Skip Navigation
 
ACF
ACF Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News   |   HHS Home

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


Children's Bureau Safety, Permanency, Well-being  Advanced
 Search

Home > Current Initiatives & Issues > A Report to Congress on Interjurisdictional Adoption of Children in Foster Care > Strategies and Supports Identified by States to Address Barriers

4. STRATEGIES AND SUPPORTS IDENTIFIED BY STATES TO ADDRESS BARRIERS

While Federal legislation and interstate compacts provide much guidance and infrastructure for interjurisdictional placements of children in foster care, including placement into prospective adoptive families and movement across State lines with foster parents, many barriers remain that challenge the efficiency and outcomes of this process. Many of these barriers are the same as those affecting the entire child welfare system such as high caseloads among staff, difficulties between courts and child welfare agencies, and inadequate permanency planning. Differing and complex State laws, policies, and procedures governing foster care and adoption processes generate other barriers unique to interjurisdictional placements. Efficiency depends on cooperation and coordination between the child welfare and court systems of both the sending and receiving jurisdictions. Outcomes for children for whom interjurisdictional placements are the most viable permanency option depend on a process that operates smoothly, with a minimum of delays and conflicts.

This section describes barriers, strategies, and supports related to interjurisdictional placements revealed in a recently completed survey of State child welfare agencies (Research Triangle Institute, International, in press). The Children's Bureau commissioned this survey to do more than simply document problems related to the nature, scope, and effects of interstate adoptive placement. This survey was structured to identify potentially effective solutions that could be shared with all States through the Children's Bureau's Training and Technical Assistance Network (See Section 5.2, Children's Bureau Training and Technical Assistance Network). As a result, State child welfare administrators are already learning about and taking practical steps to replicate effective strategies from other States.

The survey methodology was designed to accomplish two objectives. The first was to document effective strategies States are using to overcome barriers in the interjurisdictional placement process. The second was to identify potentially effective supports that could assist their efforts. These two categories, strategies and supports, were used consistently throughoutthe survey to distinguish between current State initiatives (strategies) and actions that could assist States in their efforts (supports). Unless otherwise noted, the information in the following sections is derived from this interjurisdictional survey.

To ensure the survey would provide useful results for State child welfare agencies and other stakeholders, the Children's Bureau convened a national workgroup of State child welfare staff, ICPC administrators, Federal staff, court personnel, and other key stakeholders to inform and advise the survey contractor. This workgroup, and the interest generated by the effort, raised awareness of the issues involved in interjurisdictional placements, facilitated State-to-State communication, and supported a holistic view of problems and solutions. Under leadership of the workgroup, barriers, strategies, and supports were researched, identified, and grouped into eight areas:

Forty-eight State child welfare directors responded to the survey.5 To complete their responses, many directors convened State workgroups that included their ICPC and ICAMA Administrators, Foster Care and Adoption Managers, Federal Adoption Opportunities grantees, and other interested parties. This large-scale response from the States indicates a high level of interest in resolving the challenges of interjurisdictional placements to achieve permanency for children in foster care.

Each State identified strategies they used and rated their effectiveness; they also indicated if they were investigating certain strategies, and if they needed assistance to implement them. A total of 151 strategies and supports were included on the survey. The large number of items coupled with the various response options created multiple perspectives from which to examine the data. To help further the Children's Bureau's plans for next steps to improve interjurisdictional placements, three categories of strategies and two categories of supports are highlighted.

A total of 78 strategies fall into one or two of the following categories:

The supports highlighted in this section are those that were rated by States as very effective by at least 50 percent of reporting States, as well as those that States chose as the one "top" potential support they believed would facilitate the most positive change.

Most States identified multiple strategies they were using to address each identified barrier, demonstrating the complexity of interstate placement issues, as well as the commitment by States to make improvements. The directors also indicated their perceptions of the effectiveness of potential supports; these supports were grouped into "very effective potential supports" and "top potential supports" (supports that would facilitate the most positive change within each category).

The following sections describe barriers in each of the eight categories and summarize strategies and supports identified by States, many of which can be implemented without Federal assistance or intervention. As there are various amounts of evidence for the many strategies and supports, the Children's Bureau is working with its Training and Technical Assistance Network and with States to analyze the evidence and establish priorities. States have already used some of the findings to make improvements (See Section 5.2, Children's Bureau's Training and Technical Assistance Network). A table from the survey's final report listing 78 strategies and 21 supports is presented in Appendix I.

Return to Table of Contents

4.1 Staffing and Resources

Barriers related to staffing and resources include staff workloads and differing requirements among States for approving prospective adoptive families for placements. In a study conducted in 2001 (APHSA, 2002c), 32 of 47 States cited staffing and workload issues as leading causes of delay in completing home studies for interstate placements.

Because there is no uniformity in the number of children sent from one jurisdiction to another, disparity in the number of children sent to any one jurisdiction can cause an uneven distribution of workload and financial burdens among States (Arnold-Williams & Oppenheim, 2004). Some States have access to an extensive recruitment and training program for adoptive parents, a wider range of support services, and higher Medicaid coverage, and therefore may provide a more positive environment for adoptive placements than other States and draw a larger share of interjurisdictional placements. Jurisdictions that receive and accept large numbers of interjurisdictional adoptive placements are burdened because receiving States are responsible for home study and supervision costs under the current ICPC.

When staff and resources are severely limited, problems in allocating needed services and funds among children on a caseload may arise. This may be complicated by a perceived lack of "ownership" of interjurisdictional adopted children by the caseworker in the receiving State. For example, receiving States spend time and money recruiting, training, assessing, and licensing prospective adoptive families, only to lose them to children from another State; the families may no longer be resources for children in foster care in their home State. When sending States request home studies for families in receiving States, caseworkers there are expected to provide the home studies as a courtesy; however, these cases may not receive priority when heavy caseloads exist (APHSA, 2002c; Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2005; Johnson-Shelton, 2004). For postplacement supervision, caseworkers in receiving States must conduct regular visits with foster and prospective adoptive families and children whether or not the cases are included in their official caseload. The complexity and additional work required for interjurisdictional placements compared to placements within the child's home jurisdiction put even more strain on caseworkers and the child welfare system in the receiving State. States describe as a complicating factor the inability to claim title IV-E administrative costs for children for whom they are providing receiving State services. Since title IV-E eligible children from the sending State are not in the receiving State's legal jurisdiction, the children do not count in the title IV-E penetration rate. In addition, a majority of States report a lack of adequate staffing in ICPC offices that process interjurisdictional placement requests, further contributing to delays in completing the necessary work (APHSA, 2002b).

Differences in State requirements are another challenge. For example, if a sending State has more stringent requirements for approving prospective adoptive families than a particular receiving State, the sending State may question the quality of the assessment (Freundlich, Heffernan, & Jacobs, 2004) and ask the receiving State to conduct additional work before approving placement of the child. Varying and conflicting requirements between States, and between counties within a State, make it difficult for caseworkers to manage interjurisdictional placements efficiently (U.S. DHHS, 2005b).

Strategies and Supports

The focus of State strategies to address inadequate staffing and resources involves providing home study and postplacement supervision services. These strategies aim to reduce the burden on caseworkers, many of whom already serve large caseloads of children and families. One strategy identified as highly effective involves designating specific staff for interstate placement cases; 62 percent of States responding to the survey (30 of 48 States) currently designate specific staff to handle all interjurisdictional cases. This strategy has been recommended and noted in previous articles and studies (APHSA, 2002c; Fiermonte, 2002).

One widely used and effective financing strategy involves the sending State contracting with private agencies in the receiving State to conduct home studies for prospective foster/adoptive and adoptive parents or provide postplacement supervision services in interjurisdictional cases. Two other widely used and effective strategies address families with pre-adoptive children who relocate. To enhance efficiency, these strategies specify protocols for timely completion of updates on home studies for families moving into a State and acceptance of a sending State's foster/adoptive parent training so the training does not have to be repeated.

Three strategies of interest to many States were the use of a uniform home study format, use of video conferencing to maintain contact with foster and adoptive families to minimize caseworkers' travel time, and use of border agreements between States to allow caseworkers from sending States to conduct home studies and postplacement supervision of families in neighboring receiving States.

In addition to the interjurisdictional survey, strategies covering staffing and resource issues were addressed in recent demonstration grant programs funded by the Children's Bureau (U.S. DHHS, 2005b). A cornerstone of each project was the use of liaisons and facilitators to support caseworkers' efforts to achieve permanency for children involved in interjurisdictional placements. These additional staff assisted with recruiting prospective adoptive families, completing home studies, and maintaining communication with foster and prospective adoptive parents, among other tasks, to help secure, in a timely manner, permanent families for children placed across jurisdictional boundaries.

Return to Table of Contents

4.2 Knowledge and Training

Because they are unfamiliar with interjurisdictional placement processes, caseworkers may hesitate to look beyond their local jurisdiction for suitable adoptive families for children in foster care. Caseworkers, judges, attorneys, and others involved in the child welfare system appear to lack knowledge about the ICPC and existing processes and procedures for interjurisdictional placements (APHSA, 2002b; Christian & Ekman, 2000: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2005; Freundlich, 2001; U.S. DHHS, 2005b; U.S. DHHS, 1999).

Strategies and Supports

States participating in the survey noted that they used many strategies to improve the training and knowledge of workers involved in interjurisdictional placements. Almost all responding States (45 of 48 States) have an in-state expert on interjurisdictional protocols, requirements, processes, and laws and considered having an expert a highly effective strategy. Experts include ICPC office staff, agency legal staff, and agency supervisors who provide guidance and information to caseworkers and judicial personnel involved in interjurisdictional placements.

Most States provide training to improve caseworker skills in searching for children's relatives both within and outside their home State and support caseworkers by providing search tools (e.g., access to databases). These strategies are important to ensuring that reasonable efforts are made to locate relatives and consider them early in the case as possible placement resources for children in foster care, whether they live in-state or out-of-state. Training also is the primary component of strategies in which States expressed interest, including the use of electronic tools for as-needed training on interjurisdictional issues, adding an interjurisdictional placement component to regular training curricula, and working with State Court Improvement Programs to train court staff. A recent summary of discretionary grant projects indicated that training was one of the primary strategies used to enhance workers' knowledge about interjurisdictional placement processes and improve outcomes for children (U.S. DHHS, 2005b).

Primary supports sought by States include reviewing issues of interjurisdictional placements to develop best practices (to which the survey findings will greatly contribute) and developing bench briefs, or reference books, for judges to assist them in handling interjurisdictional cases.

Return to Table of Contents

4.3 Staff Attitudes and Beliefs

Attitudes and beliefs of administrators and caseworkers may not consistently support interjurisdictional placements (Freundlich, Heffernan, & Jacobs, 2004; U.S. DHHS, 1999). Staff may be reluctant to consider interstate placements for children in foster care because they believe the process is too lengthy and cumbersome (Maza, 2002; U.S. DHHS, 1999). In addition, there may be a lack of trust between caseworkers in sending and receiving States due to unfamiliarity with each other and their work. Caseworkers who have been working with children for some time generally care deeply about what happens to them and may have difficulty transferring the cases to unknown workers and agencies in other States. Workers in sending States may have concerns about the quality of services provided in receiving States, particularly if there are significant differences in key elements of the home study process for prospective adoptive families and available postadoption services for families. Workers may also be suspicious of prospective adoptive parents who are willing to adopt children viewed by the caseworker as unadoptable (e.g., children with significant medical or behavioral problems). When workers and families are in different States, distance between them may impede assessment of the families' suitability (Freundlich, Heffernan, & Jacobs, 2004). While many of these attitudes and beliefs may exist unconsciously, their effects have real consequences for children awaiting adoptive placements.

Strategies and Supports

States have implemented a variety of strategies to promote and maintain positive attitudes about interjurisdictional placements among staff; many involve affirmation of the State's commitment to using interjurisdictional placements to achieve timely permanency for children. Almost all the States responding to the survey (42 States) indicated that they employed the following four strategies to promote positive staff attitudes and beliefs about interjurisdictional placements:

Two of the strategies rated as highly effective (but not widely used) were factoring interstate case duties into a worker's caseload and developing a system of accountability for processing interjurisdictional cases in a timely manner. Both convey the importance of the work in relation to other responsibilities. Two strategies in which States expressed interest involve the emotional aspect of interjurisdictional placements: assistance to help workers emotionally "let go" of the child and help for the child's preparation for transitioning to a family in another jurisdiction. The top support States desired was receiving financial incentives for timely completion of interstate home studies.

Return to Table of Contents

4.4 Education and Medical Expenses

Educational and medical services are crucial supports for many families adopting children from foster care, especially children who have special education needs or extensive medical or mental health treatment needs. "Most experts on special needs adoptions agree that services and financial support provided to an adoptive family are the most effective tools for achieving permanency for foster children" (Christian & Ekman, 2000, p. viii). However, the financial burden associated with these services and the need to negotiate eligibility and coverage based on each eligible child can negatively affect the placement of children across State lines. More than half the sending States in a 2001 study (APHSA, 2002c) cited resolving financial and medical responsibilities as leading causes of delay in accomplishing interstate placements. Problems with financial support may even be a disincentive to adoption for some families (Freundlich, 2001).

Prior to placing a child with a family in another State, a placement or adoption assistance agreement is usually negotiated between the sending State and the family with the input of the receiving State. This agreement may go into effect prior to finalization of the permanency plan (e.g., adoption) and generally will describe the services and supports the family will receive, including educational and medical services, and which State will incur the costs of these services prior to and after finalization of the adoption. In general, most sending States retain primary responsibility while the child remains in foster care and receiving States assume primary responsibility when the adoption or custody transfer is finalized, unless other arrangements are negotiated in the placement agreement.

To facilitate permanency for children placed across State lines, most States accept financial responsibility for special education services for children still in foster care who have been placed from another State. However some school jurisdictions are charging back the expenses to the sending States during the period between the children's placement in the home and the legal completion of the adoption to offset the high costs of these services. Once adoptions are finalized for children adopted across State lines, the children are considered residents of the receiving States and receive all educational services afforded to residents. Because many of these children require special education services, local and State school systems in receiving States may be burdened with extraordinary expenses to meet their responsibilities under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Children eligible for Federal title IV-E services can receive Medicaid coverage paid for, in part, with Federal funds. For children who are not IV-E eligible, States may elect to participate in the Federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) program, which enables them to access other Federal funds for the children's Medicaid coverage, or they may pay for Medicaid services from State funds. Even with the assistance of Federal funds, States pay a share of all Medicaid costs, and those with a high State share (ranging from 25 to 50 percent) incur a heavy financial burden when many children are adopted by families in their State who were in foster care in other States.

In addition to the receiving States' costs for Medicaid, there may be concerns about the level of coverage provided, as some States' Medicaid programs cover more services than others. If the sending State covers more services than the receiving State, the prospective adoptive family may negotiate to have the receiving State add coverage for these additional services or have the sending State pay for the additional services. Because interjurisdictional adoptions are often used for children with extraordinary needs such as physical and emotional challenges, there is a distinct possibility that receiving States with limited Medicaid coverage will incur additional expenses in meeting their ICAMA responsibilities.

Strategies and Supports

Two-thirds of States responding to the survey (32 of 48 States) reported they fund educational expenses of children in foster care in their State who are placed into other States when necessary, while 83 percent (40 States) said they cover educational costs of children placed in their States from other States; both strategies were rated as highly effective. Currently, it is a challenge when a sending State that does not cover educational expenses for children placed in other States tries to place a child into a State that does not cover educational expenses for children from other States. Many local school districts classify these children as residents regardless of whether they are in foster, pre-adoptive, or adoptive care, but some do not. Some States have changed State laws and policies to ensure out-of-state children placed in foster and pre-adoptive care in their States are considered residents for education purposes even though there is no Federal requirement to do so.

Eighty-five percent of the States (41 of 48 States) provide medical coverage for a child placed in another State beyond that covered by the Federal title IV-E Medicaid program (for title IV-E eligible children) when the expenses are part of the negotiated agreement for the child. Almost all (44 States) pay the costs of medical care when necessary if the child placed in another State is not title IV-E eligible. Both strategies were widely used and rated as highly effective. Using membership and reciprocity agreements in ICAMA as the rationale, most receiving States provide Medicaid coverage to children who were placed from other States.

To facilitate placement of children with out-of-state adoptive families, many States have begun negotiating and clearly delineating expectations for the assumption of medical and education costs between sending and receiving States prior to the child's placement, which is a strategy that is both widely used and rated as highly effective. In addition, during the placement process many States identify specific services and resources that are available to a child being considered for interjurisdictional placement. Many States use a specific medical-financial form to process interstate placements and address the complexities (APHSA, 2002c).

States expressed great interest in posting information on their websites explaining medical and education coverage for children placed in their State through the interjurisdictional process, although only 10 States reported doing so at this time. The top support desired was a website with links to information about all States' requirements for coverage of medical and educational expenses. In order for this initiative to be more useful, more States must first post the information on their own State websites.

Return to Table of Contents

4.5 Criminal Background Checks

ASFA requires that criminal background checks be conducted on all prospective foster and adoptive parents before children can be placed with them. Many States expand this requirement and conduct criminal background checks on all adults in the households of prospective foster and adoptive families. The checks generally are conducted as part of the home study process to assess the suitability of families for foster care and adoptive placements, including interjurisdictional placements. However, conducting criminal background checks remains problematic in many cases involving interjurisdictional placements. Of 47 States responding to a survey conducted in 2001, 18 indicated that criminal background checks were placements (APHSA, 2002c).

Some States require national criminal background checks for interstate placements while they may only require background checks from State law enforcement officials for in-state placements. When background checks need to be conducted through the FBI, significant delays can occur. In addition, when there are differences between the types of background checks required by sending and receiving States, the policies and laws of the more stringent State prevail, as both States must approve the placement. The receiving State must grant the license to the family, and the sending State must approve a particular family for a particular child. Few States will conduct more extensive criminal background checks to meet the more stringent requirements of a sending State, leaving sending States to either conduct their own checks to meet the requirements or accept the receiving State's less stringent criminal background check requirements.

Strategies and Supports

Because the process for completing criminal background checks on prospective adoptive parents is complex, States employ a number of strategies to reduce the time required. Almost all States responding to the survey (44 of 48 States) have negotiated agreements with local law enforcement officials for timely processing of State background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. Strategies rated as highly effective include:

Some States use electronic fingerprinting to expedite criminal background checks and find it highly effective; many States identified it as a strategy of interest. One of the potential supports desired by States, and thought to be very effective, was the development of State models for streamlining the criminal background check process.

Return to Table of Contents

4.6 Communication

Communication between States must occur regularly throughout the interjurisdictional placement process and is a frequent source of problems (Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2005; Maza, 2002), including confusion or differing protocols about who can communicate with whom (e.g., caseworkers, supervisors, and ICPC administrators and staff in both States involved) (Johnson-Shelton, 2004; U.S. DHHS, 2005b). Transmitting information also can be problematic. Regulation 7 of ICPC requires hardcopy transmission of certain documents, such as the court order and Request for Placement, when a priority placement is requested. Although increased use of the internet, email, and faxes has reduced the time needed to transfer information between jurisdictions, inconsistencies remain among States about which information must be in original hardcopy and which can be transmitted via fax or electronic copy. Unless the transmission method is specified for each type of document at the beginning of the interjurisdictional process, valuable time can be lost with repeated transfer of documents between two jurisdictions.

Strategies and Supports

The survey of State child welfare administrators identified eight strategies designed to improve communications and remove barriers to interjurisdictional placements. Most of the States use three or more strategies. Almost all States responding (45 States) have procedures to establish direct communication between caseworkers and their State ICPC administrator and encourage caseworkers to communicate directly with caseworkers in other States involved in interjurisdictional placements. To build relationships between jurisdictions, some States hold events such as conferences, trainings, or supervisor meetings that allow staff from different jurisdictions to network. Non-case related meetings not only improve communication among staff from different jurisdictions, but also help develop trust and relationships that can expedite interjurisdictional placements.

States expressed interest in using secure electronic means for transmitting information and in creating a system for simultaneous electronic transmission of information to local agencies and ICPC administrators in both States involved in an interjurisdictional placement. States also expressed interest in the use of a tickler tracking system to notify caseworkers of due dates for activities required for timely completion of interjurisdictional placements.

States indicated that the top support desired to improve communication is the development of a single website with links to individual State information needed to accomplish interjurisdictional placements. This information might include requirements for home studies, purchase-of-service contracting requirements, and standards for postplacement services. To support this, more States will need to post their State-specific information on their own websites.

Return to Table of Contents

4.7 Permanency Planning

Permanency planning for children involved in interjurisdictional placements is affected by many of the same obstacles facing permanency planning for all children in foster care, plus additional challenges related to the involvement of more than one jurisdiction. These barriers include involvement of the courts, prompt completion of steps in the permanency planning process (as discussed in Section 1.1, Permanency Planning for Children in Foster Care), completion and acceptance of home studies, and communication with, and support of, foster and prospective adoptive families.

Since courts must approve all permanency plans and permanent placements of children in foster care, they have a significant influence on the timely achievement of permanency outcomes. Yet studies have cited widespread court-related problems. A recent review of foster care adoption found that more than 84 percent of States reported barriers to adoption in the legal system (Macomber, Scarcella, Zielewski, & Geen, 2004). When more than one jurisdiction is involved, differences in State laws and court procedures may raise additional problems. For example, some courts require that an approved, prospective adoptive family be identified prior to terminating the birth parents' rights, while others do not allow a prospective adoptive family to be identified for a child until the birth parents' rights are terminated. These differences in court requirements not only complicate interstate placements, but the latter situation also prevents caseworkers from engaging in concurrent planning as encouraged in ASFA. Concurrent planning to achieve timely permanency for children in foster care involves pursuing more than one permanency goal at a time (e.g., reunification with parents and adoption) so, if efforts toward the primary goal are unsuccessful, progress already has been made toward a secondary goal. However, Federal monitoring of State child welfare services has found that this process is not implemented consistently in most States (U.S. DHHS, 2004) (See Section 5.1, Child and Family Services Reviews).

Part of concurrent permanency planning involves seeking relatives as possible permanent placements early during a child's stay in foster care; not doing so can result in relatives arriving "late on the scene" to request custody of a child who has begun to bond with another family. Assessing relatives' suitability as permanent placements late in the process can significantly delay permanency for children, especially if the relatives live in a different State than the child.

Approval of a prospective adoptive or other permanent family requires that they have a completed home study. When more than one jurisdiction is involved, differences in home study requirements may become problematic. There is considerable variance among States in the requirements and the depth of information obtained from families (e.g., the documentation of a divorce or of a child support obligation); requirements related to income, family structure, and physical facilities in the home (e.g., the amount of space required); requirements regarding home study interviews (e.g., whether the inclusion of relatives or others living in the home is necessary); and requirements for the content and duration of training for prospective foster and adoptive families. In addition, home studies should assess the family's ability to meet specific children's needs. In a 2001 study, 25 of 47 States cited home studies that did not address how the family was prepared to meet a specific child's needs as often or sometimes contributing to delays (APHSA, 2002c). When home studies are incomplete, further work may be needed to gather more information.

Other sources of delay in interjurisdictional placements involve communication with, and support of, foster and prospective adoptive families. Families living out of State may have difficulty participating in court hearings when they must travel to the court of the sending State to appear in person. Negotiating the details of adoption assistance agreements can be a lengthy process requiring involvement of the family and many staff in both jurisdictions. Postplacement supervision involving face-to-face contact with caseworkers is required, although requirements for frequency of contact vary, and often strains the workload of staff in receiving States.

Strategies and Supports

Federal mandates for timely achievement of permanency goals for children in foster care have dramatically increased the need for States to develop and implement effective strategies to ensure placement decisions meet the compressed time frames outlined in ASFA. States have responded by using multiple strategies, including early placement with families willing to act as foster parents for children prior to the children becoming available for adoption. This practice allows the adoption to be finalized more expeditiously and reduces the number of moves to different families. The survey identified a number of strategies that were used widely and rated as highly effective in achieving timely permanency, including:

States also noted the wide use of concurrent planning to identify and recruit prospective permanent families in other jurisdictions and the early identification of relatives as possible placement resources; both strategies were rated as effective. However Federal monitoring of State child welfare agency performance has found inconsistent implementation of concurrent planning in most States (U.S. DHHS, 2004) (See Section 5.1, Child and Family Services Reviews).

Strategies in which States expressed interest involve developing mechanisms for the meaningful participation of families involved in court hearings when they live in jurisdictions outside the child's residence. One such strategy is teleconferencing to provide testimony, eliminating the need for travel.

States identified two top supports, both involving home studies, to help them achieve better outcomes for children in interjurisdictional placements. States requested identification of core elements for a national home study and the development of ICPC procedures for dual licensure of foster and adoptive families (meaning only one interstate referral would be required through the ICPC process to request that a family be assessed for both foster care and adoption).

Return to Table of Contents

4.8 Tracking and Reporting

States that cannot accurately track and report interjurisdictional referrals and placements have difficulty monitoring the progress of interjurisdictional cases. An inspection performed by the U.S. DHHS Office of Inspector General (1998) found that about half the States were unable to accurately track and report on interstate placement cases. There is currently no national database that tracks all interstate placements of children across State lines. States do report through AFCARS the children in the foster care system who are placed across State lines. However, interstate private agency adoptions are not monitored in a similar fashion.

A lack of consistency and effective linkages among intrastate and interstate database systems continues to be an obstacle to interjurisdictional placements. While many States are able to track relevant data, they often are working on independent databases not linked to their Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS), the federally supported systems designed to collect and report data required by the Federal government. Even those using SACWIS encounter problems because communication through SACWIS is through email in some States, which is not secure. Since child welfare accountability is frequently associated with a State's abilities to track and report on cases, the use of unlinked, independent databases and inconsistent terms to identify information to be collected have become barriers to interstate placements.

Strategies and Supports

Some States that do not have a functioning SACWIS report that using a specially designed, stand-alone ICPC database to track and report on interstate cases was a highly effective strategy. However, it should be noted that this database, built in Microsoft Access, is not linked to SACWIS and does not meet States' long-term reporting and tracking needs. States also expressed interest in modifying their SACWIS to include elements relevant to interjurisdictional placements, which is consistent with current SACWIS requirements.

5A 49th State also submitted responses, but the data were received too late to be included in the analyses and report. back

 

Return to Table of Contents