2026 Rule Proposal Post Comment Action

The 2026 Rule proposal comment period received 25 comment submissions from 18 states with the majority of comments (85%) from DCAs and Compact Staff.  These insights helped shape the proposals for consideration at the Annual Business Meeting. Below outlines action taken post comment period as well as why some recommendations were not entertained as those were rather related to procedure, misunderstanding on the rule language or limitations with technology.  

2026 Final Proposals

*Comment Period: April 23-June 5, 2026

Committee action:

• Rules Committee met June 8th & 16th to review comments and unanimously recommended/approved the changes noted below.  

• RNR Workgroup met on June 23rd unanimously supporting the Rules Committee's recommendations to Ch 5

• Exec Committee met on June 24th unanimously supporting the Rules Committee's recommendations to Ch 5 and reviewed comments regarding By-law amendment to Art 2, Sec 3

Chapter 5 Revisions & Violation Response Tool (VRT)

5.101  No Changes

Other Comments

• Add required 'warrant tasks.'  Process related:  consider as a future rule amendment and/or an enhancement after INSITE launch.
• Add 'Discretionary' back to the title.  The rewrite of 5.101 incorporates both the sending state's ability to impose discretionary retaking and its discretion to order a return in lieu of retaking when mandatory retaking is required.
• Add 'via reporting instructions...' to (a.)  Process related and duplicative:  The new language (a)(1) refers to 'return reporting instructions' and 4.111 Supervised Individuals Returning to the Sending State.
• 3 weeks is too long for notifying the receiving state, suggest 5 business days.  Existing rule timeframe, consider as future rule amendment
• (b) should be moved to after (a)(1.)  Language exists as (b) as it is encompasses both mandatory return in lieu of retaking as well as discretionary return.

5.102 Change Adopted:  Timeframe moved from Rule 5.102-1 to align reporting expectations with availability for retaking and VRT use (violation assessment and stability evaluation)

Other Comments

• Specify in (c) where to document (Progress Report vs. Violation Report.)  Process/procedural:  Could result in future system limitations and more appropriately addressed through a technology solution.
• Add language to 'waive' usage of the tool when a violation is 'revocable'  Comment suggests a misunderstanding of the distinction between a "revocation" and "behavior requiring retaking."  Because revocation is a legal process rather than a violation category, a violation that may result in revocation does not automatically meet the definition of behavior requiring retaking. Therefore, no change is recommended.
• Clarify retaking can still be required when stability factors are high:  (c) covers this concern.
• Rule should state the documentation needs to be attached to the violation report:  This requirement exists in Rule 5.102-1 outlining what is required for reporting violations requiring retaking.  5.102 is about evaluation, not reporting.

5.102-1 Change Adopted:  'When available for retaking' added to (b)(4)(D) to clarify that the VRT is used once 'available' for retaking

Other Comments

• Consider requiring a justification  Process related:  consider as an enhancement after INSITE launch.
• Clarify the 30 day requirement:  As recommended by the Rules and RNR Workgroup, the timeframe was moved to Rule 5.102 to tie it to VRT usage, ensuring timely reporting when the supervised individual is available for retaking and the stability data captured by the tool is current.
• Define what the ‘outcome’ of the tool is in section d and that the PDF must be attached to the Violation Report:  Process related:  VRT automatically generates to a report form (aka outcome) with instructions to attach the VRT to the record in INSITE
• (b) (3) should refer to 'current violations' and (b) (4) should refer to 'prior violations':   (b) covers this concern and (b) (4) could encompass both prior and current violations.

5.103 Change Adopted:  Title changed to 'Availability for Retaking' to better reflect purpose of the rule

Removal of 'Graduated Responses' from Rules 1.101, 4.101, 4.106 and 4.109

4.106 Change Adopted:  Replaced 'response to' with 'compliance with' in (b)

Other Comments

• Restore ‘that do not require retaking’ language and stick to simply removing
  ‘graduated sanctions’:  The proposal intentionally removes 'that do not require retaking' as it reduces confusion that reporting non-compliance on a progress report does not preclude that the behavior may later be documented on a violation report supporting retaking.

• Add a timeframe for submission of a Progress Report:  Rule already contains a 30 calendar day timeframe when requested by the sending state.  An 'annual' timeframe was proposed for this rule at the 2025 Annual Business Meeting and failed.

   

Addition of 'Documentation and Details' for address verification in Rules 3.103-2 & 3.103-3

3.103-2 & 3.103-3 No Changes

 Other Comments

• Restore ‘and the RS agrees with the determination’ Removal of this language does not alter the receiving state's authority to agree/disagree with a sending state's determination of what constitutes 'an emergency' in accordance with the purposes of the Compact.
• Restore language for mandatory return if transfer request is not submitted in 7 days or if the transfer request if rejected.  As noted in the justification for these rules and Rule 3.103 adopted at the 2025 Annual Business Meeting, this language was removed because rejection and return procedures following a transfer rejection are addressed elsewhere in the rules (see Rules 3.104 and 4.111). Removing the language reduces potential conflict and confusion with provisions that allow a supervised individual to remain in the receiving state pending a subsequent transfer request.

Addition of new 'Code of Conduct' to ICAOS By-laws Article 2

New Article 2, Section 3  No changes

 Other Comments

• Clarify who is subject to the new by-law provision Anyone participating in or conducting Interstate Compact business on behalf of, or under the authority of, the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. This includes not only Commissioners, DCAs, and Compact staff, but also field staff, committee members, contractors, and other community partners involved in Compact business.
• Why is a by-law change needed if already covered in ICAOS rules or policy  Existing policies and rules address specific responsibilities, but the By-laws establish the Commission's overarching governance framework. Adding a Code of Conduct creates a uniform standard of behavior and accountability for everyone conducting Commission business.