Freeing Children for Adoption within the Adoption and Safe Families Act Timeline: Part 1

February 2021

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

OFFICE OF HUMAN SERVICES POLICY

Freeing Children for Adoption within

the Adoption and Safe Families Act

Timeline:

Part 1 – The Numbers

Authors: Laura Radel and Emily Madden

_________________________________________________________

KEY FINDINGS

• States vary tremendously in both the proportion of children entering foster care

who experience termination of parental rights (TPR) within five years of entry

(ranging from nine percent to 44 percent) and in the proportion of TPRs that

occur within 17 months (ranging from 16 percent to 89 percent). The 17-month

time point approximates the requirement in federal law that child welfare

agencies file a petition to terminate parental rights once a child has been in

foster care 15 of the previous 22 months.

• Of children exiting before spending 17 months in foster care, 77 percent exit to

a parent or relative’s care (either with or without guardianship).

• After the 17-month point, 25 percent experience reunification or relative care

exits, and 47 percent of exits are to adoptions.

• White and multiracial children are more likely than children of other races to

experience TPR, while Asian and Hispanic children are most likely to have

TPR occur within 17 months.

_________________________________________________________

Permanency, that is ensuring children have long term, enduring connections to family or

other caring adults, is one of the three primary goals of the child welfare system, along with

safety and child well-being. Child welfare systems have long been concerned about

permanency outcomes of children entering foster care because stability in relationships with

caring adults form the basis for healthy child development (Wadell, et al 2004). Increases in

the number of children entering care in recent years – in part due to the ongoing substance

use crisis – have raised new concerns about how long children remain in temporary care.

The number of children in foster care rose from 2013 to 2017 after more than a decade of

consistent declines (ACF 2020a). In addition, achieving timely permanency for children is the

federally monitored program outcome state child welfare agencies most consistently struggle

to meet (ACF 2020b).

This research explores how frequently states make exceptions to the federal requirement

that child welfare agencies initiate the legal process to terminate parents’ rights once a child

has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months, and highlights issues behind

states’ difficulties in achieving timely permanency for children. Three data sources are used

to gain insights into these issues:

1. Q

uantitative federal analysis of administrative data from the Adoption and Foster

Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)

2. Content analysis of monitoring reports and program improvement plans from t

most recent round of Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs)

3. Interviews with state adoption officials and stakeholders in three states: Illinois, Utah

and Wisconsin

This report highlights quantitative findings from AFCARS data. A companion report (

Freeing

Children for Adoption within Adoption and Safe Families Act Timeline: Part 2, State

Perspectives), focuses on qualitative findings from CFSRs and key informant interviews.

The quant

itative analyses follow a cohort of children who entered foster care in 2013, over

200,000 children in total, and track their exits through the end of 2017. Methodological

details may be found at the end of this report. The analyses presented here relate to

analyses of permanency featured in a recent Information Memorandum published by the

Children’s Bureau, ACYF-CB-IM-21-01, Achieving Permanency for the Well-being of

Children and Youth (issued January 5, 2021). The analyses in the Information Memorandum

focus on aggregate national findings. This report complements those in the Information

Memorandum with an expanded focus on variation among the states and how those

variations relate to policy and practice.

Background on Federal Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)

Requirements

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) was enacted in 1997 and at the

time represented the most significant overhaul of federal child welfare law since the

establishment of the federal title IV-E (of the Social Security Act) foster care and adoption

assistance programs in 1980. The law codified in

federal statute the core child welfare system values of

safety, permanency, and child well-being. The

permanency goal was intended to ensure that children

and youth achieve a permanent family connection,

preferably with their birth families but with adoptive

families if birth families cannot address safety issues

within a reasonable period of time. ASFA addressed

concerns that too many children drifted for long

periods in the child welfare system without resolution

of their cases and suffered emotionally and

developmentally as a result (Spar and Shuman 2004).

