This landmark Final Report of the Joint Committee on ICPC Improvement is significant for several important reasons: 

The report was completed with the collaborative work and endorsement of three national organizations. It included family and juvenile law judges, state public child welfare administrators, and ICPC compact administrators; 

This report focused on the issue of delay as the primary and universal complaint about the day-to-day operation of the ICPC, and in response, it presents a new expedited process for courts to use in making a finding of a need for priority placement of certain children; 

The report makes clear that the ICPC is statutory law in all member states and jurisdictions, and as such, it is the responsibility of each state to ensure that its ICPC process is responsive and timely in both the sending and receiving modes; 

The report reminds all of us that each local social service worker can be both a "sender" and a "receiver" with reference to requests for home studies and postplacement supervision, and that all persons involved in the ICPC process of placing children in safe homes must work together to reduce delays in the placement of children; 

The report recommends new approaches to obtaining a timely home study through innovative use of private sector resources as well as identifying "best practices" in the public sector. 

This report is being released during the second year of the Court Improvement Program, a national grant program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which provided an opportunity to the highest court in each state to assess and improve the handling of proceedings relating to foster care and adoption.

Furthermore, even though it is not a "federal program" and therefore does not receive direct federal funding, the ICPC must work in conjunction with all parts of the child welfare process to be successful in its effort to place children into safe and supervised homes. 

1. Words and phrases used in this regulation shall have the same meanings as those ascribed to them in the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). A word or phrase not appearing in ICPC shall have the meaning ascribed to it by special definition in this regulation or, where not so defined, the meaning properly ascribed to it in common usage. 

2. Whenever a court, upon request, or on its own motion, or where court approval is required, determines that a proposed priority placement of a child from one state into another state is necessary, the court shall make and sign an order embodying that finding. The court shall send its order to the Sending Agency within two (2) business days. The order shall include the name, address, telephone number, and if available, the FAX number, of the judge and the court. The court shall have the sending agency transmit, within three (3) business days, the signed court order, a completed Form 100A ("Request for Placement") and supporting documentation pursuant to ICPC Article III, to the sending state Compact Administrator. Within a time not to exceed two (2) business days after receipt of the ICPC priority placement request, the sending state Compact Administrator shall transmit the priority request and its accompanying documentation to the receiving state Compact Administrator together with a notice that the request for placement is entitled to priority processing. 

3. The court order, ICPC-100A, and supporting documentation referred to in Paragraph Two (2) hereof shall be transmitted to the receiving state Compact Administrator by overnight mail together with a cover notice calling attention to the priority status of the request for placement. The receiving state Compact Administrator shall make his or her determination pursuant to Article III (d) of  ICPC as soon as practicable but no later then twenty (20) business days from the date the overnight mailing was received andforthwith shall send the completed 100-A by FAX to the sending state Compact Administrator. 

4.    (a) If the receiving state Compact Administrator fails to complete action as the receiving state prescribed in Paragraph Three (3) hereof within the time period allowed, the receiving state shall be deemed to be out of compliance with ICPC. If there appears to be a lack of compliance, the court, which made the priority order, may so inform an appropriate court in the receiving state, provide that court with copies of relevant documentation in the case, and request assistance. Within its jurisdiction and authority, the requested court may render such assistance, including the making of appropriate orders, for the purpose of obtaining compliance with thisRegulation and ICPC. 

(b) The foregoing shall not apply if: 

(1) within two (2) business days of receipt of the ICPC priority placement request, the sending state Compact Administrator determines that the ICPC request documentation is substantially insufficient, specifies that additional information is needed, and requests the additional documentation from the sending agency. The request shall be made by FAX, or by telephone if FAX is not available, or

(c) Where the sending state court is not itself the sending agency, it is the responsibility of the sending agency to keep the court, which issued the priority order, informed of the status of the priority request. 

5. A court order finding entitlement to a priority placement shall not be valid unless it contains an express finding that one or more of the following circumstances applies to the particular case and sets forth the facts on which the court bases its finding: 

(a) the proposed placement recipient is a relative belonging to a class of persons who, under Article VIII(a) of ICPC could receive a child from another person belonging to such a class, without complying with ICPC and; (1) the child is under two (2) years of age; or (2) the child is in an emergency shelter; or (3) the court finds that the child has spent a substantial amount of time in the home of the proposed placement recipient.

