• 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.  

     

    Practice Notes: 

    • Consider retaking only after the receiving state has exhausted available options to address non-compliance.
    • Retaking is a process, not an outcome; it involves returning the individual to the sending state for a determination on rescinding or continued supervision.
    • Sentencing authorities may address non-compliance while allowing supervision to continue in the receiving state when appropriate.
    • Make retaking decisions only when the supervised individual is available.
      “Available” means there are no pending charges or receiving state obligations that would prevent retaking.
    • If reporting non-compliance without requesting retaking, submit a progress report.

    View or download the VRT Guide

  • Select the reason(s) in which retaking is being considered.*
  • I confirm ICOTS documentation illustrates:*
  • Is the supervised individual currently available for retaking?*
  •  - -
  • Describe the sentence imposed for the new conviction.
  • Does a supervision plan exist?

  • Make retaking decisions when the individual is available. See “Choosing the Right Tool” for guidance; reporting noncompliance on a Progress Report does not preclude later use of a Violation Report Requiring Retaking once the individual is available.

    Click here to contact your state's compact office

  • Need assistance or clarification?

    Click here to contact your state's compact office

    • Section 1: Case Information 
    • Special Statuses of the Supervised Individual (check all that apply)
    •  / /
    • 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*
    • 0/500
    • Image field 88
    • 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

    • 0/500
    • Section 4: VRT Decision Outcome 

    • The VRT auto-populates a recommended response by combining the “yes” and “no” answers to the stability questions.

      • When responses 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 are mostly “no,” the recommendation shifts toward retaking, indicating that supervision in the receiving state may no longer be appropriate.
    • Section 5: Submission Contact Information 
    •  - -
    •  
    • Should be Empty: