FY25 State Assessment on Retaking and Retransferring

See Assessment Announcement sent May 7, 2024

Background

In 2011 and 2017, the Commission explored the feasibility of incorporating effective classification criteria such as risk and need assessments, responsivity, and professional discretion into the interstate compact transfer process. While the Commission concluded that using these evidence-based principles to determine eligibility for interstate transfer was not feasible, there has been continued consensus that the Commission should explore their use in the return process.

Thus, the Executive Committee formed an RNR (risk, need, responsivity) Workgroup, to identify key issues that need addressing in the retaking process. One consideration in managing this process and the affected population is identifying the circumstances that lead to an individual’s retaking and subsequent retransfer under the compact.

There are several reasons why this is important and will help the RNR Workgroup achieve its goals:

• Identifies systemic issues: According to ICOTS data, the percentage of all retakings that were retransferred reached its peak at 50.5% in 2020, following a steady ascent since ICOTS launched. Current data indicates a continuing upward trend in this figure, paralleled by an increase in the total number of retakings. On average, since 2013, approximately 40% of the total retakings ultimately result in retransfer. This implies that retakings are being used as a punitive measure and not solely for revocation. 
• 

The data also indicates that beginning in 2021, there were more cases of ‘Resident of the Receiving State’ being retaken and retransferred than “Resident Family & Support’ cases for the first time in ICOTS history. This gap has continued to widen over the last three years. The practice of retaking individuals who are residents of the receiving state and then re-transferring them back to that same state is an inefficient use of resources, making this new trend concerning. 

• Improves supervision practices: States frequently invest considerable time working with other states to determine whether retaking is appropriate. States must consider the timeframes and compliance measures associated with retaking as they evaluate whether an individual’s supervision should be revoked to initiate retaking. States often raise concerns that violation reports are being sent prematurely when it is determined that retaking is warranted. They question the rationale behind uprooting supervised individuals and incurring transport fees merely for them to receive a sanction and be retransferred.
• Informs policy decisions: Insights gained from studying these cases can inform policy decisions aimed at improving the interstate compact and overall supervision practices. It presents real-life examples to support the development of evidence-based policies that address the challenges associated with retaking.

Assessment Parameters:
To assist the workgroup, states are asked to complete a self-assessment for instances in which supervised individuals have been retaken and retransferred within the last six months to a year. States will receive up to ten incoming cases using the Retaken and Retransferred Dashboard-Incoming Cases, to which they will respond as the receiving state.  

FY25 Assessment Timeline