|
| Public Act 101-0231
|
| HB0386 Enrolled | LRB101 03664 SLF 48672 b |
|
|
AN ACT concerning criminal law.
|
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, |
represented in the General Assembly:
|
Section 5. The Illinois Crime Reduction Act of 2009 is |
amended by changing Section 10 as follows:
|
(730 ILCS 190/10)
|
Sec. 10. Evidence-Based Programming.
|
(a) Purpose. Research and practice have identified new |
strategies and policies that can result in a significant |
reduction in recidivism rates and the successful local |
reintegration of offenders. The purpose of this Section is to |
ensure that State and local agencies direct their resources to |
services and programming that have been demonstrated to be |
effective in reducing recidivism and reintegrating offenders |
into the locality. |
(b) Evidence-based programming in local supervision. |
(1) The Parole Division of the Department of |
Corrections and the Prisoner Review Board shall adopt |
policies, rules, and regulations that, within the first |
year of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the |
statewide, standardized risk assessment tool described in |
this Act, result in at least 25% of supervised individuals |
being supervised in accordance with evidence-based |
|
practices; within 3 years of the adoption, validation, and |
utilization of the statewide, standardized risk assessment |
tool result in at least 50% of supervised individuals being |
supervised in accordance with evidence-based practices; |
and within 5 years of the adoption, validation, and |
utilization of the statewide, standardized risk assessment |
tool result in at least 75% of supervised individuals being |
supervised in accordance with evidence-based practices. |
The policies, rules, and regulations shall: |
(A) Provide for a standardized individual case |
plan that follows the offender through the criminal |
justice system (including in-prison if the supervised |
individual is in prison) that is:
|
(i) Based on the assets of the individual as |
well as his or her risks and needs identified |
through the assessment tool as described in this |
Act. |
(ii) Comprised of treatment and supervision |
services appropriate to achieve the purpose of |
this Act. |
(iii) Consistently updated, based on program |
participation by the supervised individual and |
other behavior modification exhibited by the |
supervised individual. |
(B) Concentrate resources and services on |
high-risk offenders. |
|
(C) Provide for the use of evidence-based |
programming related to education, job training, |
cognitive behavioral therapy, and other programming |
designed to reduce criminal behavior. |
(D) Establish a system of graduated responses. |
(i) The system shall set forth a menu of |
presumptive responses for the most common types of |
supervision violations.
|
(ii) The system shall be guided by the model |
list of intermediate sanctions created by the |
Probation Services Division of the State of |
Illinois pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 15 |
of the Probation and Probation Officers Act and the |
system of intermediate sanctions created by the |
Chief Judge of each circuit court pursuant to |
Section 5-6-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections. |
(iii) The system of responses shall take into |
account factors such as the severity of the current |
violation; the supervised individual's risk level |
as determined by a validated assessment tool |
described in this Act; the supervised individual's |
assets; his or her previous criminal record; and |
the number and severity of any previous |
supervision violations. |
(iv) The system shall also define positive |
reinforcements that supervised individuals may |
|
receive for compliance with conditions of |
supervision. |
(v) Response to violations should be swift and |
certain and should be imposed as soon as |
practicable but no longer than 3 working days of |
detection of the violation behavior. |
(2) Conditions of local supervision (probation and |
mandatory supervised release). Conditions of local |
supervision whether imposed by a sentencing judge or the |
Prisoner Review Board shall be imposed in accordance with |
the offender's risks, assets, and needs as identified |
through the assessment tool described in this Act. |
(3) The Department of Corrections and the Prisoner |
Review Board shall annually publish an exemplar copy of any |
evidence-based assessments, questionnaires, or other |
instruments used to set conditions of release. |
(c) Evidence-based in-prison programming. |
(1) The Department of Corrections shall adopt |
policies, rules, and regulations that, within the first |
year of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the |
statewide, standardized risk assessment tool described in |
this Act, result in at least 25% of incarcerated |
individuals receiving services and programming in |
accordance with evidence-based practices; within 3 years |
of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the |
statewide, standardized risk assessment tool result in at |
|
least 50% of incarcerated individuals receiving services |
and programming in accordance with evidence-based |
practices; and within 5 years of the adoption, validation, |
and utilization of the statewide, standardized risk |
assessment tool result in at least 75% of incarcerated |
individuals receiving services and programming in |
accordance with evidence-based practices. The policies, |
rules, and regulations shall: |
(A) Provide for the use and development of a case |
plan based on the risks, assets, and needs identified |
through the assessment tool as described in this Act. |
The case plan should be used to determine in-prison |
programming; should be continuously updated based on |
program participation by the prisoner and other |
behavior modification exhibited by the prisoner; and |
should be used when creating the case plan described in |
subsection (b).
|
(B) Provide for the use of evidence-based |
programming related to education, job training, |
cognitive behavioral therapy and other evidence-based |
programming. |
(C) Establish education programs based on a |
teacher to student ratio of no more than 1:30. |
(D) Expand the use of drug prisons, modeled after |
the Sheridan Correctional Center, to provide |
sufficient drug treatment and other support services |
|
to non-violent inmates with a history of substance |
abuse. |
(2) Participation and completion of programming by |
prisoners can impact earned time credit as determined under |
Section 3-6-3 of the Unified Code of Corrections. |
(3) The Department of Corrections shall provide its |
employees with intensive and ongoing training and |
professional development services to support the |
implementation of evidence-based practices. The training |
and professional development services shall include |
assessment techniques, case planning, cognitive behavioral |
training, risk reduction and intervention strategies, |
effective communication skills, substance abuse treatment |
education and other topics identified by the Department or |
its employees. |
(d) The Parole Division of the Department of Corrections |
and the Prisoner Review Board shall provide their employees |
with intensive and ongoing training and professional |
development services to support the implementation of |
evidence-based practices. The training and professional |
development services shall include assessment techniques, case |
planning, cognitive behavioral training, risk reduction and |
intervention strategies, effective communication skills, |
substance abuse treatment education, and other topics |
identified by the agencies or their employees.
|
(e) The Department of Corrections, the Prisoner Review |
|
Board, and other correctional entities referenced in the |
policies, rules, and regulations of this Act shall design, |
implement, and make public a system to evaluate the |
effectiveness of evidence-based practices in increasing public |
safety and in successful reintegration of those under |
supervision into the locality. Annually, each agency shall |
submit to the Sentencing Policy Advisory Council a |
comprehensive report on the success of implementing |
evidence-based practices. The data compiled and analyzed by the |
Council shall be delivered annually to the Governor and the |
General Assembly.
|
(f) The Department of Corrections and the Prisoner Review |
Board shall release a report annually published on their |
websites that reports the following information about the usage |
of electronic monitoring and GPS monitoring as a condition of |
parole and mandatory supervised release during the prior |
calendar year: |
(1) demographic data of individuals on electronic |
monitoring and GPS monitoring, separated by the following |
categories: |
(A) race or ethnicity; |
(B) gender; and |
(C) age; |
(2) incarceration data of individuals subject to |
conditions of electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by |
the following categories: |
|
(A) highest class of offense for which the |
individuals is currently serving a term of release; and |
(B) length of imprisonment served prior to the |
current release period; |
(3) the number of individuals subject to conditions of |
electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the following |
categories: |
(A) the number of individuals subject to |
monitoring under Section 5-8A-6 of the Unified Code of |
Corrections; |
(B) the number of individuals subject monitoring |
under Section 5-8A-7 of the Unified Code of |
Corrections; |
(C) the number of individuals subject to |
monitoring under a discretionary order of the Prisoner |
Review Board at the time of their release; and |
(D) the number of individuals subject to |
monitoring as a sanction for violations of parole or |
mandatory supervised release, separated by the |
following categories: |
(i) the number of individuals subject to |
monitoring as part of a graduated sanctions |
program; and |
(ii) the number of individuals subject to |
monitoring as a new condition of re-release after a |
revocation hearing before the Prisoner Review |
|
Board; |
(4) the number of discretionary monitoring orders |
issued by the Prisoner Review Board, separated by the |
following categories: |
(A) less than 30 days; |
(B) 31 to 60 days; |
(C) 61 to 90 days; |
(D) 91 to 120 days; |
(E) 121 to 150 days; |
(F) 151 to 180 days; |
(G) 181 to 364 days; |
(H) 365 days or more; and |
(I) duration of release term; |
(5) the number of discretionary monitoring orders by |
the Board which removed or terminated monitoring prior to |
the completion of the original period ordered; |
(6) the number and severity category for sanctions |
imposed on individuals on electronic or GPS monitoring, |
separated by the following categories: |
(A) absconding from electronic monitoring or GPS; |
(B) tampering or removing the electronic |
monitoring or GPS device; |
(C) unauthorized leaving of the residence; |
(D) presence of the individual in a prohibited |
area; or |
(E) other violations of the terms of the electronic |
|
monitoring program; |
(7) the number of individuals for whom a parole |
revocation case was filed for failure to comply with the |
terms of electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the |
following categories: |
(A) cases when failure to comply with the terms of |
monitoring was the sole violation alleged; and |
(B) cases when failure to comply with the terms of |
monitoring was alleged in conjunction with other |
alleged violations; |
(8) residential data for individuals subject to |
electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the following |
categories: |
(A) the county of the residence address for |
individuals subject to electronic or GPS monitoring as |
a condition of their release; and |
(B) for counties with a population over 3,000,000, |
the zip codes of the residence address for individuals |
subject to electronic or GPS monitoring as a condition |
of their release; |
(9) the number of individuals for whom parole |
revocation cases were filed due to violations of paragraph |
(1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the Unified Code |
of Corrections, separated by the following categories: |
(A) the number of individuals whose violation of |
paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the |
|
Unified Code of Corrections allegedly occurred while |
the individual was subject to conditions of electronic |
or GPS monitoring; |
(B) the number of individuals who had violations of |
paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the |
Unified Code of Corrections alleged against them who |
were never subject to electronic or GPS monitoring |
during their current term of release; and |
(C) the number of individuals who had violations of |
paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the |
Unified Code of Corrections alleged against them who |
were subject to electronic or GPS monitoring for any |
period of time during their current term of their |
release, but who were not subject to such monitoring at |
the time of the alleged violation of paragraph (1) of |
subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the Unified Code of |
Corrections. |
(Source: P.A. 96-761, eff. 1-1-10.)
|
