Finding Permanent Homes for Adoptable Children - Pepperdine ...

Conclusions: Federalizing Does Not Represent the Best Course
Ultimately, the strengths of option one are outweighed by the disadvantages of such an approach.
Federalization offers no creative way to better use the ICPC, a system that is flawed, not broken. Option
one eliminates the possibility for collaboration by replacing one governing body with a much larger one.
When analyzing the foster care system, a program managed by federal directives, the numerous stories of
abuse, neglect, and even death within that system are evident, and this provides strength in the argument
against centralized management. A discussion of a more decentralized and creative option that uses the
inherent strengths of public agencies and addresses the weaknesses within the standing system follows.
Option Two: Revision of the ICPC
The second option is to execute a revision of the multilateral agreement that currently provides the
infrastructure of the ICPC. The revision of the ICPC, with the maintenance of the compact’s original
collaborative tone, is a challenging task but not one that is insurmountable. As it is written, the AAICPC
(a representative delegation from all 52 jurisdictions in place for support and regulatory direction)
requires agreement from each state or jurisdiction before initiating compact revision begins. After
reaching such consensus, it is the responsibility of the individual state legislatures to approve the
recommendations and incorporate the ICPC into local legislation. Option two involves revising the
language of the ICPC, creatively revising the procedural directives in the compact, and using both short-
and long-term objectives for restructuring the process while state legislatures take time to examine these
revisions and accept them.
Advantages of Reforming the Existing Multilateral Agreement
The most important consideration in analyzing option two is that the current framework is functioning.
The ICPC process is successful at placing children, only not at an optimal level. The tools for an
effective process exist within the ICPC now, but with an effort to update the compact, suitable to address
the needs of current placements, these tools are put to a more effective use. The administrative aspect of
the ICPC operates relatively efficiently, but local preparation and follow-up are not enjoying a similar
level of success. The proposed revisions seek to increase efficiency through better allocation and use of
funding and people power. Subsequently, a more effective process ensures successful placements, those
most consistent with best interests of the child.
The revisions proposed in option two maintain the collaborative integrity and local control of the ICPC.
They also go further in providing incentives to harness the creative spirit of ICPC personnel; much more
so than seen in the standing compact process. Preserving state and county sovereignty not only sustains
24