As involved observers have noted, at the time ASFA

was being considered a “broad group—members of Congress, the Clinton administration,

and many outside observers—expressed concern about the growth in foster care caseloads,

a pattern of children lingering in care too long, and the obstacles to adoption that prevented

children who could never go home from ever achieving a place within a permanent family”

(Golden and Macomber 2009, p. 9). Among the law’s major provisions related to

permanency is a requirement that, with limited exceptions, states must file a petition to

terminate parental rights once a child has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22

months. This is often referred to as the 15/22 rule. Termination of parental rights is

necessary before another family may adopt the child. States may make exceptions to the

timeline, that is, grant extensions, on an individual basis if the child is living with a relative, if

Federal child welfare law

requires that, as a condition of

the title IV-E Foster Care

Program, a state file or join a

petition to terminate parental

rights once a child has been in

foster care for 15 of the previous

22 months. This is often referred

to as the 15/22 rule. Exceptions

are permitted in limited

circumstances.

services intended to address the conditions that led to the child’s foster care placement have

not been delivered, or if the state documents a “compelling reason” why termination of

parental rights is not in the child’s best interests.

As shown in Figure 1, in the years immediately following ASFA’s enactment in 1997, the

annual number of adoptions from foster care increased rapidly and then settled into a new

equilibrium of between 50,000 and 60,000 adoptions per year. The numbers have been

rising again since 2014 and topped 60,000 in both 2018 and 2019 (ACF 2020b). Today,

there are more children who have been adopted from foster care and are receiving federal

adoption assistance subsidies than there are children currently in foster care. The shift in the

foster care and permanency program toward a predominance of children in adoptive homes

has progressed steadily since ASFA was enacted (Rolock, et al. 2017). Wildeman and

colleagues (2020) have estimated that approximately one percent of U.S. children

experience TPR during childhood and that the likelihood of TPR doubled between 2000

(shortly after ASFA was enacted) and 2016.

Figure 1. Adoptions with Public Agency Involvement, 1998-2019

Source: AFCARS

While the number of adoptions grew following ASFA, states continued to struggle to achieve

timely permanency for children. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) study in 2001

found that in most states that had data available to track the phenomenon, “the number of

children exempted from the [15/22] provision greatly exceeded the number of children to

whom it was applied” (GAO 2002). More recently, current results of ACF’s Child and Family

Services Reviews (CFSRs) documented continuing challenges to timely adoption

. In the

round of reviews that ended in 2018, only seven states were rated as having a strength on

the review item regarding timely TPRs (ACF 2020).

Child and Family Services Reviews, conducted for each state roughly every five years, determine the extent to

which states are in compliance with federal child welfare laws and regulations. States found not to be in

substantial compliance are required to implement a Program Improvement Plan describing corrective actions

they will take to improve performance. ACF completed its third round of CFSRs in 2018 and no state was

determined to be in substantial compliance with all of the seven outcomes and seven systemic factors addressed

in the reviews. More information on the CFSRs may be found at:

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/monitoring/child-

family-services-reviews/round3

While there is widespread agreement on the

importance of permanency in children’s lives,

there is considerably more disagreement

regarding whether the child welfare system

inappropriately contributes to impermanence

by taking too many children into foster care

who could remain safely with their families

and not doing enough to address families’

problems before seeking permanent

alternatives. Some observers argue that

further efforts are needed to terminate

parental rights expeditiously, in some cases

long in advance even of current ASFA

timelines, and to move more children into

adoptive homes as quickly as possible (Riley

2018; Zill 2011). As of 2011, 18 states had

enacted state level TPR timelines shorter than

those required in ASFA (Vesnecki 2011). For

instance, Alabama expects the child welfare

agency to request TPR once a child has been

in care 12 months, Arizona may request TPR

at nine months under some circumstances,

and Oklahoma has a timeline of six of 22

months for children who were under the age

of four at the time of placement (Child Welfare

Information Gateway 2016). Other efforts to

expedite adoptions have also been

implemented in some states, such as

streamlining the parental appeals process

(Keith and Flango 2002). However, work by

Wulczyn and colleagues (2016) finds that the

existence of state adoption “fast track

statutes” are not by themselves associated

with higher adoption rates in practice. If those

statutes are used infrequently, as is the norm

where they exist, they have little practical

effect. (For these and other key data used in

this report, complete state-by-state statistics

can be found in the appendix table.)

States Vary Widely in the

Frequency and Timing of TPR

States vary in how frequently they

terminate parental rights of children in

foster care. As shown in Figure 2, the

proportion of children who entered foster care

in FY 2013 who experienced TPR by the end

of FY 2017 ranged from a low of nine percent

in Wyoming to a high of 44 percent in Maine

The median among states is 22 percent.

Specific statistics for each state may be found in the appendix table.

Source: AFCARS, children entering care in FY 2013

who experienced TPR by September 20, 2017.

Figure 2. States vary in the

proportion of children entering

foster care who experience

termination of parental rights

Twelve states had TPR rates below 20 percent, and seven states had rates over 35 percent.

Myriad factors may be involved in the variations among states. Several hypotheses

may be posed to explain the range among states in the likelihood of TPR. States that bring

into care only the most seriously endangered children may be less able to reunify families

and thus conduct more TPRs. States with fewer service resources may have more difficulty

addressing the family problems that led to the child’s entry. State child welfare agencies and

judges may vary in the extent to which they value both reunifications and other relative

placements in relation to adoptions when children remain in care for extended periods. The

age distribution of states’ foster care populations may also be a factor, since younger

children are more likely than older children to experience TPR. States that serve a

disproportionate number of older youth in foster care will likely have lower rates of TPR, and

those whose foster care populations include a disproportionate number of infants will likely

have higher rates of TPR. The age distribution of a state’s foster care population relates to

policy factors such as the extent to which the state uses its child welfare system to serve

mentally ill or delinquent youth and the extent to which it makes efforts to serve drug

exposed infants while in their parents’ care rather than routinely placing those infants in

foster care. No research has tested any of these possible explanations of differing TPR rates

among states.

Timeliness of terminations of parental rights also vary substantially. Figure 3 shows

the proportion of TPRs that occurred within 17 months of the child’s foster care entry in each

state, that is, approximately in line with the ASFA timeline. States shown in lighter shades of

blue had lower proportions of children whose TPRs were timely, while those in darker

shades of blue had larger proportions of timely TPRs. Nationally, 54 percent of TPRs occur

timely. However, states vary substantially in the percentage of TPRs that occur according to

federal timeframes. In seven states, 70 percent or more of TPRs happened within 17

months. On the other end of the distribution, in seven states and DC, more than 70 percent

of TPRs took place more than 17 months after entry. AFCARS data do not include

information on whether specific exceptions to the TPR requirements are documented for

children who remain in care without TPR. Whether exceptions are documented or not,

clearly many children are de facto exempted from the timelines, and the volume of these

exceptions vary among the states.

Figure 3. Over half of TPRs nationally (54 percent) occur within 17 months

of foster care entry but rates vary widely among states

Source: AFCARS, proportion of children experiencing TPR within 17 months among children entering care in FY 2013

Many parents face substantial barriers to reunification and find it difficult to

accomplish the requirements of their case plans within the ASFA timelines. Many note

that parents with substance use disorders (SUDs) are particularly hard pressed to

demonstrate recovery to caseworkers’ and judges’ satisfaction within the timelines (DHHS,

1999; Rockhill et al. 2008). Berger and colleagues (2010) found that families with

caseworker-perceived alcohol or drug problems were more likely to experience TPR, though

differences disappeared after controlling for other factors. Hong and colleagues (2014) found

that mothers with “mixed” progress in SUD treatment were less likely to experience TPR

than those who made no significant progress. There has also been some reluctance to

terminate parental rights when a parent’s incarceration rather than maltreatment is the

primary impediment to reunification and the parent expects to resume parenting upon

release sometime after the 15-month point (Zavez 2008; Gentry 1998). However, some

states’ child welfare statutes specifically address length of parental incarceration as grounds

for TPR. For instance, Ohio’s statute permits TPR if the parent is unable to care for the child

for more than 18 months due to incarceration. A similar provision in Iowa’s law specifies

TPR should occur if a parent is to be incarcerated for at least five years (Child Welfare

Information Gateway 2016).

The law provides potential exceptions for children living with relatives. One of the

permitted exceptions to TPR at the 15 of 22 months point is if the child is living with a

relative. While reasons for exceptions are not documented in AFCARS, our analysis

examined how frequently children who remained in care were living with relatives and thus

would have been potentially eligible for this exception. Nationally, 30 percent of children in

care beyond 17 months and who have not experienced TPR were living in relative foster

homes. However, as with so many aspects of child welfare practice, the proportion living in

relative foster homes at the point the 15/22 rule should have been invoked varies widely by

state. Figure 4 shows this variation. States with higher proportions of children living in

relative care are shown in darker shades of blue. In six states, fewer than 10 percent of

children in foster care beyond 17 months were living with relatives. On the other end of the

distribution, in seven states 40 percent or more lived with relatives.

Figure 4. Nationally, 30 percent of children in foster care without TPR

after 17 months are living with relatives

Source: AFCARS, proportion of children living with relatives in the first report after reaching 17 months in care

Timeliness of TPR varies by the age at which the child entered care. As shown in figure

5, timely TPRs are most likely for children who enter care as infants (under age one) and

adolescents (age 14 and over). Some states have established more aggressive TPR

timelines for infants. These shorter timelines are justified on the basis of young children’s

developmental needs, particularly with respect to developing attachment to a caregiver.

States also find it easier to recruit adoptive parents for infants than for children at even

somewhat older ages. For the oldest youth in foster care, TPRs either happened rapidly, or

not at all because they emancipated before being adopted.

Figure 5. TPRs are most timely for children entering foster care as infants

or adolescents

Source: AFCARS

TPR is most likely for White and multiracial children and least likely for Asian and

Hispanic children. With respect to race and ethnicity, multiracial and White children are

more likely than children of other races to experience TPR. Data for children of all races is

shown in Table 1. Over 30 percent of multiracial children and more than one-quarter of

White children who entered foster care (27.1 percent) had parental rights terminated within

the five-year observation window, as compared with 22.7 percent of American Indian

children, 21.5 percent of Black children, 17.9 percent of Hispanic children, and 16.2 percent

of Asian children who entered care. Differences by race and ethnicity are also seen in the

timeliness of TPR. TPRs were most likely to be timely for Asian and Hispanic children (67.3

percent and 58.6 percent, respectively) and least likely to be timely for American Indian

children (40.8 percent).

Table 1. TPR Experiences by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity Proportion of Children Who

Experienced TPR within 5

Years

Proportion of TPRs that Occurred

within 17 Months

White 27.1% 55.6%

American Indian 22.7% 40.8%

Black 21.5% 49.7%

Hispanic 17.9% 58.6%

Asian 16.2% 67.3%

Multiracial 30.4% 53.0%

Figure 6 describes exit reasons for children in the study cohort. On the left of the chart,

children are divided into three groups based on their length of stay in foster care: children

who exited in less than 17 months, children who exited between 18 months and 5 years, and

those still in care after 5 years. On the right side, children are divided according to their exit

types. The lines flowing from left to right reflect the number of children from each length of

stay group exiting to each exit type—reunification, living with other relatives, adoption,

emancipation, guardianship and other (which includes transfer to another agency and death

of the child). TPR is required only for adoption exits. For all other exit types the parental

relationship remains intact legally, though custody is transferred.

