As discussed, the transfer of supervision for a supervised individual is mandatory in some circumstances. Receiving states are required to accept the transfer if the individual meets the eligibility criteria outlined in Rules 3.101 and 3.101-1. As covered in Chapter 5, the sending state has sole discretion to retake the individual, unless the individual is convicted of a new felony or violent crime or engages in behavior requiring retaking. See Rule 5.102 and 5.103. This presents a question: What happens if the supervised individual neither commits a new felony nor receives a new conviction for a violent crime and does not demonstrate a pattern of noncompliance but the original circumstances leading to the transfer significantly change?

Under ICAOS rules and as a general principle, a change in the underlying circumstances that mandated the transfer of a supervised individual does not, by itself, require the sending state to retake that individual if the transfer was the result of a mandatory acceptance under Rule 3.101 or Rule 3.101-1. However, a different rule may apply in the context of a discretionary transfer under Rule 3.102. In such cases, the transfer is voluntary, and the receiving state could demand retaking based on a change of circumstances if this condition was placed on the supervised individual. For example, Rule 4.103 allows the receiving state to impose conditions post-transfer, which could include a requirement that the supervised individual demonstrate and maintain a means of support, with the failure to do so being grounds for retaking by the sending state. Any conditions imposed on a supervised individual, whether at the time of acceptance or during the term of supervision, must be reasonably related to the overall purposes of the Compact, which are to promote rehabilitation and public safety. The rule of “reasonableness” applies to mandatory and discretionary transfers without distinction.