Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The Interstate Compact on the Placement 
of Children 
State Structure and Process 
JUNE GIBBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
NOVEMBER 1998 
OEI-02-95-00041  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 
protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 
health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them.  This statutory mission is carried out through a 
nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts.  The 
Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 
legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 
Inspector General.  It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 
inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public.  The 
inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 
effectiveness of departmental programs. 
OEI's New York Regional Office prepared this report under the direction of John I. Molnar, 
Regional Inspector General and Renee C. Dunn, Deputy Regional Inspector General.  Principal 
OEI staff included: 
REGION  HEADQUARTERS 
Nancy Harrison, Project Leader  Alan Levine, Program Specialist

Miriam Gareau

Daniel Ginsberg

Judy Lin

To obtain copies of this report, please call the New York Regional Office at (212) 264-1998. 
Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 
http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei  E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y

PURPOSE 
The purpose of this inspection is to describe how States have implemented the Interstate 
Compact on the Placement of Children and to report on the number of children who are 
affected by the Compact. 
BACKGROUND 
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has asked the Inspector General (OIG) to 
look at a number of issues regarding interstate compacts.  Currently, the ACF is interested in 
how the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (the Compact) is implemented by 
States, and the Compacts strengths and weaknesses.  This inspection addresses how States 
have structured their Compact function.  The Compacts strengths and weaknesses will be 
explored in a subsequent inspection. 
Sometimes the most suitable placement for a child is out of their own State. The reasons for 
such placements include adoptions by a family in another State, placement into foster care out 
of State, and reunification with a parent who has moved while the child was in State custody. 
The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children is a contract among the States intended 
to ensure that children placed across States lines receive adequate protection and services. The 
Compact outlines the steps necessary to place a child out of State.  For example, the State the 
child is in (the sending State) asks the State in which the child is to be placed (the receiving 
State) to conduct a home study to evaluate the suitability of the potential placement.  If a 
placement is actually made, the receiving State supervises the placement and the sending State 
maintains financial responsibility for the child.  The Compact began in 1959 and all States, the 
District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands had joined by 1990. 
This inspection is based on three data sets:  responses to telephone interviews with compact 
administrators from each State, State policies and procedures, and placement data collected 
from the States. 
FINDINGS 
States Have Policies And Procedures That Are Generally Uniform And Comprehensive 
The vast majority of States have centralized their Compact function.  This means they have a

Compact office at the State level that handles all Compact cases coming into and going out of the

State.  The two decentralized States handle all Compact cases at the county level.

States report using the same general procedures.  Accordingly, placements usually follow the

same path:  local office to State office in the sending State, then State office to local office in the

receiving State.  Adoption and foster care placements generally follow the same path, but the

