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 individuals transferred in a manner consistent with the supervision and risk level of other similarly sentenced 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.
Under Rule 4.101, a receiving state must supervise transferred individuals in a manner consistent with similarly sentenced individuals in that state. This includes the level and intensity of supervision, access to rehabilitative programs, and the use of incentives, corrective actions, and graduated responses. The rule ensures that out-of-state supervised individuals are not subject to disparate treatment or excluded from resources available to in-state individuals. As explained for the prior Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole in Doe v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 513 F.3d 95, 108 (3d Cir. 2008), by joining the Compact, states agree to “approximate the same procedure and standards” for transferred individuals that apply to their own supervised population. A receiving state may impose conditions that support rehabilitation and public safety, provided those conditions are applied in the same manner as they are to similarly situated in-state individuals. The compact prohibits differential treatment based solely on an individual’s transfer status.
Rule 3.101 reinforces that the sending state retains authority over the conditions of supervision and that receiving states may not use additional conditions or financial barriers to obstruct transfer or shift costs. See Doe v. Ward, 124 F. Supp. 2d 900, 915–16 (W.D. Pa. 2000) (invalidating state practices under the prior Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole that treated out-of-state individuals differently under “Megan’s Law”). See also ICAOS Advisory Opinion 9-2004 (confirming that individuals under community supervision for life (CSL) remain eligible for transfer under the Compact if all requirements are met).
PRACTICE NOTE