Bill Text: IL HB0386 | 2019-2020 | 101st General Assembly | Enrolled
NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft
Bill Title: Amends the Illinois Crime Reduction Act of 2009. Provides that 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. Provides that 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. Provides report requirements.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 8-0)
Status: (Passed) 2019-08-09 - Public Act . . . . . . . . . 101-0231 [HB0386 Detail]
Download: Illinois-2019-HB0386-Enrolled.html
Bill Title: Amends the Illinois Crime Reduction Act of 2009. Provides that 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. Provides that 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. Provides report requirements.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 8-0)
Status: (Passed) 2019-08-09 - Public Act . . . . . . . . . 101-0231 [HB0386 Detail]
Download: Illinois-2019-HB0386-Enrolled.html
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | AN ACT concerning criminal law.
| ||||||
2 | Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, | ||||||
3 | represented in the General Assembly:
| ||||||
4 | Section 5. The Illinois Crime Reduction Act of 2009 is | ||||||
5 | amended by changing Section 10 as follows:
| ||||||
6 | (730 ILCS 190/10)
| ||||||
7 | Sec. 10. Evidence-Based Programming.
| ||||||
8 | (a) Purpose. Research and practice have identified new | ||||||
9 | strategies and policies that can result in a significant | ||||||
10 | reduction in recidivism rates and the successful local | ||||||
11 | reintegration of offenders. The purpose of this Section is to | ||||||
12 | ensure that State and local agencies direct their resources to | ||||||
13 | services and programming that have been demonstrated to be | ||||||
14 | effective in reducing recidivism and reintegrating offenders | ||||||
15 | into the locality. | ||||||
16 | (b) Evidence-based programming in local supervision. | ||||||
17 | (1) The Parole Division of the Department of | ||||||
18 | Corrections and the Prisoner Review Board shall adopt | ||||||
19 | policies, rules, and regulations that, within the first | ||||||
20 | year of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the | ||||||
21 | statewide, standardized risk assessment tool described in | ||||||
22 | this Act, result in at least 25% of supervised individuals | ||||||
23 | being supervised in accordance with evidence-based |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | practices; within 3 years of the adoption, validation, and | ||||||
2 | utilization of the statewide, standardized risk assessment | ||||||
3 | tool result in at least 50% of supervised individuals being | ||||||
4 | supervised in accordance with evidence-based practices; | ||||||
5 | and within 5 years of the adoption, validation, and | ||||||
6 | utilization of the statewide, standardized risk assessment | ||||||
7 | tool result in at least 75% of supervised individuals being | ||||||
8 | supervised in accordance with evidence-based practices. | ||||||
9 | The policies, rules, and regulations shall: | ||||||
10 | (A) Provide for a standardized individual case | ||||||
11 | plan that follows the offender through the criminal | ||||||
12 | justice system (including in-prison if the supervised | ||||||
13 | individual is in prison) that is:
| ||||||
14 | (i) Based on the assets of the individual as | ||||||
15 | well as his or her risks and needs identified | ||||||
16 | through the assessment tool as described in this | ||||||
17 | Act. | ||||||
18 | (ii) Comprised of treatment and supervision | ||||||
19 | services appropriate to achieve the purpose of | ||||||
20 | this Act. | ||||||
21 | (iii) Consistently updated, based on program | ||||||
22 | participation by the supervised individual and | ||||||
23 | other behavior modification exhibited by the | ||||||
24 | supervised individual. | ||||||
25 | (B) Concentrate resources and services on | ||||||
26 | high-risk offenders. |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | (C) Provide for the use of evidence-based | ||||||
2 | programming related to education, job training, | ||||||
3 | cognitive behavioral therapy, and other programming | ||||||
4 | designed to reduce criminal behavior. | ||||||
5 | (D) Establish a system of graduated responses. | ||||||
6 | (i) The system shall set forth a menu of | ||||||
7 | presumptive responses for the most common types of | ||||||
8 | supervision violations.
| ||||||
9 | (ii) The system shall be guided by the model | ||||||
10 | list of intermediate sanctions created by the | ||||||
11 | Probation Services Division of the State of | ||||||
12 | Illinois pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 15 | ||||||
13 | of the Probation and Probation Officers Act and the | ||||||
14 | system of intermediate sanctions created by the | ||||||
15 | Chief Judge of each circuit court pursuant to | ||||||
16 | Section 5-6-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections. | ||||||
17 | (iii) The system of responses shall take into | ||||||
18 | account factors such as the severity of the current | ||||||
19 | violation; the supervised individual's risk level | ||||||
20 | as determined by a validated assessment tool | ||||||
21 | described in this Act; the supervised individual's | ||||||
22 | assets; his or her previous criminal record; and | ||||||
23 | the number and severity of any previous | ||||||
24 | supervision violations. | ||||||
25 | (iv) The system shall also define positive | ||||||
26 | reinforcements that supervised individuals may |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | receive for compliance with conditions of | ||||||
2 | supervision. | ||||||
3 | (v) Response to violations should be swift and | ||||||
4 | certain and should be imposed as soon as | ||||||
5 | practicable but no longer than 3 working days of | ||||||
6 | detection of the violation behavior. | ||||||
7 | (2) Conditions of local supervision (probation and | ||||||
8 | mandatory supervised release). Conditions of local | ||||||
9 | supervision whether imposed by a sentencing judge or the | ||||||
10 | Prisoner Review Board shall be imposed in accordance with | ||||||
11 | the offender's risks, assets, and needs as identified | ||||||
12 | through the assessment tool described in this Act. | ||||||
13 | (3) The Department of Corrections and the Prisoner | ||||||
14 | Review Board shall annually publish an exemplar copy of any | ||||||
15 | evidence-based assessments, questionnaires, or other | ||||||
16 | instruments used to set conditions of release. | ||||||
17 | (c) Evidence-based in-prison programming. | ||||||
18 | (1) The Department of Corrections shall adopt | ||||||
19 | policies, rules, and regulations that, within the first | ||||||
20 | year of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the | ||||||
21 | statewide, standardized risk assessment tool described in | ||||||
22 | this Act, result in at least 25% of incarcerated | ||||||
23 | individuals receiving services and programming in | ||||||
24 | accordance with evidence-based practices; within 3 years | ||||||
25 | of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the | ||||||
26 | statewide, standardized risk assessment tool result in at |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | least 50% of incarcerated individuals receiving services | ||||||
2 | and programming in accordance with evidence-based | ||||||
3 | practices; and within 5 years of the adoption, validation, | ||||||
4 | and utilization of the statewide, standardized risk | ||||||
5 | assessment tool result in at least 75% of incarcerated | ||||||
6 | individuals receiving services and programming in | ||||||
7 | accordance with evidence-based practices. The policies, | ||||||
8 | rules, and regulations shall: | ||||||
9 | (A) Provide for the use and development of a case | ||||||
10 | plan based on the risks, assets, and needs identified | ||||||
11 | through the assessment tool as described in this Act. | ||||||
12 | The case plan should be used to determine in-prison | ||||||
13 | programming; should be continuously updated based on | ||||||
14 | program participation by the prisoner and other | ||||||
15 | behavior modification exhibited by the prisoner; and | ||||||
16 | should be used when creating the case plan described in | ||||||
17 | subsection (b).
| ||||||
18 | (B) Provide for the use of evidence-based | ||||||
19 | programming related to education, job training, | ||||||
20 | cognitive behavioral therapy and other evidence-based | ||||||
21 | programming. | ||||||
22 | (C) Establish education programs based on a | ||||||
23 | teacher to student ratio of no more than 1:30. | ||||||
24 | (D) Expand the use of drug prisons, modeled after | ||||||
25 | the Sheridan Correctional Center, to provide | ||||||
26 | sufficient drug treatment and other support services |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | to non-violent inmates with a history of substance | ||||||
2 | abuse. | ||||||
3 | (2) Participation and completion of programming by | ||||||
4 | prisoners can impact earned time credit as determined under | ||||||
5 | Section 3-6-3 of the Unified Code of Corrections. | ||||||
6 | (3) The Department of Corrections shall provide its | ||||||
7 | employees with intensive and ongoing training and | ||||||
8 | professional development services to support the | ||||||
9 | implementation of evidence-based practices. The training | ||||||
10 | and professional development services shall include | ||||||
11 | assessment techniques, case planning, cognitive behavioral | ||||||
12 | training, risk reduction and intervention strategies, | ||||||
13 | effective communication skills, substance abuse treatment | ||||||
14 | education and other topics identified by the Department or | ||||||
15 | its employees. | ||||||
16 | (d) The Parole Division of the Department of Corrections | ||||||
17 | and the Prisoner Review Board shall provide their employees | ||||||
18 | with intensive and ongoing training and professional | ||||||
19 | development services to support the implementation of | ||||||
20 | evidence-based practices. The training and professional | ||||||
21 | development services shall include assessment techniques, case | ||||||
22 | planning, cognitive behavioral training, risk reduction and | ||||||
23 | intervention strategies, effective communication skills, | ||||||
24 | substance abuse treatment education, and other topics | ||||||
25 | identified by the agencies or their employees.
| ||||||
26 | (e) The Department of Corrections, the Prisoner Review |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | Board, and other correctional entities referenced in the | ||||||
2 | policies, rules, and regulations of this Act shall design, | ||||||
3 | implement, and make public a system to evaluate the | ||||||
4 | effectiveness of evidence-based practices in increasing public | ||||||
5 | safety and in successful reintegration of those under | ||||||
6 | supervision into the locality. Annually, each agency shall | ||||||
7 | submit to the Sentencing Policy Advisory Council a | ||||||
8 | comprehensive report on the success of implementing | ||||||
9 | evidence-based practices. The data compiled and analyzed by the | ||||||
10 | Council shall be delivered annually to the Governor and the | ||||||
11 | General Assembly.
| ||||||
12 | (f) The Department of Corrections and the Prisoner Review | ||||||
13 | Board shall release a report annually published on their | ||||||
14 | websites that reports the following information about the usage | ||||||
15 | of electronic monitoring and GPS monitoring as a condition of | ||||||
16 | parole and mandatory supervised release during the prior | ||||||
17 | calendar year: | ||||||
18 | (1) demographic data of individuals on electronic | ||||||
19 | monitoring and GPS monitoring, separated by the following | ||||||
20 | categories: | ||||||
21 | (A) race or ethnicity; | ||||||
22 | (B) gender; and | ||||||
23 | (C) age; | ||||||
24 | (2) incarceration data of individuals subject to | ||||||
25 | conditions of electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by | ||||||
26 | the following categories: |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | (A) highest class of offense for which the | ||||||
2 | individuals is currently serving a term of release; and | ||||||
3 | (B) length of imprisonment served prior to the | ||||||
4 | current release period; | ||||||
5 | (3) the number of individuals subject to conditions of | ||||||
6 | electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the following | ||||||
7 | categories: | ||||||
8 | (A) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
9 | monitoring under Section 5-8A-6 of the Unified Code of | ||||||
10 | Corrections; | ||||||
11 | (B) the number of individuals subject monitoring | ||||||
12 | under Section 5-8A-7 of the Unified Code of | ||||||
13 | Corrections; | ||||||
14 | (C) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
