which can in turn influence their 
children's entry into the child welfare system.[Footnote 96] HHS has 
funded programs that allow eligible parents with substance use 
disorders to bring their children into treatment with them, such as 
SAMHSA's Services Grant Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant 
and Postpartum Women (PPW). According to SAMHSA officials, this 
program is designed to expand the availability of sustainable, 
comprehensive quality treatment, recovery support, and family services 
for pregnant and postpartum women and their children age 17 and under. 
This program, which SAMHSA funds and oversees, is implemented by 
private nonprofit and public drug treatment providers and targets low-
income women.[Footnote 97] 

In contrast to corrections facilities, some residential drug treatment 
programs allow mothers to bring at least some of their children to 
live with them during treatment.[Footnote 98] Some of these programs 
employ a family-centered treatment approach, more formally known as 
the Comprehensive Substance Abuse Treatment Model for Women and their 
Children, which SAMHSA describes as: 

* often long-term and residential; 

* focusing on an individualized treatment plan for each woman; 

* addressing the full range of each woman's needs, in addition to 
substance abuse; 

* focusing on the relationships in the woman's life, including her 
role as mother; 

* including a wide variety of integrated services, some of which may 
be available to children and other family members; and: 

* sensitive to culture and gender. 

Family-centered residential drug treatment programs use a variety of 
approaches to strengthen and reunite families.[Footnote 99] Officials 
from four family-centered residential drug treatment programs we 
interviewed told us that these programs help strengthen and reunite 
families by, among other things: 

* Allowing children to reside with their mothers. According to drug 
treatment program officials, the possibility that women can bring at 
least some of their children with them removes a significant barrier 
to treatment: reluctance to enter treatment if their children do not 
have a safe place to stay. In addition, some women are reluctant to 
enter treatment because they fear that as a result of doing so, they 
will lose custody of their children. Having them close by, such as at 
an on-site childcare center, decreases these fears and makes it more 
likely that a woman will stay in treatment and overcome her substance 
abuse, according to program officials. 

* Focusing on long-term recovery. In contrast to short-term drug 
treatment programs, which may consist of a brief, hospital-based 
inpatient phase and some outpatient follow-up, family-centered 
residential drug treatment programs can last up to 24 months. During 
this extended time, the programs attempt to address long-term, 
underlying issues in an effort to foster lasting recovery and thus 
heighten the chances of family reunification. In this effort, these 
programs aim to help women build new coping strategies and social 
networks, as well as strengthen their relationship with their children 
by teaching them parenting skills. By recognizing that addiction is 
cyclical and chronic, these programs help women learn how to overcome 
relapses and move toward long-term recovery. In addition, once the 
women graduate, some programs continue to provide extended assistance 
to help them transition out of the program, such as temporary housing 
or access to ongoing support networks and therapy. 

* Addressing mental health needs, including trauma. Extensive mental 
health services offered by the family-centered treatment programs we 
examined better position women for the work needed to help them 
recover and rebuild their families, according to program officials. 
For example, such programs help women identify, acknowledge, and 
appropriately respond to traumatic events in their lives. According to 
treatment program staff and federal officials, many women in long-term 
residential drug treatment have experienced some form of trauma or 
suffer from other mental health problems, which in turn can influence 
their substance use. Programs may also help children, who may also be 
traumatized from living in an environment where there is substance 
abuse or from having been removed from their homes by child welfare 
officials. 

* Offering a variety of supportive services to children and other 
family members. According to federal and drug treatment program 
officials, offering a variety of services to family members can help 
promote a more stable recovery since a woman's recovery is often 
dependent on the health of her family, broadly defined. Some programs 
offer services specifically aimed at children, such as early 
intervention programs for preschool children and parenting programs 
that enable both mothers and fathers to hone their parenting skills. 
Other services, such as education and employment programs, aim to help 
families by making family members stronger and more self-sufficient. 

* Collaborating extensively with other state and local agencies. 
Because family-centered residential drug treatment programs 
collaborate extensively with other agencies and organizations with 
which women come into contact (see figure 9), they are able to better 
address complex family needs, according to program and federal 
officials. 

Figure 9: of Residential Drug Treatment Programs: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Potential Partners of Drug Treatment Programs: 

Child welfare agency: 
Refers clients to treatment centers, often as part of the agency's 
efforts to preserve or reunify the family. 

Child development specialists: 
Screen children for developmental disabilities and refer to or provide 
appropriate services. 

Public school system: 
May provide education to women, their school-age children, and at-risk 
pre-school children. 

Other vocational and academic education providers: 
Help educate women and their family members and prepare them for the 
job market. 

Court system: 
Courts may refer clients to treatment centers as a condition for 
maintaining or regaining custody. 

Health care providers: 
Provide medical care to women and their children. 

Housing providers: 
Identify and provide transitional housing for drug treatment program 
graduates, 

Employment support services: 
May help program graduates find employment. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from HHS, drug treatment programs, and 
drug treatment program partners. 

[End of figure] 

According to an official from one treatment program, the program's 
collaboration--joint monitoring and assessment of women's progress-- 
with a local family dependency court helps heighten the prospects for 
family reunification. Drug treatment program staff and state officials 
also told us that drug treatment programs and child welfare agencies 
frequently collaborate, and that child welfare and court officials 
tend to view a woman's participation in the family-centered treatment 
programs positively for the woman. In addition to collaborating around 
the needs of the women and their children, treatment programs may work 
closely with child welfare agencies to educate them about the nature 
of substance abuse and to provide insight into the extent to which a 
woman's relapse may endanger her children. Finally, program officials 
told us that their collaboration with other service providers, such as 
the public school system and agencies specializing in children's 
developmental disabilities, also helps them better leverage their own 
skills and resources to support the whole family. 

Outcomes for Women in Residential Drug Treatment Programs: 

The federal government has funded a number of grants that support and 
assess family-centered residential drug treatment programs. For 
example, SAMHSA's PPW grants support the development of treatment 
programs, including residential treatment programs, to serve mothers 
with substance use disorders and their children aged 17 and under. In 
the PPW program, grantees are required to track information about, 
among other things, the woman's substance use, involvement with the 
criminal justice system, mental health, and living arrangements. 
Grantees also collect limited information on the women's children, 
including the total number of children per woman, the number of 
children living with someone besides the woman due to a child 
protection order, and the number of children for whom the woman's 
parental rights have been terminated. 

SAMHSA funded a cross-site analysis of the PPW program and an earlier 
grant program, the demonstration grant program for Residential 
Treatment for Women and Their Children (RWC), that examined data 
collected from 1996 to 2001 from more than 1,000 women at 50 RWC and 
PPW programs.[Footnote 100] To assess the treatment outcomes, the 
study compared women's responses at admission interviews to their 
responses at follow-up interviews, which were administered 6 months 
after their treatment ended. The study found that 6 months after 
treatment ended women reported fewer instances of substance use, fewer 
arrests, fewer mental health problems, and higher rates of employment. 
Regarding child outcomes, the study found fewer children living in 
foster care and that most of the children who accompanied their 
mothers to the RWC or PPW programs were still living with their 
mothers 6 months after treatment. Although these findings suggest that 
RWC-and PPW-funded drug treatment programs may lead to some positive 
outcomes for women and their children, according to study's authors, 
the cross-site study was not designed to demonstrate that the 
treatment actually caused those effects. 

In 2006, ACF began implementing the Regional Partnership Grant (RPG) 
program, which provides 3-or 5-year grants to support partnerships 
among child welfare and other organizations, including drug treatment 
agencies, to increase well-being, enhance safety, and improve 
permanency outcomes for children placed in or at risk of being placed 
in out-of-home care because of a parent's substance abuse.[Footnote 
101] Among the 53 partnerships that received RPG funding in 2007, 21 
include programs that provide family-centered residential drug 
treatment services. The drug treatment programs that received RPG 
funding must also collect information related to a subset of 23 
performance indicators pertaining to the women, children, and families 
in their programs (see table 5). HHS uses those performance indicators 
to gauge grantees' progress on meeting their programs' intended goals. 

Table 5: RPG Performance Indicators: 

Child performance indicators: 

Children at risk of removal remain in home.
Occurrence of child maltreatment.
Average length of stay in foster care.
Re-entries to foster care placement.
Timeliness of family reunification.
Timeliness of child permanency actions.
Improved child well-being.
Prevention of substance-exposed newborns.
Access to supportive services.
Adult performance indicators.
Access to treatment.
Retention in treatment.
Substance use level.
Access to supportive services.
Employment status.
Criminal behavior.
Mental health status.
Family performance indicators.
Increased parental capacity.
Improved parent-child/family interactions.
Decreased child maltreatment risk factors.
Access to coordinated case management.
Substitute caregiver access to services.
Regional partnership capacity indicators.
Increased service collaboration.
Increased service capacity. 

Source: HHS. 

Note: Adult performance indicators include parents and/or caregivers. 

[End of table] 

HHS requires RPG grantees to conduct evaluations to determine program 
outcomes, and most grantees designed evaluations that use treatment 
and comparison groups, allowing them to compare outcomes of families 
in family-centered residential treatment to outcomes of families in 
other forms of substance abuse treatment. Of the 21 RPG grantees that 
provide family-centered residential drug treatment services, 16 
designed evaluations that use treatment and comparison groups. Since 
the grant period for the RPG program began in 2007 and may last up to 
5 years, ACF officials anticipate that all RPG grantees will submit 
final evaluation results by December 31, 2012. Subsequently, the 
agency plans to present the evaluation results in a series of reports 
to Congress.[Footnote 102] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Provisions from Selected State Statutes on Termination 
of Parental Rights and "Reasonable Efforts" That Specifically Address 
Incarcerated Parents: 

This appendix provides summaries of selected statutory provisions that 
specifically address termination of parental rights and reasonable 
efforts to preserve and reunify families for child welfare cases 
involving incarcerated for the 10 states included in our study. The 10 
selected states were Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, 
Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The information 
contained in this appendix is not intended to be an exhaustive summary 
of all laws, regulations, or case law related to children in foster 
care with incarcerated parents for these states. 

To compile this appendix, we searched legal databases for state 
statutes on termination of parental rights and reasonable efforts that 
specifically refer to incarcerated parents.[Footnote 103] The 
provisions we identified are summarized briefly in tables 6 and 7. 
These summaries may omit some details from the cited provisions and 
are not intended to reflect all aspects of state law. In addition, 
these summaries do not reflect the federal requirements for states 
that receive federal child welfare funding. They also do not include 
the requirements of other state statutes, regulations, or case law 
that may directly or indirectly apply to families with incarcerated 
parents. We provided these summaries to knowledgeable state officials 
in each state for their verification, and the information in this 
table was verified to be accurate as of August 2011. 

Table 6: Selected State Statutory Provisions Related to Incarcerated 
Parents and the Termination of Parental Rights: 

State: Alabama; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: One factor the court shall consider when determining 
whether to terminate parental rights is the parent's conviction of and 
imprisonment for a felony. Ala. Code § 12-15-319(a)(4). 

State: California; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: Courts are directed to consider the barriers faced by 
incarcerated parents when deciding whether to set a hearing to 
consider terminating parental rights. For example, if the child was 
initially removed because the parent is incarcerated and cannot 
arrange for the child's care, and the court finds that the parent has 
failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a 
hearing to terminate parental rights. The court shall take into 
account any particular barriers to a parent's ability to maintain 
contact with his or her child due to the parent's incarceration. Cal. 
Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.21(e). 

State: Colorado; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: The court may find one of the following as the basis 
for unfitness of the parent (which is one factor for finding grounds 
to terminate parental rights): 
Long-term confinement such that the parent is not eligible for parole 
for at least 6 years after the date the child was adjudicated 
dependent or neglected; or; 
If the child is under 6 years old at the time the petition to 
terminate parental rights is filed in response to reported child 
abuse, long-term confinement such that the parent is not eligible for 
parole for at least 36 months after the child was adjudicated 
dependent or neglected. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-604(1)(b)(III). 

State: Colorado; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: In determining whether there are grounds to terminate 
parental rights, the court shall consider the fact that the child has 
been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, unless the 
reason for the length of the child's stay in foster care was due to 
circumstances beyond the control of the parent, such as incarceration 
of the parent for a reasonable period of time. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-
604(2)(k)(IV). 

State: Florida; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: Grounds to terminate parental rights may be 
established when the parent is incarcerated and: 
the parent is expected to be incarcerated for a substantial portion of 
the period of time before the child turns 18; 
the parent has been determined by the court to be a violent career 
criminal, habitual violent felony offender, or sexual predator, has 
been convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder or felony sexual battery, 
or has been convicted of any substantially similar offense in another 
jurisdiction; or; 
the court determines that continuing the parental relationship would 
be harmful to the child and, for this reason, termination of parental 
rights is in the best interest of the child. Fla. Stat. § 39.806(1)(d). 

State: Michigan; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: The court may order termination of parental rights if 
it finds that the parent is imprisoned for such a period that the 
child will be deprived of a normal home for more than 2 years, the 
parent has not provided for the child's proper care and custody, and 
there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to 
provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering 
the child's age. Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.19b(3)(h). 

State: Nebraska; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: A petition to terminate parental rights shall not be 
filed on behalf of the state if the sole factual basis is that the 
parent or parents are incarcerated. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292.02(2)(b). 

State: New York; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: The child welfare agency is not required to file for 
termination of parental rights when the child has been in foster care 
for 15 of the most recent 22 months if, based on a case by case 
determination--the parent or parents are incarcerated, or the parent's 
prior incarceration is a significant factor in why the child has been 
in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months--provided that the 
parent maintains a meaningful role in the child's life and the agency 
has not documented a reason why it would otherwise be appropriate to 
file for termination of parental rights. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-
b(3)(l)(i). 

State: New York; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: The court shall consider the special circumstances of 
incarcerated parent(s) when determining whether a child is a 
"permanently neglected child" (one factor in establishing grounds to 
terminate parental rights), including the particular constraints that 
may impact the parent's ability to substantially and continuously or 
repeatedly maintain contact with the child and plan for the future of 
the child. These include limitations placed on family contact and the 
unavailability of social or rehabilitative services to aid in the 
development of a meaningful parent-child relationship. N.Y. Soc. Serv. 
Law § 384-b(7)(a). 

State: Texas; 
Provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights: The court may order termination of parental rights if 
it finds that the parent knowingly engaged in criminal conduct 
resulting in the parent's conviction of an offense and imprisonment 
and inability to care for the child for 2 years or more from the date 
of filing the petition. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1). The court 
must also find that termination of parental rights is in the best 
interests of the child. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(2). 

Source: GAO analysis of selected state child welfare statutes, as 
verified by state officials. 

Notes: For the remaining two states included in this review (Oregon 
and Pennsylvania), we were unable to identify any specific statutory 
provisions related to incarcerated parents and the termination of 
parental rights. However, that does not mean that requirements related 
to this issue have not been developed through other sources, such as 
state regulations, case law, or policy. Because the following 
provisions are federal requirements for every state that receives 
federal funds under Titles IV-E and IV-B of the Social Security Act, 
this table does not include: (1) the provisions of the Adoption and 
Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) which require state agencies to file 
for termination of parental rights when a court has determined that 
the parent has committed specified crimes or the child is an abandoned 
infant, 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E); and (2) the three exceptions under ASFA 
to the requirement for states to file for termination of parental 
rights when the child has been in foster care for 15 of the most 
recent 22 months--when the child is in the care of relatives, the 
state has not provided necessary services to the family consistent 
with the case plan, or the state agency documents a compelling reason 
why filing for termination is not in the best interest of the child, 
42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E)(i)-(iii). Similarly, because the following 
provisions are federal requirements for every state that receives 
federal funds under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, this 
table also does not include the provisions which require every state 
to include as grounds for termination a conviction of the parent for 
specifically enumerated crimes, 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xvii). 

[End of table] 

Table 7: Selected State Statutory Provisions Related to Incarcerated 
Parents and Reasonable Efforts to Preserve and Reunify the Family: 

State: Alabama; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: Reasonable efforts are not 
required to be made with respect to a parent if the court determines 
that the parent has subjected the child or a sibling to an aggravated 
circumstance, and the risk of abuse or neglect is too high for the 
child to safely remain or return home. An aggravated circumstance may 
include when a parent is incarcerated and the child is deprived of a 
safe, stable, and permanent parent-child relationship. Ala. Code § 12-
15-312(c)(1)(f). 

State: California; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: When counseling or other 
treatment services are ordered, the parent is not required to 
participate in those services if the parent is incarcerated and the 
corrections facility does not provide access to the treatment services 
ordered by the court. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. § 361.5(a)(3). 

State: California; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: Court-ordered 
reunification services may be extended for up to a total of 18 months 
if the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child 
will be returned to the parent within the extended time period, or 
reasonable services have not been provided. In deciding whether to 
extend the period of reunification services, courts shall consider the 
special circumstances of incarcerated or institutionalized parents, 
including the barriers to the parent's access to services and ability 
to maintain contact with the child. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 
361.5(a)(3). 

State: California; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: Court-ordered 
reunification services may be extended for up to a total of 24 months 
for parents who are recently discharged from incarceration and making 
significant progress in establishing a safe home for the child's 
return. This extension may be granted if the court finds it is in the 
child's best interest and there is a substantial probability that the 
child will be returned to the parent within the extended time period, 
or reasonable services have not been provided. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 
§§ 361.5(a)(4), 366.22(b). 

State: California; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: In determining the content 
of reasonable services, the court shall consider the particular 
barriers to an incarcerated parent's access to court-ordered services 
and ability to maintain contact with the child, and shall document 
this information in the child's case plan. Services may include: 
maintaining contact between the parent and child through collect 
telephone calls, transportation and visitation services where 
appropriate, and reasonable services to extended family members or 
foster parents if the services are not detrimental to the child. An 
incarcerated parent may be required to attend counseling, parenting 
classes, or vocational training programs as part of the reunification 
service plan, if actual access to these services is provided. The 
social worker shall document in the case plan the particular barriers 
to an incarcerated parent's access to court-ordered services and 
ability to maintain contact with the child. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 
361.5(e)(1). 

State: California; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: The court is not required 
to order reasonable services if it determines that reasonable services 
would be detrimental to the child, considering the age of the child, 
degree of parent-child bonding, length of the sentence, length and 
nature of the treatment, nature of the crime, degree of detriment to 
the child if services are not offered, and for children 10 years or 
older, the child's attitude toward family reunification services, 
likelihood of the parent's discharge within reunification time 
limitations, and any other appropriate factors. Cal. Welf. & Inst. 
Code § 361.5(e)(1). 

State: Colorado; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: Reasonable efforts are not 
required to prevent the child's removal from the home or to reunify 
the child and the family when the court finds that the parent has 
subjected to the child to aggravated circumstances, which can include, 
among other factors: 
* long-term confinement such that the parent is not eligible for 
parole for at least six years after the date the child was adjudicated 
dependent or neglected; or; 
* if the child is under six years old at the time the petition to 
terminate parental rights is filed in response to reported child 
abuse, long-term confinement such that the parent is not eligible for 
parole for at least 36 months after the child was adjudicated 
dependent or neglected. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 19-1-115(7)(a), 19-3-
604(1)(b)(III). 

State: Colorado; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: The court shall approve an 
appropriate treatment plan, except where termination of parental 
rights is proposed. However, the court may find that an appropriate 
treatment plan cannot be devised due, among other factors, to the 
unfitness of the parent, which may be based on: 
* long-term confinement such that the parent is not eligible for 
parole for at least 6 years after the date the child was adjudicated 
dependent or neglected; or; 
* if the child is under 6 years old at the time the petition to 
terminate parental rights is filed in response to reported child 
abuse, long-term confinement such that the parent is not eligible for 
parole for at least 36 months after the child was adjudicated 
dependent or neglected; 
When the court finds that an appropriate treatment plan cannot be 
devised, the court shall conduct a permanency hearing unless a motion 
for termination of parental rights has been filed within 30 days; 
Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 19-3-508(1)(e), 19-3-604(1)(b)(III). 

State: New York; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: Evidence of "diligent 
efforts" by the state agency is not required when: 
* the parent has failed to keep the agency apprised of his or her 
location for 6 months, provided that the court may consider the 
particular delays or barriers faced by an incarcerated parent in 
keeping the agency apprised of his or her location; or; 
* an incarcerated parent has failed more than once while incarcerated 
to cooperate with an authorized agency in its efforts to assist the 
parent to plan for the future of the child, or to plan and arrange 
visits with the child. 
N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(7)(e). 

State: New York; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: The state agency is not 
required to make arrangements for an incarcerated parent to visit the 
child outside the correctional facility unless reasonably feasible and 
in the best interest of the child. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384- 
b(7)(f)(2). 

State: New York; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: The state agency is not 
required to provide services and other assistance to an incarcerated 
parent so that problems preventing the discharge of the child from 
foster care may be resolved or ameliorated. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-
b(7)(f)(3). 

State: New York; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: The state agency must make 
"diligent efforts" to encourage and strengthen the parental 
relationship. Diligent efforts requirements apply equally to 
incarcerated parents and include: 
Making suitable arrangements for a parent to visit the child within 
the correctional facility, if such visiting is in the best interests 
of the child. Such arrangements include transporting the child to the 
facility, and providing or suggesting social or rehabilitative 
services to resolve or correct the problems other than incarceration 
itself which impair the parent's ability to maintain contact with the 
child; 
Providing information on the legal rights and obligations of an 
incarcerated parent and on social or rehabilitative services available 
in the community to aid in the development of a meaningful parent-
child relationship, including wherever possible transitional and 
family support services located in the community to which the parent 
shall return; 
N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(7)(f)(5)-(6). 

State: New York; 
Provisions that describe how reasonable efforts[A] can or should be 
made or excused for an incarcerated parent: If the parent is 
incarcerated, the family service plan shall reflect the special 
circumstances and needs of the child and the family. The plan 
generally must be prepared and revised in consultation with the 
child's parent or guardian, but if in-person participation is 
impracticable, they may participate via technology such as 
videoconference or teleconference. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 409-e(2)-(3). 

Source: GAO analysis of selected state child welfare statutes, as 
verified by state officials. 

Notes: For the remaining six states included in this review (Florida, 
Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas), we were unable 
to identify any specific statutory provisions related to incarcerated 
parents and reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family. 
However, that does not mean that requirements related to this issue 
have not been developed through other sources, such as state 
regulations, case law, or policy. 

Because the following provisions are federal requirements for every 
state that receives federal funds under Titles IV-E and IV-B of the 
Social Security Act, this table does not include the provisions in 
ASFA which excuse a state agency from conducting reasonable efforts if 
a court has determined that the parent has committed specified crimes, 
see 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(D). 

[A] In implementing the federal reasonable efforts requirements, 
states may use various related terms such as "reasonable services" or 
"diligent efforts." 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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

Department Of Health & Human Services: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 
Washington, DC 20201: 

September 20, 2011: 
 
Kay Brown, Director: 
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Brown: 

Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) draft report entitled, "Child Welfare: More Information and 
Collaboration Could Promote Ties between Foster Care Children and 
Their Incarcerated Parents" (GAO-11-863). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report prior 
to publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim R. Esquea: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

Attachment: 

[End of letter] 

General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) 
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled, 
"More Information And Collaboration Could Promote Ties Between Foster 
Care Children And Their Incarcerated Parents" (GAO-11-863): 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on 
this draft report. 

Secretary Sebelius is a member of the Federal Interagency Reentry 
Council, chaired by Attorney General Eric Holder, The Reentry Council 
is working across Federal departments to clarify policies, remove 
barriers, and promote innovative and tested programs to increase the 
potential for individuals returning from jail and prison to return to 
their families, when appropriate, and to become productive members of 
their community. Addressing issues that affect children and families 
with an incarcerated parent is part of the core reentry mission of the 
collaboration, As a part of that collaboration, HHS and the Department 
of Justice are committed to working together to ensure that both the 
criminal justice and child welfare communities have the information 
they need to make the best decisions for incarcerated and reentering 
parents and for their children, As GAO noted, one of the first 
activities of the Reentry Council was to produce a "Reentry 
Mythbuster" to clarify the discretion that states have in working with 
incarcerated parents rather than terminating parental rights. This is 
the first in an ongoing series of policy clarifications and best 
practices information on family involvement and family strengthening 
that will be directed to both criminal justice and child welfare/human 
services audiences under the leadership of the Council. The staff 
working group supporting the Council will work with the Administration 
for Children and Families (ACF) and National Institute of Justice, the 
National Institute of Corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 
the development and dissemination of these materials. 

GAO Recommendations: 

To better understand the magnitude of the population and inform 
Federal or State initiatives that affect children in foster care with 
incarcerated parents, the Secretary of HHS should identify ways to 
strengthen the completeness of state-reported data on those children. 
For example, in implementing new reporting requirements fur the 
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), the 
agency could take into consideration its 2008 proposed changes in 
which States would be required to provide additional information on 
each foster child and his or her family circumstances, including a 
caretaker's incarceration, at several times during the child's stay in 
foster care and not only when a child first enters care. 

To improve outcomes for these children, the Secretary of HHS should 
take steps to more systematically increase awareness among State and 
local child welfare agencies about available resources for children in 
child welfare with incarcerated parents. For example, HHS could: 

* Take steps to update and more centrally organize relevant 
information posted on the Child Welfare Information Gateway (Gateway), 
which is meant to serve as a comprehensive information resource for 
the child welfare field, such as by regularly updating the information 
listed under the Gateway's relevant topic areas (e.g., 'Children in 
Out-of-Home-Care With Incarcerated Parents) with links to more recent 
material posted on other HHS-supported websites; 

* Identify or provide additional information on promising approaches, 
such as those listed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Planning and Evaluation; 

* Use relevant findings from the Child and Family Services Review 
(CFSR) process as an opportunity to remind States about available 
resources and post information on promising approaches identified in 
the reviews; and; 

* Facilitate awareness among all child welfare agencies about HHS's 
available resources through an email or a teleconference/webinar that 
would allow State and local agencies to share information on practices 
or strategies. 

ACF Response: 

We appreciate the information and analysis provided by GAO, and shares 
the view that it is important to better understand the circumstances 
and needs of children in foster care with incarcerated parents, and to 
increase awareness of available resources to improve outcomes for 
these children. 

