Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision

Proposal to modify/enhance ICOTS application:

Update Language on CCN Due Notifications

Proposed by: Technology Committee (via DCA Liaison Committee) 

Enhancement No: ER_2020_01_CCNDueNotifications_Technology

Users Impacted:

PO (Field User), Supervisor, Compact Office, State Administrators

Statement of Need:

Improve the timing and wording of the Case Closure Notice is due/due notification emails so it is clear the receiving state is responsible for submitting the Case Closure Notice on the Supervision End Date or within 10 business days after the Supervision End Date.  Currently, the notice is sent to both the sending state and receiving state POs several times up to 30 days in advance of the supervision end date.  It simply indicates when it is due but says to log into ICOTS and complete it which causes the sending state user to question why they are receiving the instruction to submit a CCN if they aren't supervising the offender.  It also gives the receiving state PO the impression it should be submitted when the notification is received which could be up to 30 days in advance of the supervision end date.  

It is recommended that the body of the CCN due notification be changed as follows:  "This email is a reminder that the supervision end date for John Doe (111111) is currently XX/XX/20XX.    If you are the sending state PO, please ensure the case is eligible for closure on that date and log into ICOTS to modify the date if needed from the Compact Cases tab of the offender’s profile.    If you are the receiving state PO, please log into ICOTS and complete a Case Closure Notice on or within 10 business days after the supervision end date."

Current Practices:

The CCN is due/due email notifications often cause sending state users to contact the Compact Office to find out why they are being asked to submit a CCN when they aren't supervising and Compact Offices have to tell them to ignore that request.  These types of notifications cause users to then ignore other ICOTS notifications they receive because they begin to feel ICOTS notifications aren't always applicable or accurate.  In addition, it causes receiving state users to submit CCNs in advance of the supervision end date which is not allowed by Compact rules.  

The following information is drafted by the Technology Committee

Justification of Enhancement Priority:

This correction and clarification of the CCN due notification will reduce the amount of confusion and contacts with the Compact offices as well as the premature creating and ultimate return of CCNs submitted into the workflow in advance of the supervision end date. This will save time and reduce frustration as well as increase the credibility of ICOTS notifications. In addition, adding the guidance directed to the sending state PO will hopefully encourage them to verify cases will be able to close on the expiration date or extend the expiration their state's procedures prior to the SED rather than denying CCNs on or after the SED and asking the receiving state to continue to supervise. 

Region/Committee action:

DCA South Region March 2019: Julie Lohman (DCA Virginia) drafted enhancement request language and sent to DCA Liaison Committee for review and recommendation to Technology Committee.

DCA Liaison Committee May 2019: DCA J. Lohman (VA) presented an ICOTS enhancement request prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the South Region States. The enhancement improves the timing and wording of the Case Closure Notice due notification emails. 

The committee moved to forward the enhancement request proposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the South Region States to the Technology Committee for approval. Motion carried.

Technology Committee November 2019: Chair C. Moore (GA) stated that the committee received two enhancement requests from the DCA Liaison committee for review and approval. The first request was to add more specific information to the ICOTS case closure due notifications.

Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) expressed his support for the proposed concept to clarify Case Closure Notice. He noted that the proposal had no impact on other ICOTS processes.

Training Coordinator M. Spring suggested also adding instructions on how to change the supervision end date (SED), if the date was incorrect.

DCA D. Cobb (MI) agreed with the proposed addition.

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly expressed his support for this enhancement request.

Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) moved to approve the proposed enhancement request with the addition of instructions on how to change the Supervision End Date. Commissioner B. Jean (NH) seconded. Motion passed. 

Technology Committee July 14, 2020: The committee reviewed the comment received for the ER_2020_01 Update Language on CCN Due Notifications enhancement.

The committee decided to leave the proposal as it was originally written.

Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) moved to approve ER_2020_01 Update Language on CCN Due Notifications enhancement as written for full Commission vote at the 2020 ABM. Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) seconded. Motion passed.