(b) the receiving state Compact Administrator has a properly completed ICPC-100A and supporting documentation for over thirty (30) business days, but the sending agency has not received a notice pursuant to Article III (d) of ICPC determining whether the child may or may not be placed.

6. Time periods in this regulation may be modified with a written agreement between the court which made the priority order, the sending agency, the receiving state Compact Administrator, and the sending state Compact Administrator. Any such modification shall apply only to the single case to which it is addressed. 

7. To fulfill its obligations under ICPC, a state and its local agencies must process interstate cases no less quickly than intrastate cases and give no less attention to interstate hardship cases than to intrastate hardship cases. If in doing so, a receiving state Compact Administrator finds that extraordinary circumstances make it impossible for it and its local agencies to comply with the time requirements set forth in this regulation, it may be excused from strict compliance therewith. However, the receiving state Compact
Administrator shall, within two (2) business days of ascertaining inability to comply, notify the sending state Compact Administrator via FAX of the inability to comply and shall set forth the date on or before which it will complete action. The notice shall contain a full identification and explanation of the extraordinary circumstances which are delaying compliance. 

8. Unless otherwise required or allowed by this regulation, all transmittals of documents or other written materials shall be by overnight express mail carrier service. 

9. This regulation shall take effect on October 1, 1996. 

This regulation is adopted pursuant to Article VII of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children by action of the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children at its annual meeting on April 28, 1996, in Whitefish, Montana.

 Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) 

Priority Placement

Effective October 1, 1996, ICPC Regulation No. 7 establishes ICPC procedures1 for the out-of-state priority placement of children.
ICPC Regulation No. 7 sets forth limited circumstances under which this procedure may be used. 

1. The court, upon request, or on its own motion, or where court approval is required, determines that a proposed priority placement
of a child from one state to another state is necessary. 

The court order finding entitlement to a priority placement shall not be valid unless it contains an express finding that one or more of the following circumstances applies to a particular case and sets the facts on which the court bases its findings: 

(a) the proposed placement recipient is a relative belonging to a class of persons who under Article VIII (a)2 of ICPC  could receive a child from another person belonging to such a class without complying with ICPC, and (1) the child must  be under two (2) years of age; or (2) the child is in an emergency shelter, or the court finds that the child has spent a  substantial amount of time in the home of the proposed placement recipient. 

(b) the receiving state Compact Administrator has a properly completed ICPC-100A and supporting documentation for  over thirty (30) business days, but the sending agency has not received a notice pursuant to Article III (d) of ICPC  determining whether the child may or may not be placed. 

The court order and finding must contain the typed name, address, telephone number, and, if available, the FAX number of the judge
and the court issuing the order. Additionally, the court order must be signed by its issuing judge. 

2. The court has two (2) business days to send the signed court order to the sending agency. The sending agency shall have three (3) business days to send a priority placement request package containing the court order and documentation required under an ICPC request, including the ICPC-101 Form (Priority Home Study Request), to the sending state ICPC Administrator by overnight express mail carrier service. 

3. The sending state ICPC office shall have two (2) business days to validate the priority placement request package and forward same, by overnight express mail, to the receiving state ICPC office. 

4. The receiving state ICPC Administrator shall have twenty (20) business days from the date of receipt of the priority placement request package to obtain sufficient information from his local receiving agency to make a determination as to whether the requested priority placement may or may not be made. The completed ICPC-100A Form (Request for Placement) shall be faxed to the sending state ICPC administrator, who will then fax the copy of the completed ICPC-100A to the sending agency. The latter is obliged to
notify the court in the sending state. 

5. ICPC Regulation No. 7 also provides for certain contingencies, such as noncompliance by the receiving state Compact Administrator, receipt of substantially insufficient documentation from the sending court and/or the sending local agency, procedures for obtaining additional documentation and/or information, and mutually agreed upon modifications to the time-period deadlines. 

6. If the receiving state fails to complete action within the prescribed time-period, the receiving state shall be deemed out-of-compliance with the ICPC. 

7. If there appears to be a lack of compliance, the court that made the priority order may so inform an appropriate court in the receiving state and provide the court with copies of relevant documentation of the case, including the making of appropriate orders, for the purpose of obtaining compliance with ICPC and Regulation No. 7 as adopted on April 28, 1996. 

If extraordinary circumstances make it impossible to comply with the time requirements set forth in Regulation No. 7, the receiving state has two (2) business days to notify the sending state of the problem. The notice shall contain a full identification and explanation of the extraordinary circumstances that are delaying compliance and shall set forth the date on or before which the receiving state will complete action.
 

1 A booklet on Priority Placement procedures has been developed and for a cost of $9 can be obtained from: Office of the ICPC Secretariat, 810 First Street, NE, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20002-4267 .

This compact shall not apply to:  (a) the sending or bringing of a child into a receiving state by his parent, stepparent, grandparent, adult brother or sister, adult uncle or aunt, or his guardian and leaving the child with any such relative or nonagency guardian in the receiving state. 

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have independently adopted the ICPC as statutory law in their respective jurisdictions.

A joint committee with representation from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) and the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (AAICPC) (see Appendix A), was established by the three national organizations listed above. The Joint Committee's mission was:

• · to help children;
• · to eliminate delays in the placement of children in appropriate family homes across       state lines; and
<>
• · to simplify the ICPC process while making the process user friendly.

To implement some of the recommendations contained in this report, it was necessary for the Compact Administrators of the ICPC to adopt Regulation No. 7, which the ICPC provides for under Article VII. Besides initially drafting Regulation No. 7, the Joint Committee also drafted the 10 Recommendations described herein. 

The Joint Committee has made the following recommendations:

(1) IMPROVE INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION 

Provide for concurrent transmittal of ICPC requests to the receiving state ICPC office and to the local agency performing the home
study;

Encourage telephonic communication between the local offices of the sending and receiving states to confirm receipt of the request,
and to expedite information exchange and initiation/completion of the home study;

(2) DEVELOP NATIONAL TIMEFRAME STANDARDS FOR PROCESSING ICPC REQUESTS 

--Adopt time standards for ICPC case processing at the:

· Sending state local agency/office;

· Sending state ICPC office;

· Receiving state ICPC office;

· Receiving state local agency/office;

Eliminate any delay at the originating court by having a court order signed immediately upon judicial determination of abuse and/or neglect;

Establish a protocol by which certain cases can be expedited through the ICPC process;

Establish criteria for a judicial determination of need for a `priority placement finding';

Establish an `expedited processing timeline' for a judicially determined priority placement finding.

(3) DEVELOP NATIONAL STANDARDS AND FORMAT FOR ICPC HOME STUDIES 

Establish a common protocol/outline for a home study to include a criminal background check and an abuse/neglect history clearance;

Establish `streamlined home study criteria' for a noncustodial parent or for relatives when a judge has made a finding of `priority placement' need.

(4) ADOPT NEW METHODS AT LOCAL AGENCIES/OFFICES TO HANDLE ICPC REQUEST PROCESSING 

Treat incoming ICPC requests with the same level of priority as local placement actions;

Use designated workers or units to increase competency and efficiency in performing ICPC home study requests and post-placement supervision;

Expand list of local providers/agencies eligible to perform a home study and/or postplacement supervision;

Expand methods of obtaining a home study.

(5) ENSURE APPROPRIATE COURT OVERSIGHT OF ICPC PLACEMENTS 

Establish criteria for termination of jurisdiction after approved placement with a noncustodial parent;

To ensure that all ICPC placements are at least annually reviewed according to state law.

(6) UTILIZE AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TO EXPEDITE THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND TO IMPROVE THE RECORDING, TRACKING, MONITORING, AND REPORTING OF ICPC CHILD PLACEMENTS 

Use facsimile transmission and overnight express mail;

Establish ICPC on the Internet to economically link state ICPC offices;

Use Internet e-mail in addition to the telephone for nonconfidential communication;

Identify local/state/national ICPC workload impact;

Continue development of an ICPC state office database program;

Urge the identification of ICPC children in state-automated child welfare information systems.

(7) UTILIZE UCCJA AS A MODEL FOR JUDGE-TO-JUDGE COMMUNICATION AND FILING OF A COURT ORDER WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN UNDUE DELAY IN ICPC CHILD PLACEMENTS OR WHEN A CASE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PRIORITY PLACEMENT.

(8) CONTINUE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ICPC IMPROVE- MENT AS A FORUM FOR NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS' REVIEW AND INPUT.

(9) ESTABLISH STATE ICPC IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEES.