While ACF cannot specifically comment on decisions relating to AFCARS 
proposed rule, ACF appreciates receiving the GAO's recommendations 
relating to data concerning children in foster care with incarcerated 
parents, and will take these recommendations into consideration as the 
final rule is developed. 

Concerning the recommendation that ACF take steps to more 
systematically increase awareness among State and local child welfare 
agencies about available resources for children in child welfare with 
incarcerated parents, ACF's Administration on Children, Youth and 
Families (ACYF) and the Children's Bureau (CB) aim to accomplish many 
of the examples stated in the recommendation through the Child Welfare 
Information Gateway. We will work with the Gateway on the following 
items: 

* Making information on children of incarcerated parents and related 
topics more centrally located on the Child Welfare Information Gateway 
website, with multiple links from various pages and updating resources 
regularly to include State data and examples, as they are available; 
and; 

* Providing opportunities to make child welfare agencies and States 
more aware of the resources available to them about children of 
incarcerated parents such as articles in the CB Express, links to new 
or updated information on the `Highlights' and 'What's New' sections 
of the Information Gateway website, and references in Training & 
Technical Assistance Network organizations' newsletters. 

In terms of the recommendation to use relevant findings from the CFSR 
process as an opportunity to remind States about available resources 
and post information on promising approaches identified in the 
reviews, we agree and are currently in the process of revising the 
CFSR. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Gale Harris, Assistant Director, and Theresa Lo, Analyst-in-Charge, 
managed this assignment. Sara Schibanoff Kelly and Eve Weisberg 
managed the portion on residential drug treatment centers presented in 
appendix II. Analysts Miriam Hill, Melissa Jaynes, Andrew Nelson, and 
Rebecca Rose made important contributions to this report. James 
Bennett and Mimi Ngyuen provided graphic assistance, and Susan 
Bernstein and David Chrisinger provided writing assistance. Kirsten 
Lauber, Jean McSween, Mark Ramage, Beverly Ross, and Shana Wallace 
provided data analysis and methodological assistance, and Sarah 
Cornetto provided legal assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Children also enter foster care for other reasons, such as their 
parents' illness, death, disability, or incarceration, or because of 
the children's delinquent behavior and truancy. 

[2] Federal funding for state child welfare services and foster care 
programs is provided under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security 
Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 621, 629, and 670. To be eligible for federal 
funding, states must comply with certain program requirements imposed 
by these laws. In fiscal year 2010, of the $8 billion provided to 
states, $7.2 billion was used for providing matching funds to states 
under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, primarily to maintain 
eligible children in foster care, provide subsidies to families 
adopting children with special needs, and cover administrative and 
training costs. 

[3] Because these surveys are probability samples, the estimates are 
subject to sampling error. We disclose this sampling error as 95 
percent confidence intervals and present this information along with 
the estimates in this report. See appendix I for more information on 
these surveys and estimates. 

[4] The 10 selected states were Alabama, California, Colorado, 
Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. 

[5] States may use different terms for the courts that handle foster 
care cases, including family court, juvenile court, and dependency 
court. In this report, we use the term "dependency court" to refer to 
all these types of courts. 

[6] For the purposes of this report, foster care means substitute care 
for children outside their own homes for at least 24 hours, under the 
responsibility of the state child welfare agency. 

[7] 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(19), 675(5)(A). 

[8] Excluded from these numbers are children who are cared for by 
relatives in informal arrangements made by families outside of the 
child welfare system. 

[9] 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(B). 

[10] 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(29). Some states may impose their own 
requirements to locate noncustodial parents as part of a child welfare 
agency's reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families. 

[11] 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(16), 675(1). 

[12] Pub. L. No. 105-89, §§ 103(a), 302, 111 Stat. 2115, 2118, 2128. 

[13] 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C)(i), (E). 

[14] 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E)(i)-(iii). 

[15] Of these inmates, about half served sentences of 1 to 2 years. 
These data are based on the published report by Heather C. West, 
William J. Sabol, and Sarah J. Greenman, Prisoners in 2009, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice (December 2010). 

[16] CFSRs, which occur on a regular and recurring basis in every 
state (generally every 2 to 5 years depending on the results of the 
prior review), are the central and most comprehensive component of 
federal efforts to determine state compliance with federal child 
welfare requirements. HHS also reviews states' progress related to 
areas found not to be in substantial conformity with federal 
requirements based on the last CFSR, generally on an annual basis. 

[17] See [hyperlink, http://www.childwelfare.gov] (accessed Aug. 24, 
2011). 

[18] According to BJS, an estimated 52 percent of state inmates and 63 
percent of federal inmates were parents of children under the age of 
18 in 2007. Information on incarcerated parents in this section is 
from the published report by BJS: Lauren E. Glaze and Laura M. 
Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice (August 2008; revised 
in March 2010). See appendix I for additional information on estimates 
from that report. 

[19] According to BJS estimates, between 1991 and 2007, male inmates 
with children under the age of 18 grew from 423,000 to 744,200. 
Meanwhile, female inmates with children under the age of 18 grew from 
29,500 to 65,600 during this time. 

[20] Pub. L. No. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (2008). 

[21] Additional information collected by AFCARS includes the length of 
stay in foster care, a child's most recent case plan goals, outcomes 
for children exiting foster care (such as reunification with parent or 
adoption), and whether parental rights have been terminated. 

[22] AFCARS lists 15 actions or conditions associated with the child's 
removal. The two most common reasons in 2009 were neglect and drug 
abuse of the parent, while incarceration was the seventh most common. 

[23] We also analyzed data on all children who were in foster care in 
2009 (615,040 children had an open foster care case at some point in 
2009) and had entered such care in 2007 or 2008. Of these, parental 
incarceration was reported as a reason for approximately 30,000 
children who had entered foster care in 2007, 2008, or 2009. While 
some of those parents will not be incarcerated throughout their 
child's stay in foster care, child welfare agencies may need to work 
with those incarcerated parents at points during the child's time in 
foster care. For more information on our methodology, see appendix I. 

[24] Some studies have found it more common for a mother to be 
incarcerated after the child entered foster care. For example, DOJ's 
National Institute of Justice funded a series of studies that, in 
part, examined the timing and incidence of foster care placements for 
Illinois children with incarcerated mothers. The study found that many 
foster care placements preceded their mother's arrests or 
incarcerations. See Haeil Jung, Robert LaLonde, and Rekha Varghese, 
Incarcerated Mothers, Their Children's Placement into Foster Care, and 
its Consequences for Reentry and for Labor Market Outcomes, The 
University of Chicago (2007). This finding was consistent with another 
study, of New York mothers, which found that the vast majority of 
maternal arrests and incarcerations that overlapped child placement 
started after the child's placement in foster care. The study reviewed 
children entering foster care from July 1996 to June 1997. See Timothy 
Ross, Ajay Khashu, and Mark Wamsley, Hard Data on Hard Times: An 
Empirical Analysis of Maternal Incarceration, Foster Care, and 
Visitation, Vera Institute of Justice (New York, August 2004). While 
these studies were not recently completed, their findings were 
consistent with what we heard from state officials we spoke with for 
this report. 

[25] We also saw significant variety among states that regularly 
report this information. Based on our review of fiscal year 2009 data, 
some states said that a child's removal was due solely or in part to 
parental incarceration in 1-2 percent of the cases, while some other 
states selected this reason in about 20 percent of the cases. We do 
not know if this variation reflects true variation in the underlying 
circumstances of removal or variation in choices made by caseworkers 
when coding reasons for data collection purposes. 

[26] New York is in the process of updating its case management 
system, according to HHS officials, and started reporting a small 
amount of data on removal reasons in 2008. Based on AFCARS data for 
fiscal year 2009, New York reported that 27 percent of its cases 
include any removal reason and a little more than 1 percent of its 
cases included the reason of parental incarceration. HHS does not 
currently assess penalties for a state not reporting AFCARS data. 

[27] 73 Fed. Reg. 2,082 (Jan. 11, 2008). 

[28] HHS also proposed collecting additional information on whether a 
parent or caretaker is in prison (AFCARS currently explicitly asks 
only about parents or caretakers in jail), though according to HHS 
officials we interviewed, caseworkers generally do not distinguish 
between incarceration in jail or prison when deciding to enter 
incarceration as a reason for removal from the home. Therefore, this 
part of the proposal may simply clarify current practice. 

[29] The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act 
of 2008 made amendments to Title IV-B and IV-E to support relative 
caregivers, improve outcomes for foster care children, and improve 
incentives for adoption, among other purposes. Pub. L. No. 110-351, 
122 Stat. 3949. 

[30] 75 Fed. Reg. 43,187 (Jul. 23, 2010). 

[31] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 
14,997 and 23,545 inmates. The 95 percent confidence interval for the 
estimate of fathers is between 10,058, and 17,258 inmates, and the 
confidence interval for the estimate of mothers is between 3,281 and 
7,939. 

[32] Based our analysis of the 2004 surveys, we are 95 percent 
confident that the number of state and federal inmates' children in 
foster care in 2004 exceed about 22,800. Please see appendix I for 
additional information. 

[33] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 
4,634 and 19,060 inmates. 

[34] It is possible that inmates represented in the 2004 survey of 
federal and state prisoners may also be represented in the 2002 survey 
of jail inmates, since inmates may progress from pretrial jail to 
prison. 

[35] For more information on these surveys and their methodologies, 
see appendix I. 

[36] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 
87.8 and 91.5 percent. 

[37] See appendix I for additional information on calculating the 
number of these children not captured in the prison and jail estimates. 

[38] Officials we interviewed noted several reasons for prisoners' 
reluctance, including a concern that such disclosure could endanger 
their parental rights or create child support payment obligations. 

[39] Although New York has begun to collect this information in its 
foster care data system, caseworkers are not necessarily reporting 
this information, according to state officials we interviewed. 
Officials said that the information is being collected in a new drop-
down menu and suggested it is not being used extensively because it is 
a new system. 

[40] In addition to states, federal prisons have initiated similar 
data collection efforts. Specifically, the Second Chance Act provided 
that DOJ and BOP shall coordinate to establish a federal prisoner 
reentry strategy to help prepare prisoners for release and successful 
reintegration. As part of this strategy, BOP is required to collect 
information about a prisoner's family relationships, parental 
responsibilities, and contacts with children. 42 U.S.C. § 
17541(a)(1)(F). A BOP official said that BOP has entered this data on 
more than 80 percent of the prison population. 

[41] An Oregon state official said that the state is planning another 
series of interviews with incarcerated women and men beginning in late 
2011. 

[42] In addition, in October 2009, California passed a law requiring 
social workers to make reasonable efforts to collect and update data 
regarding a child's incarcerated parent(s), once the appropriate data 
entry fields are established in the statewide child welfare database. 
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16501.8. 

[43] About 5 percent of children with a case plan goal of adoption had 
an incarcerated parent, versus about 4 percent of children with a goal 
of reunification, according to the officials. 

[44] As noted earlier, some of the 10 states were selected, in part, 
because they were identified by researchers and professionals as 
having strategies (policies, programs, or practices) aimed at 
supporting parent-child ties either statewide or in localities within 
the state. Therefore, the presence of programs in these states is not, 
necessarily, indicative of the prevalence of strategies in other 
states. 

[45] Unless noted otherwise, we did not review outcome studies for 
these strategies or examine other sources of information to evaluate 
effectiveness. 

[46] Specifically, states are not required to comply with this 
requirement if a child is in the care of relatives, the state has not 
provided necessary services to the family consistent with the case 
plan, or the state agency documents a compelling reason why filing 
such a petition is not in the best interests of the child. 42 U.S.C. § 
675(5)(E). 

[47] See appendix III for summaries of selected provisions from the 
child welfare statutes of the 10 states that pertain to termination of 
parental rights and reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify 
families. Citations to the state law provisions discussed in this 
report are available in appendix III. In cases where state officials 
or other experts identified other relevant statutes or case law 
outside the scope of our review, but relevant to the issues, citations 
are included as footnotes in the text of the report. 

[48] Some states may impose similar requirements as a result of 
developments in case law rather than through statute. Researching 
state case law was not within the scope of this report. For more 
information about the methodology we used to research state law, see 
appendix III. 

[49] However, some of the states in our review also have statutes 
providing that parental incarceration can be a factor in establishing 
grounds for terminating parental rights, for example, if the parent's 
sentence is for longer than a specified period of time. 

[50] Some states may impose a similar prohibition as a result of 
developments in case law rather than through statute. For the purposes 
of this report we did not examine state case law. 

[51] However, Colorado statute also provides that a parent's long-term 
incarceration, such that the parent is not eligible for parole for at 
least 6 years (or 36 months in certain cases) after the child was 
declared dependent or neglected, may be a factor in establishing 
grounds to terminate parental rights. 

[52] In addition, states may establish timelines for permanency 
decisions that are shorter than federal timelines. A few state 
officials said that their state timelines were more problematic for 
incarcerated parents than federal timelines. State timelines for 
permanency decisions were not included in our review of state law. 

