Understanding the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children

Where the ICPC Applies

The ICPC contains 10 articles outlining the purpose of the Compact, relevant definitions, conditions for placement, and the roles of the sending and receiving states. These articles are identical in all member states.^[8] According to the American Public Health Services Association, of which the administrator of the ICPC is an affiliate, the Compact is plainly applicable to the placement of a child by a state public child welfare agency with a relative family, foster family, or adoptive family; placement of a child by an individual or entity in out-of-state adoption; and placement of a child by an individual or entity into a licensed residential treatment center.^[9]

Article VIII describes two situations in which a child is moved out of their original state and the ICPC does not apply: first, when his “parent, stepparent, grandparent, adult brother or sister, adult uncle or aunt, or his guardian” are sending him to any such relative or non-agency guardian in the receiving state; and second, when an alternative agreement with the force of law exists between the sending state and the receiving state.^[10] Additional guidance is provided by ICPC Regulations, which are issued by the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children to more effectively perform the terms and provisions of the Compact. (See the next section for more on this association.)

There is some debate among state and federal courts whether the ICPC applies to the placement of children with noncustodial, out-of-state parents. Advocates for a broad interpretation that includes noncustodial parents and advocates for a strict interpretation that excludes noncustodial parents both find support for their arguments in the text of the ICPC.^[11] Numerous cases have arisen in the decades since the nationwide adoption of the Compact that questioned its applicability in these cases, including Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Leonardo (2001), Department of Children and Families v. Benway (1999), McComb v. Wambaugh (1991), Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Huff (2002), and In re Emoni W. (2011).^[12]

For interstate adoption cases, the ICPC is applicable. Because the licensure and certification needed for placement via ICPC varies from state to state, though the legislative framework remains the same across the states, it is important to consult ICPC specialists in one’s state if there is any uncertainty whether a given case falls under ICPC jurisdiction.

Role of Compact Administrators and the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children

Article VII provides for the designation, by the executive head of each member state, of an officer “who shall be general coordinator of activities under this compact in his jurisdiction and who, acting jointly with like officers of other party jurisdictions, shall have power to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out more effectively the terms and provisions of this compact.” These jurisdiction-level officers are the compact administrators for the ICPC. The Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children, or AAICPC, formed in 1974 as a union of these state administrators.^[13]

The AAICPC coordinates ICPC activity within states and issues rules and regulations.^[14],[15] Technical assistance and support are provided to the member states with the support of the American Public Human Services Agency, or APSHA.^[16] When working through the ICPC process, the individual compact administrators in the sending and receiving states, as well as the deputy administrators below them, interact with one another and communicate details about the ICPC application.^[17]

Since April 2016, the AAICPC has also operated the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise, or NEICE, which was enacted as an amendment to the Social Security Act to expedite ICPC requests and placements via a quick and secure electronic exchange of required data and documents.^[18] As of January 2022, 39 member states have fully implemented NEICE. The Family First Act of 2018 mandates that all states must join NEICE by 2027.^[19]

How the ICPC Process Works

The APHSA provides a summary of the steps involved in an ICPC application.^[20] They are as follows:

1. The caseworker or adoption entity in the sending state creates a packet that includes the child’s social, medical, and educational history, current status of any court case, and information about the person being considered for placement.
2. The packet is forwarded to the central ICPC office in the sending state, usually located in the state capital.
3. The sending state reviews and approves or disapproves the packet. Additional materials may be requested to comply with state laws.
4. If approved, the sending state transmits the packet to the ICPC central office in the receiving state.
5. The receiving state reviews the packet. Additional materials may be requested to comply with state laws.
6. The receiving state transmits the packet to the social services agency in the local community of the prospective placement.
7. The local social services agency conducts a home study and background screening to determine the home suitability of the prospective placement.
8. The local agency in the receiving state transmits the packet, including the completed home study report, to the central ICPC office in the receiving state.
9. The central ICPC office in the receiving state approves or denies the placement according to the recommendation of the home study report. Additional materials may be requested to comply with state laws.
10. The receiving state transmits the home study to the sending state for review.
11. The completed home study is transmitted to the sending agency that originated the placement request.
12. If the request is approved by all parties, the child is placed with the out-of-state placement.

After placement, the receiving state takes on the responsibility of supervising the child in the new placement and the sending state retains financial responsibility and court jurisdiction. The agency in the receiving state should prepare periodic progress reports for the review of the ICPC offices in the receiving and sending states.

Importance of the ICPC in Interstate Adoption

Based on a sample of 11 U.S. states from 2006 to 2011, about 17% of the incoming ICPC requests are for out-of-state adoption.^[21] The ICPC is important to ensure the placement follows the adoption regulations of both the sending state and the receiving state and for the sending state to verify that the prospective placement in the receiving state has the resources to sufficiently care for the child’s physical, mental, emotional, and other needs.^[22] Prior to its enactment, states did not have the administrative and legislative mechanisms in place to monitor whether or not privately or publicly adopted children moved out-of-state received the proper care and supervision.^[23]

When an interstate adoption is a private domestic infant adoption, the ICPC process also provides another layer of documentation and contemplation for the birth family and the prospective family in determining whether the relinquishment of the newborn by the former and the adoption of the newborn by the latter is suitable for all involved. Approval by both the receiving state and the sending state must be officially stated before the prospective family can take the child out of the sending state. In domestic infant adoption, the prospective family might arrive in the sending state for the child’s birth and wait there with the child until the dual approvals are received.^[24]

Common Reasons for Delays in the ICPC Process

The ICPC was formulated to achieve four main purposes: maximization of opportunity for placement, maximization of information for the receiving state, maximization of information for the sending state, and resolution of jurisdictional conflicts. All of these purposes are met with answers introduced in Article I of the Compact.^[25] As in any matter concerning child welfare, the desire for expedition balanced with safety moves these objectives forward. However, since its enactment, numerous objections have been raised about delays in the ICPC process.

A major source of delay lies in home study completion and approval. Research in concert with the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that only about 30% of ICPC home studies were completed within 30 days, 45% were completed within 60 days after placement request as required by federal law, and about 30% of home studies took longer than 90 days.^[26]