Impact on Other ICOTS Processes:

None

Impact to External Data:

None

Development Cost:

$2,190

Functional Specifications

Modify the body text on the Case Closure Notice Is Due to read:

This email is a reminder that the supervision end date for <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) is currently <Supervision End Date>. If you are the sending state PO, please ensure the case is eligible for closure on that date and log into ICOTS to modify the date if needed from the Compact Cases tab of the offender’s profile. If you are the receiving state PO, please log into ICOTS and complete a Case Closure Notice on or within 10 business days after the supervision end date."

Modify the body text on the Case Closure Notice Is Due Today to read:

This email is a reminder that the supervision end date for <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) is today (<Supervision End Date>). If you are the sending state PO, please ensure the case is eligible for closure on that date and log into ICOTS to modify the date if needed from the Compact Cases tab of the offender’s profile. If you are the receiving state PO, please log into ICOTS and complete a Case Closure Notice on or within 10 business days after the supervision end date."

Modify the body text on the Case Closure Notice Was Due to read:

This email is a reminder that the supervision end date for <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) was due on <Supervision End Date>. If you are the sending state PO, please ensure the case is eligible for closure on that date and log into ICOTS to modify the date if needed from the Compact Cases tab of the offender’s profile. If you are the receiving state PO, please log into ICOTS and complete a Case Closure Notice on or within 10 business days after the supervision end date."

Proposal to modify/enhance ICOTS application:

Add Ability for RECSTA Compact Office to Remove Retaking Requirement from OVR

Proposed by: Technology Committee (via DCA Liaison Committee)

Enhancement No: ER_2020_02_RemoveRetakingObligationOVR_Technology

Users Impacted:

Compact Office

Statement of Need:

Once a behavior requiring retaking has been submitted and responded to, there is no ability to withdraw that violation report, and the ICOTS system does not allow any other actions other than retaking when the offender is available.  There are occasions when PC is not found on the behavior requiring retaking, new information is learned, or an offender's situation changes after submission of the violation report. When PC is not found, the sending state has no obligation to retake any longer.  If new information is learned or the offender's situation changes, the receiving state may agree to continue to supervise even after the violation has been submitted.  When PC is not found or both states agree to continue supervision, it is requested that the option be added to the addendum to violation report for the receiving state to indicate "retaking no longer required" and for the sending state to reply with an option to "continue to supervise".  These options should only be available via addendums to violation reports available to compact staff/administrators or, by creating a new button/feature that allows only compact office staff to submit this type of action and require validation from both states similar to a case closure notice.

National Office Suggestions:  Ensure the option is available for ALL Violation Reports Requiring Retaking instances, not just behavior requiring retaking. 

Current Practices:

MN currently marks the offender as "unavailable" for retaking and notes in the comment section the reason why the offender is not being retaken, or asks the receiving state to do so.  We do this so that the ICOTS reports will not continue to reflect that the offender was available and the responsible state has not retaken within the mandated 30-day timeframe.  However, the case will still appear on reports for cases requiring attention/retaking even though it has been resolved.  This also leads to confusion when looking at the ICOTS record and does not seem to be a practical solution in the long term.                                                                                         

The following information is drafted by the Technology Committee

Justification of Enhancement Priority:

This enhancement would improve the validity and accuracy of the information provided within ICOTS and will reflect the actual status of the case, rather than simply marking someone as "not available" when that is not their true status.  It will eliminate offenders continuing to show up on reports as "needing attention."     

Region/Committee action:

DCA Liaison Committee May 2019: Chair T. Hudrlik (MN) presented an ICOTS enhancement request prepared by the State of Minnesota on behalf of the DCA Liaison Committee. She stated that once a behavior requiring retaking had been submitted and responded to, there was no ability to withdraw that violation report, and the ICOTS system did not allow any other actions other than retaking when the offender was available.  These options should be available to compact administrators and on addendums to violation report. She added that this enhancement would improve the validity and accuracy of the information provided within ICOTS and will reflect the actual status of the case, rather than simply marking someone as "not available" when that is not their true status. 

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly suggested asking Appriss to come up with the best solution using the simplest and most cost-efficient way to solve this issue.

The committee moved to forward the enhancement request proposed by the State of Minnesota on behalf of the DCA Liaison Committee to the Technology Committee for approval. Motion carried.

Technology Committee November 2019: The committee reviewed the second ICOTS enhancement request proposed by the DCA Liaison Committee.  The request gives receiving state compact offices the ability to remove the requirement for retaking on a Violation Report after a response is sent.

DCA M. Billinger (KS) stated that currently there was no process for this functionality, which complicates tracking the case in ICOTS.

DCA M. Evans (WI) agreed with creating a new process, but disagreed that only compact offices should have an ability to amend it. She believed this created a precedent where a compact office could override the supervising officer’s recommendations.

Training Coordinator M. Spring expressed her concerns with training logistics, if the capacity to amend was given to stakeholders outside of the compact office.

DCA C. Alfonso (NJ) spoke for keeping this action at the compact office level only.

The committee discussed the importance of this proposal especially with cases where the absconders did not abscond, but rather were in jails, hospitals, or no longer alive.

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly expressed his support for the enhancement. He noted that it was premature to decide who should have discretion to override these cases and suggested consulting with Appriss on the best solution to proceed with this enhancement.

Commissioner M. Pevey (WA) moved to approve the enhancement request to add the ability for receiving state compact offices to remove the requirement for retaking on a Violation Report after a response was sent. Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) seconded. Motion passed.

Technology Committee July 14, 2020: The committee reviewed comments received for ER_2020_02 Add Ability for RECSTA Compact Office to Remove Retaking Requirement from OVR enhancement.

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly noted that Appriss provided a statement of work for this enhancement. They are going to make changes through an addendum to the violation report. The option to remove the requirement for retaking will only appear to Compact Office users in the receiving state. The assigned probation officer (PO) will see the changes without an option to remove it.

The committee agreed the ability to remove the requirement for retaking should only be available at the compact office level.

DCA J. Lohman (VA) inquired if it was possible to merge two addendums created by different users.

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly stated that this was not included in the original scope of work. He added that there could be a problem with ownership of the data as it moves through the workflow.

Training Coordinator M. Spring suggested reassigning cases to yourself, if users sent a violation report requiring retaking and probable cause is requested and not found. She noted that users could also withdraw addendums.

For training purposes, DCA J. Lohman (VA) suggested transmitting the addendum from the PO and sending a follow up addendum with the updated information.

Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) moved to approve ER_2020_02 Add Ability for RECSTA Compact Office to Remove Retaking Requirement from OVR enhancement as written for full Commission vote at the 2020 ABM. Commissioner M. Pevey (WA) seconded. Motion passed.

Impact on Other ICOTS Processes:

This enhancement will affect the processing of violation reports and addendums (including respective PDFs) by the compact office staff and will affect ICOTS reports.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Impact to External Data:

ICOTS data fields for recommendation/responses (which already exist) expanded to include these new selections, “Retaking no longer required.” 

Development Cost:

$22,350

Functional Specifications:

Modify the Addendum to Violation Report to allow AVRs to be created by a Compact Office Member (currently only option exists for assigned Supervising User in the receiving state) associated with the RECSTA Compact Office for Compact Case.

The following new recommendation option “Retaking no longer required” will be available to Compact Office users on the Addendum to Violation Report Recommendations screen.

On the Response to Violation Report Response screen, add a new Response Option: Retaking no longer required

When an RVR with the Response Retaking no longer required is transmitted, the following occurs:

• On the AVR Recommendation screen for all future AVRs:
  
  • The Retaking no longer required Recommendation option is displayed (for all Users)
  • The Retaking no longer required Recommendation option is selected by default
  • All the Recommendation Options are grayed out so the user cannot change the selected Recommendation Options.
• On the RVR Response screen for all future RVRs type, and the Recommendations Options are all grayed out to indicate that it cannot be changed to a different Recommendation type.