[53] Specifically, a state is not required to make reasonable efforts 
to reunify the family if a court determines that the parent has 
subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (as defined in state 
law), the parent has committed certain enumerated crimes (such as 
murder, voluntary manslaughter, or felony assault to the child), or 
the parental rights to a sibling have been involuntarily terminated. 
42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(D). 

[54] Other states may have developed requirements related to 
reasonable efforts for incarcerated parents through case law; however, 
researching state case law was not within the scope of this report. 

[55] However, some of the states in our review, including California 
and New York, also have statutory provisions that may excuse the state 
child welfare agency from making reasonable efforts for incarcerated 
parents in certain circumstances. 

[56] Some states may provide for alternative means for incarcerated 
parents to participate in court hearings under state court rules or 
case law, which were beyond the scope of our review. 

[57] In California, courts may allow incarcerated parents who have 
waived their right to be physically present at a hearing, or who have 
not been ordered by the court to be present at a hearing, to 
participate in the hearing via videoconference, or if that technology 
is not available, by teleconference. In addition, California officials 
told us that an incarcerated parent's job placement, participation in 
court-ordered classes, or privileges should not be jeopardized when 
the parent's absence is due to participation in a juvenile court 
hearing. See Cal. Penal Code § 2625(d),(g), (h). 

[58] In re Mason, 782 N.W.2d 747, 748 (Mich. 2010). While we did not 
independently research case law, we did review state cases that were 
specifically mentioned to us by state officials or other experts, as 
appropriate. 

[59] Cal. Penal Code § 2625(d),(g), 2626. The law authorized the state 
corrections agency to accept technology donations for the purpose of 
implementing a program to facilitate incarcerated parents' 
participation in court hearings regarding their children. 

[60] The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts began efforts in 
2008 to promote the use of videoconference in the state's courtrooms, 
by providing training and installing hardware. As of 2010, the Office 
has provided video conferencing equipment to all courts in the state. 
Based on a recent survey it conducted in 2011, the Administrative 
Office of Pennsylvania Courts reported that many court proceedings in 
the state were held via videoconference each month and have resulted 
in cost savings from reduced court costs associated with transporting 
inmates to proceedings. 

[61] In September 2011, California began implementing a new program 
called the "Alternative Custody Program" which is aimed at reuniting 
low-level offenders with their families. The program, which is 
currently offered only to eligible women, allows non-serious, non- 
violent, and non-sex offenders to serve the remainder of their 
sentence in certain community settings, such as a residential home, a 
residential substance abuse treatment program, or a transitional care 
facility that offers individualized services. Cal. Penal Code § 
1170.05. See appendix II for more information on our review of family 
based residential drug treatment programs for women who are not 
incarcerated. 

[62] Corrections officials from two other states told us that have had 
the Girl Scouts Beyond Bars program in the past in at least one of 
their women's facilities but these programs were eliminated due to 
reasons including budget cuts and limited numbers of volunteers. 

[63] The Girl Scouts Beyond Bars program began in 1992 as a 
demonstration project of DOJ's research and evaluation branch, the 
National Institute of Justice. Currently, this program operates in a 
number of locations nationally, supported by various funding sources, 
which in some locations may include grants administered by DOJ's 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Girl Scouts of 
the USA commissioned a national evaluation of the program in 2008 that 
looked at whether program participants reported improved mother-
daughter relationships, among other things. See CSR, Inc. Third-Year 
Evaluation of Girl Scouts Beyond Bars Final Report, Girl Scouts of the 
USA (New York, Mar. 31, 2008). GAO social scientists did not review 
the methods or results of this study. 

[64] The law created a planning and advisory committee for the years 
2001 through 2003 composed of various government agencies, including 
child welfare and corrections, which was charged with issuing 
recommendations on how to increase family bonding for children with 
incarcerated parents. 2001 Or. Laws ch. 635 § 16. The legislature 
established a similar committee from 2005 through 2007 on the well- 
being of children whose parents are involved in the criminal justice 
system. 2005 Or. Laws ch. 497 § 1. 

[65] H.R. Res. 203, 2009-2010 Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2009). 

[66] As of 2011, HHS had conducted the second round of CFSRs for all 
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The timing of each 
state's next CFSR is dependent, in part, on the results of the last 
review. However, HHS examines, at least annually, states' progress 
toward addressing areas found not to be in substantial conformity with 
federal requirements. 

[67] This is specified as a component in item 16 of HHS's CFSR on-site 
review instrument. Item 16 looks at the "relationship of child in care 
with parents (interviews with child, parent(s), foster parent(s), 
service provider(s))." 

[68] For each of the 10 selected states, we looked at the final 
reports of the second round of reviews. To write these reports, HHS 
examines a "statewide assessment" that includes state data on safety 
and permanency outcomes for children in child welfare, and findings 
from an on-site review. The on-site review is conducted by a joint 
federal-state team and includes review of a sample of case records 
from multiple local child welfare agencies in the state; interviews 
with children and families who have received services; and interviews 
with caseworkers, foster parents, service providers, and community 
stakeholders, such as the courts and community agencies. 

[69] In the CFSR reports for two selected states, HHS reviewers 
mentioned instances related to working with incarcerated parents in 
which agencies could improve as well as instances commended as 
strengths. In the reports of 3 of the 10 selected states, while 
reviewers mentioned child welfare agencies' efforts to work with 
incarcerated parents, they were not clearly identified as a strength 
or an area for improvement. 

[70] See [hyperlink, 
http://www.childwelfare.gov/outofhome/casework/children/incarcerated.cfm
] (last accessed, Aug. 24, 2011) and [hyperlink, 
http://www.childwelfare.gov/famcentered/overview/approaches/prisoners.cf
m] (last accessed, Aug. 24, 2011), respectively for these two sites 
under the Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

[71] See [hyperlink, 
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/children-of-
incarcerated-parents.html] (last accessed, Aug. 24, 2011) and 
hyperlink, 
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/download/Workin
g%20with%20incarcerated%20parents%20CWIG%20Bibliography.pdf] (last 
accessed, Aug. 24, 2011). 

[72] Specifically, state child welfare officials in 8 of the 10 states 
we interviewed said that additional information on strategies to 
address permanency for children in foster care with incarcerated 
parents used by other state or local child welfare agencies would be 
moderately or very useful. 

[73] An HHS official who oversees the mentoring program said that 
children in foster care are among the youth served by this program, 
but the agency does not track the extent to which they are served. 

[74] In fiscal year 2003, it received initial funding of $10 million. 

[75] In its budget request for fiscal year 2012, HHS noted that this 
program should be reduced because many of the program's mentoring 
matches were not sustained and because research indicates that short 
term mentorships (e.g., less than 6 months) can actually be 
detrimental for children. 

