Certain provisions limit a sending state’s discretion and require retaking when specific criteria are met. In these circumstances, the receiving state may invoke the applicable rule, and the sending state must retake the supervised individual. Whether retaking is triggered by a new felony or violent crime conviction or by behavior requiring retaking, the underlying conduct constitutes revocable conduct under the Compact—that is, conduct that would support rescission of supervision and imposition of a custodial sentence under the receiving state’s standards, as “revocation” is defined by the Compact.
Adopted in 2025 to ensure consistent application and to promote transparency during the retaking process, the compact defines revocation as ‘the course of action by a court, sentencing authority or paroling authority to rescind a supervised individual’s supervision term and impose a jail or prison sentence due to an act or pattern of behavior that could not be successfully addressed through documented corrective actions or graduated responses in the community.’ member states may interpret and apply revocation procedures inconsistently, leading to disparities in how compact individuals are supervised and returned to sending states. This definition ensures uniform standards across member states, reducing inconsistent application, promoting fairness, and protecting the due process rights of supervised individuals during retaking.