While the sending state has sole authority to determine the duration of supervision, whether through the court’s sentence or by paroling authorities, the receiving state retains discretion over the type of supervision it will provide. Rule 4.101 requires the receiving state to supervise the individual in a manner consistent with how it supervises similar individuals within its jurisdiction. As a result, there may be differences in the quality and nature of services provided by the sending state compared to those offered by the receiving state under its own rules and laws.

The principle of treating individuals moving through the compact equally applies to both the quality and quantity of supervision and access to rehabilitative programs. See Doe v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 513 F.3d 95, 108 (3rd Cir. 2008) (“By signing the Interstate Compact, Pennsylvania has agreed that, when accepting out-of-state probationers who transfer their parole and their residence to the Commonwealth, it will approximate the same procedure and standards it applies to its own probationers”). A receiving state may impose conditions on an out-of-state individual if these conditions aid in rehabilitation and promote community safety (see discussion infra, at § 3.3.2). However, it would violate the Compact for a receiving state to create barriers to rehabilitation programs or to impose conditions on out-of-state individuals that are not similarly applied to in-state individuals. See e.g., ICAOS v. Tennessee Bd. of Probation and Parole, No. 04-526 KSF (E.D. Ky. 2005).

Rule 3.101 affirms the sending state’s sole discretion and prevents the receiving state from unilaterally imposing additional conditions to obstruct the transfer of supervised individuals it deems undesirable or from shifting the financial obligation of supervising the individual to the sending state. See Doe v. Ward, 124 F. Supp.2d 900, 915-16 (W.D. Pa. 2000) (interpreting a similar provision in the old ICPP to invalidate aspects of Pennsylvania’s “Megan’s Law” that treated out-of-state supervised individuals differently from those supervised in-state). See also ICAOS Advisory Opinion 9-2004 (“[I]t is our opinion that CSL offenders are subject to supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision and upon proper application and documentation of a valid plan of supervision and verification of residency and employment criteria as required under those rules should be permitted to transfer to other states for supervision under the Compact”).

PRACTICE NOTE: Rule 4.101 requires that receiving states supervise individuals transferred under the Compact in the same manner as they would supervise in-state individuals. Receiving states must apply all supervision techniques and behavior responses used for in-state individuals, except for modifying the supervision term or revoking conditional release.