Figure 6: Reunifications predominate among foster care exits prior to 17

months while adoptions are more common for those in care longer

Reunification becomes substantially less frequent after the 17-month mark. Overall, 47

percent of children exited to reunification, with four in five reunifications occurring before 17

months had passed. Adoptions were the exit type for 22 percent of children, and one in five

of those exits occurred before 17 months. Guardianships occurred in more equal numbers in

the two time periods, while exits to live with relatives without guardianships mostly occurred

in the early months. While reunifications may still occur after the point at which a child has

spent 17 months in care, they are greatly reduced compared to earlier in a child’s foster care

stay. Of children who exit foster care before the 17-month point, 67 percent reunify with

parent(s) and 10 percent exit to relative care. Of children in care beyond 17 months, 23

percent reunify and two percent exit to relative care. Also, seven percent of exits prior to 17

months and 49 percent of exits after 17 months are to adoptions. At the end of the study’s 5-

year observation period nearly 17,000 children (eight percent of the total cohort) were still in

Source: AFCARS, exit type for children who entered foster care in FY 2013 and had exited by September 30, 2017.

care, including five percent of the cohort who had been in care continuously and four percent

who had left care at some point and re-entered.

Conclusion

Over 20 years after ASFA’s passage, many states still struggle with permanency decisions

for children who remain in foster care longer than 15 months. These analyses have

demonstrated that there is considerable variation in the frequency with which states

ultimately terminate the parental rights of children in foster care and move them to adoptive

homes, as well as the timelines on which they do so. These numbers tell the “what” about

the frequency and timing of children’s exits from foster care to permanency and the extent to

which they experience TPR. However, numerical data do not explain the mechanisms

behind decision-making and delays or how and why states’ practices differ.

Some argue that child welfare agencies separate families unnecessarily, fail to address the

issues that led to separation, and then terminate parental rights for too many children for

insufficiently good reason. They believe the federal requirement that states seek to terminate

parental rights after a child has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months is

arbitrary and unfairly deprives children of their birth families. Others believe caseworkers,

their supervisors, and judges insufficiently value children’s safety and well-being, and press

for even shorter timelines to determine children’s permanent family associations. After many

years of struggling with the balance between children’s needs and parents’ rights, child

welfare agencies continue to be buffeted by these discordant views on current practice, both

among their leadership and staff as well as from outside stakeholders.

Exceptions to the ASFA timelines were intended by Congress to provide more time to

parents in cases where reunification is possible within a reasonable timeframe. Yet in three

of four cases in which exceptions are used, either explicitly or implicitly, permanency is

delayed without enabling a family reunification outcome. In the end, TPR and adoption

occurs, or the child remains in care indefinitely (in this analysis, for at least five years).

Neither delayed adoption nor long term foster care and possible emancipation without

permanency are preferred outcomes for children. This suggests improvements to practice

are needed both to improve timely reunification and to better target exceptions so they may

be used to facilitate, rather than delay, desired permanency and well-being for children in

foster care.

Existing administrative data allows us to track whether a TPR happened for children in foster

care and when it occurred. However, these data do not provide insights into whether this

most serious of actions a family court can take was necessary or could have been avoided,

or what the consequences of TPR are for children, their birth families, or their adoptive

families.

To explore the how’s and why’s of TPR delays beyond ASFA timelines, this research also

explored monitoring reports and interviewed adoption practitioners and stakeholders in three

states. Findings from that portion of the study may be found in the companion report to this

one entitled,

Freeing Children for Adoption within Adoption and Safe Families Act Timelines:

Part 2 – State Perspectives.

Methods

Data from the Administration for Children and Families’ Adoption and Foster Care Analysis

and Reporting System (AFCARS) were used to document permanency outcomes and

timelines for a cohort of children who entered foster care for the first time during Fiscal Year

(FY) 2013. Children’s placements and discharges were followed for approximately five

years, through the end of FY 2017. By that point 92 percent of the children had exited foster

care. The cohort totals 205,674 children, of whom 25 percent experienced termination of

parental rights (TPR) during the period of observation.

