Rule 4.107 permits the collection of fees from individuals subject to the Compact. Specifically, Rule 4.107(a), allows the sending state to impose a transfer application fee, while Rule 4.107(b) authorizes the receiving state to impose a supervision fee. Generally, such fees are established by state statutes or state administrative rules. See Holloway v. Cline, 154 P.3d 557 (Kan. App. 2007) (Imposition of a $25.00 per month interstate Compact supervision fee without providing a hearing before assessing such fee does not violate a supervised individual’s Constitutional rights to due process of law). It is important to note that once a supervised individual transfers supervision to a receiving state, the authority of a sending state to collect any type of supervision fee ceases, to the extent such fees are truly supervision fees. Therefore, while a sending state can impose a supervision fee for the time the supervised individual is physically present in that state, it cannot continue to charge such a fee under the pretense of monitoring the individual's progress once they have moved to the receiving state.

A sending state may impose other fees on supervised individuals so long as those fees are not related to supervision. For example, a sending state could impose an annual fee on sex offenders so long as that fee had “no direct relationship to the supervision of such offenders.” See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 14-2006.

In the context of AO 14-2006, a state statute allowed for the collection of an annual fee from sex offenders to support the maintenance of the state's sex offender registry and victim notification systems. This fee was an annual assessment and was distinct from an ongoing supervision fee related to the active supervision of an individual. The ICAOS concluded that while the sending state could impose such a fee, it was solely responsible for collecting it and could not transfer this responsibility to the receiving state.