The regulatory framework established to meet the requirements in the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA) governing accreditation and approval of U.S. adoption service providers became effective in 2006. Since then, we have made a few minor changes to the rule and one major adaptation for the implementation of the Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012 (UAA). The final rule incorporates the Department’s and other stakeholders’ experience with the practical application of the regulatory framework for the last 18 years and is informed by public comment received from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published November 20, 2020.

The final rule improves transparency in the accreditation/approval system, strengthens protections for children and families, and establishes new procedures for adoptions by relatives. The final rule strengthens requirements for adhering to local law in intercountry adoptions; it requires ASPs that serve as the primary provider to directly pay their foreign supervised providers (FSP) rather than prospective adoptive parents (PAP) paying FSPs; and includes increased financial recordkeeping requirements for ASPs. The final rule includes new training requirements for social service personnel with adoption-related responsibilities. The final rule increases recordkeeping requirements for accrediting entities (AE) and requires publication in the Federal Register of any AE fee increase for public comment prior to implementation. The final rule also introduces new procedures outlining the Department’s debarment of ASPs and alternative procedures for adoption by relatives. The additional safeguards in the final rule strengthen the framework for U.S. adoption service providers to continue to assist U.S. citizens adopting children from other countries.  

All changes in the final rule go into effect six months from the date of publication in the Federal Register. That date is January 8, 2025. 

The following is intended only as a general overview and does not substitute for the rule itself. Please refer to Federal Register: Intercountry Adoption: Regulatory Changes to Accreditation and Approval Regulations in Intercountry Adoption for the specific provisions.

The final rule:

• Requires accrediting entity (AE) applicants to demonstrate a capacity to monitor and take appropriate adverse actions against agencies and persons, even if it did not initially accredit or approve them. [See § 96.6(d)]
• Clarifies that an AE must maintain all records related to their role for ten years and that this retention requirement may be extended by the Secretary. [See § 96.7(a)(9)]
• Incorporates a new process for the Department to seek public comments about proposed changes to AE fee schedules through publication in the Federal Register. [See § 96.8(b)]
• Expands the basis for finding an AE out of compliance, which may result in cancellation of an AE’s designation, if the AE approves or accredits just one agency or person, as opposed to significant numbers, in cases where the Secretary had to intervene to impose suspension, cancellation, or debarment of that accredited or approved ASP. [See § 96.10(c)(2)]
• Clarifies that an AE must maintain an accurate record of all information it receives related to an agency or person, and the basis for its decisions about them, for at least 10 years. The Secretary may extend this requirement to a period longer than 10 years in its agreement with an AE. [See § 96.26(d)]
• Establishes that an AE must take into account the reasons underlying a previous denial of accreditation or approval, cancellation, refusal to renew, or temporary debarment when evaluating the agency or person for accreditation or approval and may deny it on the basis of the previous action. [See § 96.27(e)]
• Increases ASP conflict of interest disclosure requirements to include organizations that share with them any leadership, officers, boards, or family relationships, and whether they provide services to or receive payments from the agency or person. [See § 96.32(e)(4)]
• Reinforces the requirement for a transfer plan if an ASP ceases to provide or is no longer permitted to provide intercountry adoption services. [See § 96.33(f)]
• Expands suitability disclosure requirements to include any known past or pending investigations by foreign authorities. [See § 96.35(b)(6)] 
• Broadens the scope of adoptee health history and background information disclosable to adoptees and parents of minor adopted children to the extent permitted by State law. [See § 96.42(b)]
• Requires primary providers, rather than their clients, to pay foreign supervised providers directly for adoption services performed in foreign countries and to clarify for clients how unexpended funds will be refunded. [See § 96.46(b)(7)]
• Incorporates practical steps for withdrawal of a home study due to changed circumstances, including timelines for notifying prospective adoptive parents, primary providers, and USCIS. [See § 96.47(e)]
• Incorporates new provisions related to the Secretary’s suspension or cancellation of accreditation or approval, including ways ASPs may challenge such actions. [See § 96.84]
• Establishes the procedures, requirements, timeframes, process for a hearing, and standards of review that apply when the Department undertakes a debarment proceeding with prior notice of a hearing. [See § 96.88]
• Establishes procedures, requirements, timeframes, process for a hearing, and standards of review for debarment under emergent conditions when debarment is effective immediately, without prior notice of a hearing. [See § 96.89]

For more detailed information about the content of the final rule, see the preamble to the final rule text published in the Federal Register. 

Compared to the proposed rule, the final rule:

• Did not include definitions of Authorization, Central Authority function, Client, Complaint, and Unregulated custody transfer. [See § 96.2]
• Added a reference to primary providers to the new definition of relative and clarified that the adoptive parent needs to meet the definition of relative before the adoption takes place. [See § 96.2]
• Clarified the definition of “best interests of the child,” when a child is outside the United States and an ASP considers the best interests of the child. [See § 96.2]
• Limited the prohibition on deliberate ASP destruction of documentation or information to deliberate destruction of documentation or information requested by an AE. [See § 96.25(c)]
• Incorporated the proposed language about complying with applicable laws in foreign countries into a new standard. [See § 96.30(e)].
• Eliminated the proposed minimum 25-year retention requirement for records related to the selection, monitoring, and oversight of foreign supervised providers. [See § 96.32(c)]
• Reinforced existing requirements to operate on a sound financial basis and to maintain a two-month operating reserve by returning to the original formulation for this standard in the CFR. [See § 96.33(e)]
• Expanded the required training topics for ASP social service personnel to include topics related to trauma-informed parenting, the impact of adoption on children already in the home, supporting children who experience racism, and discrimination based on physical, cognitive, and other disabilities. [See §96.38(b)]
• Provided an optional exemption from orientation training for newly hired social service staff in certain limited circumstances who were employed by an accredited or approved adoption service provider within the previous two years. [See § 96.38(d)]
• Did not include changes to the section about ASP fees. [See § 96.40]
• Clarified that complaints may be submitted to an ASP electronically, must include the name of the complainant, and must be dated. [See § 96.41(b)]
• Clarified the ASP’s role in identifying resources for families in the event of a dissolution if the ASP has not agreed to provide post adoption services in the case. [See § 96.51(b)]
• Clarified the information disclosure requirement for ASPs regarding the usual costs for supervised providers. [See 96.39(a)]
• Eliminated the new reporting requirements relating to disruptions. [See § 96.43]
• Did not include changes in the section on placement and post-placement reporting until final adoption. [See § 96.50]
• Did not include changes to the standards on adoptive parent selection procedures in outgoing cases. [See § 96.54]

The Department created new alternative procedures in recognition that in many relative adoption cases, the adoptive family, or members of their extended family in the country of origin, can appropriately help accomplish some tasks related to the adoption. These tasks relate directly to identifying and arranging the adoption and coordinating with adoption authorities in the child’s country given the existing relationship with the child or the child’s birth parents. These are services currently provided by primary providers and their trusted supervised providers.

The IAA provided in section 502(a) for the establishment by regulation of alternative procedures for adoption of children by relatives. The Department did not include such procedures for adoption by relatives in its accreditation rule published in 2006, opting to pursue it later once the new accreditation rule was implemented.  

The alternative procedures for adoption by relatives simplify and streamline the adoption process by limiting the number of adoption services the primary provider must provide, but we cannot predict whether the alternative procedures will expedite the overall intercountry adoption process. While the new alternative procedures may lead to an abbreviated primary provider role, the accreditation/approval regulations do not change the immigrant visa process. Also, some countries of origin may require primary provider involvement beyond the minimum identified in the final rule.

The alternative procedures go into effect on January 8, 2025. Until that date, the primary provider must still include all six adoption services in the adoption services plan.

Section 96.36(b) establishes new reporting requirements intended to monitor compliance with prohibitions on child buying and inducement to release a child for adoption. Employees and supervised providers of accredited or approved ASPs must retain a record of all payments or fees tendered in connection with an intercountry adoption, as well as the purpose for which they were paid, and provide the payment records to the primary provider in the case.

The records must be retained for as long as other adoption records discussed in section 96.42 are retained, pursuant to State law.

The Department expects ASPs will need to take some actions to implement the changes in this final rule. Possible actions include, but are not limited to, revising policies and procedures, augmenting staff training requirements, introducing new recordkeeping and reporting for payments made in connection to an intercountry adoption, and adjusting how foreign supervised providers are paid for adoption services provided outside of the United States. AEs will provide ASPs with guidance and training on any changes made to the substantial compliance system used to evaluate agencies and persons as a result of changes in the final rule.

Estimated average first year and subsequent year implementation costs are explored in the preamble of the final rule. For nearly two-thirds of ASPs, first-year costs are expected to account for less than one percent of gross annual revenues. Subsequent year costs comprise a small fraction of first-year costs. For the other ASPs, the projected annual average cost will fall below 1.6% of gross annual revenues. The cost of implementing the final rule is contingent on many factors: the size of the organization, the number of country programs in which it provides intercountry adoption services, and the number of adoption cases handled annually. We have made a strong effort to reduce the cost of implementation and by so doing reduced estimated average costs projected in the proposed rule by approximately 70 percent. For more information on projected average implementation costs see Tables 2 and 3 in the preamble to the final rule.