Detailed Information on the
Adoption Opportunities Assessment

Identifying and addressing the barriers to increasing the proportion of children adopted from the foster care system. Milestone: Release new Public Service Announcement Campaign aimed at older children and sibling groups in foster care.

Working with grantees and other agency partners to support and improve child welfare program evaluation. Milestone: Distribute recruitment and retention training material "Road to Adoption and Foster Care" to Children's Bureau Regional Office staff.

Track progress toward achievement of long-term goals, using program's newly developed efficiency measure. Milestone: Report updated data to Congress via FY 2010 Congressional performance budget submission.

Identifying and addressing the barriers to increasing the proportion of children adopted from the foster care system. Milestone: Develop, compete, and award new Adoption Opportunities grant announcements to promote the adoption of children from foster care.

Developing an appropriate efficiency measure, and refining current measures to develop more ambitious adoption targets and address existing data collection challenges.

Researching opportunities for independent program evaluations.

Set baseline and targets for program's newly developed efficiency measure. Milestone: Set preliminary targets and baseline.

Working with grantees and other agency partners to support and improve child welfare program evaluation. Milestone: Include technical assistance and information on evaluation at annual grantees meeting.

Working with grantees and other agency partners to support and improve child welfare program evaluation. Milestone: Provide information and technical assistance on evaluation at FY 2008 grantees meeting(s).

Track progress toward achievement of long-term goals, using program's newly developed efficiency measure. Milestone: Review grantees' data submissions to Performance Measurement Online Tool (PMOTOOL) for FY 2007.

Track progress toward achievement of long-term goals, using program's newly developed efficiency measure. Milestone: Discuss reporting and use of measures at annual grantees' meeting.

Measure: Reduce the cost per adoptive placement for the Adoption Opportunities program.

Explanation:

Measure: Increase adoption rate from 9.4% in FY 2003 to 10% by FY 2008.

Explanation:The program will replace the absolute adoption measure with an adoption rate measure. Adoption rate is defined as the number of adoptions divided by the number of children in foster care at the end of the prior year. Updated 11/7/05. Language of measure changed from "Increase adoption rate to 10% by FY 2008." to "Increase adoption rate from 9.4% in FY 2003 to 10% by FY 2008." based on the FY07 budget submission. This measure is currently under appeal with OMB; a decision is pending. Years were out of order on PARTWeb, revised years and data to be in chronological order.

Measure: By FY 2009, 75 percent of Adoption Opportunities grantees will have their findings applied to practice.

Explanation:An Adoption Opportunities grantee reports whether the findings for the project(s) it conducts are applied to practice in any other projects (i.e., another project uses the findings from the grantees' project to implement or adapt its own project) during the reporting period. In order to determine whether or not the findings have been applied to practice, a grantee can: ?? Follow up with individuals or organizations that requested materials (e.g., presentations, final report, training materials, protocols, etc.) from the grantee about the project ?? Follow up with individuals or organizations that asked permission about or showed interest in replicating or piloting the project ?? Read or hear about the application of their findings to practice at conferences, in the professional literature, in newsletters, etc. Updated 11/7/05. This measure is currently developmental, there is nothing to report at this time.

Measure: By FY 2009, 75 percent of Adoption Opportunities grantees will have their findings provide the impetus for policies being enacted or amended. "

Explanation:An Adoption Opportunities grantee reports whether the findings for the project(s) it conducts are the impetus for any policies enacted or amended during the reporting period. Policies can be at any government or organizational level (e.g., state government, local government, the grantee's organization, etc.). In order to determine whether or not the findings are the impetus for policies being enacted or amended, a grantee can: ?? Speak with advocacy groups it has worked with to enact policies ?? Speak with legislators or other policy-making bodies with which it has worked ?? Read or hear about the application of its findings to practice at conferences, in the professional literature, in newsletters, in the media, etc. Updated 11/7/05. This measure is currently "developmental," and there is nothing to report at this time.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Adoption Opportunities program's purpose is to facilitate the elimination of barriers to adoption and to provide permanent and loving home environments for children who would benefit from adoption, particularly children with special needs. More specifically, the program provides a mechanism to 1) promote quality standards for adoption services, pre-placement, post-placement, and post-legal adoption counseling, and standards to protect the rights of children in need of adoption; 2) maintain an Internet-based national adoption information exchange system to bring together children who would benefit from adoption and qualified prospective adoptive parents who are seeking such children, and conduct national recruitment efforts in order to reach prospective parents for children awaiting adoption; and 3) demonstrate expeditious ways to free children for adoption for whom it has been determined that adoption is the appropriate plan.

Evidence: Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 2003 (42 U.S.C. 5116 et. Seq.), as amended by Sec. 201 of P.L. 108-36, enacted June 25, 2003.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), the number of children in out-of-home care as of September 30, 2003 was approximately 523,000. Children entering substitute care have complex problems that require intensive services. Many of these children have special needs because they are born to mothers who did not receive pre-natal care. They may have been born with life-threatening conditions, disabilities, addictions to alcohol or other drugs, or exposed to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Adding to the health complications, many of the children are victims of child abuse and neglect. As of FY 2003, there were approximately 118,000 children awaiting adoption. Most of these children are difficult to place because they are older, have physical, mental, or emotional disabilities, or are part of a group of siblings. The Adoption Opportunities program aims to remove barriers to adoption for this population of children by encouraging and funding innovative demonstrations for removing said barriers.

Evidence: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). <www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/afcars/publications/afcars.htm>

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Adoption Opportunities program is the only Federal adoption program, which provides competitive grants to demonstrations in developing and testing innovative approaches to removing barriers to adoption. The program also funds the Internet-based photo-listing of children awaiting adoptions (AdoptUsKids) and the National Resource Center for Special Needs Adoption. Further, the program's activities are supplemented by states, local governments, faith-based and community organizations, and foundations.

Evidence: Adoption Opportunities program distinction, as defined by Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 2003. (42 U.S.C. 5116 et. Seq.)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: No evidence suggests that modification to the program design would make it more efficient or effective in achieving the intended purpose.

Evidence: Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 2003 (42 U.S.C. 5116 et. Seq.), as amended by Sec. 201 of P.L. 108-36, enacted June 25, 2003.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program effectively targets and reaches the intended beneficiaries, who are children awaiting adoption in the child welfare system and potential adoptive families, through program and funding announcements. Each year, the program modifies priority areas, which are the basis for the program announcements. Priority areas are determined upon considering the Adoption Opportunities legislative mandates, findings from the Child and Family Service Reviews, suggestions and requests from the child welfare field, and the Administration's priorities and initiatives. Grants are awarded to only those demonstrations, which can 1) develop and implement an evidence-based model with components or strategies that are based on theory, research, or evaluation data; 2) determine the effectiveness of the model and its components or strategies; and 3) produce detailed procedures and materials, based on the evaluation, that will contribute to and promote evidence-based strategies, practices and programs that may be used to guide replication or testing in other settings. By applying a rigorous set of standards for awarding the grants, the program ensures that resources reach the intended beneficiaries.

Evidence: 1) Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 2003 (42 U.S.C. 5116 et. Seq.), as amended by Sec. 201 of P.L. 108-36, enacted June 25, 2003; 2) HHS ACF Program Announcements.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program proposes two new long-term measures for assessing the applicability of findings from demonstrations that were funded to remove adoption barriers. Specifically, the proposed measures aim to increase the percentage of grantees who have findings applied to practice, as well as increase the percentage of grantees whose findings are the impetus for policies being enacted or amended. Finally, the program proposes to replace the current measure with the following adoption rate measure: Number of adoptions divided by the number of children in foster care at the end of the prior year.

Evidence: See measures tab.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: There are no baselines or targets for the two new long-term measures and the adoption rate measure lacks a sufficiently ambitious long-term target. Specifically, the minimal incremental increases to the adoption rate measure will result in a decrease in the actual annual number of adoptions. The proposed revised targets also fall significantly short of the original published adoption targets.

Evidence: See measures tab.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The long term measures also serve as the program's annual measure, which assesses incremental gains made in achieving the long term goal.

Evidence: See measures tab.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program is working to develop baselines and targets for the newly proposed annual measures. Also, the annual targets for the adoption rate measure are not sufficiently ambitious because the actual number of annual adoptions would decrease from FY 2003 to FY 2008.

Evidence: See measures tab.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The program design and grant review process ensure that grantees are committed to working toward the goals of the program. Grantees must submit applications that set forth a plan for implementing a project that will enhance knowledge in the field of adoption. Only those applicants that demonstrate the ability to carry out such projects score well enough to be considered for funding. Moreover, each Adoption Opportunities grantee is required to conduct an evaluation of their project. Grantees also submit semi-annual reports that enable Federal Project Officers (FPO) to track grantee progress in implementing their projects and fulfilling the requirements of the grant.

Evidence: 1) Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 2003 (42 U.S.C. 5116 et. Seq.), as amended by Sec. 201 of P.L. 108-36, enacted June 25, 2003; 2) HHS ACF Program Announcements.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: There are no independent evaluations of the Adoption Opportunities Program.

Evidence: No independent evaluations exist.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: ACF includes the budget request for Adoption Incentives in the annual Congressional Justification (CJ.) ACF submitted a fully integrated performance budget for the FY 2006 budget request (Performance Budget) with program performance summary information and results along with the core budget request information and budget tables. The budget request includes a crosswalk table with a presentation of performance summary information. The FY 2006 Budget request of $27 million is the same as the FY 2005 enacted level and will support about 62 grants to support demonstrations, which will facilitate the adoption process. The program also provided direct and indirect costs needed to attain performance results.

Evidence: FY 2006 Administration for Children and Families Budget Justification. <www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2006/cj2006/cj2006.html>

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: While more work remains, the Adoption Opportunities program has taken the initial step of proposing new program specific performance measures. In addition to program-wide measures, a contractor was employed to develop an on-line data reporting tool for grantees. Specifically, grantees will be required to select at least three performance indicators for each grant: an output, a short-term outcome, and an intermediate outcome. Grantees will be required to submit the data for the selected indicators at the end of each semi-annual reporting period.

Evidence: HHS ACF Children's Bureau. "Overview of the Children's Bureau Discretionary Grants Performance Measurement Process." Working Draft as of 3/29/2005.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Grantees are required to submit a semi-annual performance report, which is used to manage the program and improve performance. The semi-annual performance report collects the following information: Major activities and accomplishments; problems (deviations or departures from original project plan); significant findings and events; dissemination activities; and activities planned for next reporting period.) If funds are not expended appropriately, possible consequences include discontinuation of project, denial of continuation of funding for next budget period, or offsetting the Federal award. For example, an Adoption Opportunities grant was awarded to a state agency to carry out activities related to recruitment of adoptive families in FY 2003. In their proposal, they planned to implement their project in partnership with a minority organization which represented an integral component of their program approach. Through routine telephone contacts, and through the semi-annual program and fiscal reporting process, the Federal Project Officer (FPO) became aware of two issues. The project had not drawn down any federal funds due to delays in subcontracting which significantly delayed project start up. The grantee also did not intend to implement the project in partnership with the minority organization that was part of their original proposal. To remedy this, the FPO worked with the grantee to develop a strategy that would allow their partnership with the minority organization to be implemented. Also, the grant award in the second year was off-set, because of significant delays in drawing down funds and implementing the project. In other words, unexpended funds were carried over from the first budget year to the second year; however, the grant award in the second year was reduced by the carry-over amount.

Evidence: Program instructions for semi-annual program progress reporting.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The ACF Assistant Secretary's performance contract contains the targets and performance contained in the agency's performance budget. This cascades throughout the agency to all of the Commissioners and Associate Commissioners' performance contractors, and Federal staff who work on the Adoption Opportunities Program. Specifically, the Federal Project Officers (FPO) hold grantees accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. For example, they monitor grantees' programs and activities according to the schedule in the approved grant proposal, ensure that grant awards are spent according to the approved project plan, review the grantees' semi-annual progress reports, and provide technical assistance via regular conference calls and annual grantees meetings.

Evidence: 1) Semi-annual progress report outline; 2) Annual grantees conference agenda; and 3) Financial Status Report. Form #269.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose. The Federal Project Office (FPO) ensures that funds are spent appropriately by cross-referencing the semi-annual progress report, financial status report, and the proposed project plan. For example, the semi-annual progress report contains information about current activities and accomplishments; program changes, delays, and problems; significant findings; and activities planned for next reporting period. By comparing the semi-annual report with the proposed project plan, the project officer can determine whether grantees' activities in the quarter align with the project approach, budget, and budget justification contained in the proposed project plan. The project officer also works with the Grants Management Specialist to review the Financial Status Report to ensure that funds are expended as allowed and align with the budget as proposed in the project plan. Finally, this cross-referencing allows for early intervention when there are program delays in hiring principal staff or if there is decreased participation from recruitment or client referral delays. The project officer analyzes the documents to evaluate the project's performance, pinpoint the problems before the project is off-track, and if applicable, determine the appropriate amount in unobligated carry-over funds.

Evidence: 1) Semi-annual progress report outline; 2) Annual grantees conference agenda; and 3) Financial Status Report. Form #269.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program proposes two new efficiency measures for decreasing the number of grantees requesting carryover of funding and for increasing the number of grantees submitting reports electronically. While it is solid program management to monitor carryover funds and to encourage electronic report submissions, the proposed efficiency measures fail to tie resources (input) to program performance (output).

Evidence: Proposed efficiency measures: 1) decrease the percent of Adoption Opportunities grantees requesting funding carryover to 16% by FY 2007; and 2) Increase the percent of Adoption Opportunities grantees electronically submitting reports to 25% by FY 2007.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The CAPTA legislation and the Adoption Opportunities program announcement encourage grantees to collaborate with related Federal, state, local and private programs. For example, grantees may submit an application in partnership with other agencies, or conduct the project in collaboration with other agencies. In FY 2004, the Children's Bureau funded several projects to test innovative approaches in providing post-adoption services. In one state, a private non-profit agency partnered with county child welfare systems and faith-based organizations to establish post-adoption service delivery teams. In another state, the grantee outreached to seven organizations, which served as a strong source in the community for referrals. In some cases, partner organizations may share some of the cost of the project. Finally, strategies for partnerships, including co-location of services, frequently become institutionalized and change the service delivery system in a community and thereby increase access to services.

Evidence: 1) Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 2003 (42 U.S.C. 5116 et. Seq.), as amended by Sec. 201 of P.L. 108-36, enacted June 25, 2003; 2) HHS ACF Program Announcements.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program lacks evidence to certify that it has minimal erroneous payments. However, the program has the following financial management practices in place: 1) SF 269 review by an Office of Grants Management Specialist; and 2) Monitoring of grantee funding requests and budget change requests by Federal Project Officers (FPO).

Evidence: Financial status Report. Standard Form # 269.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program uses technology, mainly Grants.gov and the Grants Administration Tracking and Evaluation System (GATES), to achieve efficiencies in program management with a significant reduction in paperwork. Specifically, Grants.gov provides for a simplified grant application process, where applicants can find grant opportunities and submit applications on-line, whereas GATES is used to award and process discretionary, formula, block and entitlement grants. Efficiencies will be gained with a reduction in paperwork.

Evidence: 1) www.Grants.gov; 2) GATES system.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: The availability of Adoption Opportunities funds are announced in the Federal Register, Grants.gov, the Children's Bureau, and the ACF websites. Printed copies of the announcements are also available upon request. The majority of grant awards, over 90%, is made on a competitive process and is based on the program policy and selection criteria as published in the Federal Register. Each application is reviewed by a panel of independent reviewers, who determine which applications should be approved and funded. The program taps into a database of over 900 potential grant reviewers with a depth of experience. Reviewers selected for the Adoption Opportunities Program grant reviews have experience in a variety of areas, including adoption, child welfare, and evaluation. The panels typically involve a chairperson and three reviewers and receive training before reading and scoring the applications for the applicant's objective and need for assistance, project description and approach; organizational profile, and budget justification. Once funding expires, typically after 3-5 years, grantees must compete for a new grant award based on the criteria and priority areas of the new funding announcement. Previously funded grantees do not receive special consideration in a new competition."

Evidence: 1) Federal Register Notice; 2) HHS ACF Children's Bureau's 2004 Grant Review Handbook; and 3) HHS ACF Program Announcements.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Federal Project Officers provide regular, ongoing oversight and monitoring of grantees through site visits and performance and financial reports. For example, Financial Status Report is used to track expenditures and to ensure that funds are spent properly while the semi-annual progress report informs of program performance.

Evidence: 1) Semi-annual progress report outline; 2) Annual grantees conference agenda; and 3) Financial Status Report. Form #269.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Grantees are required to complete final performance program and evaluation reports at the end of the project period. These reports are made available to the public by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (NAIC). Grantees are also required to develop individual dissemination plans and specify the target audience for sharing innovations sought by the demonstration projects.

Evidence: 1) Semi-annual progress report outline; 2) Annual grantees conference agenda; 3) Financial Status Report. Form #269; 4) National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (NAIC) <http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/>

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The adoption rate measure is another way of measuring the number of successful adoptions, in a ratio form. Hence, program can demonstrate progress by examining the absolute number of adoptions. The program's original long-term goal, as published in the FY 2006 HHS Annual Plan, was to complete 327,000 adoptions between FY 2003 and FY 2008. However, the program proposes to revise this measure to 292,000 adoptions. While the proposed revised target is less ambitious than the original published long-term target, the program can demonstrate some progress made in achieving long-term goals by completing about 50,000 adoptions in FY 2003.

Evidence: See measures tab.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program's original FY 2003 adoption target, as published in the FY 2006 HHS Annual Plan, was 58,500. However, the program proposes to revise the target to 50,000, which the program achieved based on preliminary FY 2003 adoption data. While the program can demonstrate progress made in its annual target, it met the less ambitious revised annual goal and did not meet the original ambitious goal.

Evidence: See measures tab.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program does not have acceptable efficiency measures to demonstrate improved program efficiencies.

Evidence: Proposed efficiency measures: 1) decrease the percent of Adoption Opportunities grantees requesting funding carryover to 16% by FY 2007; and 2) Increase the percent of Adoption Opportunities grantees electronically submitting reports to 25% by FY 2007.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While the program requires applications to produce detailed procedures and materials, which can be used as a guide for replication elsewhere, it is not able to provide evidence of the extent of the replication at this time. However, the program is working to gather this information through its developmental performance measures.

Evidence: 1) Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 2003 (42 U.S.C. 5116 et. Seq.), as amended by Sec. 201 of P.L. 108-36, enacted June 25, 2003; 2) HHS ACF Program Announcements

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There are no independent evaluations of the Adoption Opportunities Program.

Evidence: No independent evaluations exist.