A cutoff of 17 months was used to look at whether TPRs were conducted timely. This is the

same standard ACF uses in CFSRs to determine whether TPRs are occurring timely and

takes into account determinations of when foster care officially begins. While the ASFA

timeline refers to when the TPR petition must be filed, AFCARS data specify only the date

on which TPR is completed. Thus, our measure of whether the TPR complies with the ASFA

timeline is inexact. Federal rules do not make requirements for how quickly a judge is to act

on the TPR petition once filed and there may be weeks or months of difference between the

filing of the petition and the judicial action to complete it. AFCARS data was also used to

determine whether children in foster care were living with relatives at the time they reached

the 15 of 22 months mark. The first recorded placement after the child had been in foster

care for 17 months was used to make this determination.

References

Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau (2020a). Trends in Foster Care and

Adoption: FY2010-2019. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/trends-in-foster-care-and-adoption

Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau (2020b). Child and Family Services

Reviews Aggregate Report: Round 3: Fiscal Years 2015–2018.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/cfsr-aggregate-report-round3

Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau (2017). Child and Family Services

Review Aggregate Report, Round 3: FYs 2015-2016. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/cfsr-

aggregate-report

Berger, LM, Slack, K, Waldfogel, J and Bruch, SK (2010) Caseworker-perceived caregiver

substance abuse and child protective services outcomes. Child Maltreatment 15(3): 199-210.

The Center for State Child Welfare Data (2015). Testing the Effect of Fast-Track Adoption Policy

on Adoption Rates.

https://fcda.chapinhall.org/permanency/testing-effect-fast-track-adoption-

policy-adoption-rates/

Child Welfare Capacity Building Center for Courts. (2016). National Report on Court

Improvement Program Projects and Initiatives FY 2015. Washington, D.C.: Children’s Bureau,

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

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/child_law/nrclji/CIPSelfAssessment

Report2015.authcheckdam.pdf

Child Welfare Information Gateway (2016). Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental

Rights. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/groundtermin/

Ellis, R, Malm, K, and Bishop, E (2009). The Timing of Termination of Parental Rights: A

Balancing Act for Children’s Best Interests. Child Trends Research Brief, publication 2009-40.

https://www.childtrends.org/publications/the-timing-of-termination-of-parental-rights-a-balancing-

act-for-childrens-best-interests

Gentry, PM (1998). Permanency planning in the context of parental incarceration: Legal issues

and recommendations. Child Welfare 77(5): 543-59.

Golden, O and Macomber, J (2009). Framework Paper: The Adoption and Safe Families Act. In

Intentions and Results – A Look Back at the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Washington, DC:

Center for the Study of Social Policy and the Urban Institute. https://affcny.org/wp-

content/uploads/IntentionsandResults.pdf

Hong, JS, Ryan, JP, Hernandez, PM, and Brown, S. (2014). Termination of parental rights for

parents with substance use disorder: For whom and then what? Social Work in Public Health,

29(6), 503-517.

Keith, AL and Flango, CR (2002). Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce

Delays. Williamsburg, Virginia: National Center for State

Courts.https://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/appellate/id/91

Riley, NS (2018). The White House can help foster kids. The Wall Street Journal, December 9,

2018. https://www.aei.org/articles/the-white-house-can-help-foster-kids/

Rockhill, A, Green, BL and Newton-Curtis, L (2008). Accessing substance abuse treatment

services: Issues for parents involved with child welfare services. Child Welfare 87(3), 63-93.

Rolock, NG, Perez, AR, White, K and Fong, R (2017). From Foster Care to Adoption and

Guardianship: A Twenty-First Century Challenge. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10560-017-0499-z

Spar, K and Shuman, M (2004) Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-

89). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. https://greenbook-

waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/2012/RL30759_gb.p

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Blending Perspectives and Building

Common Ground: A Report to Congress on Substance Abuse and Child Protection. Washington,

DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/blending-perspectives-and-building-common-ground

U.S. General Accounting Office (2002). Foster Care. Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on

Finding Permanent Homes for Children, But Long-Standing Barriers Remain. GAO-02-585.

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-585

Waddell, C, MacMillan, H, Marie-Pietrantonio, A (2004). How Important is Permanency Planning

for Children? Considerations for Pediatricians Involved in Child Protection. Journal of

Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 25(4): 285-292.

Wildeman, C, Edwards, FR, and Wakefield, S (2020). The Cumulative Prevalence of Termination

of Parental Rights for U.S. Children, 2000–2016. Child Maltreatment 25(1)32-42.

Wulczyn, F, Vesneski, W, Huhr, S, Monahan-Price, K, Martinez Z, Verhulst, C and Weiss, A

(2016). The Value-Added Impact of Fast Track Adoption Policy on Adoption Rates. Global Social

Welfare 3:97-106.

Zavez, M (2008). Use of the Adoption and Safe Families Act at 15/22 Months for Incarcerated

Parents. Vermont Law Review 33(2):187-199.

Zill, N (2011). Adoption from Foster Care: Aiding Children While Saving Public Money.

Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Appendix 1: Key Statistics on Termination of Parental Rights, By State

State

Proportion of children

entering foster care in

2013 who experienced

TPR within 5 years of

entry

Proportion of TPRs

that occurred before

17 months

Proportion of

children without

TPR at 17 months

who were living

with relatives

Alabama 17.4% 36.0% 17.6%

Alaska 39.7% 28.2% 18.2%

Arizona 37.1% 62.0% 42.5%

Arkansas 22.6% 79.4% 18.5%

California 23.3% 53.5% 39.8%

Colorado 19.8% 84.3% 18.6%

Connecticut 26.8% 40.7% 41.0%

Delaware 20.4% 57.4% 02.8%

District of Columbia 32.7% 17.2% 20.5%

Florida 28.3% 65.9% 42.6%

Georgia 21.3% 40.9% 22.4%

Hawaii 15.8% 46.4% 56.2%

Idaho 21.2% 69.4% 43.9%

Illinois 29.1% 15.6% 37.2%

Indiana 14.6% 34.6% 27.2%

Iowa 25.1% 78.1% 17.0%

Kansas 29.8% 45.0% 29.1%

Kentucky 21.8% 24.7% 03.5%

Louisiana 22.4% 46.2% 34.0%

Maine 44.2% 58.8% 35.5%

Maryland 14.0% 23.0% 37.0%

Massachusetts 18.0% 40.9% 30.6%

Michigan 35.6% 68.9% 23.1%

Minnesota 19.4% 82.8% 29.7%

Mississippi 15.1% 29.6% 31.3%

Missouri 21.8% 29.9% 26.0%

Montana 22.3% 48.6% 37.8%

Nebraska 22.3% 41.1% 24.5%

Nevada 25.3% 31.7% 34.7%

New Hampshire 21.3% 35.4% 10.6%

New Jersey 23.6% 31.5% 40.3%

New Mexico 23.7% 54.8% 13.5%

New York 19.8% 30.2% 26.3%

North Carolina 26.4% 44.7% 23.5%

North Dakota 21.5% 37.9% 17.5%

Ohio 19.3% 55.0% 18.9%

Oklahoma 38.2% 43.5% 31.3%

Oregon 21.4% 38.3% 28.0%

Pennsylvania 26.9% 37.9% 36.9%

Rhode Island 21.2% 22.2% 27.7%

South Carolina 18.3% 49.6% 34.9%

State

Proportion of children

entering foster care in

2013 who experienced

TPR within 5 years of

entry

Proportion of TPRs

that occurred before

17 months

Proportion of

children without

TPR at 17 months

who were living

with relatives

South Dakota 16.8% 68.1% 10.1%

Tennessee 19.9% 49.6% 06.3%

Texas 36.9% 89.5% 09.7%

Utah 29.4% 87.8% 27.1%

Vermont 36.2% 50.8% 30.0%

Virginia 28.5% 64.3% 7.3%

Washington 28.9% 33.0% 34.2%

West Virginia 30.1% 85.0% 10.2%

Wisconsin 17.7% 31.7% 30.1%

Wyoming 8.9% 25.0% 04.9%

US Total 25.2% 54.4% 42.3%