2 016
Trends in State Cour ts Special Focus on Family Law and Court Communications
Trusted Leadership. Proven Solutions. Better Cour ts.
www.ncsc.org
Family Law
Family Law
The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children and the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise Diana Graski
Court Technology Consultant
Bureaucratic delay is too common in Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) cases. The good news is that the initial pilot in six jurisdictions of the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise (NEICE) has been very successful and is being expanded nationwide. The scenario is too familiar to juvenile and family court judges: a promising placement in a sister state is delayed, or stymied altogether, by challenges associated with completing the steps required by the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC). Adopted by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the ICPC’s goal is laudable: ensuring children’s safety in foster care, guardianship, or adoption placements that occur across state boundaries. The ICPC provides the protocol for a sending state to
request a home study of the target placement in a receiving state. The receiving state has the access to the placement candidates and the connections with local law enforcement to complete mandatory background checks.
NEICE replaces hard-copy ICPC forms and U.S. Postal Service delivery with near-real-time communication among local child welfare caseworkers and state ICPC administrators in both sending and receiving states.
The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children and the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise 31
The ICPC also provides the protocol for the receiving state to report its findings to the sending state and for the sending state to transmit its ultimate placement order to the receiving state. Alas, for cases where time is always of the essence, the ICPC process has been plagued by delay. The ICPC business process is complex (see ICPC process-flow diagram) and involves many state and local court and agency actors. Lag time accrues at each of the almost 40 hand offs, from the initial court order requesting the child welfare agency to pursue an interstate placement (which triggers the creation of ICPC Form 100A), all the way to delivery of the final placement order (when the ICPC Form 100B arrives). Recognizing the negative impacts of delay on children and families, the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) in 2009 published a policy statement “recommend[ing] using technology to expedite the ICPC request packets and receipt of reports” (COSCA Policy Statement on the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children, December 4, 2009). Happily, that policy is becoming reality. Starting in August 2014, six pilot jurisdictions— the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Wisconsin—implemented the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise. NEICE replaces hard-copy ICPC forms and U.S. Postal Service delivery with near-real-time communication among local child welfare caseworkers and state ICPC administrators in both sending and receiving states.
32 Trends in State Courts 2016
The initial results (published in the June 2015 “NEICE Evaluation Report”) are extremely encouraging: 45-46 percent reduction in the time elapsed from the first identification of a case as an ICPC case to the delivery of the ICPC Form 100A packet to the receiving state (the initial ICPC request) for Regulation 7 (expedited) cases, 48 percent reduction in time elapsed between Form 100A’s delivery to the receiving state and the receiving state’s delivery of its final decision to the sending state (26 percent reduction for non-Regulation 7 cases) for Regulation 7 cases, 75 percent reduction in time elapsed between the sending state’s start on Form 100B and the delivery of the Form 100B packet to the receiving state (44 percent reduction for non-Regulation 7 cases) overall, the average total number of days elapsed for the ICPC process was reduced by 34 days for Regulation 7 cases and 36 days for non-Regulation 7 cases—more than a month in the life of each impacted child Note that the vast majority of the 4,748 cases included in the NEICE evaluation involved a state that was not a NEICE pilot state; for those cases in which both the sending and receiving states were NEICE pilots, the improvement in timeliness was even more dramatic. Indeed, Shannon Foster, the deputy ICPC administrator for Nevada, recently explained that NEICE-enabled private adoptions between her state and another pilot state now take one hour to complete.
Family Law
NEICE – ICPC Process Flow
Data Collected for Baseline (version 4/4/2014)
Receiving – State ICPC
Sending – State ICPC
Sending – Local Agency
Start
1
Decision to Request Home Study
27 Decision to Place Child (or Not)
28 Completes 100B
2
Completes 100A
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete
26 Reviews Home Study
Other Materials 29 Prepares for 100B Packet
3
Prepares Other Materials for 100A Packet
Home Study 25 Receives from Sending State ICPC
100B Packet 30 Sends to State ICPC
4
Sends 100A Packet to State ICPC
5
Receives 100A Packet from Local Agency
Home Study 24 Sends to Local Agency
100B Packet 31 Receives from Local Agency
6
Reviews 100A Packet
23 Prepares Home Study Packet
32 Reviews 100B Packet
7
Prepares 100A Packet
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
22 Reviews Home Study
33 Prepares 100B Packet
8
Sends 100A Packet to Receiving State ICPC
Home Study 21 Receives from Sending State ICPC
100B Packet 34 Sends to Receiving State ICPC
9
Receives 100A Packet from Sending State ICPC
Home Study 20 Sends to Sending State ICPC
100B Packet 35 Receives from Sending State ICPC
10 Reviews 100A Packet
19 Prepares Home Study Packet
36 Reviews 100B Packet
11 Prepares 100A Packet
18 Reviews Home Study
37 Prepares 100B Packet
100A Packet 12 Sends to Local Agency
Home Study 17 Receives from Local Agency
100B Packet 38 Sends to Local Agency
Receiving State (sending to), Date, Time, Court Order Date (if required)
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
Date, Time
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
Date, Time, Method, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
Date, Time, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
Date, Time
Date, Time, Method, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, Packet Complete
Date, Time, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, Packet Complete
Date, Time
Date, Time
Date, Time, Method, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, Packet Complete
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
Date, Time, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
Receiving – Local Agency
Date, Time, Place (Y/N), Placement Date, Court Order Date
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
Collect: Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, Packet Complete
Date, Time
100A Packet 13 Receives from State ICPC
Date, Time
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, Packet Complete
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
Date, Time, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
Date, Time
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, Packet Complete
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
Date, Time, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
100B Packet 39 Receives from State ICPC
Date, Time
Date, Time
14 Conducts Home Study
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete
End
15 Prepares Home Study Packet
Start Date/Time, Finish Date/Time, Amount of Time to Complete, # of Copies Made
16 Sends Home Study to State ICPC Date, Time, Method, # of Pages Mailed, Cost
The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children and the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise 33
How Does NEICE Improve Timeliness of Interstate Placements?
What Steps Can Court Leaders Take to Improve the Timeliness of Their ICPC Cases?
Quoting from the American Public Human Services Association’s project website, NEICE “is a web-based electronic case-processing system that…exchange[s] data and documents across state jurisdictions.” NEICE is, essentially, an interstate case management system that enables ICPC case tracking, document creation and transmission, communication among participating states, and data from which management reports and performance measures can be calculated.
First, what not to do: As Judge Stephen Rideout stated in his 2007 article, “The Promise of the New Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children,” “while prompt movement of children is important, safe movement of children is more important” (Child Law Practice 25, no. 11, p. 165). Shannon Foster explained that moving a child across state lines before the ICPC process is complete poses serious risks, most importantly to the child’s safety, but also: potential placement disruptions
Similar to e-filing in courts, NEICE transmits ICPC forms almost instantly between sending and receiving states, eliminating the lag time inherent in postal delivery. (NEICE also “significantly…reduced administrative costs,” by eliminating paper copying and postage.) NEICE provides immediate notice to ICPC staff that forms requiring their action have arrived in their queue. Nevada’s Shannon Foster also reports a notable improvement in the quality of data contained in the ICPC forms: thanks to business rules enforced in the NEICE user interface, incomplete or clearly inaccurate information (like a 1910s birthdate for a child) are eliminated. Improved data quality eliminates much of the time-consuming “back and forth” between states, trying to secure correct information about children and families so that the next ICPC step can be undertaken. Even more fundamentally, NEICE enables real-time communication between ICPC teams. No longer is an interstate placement delayed because the appropriate contact in a partner state was unknown or unreachable.
losses or gaps in Medicaid coverage difficulties with school enrollment loss of Title IV-E eligibility loss of services unintended consequences regarding the sending state’s liability
NEICE Implementation Process (As of March 7, 2016) 3
3
*
? 1
*
2
3
2
?
?
1
?
?
* *
NEICE ( = Pilot State)
*
1 Joining Year 1 (6/15-5/16) 2 Joining Year 2 (6/16-5/17) 3 Joining Year 3 (6/17-5/18) ? Joining Year (to be determined) Interested in Joining Not Interested in Joining (at this time)
34 Trends in State Courts 2016
*
2
1 2
*
DC
Family Law
So it is essential for court leaders to work intensely and collaboratively to improve their ICPC systems, rather than allowing their completely understandable frustration with ICPC delays to cloud their judgment about shortcutting the ICPC protocols in particular cases. Here are a few suggestions for concrete actions court leaders can take at the local and state levels.
