ICAOS Compact Staff Training 5/10/2018 ICAOS Compact Staff Training May 2017 Anne, so pleased with turnout for amendment training want to extend to all compact staff this type of training Expose compact staff to the big picture Interstate is all we do, but a small piece of what a field officer does.

Training Objectives Approved Amendments & Implementation Plans 5/10/2018 Training Objectives Approved Amendments & Implementation Plans New Offender Application Website & ICOTS generated Demo of Progress Report & Violation Report Requiring Retaking Resources PPTs, publications Updated Ondemand Review the amendments, including a look at the new processes using PREP. Also for the first time, the language on the offender application has changed. With that, the website generated will have a new look to distinguish the web generated from the ICOTS generated form Close out to ensure everyone knows where to find training tools including PPTS, new ondemands and updated ondemang

Impact for Amendments Promotes single standard of supervision Affirms the authority of a receiving state to impose conditions, supervise and sanction Requires documentation of supervision practices and justification for retaking Sustain violations in the sending state Supports EBP and behavioral change Tracy

Amendment Overview Rule 1.101 Rule 3.108 Rule 4.101 Rule 4.103 ICOTS impact $133k New data elements-increase reporting capabilities for supervision techniques Offender Application for Interstate Compact Transfer Offender Violation Report Progress Report – redesign as a ‘managed process’ Tracy These will not be presented in order but rather by topic Behavior requiring retaking Conditions Supervision responsibility Progress Report Violation Report-Retaking ICOTS changes

Highlights for Amendments 5/10/2018 Highlights for Amendments Effective Date: June 1, 2017 ICOTS changes implemented: May 31st, 2017 Redesigned ‘Managed’ Progress Report Renamed Violation Report Requiring Retaking ‘Behavior Requiring Retaking’ replaces ‘Significant Violation’ report type New Offender Application for Transfer Keep conversation going ICOTS piece will be easy. Screens will require and prompt for more documentation

NC Scenario Offender from IN supervised by NC in Aug 2015 Crime: Property damage (3years probation) Sept 2015-Offender is testing positive – refer for SA assessment. Oct. -missed a few appointments, not complying with CS hrs, not working – PO can impose quick dip (2-3 days in jail) Nov/Jan-continued technical non-compliance – more quick dips Feb 2016 – continued technical non-compliance -NC decides to report non-compliance to their NC court All of the case/supervision details are provided to the court who imposes the sanction NC court orders IN offender to CRV (Behavior Mod Program) Up to 90 days confinement (sanction, not revocation!) PR PR PR PR

Practice, Reinforce, Require 5/10/2018 NC Scenario NC PO send a Progress Report to Indiana informing them the offender is being sanctioned with all the details and the sanctioning consists of jail time making the offender unavailable for supervision May 2016-CRV complete & offender is released. (during this time, PO is still imposing additional sanctions) Jul 2016 -Continues to not comply, court orders a 2nd CRV Oct 2016-CRV complete & offender is released. Continues not to comply, CRV is no longer an option. (both 90 day periods of confinement are used) OVR to sending state for retake and recommendation for revocation-w/ comprehensive DOCUMENTATION! PR PR PR PR OVR Practice, Reinforce, Require

AZ Scenario Offender from MN supervised by AZ in March 15 (arrived) 5/10/2018 AZ Scenario Offender from MN supervised by AZ in March 15 (arrived) Crime: Aggravated Assault – Felony – 4 years’ probation March 20, 2017 – Offender met with adult probation for intake and PO Assignment; Arizona risk/needs assessment tool completed; Offender scored as “High” risk to reoffend with high “Needs” in the area of criminal thinking and “attitude” toward probation and authority figures. Offender reviewed and signed Arizona conditions imposed, to include Anger Management Counseling and Cognitive Skills Development; referral given with directive to contact ABC Counseling for an appointment by March 31, 2017 and to report in the office again on April 3, 2017. April 3, 2017 – Offender failed to report and failed to contact ABC Counseling as directed to schedule Anger Management and Cognitive Skills Development counseling. April 3, 3017 – Officer attempts telephonic contact with offender and leaves message for offender to return the phone call. PR Offender under Compact Supervision in Arizona from Minnesota: Accepted March 1, 2017; arrived March 15, 2017 Crime: Aggravated Assault – Felony – 4 years’ probation March 20, 2017 – Offender met with adult probation for intake and PO Assignment; Arizona risk/needs assessment tool completed; Offender scored as “High” risk to reoffend with high “Needs” in the area of criminal thinking and “attitude” toward probation and authority figures. Offender reviewed and signed Arizona conditions imposed, to include Anger Management Counseling and Cognitive Skills Development; referral given with directive to contact ABC Counseling for an appointment by March 31, 2017 and to report in the office again on April 3, 2017. April 3, 2017 – Offender failed to report and failed to contact ABC Counseling as directed to schedule Anger Management and Cognitive Skills Development counseling. April 3, 3017 – Officer attempts telephonic contact with offender and leaves message for offender to return the phone call. April 4, 2017 – The offender has not returned the officer’s phone call yet and the PO and his partner make a field contact to the offender’s approved place of residence to ascertain why the offender did not report to the office, return the phone call or schedule his counseling as directed. The offender allows the officers to enter the home (previous residence verified during investigation) and becomes argumentative and states he does not have an attitude problem and does not want to attend counseling. PO directs the offender to report to the office on April 5, 2017 to better able discuss the matter at the office. April 5, 2017 – Offender fails to report as directed; According to ABC Counseling, still no call from offender to schedule appointment.’ April 10, 2017 – Officer again attempts to contact the offender at his place of residence (note/reminder that this offender is on a “high” risk caseload based on the Arizona risk/needs assessment). The offender is not at home. April 12, 2017 – The AZ PO makes telephonic contact with the Offender and he states that he will not attend counseling since he still does not believe he has an attitude or anger management issues. The AZ PO advises that at this point if the offender was a locally convicted probationer, a revocation of supervision would be pursued for failing to abide by reporting directives, directives to schedule and begin counseling and an overall refusal to comply with probation, making him unamenable to supervision. April 13, 2017 – OVR Submitted to Minnesota detailing all efforts made with Offender within last 30 days regarding directives to treatment, reporting, etc. in an attempt to gain compliance and affect positive behavior change with this Offender.  

5/10/2018 AZ Scenario April 4, 2017 – The offender has not returned the officer’s phone call yet and the PO and his partner make a field contact to the offender’s approved place of residence to ascertain why the offender did not report to the office, return the phone call or schedule his counseling as directed. The offender allows the officers to enter the home (previous residence verified during investigation) and becomes argumentative and states he does not have an attitude problem and does not want to attend counseling. PO directs the offender to report to the office on April 5, 2017 to better able discuss the matter at the office. April 5, 2017 – Offender fails to report as directed; According to ABC Counseling, still no call from offender to schedule appointment.’ April 10, 2017 – Officer again attempts to contact the offender at his place of residence (note/reminder that this offender is on a “high” risk caseload based on the Arizona risk/needs assessment). The offender is not at home. Offender under Compact Supervision in Arizona from Minnesota: Accepted March 1, 2017; arrived March 15, 2017 Crime: Aggravated Assault – Felony – 4 years’ probation March 20, 2017 – Offender met with adult probation for intake and PO Assignment; Arizona risk/needs assessment tool completed; Offender scored as “High” risk to reoffend with high “Needs” in the area of criminal thinking and “attitude” toward probation and authority figures. Offender reviewed and signed Arizona conditions imposed, to include Anger Management Counseling and Cognitive Skills Development; referral given with directive to contact ABC Counseling for an appointment by March 31, 2017 and to report in the office again on April 3, 2017. April 3, 2017 – Offender failed to report and failed to contact ABC Counseling as directed to schedule Anger Management and Cognitive Skills Development counseling. April 3, 3017 – Officer attempts telephonic contact with offender and leaves message for offender to return the phone call. April 4, 2017 – The offender has not returned the officer’s phone call yet and the PO and his partner make a field contact to the offender’s approved place of residence to ascertain why the offender did not report to the office, return the phone call or schedule his counseling as directed. The offender allows the officers to enter the home (previous residence verified during investigation) and becomes argumentative and states he does not have an attitude problem and does not want to attend counseling. PO directs the offender to report to the office on April 5, 2017 to better able discuss the matter at the office. April 5, 2017 – Offender fails to report as directed; According to ABC Counseling, still no call from offender to schedule appointment.’ April 10, 2017 – Officer again attempts to contact the offender at his place of residence (note/reminder that this offender is on a “high” risk caseload based on the Arizona risk/needs assessment). The offender is not at home. April 12, 2017 – The AZ PO makes telephonic contact with the Offender and he states that he will not attend counseling since he still does not believe he has an attitude or anger management issues. The AZ PO advises that at this point if the offender was a locally convicted probationer, a revocation of supervision would be pursued for failing to abide by reporting directives, directives to schedule and begin counseling and an overall refusal to comply with probation, making him unamenable to supervision. April 13, 2017 – OVR Submitted to Minnesota detailing all efforts made with Offender within last 30 days regarding directives to treatment, reporting, etc. in an attempt to gain compliance and affect positive behavior change with this Offender.  

5/10/2018 AZ Scenario April 12, 2017 – The AZ PO makes telephonic contact with the Offender and he states that he will not attend counseling since he still does not believe he has an attitude or anger management issues. The AZ PO advises that at this point if the offender was a locally convicted probationer, a revocation of supervision would be pursued for failing to abide by reporting directives, directives to schedule and begin counseling and an overall refusal to comply with probation, making him unamenable to supervision. April 13, 2017 – OVR Submitted to Minnesota detailing all efforts made with Offender within last 30 days regarding directives to treatment, reporting, etc. in an attempt to gain compliance and affect positive behavior change with this Offender. Note, there may or may not be additional PR’s…due to tight timeframe of noncompliance Offender under Compact Supervision in Arizona from Minnesota: Accepted March 1, 2017; arrived March 15, 2017 Crime: Aggravated Assault – Felony – 4 years’ probation March 20, 2017 – Offender met with adult probation for intake and PO Assignment; Arizona risk/needs assessment tool completed; Offender scored as “High” risk to reoffend with high “Needs” in the area of criminal thinking and “attitude” toward probation and authority figures. Offender reviewed and signed Arizona conditions imposed, to include Anger Management Counseling and Cognitive Skills Development; referral given with directive to contact ABC Counseling for an appointment by March 31, 2017 and to report in the office again on April 3, 2017. April 3, 2017 – Offender failed to report and failed to contact ABC Counseling as directed to schedule Anger Management and Cognitive Skills Development counseling. April 3, 3017 – Officer attempts telephonic contact with offender and leaves message for offender to return the phone call. April 4, 2017 – The offender has not returned the officer’s phone call yet and the PO and his partner make a field contact to the offender’s approved place of residence to ascertain why the offender did not report to the office, return the phone call or schedule his counseling as directed. The offender allows the officers to enter the home (previous residence verified during investigation) and becomes argumentative and states he does not have an attitude problem and does not want to attend counseling. PO directs the offender to report to the office on April 5, 2017 to better able discuss the matter at the office. April 5, 2017 – Offender fails to report as directed; According to ABC Counseling, still no call from offender to schedule appointment.’ April 10, 2017 – Officer again attempts to contact the offender at his place of residence (note/reminder that this offender is on a “high” risk caseload based on the Arizona risk/needs assessment). The offender is not at home. April 12, 2017 – The AZ PO makes telephonic contact with the Offender and he states that he will not attend counseling since he still does not believe he has an attitude or anger management issues. The AZ PO advises that at this point if the offender was a locally convicted probationer, a revocation of supervision would be pursued for failing to abide by reporting directives, directives to schedule and begin counseling and an overall refusal to comply with probation, making him unamenable to supervision. April 13, 2017 – OVR Submitted to Minnesota detailing all efforts made with Offender within last 30 days regarding directives to treatment, reporting, etc. in an attempt to gain compliance and affect positive behavior change with this Offender.   OVR

NE Scenario Offender from IA transferred to NE-May 2014 Crime: DUI 3rd (3years probation) September 2014- client tests positive and referred for a substance abuse evaluation. Evaluation recommends intensive outpatient September 2014--client enters intensive outpatient treatment, completes on October 31, 2014 April 2015--client misses three tests, two office appointments, tests positive for alcohol. Officer requests an updated evaluation. May 2015--updated evaluation recommends short term residential treatment, client enters November 2015--client relapses and admits to drinking all weekend, custodial sanction applied (3 days) and team meeting called to staff case with treatment team, who recommend additional treatment (therapeutic response to violation in addition to custodial sanction) PR PR PR PR PR

5/10/2018 NE Scenario December 2015-client continuing in treatment, misses two tests, alcohol use suspected, sanctioned to 30 days custodial sanction with entry into halfway house facility with ongoing programming following (therapeutic response to violation) March 2016--client completes halfway house programming, enters transitional living facility (w/out programming), continuing outpatient treatment May 2016--client tests positive for marijuana, admits to using substances instead of alcohol as a substitution. 30 days custodial sanction and return to halfway house (therapeutic response) (PR) September 2016--client leaves halfway house and is absent from the facility for three days. 30 days of custodial sanction and referral for updated evaluation. October 2016--client misses four appointments and refuses to follow evaluation recommendations, reports he is done with treatment and being clean -violation submitted--OVR sent to IA with complete documentation that tells the story of non-compliance and case management interventions, services applied, therapeutic responses. ! PR PR PR PR OVR

Rule 4.101 Receiving state’s responsibility to supervise compact offenders consistent with local offenders INCLUDING programs, sanction/interventions Do EVERYTHING you would for instate offender EXCEPT extend supervision or revoke If there are special programs only available to instate offenders or you are addressing violations differently, you are not complying with this rule. With the new documentation requirements, we expect it to be much clearer where states struggle to comply with this rule.

5/10/2018 Who’s Got This! Although less than ½ states responded, survey shows there is not an issue in supervising offenders the same, but rather the training challenge of getting ICOTS users to report and document their attempts to bring an offender into compliance rather than strictly reporting what the offender did Training Issue: expand from just reporting what the offender did…..Should also explain (in detail) supervision practices and responses!

QUALITY, QUALITY QUALITY!! 5/10/2018 Compact Review a MUST! Nothing leaves without the compact approval REVIEW! Including the OFFENDER PROFILE!! Ensure documentation is adequate before it leaves your state. Importance of compact staff understanding these amendments. It is as simple as better documentation. You have the power and duty to only allow quality activities to leave your state! Mindy note: Nearly every situation where I was asked to review a violation situation, I find issues that can clearly be found on the profile. Many times where both states aren’t looking at the entire picture . QUALITY, QUALITY QUALITY!!

Offender Application/Waiver Transfer is a privilege Manner of supervision determined by the receiving state

New Look for Website Generated Application 5/10/2018 New Look for Website Generated Application New Website Generated ICOTS Generated In addition to a new look to the website generated form, there will be a reasonable time where old and new versions of the application form are acceptable with a transfer request. Note: Both new and old applications are acceptable beginning May 1st. States will have a reasonable time to distribute the new website application for use

Rule 1.101 Definitions It’s not about ‘Special conditions’…..

Progress Report Progress Reports sent for a purpose rather than fulfilling a due date! Ability to add new conditions imposed Documentation on compliant & non-compliant behavior that DOES NOT require retaking Report New Arrest & Violation of Conditions

Progress Reports Sending States Receiving States Ask for them 5/10/2018 Progress Reports Sending States Receiving States Ask for them REVIEW them Respond when necessary Rules allow for discretionary retake Obligation to describe and document supervision practices Be clear in recommendations Report both compliance and non-compliance of conditions of supervision to the sending state States not regularly sending progress reports or stressing the importance of the PRs are going to struggle with rule implementation. The whole purpose of the rule package is to provide more comprehensive documentation to the sending state so when it does get the point where supervision is not feasible, the sending state has ALL the documentation to clearly sustain the violations in a revocation hearing. Communication!!!

DEMO-Progress Report

Rule 1.101 Definitions ‘Behavior requiring retaking’ replaces ‘significant violation’ Report BEYOND what the offender did Receiving States must DOCUMENT all responses and outcome of responses

‘Behavior requiring retaking’ Lack of consistency for violation reporting Importance of DOCUMENTATION Incentives & Corrective Action Distinguish between non-compliant behavior and violation It is NOT ‘Behavior Requiring Retaking’ until ALL interventions/responses have been exhausted! Rules 3.108 Victim notification and 5.108, simple definition replacement Mention moving back from 3 and compact math

Rule 4.109-Violation Report Requiring Retaking Documentation Including incentives, corrective actions and graduated responses (supervision techniques) 30 days Discovery or determination Confirmed or established responses are exhausted-supported by documentation when applying the rule TOTAL PICTURE!

Violation Report Requiring Retaking Replaces ONLY ‘significant violation’ Document non-compliant behavior LEADING UP TO the behavior requiring retaking Will only change ‘significant violation’ section. Absconder and new conviction remain the same

Demo-Violation Report Requiring Retaking

Violation Report Requiring Retaking Review

Violation Reporting Considerations The sending state is only going to know what you tell them Use the same detail if reporting to your own authorities Specifics on how the behavior was determined to be revocable Clearly describe the options of working with the offender (e.g. intervention) been exhausted If states implement these in their review processes now, transition easier

Violation Report Checklist Violation reported is revocable behavior “violation would rise to level of revocation because…”  Reported timely Requesting return/retake Availability status accurate Ensure no pending charges exist Supporting documentation included “Story” provided on why supervision is not successful Supervision practices/responses CLEARLY articulated Review offender profile to ensure consistency/accuracy TOTAL PICTURE! DCAs/compact staff are compliance gate keepers Do not transmit without reviewing all information

When it appears something is missing or not right…… 5/10/2018 When it appears something is missing or not right…… ASK! We are in the PUBLIC SAFETY BUSINESS!! Bickering! TC and National office willing to help, but we want to see effort has been demonstrated to resolve issue first

5/10/2018 Probable Cause Jan 2015-Jan 2017: 28,287 ‘significant violations’ of conditions of supervision reported. 12% (3367) indicated PC was established 46% (12,951) resulted in retake/return by Sending State 16% (2004) indicated PC was established prior to retake/return Are offenders being returned/retaken just to come back to the sending state without action? Review of documents. Shows there is still some significant training issues to be addressed. Documents unsigned, hearing reports not in compliance with 5.108 (e.g. unsigned, important elements missing (who was there, clear concise summary of testimony), illegible reports, waivers-does offender clearly know they have a right to a hearing prior to signing a waiver? Note: Random review of documents also shows significant # of hearing reports/waivers do NOT comply w/requirements

5/10/2018 Why is this an issue? Offenders have a RIGHT to PC hearing (per Rule 5.108) when violations MAY result in revocation Receiving States should EXPECT to provide PC hearing when recommending revocation/MUST when offender is in custody Sending States should ENSURE PC is established prior to retake Possible related issues Delays in retaking process Offenders returning immediately after retake Judges (sending state authority) deeming ‘not enough evidence’ to address violation RS officers subpoenaed for revocation hearing Only when it is known the offender is in no danger of revocation and will simply be retaken/returned to be supervised in the sending state, PC hearing is not necessary. Receiving state’s shouldn’t always rely on the sending state to ask for a PC hearing…doing on the front end can speed up the retaking process. Commission is keeping a close eye on some of these issues and expects to provide training on PC hearing and report some of its findings at the ABM. It is expected the new ICOTS changes and comprehensive documentation will bring positive changes to the violation processes as well. Mindy note: pulling some hearing report examples, ICAOS legal has some concerns about the hearings and reporting processes. If you aren’t sure your state is consistent in being compliant with Rule 5.108, consult with your commissioner and local legal.

Transition Information 5/10/2018 Transition Information ICOTS updates (ALL) May 31st, 2017 Activity Handling Created, but not submitted: Deleted Submitted, but not transmitted (OVR Only): Withdrawn Transmitted (OVR Only): Respond Mindy

5/10/2018 Resources MindyNew and updated ondemands available or soon to be available. Series of rules training later in May including update.

5/10/2018 ICAOS Support Mindy Updated and available for download

Compact Office Training Module 5/10/2018 Compact Office Training Module Mindy 9 topics so users can customize ICOTS training for compact offices and administrators

5/10/2018 Questions