On the Violation Information screens, Violation Information table:

• In the column Return/Retake Obligation for the violation, when a Violation has an RVR Transmitted that

On the AVR PDF: Add Retaking No Longer Required as a Recommendation option checkbox, checked when Retaking No Longer Required is the selected recommendation.

Modify Offenders Requiring Retaking Report (Detailed and Summary) as follows: Remove all offenders where an RVR with Response Retaking No Longer Required has been transmitted.

WITHDRAWN

Proposal to modify/enhance ICOTS application:

Allow Users to Select the Specific CAR and Multiple CARs to Which They Are Replying

Proposed by: Technology Committee (via DCA Liaison Committee)
Enhancement No: ER_2020_03_ChooseCARToReplyTo_Technology

Users Impacted:

PO (Field User), Supervisor, Compact Office

Statement of Need:

The current CAR system is flawed. Currently, when multiple CARs are sent and not responded to, CAR responses from another state that are unrelated to the intended CAR being responded to is attached to the oldest CAR previously sent. This can create confusion among ICOTS users. Important information can be "buried" Into CARs that are old and irrelevant. ICOTS should be changed so users can pick which CAR they are responding to. ICOTS is a great program for sharing information about an offender's case. The flow of said information should be more organized and user friendly.

National Office Suggestions:  Add the ability to select multiple CARs to respond to.  This will assist in cleanup efforts when states fail to respond to multiple CARs with same request.

Current Practices:

Many users often call stating that they received an email for a compact action request but they cannot find it. Our office tells users to look at the dates for the CARs and to locate the CAR by the date. Often times, the CAR they were looking for is attached to a CAR that may have been sent over one year ago.

The following information is drafted by the Technology Committee

Justification of Enhancement Priority:

This enhancement will make the information in CARs more organized and user friendly. The flow of information chronologically is widely adopted by many other systems. The current CAR system sometimes does not allow for the chronological flow of information and can make gathering case information confusing and difficult. For example, if agents are gathering information for a violation report, it is often the practice to print CARS and CAR responses for violation hearing evidence. When a CAR is responded to and attached to an older, irrelevant CAR, this can also create confusion for hearing officers/authorities.

Region/Committee action:

DCA Liaison Committee February 2020: Chair T. Hudrlik (MN), presented an ICOTS Enhancement proposal submitted by the State of Minnesota.  The proposal was to add users’ ability to choose the CAR they were responding to. Currently, users had to reply to each CAR to keep it on the top of their list.

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly clarified that the system was designed that way to ensure two-way communication between the states and to verify the CAR was received by the other state.

The committee discussed changing ICOTS requirement to mandate responses to CARs.

The committee decided to proceed with the enhancement as originally drafted.

DCA N. Latulippe (CT) moved to forward MN enhancement request to the Technology Committee for consideration as drafted. DCA S. Hammond (IA) seconded. Motion passed. 

Technology Committee April 20, 2020:  The committee reviewed ER-2020-03 Allow Users to Select the Specific CAR to Which They are Replying enhancement proposed by the DCA Liaison Committee and submitted by the Technology Committee. The national office suggested the enhancement should also include the ability for users to reply to multiple Compact Action Requests with a single reply.

DCA M. Billinger (KS) supported the proposal.

Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) moved to approve and refer enhancement proposal ER-2020-03 Allow Users to Select the Specific CAR to Which They are Replying to posting for comments as presented. Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) seconded. Motion passed.

Technology Committee July 14, 2020:  The committee reviewed the comment received for ER_2020_03 Allow Users to Select the Specific CAR and Multiple CARs to Which They Are Replying enhancement.

Commissioner M. Pevey (WA) moved to approve ER_2020_03 Allow Users to Select the Specific CAR and Multiple CARs to Which They Are Replying enhancement as written for full Commission vote at the 2020 ABM. Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) seconded. Motion passed.

Technology Committee August 18, 2020:  Commissioner B. Jean (NH) moved to remove the enhancement ER_2020_03_ChooseCARToReplyTo_Technology from consideration at this time. Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) seconded. Motion passed.