)))))))))))
i  process differs depending on who initiates the placement.  It could be the court, an agency, a 
parent or guardian.  Although similar in many ways, States do have some notable differences. 
These differences include the extent of contracting out compact administration and the number of 
residential treatment centers in States. 
States Are Sometimes Unaware That Children Are Placed in Their Jurisdiction 
Many States believe that children have probably been placed in their State without their 
knowledge.  This can happen under two circumstances: 1) children placed through the Compact 
but the receiving State does not know the placement has been finalized; and 2) placements that 
ignore the Compact.  States disagree about the implications of the first instance.  Some States feel 
that these children are vulnerable because the placement may not be supervised.  Other States say 
the local office knows about the placement, even if the State does not, and will supervise it.  For 
placements that ignore the compact, the situation may be more serious because it is likely that 
neither the State nor its local office knows the child is there. 
Half of the States Do Not Know How Many Children They Placed Through The Compact 
in 1997 
State placement information is incomplete, but it indicates that many thousands of children are 
placed across State lines each year.  Only 27 of the 52 Compact States were able to report the 
number of adoption, foster care, and residential placements into and out of their State in 1997. 
The total number of placements into these 27 States is 12,615.  The total number of  placements 
out of these 27 States is 11,827.  The other 25 States are unable to report the actual number of 
adoption, foster care, and residential placements that occurred into or out of their States in 1997. 
The two main reasons that the quality of State data is poor and inconsistent are differing standards 
among States and ineffective tracking techniques. 
CONCLUSION 
Clearly the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children has been successful in establishing 
procedures for the interstate placement of children.  Needless to say, States have obligations to 
the children they place across State lines and it appears the compact system is a promising and 
viable way to fulfill these obligations.  Nonetheless, weaknesses in the overall structure are 
apparent and some children may be vulnerable.  We are continuing our work in this area and will 
analyze in greater detail how well this system is being implemented. 
We encourage States to abide by the principles of the Compact.  The ACF should be prepared 
where necessary to provide technical assistance on how to more effectively implement the 
Compact, especially in regard to placement notification and uniform data collection. 
We received comments from ACF and from the American Public Human Services Association 
(APHSA).  The ACF stated that the report presents information important to their agency, which 
is responsible for the Federal programs for foster care and adoption assistance.  The ACF also 
expressed interest in information on the timeliness of interstate placements.  This issue will be 
)))))))))))
ii  addressed in a subsequent report.  In addition, ACF made a number of technical comments that 
we incorporated into the report when appropriate. 
The APHSA comments included the comments of the Executive Committee of the Association of 
Administrators of the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children.  They stated that the 
report can serve as a foundation for a better understanding of what the Compact is today, how it 
works, and how it can function more effectively in the future.  The Association welcomes efforts 
by ACF to work with the States and the Secretariat.  The APHSA made a number of technical 
comments that we included in the report when appropriate.  The actual comments received are 
included in Appendix B. 
)))))))))))
iii  T A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T S

PAGE 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

States Have Uniform Policies and Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

States are Sometimes Unaware that Children are Placed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Half the States Cannot Report Placement Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CONCLUSION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

APPENDIX

A:  1997 Placement Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B:  Comments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
 I N T R O D U C T I O N

