I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

15 business days are too long. would like it to be 10 business days. Too much can happen in 15 buisness days.

I support this proposal

Yes

If no, explain

In section (d) (c), the length of time from sentencing to release is being shortened from 6 months to 60 days presumably because it doesn't take as long as before ICOTS to submit a TREQ and receive a TREQ Reply. I agreed 6 months is too long but 60 days is too short if 45 days of that is given to the RS for the investigation. I would suggest 90 days would be more reasonable - 6 weeks for the SS to gather and submit the TREQ documentation and verifications and 45 days for the RS to investigate.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

See above

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

Comments

I support the use of documentation and information about how the residency was verified. I see this potentially being a reason states try to deny RIs, because they do not like how the verification was completed or they have a different way of doing verification.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

Does this rule need to be updated, yes, but these changes are not solving the problem. With the use of virtual sentencing, this rule as written would allow for an offender for which a VR was submitted to be seen on the violation and then immediately returned to the same failed situation (in some cases, back to their victim). This rule seems to forget that transfer requests are a privilege, not a right, and that an offender should be in "substantial" compliance. The ISC should not be a dumping ground for misbehaving offenders. The use of this rule to immediately return offenders after a VR is one of the reasons we have so many "returned & resubmit" issues. That problem was not addressed with these changes.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

Comments

Similar to the proposed new rule comments. This situation is common in Hawaii. We would ask that the mutual agreement between both sending and receiving state be solidified prior to retaking or mandatory RI being requested.

I support this proposal

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

It should say "documentation or details regarding how." What happens if the client has no driver's license or ID but will be living with someone in their home. Would a letter from the person they will be residing with suffice as documentation?

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

I believe that 15 business days is too long; however, it is consistent with other timeframes within the rules.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

I would like to see language added regarding states with early release mechanisms to be applicable in these situations. Consistent with RNR principles and other legislative framework, you seen increased incentives for programming that result in substantial earned credit and the confusion on state sentencing structure can lead to cases being denied RIs because of the length of the sentence that they actually served and not submitting a TR timely, etc. It may be more applicable under the new rule for supervised individuals released from incarceration in the RS, but I think this is a population of people that we are missing that are not always afforded the availablity to go back home immediately.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

for consistency, the word "electronic" hearing should be changed to "virtual" as I believe it is elsewhere in the rules.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

NY would not support this proposal. The intent of this rule to was to allow those individuals who were living in the receiving state at the time of sentencing in the case to be eligible for immediate return to their home in the receiving state after sentencing. This rule was also intended to apply to those individuals who had transferred their supervision to the receiving state as required by the terms of the ICAOS, were retaken by the sending state on a violation of probation, continued supervision as a disposition of that violation and are requesting to return to the receiving state. This rule was not intended for individuals who absconded to another state, returned to the sentencing state as a fugitive from justice or otherwise and are requesting transfer after the disposition of the violation in the sentencing state. In such cases, the receiving state should not have an obligation to grant reporting instructions for an individual who relocated to the receiving state outside of the ICAOS requirements. Such requests should be submitted as expedited, allowing the receiving state the opportunity to consider the reason for the request, the suitability of the plan, etc.
Section (c)(2) is vague in that it does not outline the required documentation. NY would also not agree with extending the timeframe for submission in section (d). Section (d) provides the sending state with 15-business days to submit the request for reporting instructions. This timeframe seems to be in line with the timeframe proposed in Rule 3.103, both of which NY would not be in favor of. This allows an individual to be present in the receiving state for up to 3 weeks before a request for reporting instructions is even submitted. There are already issues with the timely submission of reporting instructions under the current 7-business day timeframe and the fear is, if that timeframe is extended to 15-business days, there will be no motivation for states to submit requests promptly and the requests will continue to be submitted outside timeframe proposed. The 60-day timeframe proposed also seems like too short of a timeframe and will lead to individuals who were living in the receiving state at the time of sentencing having to remain in the sending state when their only available resources are in the receiving state. This is not in line with the justification provided for the rewrite of this rule.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

It is suggested that the subsections in (c) and (d) should be numbered 1, 2, and 3, not a, b, and c.

Comments

The justification indicates that the proposed language protects victims in the sending state and in the public at large. The proposal does not take into consideration situations where a supervised individual absconded from supervision in the sending state and relocated to the receiving state, following a victim.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

(d) 15 business days is too long

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

If no, explain

This rule could alleviate unnecessary returns to the sending state should there be a viable plan in place. Sending states should address the know public safety risks. If the plan is not worthy of accepting, then the supervised individual could always return to the sending state. Afterall, the sentencing authority simply wants compliance with supervision. Although obtained not through the preferred method, supervised individual has reestablished their self. and had their prior violation addressed. We Shold now focus on stability and the best opportunity for the individual to successfully complete supervision.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

The verbiage in subsection (a) "or after a disposition of a violation or revocation proceeding" is problematic and flies in the face of the Compact's Mission to ensure public safety for the 21st century. The 2015 ABM justification was clear when this language was proposed. It only included persons who were compact transfers, who were retaken, reinstated and then asking to return to the RS. To interpret this language to include parole and probation violators and absconders who can be virtually sentenced and remain in the potential RS with no regard for public or victim safety is not in line with the Compact. The Commission is the sole body responsible for the tracking of adult persons across state lines and yet this body is proposing a rule that will incentivize and reward absconders with mandatory RI's from the RS. If we do not preserve the Compact's intent and mission, no one will. Transfer is a privilege. Bagley v Harvey. 1988 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

Remove the verbiage "or after a disposition of a violation or revocation proceeding."

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

Would consider 10 business days for section (d) instead of 15 as 15 days may be too long.

Comments

KS likes (b) which now includes the option to request assistance in getting signatures as this has been a point of contention with other states in the past.

I support this proposal

No

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

Comments

The language included in proposed subsection (a) “or after a disposition of a violation or revocation proceeding” has always been interpretated differently from state to state. This language can be interpreted to mean that any non-compact supervised person on parole or probation in violation or abscond status will qualify for mandatory reporting instructions from the receiving state. This proposal leaves no recourse for the Receiving State and seems to incentivize relocating without permission.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

I have concerns about the language requiring “documentation and details” on how the supervised individual’s residence in the receiving state was verified. Requiring formal documentation may create an unintended barrier and could give the receiving state a reason to deny otherwise mandatory reporting instructions.

I recommend removing the word “documentation” and requiring only “details” regarding how residence was verified. This would still provide transparency without setting an unnecessarily high threshold that could delay or prevent appropriate RFRIs.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

3.103 MANDATORY REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS (RI) FOR SUPERVISED INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN THE RECEIVING STATE
Rule No Several Issues:
• Changes RIs from mandatory to discretionary if offender incarcerated more than 60 days (was 180 days)
• Puts more ownness on correctional facilities to initiate transfer packages (versus supervision agency)
• Potentially penalizes the client with homelessness in the sending state pending full transfer package vs. receiving mandatory RIs
• Burden on supervision agencies to complete interstate transfer during pre-release planning when address information is constantly changing

I have suggested changes

No