Search:
		ACF Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News   |   HHS Home

	Questions?  |  Privacy  |  Site Index  |  Contact Us  |  Download Reader™  |  Print �

Enter Search term hereGo Button  Advanced  Search

Home > Current Initiatives & Issues > A Report to Congress on Interjurisdictional Adoption of Children in Foster Care > Interstate Compacts Supporting Interjurisdictional Placements

While Federal laws form the foundation for foster care services, State laws govern the majority of the work involved. Variation in State laws and procedures becomes a challenge to achieving permanent placements when more than one State is involved. Interstate compacts help address this challenge by providing uniform language that States can enact into law, forming a contract among them regarding standardized procedures and responsibilities. This is designed to ensure that children placed across State lines have adequate protection and services.

Two interstate compacts are relevant to interjurisdictional placements of children in foster care: the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) and the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance (ICAMA). While the Association of the Administrators of the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance (AAICAMA) successfully competed for a grant from U.S. DHHS to administer activities, develop strategies and protocols, and encourage State participation in the implementation of the ICAMA, the Federal government does not have an official role in the administration or implementation of either compact. The ICPC did receive Federal funding from the 1970s until 1985 when the compact secretariat was established and the compact began operating independently through membership fees paid by the States. AAICAMA and the Association of the Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (AAICPC) contract with the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA; formerly the American Public Welfare Association) to provide secretariat services to States.

Return to Table of Contents

The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) was created in 1960 to coordinate and facilitate placement of children in foster care across State lines (APHSA, 2002a). All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands are participants in ICPC, although New Jersey, the final State, did not join the compact until 30 years after its passing.

The compact currently consists of 10 articles and 11 regulations identifying the responsibilities of States involved in interjurisdictional placements of children. The sending States are those of the children's residences at the time they were removed from their birth families. Receiving States are those (outside of the sending State) where the children have been placed for adoption, foster care, or residential treatment. Each State appoints a Compact Administrator to oversee and process interstate placements of children.

Responsibilities of sending and receiving States delineated in ICPC include completion of home studies for prospective foster and adoptive parents, supervision of children in interstate placements, legal jurisdiction of cases (which affects both courts and child welfare agencies), financial responsibilities, and reporting requirements. ICPC also outlines procedures for States to follow regarding communication among caseworkers and ICPC administrators in two States, often involving numerous staff in various agencies. Since its inception, regulations and specific guidelines outlining the process for initiating and completing interstate placements have been developed to further clarify provisions of the compact.

When ICPC was developed, each participating State joined by passing the same set of laws supporting and specifying the administration of the compact in that State. However, each State had already passed its own laws on child placement and adoption, and these laws have continued to evolve independent of ICPC. Obviously, this can create conflicts between States involved in an interstate placement as each has a different understanding of the steps required to approve a family as a foster or adoptive family.

Two sets of State laws and two judges in two States, each interpreting their own State's laws (including ICPC laws), lead to inconsistencies and occasional conflicts between sending and receiving States. "Trial courts in all jurisdictions construe and apply ICPC, yet the great bulk of these cases are in courts whose opinions are not reported, severely limiting the case law to which courts can go to check their own interpretations. The disparities and confusion that result can persist for years" (APHSA, 2000, p.1). Because there are no Supreme Court decisions regarding ICPC application, there is no judicial resolution regarding differences in State laws and interpretations of ICPC provisions among member States, further complicating the interjurisdictional placement process (APHSA, 2000).

In addition to the legal questions, concerns about the population of children covered by ICPC have arisen. Interpretation of the compact has expanded to include many placements of children not in State custody such as children placed in adoption with U.S. families from other countries. This has created an overload for State ICPC offices and contributes to delays in processing placements of children in foster care (Arnold-Williams & Oppenheim, 2004), the primary focus of ICPC.

Several problems also have arisen with implementation of the compact, including the absence of consistent, clear standards for home studies to assess prospective adoptive families; the lack of enforceable time frames for initiating and conducting evaluations of potential adoptive families; processes for mediating differences between States; and the financial responsibilities of sending and receiving States, such as medical coverage, support services, case supervision, home studies, and special educational costs (Freundlich, Heffernan, & Jacobs, 2004).

An inspection of ICPC implementation by the U.S. DHHS Office of Inspector General (1999) found that the compact facilitates interstate placement of children in four main ways:

• The compact increases permanent placement options for children in foster care.
• The child's safety is protected through services offered by receiving States.
• The compact facilitates adherence to the appropriate laws before a placement is made.
• The compact has created a network for cooperation and information exchange among States in making interstate placements.

However, weaknesses in State implementation of the ICPC were noted: lack of awareness of and knowledge about the ICPC among caseworkers, judges, and attorneys; placements in violation of the ICPC; differing State adoption laws that impede placements; and the lengthy process involved in ICPC placements (U.S. DHHS, 1998; U.S. DHHS, 1999). The inspection report also noted the need to strengthen the implementation of the compact through the dissemination of more information about procedures, improved coordination at the State level, continued exploration of border State agreements, as well as stronger training and technical assistance.

Efforts to Improve ICPC

Through an Adoption Opportunities grant from 1999 to 2002, the Children's Bureau funded APHSA as the secretariat of ICPC in the development and piloting of several training manuals about the ICPC specifically for juvenile and family court judges, caseworkers, and ICPC administrators. As part of this effort, a compilation of court decisions was included to improve understanding of the interaction of State laws and ICPC requirements. These manuals are still available through APHSA.

According to APHSA (2004), while ICPC worked relatively well in its first few decades, it is no longer an "effective mechanism for use by the States to ensure that children placed across State lines for purposes of foster care or adoption are placed with safe, suitable parents that can provide proper care and to ensure that necessary services and supports are in place" (p. 1). APHSA has convened a Development and Drafting Team to rewrite the ICPC. This team is composed of stakeholders from across the nation, charged with creating a more comprehensive structure for the compact and reconstructing it to ensure interstate placements are made in a timely and effective manner. Challenges in revising ICPC include differing ideas among stakeholders about solutions to identified problems and building consensus among States to facilitate passage of the new ICPC law more quickly than the first one.

Although still in draft form, it is possible the new ICPC will differ significantly from the existing agreement. Some issues being considered include:

• Narrowing the types of placements covered;
• Use of computer technology to improve the speed and quality of communication and sharing of information;
• Clearer articulation of administrative processes and procedures; and
• Clearer rulemaking and enforcement authority (APHSA, 2004).

Once the new ICPC is completed, all States and territories wishing to participate will need to enact changes in State law to comply with the provisions of the new charter.

Return to Table of Contents

The Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance (ICAMA) is the formal mechanism through which children in interjurisdictional adoptive placements receive financial assistance and coverage for medical care (APWA, 1988). Currently, only four States are not parties to ICAMA—New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming—they are in various stages of the process to do so. Each of these States has made progress in enacting enabling State legislation and completing administrative processes required to become a member of the compact (APHSA, 2005).

ICAMA provides the framework for protecting the interests of children with special needs in adoptive placements, as defined in the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (PL 96-272). While PL 96-272 set the foundation for determining special needs as eligibility for adoption assistance payments, each State has passed laws or set policies further delineating the factors that qualify as special needs. With some variation, these laws and policies generally identify the following factors:

• Children of minority races or ethnicities;
• Older children;
• Children who are part of a sibling group; and
• who have medical, physical or emotional conditions or handicaps (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 2004a).

ICAMA sets forth guidelines for reciprocity that enable eligible children placed in adoptive homes outside of their State to receive Medicaid. As allowed under Federal legislation and regulation, each State's Medicaid program is different, including application processes and coverage. ICAMA requires standard forms and procedures that meet Federal and State requirements to facilitate the interstate process. Eligibility for Medicaid can be determined by the guidelines of title IV-E of the Social Security Act or under individual State guidelines. States involved in interjurisdictional adoptions negotiate eligibility, coverage, and financial responsibility for medical and other services as part of each child's adoption assistance agreement. ICAMA provides the structure for the States to negotiate through their differences

A 1996 review of ICAMA by the U.S. DHHS Office of Inspector General found that ICAMA membership provides States with significant administrative advantages in meeting the needs of children eligible for title IV-E services. The final report from the review encouraged States that were not members to join ICAMA as expeditiously as possible (U.S. DHHS, 1996).

 

Return to Table of Contents