The ICAOS was written to address problems and complaints with the ICPP. Chief among the problems and complaints were:

• Lack of state compliance with the terms and conditions of the ICPP;
• Enforceability of its rules given there was no enforcement mechanism provided in the ICPP. Thus, the enforcement tools provided for in the rules of the Parole and Probation Compact Administrators’ Association (PPCAA) were limited and problematic;
• Questions as to whether the PPCAA could legitimately be construed as “like officials” conferring authority to promulgate rules under the terms of the ICPP;
• The increasing tendency of state legislatures to adopt statutes that conflicted with the terms, conditions, and purposes of the ICPP due to notorious failures in Compact management. For example, Colorado adopted legislation prohibiting “the travel of a supervised person who is a nonresident of this state . . . without written notification from the administrator of the interstate Compact of acceptance of the supervised person into a private treatment program.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27.1-101(3) (b) (2002). The Colorado legislature specifically found that “The general assembly further finds that although Colorado is a signatory to the interstate Compact for parolee supervision, more information concerning out-of-state offenders is necessary for the protection of the citizens of Colorado, and it may be necessary to further regulate programs that provide treatment and services to such persons.” See, Doe v. Ward, 124 F. Supp. 2d 900, 916 (W.D. Pa. 2000) (Pennsylvania’s attempt to impose higher restrictions on out-of-state sex offenders than it imposed on in-state sex offenders violated the terms of the ICPP and rules adopted pursuant to that Compact); and,
• Questions regarding which individuals were covered by the Compact, especially with the growing use of alternative sentencing practices, such as suspended imposition of sentence and diversion programs, which did not easily align with the terms and definitions of the ICPP.