Why the "New" Interstate Compact for Juveniles?
While the comprehensive revisions to the ICJ occurred more than a decade ago, its history is important in understanding the ‘context,’ which resulted in the enactment of the current statute which have been adopted by all fifty (50) states and two U.S. (2) territories.
The original Interstate Compact on Juveniles (1955 ICJ) was created when states handled relatively few interstate juvenile cases by comparison to today. The evolution of the manner in which juvenile justice issues are handled also added to the complexity of returns, supervision, and transfers. Moreover, the compact authority and structure were seriously outdated and incapable of responding to rapidly changing circumstances. Examples of these problems included:
- Limited knowledge of who was moving, and where and when they were going.
- Limited agreement between states regarding what “supervision” meant and the services to be provided to transferees.
- Limited ability and commitment to notify victims, communities, and law enforcement officials of the movement of juveniles.
- The Association of Juvenile Compact Administrators (AJCA) could identify failures to comply with established rules but was severely restricted in its ability to enforce compliance.
- Rules promulgated under the 1955 ICJ were legally questionable because the compact did not delegate rulemaking authority to a governmental body.
- Inconsistent adoption of amendments to the compact which were not enacted by all member states.
Consequently, three (3) amendments to the 1955 ICJ had been drafted by the 1990s. However, only a few states had enacted all three (3) amendments, with a majority of states having adopted only one or two. This lack of uniformity created substantial inconsistency in interpretation and application of the 1955 ICJ. There was no longer a common agreement between states concerning what types of juveniles could be sent to other states for supervision, and no meaningful or enforceable authority to hold other states accountable for following either the previous ICJ statute or the prior compact rules. These issues prompted concerns that the purposes and goals of the 1955 ICJ could not be carried out, and that public safety was at risk.