As previously discussed, supervised individuals do not have a constitutional right to travel, and states are not constitutionally required to accept supervised individuals from other states. Consequently, the ICAOS is the sole mechanism by which states can regulate the interstate movement of adults under community supervision. A state that repeals the ICAOS forfeits its participation in a formal system that governs such movement. This means that, theoretically, a state could direct a supervised individual to relocate to a non-member state without adhering to basic considerations, such as providing prior notice, reviewing a proposed supervision plan, or assessing the availability of resources to support the supervision plan’s goals. In essence, non-member states risk becoming both a dumping ground for individuals from other states and being subject to similar practices. Additionally, individuals from states that are not members of the ICAOS may face a range of state laws and regulations that could even prohibit relocation. See, e.g., COLO. REV. STAT. § 17-27.1-101(3) (b) (2002). For example, a state statute that mandates psychological testing and registration for all out-of-state individuals being supervised for a felony offense may not be enforceable against felons from states that are members of the ICAOS, cf., Doe v. Ward, 124 F. Supp.2d 900, 916 (W.D. Pa. 2000), but may be enforceable against felons from states that are not members of the Compact. Stated differently, participation in the ICAOS guarantees not only the regulated movement of individuals under community supervision but also ensures that out-of-state supervised individuals receive the same resources and supervision as their in-state counterparts. This includes access to incentives, corrective actions, graduated responses, and other supervision techniques. Conversely, non-participation or withdrawal from the Compact could result in differential treatment of out-of-state supervised individuals, potentially leading to disparate requirements that may effectively hinder their transfer to the non-member state, while still complying with due process and equal protection principles.