I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

I believe the existing rule already requires that these contacts are attempted prior to the offender being considered an absconder. If the offender is a threat in the community can become and subjective thing that can become debatable. With the current process you can already ask the Receiving State to remove the retaking obligation.

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

If no, explain

The update to this rule provides more defined procedures and time frames. The updates remove the need for self-interpretation which has caused challenges in the past.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

The 30 calendar days from initiation of absconding investigation seems pretty long - consider maybe 15 -20 days? Also, when taken in conjunction with 4.109, if the OVR cannot be submitted until 30 calendar days and then the RS has another 30 calendar days from the determination of absconding (last check done) then that would be 60 days from the initial missed appointment before an OVR is submitted. I understand an OVR can be submitted earlier for certain situations but even for a general absconding, is 60 days too long?

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

4.109-2: this is difficult to implement without documentation. How does one state know where a client is “frequenting”
-this would be better for training/best practices versus an actual rule requiring – very easy to skirt around

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

Comments

Once a client is apprehended/spoken with, resuming superision makes the most sense in a lot of cases.
Few clients are truly revoked based off absconding violations alone (varies by state)

I support this proposal

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

The use of the wording "multiple attempts" is ambiguous and will lead to some states conducting two attempts while other states will request 3, 5, maybe even 10 attempts before they will accept the VR.

Also, our officers do not have the ability to run "record checks" so they would not be able to comply.

Next, there is ambiguity in the use of "after 30 calendar days". "After" is a long time, I would recommend the use of the term "not located within 30 calendar days". This will also require a change to 4.109 as part (a) states that the receiving state SHALL notify the sending state of an act or pattern...[ ]...within 30 calendar days of discovery. Therefore 4.109 and the changed language in 4.109-2 would be in direct conflict.

Next, in section 5.103-1, it mandates that a PC hearing be completed on all absconders whereas before it was at the discretion of the sending state to request one. This conflicts with 5.108 as that language states, (a) An offender subject to retaking that may result in a revocation shall be afforded the opportunity for a probable cause hearing. If PC must now be established on all absconders, does that mean all absconders are now up for revocation of their supervision?

Finally, I would point out that with these new changes, an absconder could be unsupervised for at a minimum of 80 days and still be continued on supervision (VR after minimum 30 days, + 15 business days for warrant (that's 20ish calendar days) + 30 more days after warrant =80+ days absconding). How does that promote public safety?

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

Comments

I think not having to retake if found within 30 days if both states agree helps with limited resources states may have.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

I think referencing "residences the individual is known to frequent" is subjective and may lead to OVRs being overly questioned if that info isn't available or included in the OVR details.

Comments

I think this structure mirrors a practice that is already occurring in many states.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

Using the word "multiple" attempts is vague and will lead to disagreements between states.

"residences the individual is known to frequent" is subjective and will likely be cumbersome for field staff to complete.

"after 30 calendar days" is too long. States should have the latitude to immediately submit a VR if the information received at that point supports it.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

Rule 4.109-2: Regarding subsection (c)(2) - additional language could be added noting, ‘left residential treatment against medical advice’, to address this scenario.

Comments

Rule 1.101: Regarding subsection (b), the language ‘took action’ is questionable and undefined as to its intention.

Rule 4.109-2: Regarding subsection (c)(4) – This subsection could be left open to interpretation, and misused by receiving states for purposes of ‘violent behavior’ and ‘escalating violations’. ‘Clear risk to victim safety’ should be its own line, #5.

I support this proposal

Yes

If no, explain

I support this change; it organizes the process and gives the supervising state a check off list when filing a violation for absconding.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

Comments

I support this change; it organizes the process and gives the supervising state a check off list when filing a violation for absconding.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

NY would not agree with the proposed change to the definition of abscond. The proposed language is ambiguous and open to interpretation in the receiving state which will likely lead to inconsistencies in its application. The current definition provides a clearer definition of what it means to abscond. NY would not agree with the proposed changes to 4.109-2 as the 30-day timeframe being imposed will not only be difficult to identify but also to enforce. Additionally, if a supervised individual has been identified as an absconder by the receiving state, forcing the receiving state to delay the submission of the report for 30-days poses potential community/victim safety and liability issues in the receiving state. NY would not support the language proposed in Rule 5.103-1. The proposed language in section (b) presents a challenge to states geographically and places a requirement on a receiving state to establish probable cause for all absconders located within the receiving state. Often, an individual is taken into custody and retaken without the compact office's knowledge.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

In 5.103-1, it is suggested that “jurisdiction that issued the violation report” be added in section (b) as this would clarify that probable cause must be established in those cases where the individual, who was thought to be an absconder, is apprehended in the jurisdiction that submitted the violation report.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

I do not agree with the entire proposal. However, I do believe some aspects of the proposal should be considered. I believe the current definition of abscond presents clear meaning in accordance with the policy. However, I also believe the definition should provide more detail. See suggestion.