Contact State Court Improvement Project committees.

(10) ESTABLISH ICPC ARTICLE V (B) AGREEMENT PROTOCOLS FOR CONTIGUOUS JURISDICTIONS TO FACILITATE CHILD PLACEMENTS WITH CARETAKERS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, BUT SEPARATED BY A COMMON STATE BORDER.

Respectfully submitted by a joint committee created for this purpose, said committee consisting of members from each of the following organizations, and augmented by their executive support staff:

1. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ); 

2. National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA), an affiliate of the American Public Welfare Association (APWA);

3. Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (AAICPC), also an affiliate of the APWA.
 

The Joint Committee on ICPC Improvement generally agreed that the purposes for which the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children was created in the late 1950s were, and still are, very important for the protection of children as they move across state lines into out-of-state placements. There is no question that children undergo stress and trauma when they are removed from their parents. These recommendations are therefore directed at placing the child with someone in a good and safe environment as soon as possible so that the effects of removal can be somewhat ameliorated. The Joint Committee is committed to work together toward not onlyupholding it original intentions, but to tackle its current problems and identify and solve any obstacles in the foreseeable future.

The ICPC, which is statutory law in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, was also established to prevent the "dumping" of problematic child placement cases by one state into another state in order to avoid the possible substantial expenseassociated with complex medical and/or other human conditions. The positive aspects of ICPC include:

•   better information about proposed placements for children
• · home studies
• · supervision by the receiving state
• · services
• · sending state's continued jurisdiction

The Joint Committee also felt that the ICPC process, as operated by the member states, must eliminate the delays and follow established best practices in completing ICPC home studies. The desired effect of the ICPC, which is a quicker and safer placement of the child, should be a positive experience for the child who has been traumatized by removal from parental care.

The positive features of ICPC, however, have been overshadowed by the nonuniform child welfare staff practices in some local offices of both sending and receiving states; this has resulted in delays in placing children, most of whom are placed with a parent or with relatives. Many individuals who are also concerned about the welfare of children have felt that the ICPC process delays placement of children. The enormity of the concern caused a wake-up call for several compact administrators, and it was the prime motivating factor in the creation of this Joint Committee. There was general agreement by the participating organizations that the ICPC system needs significant improvement in reducing delays. Failure to do so in a timely manner may result not only in continueddeterioration of the present ICPC system, but could also produce more attempts by placers to bypass the ICPC.

The operation of the ICPC relies on its member states to cooperate in handling each other's requests for home studies and postplacement supervision. Any local office can be both a sending agency, in which it is seeking a home study in the other receiving state, as well as a receiving agency, in which another state sending agency is requesting a home study and postplacement supervision. The creators of the ICPC may have felt that local offices would apply the Golden Rule to interstate requests, and that this approach would suffice. To be sure, they could not have foreseen the incredible increase in the number of cases requiring interstate placementnor the significant increase in local child welfare offices' caseloads.

The Joint Committee is aware that publicly funded staffing levels of local child welfare offices, as well as courts, have not kept pace with the growth in child protection cases. However, this alone was not a justifiable reason for the fairly common practice of placing interstate cases at the bottom of the in-basket. The following recommendations are put forth in good faith by the Joint Committee in the hope that everyone involved in the ICPC system will sense the urgency of taking immediate action to improve the ICPC system,
and that new approaches to handling interstate cases will be welcomed and encouraged. As one Committee member put it, "A child is a child regardless of where he or she happens to live."
 

The following were members of the Joint Committee on ICPC Improvement:

Samuel G. Ashdown, Jr.
Compact Administrator
Children & Family Services
Program Office (PDCFI)
FL Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services
1317 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
(904) 487-2760

Ernestine Barbieri
Deputy Compact Administrator
California Dept. of Social Services
744 P Street, MS 19-90
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-2807
(916) 445-2898 (FAX)

Frank Barthel, JD
Secretariat, AAICPC
810 First NE
Washington, DC 20002-4267
(202) 682-0100

Mike Chapman
Deputy Compact Administrator
Arizona Dept. of Economic Security
3225 North Central Avenue
10th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85005
(602) 235-9134, ext. 7102

The Honorable Leonard P. Edwards
Superior Court of California
Santa Clara County
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 299-3949
(408) 293-9408 (FAX)

Ramona Foley
Director
Family Preservation & Child Welfare Services
South Carolina Department of Social Services
P.O. Box 1520
Columbia, SC 29202-1520
(803) 734-5670
(803) 734-6220 (FAX)

The Honorable Martin A. Herman
Superior Court, Old Courthouse, #2
Broad & Delaware Streets
Woodbury, NJ 08096-0316
(609) 853-3257
(609) 848-9493 (FAX)

Marjorie Kelly, Deputy Director
Adult and Family Services Division
California Department of Social Services
744 P Street, M/S 17-18
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 657-2614

Bob Praksti, Director
Permanency Planning Project
National. Council of Juvenile
& Family Court Judges
1041 N. Virginia St.
Reno, NV 89557
(702) 784-6012

The Honorable Michael A. Town
Family Court of Hawaii
First Circuit
777 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 539-4074
(1) 539-4504 (FAX)

    July 17, 1996

Whereas, delays in the placement of children across state lines have occurred due to nonuniform child welfare staff practices in placing dependent children through processes defined under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), which all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have adopted as statutory law in their respective jurisdictions, and 

Whereas, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA), and the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (AAICPC), convened an Joint Committee to develop recommendations for reducing delays in making interstate placements of dependent children, reaffirm best practices in completing ICPC home studies, and improve the ICPC; and 

Whereas, the Joint Committee has issued 10 recommendations and a priority regulation outlining judicial authority to expedite the interstate placement of dependent children; and 

Whereas, NAPCWA has reaffirmed the need for joint support between the courts and public child welfare agencies to expedite interstate placements; and 

Whereas, the AAICPC adopted the recommendations and passed the priority regulation pursuant to Article VII of the ICPC at its 22nd Annual Meeting in April 1996 and will assist all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to implement and promulgate these recommendations and regulation;

    (45 ILCS 15/0.01) Sec. 0.01.  Short title.  This Act may be cited  as  the  Interstate Compact on Placement of Children Act.
(Source: P.A. 86-1324.)

    (45 ILCS 15/1) Sec. 1. The Interstate Compact  on  the  Placement  of  Children  is hereby  enacted  into  law and entered into with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein in form substantially as follows:

INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN

ARTICLE I. Purpose and Policy

It is the purpose and policy of the party states to cooperate with each other in the interstate placement of children to the end that:

(a) Each  child  requiring placement shall receive the maximum opportunity to be placed in a suitable environment and with persons or institutions having appropriate qualifications and facilities to provide a necessary and desirable degree and type of care.

(b) The appropriate authorities in a state where a child is to be placed may have full opportunity to ascertain the circumstances of the proposed placement, thereby promoting full compliance with applicable requirements for the protection of the child.

(c) The proper authorities of the state from which the placement is made may obtain the most complete information on the basis on which to evaluate a projected placement before it is made. (d) Appropriate jurisdictional arrangements for the care of children will be promoted.

ARTICLE II. Definitions As used in this compact:

(a) "Child" means a person who, by reason of minority, is legally subject to parental, guardianship or similar control.

(b) "Sending agency" means a party state, officer or employee thereof; a subdivision of a party state, or officer or employee thereof; a court of a party state; a person, corporation, association, charitable agency or other entity which sends, brings, or causes to be sent or brought any child to another party state.

(c) "Receiving state" means the state to which a child is sent, brought, or caused to be sent or brought, whether by public authorities or private persons or agencies, and whether for placement with state or local public authorities or for placement with private agencies or persons.

(d) "Placement" means the arrangement for the care of a child in a family free or boarding home or in a child-caring agency or institution but does not include any institution caring for the mentally ill, mentally defective or epileptic or any institution primarily educational in character, and any hospital or other medical facility.

ARTICLE III. Conditions for Placement

(a) No sending agency shall send, bring, or cause to be sent or brought into any other party state any child for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption unless the sending agency shall comply with each and every requirement set forth in this article and with the applicable laws of the receiving state governing the placement of children therein.

(b) Prior to sending, bringing or causing any child to be sent or brought into a receiving state for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption, the sending agency shall furnish the appropriate public authorities in receiving state written notice of the intention to send, bring, or place the child in the receiving state. The notice shall contain:

ARTICLE IV. Penalty for Illegal Placement

The sending, bringing, or causing to be sent or brought into any receiving state of a child in violation of the terms of this compactshall constitute a violation of the laws respecting the placement of children of both the state in which the sending agency is located or from which it sends or brings the child and of the receiving state. Such violation may be punished or subjected to penalty in either jurisdiction in accordance with its laws. In addition to liability for any such punishment or penalty, any such violation shall constitute full and sufficient grounds for the suspension or revocation of any license, permit, or other legal authorization held by the sending agency which empowers or allows it to place, or care for children.

ARTICLE V. Retention of Jurisdiction

(a) The sending agency shall retain jurisdiction over the child sufficient to determine all matters in relation to the custody, supervision, care, treatment and disposition of the child which it would have had if the child had remained in the sending agency's state, until the child is adopted, reaches majority, becomes self-supporting or is discharged with the concurrence of the appropriate authority in the receiving state. Such jurisdiction shall also include the power to effect or cause the return of the child or its transfer to another location and custody pursuant to law. The sending agency shall continueto have financial responsibility for support and maintenance of the child during the period of the placement. Nothing contained herein shall defeat a claim of jurisdiction by a receiving state sufficient to dealwith an act of delinquency or crime committed therein.

(b) When the sending agency is a public agency, it may enter into an agreement with an authorized public or private agency in the receiving state providing for the performance of one or more services in respect of such case by the latter as agent for the sending agency.

(c) Nothing in this compact shall be construed to prevent a private charitable agency authorized to place children in the receiving state from performing services or acting as agent in that state for a private charitable agency of the sending state; nor to prevent the agency in the receiving state from discharging financial responsibility for the support and maintenance of a child who has been placed on behalf of the sending agency without relieving the responsibility set forth in paragraph (a) hereof.

Withdrawal from this compact shall be by the enactment of a statute repealing the same, but shall not take effect until two years after the effective date of such statute and until written notice of the withdrawal has been given by the withdrawing state to the Governor of each other party jurisdiction. Withdrawal of a party state shall not affect the rights, duties and obligations under this compact of any sending agency therein with respect to a placement made prior to the effective date of withdrawal.

 ARTICLE X. Construction and Severability

The provisions of this compact shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes thereof. The provisions of this compact shall beseverable and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to the constitution of any party state or of the United States or the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. If this compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state party thereto, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining states and in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable matters. (Source: P.A. 78-1198.)

  (45 ILCS 15/2) Sec. 2. Financial responsibility for any child placed pursuant to the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article V thereof in the first instance. However, in the event of partial or complete default of performance thereunder, the provisions of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, approved August 28, 1969, as amended, also may be invoked.(Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

  (45 ILCS 15/3) Sec. 3. The "appropriate public authorities" as used in Article III of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children shall, with reference to this state, mean the Department of Children and Family Services, and the Department shall receive and act with reference to notices required by Article III. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

  (45 ILCS 15/4) Sec. 4. As used in paragraph (a) of Article V of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, the phrase "Appropriate authority in the receiving state" with reference to this state means the Department of Children and Family Services.(Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

  (45 ILCS 15/5) Sec. 5.  The officers and agencies of this State  and its subdivisions having authority to place children are empowered to enter into agreements with appropriate officers or agencies of or in other party states pursuant to paragraph (b) of Article V of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. Any such agreement which contains a  financial  commitment or imposes a financial obligation on a subdivision of this State shall not be binding unless it has theapproval  in  writing of the chief local fiscal officer of the subdivision. (Source: P.A. 82-474.)

  (45 ILCS 15/6) Sec. 6. Any requirements for visitation, inspection or supervision of children, homes, institutions or other agencies in another party state which may apply under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles or any other Act or regulation shall be deemed to be met if performed pursuant to an agreement entered into by appropriate officers or agencies of this state or a subdivision thereof as contemplated by paragraph (b) of Article V of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.(Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

  (45 ILCS 15/7) Sec. 7. No Act or regulation restricting out of state placement shall apply to placements made pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

  (45 ILCS 15/8) Sec. 8. Any court having jurisdiction to place delinquent children may place such a child in an institution in another state pursuant to Article VI of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and shall retain jurisdiction as provided in Article V thereof.(Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

  (45 ILCS 15/9) Sec. 9. As used in Article VII of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, the term "executive head" means the Governor. The Governor is authorized to appoint a compact administrator in accordance with the terms of said Article VII. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)