The revised absconder rules shift from automatic retaking to a more nuanced approach that considers individual circumstances and rehabilitation potential, reducing unnecessary resource use. The proposed definition of "abscond" now includes actively avoiding supervision, allowing better differentiation between intentional absconders and those with mitigating circumstances. New investigative procedures ensure thorough and consistent efforts to locate absconders, leading to more informed decisions. Additionally, states can now mutually agree to forgo retaking if an absconder is apprehended within 30 days, promoting flexibility, collaboration, and a more tailored response to violations.

Please login to submit your comment.

Strike language ‘in any 12 month period.’  Language is unnecessary and sometimes leads to confusion regarding consecutive versus cumulative days.  Furthermore, AO 4-2012 appears to support this amendment.

Please login to submit your comment.

States varying interpretations of ‘revocation’ create confusion in the retaking process. Some states define revocation as appearing before the court, while others define it as the removal of community supervision to incarceration. This inconsistency leads to misunderstandings among states regarding the retaking process and expectations. After a forum discussion among DCAs, the consensus that defining the term was necessary.  By defining "revocation" in the Commission’s rules, the same standard can be applied across all member states.

Please login to submit your comment.

Resolves inconsistency between definition language in the rules and statute.

Please login to submit your comment.

This proposal provides clear criteria for what deferred sentences should qualify for compact transfers as listed in AO's 4-2004 & 6-2005.  Incorporating the criteria into the rule provides enforceable clarity and ensures consistent interpretation and application.

Please login to submit your comment.

Clearly defining violations of this rule and granting receiving states discretion to allow individuals to remain during investigations can help prevent unnecessary returns. States often reject cases by citing this rule without considering how the supervised individual entered the receiving state, especially when virtual sentencing may not involve actual relocation. Requiring prompt notice, coordination, investigation, and communication can improve outcomes, reduce unnecessary returns, and enhance victim safety in the sending state.

Please login to submit your comment.

Create new rule for reporting instruction qualifications and processes for sex offenders to improve accessibility to requirements.  The addition of requesting the conviction paperwork (judgment and sentencing) pertaining to the sex offense, if available, is helpful for states to better determine registration/requirements in the receiving state, especially in cases where the instant offense is not the registerable sex offense.  Including reference to virtual sentencings will acknowledge in the rule the practice that many states have and will support the interpretation of this rule issued in the Legal Implications of Remote Hearings in Relation to ICAOS Rules issued in 2021 and avoid unnecessary denials of reporting instructions in these situations.

Please login to submit your comment.

Currently the information regarding reporting instructions being submitted after release from incarceration in the receiving state is listed under Rule 3.102 which is titled ‘submission of transfer request to a receiving state.’  To make the rules more accessible and information easy to find, create a new rule with this information as it is a different issue/process. Procedure language in proposal mirrors Midwest’s proposal for Rule 3.103 keeping the processes consistent.  Separating this into a new rule would ensure requirements for reporting instructions for those released from incarceration in a receiving state are easy to find.

Please login to submit your comment.

The primary objective of Rule 3.103 is to allow residents of a receiving state to return to their residence once they have been sentenced by a court or sentencing authority as well as when there has been a violation or revocation proceeding resulting in immediate supervision. Rule 3.103 outlines the responsibilities of both the sending and the receiving states. It's important to note that the compact rules do not dictate how judges or sentencing authorities should sentence individuals who commit crimes or violate supervision requirements. Instead, they focus on managing the supervision imposed by these authorities and ensuring proper communication occurs between states.

Please login to submit your comment.

This revision enhances clarity for responsibilities and resolves inconsistencies in language. The rule is updated to ensure it is not directly dependent on ICOTS processes but instead aligns with the governing rule (Rule 4.105). This approach maintains flexibility for potential system redesigns that may not include the same forms or processes currently in use.  Removing section (e) aims to eliminate confusion between reporting a ‘failure to arrive’ and prematurely withdrawing an acceptance, which often leads to unnecessary inefficiencies during the transfer process.

Please login to submit your comment.

Minor revision and clarification that the supervised individual does not ‘submit’ a request to transfer.

Please login to submit your comment.

Rule 3.110 adopted in 2020 covers travel permits to the sending state during supervision.  As the rule is not part of the transfer process, but rather a process during the term of supervision in the receiving state, the rule should be re-numbered to Chapter 4 of ICAOS rules.  The title should also be revised to reflect the circumstances of when the rule is applied. 

Please login to submit your comment.

The FY25 Retaken/Retransferred Assessment highlights inconsistencies in supervision documentation and the need for improvement. It found that risk assessments and related documentation are rarely shared, though crucial for managing violations and supervision. This proposal establishes requirements for documentation/communication and clarifies the receiving state’s authority to impose sanctions, ensuring consistency with locally sentenced individuals and reinforcing the ‘treat like your own’ principle.

Please login to submit your comment.

The proposed revision establishes a standardized timeframe by requiring departure notifications to be transmitted no earlier than five (5) business days prior to the intended departure date. This ensures consistency across jurisdictions and enhances the effectiveness of interagency coordination. By explicitly mandating the inclusion of travel details, the revision improves tracking capabilities and accountability. Additionally, clarifying that this rule applies to individuals under all applicable ICAOS rules ensures comprehensive coverage and uniform compliance.  Removal of language in section (c) will help reduce confusion among ICOTS users, as withdrawing reporting instructions prematurely can result in unnecessary work and confusion during the transfer process.

Please login to submit your comment.

Reinstating annual progress reports will strengthen oversight, improve decision-making, and ensure that supervision remains responsive to the needs of individuals under supervision.  The decline in reliable supervision documentation, including lack of comprehensive progress reports, has contributed to an increase in out-of-state subpoenas, as sending states struggle to make informed decisions due to incomplete case information. This reporting gap makes it difficult to track an individual’s success or challenges during supervision. Reinstating annual progress reports will help address these issues by ensuring sending states have accurate, up-to-date information to guide their decisions and reduce risks associated with insufficient documentation.

Annual progress reports are critical for ensuring that supervision decisions remain responsive to the evolving needs of supervised individuals. Their reinstatement serves four key purposes:

• Comprehensive Documentation for Supervision: Regular progress reports maintain a consistent record of an individual’s compliance, status, and supervision history. They ensure transparency and accountability, supporting both incentives and corrective actions.

• Informed Decision-Making by Sending States: Routine reporting provides essential insights into an individual’s compliance, progress, and response to interventions, allowing sending states to make informed decisions about supervision conditions, modifications, or early termination.

• Risk-Based Supervision and Compliance Monitoring: Progress reports enable supervision agencies to adjust risk levels and tailor responses appropriately. This supports a graduated response model that balances accountability with effective interventions, rather than relying solely on punitive measures.

• Addressing Criminogenic Needs: Regular documentation ensures that treatment participation and completion are tracked consistently, providing a clear picture of rehabilitation efforts. This enables supervision agencies to adjust treatment plans, apply supportive measures, and promote behavioral change—ultimately enhancing public safety and reducing recidivism.

Please login to submit your comment.

This rule revision provides clearer, more specific guidelines regarding the return of a supervised individual to the sending state. Under the revised rule, receiving states cannot simply send an individual back unless there is a clear violation, and the individual is unwilling to return voluntarily, they must provide adequate reason for the return. The proposal enhances procedural efficiency, reduces ambiguity in the return process, and promotes a more effective interjurisdictional management framework for supervised individuals. This proposal serves to uphold public safety while ensuring due process and compliance with existing regulations.

Please login to submit your comment.

Re-word (a)(1) for simplicity and clarity and added reference to ‘subsequent state transfers.’ 

Please login to submit your comment.

This update will provide an alternative mechanism for disposition of a VOP due to a new crime conviction outside of the sending state where supervision is the sentence. In these cases revocation is not likely and this rule change will provide clarity that the offender does not have to currently be incarcerated to utilize the electronic hearing alternative process to dispose of a VOP where incarceration or supervision is ordered in the new conviction.

Please login to submit your comment.

This revision aims to enhance clarity and readability while maintaining the essential information and structure of the original passage.  Given the complexity of navigating violation situations and retaking individuals under supervision across state lines, the aim of this rule is to ensure that violations are handled appropriately and timely, taking into account factors such as the severity of the violation, whether it's related or unrelated to a new crime conviction, violation, or revocation resulting in incarceration or a new term of supervision.

With the increase in remote sentencing and a focus on swift and certain supervision, the updated language clarifies that remote hearings are permissible for a sending state to address violations while concurrently dealing with a sentence of incarceration or supervision for a new crime/violation/revocation committed outside of the sending state.

Please login to submit your comment.

This revision merges clarity and readability of the Midwest's proposal to 5.101-2 and the South's proposal to 5.101-2 to not require retaking when the sentence is 'supervision.'  Given the complexity of navigating violation situations and retaking individuals under supervision across state lines, the aim of this rule is to ensure that violations are handled appropriately and timely, taking into account factors such as the severity of the violation, whether it's related or unrelated to a new crime conviction, violation, or revocation resulting in incarceration or a new term of supervision.

With the increase in remote sentencing and a focus on swift and certain supervision, the updated language clarifies that remote hearings are permissible for a sending state to address violations while concurrently dealing with a sentence of incarceration or supervision for a new crime/violation/revocation committed outside of the sending state.

Please login to submit your comment.

Establishes a new 30-day timeframe for conducting a probable cause hearing:  In Morrissey v. Brewer the court held that due process requires a prompt inquiry. While Morrissey did not establish a specific time period to conduct the hearing, it did recognize the requirement of applying timeliness to due process. This proposal sets out to address those probable cause hearings requested by the sending state that far exceed what one could reasonably consider timely. Such delays or inaction violate and infringe upon a supervised individual’s due process. The proposed language seeks to rectify such timeliness issues for transferred individuals who are subject to retaking and for whom a probable cause hearing has been requested by the sending state.

Please login to submit your comment.

Consolidating these provisions into two rules ensures that all aspects of retaking, authority, transport, timelines, financial obligations, and procedural responsibilities, are clearly outlined and easy to find in the rules.  Unifying these rules enhances accountability by defining clear procedural steps and responsibilities for both the sending and receiving states as well as authority for transport and retaking.  The consolidation will help minimize disruptions in the retaking process, while also supporting states in fulfilling their obligations efficiently.

Please login to submit your comment.