PURPOSE 
The purpose of this inspection is to describe how States have implemented the Interstate 
Compact on the Placement of Children and to report on the number of children who are 
affected by the Compact. 
BACKGROUND 
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has asked the Inspector General (OIG) to 
look at a number of issues regarding interstate compacts and what happens when children are 
placed or moved across State lines.  The OIG has completed an inspection, Interstate Compact 
on Adoption and Medical Assistance (OEI-02-95-00040), that assessed how membership in the 
Interstate Compact for Adoption and Medical Assistance affects States efforts to protect the 
interests of adopted special needs children who move from one State to another.  Currently, 
the ACF is interested in how the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (the 
Compact) is implemented by States, and the Compacts strengths and weaknesses.  This 
inspection addresses how States have structured their Compact function.  The Compacts 
strengths and weaknesses will be explored in a subsequent inspection. 
Sometimes circumstances are such that the most suitable placement for a child is out of their 
own State.  These out of State placements are made for a variety of reasons.  They include 
adoptions across State lines, foster care placements out of State, and reunification with a parent 
who has moved while the child is in State custody.  No accurate national data exists on the 
number or type of interstate placements that occur each year.  However, during pre-inspection, 
experts told us that the number of children placed across State lines is increasing. 
The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children 
An interstate compact, such as the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, is a 
contract among and between States.  To participate in the Compact, a State must enact into law 
the text of the Compact.  It is intended to ensure that children placed across State lines for 
adoption or for foster care receive adequate protection and support services.  It establishes 
procedures for placement and compels the placing agency to maintain responsibility for the 
child. 
The Compact grew out of work done in the late 1950's when a group of social service 
administrators and State legislators informally looked at the problems of placing children out 
of State for adoption or foster care.  Although importation and exportation statutes regulate the 
interstate movement of goods, Federal law did not provide protection for children moved 
between States.  The group found that a sending State, in the absence of a compact, could not 
compel the receiving State to provide protection or support services for a child.  In addition, a 
receiving State, in the absence of a compact, could not compel a sending State to remain 
)))))))))))
1  financially responsible for a child.  In response to this groups findings, the Compact was 
drafted in the New York State Legislature and was adopted by New York in 1960.  By 1990, 
all States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands had joined. 
The purpose of the Compact is for the party States to cooperate in the interstate placement of 
children so that: 
C  the child is placed in a suitable environment; 
C  the receiving State has the opportunity to assess the proposed placement; 
C  the sending State obtains enough information to evaluate the placement; and 
C  the care of the child is promoted through appropriate jurisdictional 
arrangements. 
The Compact outlines the many steps necessary to place a child out of State.  For example, the 
State the child is in (the sending State) asks the State in which the child is to be placed (the 
receiving State) to conduct a home study to evaluate a possible placement.  When a placement 
is finally made, the receiving State must continue to supervise the placement. 
The Compact has jurisdiction over the following types of interstate placements: placement 
preliminary to an adoption; placement into foster care; placement with parents and relatives 
when a parent or relative is not making the placement; and placement into a group home, child 
care institutions, and residential treatment facilities.  The Compact does not have jurisdiction 
over the following placements: placements into schools, medical and mental facilities and 
placements made by a childs parent, stepparent, grandparent, adult sister or brother, adult 
aunt or uncle, or non-agency guardian with any such relative or non-agency guardian. 
For the purposes of this report, adoptions include those made by public agencies, private 
agencies, attorneys, and birth parents. Foster care placements include placements into paid 
foster homes, into homes of unpaid relatives, and into homes of formerly non-custodial 
parents.  Residential placements, a form of foster care, include placements into residential 
treatment centers, group homes, and child care institutions. 
The Compact is managed in each State by a compact administrator.  In 1974, the compact 
administrators formed the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the 
Placement of Children (the Association) to provide technical and support services to its 
members.  The Association, under the terms of the Compact, can pass regulations.  The 
American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) acts as the Secretariat to the 
Association of Administrators.  The APHSA is a non-profit organization that represents a 
variety of State interests in the field of health and human services.  The Secretariat is funded 
through dues paid by member States.  ACF funded the Association until 1985. 
)))))))))))
2  Federal Role in Interstate Placements 
As the Federal agency with formal responsibility for supporting State Child Welfare activities, 
ACF administers the Federal programs that fund State foster care and adoption initiatives. 
The Federal funding of State foster care and adoption is authorized under the Social Security 
Act.  Title IV-E of the Act reimburses a portion of State expenditure for foster care 
maintenance payments for eligible children and adoption assistance for eligible special needs 
children.  Federal reimbursement is also available for certain administrative and training costs 
associated with both programs.  Title IV-B, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families 
Act of 1997, provides funding for adoption promotion and support services and time-limited 
reunification services, along with family preservation and support.  In order to receive a grant 
under Title IV-B, States are required to provide specific protections.  These protections include 
developing a case plan for each child in foster care and conducting a court or administrative 
review of the status of each child at least every 6 months.  In addition, a hearing must be held 
within 12 months of the childs entry into foster care by a court or court-approved 
administrative body to determine the permanency plan of each child. 
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 
Under a Federal mandate, States are required to collect and report case-specific data on all 
children in foster care under the responsibility of the child welfare agencies and the children 
adopted with the involvement of these agencies.  This data collection system is known as the 
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS).  The first reporting 
period began October 1,1994.  According to ACF, State submission of data has been 
inconsistent.  Not all States are reporting data and some States are submitting data that is of 
poor quality. 
Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems 
In 1993, a federal grant was set up to fund the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information 
Systems program to update States child welfare information systems. The improved systems will 
have database, reporting and inquiry capabilities, and will be able to track the progress of children 
in both public and private child welfare service agencies.  In the past five years, the majority of 
States have implemented or are in the process of developing these systems. 
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 prohibits States from delaying or denying 
adoptive placements when an approved family is available in another jurisdiction.  The Act 
establishes safety, permanency, and well-being as the Federal goals for children in the child 
welfare system.  States are also required to develop plans for the effective use of cross
)))))))))))
3  jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting 
children.  The Act furthers the Federal initiative to double the annual number of children 
adopted from the foster care system by the year 2002.  In addition, the Act requires the 
General Accounting Office to study and report to Congress on how to improve procedures and 
policies to facilitate timely adoptions across State and county lines. 
METHODOLOGY 
This inspection is based on three data sets:  responses to telephone interviews with compact 
administrators, placement data, and State policies and procedures. 
State Interviews 
We conducted telephone interviews with all 52 member States (50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).  We spoke with each compact administrator or a 
representative designated to speak on the administrators behalf. We asked each State about the 
structure of the States Compact function, Compact staffing levels, and Compact procedures. 
We also asked about satisfaction with these structures and procedures.  Finally, we gathered 
suggestions for improvement at both the State and national levels. 
Some concerns about illegal placements and improper use of the Compact placement forms 
were raised during the initial interviews with all the States.  To learn more about these issues 
and to collect missing placement numbers, we called back a purposive sample of 17 States. 
We asked the 17 States questions about the use of the Compacts notification form that reports 
a childs placement status and the possibility of placements made in violation of the Compact. 
Placement Numbers 
We sent a letter to each State requesting the number of adoption, foster care, and residential 
Compact placements into and out of the State in calendar year 1997.  We collected these 
numbers during the telephone interviews and through several follow-up calls. When these 
numbers were unavailable, we asked for estimates. Adoptions include placements through 
public agencies, private agencies, and independent agents, such as attorneys.  Foster care is 
defined as placements in paid foster homes, with unpaid relatives, and with parents. 
Residential placements include residential treatment centers, group homes, and child care 
institutions. 
Residential care is generally considered a form of foster care.  We chose to collect data for 
residential placements separately from other forms of foster care because our pre-inspection 
research indicated that residential numbers would vary widely among States.  We did not, 
however, separate residential placements from foster care in our discussion of structure or 
procedures with States. 
)))))))))))
4  Policies and Procedures 
We asked each State to provide us with any written policies and procedures they use in the 
processing of interstate cases.  Thirty-nine States sent written materials.  We reviewed each 
States written policies and procedures to determine their clarity, thoroughness, and degree of 
detail.  We also asked for any other tools used in Compact cases, such as information 
checklists attached to placement requests.  A number of States also sent us training material 
used to train local case workers.  We reviewed these materials for consistency with the text of 
the Compact and the APWAs 1990 Guide to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of 
Children. 
This inspection was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 
issued by the Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
)))))))))))
5  F I N D I N G S

States Have Policies And Procedures That Are Generally Uniform And Comprehensive 
Most States have a centralized structure 
The vast majority (50) of States have centralized their Compact function.  They have a Compact 
office at the State level that handles all Compact cases coming into and going out of the State. 
This State office works with their own local offices and other States Compact offices.  The 
majority of the centralized States (35) are satisfied with the way their States Compact function is 
structured. 
Only two States have decentralized their Compact function.  That is, the counties in these States 
each have a liaison who acts in the same way compact administrators act in other States. 
Placements go through the county level, not State level.  The decentralized States are also 
satisfied with their Compact structure.  Several centralized States, however, complain that it is 
difficult placing children in decentralized States because of the burden of finding the appropriate 
people to contact. 
States report following the same general procedures 
Overall, States procedures appear to be consistent with the original Compact laws and with the 
Guide to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children written by the Secretariat. 
Usually placements follow the general path of sending local office o sending State office o 
receiving State office o receiving local office.  See the flow chart on the following page for a 
detailed illustration of the placement process.  The flow chart does not include the supervision of 
the placement. 
As the flow chart shows, the typical interstate foster care placement originates with the local case 
worker in the sending State.  The local worker in the sending State identifies a possible placement 
in another State, fills out an ICPC-100A Interstate Compact Placement Request and sends it, 
along with any other necessary information including medical and financial information, to the 
sending State Compact office.  The sending State Compact office reviews the packet received 
from the local worker and makes sure it is complete.  The compact administrator or representative 
signs the completed request and mails it to the receiving State Compact office. 
The receiving State Compact office reviews the request and forwards it to the local office where 
the child will be placed.  The local office in the receiving States conducts a home study, 
recommends to approve or deny the placement, and forwards all the information to the receiving 
State Compact office.  The receiving State compact administrator or representative then makes 
the decision to approve or deny the placement and sends all the information back to the sending 
State Compact office.  If the placement has been approved, the local worker in the sending States 
will then decide whether or not to place the child. 
)))))))))))
6  Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children Process - Foster Care Placement 
Local sending worker finds 
possible out of State placement  Receiving State Compact 
office notifies the  Sending State Compact notifies 
sending State Compact  local sending office 
Local sending worker fills out 100A 
and sends it with a request packet 
Yes 
to the sending State Compact office 
Local sending office reviews 
the home study 
Is the placement approved 
No 
by the receiving State 
Sending State Compact office reviews 
compact administrator? 
the 100A and request packet 
No 
Does the local sending 
worker decide to place 
the child? 
No 
Is the packet complete? 
Local receiving office sends 
packet with completed home study 
Yes 
and recommendation to receiving 
State Compact office 
Yes 
Child placed 
Sending State compact administrator 
signs the 100A and sends it to the 
Local Office recommends to approve 
receiving State Compact office 
or deny the placement. 
Receiving State Compact office 
notifies the sending State Compact 
Receiving State Compact office 
Local receiving office reviews 
receives and reviews the100A 
packet and completes home study 
and placement request packet 
Sending State Compact notifies 
local sending office 
Yes  No 
Is  Receiving State Compact office sends the 
more information  packet to the receiving local office  Child is not placed 
needed? 
Local Office in Sending State 
State Compact Office in Sending State 
State Compact Office in Receiving State 
Local Office in Receiving State 
)))))))))))
7  )))))))))))
8
 Adoption placements generally follow the same path as foster care placements, except that 
adoptions originate from different sources.  A public adoption, that is, a placement of a child 
usually under State custody by a public agency, goes through the same channels as a foster care 
placement.  The process for private and independent adoptions differ from foster care placements 
and public adoptions mainly at the local level.  For example, in a private adoption the private 
agency completes the 100A, prepares the packet requesting placement, and forwards it to the 
sending State Compact office.  For independent adoptions, either an attorney or the birth 
mother/parents, depending on State law, acts as the sending agent and completes the 100A to 
request out of State placement.  (All but six States allow independent adoptions.)  After a 
placement has been approved, it is the private agency or birth parent/attorney who makes the final 
decision whether or not to send the child. 
One other significant difference was reported in the processing of  private and independent 
adoptions.  States report that home studies are usually completed by private caseworkers prior to 
the submission of the 100A.  Therefore, one less step is followed in the Compact process.  Rather 
then forwarding a 100A to a caseworker for a home study, a receiving State Compact office will 
usually make the decision to approve or deny the placement soon after receiving the request. 
States have some notable differences 
Six States contract out part of their Compact process and one State is considering this option to 
speed processing time.  Both decentralized States contract out the processing of private adoption 
requests.  That is, these agencies take on the responsibilities of the compact administrator. 
Centralized States sometimes contract out services done at the local level.  Four States contract 
out foster care home studies.  Two of them also contract out home studies for public adoptions 
and one contracts for post-placement supervision.  In some cases, only specific geographic areas 
of the State contracts out services, usually in the region that contains the States largest urban 
area. 
Residential placements vary widely among States.  Some States have no residential facilities so 
those States must use residential facilities in other States.  Therefore, all their residential 
placements must go through the Compact.  The States with facilities may receive very large 
numbers of residential placements through the Compact.  Three of these States report receiving in 
excess of 700 children in 1997 into residential placements.  This is several hundred more than 
other States.  See Appendix A for a complete listing of State reported data. 
States written policies and procedures are generally uniform and comprehensive 
States have developed written procedures and several tools to aid the Compact process.

Of the 39 written State policies and procedures that we reviewed, 34 are comprehensive

descriptions of  implementation of the Compact and five cover most, but not all, steps in the

placement process.  The descriptions are fairly uniform and present similar policies and

procedures in similar terms.  Almost all States (48) are satisfied with their procedures.  States do

note, however, that they could use more staff, more training, and better automation.

)))))))))))
9  Some States have developed tools to facilitate case processing.  For instance, some States have 
created sample transmittal, request, and response letters for interstate communication.  Some use 
checklists to make sure all the necessary information, such as the financial and medical plan and 
social assessment of the child and family, is included in a placement request.  States have also 
developed forms and letters to be used when they must return an incomplete request to the 
sending State.  One State has made special arrangements with the police to handle criminal record 
checks for potential caregivers in priority placement cases.  Another State has developed a memo 
for State child care institutions and judges that explains the legal requirements of the Compact. 
States Are Sometimes Unaware That Children Are Placed in Their Jurisdiction 
Many States believe that children have probably been placed in their State without their 
knowledge.  This can happen under two circumstances: 1) children placed through the Compact 
but the receiving State does not know the placement has been finalized; and 2) placements that 
ignore the Compact.  In the first instance, the Compact may be followed correctly during the 
placement but the receiving State is not formally notified by the sending State that the placement 
has occurred.  Under the Compact, the 100B form is used by the sending State to tell the 
receiving State that a child has been placed.  Although the States developed this form themselves 
through the Association, the form is not consistently used.  Of the seventeen States asked whether 
they use the 100B Compact form as notification of placement, seven States say that they always 
use the 100B, eight States report sometimes using it and two say they do not use it at all.  Most of 
the States say they do not receive 100B forms regularly. 
States disagree about the implications of not receiving 100B forms.  Some States feel that even 
though the State Compact office may not be notified of a placement, the local office responsible 
for supervising the placement is probably aware of the situation so the child is not at risk.  There 
is no way to verify this.  Other States, however, feel that a child placed without the States 
knowledge may not be supervised. 
The situation may be more serious when a child is placed in violation of the Compact.  This can 
happen when a court, attorney, or member of the general public is unaware of the Compacts 
existence or knows about it but for some reason chooses to ignore it.  In this instance, it is likely 
that neither the State nor the local office is notified.  This issue will be examined more thoroughly 
in our next report. 
Half of The States Do Not Know How Many Children They Placed Through The Compact 
in 1997 
Although State placement information is incomplete, it indicates that many thousands of children 
are involved 
Only 27 States were able to report the number of adoption, foster care, and residential placements 
into and out of their State in 1997.  Hence, we cannot report the aggregate number of children 
who are placed through the Compact annually.  The total number of placements into the 27 States 
that submitted actual placement data is 12,615.  This sum includes 2,468 adoption, 6,392 foster 
)))))))))))
10  care, and 3,755 residential placements.  The total number of placements out of the 27 States is 
11,827.  This sum includes 3,103 adoption, 7,036 foster care, and 1,688 residential placements. 
As noted in the methodology section, foster care numbers include placements with paid foster 
homes, unpaid relatives, and parents.  Residential placements include residential treatment centers, 
group homes, and child care institutions.  An analysis of the 27 reporting States revealed no 
common characteristics or defining patterns. 
The placement numbers vary among States.  The sending and receiving adoption and residential 
placements range from none to several hundred.  The sending and receiving foster care 
placements each range from just a few in some small States to over 1,200 in larger States.  State 
population accounts for approximately 50 percent of the variance of placement numbers.  Another 
factor that may contribute to this variance is the sharing of a metropolitan area between States. 
Data provided by the 27 States show that kinship (non-parent relative) is the most common type 
of foster care placement, followed by parental and paid foster home.  Private agencies place more 
children into adoption through the Compact than public agencies.  Independent adoptions are the 
least common type of Compact adoption placements. 
The other 25 States are unable to report the actual number of adoption, foster care, and 
residential placements that occurred in and out of their States in 1997.  These States include seven 
that report estimates of placements; three that are missing some categories of placements; thirteen 
that count referrals or approvals, not placements; and two States that could provide no numbers 
at all.  Referrals are requests made by a sending State that the receiving State conduct a home 
study to evaluate a possible placement.  Six States could provide us with actual referrals or 
estimates of referrals.  Approvals are approved requests for placement.  Seven States could 
provide us with actual approvals or estimates of approvals.  Some of the States that submitted 
actual placement data voluntarily submitted referral or approval data as well.  Analysis of these 
data reveals no relationship between referrals and approvals or between approvals and 
placements. 
Different standards and ineffective tracking techniques are the main reasons the quality of State 
data is poor and not uniform.  As noted above, States use different standards, such as referrals or 
approvals in their counting.  A few of the States that count referrals say referrals are a more 
accurate reflection of their workload because procedures, such as home studies, need to be 
completed whether or not the child is eventually placed.  Other States say they count approvals 
because they know how many approvals they have but they do not know the number of 
placements that have resulted from the approvals. 
States most often cite difficulty with their tracking systems as the reason for not having good 
data.  Many States mention that they have to manually search through each file to tally placement 
statistics.  Other States are automated to some extent, but report difficulty with their computer 
programs.  For example, a number of States say that their statewide computer system tracks only 
children who are in the child welfare system.  Since Compact cases include private placements, 
some Compact offices do not use their statewide tracking system. 
)))))))))))
11  The fact that several States require more than a month to collect the information is evidence of 
the problems States face.  Even seven of the States that could provide actual placement data say 
they had difficulty obtaining their numbers. 
The data is also unavailable at the national level.  Even though information about children placed 
out of State is suppose to be reported by each State for the AFCARS system, according to ACF 
only 23 States submitted quality data in 1997.  In addition, the AFCARS data element to track 
out of State placement applies only to children in foster care which accounts for only about half of 
children placed through the Compact. 
The use of computer systems to track cases is limited 
Twelve States report tracking Compact cases entirely by computer, while another twelve report 
having no automation in their tracking system.  The remaining States all use a combination of 
computer and manual tracking systems.  Several States say they are developing computer systems 
or improving their current systems.  Although the federal government has funded the States to set 
up their own SACWIS computer systems to track children in the child welfare system, it appears 
that these systems may not have helped States to track children placed through the Compact.  Of 
the 50 States with some county or regional government, 17 report that the counties are currently 
using computers to track Compact cases and three report that they are currently developing 
county computer tracking systems. 
)))))))))))
12  C O N C L U S I O N

Clearly the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children has been successful in establishing 
procedures for the interstate placement of children.  Needless to say, States have obligations to 
the children they place across State lines and it appears the compact system is a promising and 
viable way to fulfill these obligations.  Nonetheless, weaknesses in the implementation are 
apparent and some children may be vulnerable. 
We encourage States to abide by the principles of the Compact.  The ACF should be prepared 
where necessary to provide technical assistance on how to more effectively implement the 
Compact, especially in regard to placement notification and uniform data collection.  One 
opportunity is to explore the use of Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems. 
We are continuing our work in this area and will analyze in greater detail how well this system is 
being implemented. 
COMMENTS 
We received comments from ACF and from the American Public Human Services Association 
(APHSA).  The ACF stated that the report presents information important to their agency, which 
is responsible for the Federal programs for foster care and adoption assistance.  The ACF also 
expressed interest in information on the timeliness of interstate placements.  This issue will be 
addressed in a subsequent report.  In addition, ACF made a number of technical comments that 
we incorporated into the report when appropriate. 
The APHSA comments included the comments of the Executive Committee of the Association of 
Administrators of the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children.  They stated that the 
report can serve as a foundation for a better understanding of what the Compact is today, how it 
works, and how it can function more effectively in the future.  The Association welcomes efforts 
by ACF to work with the States and the Secretariat.  The APHSA made a number of technical 
comments that we included in the report when appropriate.  The actual comments received are 
included in Appendix B.  . 
)))))))))))
13  APPENDIX A:  1997 Placement Data

Sending  Receiving 
State  Population  Adoption  Foster Care  Residential  Adoption Foster Care  Residential 
Alabama
 4,319,154  42 (e)  228 (e)  24 (e)  72 (e)  262 (e)  36 (e) 
Alaska
 609,311  32  111  23  24  80  1 
Arizona
 4,554,966  297  1,028  107  89  970  718 
Arkansas
 2,522,819  44 R  301 R  143 R  74 R  481 R  56 R 
California
 32,268,301  214 (e)  - 1,068  101 (e)  - 3 
Colorado
 3,892,644  86  230  113  71  144  258 
Connecticut
 3,269,858  21  160  62  107  127  17 
Delaware
 731,581  10  81 (e)  298 (e)  26  100 (e)  25 (e) 
District of Columbia
 528,964  140  252  140  25  74  0 
Florida
 14,653,945  473  1,664  62  210  1,235  43 
Georgia
 7,486,242  160 A  350 A  0  361 A  487 A  35 A 
Hawaii
 1,186,602  71  144  76  76  128  0 
Idaho
 1,210,232  28  44  107  87  118  66 
Illinois
 11,895,849  - - - - - -
Indiana
 5,864,108  56 (e)  228 (e)  84 (e)  32 (e)  336 (e)  36 (e) 
Iowa
 2,852,423  81  123  52  31  99  134 
Kansas
 2,594,840  104  122  23  56  115  7 
Kentucky
 3,908,124  83  182 (e)  20 (e)  82  121 (e)  1 (e) 
Louisiana
 4,351,769  152 A  223 A  179 A (e)  47 A  294 A  45 A (e) 
Maine
 1,242,051  50  13  33  24  4  2 
Maryland
 5,094,289  254  667  101  257  929  57 
Massachusetts
 6,117,520  80 A  149 A  0  251 A  109 A  189 A 
Michigan
 9,773,892  300 (e)  718 (e)  180 (e)  500 (e)  1,223 (e)  (e) 
Minnesota
 4,685,549  - 4  61  - 20  15 
Mississippi
 2,730,501  58  184  139  81  269  0 
Missouri
 5,402,058  61  93  17  73  72  132 
Montana
 878,810  0  93 A  57 A  0  76 A  25 A 
)))))))))))
A - 1  Sending  Receiving 
State  Population  Adoption  Foster Care  Residential  Adoption Foster Care  Residential 
Nebraska
 1,656,870  61 (e)  275  147  135 (e)  155  136 
Nevada
 1,676,809  258 (e)  189 (e)  - 173 (e)  229 (e)  -
New Hampshire
 1,172,709  39 R  112 R  58 R  75 R  172 R  7 R 
New Jersey
 8,052,849  151 R  634 R  76 R  527 R  513 R  6 R 
New Mexico
 1,729,751  61  63  25  51  122  15 
New York
 18,137,226  323 R  1,063 R  126 R  566 R  851 R  11 R 
North Carolina
 7,425,183  - - - - - -
North Dakota
 640,883  12  248  70  25  152  18 
Ohio
 11,186,331  149 (e)  42 (e)  60 (e)  128 (e)  51 (e)  89 (e) 
Oklahoma
 3,317,091  91  165  37  132  259  38 
Oregon
 3,243,487  627  624  41  158  281  9 
Pennsylvania
 12,019,661  233  408  242  357  478  708 
Rhode Island
 987,429  36  84  19  25  86  3 
South Carolina
 3,760,181  38  137  16  78  204  20 
South Dakota
 737,973  14  41  20  51  78  325 
Tennessee
 5,368,198  56  225  35  111  293  264 
Texas
 19,439,337  749 A  447 A  119 A  257 A  714 A  284 A 
U.S. Virgin Islands
 114,000  0  1  3  1  12  0 
Utah
 2,059,148  113  48  79  202  64  677 
Vermont
 588,978  15  49  35  74  50  95 
Virginia
 6,733,996  69 R  384 R  4 R  197 R  476 R  288 R 
Washington
 5,610,362  229 R (e)  699 R (e)  96 R (e)  299 R (e)  757 R (e)  27 R (e) 
West Virginia
 1,815,787  47 A  63 A  212 A  30 A  56 A  0 
Wisconsin
 5,169,677  48 A  296 A  25 A  107 A  269 A  215 A 
Wyoming
 479,743  25  44  6  33  100  134 
Note: The numbers above are actual placements unless otherwise noted. 
(e) = number is an estimate

R = number of requests (or referrals) for placement

A = number of approved requests

- = data is unavailable 
)))))))))))
A - 2  A P P E N D I X  B

COMMENTS 
)))))))))))
B - 1
 )))))))))))
B - 2
 )))))))))))
B - 3
 )))))))))))
B - 4
 )))))))))))
B - 5
 )))))))))))
B - 6
 )))))))))))
B - 7
 )))))))))))
B - 8
 )))))))))))
B - 9
 )))))))))))
B - 10