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.