1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. NE Scenario Offender from IA transferred to NE-May 2014
Crime: DUI 3rd (3years probation)
September client tests positive and referred for a substance abuse evaluation.
Evaluation recommends intensive outpatient
September client enters intensive outpatient treatment, completes on October 31, 2014
April client misses three tests, two office appointments, tests positive for alcohol. Officer requests an updated evaluation.
May updated evaluation recommends short term residential treatment, client enters
November 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

12. 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 client completes halfway house programming, enters transitional living facility (w/out programming), continuing outpatient treatment
May 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 client leaves halfway house and is absent from the facility for three days. 30 days of custodial sanction and referral for updated evaluation.
October 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

13. 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.

14. 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!

15. 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!!

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

17. 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

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

19. 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

20. 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!!!

21. DEMO-Progress Report

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

23. ‘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 Victim notification and 5.108, simple definition replacement
Mention moving back from 3 and compact math

24. 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!

25. 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

26. Demo-Violation Report Requiring Retaking

27. Violation Report Requiring Retaking Review

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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 (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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 5/10/2018
Resources
MindyNew and updated ondemands available or soon to be available. Series of rules training later in May including update.

35. 5/10/2018
ICAOS Support
Mindy
Updated and available for download

36. 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

37. 5/10/2018
Questions