Impact on Other ICOTS Processes:

No impact on rules or other ICOTS processes.

Impact to External Data:

CAR identifying data is already provided to the compact_action_requests table in data export which may be modified due to this change. 

Development Cost:

$30,450

Functional Specifications Drafted by National Office:

Modify Compact Action Reply Assistant to display only one row per User with unanswered Compact Action Requests, rather than multiple rows of one per request.

Add new CAR Response Selection Form.

Display imbedded Multi-select field of Compact Cases.

Modify the Review Compact Action Request screen on the Compact Action Request Response Change Title to: Review Compact Action Request(s) for <Offender Name>

Modify the Preview Screen on the Compact Action Request Response. Under Request Items, add the field Requested Date.

Modify the Compact Action Request Response PDF to repeat the whole Request portion of the PDF to display every Compact Action Request which this Response addresses.

Proposal to modify/enhance ICOTS application:

Add New CAR Specialization for Travel Permits (consider/suggest additional indicators) with Indicator to be included in Email Subject (as described in 05_CommentPreviewinCAREmails_Technology)

Proposed by: Technology Committee (via KS)
Enhancement No: ER_2020_04_NewCARSpecializationTravelPermits_Technology

Users Impacted:

PO (Field User), Supervisor, Compact Office, State Administrator

Statement of Need:

With rule 3.110, Travel Permits, taking effect on April 1st 2020, receiving state users utilize compact action requests to notify offenders will be traveling to the sending state. Currently, when submitting a compact action request, ICOTS does not have a travel permit specialization option. Adding the travel permit option to the "specialization" drop down menu and adding the "travel permit" language to the ICOTS email notification will allow sending states to sort through ICOTS notification emails and notify victims in a timely manner.

National Office Suggestions: 

• As adding a new selection to the drop down menu for CAR specializations, the Commission should consider other specializations that could be added. 
• As the new drop down choice is a different technical change than the email notifications, the committee should consider including the email language change to ER_2020_05_CommentPreviewinCAREmails_Technology and have ALL specializations provided in the email notifications and previews. 

Current Practices:

Rule 3.110 took effect on April 1st. It is anticipated most users use compact action requests for travel permit notifications. Currently ICOTS users receive a "generic" email notification indicating a compact action request has been submitted. To view the content of the CAR, users have to access ICOTS and open the compact action request. This is problematic with users who have a large case workload as they receive hundreds of notifications on a daily basis.

The following information is drafted by the Technology Committee

Justification of Enhancement Priority:

This enhancement will allow sending states to manage the travel permit compact action requests and victim notifications in a timely manner.

Region/Committee action:

DCA Liaison Committee February 24, 2020: The committee reviewed an enhancement proposal informally submitted by DCA S. Hammond. By adding the travel permit option to the "specialization" drop down menu and adding the "travel permit" language to the ICOTS email notification, sending states would be able to sort through ICOTS notification emails and notify victims in a timely manner.

The committee was in favor of the proposal.

Currently, Iowa does not have an appointed commissioner. DCA M. Billinger (KS) will ask his commissioner to sign on the enhancement.

DCA M. Billinger (KS) inquired about amending the proposal by adding a comment field to CARs.

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly stated it would affect different process and recommended submitting this concept as a separate request.

DCA M. Billinger (KS) serves on the Technology Committee and plans to submit this concept directly to the Technology Committee.

DCA D. Clark (ME) moved to forward IA enhancement request to the Technology Committee for consideration. DCA S. Hammond (IA) seconded. Motion passed.

Technology Committee April 20, 2020: The committee reviewed ER-2020-04 Add New CAR Specialization for Travel Permits with Indicator in Email Subject enhancement submitted by the Technology Committee with support from DCA Liaison Committee (via M. Billinger.)  The committee considered the modifications suggested by national office to include the specialization in email notifications as described in ER-2020-05 and that the Commission should consider and propose additional drop-down options with this proposal during the comment period.

Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) moved to approve and refer enhancement proposal ER-2020-04 Add New CAR Specialization for Travel Permits with Indicator in Email Subject as recommended for all CAR email notifications to posting for comments as presented. Commissioner M. Pevey (WA) seconded. Motion passed.

Technology Committee July 14, 2020: The committee reviewed comments received for ER_2020_04 Add New CAR Specialization for Travel Permits with Indicator to be included in Email Subject enhancement.

DCA J. Lohman (VA) supports this enhancement. She suggested considering other specialization language to add to emails specific to existing specialized CAR: “1) Third state transfer and develop instructions for who and how the third state transfer is initiated as users often think the receiving can submit the TREQ to the subsequent state and sending state users often do not know how to select the specialized Transfer Request that copies case materials over to a new case/transfer; 2) When a progress report is requested, adding language to the email that reminds users to use the progress report already created when the CAR was submitted rather than creating a new one that does not satisfy the deadline for submission.”

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly clarified that any progress report transmitted after one is requested fulfills the requirement created with the specialized CAR, regardless of whether the original progress report was deleted by the sending state user.

Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) moved to approve ER_2020_04 Add New CAR Specialization for Travel Permits with Indicator to be included in Email Subject enhancement as written for full Commission vote at the 2020 ABM. Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) seconded. Motion passed.

Impact on Other ICOTS Processes:

No impact on rules or process.

Impact to External Data:

None. ‘Specialization’ column is already provided to the compact_action_requests table in data export. This new selection will be added to the existing table.

Development Cost:

$3,480

Functional Specifications Drafted by National Office:

Modify the Specialization Dropdown list on the Action Request screen of the Compact Action Request Builder to add the Specialization: Travel Permits.

Confirm the Specialization Travel Permits is displayed in the Compact Action Reply on the Review Compact Action Request form.

Proposal to modify/enhance ICOTS application:

Include Preview of the Comment Field and Specialization in CAR Email Body

Proposed by: Technology Committee (via KS)
Enhancement No: ER_2020_05_CommentPreviewinCAREmails_Technology

Users Impacted:

PO (Field User), Supervisor, Compact Office, State Administrator

Statement of Need:

Currently as multiple compact action requests (CAR) are being submitted, it is important to note that some carry more weight, liability, and concern than others. There are also simple, low priority CAR's being submitted as well. If the email notification showed a preview or sample of the context of the compact action request and specialization then compact office staff and supervision officer users would be able to prioritize CAR's regarding violations, retaking, travel permits, and delay action on CARs such as "clean up" or "OK" responses.

National Office Suggestions:  Include ALL specialization indicators in CAR email notifications as described in ER_2020_04_NewCARSpecializationTravelPermits_Technology (regarding travel permits)

Current Practices:

Currently, compact office staff and users open each compact action request to view what is sent, relating to their caseload.

The following information is drafted by the Technology Committee

Justification of Enhancement Priority:

This was also discussed with the DCA Liaison Committee and received a positive response. This will allow users to focus on high priority items at the time of delivery, and process less impactful requests as time allows. Many users I have spoken to wait and review all CAR's at one time, maybe once a week or less often. Therefore, they are not seeing those high priority requests coming through, and managing all requests the same.

Region/Committee action:

Technology Committee April 20, 2020: The committee reviewed ER-2020-05 Include Preview of the Comment Field and Specialization in CAR Email Body enhancement submitted by the Technology Committee (via DCA M. Billinger) with consideration of suggested changes by the national office to include the specialization of all CAR email notifications.

Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) moved to approve and refer enhancement proposal ER-2020-05 Include Preview of the Comment Field and Specialization in CAR Email Body to posting for comments as presented. Commissioner B. Jean (NH) seconded.  Motion passed.

Technology Committee July 14, 2020: The committee reviewed comments received for ER_2020_05 Include Preview of the Comment Field and Specialization in CAR Email Body enhancement.

ICOTS Project Manager X. Donnelly clarified that even though enhancement ER_2020_05 goes together with the enhancement ER_2020_04, both enhancements can function separately.

Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) moved to approve ER_2020_05 Include Preview of the Comment Field and Specialization in CAR Email Body enhancement as written for full Commission vote at the 2020 ABM. Commissioner M. Pevey (WA) seconded. Motion passed.

Impact on Other ICOTS Processes:

Email notification only.  No impact on rules or process.

Impact to External Data:

Add new ‘preview text’ column to the compact_action_requests table provided in data export.  ‘Specialization’ column already provided.

Development Cost:

$6,420

Functional Specifications Drafted by National Office:

Modify the Compact Action Request Notification to read:

Subject: A Compact Action Request for <State> offender <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) has been submitted (<Specialization>)

Body: This email is a notification that a Compact Action Request for <State> offender <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) has been submitted. This is regarding <Specialization>. Please log into ICOTS for more information

Preview: <Description text block of the first Attachment on the Compact Action Request>

When the CAR is associated with a Compact Activity, it should read:

Subject: A Compact Action Request for<State> offender <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) has been submitted (Regarding <Compact Activity Type>)

Body: This email is a notification that a Compact Action Request for <State> offender <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) has been submitted. This is regarding a(n) <compact Activity Type> transmitted <Compact Activity Transmission Date>. Please log into ICOTS for more information

Preview: <Description text block of the first Attachment on the Compact Action Request>

Description text block should be limited to the first 100 characters.

This text change is only added in the Compact Action Request notification, not the CAR Response.

Modify the Compact Action Request Response Notification to read:

Subject: A Compact Action Request for <State> offender <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) has been submitted

Body: This email is a notification that a Compact Action Request Response for <State> offender <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) has been submitted. This is regarding <Specialization>. Please log into ICOTS for more information

Proposal to modify/enhance ICOTS application:

Update Rejected Case Notifications

Proposed by: Technology Committee (via VA)
Enhancement No: ER_2020_06_UpdateRejectedCaseNotifications_Technology

Users Impacted:

PO (Field User), Supervisor, Compact Office, State Administrator

Statement of Need:

Requires attention notification is misleading/incorrect:
"Case for [Sending State] offender [name and number] requires attention" FOLLOW-UP ICOTS notification reads,
"This e-mail is a reminder that the case for John Doe (1234567) has been denied and the case requires attention or must be withdrawn." In addition to this being sent when a Transfer has actually been denied after RIs were approved, it is also sent when Reporting Instructions have been denied, no Notice of Departure sent, and a Transfer Request is still pending thus causing confusion and giving incorrect information that a case has been denied when it hasn't and that it requires attention when it doesn't.
This notification should be more specific to cover all scenarios. It should read,

"This e-mail is a reminder that the case for John Doe (1234567) requires attention due to a denied Request for Reporting Instructions or rejected Transfer Request.  Review the ICOTS Profile to determine whether the case should be withdrawn, a new Request for Reporting Instructions or Transfer Request should be transmitted or to confirm the case is awaiting a Transfer Reply from the receiving state. As a reminder, ensure the offender is only in the receiving state in compliance with Compact rules. Contact your Compact Office for assistance or clarification on rules or procedures." 

Current Practices:

Users are often confused, concerned and take inappropriate actions when hearing the case has been rejected but the transfer is actually still pending and there is no Notice of Departure.

The following information is drafted by the Technology Committee

Justification of Enhancement Priority:

Provide more clarification, less confusion and less contacts to Compact Offices to explain why they are being told a case has been rejected when it hasn't been.

Region/Committee action:

Technology Committee April 20, 2020: The committee reviewed ER-2020-06 Update Reject Case Notifications enhancement submitted by the Technology Committee (via DCA J. Lohman) with consideration of suggested changes by the national office to ensure the email is specific rather than generic.

The committee discussed adding a link to the directory as proposed by the national office.  DCA M. Billinger (KS) and DCA J. Lohman (VA) expressed their concerns that users would try to reach out to other states if they had a link to the directory. Both DCAs were against providing the link.

Commissioner M. Pevey (WA) moved to approve and refer enhancement proposal ER-2020-06 Update Reject Case Notifications to posting for comments as amended. Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) seconded. Motion passed.

Technology Committee July 14, 2020: There were no comments submitted for ER_2020_06 Update Rejected Case Notifications enhancement.

Commissioner M. Pevey (WA) moved to approve ER_2020_06 Update Rejected Case Notifications enhancement as written for full Commission vote at the 2020 ABM. Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) seconded. Motion passed.

Impact on Other ICOTS Processes:

No impact.

Impact to External Data:

No impact.

Development Cost:

$1,170

Functional Specifications Drafted by National Office:

Modify the body text on the Requires Attention notification body text to read: “This e-mail is a reminder that the case for <Offender Name> (<Offender ID>) requires attention due to a denied Request for Reporting Instructions or rejected Transfer Request. Review the ICOTS Profile to determine whether the case should be withdrawn, a new Request for Reporting Instructions or Transfer Request should be transmitted or to confirm the case is awaiting a Transfer Reply from the receiving state. As a reminder, ensure the offender is only in the receiving state in compliance with Compact rules. Contact your Compact Office for assistance or clarification on rules or procedures."

Stop transmitting this notification when Case Status = Accepted and the RFRI-Reply has been denied. It should only be transmitted when the Case Status is Pending.

Proposal to modify/enhance ICOTS application:

Include Last Primary Residence on Both the Case Closure and Case Closure Reply PDFs

Proposed by: Technology Committee (via VA)
Enhancement no: ER_2020_07_ IncludePrimaryResidenceonCCNCCN-Reply_Technology

Users Impacted:

PO (Field User), Supervisor, Compact Office, State Administrator

Statement of Need:

The PDFs of the Case Closure Notice and Case Closure Notice Response contain the offender's last known Employment contact information but not the last known Residence and phone number. The home address and phone number fields were not part of the original CCN or CCN-Reply forms from which ICOTS was designed. Since the CCN and CCN Reply forms are often placed in the official file and/or provided to the court, it would seem that if the Employment address is listed on these PDFs, the Residence/phone would be listed also.

Current Practices:

Users have to locate a prior Progress Report (which could contain an old address depending on how old the PR is) or take a screenshot of the Residence tab in order to print that information for the court/file when addressing issues like fines, costs and restitution after closure.

The following information is drafted by the Technology Committee

Justification of Enhancement Priority:

Since the CCN and CCN Reply forms are often placed in the official file and/or provided to the court, it would seem that if the Employment address is listed on these PDFs, the Residence/phone would be too. Otherwise, it appears incomplete and lacking in detail.

Region/Committee action:

Technology Committee April 20, 2020: The committee reviewed ER-2020-07 Include Last Primary Residence on Both the Case Closure and Case Closure Reply PDFs enhancement submitted by the Technology Committee (via DCA J. Lohman.)

DCA J. Lohman (VA) and DCA M. Billinger (KS) spoke in favor of the enhancement.

Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) moved to approve and refer enhancement proposal ER-2020-07 Include Last Primary Residence on Both the Case Closure and Case Closure Reply PDFs to posting for comments. Commissioner B. Jean (NH) seconded.  Motion passed.

Technology Committee July 14, 2020: There were no comments submitted for ER_2020_07 Include Last Primary Residence on Both the Case Closure and Case Closure Reply PDFs enhancement.

Commissioner J. Lopez (WI) moved to approve ER_2020_07 Include Last Primary Residence on Both the Case Closure and Case Closure Reply PDFs enhancement as written for full Commission vote at the 2020 ABM. Commissioner D. Blanchard (UT) seconded. Motion passed.

Impact on Other ICOTS Processes:

No impact.  PDF changes only.

Impact to External Data:

None.

Development Cost:

$3,210

Functional Specifications Drafted by National Office:

Add a new section to the Case Closure Notice PDF and Case Closure Notice Reply:

• Placed above the Employment section and below the Supervision termination date field
• Data: Last know residence that is marked as Primary Residence for the Offender.