15 | monitoring under a discretionary order of the Prisoner | ||||||
16 | Review Board at the time of their release; and | ||||||
17 | (D) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
18 | monitoring as a sanction for violations of parole or | ||||||
19 | mandatory supervised release, separated by the | ||||||
20 | following categories: | ||||||
21 | (i) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
22 | monitoring as part of a graduated sanctions | ||||||
23 | program; and | ||||||
24 | (ii) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
25 | monitoring as a new condition of re-release after a | ||||||
26 | revocation hearing before the Prisoner Review |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | Board; | ||||||
2 | (4) the number of discretionary monitoring orders | ||||||
3 | issued by the Prisoner Review Board, separated by the | ||||||
4 | following categories: | ||||||
5 | (A) less than 30 days; | ||||||
6 | (B) 31 to 60 days; | ||||||
7 | (C) 61 to 90 days; | ||||||
8 | (D) 91 to 120 days; | ||||||
9 | (E) 121 to 150 days; | ||||||
10 | (F) 151 to 180 days; | ||||||
11 | (G) 181 to 364 days; | ||||||
12 | (H) 365 days or more; and | ||||||
13 | (I) duration of release term; | ||||||
14 | (5) the number of discretionary monitoring orders by | ||||||
15 | the Board which removed or terminated monitoring prior to | ||||||
16 | the completion of the original period ordered; | ||||||
17 | (6) the number and severity category for sanctions | ||||||
18 | imposed on individuals on electronic or GPS monitoring, | ||||||
19 | separated by the following categories: | ||||||
20 | (A) absconding from electronic monitoring or GPS; | ||||||
21 | (B) tampering or removing the electronic | ||||||
22 | monitoring or GPS device; | ||||||
23 | (C) unauthorized leaving of the residence; | ||||||
24 | (D) presence of the individual in a prohibited | ||||||
25 | area; or | ||||||
26 | (E) other violations of the terms of the electronic |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | monitoring program; | ||||||
2 | (7) the number of individuals for whom a parole | ||||||
3 | revocation case was filed for failure to comply with the | ||||||
4 | terms of electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the | ||||||
5 | following categories: | ||||||
6 | (A) cases when failure to comply with the terms of | ||||||
7 | monitoring was the sole violation alleged; and | ||||||
8 | (B) cases when failure to comply with the terms of | ||||||
9 | monitoring was alleged in conjunction with other | ||||||
10 | alleged violations; | ||||||
11 | (8) residential data for individuals subject to | ||||||
12 | electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the following | ||||||
13 | categories: | ||||||
14 | (A) the county of the residence address for | ||||||
15 | individuals subject to electronic or GPS monitoring as | ||||||
16 | a condition of their release; and | ||||||
17 | (B) for counties with a population over 3,000,000, | ||||||
18 | the zip codes of the residence address for individuals | ||||||
19 | subject to electronic or GPS monitoring as a condition | ||||||
20 | of their release; | ||||||
21 | (9) the number of individuals for whom parole | ||||||
22 | revocation cases were filed due to violations of paragraph | ||||||
23 | (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the Unified Code | ||||||
24 | of Corrections, separated by the following categories: | ||||||
25 | (A) the number of individuals whose violation of | ||||||
26 | paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | Unified Code of Corrections allegedly occurred while | ||||||
2 | the individual was subject to conditions of electronic | ||||||
3 | or GPS monitoring; | ||||||
4 | (B) the number of individuals who had violations of | ||||||
5 | paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the | ||||||
6 | Unified Code of Corrections alleged against them who | ||||||
7 | were never subject to electronic or GPS monitoring | ||||||
8 | during their current term of release; and | ||||||
9 | (C) the number of individuals who had violations of | ||||||
10 | paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the | ||||||
11 | Unified Code of Corrections alleged against them who | ||||||
12 | were subject to electronic or GPS monitoring for any | ||||||
13 | period of time during their current term of their | ||||||
14 | release, but who were not subject to such monitoring at | ||||||
15 | the time of the alleged violation of paragraph (1) of | ||||||
16 | subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the Unified Code of | ||||||
17 | Corrections. | ||||||
18 | (Source: P.A. 96-761, eff. 1-1-10.)
|