There are two interstate compacts that mandate interstate procedures in the juvenile justice court – the Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ), and the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC). Compacts are agreements between two or more states that bind them to the compact’s provisions. Compacts are subject to substantive principles of contract law, and compacting states are bound to observe the terms of their agreements, even if those terms are inconsistent with other state laws. Compacts may not be unilaterally renounced by a member state, except as provided by the compacts themselves. Congress and the courts can compel compliance with the terms of interstate compacts, which is why compacts are considered the most effective means of ensuring interstate cooperation.

1. The Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) – The ICJ was originally established in 1955. It is a multi-state agreement – a legal contract involving all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, – that provides a procedural means to regulate the movement across state lines of juveniles who are under court supervision or who have runaway. It is estimated that ICJ handles the transfer of supervision and returns of more than7000 juvenile offenders and non-offenders annually.

The purpose of the ICJ is to ensure that adjudicated youth and status offenders are provided adequate supervision and services; or return youth who have absconded, escaped, or run away, and ensure that public safety interests are protected. The ICJ achieves its purpose by providing an agreed system for:

  1. Cooperative supervision of delinquent juveniles on probation or parole;
  2. The return, from one state to another, of delinquent juveniles who have escaped or absconded;
  3. The return, from one state to another, of non-delinquent juveniles who have run away from home; and
  4. Additional measures for the protection of juveniles and of the public, which any two or more of the party states may find desirable to undertake cooperatively.

In each compacting state and territory, a Compact Administrator is responsible for the administration and management of the state’s supervision and transfer of juveniles subject to the terms of the Compact and the rules adopted by the Interstate Commission for Juveniles. Compact Administrators (along with their deputies and designees) work with other state and local officials.

The ICJ Rules set forth requirements for transfer of supervision and return of runaways; probation/parole absconders; escapees; accused delinquents; and status offenders. The Commission also provides standardized forms and a national data system for effective exchange and tracking of related information. Additional resources, include a Bench Book and Bench Cards, are available at www.juvenilecompact.org.

2. The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) – The second of the two compacts is the ICPC. It is the only statutory mechanism juvenile and family court judges and child protection agencies have to ensure protection and services to children who are placed across state lines for foster care or adoption. The ICPC is a law that has been enacted verbatim by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It establishes orderly procedures for the interstate placement of children and fixes responsibility for those involved in placing the child.

The ICPC covers children that courts have found to be abused or neglected and adjudicated delinquents who are placed in private residential treatment facilities. The ICPC operates through state compact administrators located in the state human services agency, and the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (AAICPC), which is affiliated with the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA). The ICPC is administered by the Secretariat of the AAICPC and staffed by the APHSA.

Comparison of the ICJ and the ICPC – In order to compare the ICPC and ICJ regarding the question of out-of-state confinement of adjudicated delinquents, it is necessary to know the intent of both compacts and to analyze the relevant provisions of each. The Secretariat of the AAICPC has concluded the following:

  • Under Article VI of ICPC, adjudicated delinquents can be placed in private institutions.  Conceivably, they could also be placed in public institutions, but this is not the present practice, nor to the best of our knowledge is it being considered.
  • Article X of ICJ could be used to place adjudicated delinquents in public institutions, if appropriate steps were taken. The use of ICJ for placements in private institutions might be possible, but it would be more difficult.

A summary of the points leading to the Secretariat’s conclusion is as follows:

  • The ICJ does not provide for the out-of-state confinement of youth who have been adjudicated delinquent, but does authorize “supplementary agreements” for this purpose. In order to use the ICJ for the out-of-state confinement of a delinquent youth, a supplementary agreement must be in place between the two states. In addition, consent of the parent or guardian is required in order to make an out-of-state placement through ICJ.
  • Article VI of the ICPC was designed to facilitate and directly authorize the out-of-state confinement of adjudicated delinquents in private institutions. No supplementary agreements are required. It does require a juvenile justice court hearing, at which time the court must make three findings: 1) equivalent facilities for the child are not available within the state; 2) placement into another state is in the best interests of the child; and, 3) the placement will not cause undue hardship. With these juvenile justice court findings, the placement can be made through ICPC without the consent of the parent or guardian.

It is important to note that unless the procedures and requirements of either the ICJ or ICPC are followed, the placement of a delinquent youth in another state will not be lawful. When placing a delinquent youth who is still subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice court under the delinquency matter, it is essential that the court’s authority be continued in force. If the youth is sent out of state improperly, this jurisdiction will be lost. As a result, the youth will no longer be subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the state that made the adjudication and ordered the confinement and care. The receiving state will not have any compulsory jurisdiction. Consequently, the youth’s presence in the institution will be on nothing more than a voluntary basis.