1. Contact your ICPC administrator. An up-to-date list of ICPC administrators is maintained by the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (AAICPC) at http://tinyurl.com/jzu925q. If you have not had an opportunity to engage your state’s ICPC administrator, we encourage you to reach out. Three states, California, Ohio, and Colorado, are “decentralized” for ICPC purposes, meaning that ICPC communications and activities (like home studies) are managed at a county level. In these three decentralized states, collaboration between local juvenile and family court leaders and local ICPC administrators could be most beneficial.
2. Invite your ICPC administrator to your next judicial conference. We suspect that most family and juvenile court practitioners are not aware of the NEICE project, perhaps not even in the six pilot states. Including some time in the agenda for your next Court Improvement Program steering committee meeting or family judicial conference for your ICPC administrator is a good way to begin conversations about ICPC cases and your jurisdiction’s unique challenges. Perhaps you could use the ICPC process-flow diagram to identify the most time-consuming steps in your jurisdiction, as well as opportunities for improvement (including NEICE).
3. Collect baseline data about “time to permanency” for your court’s ICPC cases. Is it possible for your court to identify its ICPC cases, to calculate key court performance measures for those cases, and to compare the ICPC cases’ timeliness measures to all of the other dependency cases under your court’s jurisdiction? Being able to quantify ICPC delays in your jurisdiction can be very persuasive to policymakers.
4. Contact the NEICE project team. The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) is the prime mover of the NEICE project, together with the participation of the AAICPC. Following the successful initial pilot, APHSA and AAICPC received the financial support of the federal Department of Health and Human Services Children’s Bureau “to expand NEICE nationwide.” NEICE is now operating in eight jurisdictions, and 24 additional states are in the process of joining in the near future. The NEICE project team offers clear instructions on its website about how to express interest in implementing NEICE in your state, as well as key project documents to help you prepare.
NEICE is now operating in eight jurisdictions, and 24 additional states are in the process of joining in the near future.
The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children and the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise 35
5. Work with your court and child welfare IT teams.
Which Future Developments Might Benefit Courts?
NEICE was developed using national technical standards for messaging (Web Services) and data (National Information Exchange Model). Therefore, it is possible for your IT teams to develop interfaces among NEICE, your court case management system, and your child welfare information system. For example, Nevada built a data interface between NEICE and its child welfare information system, UNITY, reducing even further the time and effort required to prepare ICPC forms and “consume” ICPC responses from partner states. The District of Columbia, South Carolina, and Wisconsin did likewise. Nevada’s Deputy ICPC administrator, Shannon Foster, explained that her team is also benefiting from the availability of electronic court orders from the family courts in Clark County, Nevada.
The ICPC is not the only interstate compact governing children under your court’s jurisdiction; the Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) governs interstate placements in delinquency cases, and the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance (ICAMA) governs key financial resources, like adoption subsidies and Medicaid coverage. The NEICE project leaders were keen to design NEICE in such a way that it could be reused for ICJ and ICAMA cases, too. Thinking especially about children with both dependency and delinquency matters before your court, NEICE promises much-improved case management.
6. Work with your ICPC administrator and the NEICE project team to secure your court’s “read” access to NEICE. A common frustration with ICPC cases among court leaders is not knowing—not knowing whether a 100A packet has been sent, whether a home study has been completed, or when to schedule a hearing to review the receiving state’s report. Therefore, one of the most significant benefits NEICE offers courts is the ability to track an ICPC case’s progress and understand who is responsible for completing the next step. For example, Florida courts can now “view” their ICPC cases in NEICE.
36 Trends in State Courts 2016
Even further in the future, one can imagine NEICE enabling the calculation of safety measures for ICPC cases—today, an elusive goal for children placed across state lines. The case and person information in NEICE might allow courts to answer questions like, “How predictive of a child’s safety was the receiving state’s home-study report?” The key court performance measures for safety require matching a receiving state’s home-study packet with both the sending state and receiving state’s person-level records for a child. NEICE could help court leaders locate that data, and in so doing, improve not only timeliness but also safety.
Family Law
http://www.aphsa.org/content/AAICPC/en/actions/NEICE.html
The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children and the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise 37
www.ncsc.org
