1 / 17

Case Study: Rewriting the ICPC

Case Study: Rewriting the ICPC. Liz Oppenheim Summit of the States on Interstate Cooperation National Center for interstate Compacts June 1-2, 2006. The Impetus for Change. Lack of compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1960 compact

dareh
Download Presentation

Case Study: Rewriting the ICPC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 2003 ICPC Task Force formed by • March 2004 Resolution passed by APHSA • May 2004 ICPC DDT put together • July 2004 1st ICPC DDT meeting held • October 2004 2nd ICPC DDT meeting held • November 2004 3rd ICPC DDT meeting held • December 27, 2004 1st draft sent out for comment • February 16, 2005 Second draft sent out • February 23, 2005 All state call held • March 10, 2005 Comments 2nd draft received • June 24, 2005 Unresolved issues memo • November 2005 Final draft sent for sign-off • March 23, 2005 Final 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. Applicability • Narrows applicability of the compact to address the issue of the current compact being overly broad

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. Compact GovernanceThe 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

  11. Compact GovernanceState 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)

  12. Compact GovernanceState 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.

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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. For More Information… APHSA 810 First Street, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 682-0100 www.aphsa.org

More Related