Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55279820
label
[Adoption] [3] [loose]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55279820
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
[Adoption] [3] [loose]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Policy Development (Clinton Administration)
Lyn Hogan's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55279820
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-26466295-20111010S-001-008
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7bf04bd24099aa78
ocrText
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to the Honorable
Arlen Specter, U.S. Senate
April 1993
INTERCOUNTRY
ADOPTION
Procedures Are
Reasonable, but
Sometimes
Inefficiently
Administered
UNITED STATES
OFFICE GENERAL
GAO/NSIAD-93-83
GAO
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
National Security and
International Affairs Division
B-251093
April 26, 1993
The Honorable Arlen Specter
United States Senate
Dear Senator Specter:
This report responds to your request that we review the requirements and procedures that U.S.
citizens must follow to adopt a foreign child. It contains recommendations to the Comissioner
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Secretary of State aimed at improving the
efficiency of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of State
intercountry adoption procedures and the quality of services to adopting parents.
Unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan to make no further distribution of this report
until 14 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of State; the
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Director, Office of Management and
Budget; appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will also
furnish copies to others upon request.
This report was prepared under the direction of Harold J. Johnson, Director, International
Affairs Issues, who may be reached on (202) 512-5790 if you or your staff have any questions.
Other major contributors are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
trank ( Conshan
Frank C. Conahan
Assistant Comptroller General
Executive Summary
Purpose
Americans adopt more children from other countries than do citizens fro
all other nations combined. Each year, U.S. citizens adopt between 7,000
and 10,000 foreign children for a variety of reasons-often because the
prospective parents believe they are ineligible for domestic adoptions an
consider intercountry adoptions to be easier, faster, and less expensive
than domestic adoptions. However, once involved in this adoption
process, some parents find the process to be complex, stressful, and
difficult to complete. Many private adoption agencies share this view.
Concerned that the intercountry adoption system may be unnecessarily
bureaucratic, complex, and impersonal, Senator Arlen Specter requested
that GAO review the requirements and procedures of the system.
Specifically, GAO assessed whether (1) the procedures of the U.S. agencie:
involved in such adoptions were reasonable and met applicable legislative
requirements, (2) the agencies administered the procedures efficiently,
and (3) American families and adoption agencies were satisfied with the
quality of services they received from the agencies during the adoption
process. GAO also provides information on efforts underway by the
intergovernmental Hague Conference on Private International Law to
prepare a convention that seeks to define common principles for countrie
involved in intercountry adoptions.
Background
The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes eligibility and fitness
requirements for prospective adoptive parents of children from foreign
countries and criteria for the children's entry into the United States. The
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Department of State
are the primary federal agencies charged with implementing the act's
intercountry adoption requirements. INS is the principal federal focal poin
for receiving and processing intercountry adoption applications,
determining the parents' eligibility and fitness to adopt, and adjudicating
the children's orphan status (a major factor considered in a child's entry
authorization). State provides information to prospective adoptive parent
about intercountry adoptions and the requirements of the country from
which they choose to adopt a child. State's overseas consular offices verif
the children's orphan status and issue visas for entry into the United
States.
Intercountry adoption requirements vary, sometimes dramatically, from
country to country. Although prospective parents may obtain information
about intercountry adoptions from U.S. agencies, they must independentl
Page 2
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoptic
Executive Summary
(or with the help of private adoption agencies or agents) locate, adopt, or
otherwise arrange for the emigration of the children they wish to adopt.
Results in Brief
Intercountry adoption is a complex and difficult process for adoptive
parents because of the variety of state, federal, and foreign government
requirements parents must meet. On the basis of its review, GAO believes
federal requirements and implementing procedures are reasonable and
necessary. INS and State procedures generally satisfy U.S. immigration
requirements for ensuring the prospective parents' eligibility and fitness to
adopt a foreign orphan and for verifying the child's orphan status and
eligibility to enter the United States.
A GAO survey of parents and private adoption agencies who completed
intercountry adoptions in 1991 disclosed that 70 percent of the parents
were generally satisfied with the overall adoption process. About
40 percent of the parents, including some who were generally satisfied,
encountered substantial difficulties with one or more elements of the
process; however, these difficulties involved principally the quality of
services provided rather than the processes and procedures themselves.
Inaccessibility of agency personnel by telephone was the most frequently
mentioned problem. Parents indicated that agency personnel were often
nonresponsive to inquiries and lacked courtesy and sensitivity and
knowledge about intercountry adoption laws and regulations. Although
federal agencies have substantial information available about intercountry
adoptions, many parents did not have adequate information about the
process as they were going through it.
GAO found that the U.S. agencies did not administer some of their
procedures efficiently-specifically, in processing the parents' fingerprints
for background checks and in transmitting case data to overseas visa
issuing offices. These inefficiencies sometimes resulted in adoption
processing delays.
U.S. accession to the draft Hague convention would not alter the basic
approach that parents use to adopt a foreign orphan, but it would result in
additional federal agency reporting and management responsibilities. It
would also establish more safeguards for the children involved and result
in some procedural changes.
Page 3
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Interconntry Adoption
Executive Summary
Principal Findings
Adoption Procedures Were
INS and State established and implement procedures consistent with the
Reasonable but Not
Immigration and Nationality Act to determine the eligibility and fitness of
Always Efficiently
prospective parents to adopt foreign children and the eligibility of the
children for orphan status and U.S. entry. INS determines whether the
Implemented
prospective parents are U.S. citizens and, in determining the parents'
fitness to provide proper care to an adopted child, requires parents to
submit (1) fingerprints for a background check by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and (2) a home study conducted by an authorized or
state-licensed agency that evaluates the parents' financial, physical,
mental, and moral capabilities to rear and educate children. GAO found
that, in conformance with INS procedures, INS personnel reviewed the
home studies and followed up on them when they contained insufficient
questionable information. INS officers and State consular officers
investigated the orphan status of adoptive children and, in accordance
with INS and State Department procedures, consular officers referred cas
that were not clearly approvable to INS for investigation before issuing a
child a visa to the United States.
GAO found that the procedures established pursuant to the Immigration
and Nationality Act were reasonable, but they were not always being
efficiently administered by INS and State. These inefficiencies sometimes
resulted in adoption processing delays. According to Federal Bureau of
Investigation officials, INS has a poor record among federal agencies for
submitting legible fingerprints; about one-third are illegible and have to b
resubmitted. GAO also found that orphan petition approval notices, usuall:
sent by telegram from INS offices in the United States to appropriate
overseas consular offices, were sometimes lost or delayed in transmissio
Parents Reported Poor
To obtain perspectives on the quality of services provided, GAO surveyed
Quality Service by Federal
the parents who completed intercountry adoption processing in 1991. GA(
also obtained information from U.S. adoption agencies involved in the
Agencies
process. GAO'S survey of adoptive parents showed that about 70 percent
were satisfied with the overall intercountry adoption process, but about
40 percent, including some who were generally satisfied, encountered
substantial difficulty with one or more elements of the process. Parents
surveyed said they experienced difficulty contacting INS personnel by
telephone because of automated recordings; once they contacted an
Page 4
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adopti
Executive Summary
individual at INS, they were sometimes unable to obtain comprehensive
and accurate information on intercountry adoption or the status of their
case.
Other areas where parents had difficulty were: office accessibility
(35 percent), courtesy of officials (21 percent), sensitivity of officials
(23 percent), knowledge of intercountry adoption laws (15 percent), ability
to provide information about their cases (25 percent), and timeliness of
responses to inquiries (33 percent). Problems identified by adoption
agencies tended to parallel those identified by the adoptive parents that
GAO surveyed, both with respect to the process and the quality of services
provided by INS and State.
Proposed Hague
Broad international agreements on intercountry adoption standards and
Convention Would Simplify
procedures do not now exist, but an agreement along the lines of a
Foreign Adoptions
convention now being drafted by a special commission of the Hague
Conference on Private International Law would establish uniform
principles and procedures that would permit a smoother transfer process
to take place once the connection with the child to be adopted has been
made and assist in monitoring adoption placements to ensure they are
properly and successfully completed.
If the United States were to ratify the convention, U.S. intercountry
adoption policies would not be significantly altered. However, significant
changes in current implementation procedures would be required. For
example, a central authority would be designated to carry out the
convention's requirements, additional federal agency reporting and
management responsibilities would be performed, and a determination
would need to be made on whether the United States would agree to the
requirement that it determine before an adoption could take place that an
adoptable child under the terms of the convention would be permitted
entry and residency.
Recommendations
GAO recommends that the INS Commissioner and the Secretary of State
take steps to develop and implement additional procedures and programs
aimed at eliminating avoidable delays in the processing of orphan
petitions, improving staff courtesy and responsiveness to client inquiries,
and better informing prospective parents of the complex legal and
administrative requirements of intercountry adoptions. Specific
Page 5
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Executive Summary
recommendations on these issues are provided in this report at the end
chapters 2 and 3.
Agency Comments
GAO provided a draft of this report to INS and the Department of State fc
and GAO Evaluation
their review. INS did not submit formal written comments on the draft
report but GAO discussed it with officials from INS Offices of Information
Resources Management, International Affairs, and Strategic Planning; a
the Adjudications and Records Management Divisions. The INS officials
advised GAO that they generally agreed with the report's findings and
recommendations. They said that within its resource limitations, the
agency would continue to place high priority on reducing or eliminating
processing delays, improving staff courtesy and responsiveness, and
providing better information on intercountry adoption requirements to
prospective parents. In addition, GAO clarified or corrected certain
statements in the report as suggested by INS officials.
The Department of State provided written comments (see app. III).
Overall, it was pleased that GAO concluded that INS and State Departmen
intercountry adoption procedures are necessary, reasonable, and
sufficiently flexible; and that a clear majority of survey respondents wer
satisfied with the Department's handling of adoption cases. It noted that
quality of service and processing procedures could always be improved,
that it had taken a series of specific steps in the past year to improve the
and that the need for courtesy and responsiveness would continue to be
stressed to field offices abroad.
Page 6
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoptic
Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter 1
1
Intercountry Adoption Requirements Vary by Country
1
Introduction
Immigration and Nationality Act Defines U.S. Parameters for
1
Intercountry Adoption
Roles of Federal Agencies and State Courts in Governing
1
Adoption Requirements
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
1
Chapter 2
2
Requirements for Adopting Orphans Are Based on U.S.
2
U.S. Intercountry
Immigration Law
Adoption Procedures
Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are Reasonable
2
Are Reasonable, but
Some Federal Agency Procedures Are Not Adequately
2
Administered
Some Were
Coordination of Federal Information and Assistance Services
2
Administered
Was Inadequate
Conclusions
2
Inefficiently
Recommendations
3
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
3
Chapter 3
3
Many Adoptive Parents Concerned With Quality of Federal
3
Many Adoptive
Services
Parents and Adoption
Adoption Agencies' Views on the Quality of Federal Services
3
Agencies Reported
Conclusions
4
Recommendations
4
Receiving Poor
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
4
Quality Service
Chapter 4
4
Requirements for Intercountry Adoption Vary by Country
4
Varying Country
Problems Associated With Romanian Adoptions
4
Requirements Pose
No Broad Agreement Exists on International Adoption
4
Dilemmas for
Impact of Draft Hague Convention on U.S. Processing of Foreign
49
Adoptions
Intercountry
Conclusions
52
Adoptions
Page 8
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Contents
Appendixes
Appendix I: Responses to Our Survey of Parents Completing INS
54
Orphan Immigration Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
Appendix II: Responses to Our Survey of Adoption Agencies
73
Providing Intercountry Adoption Services During 1991
Appendix III: Comments From the Department of State
89
Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report
93
Tables
Table 3.1: Estimates of Families Dissatisfied With Aspects of U.S.
36
Government Services Abroad
Table 3.2: Adoption Agencies' Satisfaction With the Quality of
38
Service Provided by INS Personnel in the United States in 1991
Table 3.3: Adoption Agency Contact With INS and U.S. Consular
39
Office Staff During 1991
Table 3.4: Adoption Agencies' Satisfaction With the Quality of
40
Service Provided by INS and U.S. Consular Office Staff in Seven
Countries in 1991
Figures
Figure 1.1: Country of Last Residence: Orphans Immigrating Into
12
the United States During Fiscal Year 1991
Figure 2.1: Agency Perspective on How Efficiently INS Handled
26
Intercountry Adoption Procedures
Figure 3.1: Family Satisfaction With the INS' Services in the
34
United States
Figure 3.2: Agency Perspectives on Quality of Service Families
41
Received From INS and U.S. Consular Staff Abroad
Figure I.1: Comparison of Actual and Expected Adoption Costs
57
Figure I.2: Degree of Difficulty Parents Experienced With Various
66
Steps in the Adoption Process
Figure I.3: Satisfaction With Aspects of Service Provided by the
70
U.S. Government Abroad
Figure I.4: Comparison of Satisfaction Levels
72
Abbreviations
FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
GAO
General Accounting Office
INS
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Page 9
GAO/NSIAD-93-83
Intercountry
Adontion
Introduction
The United States is the world's largest receiving country for intercou
adoptions and is believed to account for more than half of such adopti
However, children adopted from foreign countries make up a
comparatively small proportion of the total number of adoptions by U.
citizens-about 10 percent of the approximately 70,000 children adopt
by U.S. citizens in 1990. From fiscal years 1982 through 1991, about 84,
children were brought to the United States for adoption. In fiscal year
1991, about 9,000 such children were admitted.
American citizens choose intercountry adoption rather than domestic
adoption for a variety of reasons. Many prospective adoptive parents
believe they are ineligible for domestic adoption because of age, marita
status, or because they already have children. Also, intercountry adopti
especially the adoption of infants, is generally considered easier, faster,
and less expensive than domestic adoption. Nevertheless, intercountry
adoptions involve complex legal and administrative procedures. Child (
policies, adoption laws, and immigration regulations vary significantly
between countries, and American parents who adopt a foreign child mu
observe the procedural requirements of the child's birth country as well
applicable U.S. federal and state laws.
U.S. families have adopted children from many countries, but adoptions
have been heavily concentrated in a few countries over the last decade,
with Korea consistently being the largest provider (except for a surge in
Romania during 1991) of available children. In 1991, just under 50 percel
of intercountry adoptions were from Korea (1,817) or Romania (2,552).
These two countries, along with 12 others (Brazil, Colombia, Chile,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines,
Paraguay, and Thailand) accounted for 89 percent of intercountry
adoptions in 1991 (see fig. 1.1).
Page 10
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoptio
Chapter 1
Introduction
Page 11
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 1
Introduction
Figure 1.1: Country of Last Residence: Orphans Immigrating Into the United States During Fiscal Year 1991
Romania
2,552
Mexico
106
Honduras
Guatemala
244
324
El Salvador
Colombia
122
527
Peru
Brazil
722
178
Paraguay
177
Chile
263
No.
No.
No.
Geographical Region
of Immigrants
Geographical Region
of Immigrants
Geographical Region
of Immigrants
Africa
Asia
Asia
Ethiopia
18
Thailand
127
Indonesia
1
Morocco
7
Japan
83
Israel
1
Nigeria
4
China/PRC
62
Jordan
1
Cape Verde
3
Cambodia
59
Saudi Arabia
1
Rwanda
2
Taiwan
55
Total
3,194
Egypt
1
Hong Kong
40
Ghana
1
Lebanon
17
Kenya
1
Europe
Vietnam
17
Lesotho
1
Bangladesh
9
Romania
2,552
Mali
1
Pakistan
9
Poland
95
Sierra Leone
1
Nepal
6
Hungary
25
Uganda
1
Turkey
6
Albania
19
Total
41
Sri Lanka
5
United Kingdom
12
Iran
4
CIS/USSR
12
Asia
Macau
3
Yugoslavia
12
Korea
1,817
Singapore
3
Portugal
10
India
448
Malaysia
2
Bulgaria
8
Philippines
417
Afghanistan
1
Greece
5
Legend:
Immigrant orphans from the 85 countries shaded in grey entered the U.S. in fiscal year 1991. Fourteen countries identified above accounted for 8,024 of the
9,008 orphans (89%). All orphans from the former Soviet Union have been recorded as from Russia.
Page 12
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 1
Introduction
Cont.
Korea
1,817
Thailand
127
Philippines
417
India
448
No.
No.
No.
Geographical Region
of Immigrants
Geographical Region
of Immigrants
Geographical Region
of Immigrants
Europe
North America
South America
Lithuania
5
Nicaragua
11
Peru
722
Latvia
4
Panama
10
Colombia
527
Estonia
1
Belize
4
Chile
263
Ireland
1
Bahamas, The
2
Brazil
178
Total
2,761
Dominica
1
Paraguay
177
Grenada
1
Bolivia
51
St. Kitts and Nevis
1
North America
Argentina
11
St. Vincent and Grenadines
1
Ecuador
11
Guatemala
324
Total
1,047
Venezuela
5
Honduras
244
Guyana
3
El Salvador
122
Oceania
Uruguay
1
Mexico
106
Costa Rica
Kiribati
10
Total
1,949
55
Haiti
52
Fiji
2
World Total
Western Samoa
9,008
Dominican Republic
50
2
Jamaica
Australia
39
1
Canada
Papua New Guinea
1
12
Trinidad and Tobago
12
Total
16
Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Page 18
GAO/NSIAD-93.82
Chapter 1
Introduction
Intercountry Adoption
Foreign governments' adoption procedures vary widely with respect to
relinquishing a child for adoption and emigration and permitting citizen
Requirements Vary by
to adopt a child from another country. Whereas some countries openly
Country
discourage intercountry adoption, the United States and other Western
industrialized countries generally allow their citizens to proceed with
adoptions in the child's country of birth. Foreign governments, as well ;
the United States, impose a myriad of requirements on prospective
parents. These requirements include adoption and emigration
requirements on children available for adoption and fitness criteria for
prospective parents.
Immigration and
The Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing immigration
regulations define U.S. parameters for intercountry adoption. They also
Nationality Act
govern the process by which a child may gain U.S. citizenship upon
Defines U.S.
application after immigrating to the United States. If the child came to 1
United States to be adopted, proof of a valid adoption decree recognize
Parameters for
the state of residence must be submitted with the application. Under th
Intercountry Adoption
act, the prospective parent of an orphan must be a U.S. citizen and, if
married, apply for permission to adopt a foreign orphan jointly with nis
her spouse or, if unmarried, be at least 25 years old at the time of the
adoption. The act also requires that the prospective parent(s) be
determined fit to properly care for an adopted child. If the orphan is no
adopted abroad, the prospective parents must indicate their ability and
agreement to adopt the child in their U.S. state of residence.
The act provides three methods through which a child may enter the
United States for adoption. The most common method is through the fil
of an orphan petition by the prospective parent(s). Orphan petition
processing involves a set of qualifying procedures for the parents and a
determination of the child's orphan and U.S. entry status. A child (unde.
age 16 at the time the petition is filed) can immediately enter the United
States if the child meets the definition of an "orphan," as stipulated in tl
act. The act defines an orphan as a child that has been orphaned by the
death or disappearance of, or abandonment or desertion by, or separati
or loss from both parents. If one parent remains, that parent must be
incapable of providing the proper care for the child and must, in writing
irrevocably release the child for adoption and emigration.
An orphan petition involves a series of steps for the prospective parent(
The parents must file forms and documents with various government
agencies, submit fingerprints and a favorably recommended home stud:
Page 14
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adop
Chapter 1
Introduction
identify and arrange for the adoption or legal custodianship of the child,
submit proof of the child's orphan status, and secure any necessary
preadoption clearances and an immigrant visa for the child. The
prospective parents may carry out these requirements themselves or seek
the assistance of private agencies, attorneys, or adoption facilitators.
If the child does not meet the qualifying orphan definition, he or she may
gain U.S. entry by having resided with and been in the legal custody of the
adopting parent(s) for at least 2 years prior to the filing of an immigrant
visa petition. Adopting parents in these circumstances do not have to meet
the same eligibility and fitness requirements imposed on parents adopting
orphans.
The third way that a foreign child may enter the United States for adoption
is through a provision in the act that permits the Attorney General to
parole a foreign child into the United States as a nonqualifying alien on a
temporary basis in emergency situations or for reasons deemed to be in
the public interest.
Roles of Federal
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Department of
State are the primary federal agencies involved with foreign adoptions.
Agencies and State
The Department of Health and Human Services provides advisory services
Courts in Governing
and administers State grant programs for children and families, but it has
Adoption
no direct role in the foreign adoption process. INS immigration officers and
Department of State consular officers provide parents and adoption
Requirements
agencies with general information on foreign adoption procedures and
U.S. admission requirements; INS officers process orphan petitions in the
United States and overseas; State consular officers process orphan
petitions and visas overseas.
NS Functions
In the United States, INS is required to determine whether the prospective
parent(s) are eligible to adopt a foreign child and, if the child is an orphan,
are fit to provide the child with proper care. The determination of fitness
is based on (1) a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fingerprint check;
(2) a valid home study; and (3) other documentation, such as proof of
citizenship, age, marriage license, and divorce decrees. If the child is
coming to the United States to be adopted, INS officers must also confirm
that any state preadoption requirements have been met. INS further
processes adopted foreign-born children for naturalization as U.S. citizens
Page 16
Chapter 1
Introduction
upon the application and submission of proof of a legally valid state
adoption decree.
INS investigates orphan petitions at either its U.S. or overseas field office
to determine whether an adopted (or to be adopted) foreign child meets
U.S. immigration law requirements and qualifies him or her for entry into
the United States. Requests for humanitarian parole may be filed and ha
been granted in certain cases where petitions appeared to be deniable.
Department of State
The Department of State and its consular offices are responsible for
ensuring that the adoptive child's status is accurately represented in the
Functions
orphan petition and issuing the child's visa for travel to the United State:
The Department of State's Office of Overseas Citizens' Services in
Washington, D.C., and embassies and consulates overseas provide, for
prospective parents who travel abroad and request them, country-specif
(1) adoption laws and regulations, (2) travel advisories, and (3) referral
services.
In the case of an orphan petition, State's overseas consular offices must
verify that the data contained in the petition is accurate, determine
whether the child has any undisclosed medical condition, and ensure th
all necessary documentation is in order prior to issuing an immigration
visa. In countries where INS does not have an overseas field office, State
consular officers may also be responsible for investigating the orphan
petition's validity. However, consular officers can approve only "clearly
approvable" orphan petitions. Those with questionable circumstances a
those that appear deniable are referred to the appropriate overseas INS
office for adjudication.
The States' Requirements
While formal adoption of a child in a foreign court may be accepted as
lawful in the United States, it is the individual state courts that give
recognition to a foreign adoption after the child has immigrated to the
United States and become a permanent resident. State preadoption
requirements vary but appear to be in agreement that a child is not
adoptable unless the rights of the birth parents are fully and properly
terminated.
At the request of Senator Arlen Specter, we reviewed the requirements
Objectives, Scope,
procedures that U.S. citizens must follow in the intercountry adoption
and Methodology
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Ado
Page 16
Chapter 1
Introduction
process. Specifically, we assessed whether (1) the procedures of the U.S.
agencies involved in intercountry adoptions were reasonable and met
applicable legislative requirements, (2) the agencies administered the
procedures efficiently, and (3) American families and adoption agencies
were satisfied with the quality of services they received from U.S.
government agencies during the adoption process. We also provide
information on efforts underway by the intergovernmental Hague
Conference on Private International Law to prepare a convention that
seeks to standardize principles and procedures of countries involved in
intercountry adoptions.
To identify and evaluate U.S. intercountry adoption requirements and
procedures, we reviewed pertinent legislation and agency regulations,
procedures, and records, and interviewed INS, FBI, and Department of State
officials at their respective headquarters in Washington, D.C. We also
visited four countries where intercountry adoptions were taking place:
Korea, the Philippines, Romania, and Thailand. We chose these locations
because they were representative of differing foreign adoption
requirements U.S. citizens must observe overseas. At these locations, we
reviewed INS documents and cables and interviewed officials from INS, the
Department of State, adoption agencies, and foreign governments.
To assess the reasonableness of the agencies' procedures, we examined
whether they complied with U.S. legislative requirements and contained
any unneeded or unduly cumbersome provisions that could burden
families involved in intercountry adoptions. In determining whether the
agencies were implementing their procedures efficiently, we could not
identify set performance standards, such as the length of time it should
take to review and approve parents' orphan petitions. We therefore
considered the tasks involved, determined whether applicable tasks were
being completed concurrently where possible, noted the length of time it
took to complete phases as well as the entire process, and observed the
agencies' overall work loads and staffing levels.
During this review, we visited two INS district offices in separate regions to
examine their procedures for ensuring that the home studies submitted by
licensed or authorized state agencies on prospective adopting families
were comprehensive and valid. We did not, however, examine the states'
licensing requirements or the monitoring procedures of agencies
conducting the home studies.
Page 17
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 1
Introduction
To obtain additional perspectives on the intercountry adoption process
and evaluate the quality of services prospective parents received from U.
agencies, we conducted a telephone survey of families who had complet
intercountry adoptions in 1991. We were able to contact 204 families out
a sample size of 242 families, for an 84-percent response rate. The familie
interviewed adopted 1 or more of the 8,921 children that entered the
United States between October 1990 and September 1991 under IR-3
(orphan adopted abroad) or IR-4 (orphan to be adopted in the United
States) immigration status. 1 We surveyed the parents about the quality of
service they received from U.S. government agency personnel and the
difficulty they encountered, if any, in (1) obtaining information about
intercountry adoption policies and procedures; (2) filing the paperwork
required by U.S. government agencies in order to adopt a foreign child;
(3) working with U.S. government agencies, both in the United States and
overseas; and (4) working with foreign individuals and organizations
involved in the adoption process. Appendix I provides 95-percent
confidence intervals for the population estimates (mid-point values)
provided in this report.
We also conducted a mail survey of 197 adoption agencies. These agencie
were identified through national adoption organizations as providing
intercountry adoption services to Americans during 1991. We asked them
about the quality of services they and prospective parents received from
federal agencies and their perspectives on intercountry adoption
procedures. Our adoption agency results are based on responses from 155
agencies-a 79-percent response rate. Appendix II describes the agency
survey results in more detail.
Due to the lack of centralized records and the difficulties in identifying a
population from which a reliable sample could be drawn, we did not
attempt to directly contact parents who did not complete the adoption
process. However, on the basis of responses provided by the adoption
agencies we surveyed, we believe the number exiting the process
prematurely is small relative to the number of foreign children the
agencies place with U.S. families. Responding agencies placed a total of
6,284 foreign children (an average of 42 children per agency) in 1991 and
reported that 549 families quit the process (an average of 4 families per
agency) during the year. Nonetheless, our adoption agency survey results
include the agencies' views on the efficiency and quality of services
'This figure excludes 87 children whose immigrant status was adjusted to orphan after entry to the
United States or who had previously completed adoption processing but were not reflected in earlier
year INS statistics.
Page 18
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 1
*
Introduction
families received from U.S. government agencies whether the families
completed the adoption process or not.
We provided a draft of this report to INS and the Department of State for
their review. INS did not submit formal written comments on the draft
report, but we discussed it with officials from the INS Offices of
Information Resources Management, International Affairs, and Strategic
Planning and from the Adjudications and Records Management Divisions.
The Department of State provided official written comments (see app. III).
We have incorporated the INS and State Department comments in the
report as appropriate. We conducted our review from June 1991 to
November 1992 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Page 19
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
Intercountry adoption is a complex process, involving state, federal, a
foreign country requirements and procedures as well as substantial
commitment and effort by prospective parents. Our review focused
primarily on federal agency requirements and procedures and the
demands they place on adopting parents. On the basis of our review, V
believe federal agency regulations and procedures are reasonable and
necessary. They generally satisfy U.S. legislative requirements for ensu
the prospective parents' eligibility and fitness to adopt a foreign orpha
and the status of the child being adopted. Several agency procedures V
often inefficiently administered, however. These inefficiencies resulte
delays in the adoption process for some parents and children.
Requirements for
Americans seeking to adopt a foreign orphan are relatively free to do S
without federal government supervision and control and are subject OI
Adopting Orphans Are
to immigration law. Prospective adoptive parents may proceed with a
Based on U.S.
foreign adoption on their own in the foreign country or they may use a
adoption agency or facilitator of their choice to make the arrangement
Immigration Law
Immigration law permits foreign children to be admitted to the United
States as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens without regard to any vis
preference or numerical limitation if they qualify as orphans. The law
further defines who is eligible to be adopted as an orphan and whether
petitioners for the child's admission are qualified to be adoptive paren
The law requires that the child have no remaining tie to his or her birth
parents, that married parents both consent to the adoption, that prope
care will be furnished to the child, and that any applicable preadoption
requirements of the child's proposed state of residence will be met.
Intercountry Adoption
We found INS and Department of State procedures for intercountry
adoption to be consistent with the requirements of U.S. immigration la
Procedures Are
and sufficiently flexible for efficient and timely processing. The
Reasonable
procedures generally worked well for most of the American families ai
adoption agencies we surveyed, although our review of federal agency
procedures and the surveys showed inefficient implementation of som
elements of the process.
Procedures Conform With
As the U.S. government focal point for processing orphan petitions, INS
Immigration Law
requires that applicants submit required forms and documents for
determining that they meet the qualification and fitness requirements (
Page 20
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Ado
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
immigration law. Pursuant to the requirements of immigration law, the
prospective adoptive parent(s) must submit documentary evidence of their
qualification to adopt a foreign child, including proof of U.S. citizenship,
marital status, and age (25, if not married). In addition, INS meets the law's
requirement for determining the parents' fitness to provide proper care for
a child on the bases of an FBI fingerprint check and a favorably
recommended home study conducted by an authorized agency. Upon
finding a child to adopt, applicants are required by INS (under immigration
law) to submit proof of the child's age, orphan status, and, if the child is to
be adopted in the United States, they must comply with any applicable
preadoption requirements in the orphan's intended state of residence.
Upon the receipt of the required forms and documentation, INS makes-or
delegates to State Department consular offices abroad in countries where
INS has no offices-the eligibility determinations required by immigration
law. The orphan investigation can range from a document review to a full
field investigation, depending on the specifics of the case and the
resources available. As required by law, INS recognizes a foreign adoption
only if the petitioner and spouse (if married) personally saw and observed
the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings. Depending on
whether or not the parent(s) saw the child during the adoption abroad,
consular officers overseas will issue immigrant visas for approved orphan
petitions in one of two categories, either as having been "adopted abroad"
(IR-3) or "to be adopted in the United States" (IR-4).
Procedures Are Generally
We found that U.S. orphan petition and immigrant visa procedures were
Flexible and Efficient
generally flexible and efficient, resulting in adoptions that protect the
children's welfare and can proceed smoothly for the prospective adoptive
parents. To meet the immigration law provision that prospective parents
be fit to properly care for a child, INS regulations require that the parents
be favorably recommended in a valid home study conducted by an
authorized or state-licensed agency in the state of the child's proposed
residence, and clear an FBI-conducted fingerprint check used to determine
if the parents have an arrest record. To be valid, INS regulations require
that a home study contain a factual evaluation of the financial, physical,
mental, and moral capabilities of the prospective parent(s) to rear and
educate the child properly.
We found that the home study and fingerprint requirements are consistent
with procedures used for domestic adoptions and generally regarded as
necessary. We also discussed the home study approval process and
Page 21
GAO/NSIAD-93-83
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
reviewed selected approved home studies with responsible officials at i
district offices as part of our review of orphan petition procedures and
response to concern expressed by some federal and adoption agency
officials about inconsistent quality of home studies and whether the ho
studies showed that families were adequately prepared to adopt a child
from another country. On the basis of our review, we believe that INS'
review of home studies offers authorities reasonable assurance that an
orphan will be furnished proper care if admitted to the United States.
We found that the INS examiners we contacted review home studies to
determine whether they (1) were prepared or endorsed by a qualified
official, (2) provided sufficient descriptive information, and (3) include
discussion of the basis used for the assessment. The examiners told us
they place particular stress on the need for full disclosure of any crimin
history or involvement with any illegal substance, alcohol, and child ab
They also said they do not place undue reliance on the required favorat
recommendation by authorized state or licensed agency officials but us
the FBI fingerprint checks and documents submitted by the petitioner to
spot and require explanations of omissions and inconsistencies in the
home study.
According to INS officials, the current INS regulations define what
constitutes a valid home study; however, they acknowledged that the
home study provisions of the regulations lack adequate specificity. For
example, the existing regulations contain no criteria as to how current I
home study must be and do not require that indications of a history of
physical or substance abuse be specifically and fully explained. INS
officials told us that efforts were underway to revise the regulations to
give added assurance that the home studies are current and provide
complete disclosure.
To expedite the processing of orphan petitions, INS permits adoptive
parents to file an advance processing application to reduce the time
necessary to process the orphan petition after the orphan is known. Foi
further flexibility, the advance processing application may be submitte
up to 1 year ahead of the home study's completion. However, to ensure
that the information provided during advance processing is accurate, IN
requires prospective parents to file the orphan petition naming the child
within 1 year of completing the advance processing to avoid having to
update or repeat elements of the advance processing.
Page 22
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adop
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
Also, to expedite orphan petition processing, INS regulations provide that
the determination of whether the child meets the orphan definition may be
made either by an INS immigration officer or a State Department consular
officer overseas, depending on where the petition naming the child is
submitted. This provision helps to speed the process for those parents
who decide to travel abroad in their effort to identify the child to be
adopted. However, if a consular officer cannot clearly determine that the
orphan petition is approvable, the petition must be referred to the nearest
INS office for adjudication.
INS' stated policy is to give orphan cases priority processing. In keeping
with this policy, INS offices in the United States notify overseas offices by
telegram of favorable determinations if the prospective parents plan to
travel abroad to file the orphan petition. INS examiners told us that
notifications of approval of advance processing and of the final orphan
petition (if the child is known) are routinely sent by cable to the
appropriate overseas office to facilitate prompt petition adjudication or
carry out any further investigation pursuant to petition approval and visa
issuance. If the orphan petition has been previously approved by INS,
consular officers verify that the facts provided about the child in the
approved petition are correct and determine that the child does not have
an undisclosed medical condition as final cautionary steps to protect the
adoptive parents before they issue the child a visa.
INS advises prospective adoptive parents that the procedure for
determining whether a foreign child meets the orphan definition under
U.S. immigration law is intended to guard against splitting intact,
functioning foreign families. The law does not define "abandonment," but
the INS instructions state that a finding of abandonment cannot be made if
the natural parents exercise any parental control over the child and its
placement, adoption, or support; or if the parents otherwise indicate any
intent to reclaim the child in the future. Strong evidence is usually required
to show that the child was unconditionally abandoned to an orphanage or
legally documented as abandoned by a competent legal authority in the
child's country of origin. We did not review the decisions made by the
examining officials, but the requirements posed no significant difficulty for
the adoptive parents and adoption agencies we surveyed.
The procedure for determining whether a foreign child meets the orphan
definition under U.S. immigration law is an area of some confusion in
which petitioners bear the responsibility for submitting the necessary
documentation or proof. The determination of orphan status often
Page 23
GAO/NSIAD-93-83
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
requires discretionary judgment on the part of the immigration or consu
officer deciding the case since abandonment is not well-defined. The
officer must decide the case on the basis of the available facts, an
interpretation of parental intent to abandon the child, and prior
administrative decisions.
The process does not require an advance determination of orphan status
before the child is matched with, or even adopted abroad by, an America
family. Thus, prospective adoptive families frequently may be able to
complete the authorization of custody or arrange for an adoption in the
child's country before the orphan petition is adjudicated. The orphan
determination is the final step of the petition process, and a finding of
abandonment may be difficult to prove unless the child has been
consigned to an institution. Therefore, situations have occurred in which
family adopted or agreed to adopt a child in another country, secured
permission to take the child out of the country, but was unable to obtain
an immigrant visa to bring the child into the United States.
Overall adoption processing time was highly variable, but it did not appea
to be unduly lengthy in most instances. INS case files we reviewed showed
that the elapsed time between the initial filing of an orphan petition and
the issuance of the child's visa ranged from about 1 week to about 2-1/2
years. Processing time was less than 1 year for about 90 percent of the
families. We believe this time frame is reasonable when compared with
multiyear waits that are often required for domestic adoptions through
public or private agencies. Cases that involved extended processing times
could usually be traced to difficulties encountered in identifying or
matching a child with a particular set of parents or in securing the child's
release for adoption and emigration from the foreign government. INS
approved about 85 percent of the completed petitions without requesting
additional information. Of the remaining 15 percent who were required to
submit additional information, most involved the resubmission of
fingerprint cards. Parents we interviewed said the cards were lost or
lacked sufficient clarity for FBI processing.
Adoptive Parents Are
Our survey of adoptive parents indicated that most parents believed that
Generally Satisfied With
the intercountry adoption process was working well but that
the Process
implementation could be improved. About 70 percent of adoptive families
were very or generally satisfied with the overall intercountry adoption
system and process, including U.S. and foreign adoption requirements (see
app. I). About 40 percent of the families, including some who were
Page 24
GAO/NSLAD-93-83
Adoption
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
generally satisfied, encountered substantial difficulties with one or more
elements of the process; however, these difficulties involved principally
the quality of services provided, rather than the required processes and
procedures themselves. Frequently mentioned problems included parents'
difficulties in interactions with U.S. and foreign government agencies,
inaccurate or unavailable information about intercountry adoption
regulations and procedures, and matters related to immigrant visa
processing.
The survey data suggested that families who were more prepared for the
adoption process or who received greater levels of assistance encountered
less difficulty in carrying out their adoptions. Foreign travel in connection
with the adoption process also played a significant role in family
experiences and their evaluation of the process. Families who traveled
abroad for their adoptions tended to assess themselves as being less
prepared for the experience, and they were more likely than other families
to find that their adoption experience was difficult to carry out.
Adoption Agencies Noted
Adoption agencies assist many prospective parents to meet U.S.
Certain Procedural
requirements for adopting a foreign child. Most agencies we surveyed said
Weaknesses
that INS administrative responsibilities were very or generally efficiently
carried out (see fig. 2.1). However, agencies cited INS processing and
approval of fingerprints, notification to parents of problems with
documents, and transfer of approval of parents' eligibility from one
country to another as particular weaknesses.
Page 25
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
Figure 2.1: Agency Perspective on How Efficiently INS Handled Intercountry Adoption Procedures
100
Number of adoption agencies
90
60
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
of
III
(EVL)
Mothy 1143)
I of
I
(Spi)
If
Procedures (number of responses)
Very/generally efficiently
As efficiently as inefficiently
Very/generally inefficiently
Note: See appendix II for the exact text of the question and nonresponse rates.
While federal agency procedures for intercountry adoption were genera
Some Federal Agency
reasonable and necessary, we found that some of them were not
Procedures Are Not
adequately administered. Mishandled or lost fingerprint cards and
Adequately
problems transmitting approval notices to overseas offices were most
often responsible for avoidable processing delays.
Administered
Fingerprint Card
Parents and adoption agencies were generally satisfied with the parent
Processing
qualification process, except for the delays in processing fingerprint car
Page 26
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adop
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
Most of the parents who encountered problems told us that INS had to
request new fingerprint cards because the original prints were either lost
in processing or not clear enough for FBI processing.
While we did not review the INS' field offices procedures for submitting
fingerprints to the FBI, we believe field offices can reduce processing
delays by inspecting the cards more carefully before submitting them. An
FBI official responsible for fingerprint processing told us that INS had a
poor overall record among federal agencies for submitting legible
fingerprint cards (about one in three was illegible), requiring resubmission
and causing attendant processing delays. The FBI fingerprint check is a
sophisticated process but one that can also respond to requests for
expedited handling in less than 1 week. Such requests are discouraged
and, we believe, not generally necessary except in emergency
circumstances since cards can be processed routinely concurrent with and
within the time frame (about 60 days) required for a reliable home study.
Overseas Communications
Parents and consular officials told us that orphan petition approval notices
customarily sent by telegram from INS to the overseas visa issuing offices
were sometimes lost or delayed in transmission, resulting in processing
delays. In several instances, parents informed us they traveled to their
children's home countries on the basis of approval notices they received
from INS but were delayed in country because the approval notices had not
been received by consular officers. Other parents had difficulty scheduling
orphan visa appointments with consular officers pending receipt of the
approval notices. We were unable to determine the reason(s) for the losses
or delays, partly because the cables do not show the date the petitions
were approved so they could be compared with the date of transmission
and partly because of the difficulty in tracing cables through the Justice
Department's communications network.
Delays and inconveniences to parents traveling abroad to complete
adoptions also occurred when consular officers did not rely on the
information in the cables but wanted to see the original orphan petitions
and supporting documents in the individual orphan case files before
processing the visas or scheduling parent interviews. We found instances
in which delays occurred without the parents or their agents being notified
of the reason(s) for the delays. The case files are currently being routed
from INS field offices through an immigrant visa processing center located
in the Washington, D.C., area to establish permanent record files before
they are sent to consular offices overseas.
Page 27
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
Parents and adoption agencies also complained about the length of
time-ranging up to 2 years-that it took to complete overseas
investigations after INS had made the orphan determinations. Delays (
6 months to a year occurred in some instances because the investigat
reports were lost during transmission. INS and State officials told us t]
processing cases that required travel to remote areas to investigate b;
petitions took more time to complete because they have limited staff
because they tried to delay scheduling trips until they had a sufficient
caseload.
Coordination of
Our survey of adoptive parents showed that many who had difficultie
with the intercountry adoption process, particularly those who travel
Federal Information
abroad in connection with their adoption, were not well-informed ab
and Assistance
the requirements involved. While federal agencies provided useful
information and assistance to parents during the course of the proce:
Services Was
found that the available informational services were not adequately
Inadequate
coordinated or routinely provided to parents at the outset or in advar
their travel. However, while adequacy of preparation played an impo
part in the parents' experience, we found that some parents knowing
took risks in pursuit of adopting a foreign child and failed to heed
available information about the process.
INS offices are often the adoptive parents' first point of contact with :
federal agency in connection with foreign adoptions since they recei
application for orphan petition processing. INS provides prospective
parents and adoption agencies with various publications and forms t
describe orphan petition requirements and procedures, but this
information is generally limited to the INS role in the adoption proces
also provides direct line telephone service or, in the larger populatio
areas, an automated telephone information system that gives callers
detailed recorded messages about adoption procedures, access to ag
operators, and the opportunity to leave a message or request publica
or forms. Individual problem cases may also be discussed with
information officers at INS district offices or referred to a central offi
specialist.
We found that the principal INS publication describing orphan petitio
procedures (M-249Y) is informative and authoritative about the basi
petitioning and naturalization process. However, it does not provide
overview of the issues and problems faced by prospective parents S€
to adopt a foreign orphan. These include, for example, consideration
Page 28
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry 1
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
may be involved in selecting an adoption agency or facilitator, information
on adoption requirements in various countries, possible difficulties of
dealing with foreign governments and agents, and overseas visa processing
procedures. Parents we surveyed also told us that they would like to have
checklists of the required forms, fees, and documentation, along with
estimated timetables for completing the steps involved in the advance,
petition, and visa processing.
The Department of State has prepared information pamphlets that give
general details on international adoption requirements as well as on
country-specific adoption procedures and practices and the visa
application and issuance process. State also provides travel advisories and
suggested contact lists for specific countries; makes inquiries regarding
the status of specific cases before foreign courts on behalf of adoptive
parents; and assists in clarifying documentary requirements. The
assistance is provided in response to telephone inquiry or by personal visit
or mail contact with the Department's Washington, D.C., headquarters or
overseas offices. However, because adoptive parents have little reason to
contact the Department concerning a foreign adoption until they are ready
to travel overseas or to arrange to adopt a specific child, they often receive
the information too late to be of optimal value.
The Department of Health and Human Services operates a research
facility, called the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, under a
contract arrangement in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, that has
information on the intercountry adoption process available on request.
The information is broad based and generally useful, but it contains some
mistakes that could cause a processing delay or confusion. For example,
prospective parents are advised that an approved home study is needed
when submitting an orphan application for advance processing when, in
fact, the home study may be submitted later. Also, according to the
clearinghouse information, the orphan petition should be filed when the
child is legally adopted in the foreign court. To the contrary, it should be
filed as early as possible.
Conclusions
Federal agency requirements and procedures for qualifying prospective
adoptive parents and processing foreign orphan petitions appear to be
responsive to immigration law, are generally reasonable and necessary,
provide adequate safeguards, and are flexible enough to ensure timely
completion of foreign adoptions. However, in some instances, the
procedures were not sufficiently explicit or carried out efficiently; as a
Page 29
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
result, completion of adoptions was delayed. Avoidable processing del
were also experienced as a result of lost or mishandled fingerprint car
and orphan petition approval notices sent to overseas offices.
Adequate information was not always made available to the parents,,
though they bear the principal burden of submitting accurate and
complete data on the adoption to the federal agencies. Processing dela
and inconveniences to parents also occurred because consular officer:
wanted to review original case files rather than rely on INS officers' orp
petition approvals. Overseas investigations are a necessary part of orp.
determinations. However, when they are not conducted promptly, they
unduly delay visa issuance for a child who is otherwise ready to travel
the United States and petitioners or their agents are not promptly notif
of the cause of the delays.
Prospective parents who were knowledgeable and prepared for the
intercountry adoption process tended to have fewer difficulties with it
than those who were less knowledgeable. While information and
assistance services on intercountry adoption are available from a numl
of federal and private sources, we found that the federal assistance eff-
were not adequately coordinated so that parents would know about th
and could be rely on them early in the process when the information W
most helpful. Among the federal agencies, INS is in the best position to
make this information available to prospective parents because it rece
their initial application for foreign adoption and conducts the prelimin:
orphan petition processing.
Recommendations
We recommend that the INS Commissioner
establish procedures for ensuring that the adoptive parents' fingerprint
cards forwarded by INS field offices to the FBI for records check are
suitable for FBI processing;
establish administrative controls to ensure that orphan petition approv
notifications are promptly and accurately transmitted to the appropria
overseas consular offices, and that petitioners are advised of processin
delays; and
coordinate federal agency development and early distribution to
prospective parents of a comprehensive information package on
intercountry adoption requirements, procedures, and issues that paren
may face in seeking to adopt a foreign child, including laws or regulation
Page 30
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Ado
Chapter 2
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Procedures Are
Reasonable, but Some Were Administered
Inefficiently
and referral data for parents arranging for an adoption in a specific
country.
We also recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Assistant
Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to instruct counsular offices to rely
on information in approval notification cables from the INS to begin
processing visa applications and scheduling parent interviews, and not
require that the original orphan petition and supporting documentation be
produced for visual inspection, unless the cable presents information that
would call into question the validity of the approval. In those exceptional
cases in which consular officers withhold issuance of immigrant visas to
adoptive foreign children after receipt of orphan petition approval by INS,
the consular officer should immediately notify the petitioners or agents of
the withholding action and reason(s) for the officers' concerns.
Agency Comments
INS officials acknowledged that some problems in fingerprint card
processing and the routing of overseas communications had led to delays
and Our Evaluation
in completing intercountry adoptions but indicated that they were
addressing these problems. They told us that seven instructions and an FBI
video presentation on fingerprinting were sent to field units during 1991
and 1992 and that appropriate personnel were reminded of the importance
of the review function. They attributed the current problems of routing
cable traffic overseas to their having to use Defense Department
communications lines and said they would explore the possibility of
improving the cable notifications via a direct interface with the
Department of State. INS officials said they also recognized the need to
update and improve the usefulness of INS advisory services to prospective
adoptive parents and make prospective parents better aware of the
availability of other informational resources. They said that they have
discussed the matter with Department of State and adoption community
officials.
Department of State officials said that consular officers have the
discretion to process immigrant visas based on INS cable approvals but
that information in cables is often incomplete, requiring a wait for the
original petition. Nonetheless, they said that they would remind consular
officers that they should not hold up visa processing if there was no
reason to question the validity of the approval and if the information in the
cable was complete.
Page 31
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 3
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Our surveys of adoptive parents and adoption agencies indicated that
while the intercountry adoption system was working well for many
families, many had difficult and frustrating experiences during the
process. Poor quality service by the federal agencies administering the
system, particularly INS, was often cited as the principal source of
difficulty. About 40 percent (3,500 families) of the parents surveyed
encountered substantial difficulty at one point or another during the
adoption process. Many of the adoption agencies said that the quality O
service the families received from U.S. agency personnel was inadequat
The agencies further reported that they also often received poor quality
service from INS regional and local personnel.
Family contacts with U.S. government agencies in the United States
Many Adoptive
occurred primarily with the INS' district offices or suboffices. About
Parents Concerned
70 percent of the families telephoned or visited INS about their adoptior
With Quality of
A substantially smaller number, about 20 percent, contacted the State
Department and approximately 70 percent of the families traveled abro
Federal Services
in connection with their adoptions. Overall, about 40 percent of the
families in our study experienced major difficulties completing one or
more of the following steps in the adoption process:
obtaining accurate information about U.S. rules and regulations govern
intercountry adoptions,
working with U.S. government agencies or foreign individuals and
organizations on their adoptions,
meeting parent or child eligibility requirements, and
securing a visa for their child.
Working with U.S. government agencies was a source of major difficult
for about 20 percent of the families in the study population. Other area
difficulty were: getting accurate information about U.S. rules and
regulations (12 percent), working with foreign contacts (14 percent), a
securing an immigrant visa for their child (11 percent). Relatively few
families (4 percent) had problems meeting parent eligibility requiremer
or demonstrating a child's orphan status (3 percent). The parents we
interviewed described a range of problems such as difficulty reaching
personnel by telephone because of recordings, difficulty getting
comprehensive and accurate information on adoption or the status of t
case, and lost documentation or delays in processing adoption docume
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Ado
Page 32
Chapter 8
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
To assess the quality of service families received from U.S. government
personnel, our survey examined several service features, assessing them
separately for INS and the State Department. These were
accessibility of personnel by telephone and at their offices,
courtesy and sensitivity of personnel to intercountry adoptions,
knowledge of intercountry adoption laws and regulations and ability to
provide accurate information about the status of an adoption, and
timeliness of responses to intercountry adoption inquiries.
INS Services to Families
While a large proportion of families were satisfied with many features of
the services provided by INS in the United States, many were not. An area
of particular weakness was the nonavailability of agency personnel by
telephone. An estimated 70 percent of the families who called INS,
representing about 4,400 of the families in our study population, were
dissatisfied with the accessibility of INS personnel by telephone, and an
estimated 15 to 35 percent of the families who contacted INS offices in the
United States were dissatisfied with each of the other service features we
studied (see fig. 3.1).
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Page 33
Chapter 3
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Figure 3.1: Family Satisfaction With the INS' Services in the United States
100
Percent
90.
80
70
70
63
58
60
53
53
51
50
50
40
35
33
30
25
24
23
21
20
15
15 15
14
13
12
9
10
6
0
Telephone
Office
Courtesy
Sensitivity
Knowledge
Ability to provide
Timeliness
accessibility
accessibility
Information
Very/generally satisfied
As satisfied as dissatisfied
Generally/very dissatisfied
Note: Values represent the percentages of parents reporting each level of satisfaction. See
appendix 1 text for confidence interval estimates.
Many of the families we interviewed gave illustrations of the types of
problems they encountered. The automated telephone recordings cause
difficulties for most of them. For example, families said that
recorded messages did not provide useful information,
messages they left were not responded to,
reaching INS personnel by telephone was time-consuming, and
it was difficult to get beyond recorded messages to make contact with
someone knowledgeable about their case.
INS provides prospective adoptive parents informational assistance via a
telephone information system called "Ask Immigration." The system
Page 34
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adop
Chapter 8
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
provides callers with detailed recorded messages about adoption
procedures, allows them to access agency operators, and gives them the
opportunity to leave messages or request publications or forms. INS
officials informed us that the system was installed because of a lack of
agency staff to give individual attention to public inquiries, and they said
that it has proven to be cost-effective.
According to INS officials, telephone inquiries about adoption are not given
any special priority or attention for personal assistance, but must compete
with other types of immigration inquiries. They said that adoption inquiries
represent less than 1 percent of incoming calls. Some parents we surveyed
told us that that they had to wait up to a half hour before they could get
access to INS operators.
Department of State
About one-fifth of the families in our study population phoned or visited
Service to Families
the Department of State in the United States regarding their adoptions.
However, because relatively few of the families we interviewed contacted
the Department of State, we were unable to make meaningful population
estimates about specific aspects of services parents received from the
Department.
Most of those traveling abroad in conjunction with their adoptions, an
estimated 6,100 of the approximately 9,000 families in our study
population, had contact with U.S. consular offices and/or INS personnel
abroad.¹ On the basis of our sample results, we estimated that about
77 percent of the families who phoned or visited these offices were
satisfied with the overall quality of the service they received from the
consular offices. Conversely, about 23 percent had qualified opinions or
were dissatisfied with the services they received.
More specifically, an estimated 13 percent of the families were dissatisfied
overall with services they received, with higher percentages being
dissatisfied with some aspects of the services. Table 3.1 reflects the
dissatisfaction, by aspect of service, of those families contacting U.S.
consular offices abroad in connection with their adoptions.
'Because questionnaire pretesting showed that parents could not distinguish between consular and
INS personnel, we asked them to assess the service they received from consular office personnel as a
group.
Page 35
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 8
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Table 3.1: Estimates of Families
Percentage dissi
Dissatisfied With Aspects of U.S.
Government Services Abroad
Accessibility of consular personnel by telephone
Sensitivity of consular personnel
Accessibility of personnel at the consulate
Ability of consular personnel to provide accurate
information about adoption case
Courtesy of consular personnel
Knowledge of consular personnel about intercountry
adoption laws and regulations
Timeliness of responses by consular personnel to
inquiries
Overall dissatisfaction with U.S. government services
abroad
We queried U.S. adoption agencies involved in intercountry adoptior
Adoption Agencies'
during 1991 to obtain greater insights into the quality of federal servi
Views on the Quality
they and their clients received in the United States and overseas. We
of Federal Services
examined the agencies' assessments of service of the INS regions and
selected local offices throughout the United States and INS and/or co
offices in 11 countries overseas. We examined several service catego
including employees' accessibility by telephone and at their offices,
courtesy, sensitivity, knowledge of intercountry adoption laws and
regulations, and ability to provide accurate information about the st:
cases.
To assess the adoption agencies' perceptions of the services provide
families involved in intercountry adoptions at home and abroad, we
queried the agencies about INS and State employees'
knowledge of applicable laws and procedures;
consistent administration of policies and procedures;
tact and sensitivity; and
delivery of helpful service, advice, and support.
While the adoption agencies' assessments varied by region and local
in the United States and by country, the overall results revealed a hi
level of marginal or inadequate services by federal employees.
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry
Page 36
Chapter 8
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Adoption Agencies'
Agency assessments of quality of service in the INS' Northern, Southern,
Assessment of Services
and Western regions was marginally adequate overall. About half of the
Provided by INS Offices in
service ratings for these regions were adequate or higher, and the
remainder was divided between marginal and inadequate. The quality of
the United States
service in the Eastern Region was higher; about two-thirds of the ratings
were adequate or higher.
From the adoption agencies' perspective, accessibility of personnel by
telephone and at their office was particularly troublesome in all regions.
Overall, about 42 percent of the agencies rated the quality of service as
marginally adequate or unsatisfactory. We also found that about one-third
of them rated INS staff courtesy in the Western and Eastern regions as
marginally adequate to unsatisfactory. In the Eastern Region, about
one-third of the ratings assessed staff sensitivity to intercountry adoption
as marginally adequate or lower.
Adoption agencies assessed the INS' local offices as average or lower for
one or more service factors in 9 of the 10 offices rated. Nearly half of the
agency ratings assessed one or more of the services as marginally
satisfactory or unsatisfactory. For example, three-fourths of the agencies
assessing the Washington office rated accessibility of staff by telephone as
generally or very unsatisfactory; about one-third of the agencies said they
were generally or very dissatisfied with the courteousness of the San
Francisco staff; and about 40 percent of reporting agencies rated the
Newark office staff's ability to provide accurate information about the
status of cases as unsatisfactory. Only one office (Chicago) received
consistently high service ratings, not only overall but for each of the
service features we surveyed.
Table 3.2 reflects the adoption agencies' assessments of quality of services
by INS personnel in the United States. Specific locations are listed if nine or
more agencies rated that location. Aggregation to regions includes all
locations within these regions which agencies rated.
Page 37
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 3
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Table 3.2: Adoption Agencies' Satisfaction With the Quality of Service Provided by INS Personnel in the United States In
1991
Ability of
Knowledge
personnel
personnel had
provide
Sensitivity of
about
accurate
Accessibility of
Accessibility of
personnel to
Intercountry
Informatio
personnel by
personnel at
Courtesy of
Intercountry
adoption laws
about state
INS location
telephone
their office
personnel
adoption
and regulations
a case
All INS locations
AS(M)
AS(M)
GS(M)
AS(C)
GS(C)
AS(C)
Northern Region
AS(M)
AS(M)
AS(C)
AS(C)
GS(C)
AS(C)
Chicago
VS(VC)
VS(VC)
VS(VC)
VS(VC)
VS(VC)
VS(VC)
Milwaukee
GD(C)
GD(C)
GD(C)
GD(C)
AS(VC)
AS(C)
Southern Region
GD(M)
AS(M)
AS(M)
AS(M)
AS(C)
AS(C)
Western Region
AS(M)
AS(M)
GS(M)
AS(M)
AS(C)
AS(M)
San Francisco
AS(M)
AS(M)
AS(M)
AS(M)
AS(M)
AS(M)
Eastern Region
AS(M)
AS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
AS(C)
Baltimore
GS(C)
GS(M)
GS(C)
GS(M)
AS(C)
GS(M)
Boston
GS(M)
AS(C)
GS(M)
AS(M)
GS(C)
GS(C)
Buffalo
AS(M)
GD(VM)
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
Newark
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
GS(C)
AS(C)
New York
AS(M)
GD(M)
GS(C)
GS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
Philadelphia
AS(C)
AS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
Washington, D.C.
GD(M)
AS(M)
GS(C)
AS(M)
AS(M)
AS(M)
Legend
VS = Very satisfied
(VC) = Very consistent
GS = Generally satisfied
(C) = Consistent
AS = As satisfied as dissatisfied
(M) = Mixed
GD = Generally dissatisfied
(VM) = Very mixed
VD = Very dissatisfied
Page 38
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Ad
Chapter 8
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Adoption Agencies'
About three-fourths of the adoptive children entering the United States
Assessment of Services
during fiscal year 1991 emigrated from seven countries. Because of the
important role these countries have played in intercountry adoptions, we
Provided by Overseas
asked the adoption agencies whose staff or foreign representatives called
Offices
or visited these countries to assess the quality of service provided by INS
and U.S. consular office staff during 1991. A total of 80 agencies we
surveyed contacted U.S. personnel in these countries on behalf of about
2,300 U.S. families pursuing intercountry adoptions.
Table 3.3: Adoption Agency Contact
Estimated number of
With INS and U.S. Consular Office Staff
Number of agencies
families agencies made
During 1991
contacting country
contacts for
Country
17
162
Colombia
24
150
Guatemala
21
203
India
19
817
Korea
38
233
Peru
22
225
Philippines
Romania
37
467
2,257
Total
While the agencies' assessments of countries varied, overall they reflected
significant concern over the quality of services they received. The agencies
reported a higher quality of service in Korea and Colombia than in the
other countries. Table 3.4 reflects the adoption agencies' level of
satisfaction with the quality of services received in these seven countries.
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Page 89
Chapter 8
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Table 3.4: Adoption Agencies' Satisfaction With the Quality of Service Provided by INS and U.S. Consular Office Staff In
Seven Countries in 1991
Ability of
Knowledge
personnel
personnel had
provide,
Sensitivity of
about
accurate
Accessibility of
Accessibility of
personnel to
Intercountry
Informatio
personnel by
personnel at
Courtesy of
Intercountry
adoption laws
about stat
Country
telephone
their office
personnel
adoption
and regulations
a case
Colombia
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(M)
GS(M)
GS(M)
GS(C)
Guatemala
GS(C)
GS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
GS(C)
AS(C)
India
GS(C)
AS(C)
GS(C)
AS(M)
AS(M)
GS(M)
Korea
GS(VC)
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
GS(C)
Peru
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(M)
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
Philippines
GD(C)
GD(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(M)
Romania
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
AS(C)
Legend
VS = Very satisfied
(VC) = Very consistent
GS = Generally satisfied
(C) = Consistent
AS = As satisfied as dissatisfied
(M) = Mixed
GD = Generally dissatisfied
VD = Very dissatisfied
Except for Korea, some adoption agencies expressed dissatisfaction и
service aspects in each of the other six countries in terms of accessibil
of personnel by telephone and at the office, staff courtesy, sensitivity :
knowledge of procedures, and ability to provide accurate case informa
about the status of an adoption. Overall, the service in the Philippines
considered the poorest, with the services in Peru and Romania rated (
marginally better. Over half the agencies contacting U.S. personnel in
Philippines rated accessibility of personnel by telephone and at the of
as unsatisfactory. Moreover, over half the agencies were dissatisfied V
the ability of U.S. staff to provide accurate information about the statu
a case. Nearly half the agencies in all three countries were dissatisfied
with staff courtesy and sensitivity.
Page 40
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Ad
Chapter 8
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Some agencies commented on the quality of services received in four
other countries (Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, and Paraguay), and their
assessments varied also. Their responses indicated overall satisfaction
with services received in Chile and Honduras but included several mixed
or negative evaluations for the quality of services received in El Salvador
and Paraguay.
Adoption Agencies'
In addition to gathering adoptive parents' perceptions of the quality of
Assessments of the Quality
services they received abroad, we asked adoption agencies for their
of Services Adoptive
perspectives on the U.S. services provided to families abroad during 1991.
Families Received at U.S.
Many agencies assessed the quality of services as being moderate or poor,
Consular Offices Overseas
particularly with respect to U.S. staff providing helpful service, advice, and
support to prospective parents. Figure 3.2 reflects agency assessments for
the service features we examined.
Figure 3.2: Agency Perspectives on
Quality of Service Families Received
60
Number of adoption agencies
From INS and U.S. Consular Staff
Abroad
40
20
0
Provide
Administer
Show
Information
Provide helpful
policies and
appropriate tact
about laws and
service, advice,
procedures
and sensitivity
procedures
and support
consistently
To a very great/great extent
To a moderate extent
To no extent/little or some extent
Note: See appendix II for the exact text of the question and for nonresponse rates.
Page 41
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 3
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
The intercountry adoption process is a complex and often frustrating
Conclusions
ordeal for adoptive parents. For most, the process is a once-in-a-lifetime
experience, and they must rely heavily on INS and the Department of Sta
and its overseas consular offices for guidance and assistance as they
pursue their adoptions. We found that in many cases INS personnel in the
United States and INS and consular personnel overseas provided margina
or unsatisfactory services to adoptive parents and adoption agencies.
Inaccessibility of federal personnel by telephone or at their offices was t
most frequent problem. Many parents told us that the INS automated
telephone information system was a major problem. While cost-effective
the system did not provide satisfactory service in the minds of many of
those telephoning INS with adoption inquiries. Responsiveness to inquirie
knowledge of adoption laws and regulations, and courtesy and sensitivit
by INS and State personnel were also cited as problems in many cases. As
result, greater emphasis on quality service by INS and the State Departme
would appear to significantly improve the chances for a positive
intercountry adoption experience for thousands of American parents.
In light of the results of our surveys of adoptive parents and adoption
Recommendations
agencies, we recommend that the INS Commissioner
improve the automated telephone information system's responsivenesst
callers with questions about intercountry adoptions;
develop and implement programs for improving the quality of services IN
personnel provide adoptive parents, including increased emphasis on
courtesy, responsiveness to inquiries, and knowledge of intercountry
adoption laws and procedures; and
institute a monitoring process to ensure that courteous, responsive, and
knowledgeable service is consistently provided to adoptive parents or
those who may inquire about foreign adoptions.
We also recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Assistant
Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to develop and implement program
to improve overseas consular office staffs' responsiveness and courtesyi
serving the needs of American adoptive parents abroad and monitor thes
programs to ensure that satisfactory service is provided to them.
Page 42
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adopt
Chapter 8
Many Adoptive Parents and Adoption
Agencies Reported Receiving Poor Quality
Service
Agency Comments
INS officials told us that they plan to review immigration officer training
programs and issue instructions to the field with a view toward ensuring
and Our Evaluation
improved courtesy, responsiveness, and subject-matter knowledge in
processing orphan adoptions. They said that monitoring of employee
performance is an ongoing responsibility of supervisors and that they
would remind field managers of the importance of ensuring proper service
in orphan cases.
State Department officials commented that while our survey showed that a
clear majority of respondents were satisfied with State's handling of
adoption cases,² they agreed that service could always be improved and
said that the Department had taken a series of steps in the past year to
enhance their ability to provide quick, courteous, and responsive service
to U.S. citizens. In addition, they said that officers have been assigned to
follow adoption matters and that improvement of service to citizens
abroad is a regular focus of management seminars held with consular
officers (see app. III).
We support the steps that INS and State Department officials have planned
or already taken to improve quality of service for those involved in seeking
intercountry adoptions and urge that they continue to look for ways to
ease this already complex and often frustrating process for many
Americans.
²Reference here is made to the families we surveyed.
Page 43
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
Americans seeking to adopt a foreign child face an intercountry adoptio
process that varies with the requirements imposed by foreign governme
and their institutions. Broad international agreements on standards and
procedures for intercountry adoption do not now exist. The absence of
such agreements, especially in sending countries that do not have effect
foreign adoption programs, have contributed to confusion, delays,
irregularities, and possible abuse. However, efforts are under way by th
intergovernmental Hague Conference on Private International Law to
prepare a convention that will seek to define substantive common
principles and establish a framework for cooperation between sending
receiving countries. The convention, if signed by the United States and
entered into force, would require changes in prevailing U.S. intercountr
adoption procedures, including possible legislative revisions and chang
in federal agency operating procedures.
In addition to meeting U.S. federal and state laws, prospective America
Requirements for
parents must contend with varying foreign government requirements as
Intercountry Adoption
they relate to their fitness to care for a child and to obtaining the child's
Vary by Country
release for adoption and emigration. Varying degrees of official approv:
involvement by third parties, and documentation may be required whet
the child is relinquished to a government or private institution or direct
from the birth mother to the adoptive parents and whether the
relinquishment takes place in a formal judicial or private setting.
Increasingly, because of the illegal activities they have experienced wit
child placements abroad, some foreign countries are seeking to curtail
privately arranged adoptions by requiring contacts to be channeled
through sanctioned agencies or government institutions. There are vari
inconsistencies in foreign governments' adoption policies.
Qualifications for Adoption
The decision of who is qualified to adopt a foreign child is a matter of
interest to both the sending and receiving governments. As a result,
although prospective adoptive American parents are required to show 1
they are suitable for adopting a foreign-born orphan, the sending count
government or courts may require additional information for assessing
parents' fitness. The requirements vary by country but may include suc
factors as age, income, race, religion, length of residency incountry, an
number and backgrounds of other children. Some countries also requir
post-placement information on a child and notification of final adoption
when a child is released for guardianship and enters the United States 1
be adopted.
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Ado
Page 44
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
Adoption
Most countries require that a child who is placed for adoption must be
legally recognized as an orphan or, in a case in which only one natural
parent is living, legally and unconditionally released for adoption and
emigration. Some countries require that the child be adopted in the courts
of their country as a prerequisite for the child to leave, with either or both
adoptive parents' being required to appear personally or through
arrangement by proxy-depending on the country's requirements. Thus,
whereas a country of origin may recognize a foreign adoption of an orphan
as being valid if it is arranged by proxy or with only one prospective
parent being present, U.S. immigration law requires that (if the petitioner
is married) both of the prospective parents must have seen and observed
the orphan abroad prior to or during the adoption proceedings in order for
the foreign adoption decree to be recognized as valid in the United States.
Other countries (such as Korea) effectively grant the adopting parent(s)
legal guardianship of the child and simply require a special exit visa from
the child's country, with the adoption to be completed in the receiving
country. Not all countries have a national authority to control or regulate a
child being available for adoption by foreign citizens.
Emigration
It is possible that a child determined to be available for foreign adoption,
and possibly already adopted or given legal custody by American parents
in his or her own country, may not be eligible to enter the United States
because the examining U.S. officer does not consider the child to be an
orphan. This is because the U.S. orphan definition is not always consistent
with the determination of a child's availability for foreign adoption and
emigration by the sending country. For example, whereas the sending
country might consider a child abandoned if the child has been placed in
an orphanage, but the parents still contribute to the child's support, U.S.
officials would not.
Timeliness is critical. While the United States is the largest receiving
country for intercountry adoptions, sending country and cooperating
adoption agency officials told us they may be more apt in certain instances
to place an adoptable child with a family in countries that have less
stringent approval processes. Children available for foreign adoption but
not assured of immediate U.S. entry may instead be made available to and
adopted by families in Canada and Western European countries, which
accept the findings of the child's birth country and require no further test
for entry.
Page 45
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
Agency-Assisted Versus
While U.S. citizens are free to act on their own behalf or use an attorn
Independent Adoptions
agent to arrange a foreign adoption, an increasing number of countrie
requiring that such adoptions be carried out through selected accredi
agencies. We found that agency-assisted adoptions have worked well
Korea and other countries that have established foreign adoption
programs. Agencies based in the receiving country usually have a
contractual arrangement with institutions or licensed agencies overse
with access to available children, and they offer parents a complete ra
of services-including a home study of the prospective parents,
preparation of legal documents, selection and presentation of the chil
and post-placement services. Prospective parents who work
independently with the birth mothers or private agents in the country
origin usually want to avoid the purportedly higher cost, longer wait, :
loss of personal control that are often associated with agency-assisted
adoptions. However, whereas cooperating agencies can be held
accountable to their contractual commitments by the foreign governn
independent arrangements cannot be as easily monitored. As a result,
problems can occur-as they did recently in Romania.
Wide media attention given to the plight of children left abandoned OI
Problems Associated
orphaned in Romanian institutions during the Ceausescu regime led t
With Romanian
significant rise in the number of American adoptions from Romania
Adoptions
following the regime's overthrow in late 1989. Up to that time, the nur
of Romanian children adopted by American families was insignificant
Following a modest rise during fiscal year 1990, adoptions ballooned 1
2,552 during fiscal year 1991 until July when, because of alleged baby
selling activities, Romanian authorities suspended all foreign adoption
pending the establishment of a Romanian Adoption Committee to OVE
all adoptions and carry out comprehensive new procedures.
The surge in the number of Americans adopting Romanian children ai
the problems accompanying them were caused by a combination of
factors. Prominent among these was public confusion resulting from 1
lack of a smooth-functioning adoption program based on established
and procedures that allowed private adoption arrangements to flouris
Contributing to the confusion were prospective parents who were
ill-informed about or unwilling to follow U.S. laws and regulations and
U.S. staffing shortage to properly investigate and document orphan
petitions and visa applications. Parents who sought to adopt a child W
often matched with, and sometimes even adopted or gained legal cust
of, the child before obtaining a formal decision about the child's orph
Page 46
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Ad
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
status under U.S. law. Most of the children processed early came from
orphanages and government institutions, and thus were more easily
determined to be clearly approvable as an orphan. However, some INS and
consular officials expressed doubt as to whether appropriate criteria were
applied in adjudicating the orphan petitions because there was a staff
shortage to conduct the orphan investigations and 97 to 98 percent of the
petitions were approved despite reports of widespread irregularities and
fraud. State officials told us that extensive follow-up investigations by
State and INS did not disclose fraud and that all of the children involved
received either immigrant visas or humanitarian parole.
Nearly one-third of the Romanian children admitted to the United States
during fiscal year 1991 were admitted on the basis of the issuance of an
IR-4 visa-in other words, without having been seen and observed by the
parent(s) at the adoption proceedings abroad. We were told by agency
officials that it was possible in these circumstances that a child may have
been released from a birth parent through a local court without the central
government's knowledge or supervision and that the adoption was
arranged without agency assistance.
A number of Americans who adopted or agreed to adopt a child that was
later determined to be a nonorphan were granted relief through the
Attorney General's discretionary humanitarian parole authority. Used only
occasionally and sparingly in the past to admit foreign children who did
not qualify for U.S. entry as orphans, the authority was used temporarily in
1991 on a broad basis to admit nonqualifying orphan children from
Romania who either already had been adopted by or had bonded with
American parents traveling to Romania to adopt a child. Parole status was
granted to a total of about 250 of these nonorphan children. The parole
process is not normally available for adoptions and has been granted only
in a few such cases, chiefly for U.S. military families overseas who were
transferred to a new duty station on short notice.
The Romanian government has amended its adoption laws and established
an adoption committee to oversee foreign adoptions. It requires that future
foreign adoptions be processed through this committee and established a
list of requirements for adoptions to take place. As of July 1992, it had
authorized five U.S. agencies to facilitate adoptions but had not yet
permitted them to resume adoption processing.
Page 47
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
Adoption and foster placement of children domestically and abroa
No Broad Agreement
generally regulated by the local and state laws of each nation, and
Exists on
growing extent by international law. While international adoption
International
children has been addressed from time to time in resolutions adop
the United Nations General Assembly, the only existing internation
Adoption
agreement that deals specifically with the adoption of foreign child
one that operates only between Austria, Switzerland, and the Unite
Kingdom.
Adoption Convention
In recent years there has been some support for an adoption treaty
Being Developed by the
convention that would establish generally binding procedures for
international adoptions. In 1988, responding to encouragement by
Hague Conference
United Nations, the intergovernmental Hague Conference on Priva
International Law formed a special commission to prepare a conve
that would identify issues, study possible approaches, and establis
norms and procedures for adoption of children coming from abroa
Delegates to the conference felt that there was a clear practical ne
multilateral instrument that would define substantive principles ar
establish a basic legal framework of cooperation between authorit
countries of the children's origin and receiving countries. The com
has prepared a draft text of the convention for consideration by M
States, scheduled for final approval by the Conference in May 1993
United States Participation
For the convention to be ratified and become effective in the Unite
in Drafting the Convention
States, the State Department has indicated it will first seek the
endorsement of the various organizations involved in intercountry
adoptions before the convention is transmitted by the President to
Senate for its advice and consent and the need for enactment of fe
implementing legislation is determined. A U.S. delegation to the H:
Conference special commission has been assisting in the commiss
work and attempting to secure provisions in the convention that W
viewed as being as fully acceptable as possible to the United State:
delegation is chaired by the State Department's Legal Adviser for I
International Law and includes experts on family law and intercou
adoption. To provide guidance to the delegation, a Study Group on
Intercountry Adoption was established consisting of law professor
adoption attorneys, national adoption agency representatives, and
and state government officials. The group met in June 1990, Januar
and January 1993 prior to meetings of the Hague Conference comr
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountr.
Page 48
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
Impact of Draft Hague
The draft convention sets out the basic procedural framework, or
Convention on U.S.
minimum requirements, to be followed in all adoption cases between
cooperating member countries. It also provides the flexibility for any
Processing of Foreign
country to unilaterally impose additional restrictions or conditions to
Adoptions
those established in the convention. For example, while the draft
convention gives prospective adoptive parents the latitude to seek
adoptions without private agency assistance and travel to the country of
origin to identify the child to be adopted (subject to prior approval by a
competent authority), some countries of origin may decide to deal with
only certain accredited agencies that agree to meet their criteria.
Receiving countries may continue to set eligibility requirements for entry
that they consider necessary for permanent residence.
Basic Provisions of the
The draft convention establishes some basic and broadly supported
Draft Convention
provisions that will substantially confirm many existing policies and
practices but also seek to make certain improvements in the manner that
intercountry adoption procedures currently take place. The provisions
esssentially relate to specific duties and obligations of sending and
receiving countries that are aimed at protecting a child from getting caught
in a legal limbo that can occur because of varying adoption and
immigration requirements between countries.
A major provision of the draft convention is that member countries
designate a central authority. This authority is to be responsible for
cooperating with other government authorities in keeping each other
informed about their laws and monitoring adoption procedures, and either
performing certain specified procedural functions on its own or delegating
them to public authorities or accredited bodies. Such a national authority
does not now exist in the United States and would have to be established.
Directly or by delegating the functions, it would be required to (among
other things)
receive and review the applications of those persons wishing to adopt a
child in a foreign country (INS currently performs this procedure);
prepare and transmit for each intercountry adoption a report to a central
authority in the state of origin that contains the applicants' identity,
background, eligibility, suitability to undertake an adoption, and the
characteristics of children they would be qualified to care for (this
function is not now being performed systematically but is essentially
covered by the home study process);
Page 49
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
provide official assurance of agreement with the placement and, befo
adoption is allowed to proceed, take all the necessary steps to ensure
smooth transfer of the child from the sending to the receiving state (t)
function is not being done now);
monitor and report to the cooperating central authority on the progre
made to complete adoptions and probationary placements and, in the
event of unsuccessful placements, provide for an alternative adoption
arrangement in cooperation with the sending state (this function is do
now only by adoption agencies under contractual arrangement with t]
sending government); and
take measures to prevent improper financial or other gain from an act
related to an intercountry adoption (U.S. law does not specifically imp
penalties for persons trafficking in children).
If the draft convention were to take effect, prospective adoptive parer
would not be permitted to have any contact with the child to be adopt
or its parents until certain conditions were met. Specifically, they are
the competent authority in the country of origin would have to detern
that (1) the child was adoptable, (2) intercountry adoption was in the
child's best interest, and (3) proper counseling and consents were give
Further, the competent authority in the receiving country would have
determine that the prospective adoptive parents were eligible and suit
to adopt a foreign child. Although the parents could contact the birth
parent(s) and the child after these conditions were met, they would n
able to proceed with the adoption until the receiving country determir
that the child was authorized to enter and become a permanent reside
there.
The procedure to be followed under the draft convention ensures that
authorities in the country of origin would be informed at the beginnin
the process the prospective adoptive parents' intent to seek a child fr
that country, enabling the authorities to set conditions for establishin
initial contact and to improve their control and monitoring. The proce
also requires that public authorities or accredited bodies in both the
sending and receiving countries would ensure that the intercountry
adoption be in the best interests of the child and that they would estal
a system for accountability and monitoring.
Issues to Be Addressed by
Issues remain to be addressed about how the draft Hague convention,
the United States
were it to be approved by the United States and allowed to enter into
force, would affect U.S. immigration law and federal agency
Page 50
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
responsibilities. Among the principal issues that would need to be
addressed by federal implementing legislation or regulation include (1) the
establishment of a national central authority to discharge certain required
functions, (2) the delegation of other functions to licensed public
authorities or accredited bodies involved in intercountry adoptions, and
(3) the requirement for a determination that a child who is qualified for
intercountry adoption by the sending country is or will be allowed to enter
and reside in the United States before the adoption can take place.
Most of the functions required by the draft convention are already being
performed to a varying extent through INS, the Department of State, the
individual 50 states, and private adoption agencies and attorneys.
Nevertheless, the draft convention would expand the federal government's
role by making it directly responsible for reporting to central authorities in
other countries and holding it more accountable for the successful
placement and completion of the adoption. No decision had been made at
the time of our review regarding which federal agency (or combination of
agencies) would be responsible for the central authority's functions or
how some of the functions might be delegated, should the United States
become a member of the convention.
The draft convention allows signatory countries great flexibility in how the
central authority may decide to discharge or delegate the convention's
required functions. However, by imposing this responsibility on the central
authority, the federal government may have to make decisions about the
division of responsibility between itself and the individual 50 states-such
as possibly establishing a minimum uniform standard for accreditation of
private adoption agencies and others involved in intercountry adoptions
and providing measures to prevent the participants from receiving
improper financial and other gain.
It is likely that the convention would create a new classification of
adoptable children determined by early mutual consent of sending and
receiving countries to be eligible for intercountry placement and ensured
of a smooth transfer process. This could increase or decrease the number
of children available for intercountry adoption. Also, if it chose to do so,
the United States could unilaterally continue to apply its test for
determining orphan status irrespective of the country of origin's
determination. However, unlike current practice that can result in the
adoption of an orphan child overseas and subsequent delay of U.S. entry
for eligibility reasons, a determination of the child's eligibility for
immediate entry to and residency in the United States would have to
Page 51
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Chapter 4
Varying Country Requirements Pose
Dilemmas for Intercountry Adoptions
precede an adoption or award of legal custody to the prospective ado
parents.
Conclusions
Ratification and entry into force of an international agreement along
lines of the draft Hague convention would establish uniform principl
procedures for efficient foreign adoption processing while providing
improved safeguards for the child and less anxiety for the adoptive
parents. In particular, U.S. delegates believe the draft convention wo
(1) permit a smoother transfer process to take place once the conne<
with the child to be adopted has been made and (2) assist in monitor
adoption placements to ensure they are properly and successfully
completed.
U.S. accession to the draft convention would not alter the basic appi
that parents use to adopt a foreign orphan, but it would result in add
federal agency reporting and management responsibilities and some
adjustments to the existing adoption processing procedures. Issues
to be addressed as to how these responsibilities would be carried ot
designated central authority and under which circumstances this
authority's required functions would be delegated to other compete
bodies. It is also uncertain whether the United States would agree to
requirement that it determine, before an adoption could take place,
adoptable child under the terms of the convention would be permit
entry and residency.
Page 52
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercount
Page 53
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
This appendix shows the results of our survey of parents completing
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) orphan immigration
processing during fiscal year 1991. The objectives of the survey were
learn about families' experiences with and views of intercountry ado
procedures and the quality of services they received from U.S. goven
agencies during the adoption process. We selected fiscal year 1991 in
order to reduce memory errors and provide a current picture of U.S.
government service. Our study examines the intercountry adoption
process from the point of submission of the orphan petition to when
child enters the United States. The study does not cover the process
obtaining citizenship for the child.
The study population consists of the 8,921 orphans entering the Unit
Study Methodology
States in fiscal year 1991 under IR-3 (adopted abroad) or IR-4 (to be
adopted in the United States) immigration status. Some families ado]
more than one child. However, we project the survey results to a
population defined as families of the 8,921 orphans entering the Unit
States. We selected a simple random sample of 250 orphans from thi:
population using documentation provided by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to conduct telephone interviews with the fam
these children joined. We deleted eight cases from the sample becau
families did not meet our study criteria, that is, they participated in
pretesting abroad at the time of our interviews. Therefore, the adjust
sample size is 242. We were able to contact and interview by telepho
of the families-an 84-percent response rate. We conducted the tele[
interviews between mid-March and mid-April 1992.
Our sample, like most statistical samples, is subject to some uncerta
In this appendix, we report the 95-percent confidence intervals to qu
the statistical uncertainty associated with our results. If our method
was replicated, chances are 19 out of 20 that the results would be wi
these confidence intervals. Nonsampling errors, such as the wording
order of questions and the differences between interviewers, may al:
cause errors in surveys. In order to minimize the effects of these err
we obtained three expert reviews of the questionnaire from professi-
in intercountry adoption, pretested the questionnaire, and applied SC
science principles of survey design.
We did not survey parents who began but did not complete the forei;
adoption process. We could not directly contact parents who did not
complete the process due to the lack of centralized records and the
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry 1
Page 54
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
inherent difficulties in identifying a population from which a reliable
sample could be drawn. In order to obtain some information about the
experiences of this group, as well as about parents who remain in the
process, we asked adoption agencies to report their professional opinion
about the efficiency and quality of service U.S. government personnel
provided to all families in 1991 (see app. II).
In some cases, questions were preceded by a filter question that screened
out parents from responding. For example, in the section on parents who
traveled abroad in order to conduct adoption business, we project to a
population of about 6,100 families who traveled for adoption business. In
other cases, not all parents eligible to answer a given question did so. The
nonresponse rates ranged from 0 to 2 percent for the survey questions in
this appendix. On some questions, parents could choose more than one
response category, and the sum of responses may exceed the population
total.
For questions where parents reported dollar amounts or lengths of time,
we present the average (the mean and median), standard deviation, and
range of responses. For some questions, we have provided brief
summaries of the responses.
For many questions in the survey, respondents chose from five response
categories so that their answers would closely reflect their views.
However, we collapsed categories on some questions for clearer reporting
in this appendix. These categories are denoted with a "/" between two
collapsed choices.
The exact text for many of the questions is included in this appendix. We
have edited the text for other questions in order to eliminate interviewer
cues and prompts for response categories. Several sections of the survey
contain a series of similar questions, such as those concerning U.S.
government services provided by different agencies. For these sections,
the entire question is provided once along with shortened wording for
subsequent questions.
Page 55
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
Summary of Survey
Results
Profile of Intercountry
(a) Approximately what was the total amount of your
Adoption Families
out-of-pocket expenses for your adoption, including such thing
travel, agency and application fees, and other expenses?
Median
$
Mean
$
Standard deviation
Range
$2,000-$
Note: Figures are based on 197 survey responses.
(b) How much did you expect to pay when you began the proce
Median
$
Mean
S
Standard deviation
Range
$100-S
Note: Figures are based on 184 survey responses.
Page 56
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(c) Comparison between actual and expected adoption costs.
Figure I.1: Comparison of Actual and
Expected Adoption Costs
Parents paid about what they
expected.
15%
Parents paid less than they
expected.
37%
48%
Parents paid more than they
expected.
Note: We derived the percentages from 194 survey responses by comparing the amounts parents
actually paid and what they expected to pay to adopt a child.
(d) Is this your first intercountry adoption?
The percentage of families who answered "yes" ranged from 70 to 82.1
'Ranges represent the lower and upper ends of the 95-percent confidence interval estimates to the
population. Unless otherwise specified, values represent the estimated percentage of families in the
population of 8,921 with the characteristic being reported.
Page 57
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(e) Which of the following sources provided you with useful
information about intercountry adoption procedures and
requirements?
Percentage of famill
Provider of professional adoption services
48-(
Friends and relatives
28-
A parent group
17-
The Immigration and Naturalization Service
7-
Other adoptive parents
1.
(f) Consider any information you collected about intercountry
adoption. Think about information concerning the requirements,
costs, and length of time to adopt, as well as information about
intercultural and health issues when adopting abroad. To what
extent, if at all, did this information prepare you for your adoptio
experience?
Percentage of famil
To little or no/some extent
13
To a moderate extent
20
To a great/very great extent
49
(g) Who provided you with adoption services in the United States
Percentage of fami
An adoption agency
70
A social worker
10
A parents' group
5
Other types of adoption facilitators
5
A lawyer
Did not receive adoption services in the United States
Page 58
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoj
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(h) How much assistance, if any, did you receive from your
adoption facilitator/s in completing each of the following steps in
your adoption: little or none, some, a moderate amount, a great
amount, or a very great amount of assistance?
Percentage of families
receiving great or very great
amounts of assistance
Identifying a child for you to adopt
60-73
Collecting evidence to show that your child is an orphan
56-70
Locating a person to conduct your home study
55-69
Communicating with citizens of your child's home
country about your adoption case
48-62
Securing a visa for your child
37-51
Communicating with INS about your case
25-38
(i) Why did you choose intercountry rather than domestic
adoption?
Number of families In the
survey
Families believed they were ineligible for domestic
adoption.
104
Families believed intercountry adoption could be
completed in less time than domestic adoption.
77
Families wanted to adopt a child with certain
characteristics.
55
Families believed intercountry adoption would be easier
than domestic adoption.
41
Families believed intercountry adoption would cost less
than domestic adoption.
27
Families were concerned about birth parent rights in
domestic adoption.
20
Families wanted to help disadvantaged children.
19
Families were advised to pursue intercountry options.
15
Families had previous intercountry adoption experience.
14
Families believed there were no children available to
adopt domestically.
13
Note: Figures indicate the number of families in the survey that mentioned each reason; 203
respondents answered this question.
Page 59
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(j) Which of the following categories most closely matches your
gross annual family income from all sources during 1991?
Percentage of familie
2
Less than $25,000
26-4
$25,000 to $50,000
26-3
$50,000 to $75,000
24-3
More than $75,000
(k) Did your child have any health problem that you did not know
about at the time you agreed to adopt?
The percentage of families who answered "yes" ranged from 11 to 21.
Intercountry Adoption
(a) After INS received all of the application materials to qualify you
Processing
and your child, did INS approve your application, or did they ask
you for more information?
Percentage of famille
79-8
Approved application as submitted
11-2
Asked for more information
(b) What information did INS ask for before approving your
application?
Parents reported that they provided the following kinds of additional
information to INS: replacement fingerprint cards for originals that were
lost or unusable; additional or updated home study information, including
copies of the license for the social worker conducting the home study;
birth and marriage certificates; additional fees; and confirmation of
relinquishment of the child by a surviving parent.
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(c) Do any of the following statements apply to your adoption case?
Percentage of families who
said "yes"
I plan to adopt my child in the United States.
29-42
I have already adopted my child in the United States.
32-46
I have received a Resident Alien Card for my child.
74-85
I have filed an application for U.S. citizenship for my
child.
12-22
My child is now a U.S. citizen.
10-20
Satisfaction With U.S.
(a) Did you or your partner contact the following about your
Government Services in
adoption?
he United States
Percentage of families who
said "yes"
Contact a Member of Congress
28-42
Phone the Department of State in the states
12-22
Visit the Department of State in the states
4-12
Phone INS in the states
65-78
Visit INS in the states
56-70
Page 61
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(b) How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following
aspects of service provided by INS in the United States for your
adoption: were you very satisfied, generally satisfied, as satisfied
as dissatisfied, generally dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
Percentage of families
Accessibility of INS personnel by telephone
Very/generally satisfied
12-22
As satisfied as dissatisfied
2-8
43-57
Generally/very dissatisfied
Accessibility of INS personnel at their office
25-38
Very/generally satisfied
5-13
As satisfied as dissatisfied
16-28
Generally/very dissatisfied
Courtesy of INS personnel
42-56
Very/generally satisfied
As satisfied as dissatisfied
6-14
12-22
Generally/very dissatisfied
Sensitivity of INS personnel to your intercountry adoption
38-52
Very/generally satisfied
7-16
As satisfied as dissatisfied
13-24
Generally/very dissatisfied
Knowledge INS personnel had about intercountry
adoption laws and regulations
34-48
Very/generally satisfied
7-16
As satisfied as dissatisfied
8-17
Generally/very dissatisfied
Ability of INS personnel to provide accurate information
about your case
34-48
Very/generally satisfied
4-12
As satisfied as dissatisfied
15-26
Generally/very dissatisfied
Timeliness of responses by INS to your inquiries
32-46
Very/generally satisfied
7-16
As satisfied as dissatisfied
19-32
Generally/very dissatisfied
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(c) Why were you dissatisfied with the accessibility of INS
personnel by telephone?
Parents reported that they had problems with the INS automated telephone
system.2 For example, parents said that recorded messages did not provide
useful information; the instructions were unclear; INS did not respond to
messages families left on the system; and reaching INS personnel by
telephone was time-consuming. Parents also said it was difficult to get
beyond the recorded messages and make telephone contact with someone
knowledgeable about their adoption case.
(d) Why were you dissatisfied with the accessibility of INS
personnel at their office?
Parents reported that they had to wait a long time for service at INS offices
and that INS office hours made it difficult to visit.³ Parents also said INS
personnel were rude, that they were not knowledgeable about
intercountry adoption, and that they were not helpful. Parents also
reported difficulty locating or contacting the person responsible for
intercountry adoption at INS offices.
(e) How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the service
provided by the State Department in the United States for your
adoption?
Because relatively few of the families we interviewed contacted the
Department of State, we are not able to make sensible population
estimates about specific aspects of the service parents received from the
Department, and we are limited to describing the survey results.
Between 25 and 36 of the 39 families in the survey who called or visited
the Department of State in the United States are satisfied or neutral about
the courtesy of Department personnel, their sensitivity to intercountry
adoptions, the timeliness of their responses to family inquiries, and the
accessibility of Department personnel by telephone.
"One hundred one respondents who were generally or very dissatisfied with INS telephone
accessibility answered this question on the survey.
³Forty-four respondents who were generally or very dissatisfied with access to personnel at an INS
office answered this question.
Page 63
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
Smaller numbers of families are satisfied or neutral about the knowledge
Department personnel have of intercountry adoption laws and regulations,
their ability to provide accurate information about adoption cases, and the
accessibility of Department personnel at their offices. About one-quarter
of the parents we interviewed who called or visited the State Department
in the United States are generally or very dissatisfied with the accessibility
of Department personnel.
(f) Consider all of the items just mentioned: accessibility of agency
personnel, their courtesy, sensitivity, knowledge, and timeliness.
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the quality of
federal government services you received (from the State
Department and INS) here in the United States during your
adoption?
Percentage of families
Very satisfied
6-15
Generally satisfied
22-35
As satisfied as dissatisfied
13-24
Generally dissatisfied
11-21
Very dissatisfied
4-11
[Figure I.4 depicts these levels of satisfaction.]
Page 64
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
ifficulties Encountered in
(a) How difficult, if at all, was it for you to complete each of the
le Intercountry Adoption
following steps during your adoption: was it of little or no
rocess
difficulty, somewhat difficult, moderately, very, or extremely
difficult?
Percentage of families
Getting accurate information about U.S. rules and
procedures for intercountry adoption?
Little or no difficulty/somewhat difficult
69-82
Moderately difficult
8-18
Very/extremely difficult
8-17
Working with U.S. government agencies on your
adoption?
Little or no difficulty/somewhat difficult
53-67
Moderately difficult
14-25
Very/extremely difficult
15-26
Meeting INS requirements for adoptive parents, such as
obtaining a favorable home study and clearing the
background investigation?
Little or no difficulty/somewhat difficult
86-95
Moderately difficult
3-9
Very/extremely difficult
2-8
Working with citizens of your child's home country who
were involved in your adoption?
Little or no difficulty/somewhat difficult
63-76
Moderately difficult
6-14
Very/extremely difficult
10-20
Demonstrating to INS that your child was an orphan?
Little or no difficulty/somewhat difficult
88-96
Moderately difficult
1-5
Very/extremely difficult
1-6
Getting an entry visa for your child?
Little or no difficulty/somewhat difficult
77-88
Moderately difficult
2-9
Very/extremely difficult
7-16
Figure I.2 illustrates the responses to these questions.
Page 65
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Interconntry Adontion
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
Figure 1.2: Degree of Difficulty Parents Experienced With Various Steps in the Adoption Process
100
Percent
93
90
90
82
80
75
70
70
60
60
50
40
30
20
19 20
12 12
14
11
10
9
5
4
5
2 2
0
Getting
Working with U.S.
Meeting INS
Working with
Demonstrating
Obtaining a visa
Information
government
requirements
foreign citizens
orphan status
agencies
Little or no/some difficulty
Moderately difficult
Very/extremely difficult
Note: Values represent the percentage of parents reporting each level of difficulty. See appendix
text for confidence interval estimates.
(b) Can you briefly describe why the adoption process was
difficult?
Parents described a range of problems such as difficulty reaching INS
personnel by telephone because of voice mail recordings, difficulty getting
comprehensive and accurate information on adoption or on the status of
their adoption case, and lost documentation or delays in processing
adoption documents. Parents also encountered problems abroad, such as
language barriers and requests for bribes from individuals in some
countries.
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoptio
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(c) Now consider all of the items just mentioned such as getting
information, working with government agencies, and meeting
requirements for adoption. Overall, how difficult, if at all, was your
intercountry adoption experience?
Percentage of families
Little or no difficulty
30-44
Somewhat difficult
22-35
Moderately difficult
14-25
Very difficult
8-17
Extremely difficult
2-8
Experiences and Views of
(a) Did you or your partner go to your child's home country to
arents Who Traveled to
facilitate your adoption process?
dopt Their Child
Percentage of families
Respondent traveled
13-24
Partner traveled
1-5
Respondent and partner traveled
45-59
Neither traveled
22-34
(b) About how long did you spend abroad?
Median
4 weeks
Mean
4.7 weeks
Standard deviation
4.8
Range
1/2 to 45 weeks
Note: Figures are based on survey responses of all parents who traveled.
Page 67
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
(c) For which of the following reasons did you travel to your child's
home country?
Percentage of families who
said "yes"
To bring your child into the United States?
92-99
To legally adopt your child in its home country?
74-88
Because the host country required you to appear?
69-83
To learn about your child's cultural heritage?
49-65
To see your child before agreeing to adopt?
29-46
To locate your child?
27-43
Note: Estimates are projected to the population of about 6,400 parents who traveled.
(d) Did you or your partner phone or visit the U.S. embassy or
consulate about your adoption?
Percentage of families wt
said "yes
Phone the U.S. embassy or consulate
48-1
Visit the U.S. embassy or consulate
92-'
Note: Estimates are projected to the population of all parents who traveled.
(e) How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following
aspects of service provided by U.S. embassy or consulate staff,
including INS personnel, in your child's home country for your
adoption?⁴
1In (e) and (f) we report results for families who traveled abroad in order to conduct business rel
to their adoption, about 6,100 of the families in the study. We have excluded families who did not
travel and families who traveled only for other purposes (about 300 families), such as escorting 1
child to the United States, learning about their child's cultural heritage, or seeing a child before
agreeing to adopt.
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
Percentage of families
Accessibility of consular personnel by telephone
Very/generally satisfied
63-77
As satisfied as dissatisfied
4-12
Generally/very dissatisfied
19-25
Accessibility of U.S. government personnel at the
consulate
Very/generally satisfied
70-84
As satisfied as dissatisfied
3-11
Generally/very dissatisfied
9-20
Courtesy of consular personnel
Very/generally satisfied
67-82
As satisfied as dissatisfied
7-18
Generally/very dissatisfied
6-16
Sensitivity of consular personnel to your intercountry
adoption
Very/generally satisfied
63-79
As satisfied as dissatisfied
6-17
Generally/very dissatisfied
9-21
Knowledge consular personnel had about intercountry
adoption laws and regulations
Very/generally satisfied
68-83
As satisfied as dissatisfied
2-9
Generally/very dissatisfied
5-15
Ability of consular personnel to provide accurate
information about your case
Very/generally satisfied
63-79
As satisfied as dissatisfied
2-10
Generally/very dissatisfied
6-17
Timeliness of responses by the consulate to your
inquiries
Very/generally satisfied
75-88
As satisfied as dissatisfied
3-12
Generally/very dissatisfied
4-13
Figure I.3 illustrates the responses to these questions.
Page 69
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
Figure 1.3: Satisfaction With Aspects of Service Provided by the U.S. Government Abroad
100
Percent
90
84
80
80
78
76
74
74
70
68
60
50
40
30
21
20
14
15
12
10
11
11
10
6
9
6
7 7
4
5
0
Telephone
Office
Courtesy
Sensitivity
Knowledge
Ability to provide
Timeliness
accessibility
accessibility
Information
Very/generally satisfied
As satisfied as dissatisfied
Generally/very dissatisfied
Note: Values represent the percentage of parents reporting each level of satisfaction. See
appendix text for confidence interval estimates.
(f) Consider all of the items just mentioned: accessibility of agency
personnel, their courtesy, sensitivity, knowledge, and timeliness.
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the quality of
federal government services you received abroad during your
adoption?
GAO/NSIAD 93-83 Intercountrs Adontio
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
Percentage of families
Very satisfied
33-50
Generally satisfied
25-41
As satisfied as dissatisfied
6-16
Generally dissatisfied
3-12
Very dissatisfied
3-11
[Figure I.4 depicts these levels of satisfaction.]
Overall Satisfaction With
(a) We would like your overall assessment of your entire adoption
he Intercountry Adoption
experience. Consider both the U.S. and foreign requirements for
System and Process
adoption, as well as services you received here and abroad during
your adoption. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with
the intercountry adoption system and process?
Percentage of families
Very satisfied
22-35
Generally satisfied
35-49
As satisfied as dissatisfied
12-22
Generally dissatisfied
6-14
Very dissatisfied
2-8
[Figure I.4 depicts these levels of satisfaction.]
(b) Why are you dissatisfied with the intercountry adoption
system?
Parents said they are dissatisfied because of problems they had with U.S.
government agencies; because the process is complex, redundant,
difficult, and time-consuming; and because they had problems working
with their child's home country during the adoption.⁶
"Twenty-five respondents who are generally or very dissatisfied with the intercountry adoption system
and process answered this question.
Page 71
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix I
Responses to Our Survey of Parents
Completing INS Orphan Immigration
Processing During Fiscal Year 1991
Figure 1.4: Comparison of Satisfaction
Levels
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SUNICE U.S. 15
or Overall assercount adoption
Very dissatisfied
Generally dissatisfied
As satisfied as dissatisfied
Generally satisfied
Very satisfied
Note: Values represent the percentage of parents reporting each level of satisfaction. See
appendix text for confidence interval estimates.
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adopt
ppendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
This appendix shows the results of our survey of adoption agencies
providing intercountry adoption services during 1991. The objectives of
the survey were to obtain agency perspectives on (1) the services agencies
provide, (2) the quality of service these agencies received from U.S.
government personnel they contacted in 1991 on behalf of prospective
adoptive parents, and (3) the quality of service families received in their
adoption-related dealings with the U.S. government personnel. We
surveyed agencies in addition to adoptive families in order to obtain a
more comprehensive picture of the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S.
government services in the area of foreign adoptions.
tudy Methodology
Adoptive families use various sources of assistance to adopt foreign-born
children. We mailed our questionnaires in April 1992 to 197 adoption
agencies identified by national public service organizations that provide
information on foreign adoptions. We analyzed 155 questionnaires
representing a response rate of 79 percent. The agencies we studied had
substantial contact with the INS, the Department of State, and U.S.
consular office staff during 1991.
To reduce the respondents' burden, we asked the agencies to evaluate
specific aspects of the service they had received from (1) no more than
three INS offices in the United States that they had telephoned or visited
during 1991 and (2) U.S. government personnel in seven foreign countries.
If the agencies had contacted more than three INS offices, they were to
evaluate those they phoned and visited most frequently. We chose the
specific seven foreign countries because they were the source countries of
about 75 percent of the foreign adoptees immigrating into the United
States in fiscal year 1991. Agencies provided written comments assessing
their contacts with U.S. government personnel in countries other than the
seven we designated. Because agencies do not operate in fiscal years, we
asked them to recollect their experiences in calendar year 1991.
We combined agency responses for district INS offices and their associated
units (such as suboffices). To provide a more complete picture of U.S.
government performance, this appendix provides survey responses on
specific INS locations (including suboffices) assessed by nine or more
adoption agencies.
Summary ratings from multiple agency evaluations of quality of service for
the same INS location or foreign country are the arithmetic averages of all
agency ratings for the locations. The degree of consistency of the
Page 73
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
combined ratings for a single location was dependent upon the amount of
dispersion of agency ratings. This appendix provides more specific
information on the number of agencies endorsing various levels of quality
of service (e.g., very or generally satisfied versus generally or very
dissatisfied).
Some questions in the survey were preceded by a filter question to screen
out agencies from responding to subsequent items. For example, because
some agencies had contacted only one INS office during 1991, questions
about contacts with other INS offices did not apply. Also, some agencies
did not answer all questions applicable to them. Information on the item
nonresponse rates is provided throughout this appendix. For some
questions agencies could choose more than one response category, so the
sum of responses may exceed the number of agency questionnaires we
analyzed.
For many questions, respondents chose from five response categories so
that their answers would closely reflect their views. However, in reporting
responses we collapse categories to convey the overall results.
This appendix provides the exact text for the agency survey questions.
Transitional phrases and special instructions to respondents (e.g.,
reminders of the time period to report on) are not included. A few survey
items with high nonresponse rates were not used in our analysis and are
not included in this appendix.
Summary of Survey
Results
Profile of Adoption
(1) In what month and year did your agency start providing
intercountry adoption services?
Agencies
Ye!
19
Median
1950-19
Range
Note: This question was answered by 147 agencies: 96 started providing intercountry adoption
services before 1986; 43, between 1986 and 1990; and 8, after 1990. The remaining eight
agencies should have answered but did not.
GAO/NSIAD-93-88 Intercountry Adopt
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
(2) Which of the following intercountry adoption services did your
agency provide to families in 1991?
Number of agencies
Conducted home studies
146
Assisted clients with U.S. legal and/or documentary
requirements for foreign adoption
145
Provided post-placement services
144
Provided information on intercultural or health issues
142
Contacted U.S. government officials, other individuals,
or foreign institutions outside the United States on behalf
of parents wanting to adopt
115
Located children for intercountry adoption
94
Provided other service
38
Note: This question was answered by 154 agencies.
(3) About how many families, if any, did your agency staff conduct
home studies for in 1991?
Agency estimates of number
of families
Median
30
Range
1-600
Note: Home studies were conducted by 137 agencies. Eleven agencies said they did not conduct
home studies in 1991, and seven should have answered but did not.
(4) What is the average number of hours per family your agency
staff spent conducting face-to-face interviews for a home study?
Average number of interview
hours
Median
10
Range
3-30
Note: These figures come from 133 agencies' responses; 4 agencies who said they conducted
home studies did not answer.
Page 75
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
(5) How many foreign children did your agency place with U.S.
families in 1991?
Number of placements In
1991
Median
21
Mean
42
Standard deviation
63
Range
0-540
Note: Foreign children were placed by 128 agencies. Twenty-three other agencies said they did
not place foreign children with U.S. families in 1991; the remaining four agencies should have
answered but did not.
(6) How many families to whom your agency provided intercountry
adoption services during 1991 dropped out of the process during
that year? (Exclude families who only attended orientation or
initial consultation sessions.)
Number of families
Median
2
4
Mean
Standard deviation
{
Range
0-5(
Quality of Service Agencies
(1) During 1991, did your agency phone or visit any INS district
Received From the INS in
offices or suboffices here in the states on behalf of families
the United States
receiving intercountry adoption services?
Number of agenck
13
Yes
No
Page 76
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adop
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
(2) During 1991, how many INS offices here in the states did your
agency phone or visit? Also, on behalf of how many families did you
phone or visit these offices?
(a) Number of INS offices each agency phoned/visited.
1
Median
1-22
Range
(b) Agency estimates of the number of families they phoned/visited
offices about.
Median
15
1-300
Range
Note: 133 agencies answered part a, and 1 agency did not; 128 responded to part b. and 6
agencies did not.
(3) Write below the name of the INS office here in the United
States that your agency phoned or visited in 1991 on behalf of
families you were providing intercountry adoption services for.
Also, on behalf of how many families did your agency contact this
office?
Agencies could list a maximum of three INS offices to evaluate. If more
than three offices were contacted, they were asked to select those they
phoned and visited most frequently.
Of the 134 agencies contacting INS locations, 132 evaluated the service they
received at 53 district offices or other INS locations in the United States
during 1991. Their contacts were made on behalf of at least 3,410 families
seeking assistance for intercountry adoptions.
77
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
(4) How satisfied or dissatisfied is your agency with each of the
following aspects of service it received from this INS office? (The
response scale options were very satisfied, generally satisfied, as
satisfied as dissatisfied, generally dissatisfied, very dissatisfied,
and cannot say.) If the quality of service at an INS location
improved or declined during 1991, agencies answered for the
service received after the change occurred. If the service remained
about the same or if agencies could not judge whether change had
occurred, they based their answers on all contacts made with a
location during 1991.)
The following matrix shows agency assessments of specific features of the
service agencies received from several INS locations. The assessments in
the table summarize agency quality of service ratings for all INS locations,
the agency's geographical regions, and specific district office locations.
The latter category may include agency ratings of affiliated units such as
suboffices. Data for specific INS locations are listed if nine or more
agencies evaluated the location. We listed Milwaukee, a suboffice of
Chicago, separately because nine agencies rated it.
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adopti
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
Ability of
Knowledge
personnel to
personnel
provide
had about
accurate
Sensitivity of
Intercountry
Information
Accessibility
Accessibility
personnel to
adoption
about the
of personnel
of personnel
Courtesy of
Intercountry
laws and
status of
INS location
by telephone
at their office
personnel
adoption
regulations
a case
All INS locations
AS
AS
GS
AS
GS
AS
Northern Region
AS
AS
AS
AS
GS
AS
Chicago
VS
VS
vs
vs
VS
VS
Milwaukee
GD
GD
GD
GD
AS
AS
Southern Region
GD
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
Western Region
AS
AS
GS
AS
AS
AS
San Francisco
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
Eastern Region
AS
AS
GS
GS
GS
AS
Baltimore
GS
GS
GS
GS
AS
GS
Boston
GS
AS
GS
AS
GS
GS
Buffalo
AS
GD
GS
GS
GS
GS
Newark
AS
AS
AS
AS
GS
AS
New York
AS
GD
GS
GS
AS
AS
Philadelphia
AS
AS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Washington, D.C.
GD
AS
GS
AS
AS
AS
vs - Very satisfied
Very consistent
GS = Generally satisfied
Consistent
AS = As satisfied as dissatisfied
Mixed
GD = Generally dissatisfied
Very mixed
VD = Very dissatisfied
Letters designate the arithmetic average of all agency ratings for a location. Symbols designate the amount of dispersion of agency ratings around the average. The
total number of agencies assessing specific features of any given INS location is given in the next matrix. Within a location, the number responding to each feature
varies because respondents chose the "cannot say" option or did not rate each of the features of service we asked about. Two agencies said they contacted certain
INS locations but did not provide any ratings on the quality of service they had received.
We recorded the number of agency ratings at each satisfaction level by
region and selected INS locations. We condensed the five levels of
satisfaction that agencies could choose from to three: very and generally
satisfied were combined and became "S"; as satisfied as dissatisfied stayed
the same, "AS"; and generally and very dissatisfied were combined and
became "D".
Page 79
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
Ability of
Knowledge
personnel
personnel
to provide
had about
accurate
Sensitivity of
Intercountry
informatio
Accessibility
Accessibility
personnel to
adoption
about the
of personnel
of personnel
Courtesy of
Intercountry
laws and
status of
INS location
by telephone
at their office
personnel
adoption
regulations
a case
S AS D
S AS D
S
AS
D
S
AS
D
S
AS
D
S
AS
[
All INS locations
99
24
89
38
12
37
129
33
48
114
38
54
114
49
36
107
49
4.
Northern Region
24
6
25
12
6
12
28
11
17
25
14
14
30
14
8
26
15
11
Chicago
9
0
0
2
0
0
9
0
0
8
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
(
Milwaukee
2
1
6
1
1
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
5
3
1
2
3
Southern Region
8
1
15
4
0
4
12
4
9
10
5
10
10
7
5
12
5
:
Western Region
21
5
11
9
2
5
24
3
10
20
6
11
20
7
9
18
9
1
San Francisco
13
3
7
4
0
3
16
0
7
13
3
7
12
3
7
12
4
Eastern Region
46
12
38
13
4
16
65
15
12
59
13
19
54
21
14
51
20
1:
Baltimore
7
2
2
1
1
0
8
2
1
7
0
3
4
4
2
6
2
Boston
10
2
3
2
0
1
10
2
3
8
1
5
8
3
2
11
1
Buffalo
6
1
7
1
0
2
8
3
1
8
3
1
8
3
1
7
4
Newark
2
5
5
2
2
3
6
3
3
7
1
4
9
2
1
4
3
New York
7
0
6
2
0
4
11
0
2
11
0
2
6
4
2
5
6
Philadelphia
9
2
5
3
1
2
13
2
1
11
4
1
12
3
1
10
4
Washington, D.C.
3
0
9
1
0
3
7
3
0
5
4
2
4
2
5
5
0
(5) Overall, how would you rate the quality of service your ag
received from this INS office? The response scale options were
adequate, generally adequate, marginally adequate, generally
inadequate, and very inadequate. Overall judgments were base
the same period of time used to assess a location's specific
features of service.
Page 80
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry A
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
Estimated number
Overall assessment
of families agencies
INS location
of quality of service
made contacts for
All INS locations
Generally adequate
3,410
Northern Region
Marginally adequate
1,225
Chicago
Very adequate
123
Milwaukee
Marginally adequate
74
Southern Region
Marginally adequate
379
Western Region
Marginally adequate
559
San Francisco
Marginally adequate
305
Eastern Region
Generally adequate
1,247
Baltimore
Generally adequate
86
Boston
Generally adequate
435
Buffalo
Marginally adequate
125
Newark
Marginally adequate
239
New York
Generally adequate
102
Philadelphia
Generally adequate
143
Washington, D.C.
Marginally adequate
91
Very consistent
Consistent
Mixed
Very mixed
Note: The agencies were to record their judgements about the quality of service they received, after considering each of the specific features of
service they had previously rated and the number of families they had contacted these locations about. The number of families is an
underestimate. A few agencies did not estimate the number of families they made contacts for. The quality-of-service rating is the arithmetic
average of all agency ratings for a location. Symbols designate the amount of dispersion of agency ratings around the average.
The following matrix elaborates on the previous one by listing the number
of agencies that endorsed each quality-of-service rating for the INS' regions
and selected locations.
Page 81
GAO/NSIAD-93-83
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
Very/generally
Marginally
Generally/very
INS location
adequate
adequate
Inadequate
All INS locations
125
49
41
Northern Region
30
15
10
Chicago
9
0
0
Milwaukee
2
4
3
Southern Region
13
6
8
Western Region
20
8
9
San Francisco
13
3
7
Eastern Region
62
20
14
Baltimore
7
3
1
Boston
10
3
2
Buffalo
8
2
4
Newark
8
2
2
New York
9
3
1
Philadelphia
13
3
0
Washington, D.C.
4
4
4
The Quality of Service
(1) In which of the following countries did your agency (or foreign
Agencies Received From
representatives of your agency) phone or visit INS or U.S. consular
U.S. Consular and INS
office staff during 1991? Also, on behalf of how many families did
Staff in Seven Countries
your agency make contacts in each of the seven countries?
Estimated number of
Number of agencies
families agencies made
Country
contacting country
contacts for
Colombia
17
162
Guatemala
24
150
India
21
203
Korea
19
817
Peru
38
233
Philippines
22
225
Romania
37
467
Total
2,257
Note: A total of 80 agencies provided one or more quality-of-service ratings. Some agencies did
not estimate the number of families they had made contacts for.
GAO/NSLAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoptio:
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
The following matrix shows assessments from the agencies of specific
features of the service they received during 1991 from U.S. government
personnel in the seven countries we asked agencies to rate. The question
text was "How satisfied or dissatisfied is your agency with each of the
following aspects of service you received when you phoned or visited INS
or U.S. consular office staff in [country] during 1991?"
Page 83
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
Ability of
Knowledge
personnel
personnel
to provide
had about
accurate
Sensitivity of
intercountry
Information
Accessibility
Accessibility
personnel to
adoption
about the
of personnel
of personnel
Courtesy of
intercountry
laws and
status of
Country
by telephone
at their office
personnel
adoption
regulations
a case
Colombia
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Guatemala
GS
GS
AS
AS
GS
AS
India
GS
AS
GS
AS
AS
GS
Korea
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Peru
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
Philippines
GD
GD
AS
AS
AS
AS
Romania
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
VS = Very satisfied
Very consistent
GS = Generally satisfied
Consistent
AS = As satisfied as dissatisfied
Mixed
GD = Generally dissatisfied
Very mixed
VD = Very dissatisfied
Letters designate the arithmetic average of all agency ratings for a location. Symbols designate the amount of
dispersion of agency ratings around the average. The total number of agencies assessing any given INS location
can vary because respondents chose the "cannot say" option, or they did not respond.
The following matrix records the number of agency ratings given at each
assessment level for the service received from the INS or U.S. consular
office staff in the seven countries.
CAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adop
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
Ability of
Knowledge
personnel
personnel
to provide
had about
accurate
Sensitivity of
Intercountry
information
Accessibility
Accessibility
personnel to
adoption
about the
of personnel
of personnel
Courtesy of
intercountry
laws and
status of
Country
by telephone
at their office
personnel
adoption
regulations
a case
S AS D
S AS D
S AS D
S AS D
S AS D
S AS D
Colombia
12 2 1
10 1 2
12 1 2
11 1 3
9 4 2
10 1 3
Guatemala
16 4 1
15 2 3
11 6 4
11 5 5
13 3 5
11 6 4
India
10 5 2
9 3 5
11 5 2
9 4 4
8 4 4
11 3 2
Korea
13 1 0
11 4 1
12 3 1
13 2 1
14 1 1
13 2 1
Peru
13 5 12
11 5 12
12 4 15
10 7 15
12 10 9
10 8 11
Philippines
5 3 11
2 5 8
6 4 8
5 5 8
6 6 4
6 2 10
Romania
18 7 9
18 8 10
13 8 14
12 6 17
14 7 12
15 4 13
We condensed the five levels of satisfaction that agencies could choose from to three: very and generally satisfied
were combined and became "S"; as satisfied as dissatisfied stayed the same, "AS"; and generally and very
dissatisfied were combined and became "D."
The Quality of Service
(1) What other countries did your agency (or foreign
Agencies Received From
representatives of your agency) phone or visit, and on behalf of
J.S. Consular and INS
about how many families?
Staff in Other Countries
Seventy-one agencies reported on a total of 32 countries other than the 7
we have mentioned so far. We report information on Chile, El Salvador,
Honduras, and Paraguay because many adoption agencies provided
comments about the service they received from INS or U.S. consular office
staff in these countries.
Estimated number of
families agencies made
Country
Number of agencies
contacts for
Chile
17
176
El Salvador
12
60
Honduras
18
102
Paraguay
17
93
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
(2) Please describe below the quality of service your agency
received in these countries. (Consider accessibility of personnel,
their courtesy, sensitivity, and knowledge.)
The quality of service was higher in Chile and Honduras than in the other
countries. In Chile, each of the 17 adoption agencies described the service
they received as satisfactory, either in terms of overall service quality, or
in terms of specific features of service (such as courtesy and sensitivity of
staff). All but two of the 18 agencies contacting personnel in Honduras had
only positive comments about the intercountry adoption service in that
country. Twelve of the 17 agencies contacting personnel in Paraguay said
the quality of service was satisfactory; the other five agencies had negative
or mixed evaluations of the service. The service was more uneven in
El Salvador, with some agencies noting that staff were helpful, courteous,
and knowledgeable about intercountry adoption requirements and others
noting problems with timeliness, courteousness, or other areas.
Agencies' Assessment of
In the following questions, agencies were asked to provide their
the Service That U.S.
professional opinion about how U.S. government personnel dealt with
Government Personnel
families involved in various intercountry adoption procedures.
Provided Families Involved
I. Efficiency of Procedures
in Adoption Procedures
(1) During 1991, in your view, how efficiently or inefficiently did
U.S. government agencies carry out the following intercountry
adoption procedures? (Consider length of processing and
administrative and procedural competency.)
Adoption
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
Percentage of agencies
Very/generally
As efficiently as
Generally/very
Cannot
option procedure
efficiently
Inefficiently
inefficiently
say
gibility of parents:
; processing/approval of fingerprints
40
18
36
6
; processing/approval of other supporting documents for
60
19
14
7
ents' eligibility
; notification to parents of approval of eligibility
58
19
16
7
; notification to consular office of approval of parent eligibility
50
22
11
18
nsfer of INS approval of parents' eligibility from one foreign
35
10
24
32
intry to another
libility of Children:
or consular office processing/approval of child's Orphan
51
20
13
15
tion
er:
notification to parents that documents are missing or that
36
20
33
12
e is a problem with documents
Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The item nonresponse rates ranged from
1 to 5 percent.
II. Quality of Service to Families Abroad
(2) In your agency's view, to what extent, if at all, did INS and U.S.
consular office staff abroad achieve the following levels of service
to families pursuing intercountry adoptions in 1991?
Page 87
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adontion
Appendix II
Responses to Our Survey of Adoption
Agencies Providing Intercountry Adoption
Services During 1991
Percentage of agencies
Very
great/great
Moderate
Some/little/no
Cannot
extent
extent
extent
say
Service
26
21
26
28
Conducted the determination of a child's orphan status/ immigration
eligibility with appropriate tact and sensitivity
Provided the prospective adoptive parent(s) with helpful service, advice
21
19
37
23
and support
Showed adequate knowledge of intercountry adoption laws and
37
20
18
25
procedures
Interpreted and administered U.S. intercountry adoption policies and
31
16
28
26
procedures consistently
Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The item nonresponse rates ranged from
6 to 8 percent.
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix III
Comments From the Department of State
Note: GAO comments
supplementing those in the
report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
I
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
JAN I 4 1993
Dear Mr. Conahan:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft
report, "INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS: Procedures Are Reasonable But
Sometimes Inefficiently Administered" (GAO Job Code 472264).
Comments are enclosed.
If you have any questions on this issue, please call
George C. Lannon, CA/VO/F, on 663-1160.
Sincerely,
Result
Roger R. Gamble
Associate Comptroller
for Management Policy
Enclosure:
As stated.
Mr. Frank C. Conahan,
Assistant Comptroller General,
National Security and International Affairs,
U.S. General Accounting Office,
441 G Street, N.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20548
Page 89
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix III
Comments From the Department of State
GAO Draft Report: "INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS
Procedures Are Reasonable But Sometimes Inefficiently
Administered," GAO Job Code 472264
CA Comments
Overall CA is pleased with the GAO draft report. The report
concluded that INS and State Department procedures are
necessary, reasonable and sufficiently flexible. Although the
report focused on the dissatisfaction some people expressed
with the process, the survey clearly showed that the
overwhelming majority (87% of the respondents) were satisfied
with the Department of State's handling of their adoption cases.
There was one error in the draft report. On page 18, the
report indicated Embassies and Consulates provide translation
services. Consular offices do not do this. They may, however,
See comment 1.
be able to provide the names of competent translators.
As to the GAO's specific recommendations:
-- The GAO recommended that "the Secretary of State direct the
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to develop
and implement programs for improving the overseas consular
office staffs' responsiveness and courtesy in serving the needs
of U.S. adoptive parents abroad, and develop and implement a
system to ensure that satisfactory service is provided."
While most of those surveyed by the GAO indicated they were,
for the most part, pleased with the service rendered by
consular staffs, CA believes the level of service can always be
improved. During the past year, there have been a series of
messages to the field from the Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs stressing the need for quick, courteous and responsive
service to U.S. citizens. The Bureau holds regular overseas
and domestic management seminars with consular officers
representing each regional bureau. A regular focus of these
seminars is the discussion of ways to improve service to
Americans, including those seeking to adopt abroad. To ensure
that satisfactory service is rendered, the Bureau of Consular
Affairs' Visa Services Directorate and Overseas Citizens
Services Directorate have assigned officers to follow adoption
matters. Additionally, an Adoptions Committee, with
representatives from all elements of the Bureau of Consular
Affairs, other offices within the Department of State and INS,
was formed about a year ago to monitor the issue. This
committee meets regularly to discuss problem areas and
recommend solutions.
Appendix III
Comments From the Department of State
- 2 -
-- The GAO recommended that "the Secretary of State direct the
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs to instruct consular
offices to rely on information in approval notification cables
from INS to begin processing visa applications and scheduling
parent interviews, rather than require the original petition
and supporting documents be produced for visual inspection,
unless the cable presents information that on its face would
call into question the validity of the approval."
It is already within the consular officer's discretion to do
this. It should be noted, however, that cable approvals often
arrive with incomplete information, such as the petitioner's
local contact, which makes it difficult to start processing a
case. Regardless, CA will send a message to consular officers
reminding them they should accept cable approvals and not wait
for the original petition, if there is no reason to question
the validity of the approval and the information in the cable
is complete.
See comment 2.
Finally, a note on the report's section on Romanian adoptions.
The sentence on page 68 that begins "However, some INS and
Consular officials seems to us gratuitous since in spite of
extensive investigations by both the Department of State and
INS fraud was not found. In fact, all of the children involved
received either immigrant visas or humanitarian parole. This
sentence should be deleted from the report.
Page 91
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption
Appendix III
Comments From the Department of State
The following are GAO'S comments on the Department of State's letter
dated January 14, 1993.
1. The indication that Embassies and Consulates provide translation
GAO Comments
services has been deleted from the report.
2. We did not delete the sentence in question from the report because it is
what responsible officials we interviewed told us; however, we noted the
Department's response that fraud was not found in spite of extensive
follow-up investigations by State and INS, and that all of the children
involved received either immgrant visas or humanitarian parole.
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adopt
Appendix IV
Major Contributors to This Report
National Security and
David R. Martin, Assistant Director
International Affairs
Rolf A. Nilsson, Evaluator-in-Charge
Karen S. Heinemann, Evaluator
Division, Washington,
Dr. Marilyn Mauch, Social Science Analyst
D.C.
Arthur L. James, Jr., Statistician
Daniel B. Mezger, Social Science Analyst
European Office
Patricia F. Hinnen, Evaluator
72264)
Page 93
GAO/NSIAD-93-83 Intercountry Adoption