I believe the proposed changes to 4.109-2(a) should be made more clear and specific, as it seems more confusing then the current rule in place. (a)1-6 should be clarified more. See suggestion. Subsection (b) seems confusing how it is worded. See suggestion for (b).

I believe subsection (c), (d), and (e) are fair proposals.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

Suggested definition of abscond:
**Abscond – When a supervised individual is absent from the approved place of residence (in accordance with approved transfer request, unless a residence change was addressed with supervising personnel), treatment facility (if residency is required by sentencing order or supervising personnel), or making themselves unavailable for supervision by failing to comply with reporting requirements (avoiding interaction with probation physically and telephonically).

ICAOS Rule 4.109-2:
For subsection (a) - "reasonable efforts" should be defined more clear and specific.
(a)1 - 6: See suggested changes below
1.) Attempt to contact the supervised individual by all methods of communication available to supervising personnel, where all attempts are documented providing the date, time, method of communication and outcome.
2.) Attempt to locate supervised individual at all relevant addresses on file (to include last known residence, familial residences, if applicable; address of employer, or address of co-parent, if applicable.)
3.) Make contact with school/employer to inquire about recent attendance (when supervised individual was last seen)
4.) Contact any community agencies where the supervised individual may be receiving services.
5.) Contact roommates or any collateral contact provided in the original transfer request.
6.) Complete a records check for new arrests, if applicable)

For subsection (b):
(b) *All attempts to locate the supervised individual shall be made 30 days prior to submitting an absconder violation.
- The receiving state has 30 calendar days to investigate, prior to deeming the supervised individual an absconder.
- After 30 calendar days has elapsed or when determination has been by made exhausting all efforts to locate the supervised individua; the receiving state shall submit a violation pursuant to 4.109(b)(8)

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

MN is concerned about the language "other residences known to frequent" as requiring agents to conduct a home visit at an unknown location is a safety issue. Also, that residence could be hours/miles away and it would not be possible for agents to physically go there.
Also concerned about the requirement for PC rather than at request. It could delay retaking and hold clients in custody longer than necessary.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

Rule 105.3- warrants can currently be staffed for withdrawal and removing retaking, so I think this is more of a training issue and it is not necessary to add to a rule.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

I support the process of confirming the abscond, however I think 30 days to wait before sending a VR is too long and should have no time limit attached if abscond is established by rule. The section of the rule regarding option for no retake if apprehended within 30 days resolves the perceived issue with quick locations.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

WI would suggest removing the requirement to check other residences the supervised individual is known to frequent. It is a safety concern for officers to be required to check a residence they never did a residence assessment on. Additionally, WI has concerns with the discrepancy between some sections stating multiple attempts and some stating documented attempts. Is one documented attempt enough? "Multiple" is vague and could lead to inconsistencies among states. WI also believes that requiring usage of databases will lead to confusion and inconsistencies and recommends striking number 6.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

I like the new definition of absconding. I do not like some of the requirements in the rules changes. I do not want my officers having to go to unknown residences looking for a client potentially. I also do not like the 30 day wait period because if the due diligence is done before that time in trying to locate the client, why do we have to wait until that magic number? I get confused at times by seeing the need to add more rules when we have a hard time getting some entities engaged to follow the already existing ones. I think there is already a great deal of collaboration between those states that want to do so in addressing some of these absconding cases without retaking the client in certain situations. This can be done through the use of addendum to violation reports and communication.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

See Comments section.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

See overall comments

Comments

PA does not fully support this amendment. Although we do believe that the definition of “abscond” needs to be updated and solidified, and this refinement is well-thought-out, we have great reservations about the proposal to bypass diligent searches and declare absconding when evidence therefor is lacking.
A group in PA discussed the impact of the “multiple attempts to contact the supervised individual…” language. While this may be a bit trivial, the question was raised as to what is considered “multiple.” Do we train end users that this is more than one attempt and that two will suffice, for example? Would it be appropriate to correct the language and remove “multiple” and replace it with “more than one…” or place a numerical minimum of attempts (2, 3, 4, 5). Otherwise, receiving states may just stick with two attempts. Also, may the attempts be done via the same manner each time (i.e. phone calls; text messages)? May the attempts be back to back in the span of a few hours or in the same day? If the proposal passes, will the amendment be trained that these attempts be spread out over the 30-day span of time noted in section (b)? As a disclaimer, PA does recognize that rules cannot be over inflated and worded in such a specific manner to cover what could be a training aspect. We simply wish to outline these specific questions to seek guidance if this package results in an amendment.
Our legal counsel offered the following regarding 4.109-2, section 6. The proposal provides that the receiving state “conduct record checks utilizing databases to assist in locating the individual.” What type of record checks? What databases? We find this language is vague and it should be better defined what databases are expected to be reviewed by the receiving state to locate an individual. (e.g. DMV records, registration depositories).
Next, there is cause for concern regarding the proposed language in 4.109-2(c). Our legal counsel provided the following questions regarding 4.109-2(c). Does this section create something like a 30-day safe harbor for someone who “checks out” of supervision for less than 30 days, but does not fall within one of the exceptions? Does this prevent a receiving state from posting a wanted notice in NCIC prior to the sending state issuing a warrant? Further our counsel noted cause for questions as it related to “escalating violations.” What are “escalating violations?” Are they multiple violations of the same type of conduct or different conduct?
The language does not support due process—to deem someone an absconder simply based on the existence of a criminal accusation is unsupportable. Further, we would assert that the action of forgoing the requirements of section (a) and (b) of 4.109-2 diminishes the value of a diligent search for an individual who is suspected of absconding. It further removes the potential positive outcome of locating the individual. Section (b) of “abscond” indicates the individual took actions to make themselves unavailable and failed to comply with reporting requirements. This then begs the question…how are receiving states ensuring the individual meets the proposed definition of “abscond” if their agents are able to forgo the requirements of 4.109-2 (a) and (b)? In essence, section (c) of 4.109-2 removes the litmus test that proves the individual absconded supervision and that supervision staff independently verified such.
While we understand the public safety mechanism attached to 4.109-2(c), we are concerned with having an assumption of guilt be codified as a reason to bypass an investigation and production of evidence. There can be no shortcuts to proper due legal process. A supervised individual who has been accused of a new crime is still innocent until proved guilty. The lack of a diligent search not only creates an additional public safety risk but also fails to allow a receiving state to establish PC for absconding if the individual is apprehended in the receiving state. If new criminal charges are dismissed after a receiving state invokes 4.109-2(c), how does a receiving state prove absconding when there is no evidence of such due to the receiving state forgoing the evidence collection that would have occurred in 4.109-2(a) and (b)? The concept of “may forgo subsection (b) and immediately submit a violation report to the sending state” is also in conflict with Rule 5.101-1 and the Commission’s position in Advisory Opinion 1-2014. Allegations of behavior without substantive proof are not admissible in Gagnon and Morrissey hearings. Removing the requirement for a validated diligent search means that a sending state cannot rely on a receiving state to provide adequate documentation and justification for a warrant, and the successful prosecution of a VOP is in jeopardy.
Per 4.109-2(c)3., we must contend that although the removal of a GPS device can be indicative of absconding, it is not sufficient in and of itself to establish that absconding has occurred.
The proposal mentions in 4.109-2(c) a “new criminal offense of a violent, sexual, or serious nature.” How does one define a crime of a “serious nature?” The subjective nature in how one interprets serious nature will allow for undue challenges between signatories.
In section 4.109-2(e), it reads that the sending state shall file a detainer with the holding facility if the individual is apprehended in the receiving state. As a matter of current practice, the sending state should already be doing this in any signatory where the individual has been apprehended on the sending state warrant. The language as written in the proposal seems to be too specific in that it just addresses apprehension in the receiving state. Making this section read as follows may make be more appropriate: If a supervised individual is apprehended on the sending state’s warrant within the receiving state, the sending state shall file a detainer with the holding facility where the individual is in custody.
In 5.103-1, the proposal speaks to the apprehension of the individual in the receiving state within 30 days and both states seeking a mutual agreement not to retake. As a sending state, we see value to not having to retake in this specific scenario. The concern that we would face in PA as the receiving state is the inability to verify a home plan for an individual for whom we have closed interest and the Compact case is closed. After submission of a VR and CCN for absconding, our agency will close interest internally on the individual’s supervision. The validation of the CCN closes the loop as well. As the proposal is written, PA will rarely be able to “mutually agree.” The reasons are that after a CCN is submitted and validated, we have no authority to enter an individual’s home or take any steps to verify the plan is still viable. The conclusion of the original transfer ends our liability and ability to now act as if the Compact matter was active. In PA, having a valid approved plan of supervision is vital and required. After we close interest in an individual’s supervision, we relinquish our ability to now go back to a home and gain entry to verify its suitability. We suspect many other states would be in the same position, and the concept of continuing supervision may entail a request for reporting instructions to reopen a case to be consistent with other post-VOP-disposition matters.
Legal counsel reflected that Under proposed section (b), it states that the receiving states shall establish probable cause as outlined in Rule 5.108. However, does this mean that the receiving state needs to establish probable cause even if the individual has waived their right to probable cause? I ask that because the current rule says you need probable cause, unless waived as provided for in Rule 5.108(b). By taking this language out, one might infer that probable cause needs to be established even if the individual waived their right to a hearing.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

Current Rules are clear and concise. There is need for national and consistent training on the existing abscond rules. There appears to be little accountability for states who send abscond violation reports that do not comply with the existing rules and little accountability for states who do not issue compact compliant warrants for absconders.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

This proposal includes undefined terms such as "multiple attempts" if left undefined will cause confusion and disagreements. The proposal in 4-109-2 b. states "after 30 calendar days" which is open to interpretation. Current rules use "no later than," or "no earlier than," or "within." That language is suggested here;" within 30 calendar days"

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

"Multiple attempts" is ambiguous and will lead to states setting their own required number of attempts. Should be a set number of attempts in the rule.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

Comments

I don't fully agree with multiple attempts especially when it is obvious that the individual is no longer at the residence of record. I have the same issue with 30 days after the beginning of the investigation period when the all attemts to locate the individual indicate the SI is no longer in the area and there is nothing to be gained by repeating the attempts to locate the SI.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

The 4.109-2 section of the proposal needs to be cleaned up. There is language that is not clear and concise such as "multiple attempts" in section (a)(1). Also section (b) states "after 30 days" whereas rule 4.109 states that notification of a violation shall occur "within 30 days"

Comments

KS supports this rule proposal. KS believes it is necessary to state that and individuals failing to complete with reporting requirements should be consider an absconder as this has been a point of disagreement between some states. This rules does a good job defining "abscond" and outlining requirements to determine an individual an absconder. KS does like sections 4. and 6. of the 4.109-2 section of the proposal however there is room for further clarification within this section of the rule. KS supports that changes in the 5.103-1 section of the proposal, although some states may practice communicating and allowing individuals to remaining in the receiving state given the circumstances, other states may try to enforce retaking so stating that this is an option within the rules is helpful to allow sending states the ability to allow a supervising individual not to be retaken if this criteria is met. Something that could be problematic is section (b) of this portion of the proposal (5.103-1) which states that a receiving state "shall" establish probable cause for the absconder violation. Many times for probation cases PC is not requested and therefore this should be stated in a way that indicates "upon request of the sending state probable cause shall be established"

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

I appreciate the 30-day time frame, but the proposal includes undefined terms such as “multiple attempts” which will cause disagreements about what constitutes “multiple.” The proposed language in 4.109-2 b. states “after 30 calendar days” which could be open to interpretation. Current rules use language such as “no later than” or “no earlier than” or “within” so it seems this language should be used consistently. There is a concern about the requirement to attempt to locate at other residences or possible known locations as that can present officer safety issues.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

While I see the value in amending Rule 4.109 to strengthen efforts to locate absconders, there are a few areas of concern that I believe need clarification to ensure practical and consistent application:

“Multiple attempts to contact the individual at residences they are known to frequent” – This language is overly vague. Without a clear standard, this could lead to inconsistent expectations and place a significant burden on supervising staff. I recommend narrowing the scope to verified secondary residences or locations with documented client presence and specifying what constitutes a “sufficient” attempt.

“Conducting record checks utilizing available databases” – It’s unclear which databases are being referenced. Are these local, state, national? Additionally, not all supervision staff have direct access to systems like NCIC or other law enforcement databases. Without clarification, this creates the potential for confusion and inconsistent application. I also see this as an opportunity for violation reports to be unnecessarily sent back and forth between states, delaying resolution..

Clarifying these areas would improve the rule’s effectiveness while maintaining realistic standards across jurisdictions.

I support this proposal

Yes

I have suggested changes

No