• ICAOS Violation Response Tool (VRT)

    ICAOS Violation Response Tool (VRT)

  • The VRT is a three-step decision-making matrix that evaluates violation severity, risk level, and individual stability factors to support consistent, fair, and data-informed retaking decisions. 

    Use the VRT to make retaking decisions when the supervised individual is available.

    1. Attach the VRT to an ICOTS Progress Report, Violation Report, or Violation Addendum.

    2. “Available” means the individual has no unresolved receiving-state charges, sentence, or other obligation preventing retaking or return.  Absconders who have not been located and apprehended for retaking are not considered “available.”

     View or download the VRT Guide

  • Select the reason(s) in which retaking is being considered.*
    • Section 1: Case Information 
    • Special Statuses of the Supervised Individual (check all that apply)
    • Date of Violation Determination*
       / /
      2 digit month, 2 digit day, 4 digit year
    • Section 2: Risk Level & Violation Severity 

    • Instructions:

      Use your state’s approved risk and violation assessment tool to determine the initial recommended response.

      If no state-approved tool exists, apply the “violation behavior” guidance below locating the intersection of the individual’s risk level and the severity of the current violation.

    • Violation Severity (Choose one)*
    • Describe how risk and violation severity were determined*
    • Image field 88

    • RESPONSE A = Request Retaking

      RESPONSE B = Request Retaking OR Impose a local sanction or intervention and maintain supervision in the receiving state

      RESPONSE C = Impose a local sanction or intervention and maintain supervision in the receiving state.

    • Section 3: Stability Factors Assessment 

    • Instructions: Assess the individual on each factor using the framework.

    • Habitation, Connection to the Receiving State

    • Q1 Was the supervised individual a resident of the receiving state or residing in the receiving state at the time of conviction/sentencing in the sending state?*
    • Q2 Has the supervised individual remained at an approved residence while on supervision in the receiving state?*
    • Q3 Does the supervised individual currently have stable housing?*

    • Means of Support & Employment

    • Q4 Is the supervised Individual currently employed?*
    • Q5 Does the supervised individual have sufficient means of support?*
    • Describe means of support (check all that apply)

    • Support System

    • Q6 Does the supervised individual associate with prosocial individuals?*
    • Q7 Does the supervised individual engage in prosocial activities?*

    • Treatment & Programming

    • Q8 Is the supervised individual engaged in treatment, educational or vocational programs or opportunities?*
    • Q9 Has the supervised individual’s participation in required/necessary treatment resulted in positive behavior change?*

    • Supervision

    • Q10 Has the supervised individual been on supervision for more than 6 months?*
    • Q11 Is there less than 60 days remaining before the supervision period ends?*

    • Conditions & Case Plan

    • Q12 Has the supervised individual generally complied with the conditions of supervision?*
    • Q13 Has the supervised individual actively participated in creating, following, and updating an established case plan?*

    • Prior Violations

    • Q14 Has the supervised individual been violation-free (prior to any current violation behavior) during the supervision period?*
    • Q15 Did the supervised individual comply with previous interventions or sanctions imposed?*

    • Total

    • Section 4: VRT Decision Outcome 

    • The Initial Recommended Response is based on the individual’s risk level and the severity of the violation.  
       
      The VRT Recommended Response is based on the individual’s stability in the receiving state. 

      • When responses to the stability assessment are mostly “YES”, the recommendation favors a local sanction or intervention, reflecting that the individual can still be effectively managed in the receiving state. 
      • When responses to the stability assessment are mostly “NO”, the recommendation shifts toward retaking, indicating that supervision in the receiving state may no longer be appropriate. 

      When determining the Action Taken: 

      • If the initial recommended response is Response A and the answers to the stability questions are mostly “YES”, a local sanction or intervention with continued supervision in the receiving state may be appropriate.  
      • If the initial recommended response is Response B:  
        • When answers to the stability questions are mostly “YES”, a local sanction or intervention with continued supervision in the receiving state may be appropriate.  
        • When answers are mostly “NO”, a request for retaking may be appropriate. 
      • If the initial recommended response is Response C and the answers to the stability questions are mostly “NO”, a request for retaking may be appropriate. 

      If action differs from VRT, explain in the provided comment box.  

    • RESPONSE A = Request Retaking

      RESPONSE B = Request Retaking OR Impose a local sanction or intervention and maintain supervision in the receiving state

      RESPONSE C = Impose a local sanction or intervention and maintain supervision in the receiving state.

    • Section 5: Submission Contact Information 
    • Date
       - -
      2 digit month, 2 digit day, 4 digit year
    •  
    • Should be Empty: