Case Study: Rewriting the ICPC Liz Oppenheim Summit of the States on Interstate Cooperation National Center for interstate Compacts June 1-2, 2006

2 The Impetus for Change  Lack of compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1960 compact  Questions as to the authority of the AAICPC to promulgate rules  Enforceability of the rules  Questions regarding the “overly broad” scope of the compact  Growing dissatisfaction with the ICPC as written and implemented  Inconsistent interpretation of the compact by different state courts

3 The Tipping Point  ICPC seen as a barrier to the TIMELY interstate placement of children by:  The States  Outside Stakeholders  Congress

4 The Process: APHSA Leads Reform  July 2003ICPC Task Force formed by  March 2004Resolution passed by APHSA  May 2004ICPC DDT put together  July 20041st ICPC DDT meeting held  October 20042nd ICPC DDT meeting held  November rd ICPC DDT meeting held  December 27, 20041st draft sent out for comment  February 16, 2005Second draft sent out  February 23, 2005All state call held  March 10, 2005Comments 2 nd draft received  June 24, 2005Unresolved issues memo  November 2005Final draft sent for sign-off  March 23, 2005Final Compact sent out

5 ICPC DDT Workgroups/Subcommittees  Private & Independent Adoptions  Interstate Placements & Military Families  Interstate Placements & International Adoption  ICWA and Interstate Placements  Final Decision Making Authority  UCCJEA/PKPA/ICJ & ICPC

6

7 Applicability  Narrows applicability of the compact to address the issue of the current compact being overly broad

8 Accountability  Requires the establishment of rules regarding the time frames in which the receiving states must complete the assessment of the placement  Provides for administrative review of the receiving state’s decision at the request of any interested party  Provides for data collection and data exchange reporting requirements

9 Enforcement  Provides for mediation and binding dispute resolution, remedial training, and specific technical assistance  Provides for judicial action by the member states of the Interstate Commission to enforce compliance with the compact

10 Rulemaking  Clearly establishes rulemaking authority of the Interstate Commission  Requires that the rules be developed through a process that substantially conforms to the principles of notice and comment rulemaking of the Model State Administrative Procedures Act or other appropriate administrative procedures acts.  Rules duly promulgated by the Commission have the force and effect of statutory law.

11 Compact Governance The Interstate Commission  Creates The Interstate Commission for the Placement of Children (IC)  An agency that the several states jointly create to manage and enforce the compact  Acts as a joint state administrative agency accountable to the collective member states not subject to the control of any individual member state  Most important function is rulemaking  Member states determine the level of funding needed to support the Interstate Commission in carrying out its duties

12 Compact Governance State Councils Under the compact, each state is required to: “Provide for coordination among its branches of government Government concerning the state’s participation in, and compliance with, the compact and Interstate Commission activities, through the creation of a State Council or use of an existing body or board.” Article VII (G)

13 Compact Governance State Councils State Councils will play a significant role in compact activities:  Increase the visibility of compact issues to state policymakers;  Provide diverse policy support and oversight to the compact; and  Promote ongoing inter-branch awareness of compact issues.

14 Next Steps States who are Prepared to Proceed with the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Alabama Alaska Arizona California Connecticut Delaware Florida Hawaii Idaho Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island Texas Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming

15 Lessons Learned  Choose the members of the development/advisory team carefully  Include a diverse group of stakeholders  Consider the advantages and disadvantages of including federal representation  Understand the time and financial commitment of developing a new compact and getting it enacted and up and running  Education for the stakeholders regarding the nature of interstate compacts is critical  Stakeholders must understand that compacts are by their very nature compromise documents

16 Lessons Learned  It is critical to understand any overlapping federal and state laws that could impact the success of the compact  Prioritize the issues to be addressed, that is, identify the fundamental, non-negotiable from the secondary issues  Determine if congressional consent is required and, if so, when should it be sought  Be sure to identify the forum for interpretation and enforcement of compliance with the compact  Identify critical expert resources to assist in the process of development, e.g. CSG. National Center for Interstate Compacts

17 For More Information… APHSA 810 First Street, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC (202)