While the sending state has sole authority to determine the duration of supervision either by way of the court’s sentence of by paroling authorities, the receiving state retains discretion as to the type of supervision it will provide. Rule 4.101 obligates the receiving state to supervise the offender in a manner determined by the receiving state that is consistent with the supervision it provides to other similar offenders. Consequently, there can be qualitative differences between the level of services provided by a sending state versus the services a receiving state provides an offender under its own rules and laws.

The principle of treating compact offenders the same applies to both the quality and quantity of supervision, as well as access to rehabilitative programs. See Doe v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 513 F.3d 95, 108 (3rd Cir. 2008) (“By signing the Interstate Compact, Pennsylvania has agreed that, when accepting out-of-state probationers who transfer their parole and their residence to the Commonwealth, it will approximate the same procedure and standards it applies to its own probationers”). A receiving state may impose conditions on an out-of- state offender if they assist in the offender’s rehabilitation and promote community safety. See discussion infra, at § 3.6.2. It would be a violation of the Compact for a receiving state to create barriers to rehabilitation programs. Similarly, it could be a violation to impose conditions on out-of- state offenders not otherwise imposed on in-state offenders. See e.g., ICAOS v. Tennessee Bd. of Probation and Parole, No. 04-526 KSF (E.D. Ky. 2005). Rule 3.101 affirms the sending state’s sole discretion and prevents the receiving state from attempting unilaterally to add conditions in order to stifle the transfer of offenders it deems undesirable or shifting a financial obligation related to the offender’s supervision to the sending state. See Doe v. Ward, 124 F. Supp.2d 900, 915-16 (W.D. Pa. 2000) (interpreting a similar provision in the old ICPP to negate certain provisions of Pennsylvania’s “Megan’s Law” which treated out-of-state offenders differently from in-state offenders). See also ICAOS Advisory Opinion 9-2004 (“[I]t is our opinion that CSL offenders are subject to supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision and upon proper application and documentation of a valid plan of supervision and verification of residency and employment criteria as required under those rules should be permitted to transfer to other states for supervision under the Compact”).