[76] According to HHS officials overseeing this evaluation, none of 
these grants is specifically aimed at incarcerated fathers of children 
in foster care. For additional information on HHS's evaluation, see 
[hyperlink, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/] (last accessed, Aug. 
24, 2011). For information on the Healthy Marriage Promotion and 
Responsible Fatherhood grant program, see GAO, Healthy Marriage and 
Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Further Progress Is Needed in 
Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve 
Program Oversight, GAO 08-1002 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2008). 

[77] The National Institute of Corrections is housed within the BOP 
and provides federal, state, and local corrections agencies with 
information, training, and technical assistance. Its online library 
lists some resources under "Children of Inmates." 

[78] These grants were awarded as part of the Family-Based Prisoner 
Substance Abuse Treatment grant program created by the Second Chance 
Act, which authorized DOJ to make grants to states for family-based 
substance abuse treatment programs as alternatives to incarceration, 
and to provide prison-based family treatment programs for incarcerated 
parents of minor children. 42 U.S.C. § 3797s. 

[79] See [hyperlink, 
www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/.../Reentry_Council_Mythbuster_Par
ental_Rights.pdf] (last accessed, Aug. 24, 2011). 

[80] 42 U.S.C. § 17553. 

[81] One of BOP's strategic planning goals is to build partnerships 
with community, local, state, and federal agencies to improve the 
effectiveness of the services it provides to offenders and constituent 
agencies. Part of this goal involves the "active participation by BOP 
staff to improve partnerships," which "will allow the BOP to carry out 
its mission within the criminal justice system and to remain 
responsive to other agencies and the public." BOP states that these 
partnerships will help establish a supportive environment that 
promotes the reintegration of offenders into the community. 

[82] Rather than analyze data from only those cases active at the end 
of fiscal year 2009 (423,773), which HHS does in some of its annual 
reports, we analyzed data from all cases that were active in fiscal 
year 2009 in order to review a larger number of cases. 

[83] As mentioned in the body of this report, sentence lengths vary, 
so we do not know how many of these parents continued to be 
incarcerated. 

[84] In fiscal year 2009, Illinois, Oregon, and Wyoming listed less 
than 1 percent of their cases as children being removed from their 
homes due at least partly to parental incarceration. We could not 
confirm if these states had very low incidences of these cases or if 
the low rate was related to data reliability issues. 

[85] Because these estimates are derived from probability samples, 
this particular sample is only one of a large number of samples that 
could have been drawn. Since each sample could have provided different 
estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of these 
particular samples' results as a 95 percent confidence interval (i.e., 
plus or minus a certain number of percentage points). This is the 
interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent 
of the samples we could have drawn. The 95 percent confidence 
intervals are provided along with estimates in this report. 

[86] In each case, the survey was the most recent data available. We 
calculated confidence intervals from standard errors developed using 
generalized variance estimates as described in the prison surveys' 
documentation, and BJS calculated these intervals on our behalf for 
the jail surveys, due to certain data restrictions. 

[87] We conservatively estimated the number of children in foster care 
based on inmate responses to questions about how many minor children 
they had and whether any were in a foster home or in an agency. For 
example, the survey asks how many children the inmate has, but does 
not collect information on the number of children in each of the 
possible care locations. So, if a respondent had several children and 
also reported that some children were living with a relative and that 
some were in a foster home, we would conservatively count just one 
child in a foster care location. The one-sided 95 percent confidence 
interval for this estimate provides a conservative lower bound on the 
number of state and federal inmates' children in foster care in 2004. 

[88] Lauren E. Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, Parents in Prison and 
Their Minor Children, the Department of Justice (August 2008). 

[89] Because of estimation methods used in that report, those 
estimates produced may not be comparable to other published BJS 
estimates. 

[90] California, Florida, New York, and Texas have the highest, and 
Michigan and Pennsylvania have the 7th and 8th highest prison 
populations of all states. 

[91] For each phone interview, one team member entered officials' 
responses into a web-based data collection tool. Another team member 
who also participated in the interview would subsequently review the 
information entered for accuracy. As needed, we also conducted follow- 
up with officials to clarify responses, seek additional information, 
and request agency documents. 

[92] We visited more female facilities because of the greater 
likelihood that female inmates have children in foster care. 

[93] See, The Department of Health and Human Services, Blending 
Perspectives and Building Common Ground (April 1999). In addition, 
researchers at Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago drew upon 
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being data from 2000 to 
estimate that 61 percent of infants and 41 percent of older children 
placed in foster care had at least one caregiver affected by substance 
abuse. See F. Wulczyn, M. Ernst, and P. Fisher, "Who Are the Infants 
in Out-of-Home Care? An Epidemiological and Developmental Snapshot," 
Chapin Hall Issue Brief, (May 2011). 

[94] See, University of California, Los Angeles, California Treatment 
Outcome Project Final Report (2003). 

[95] GAO, Child Welfare: Additional Federal Action Could Help States 
Address Challenges in Providing Services to Children and Families, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-850T] (Washington, 
D.C., May 15, 2007). 

[96] GAO, African American Children in Foster Care: Additional HHS 
Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-816] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 11, 2007). 

[97] According to SAMHSA, although implemented by private nonprofit 
and public drug treatment providers, each PPW project uses a 
comprehensive service system, which consists of multiple memoranda of 
agreements with key agencies and organizations that have a role to 
play in prevention, treatment, and recovery. 

[98] The number of children a woman can bring with her to treatment 
varies, as does the age range of the children permitted by the centers. 

[99] See appendix I for additional information on the methods we used 
to describe these programs. 

[100] Between 1993 and 1995, HHS awarded 5-year grants for 70 PPW and 
RWC projects, which provided residential treatment for mothers and 
their children. From 2003-2009, HHS continued the PPW program, 
providing 3-year grants for up to $500,000 each for 55 projects. In 
fiscal year 2011, HHS anticipates awarding up to 19 PPW grants. See 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, RWC/PPW Cross-site Evaluation, 
Caliber Associates (Rockville, MD, 2003). 

[101] In 2007, HHS awarded grant funds ranging from $500,000 to 
$1,000,000 to 53 RPG grantees for 3-year or 5-year projects. 

[102] ACF's report entitled Targeted Grants to Increase the Well-Being 
of, and to Improve the Permanency Outcomes for, Children Affected by 
Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse: First Annual Report to 
Congress contains additional information about the RPG program, 
including the process for selecting outcome measures and program 
evaluation design. 

[103] During the course of our work, state officials or other experts 
we interviewed occasionally identified additional statutes or cases 
that, though related generally to issues involving incarcerated 
parents, were outside the scope of our review. We incorporated 
discussions of these laws and cases, as appropriate, in the body of 
the report, but they are not reflected in this appendix. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

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

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: