Chairman Gilman and members of the Committee on International Relations, I am Patricia
Montoya, the commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families at the
U.S. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). I am pleased to appear before you
today to discuss the role that HHS expects to play should we be given responsibility for
implementing the accreditation provisions contained in Title II of the "Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999".
I would like to commend the approach that members of the House of Representatives have
taken in the bipartisan and cross-Committee development of H.R. 2909. Both the
Administrations proposed legislation and the
House bipartisan bill represent sincere efforts to develop consensus on the issues raised
by the treaty and to implement the Conventions
provisions with the best interests of children firmly at the forefront. In all most
respects, H.R. 2909 is similar to the Administrations
proposed implementing legislation. As you know, this treaty is an important step toward
protecting the interests of children, birth parents and adoptive parents in the rapidly
expanding practice of intercountry adoption.
In my statement I will comment on the purposes of accreditation under the Hague
Adoption Convention, address why we believe that HHS is the federal agency best suited to
implement the accreditation provisions of the bill, and discuss how we envision the
accreditation process working once legislation is enacted.
Purpose of Accreditation
Accreditation is a system of measuring an organization's compliance with national
standards of best practice. The Hague Adoption Convention requires that adoptions between
party states be conducted only by organizations or persons that meet certain standards.
Intercountry adoption services performed in the U.S. under the Convention would be covered
by accreditation and approval here, while those performed in another country would be
performed by providers accredited by that nation. Accreditation and approval are intended
to assure that agencies and persons operating under the Convention have the organizational
capacities to perform the functions for which they are responsible.
Accreditation will not replace the process of state licensure under which adoption
agencies now operate, but rather will supplement it where intercountry adoptions under the
Hague Adoption Convention are concerned. It is not our intent to create an excessive or
burdensome set of rules, but only, as the Convention specifies, to establish a sound
standard of practice. The vast majority of states
licensing standards currently include standards relating only to domestic adoptions and
therefore lack the means to assure that agencies are knowledgeable about their
responsibilities under the Hague Adoption Convention or of the particular issues that
arise with intercountry adoptions. In addition, licensing standards vary greatly among
states, while accreditation standards must be consistent in order to assure other nations
we have a uniform standard of quality that they may rely upon when they entrust their
children to a U.S. agency and the prospective adoptive parents they represent. We hope
that accreditation may also provide prospective adoptive parents some measure of assurance
that agencies operate according to sound practice and high ethical standards.
HHS Adoption and Accreditation Experience
As you are aware, there has been some discussion about whether HHS or the State
Department should be assigned responsibility for implementing the accreditation provisions
of the legislation. While either HHS or the State Department would carry out the
accreditation function through one or more private entities, the responsible federal
agency would need to be involved in establishing the accreditation standards through
promulgation of regulations and by overseeing the accreditation process. Because HHS has
extensive experience in adoption and child welfare issues, the Administration believes
that HHS is better positioned than the State Department to have responsibility for this
function. HHS and the State Department are fully in agreement on this issue.
As you may know, this Administration, along with members of Congress from both parties,
has focused a great deal of attention on the issue of adoption over the past several
years. Within the federal government, HHS has primary responsibility for carrying out a
wide range of programs and activities related to adoption. I would like briefly to
describe my agencys current adoption programs.
HHS operates the Adoption Assistance Program authorized under title IV-E of the Social
Security Act, which provides nearly one billion dollars to states to operate programs of
subsidized adoptions for special needs children leaving the foster care system for loving
homes. We are also implementing very successfully the Administrations Adoption 2002 Initiative, the goal of which is to
double by the year 2002 the annual number of children from the public child welfare system
placed in adoptive homes or other permanent living arrangements. Our Adoption
Opportunities Program provides $25 million per year in grants to national, state, tribal
and local public and non-profit agencies and organizations to demonstrate a variety of
adoption related services designed to increase the number of children with special needs
adopted from the foster care system. These services include recruitment and preparation of
families, kinship adoption, child preparation, agency and court collaborations, agency and
community based collaborations, and post adoption services. HHS operates a National
Adoption Information Clearinghouse, which, although it specializes in domestic adoption
issues, does provide information upon request about intercountry adoption. Approximately
30 percent of the requests received deal with intercountry adoption. And we fund a
National Resource Center on Special Needs Adoption which provides technical assistance and
training to states regarding their adoption programs. HHSs institutional experience in working with state and
local agencies involved in adoption will be invaluable to our national efforts to
establish an accreditation process for intercountry adoptions.
Implementation Plans
Once implementing legislation is passed, HHS would designate one or more accrediting
entities and would work with them to develop accreditation standards that would be
established by regulation. Agencies seeking accreditation would apply to an accrediting
entity which would, through visits to the agencys
site and examination of the agencys established
procedures and policies, determine whether or not the standards for accreditation are met.
The accrediting entity would collect fees from adoption agencies applying for
accreditation to cover the costs of the accreditation process. We hope to keep these fees
as low as possible and to scale them to agency size so that they will not become
burdensome.
As you are aware, the Convention requires that accredited agencies be not-for-profit
service providers. But in many nations, including the U.S., adoption services are offered
by a variety of agencies, only some of which are nonprofit organizations. Under the
Convention, each nation may decide whether for-profit entities or persons may participate
in intercountry work.
Both your bill and the Administrations
proposal allow for approved persons as well as accredited agencies to perform adoptions
under the Hague Adoption Convention. The Administration believes that the qualifications
of the agency, not its IRS status, should determine whether it is allowed to offer
intercountry adoption services. Provided a for-profit entity or person is able to meet
accreditation standards, we do not believe it should be barred from operation under the
Hague Adoption Convention.
Conclusion
Let me conclude by assuring the Committee that in implementing the accreditation
provisions of the bill, we envision full cooperation with the State Department and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to assure that each of our activities meets the
others needs and enhances the process of
intercountry adoption for children and families. Over the past two years as our agencies
have discussed implementation of the Convention, we have developed a positive working
relationship which has served us well. We have taken the time to learn about each others agency, activities and organizational culture, we
have become comfortable with each others
perspectives and operating styles and we have learned a great deal about each agencys strengths. We developed our proposal with these
strengths in mind, to best make use of the strategic advantages of each agency. We fully
expect that this positive working relationship will continue as the implementation phase
of activity begins.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.