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.  

*Comment Period: April 23-June 5, 2026

Chapter 5 Revisions & Violation Response Tool (VRT)

5.101  (No Changes)

• 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 (Timeframe added to tie directly to availability and VRT usage)

• 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 ('When available for retaking' added to (b)(4)(D) & 'Availability' added to title of 5.103 to promote consistent understanding of 'availability' and that the VRT is used once available for retaking)

• 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.

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

4.106  (replace 'response to' with 'compliance with' in (b))

• 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.

Rule 3.110 to 4.XXX Travel Permits to the Sending State During Supervision

• Distinct Compact Action Requests (CARS) for Travel Permits.  INSITE will feature a new Communication Center that replaces all CARs and clearly labels all communications, including travel permits.

Rule 4.101 Manner and Degree of Supervision

• Why does this rule not specify what activity is to be used to 'document?'  Rules should focus on what must be done, not how to do it. This keeps them legally enforceable and universally applicable across all member states. Limiting how documentation should be entered into ICOTS/INSITE could have unintended legal consequences.

Rule 4.105 Arrival and Departure Notifications

• Create the ability to withdraw and re-submit a Notice of Departure (NOD.)  Although this could be considered as an enhancement after INSITE launch (significantly changes functionality) INSITE will provide the ability for state administrators to update NOD data after submission.
• Ensure users immediately submit the NOD when requesting reporting instructions for those virtually sentenced.  INSITE will include pre-transfer questions to guide users to the reporting instruction process and automatically create the NOD and Transfer Request.
• Add new NOD fields "Accompanied by:_____" and "Itinerary (aka stops.)"  Although this could be considered as an enhancement after INSITE launch, the 'comment' field on the NOD will be relabeled to ensure the user provides travel details in this data field.

Rule 4.106 Progress Report

• Create new 'supervision level' and 'last contact' data fields.  Consider these enhancements after the INSITE launch, once data helps identify best practices for capturing supervision levels and needs. Upcoming changes include:
  • Several Progress Report fields will become required.
  • 'Progress Performance and Attitude' will be renamed 'Supervision Update.'
  • The Yes/No toggle for Incentives/Corrective Actions will be removed to ensure the screen is always viewed.
  • On-screen prompts will guide users to include supervision level and criminogenic needs.
  • States should continue strengthening review processes to improve report quality.
• Create ability to manage annual compliance measures.  INSITE will provide data for states to manage this requirement.  For example, an annual PR would be keyed off of either the NOA or 365 calendar days since last PR was transmitted.

Rule 4.111 Supervised individuals returning to the sending state 

• Require a reason for return.  INSITE will rename the 'comment' field in the return reporting instructions activity to 'reason' and make it a required field.  
• Fix the bug preventing a Case Closure Notice when the returning address is blank.  INSITE will no longer generate an error message when the primary address is NULL.
• 5 business day due date for returning sex offenders.  Requires a rule amendment and enhancement to INSITE

Rule 4.112 Closing Supervision by the Receiving State 

• Create new 'deported' closure reason.  Consider as an enhancement after INSITE launch.
  • Using special filters, this data can be pulled, but only 78 of 65,501 case closures (0.01%) in the past year included “deported” or “deportation.” Low usage raises training questions:
    • How will the receiving state confirm deportation?
    • Most closures occurred at federal apprehension, not deportation.
    • How will states use and share this data?
• Address the issue of sending states using case closure denials to notify of tolling or supervision extensions, rather than updating the supervision end date as required by Rule 4.102. States should use the "Supervision End Date – Next 90 Days" report to manage upcoming closures. Denying closures for this purpose is poor practice and causes problems, including:
  • Negative compliance dashboard impacts for the receiving state.
  • Unnecessary work and confusion if the receiving state has already closed the case in its system.
  • This practice does not follow ICOTS/INSITE operating procedures.
• Require documentation when changing the supervision end date due to 'tolling' and 'extensions.'  Consider as an enhancement after INSITE launch.

Rule 5.108 Probable cause hearing in receiving state  

• Create a report to manage violation/retaking cases in which a probable cause hearing has been requested.  INSITE will include a real-time report to track violation/retaking cases pending a probable cause hearing  
• Clarify when the 30 days begins and how compliance will be tracked.   The measure starts upon transmission of a violation response when the sending state user selects “Conduct Probable Cause Hearing.” Compliance will be tracked via a new ICAOS dashboard report.