SB1220 - 104th General Assembly
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||
| 4 | being supervised in accordance with evidence-based | ||||||
| 5 | practices; and within 5 years of the adoption, validation, | ||||||
| 6 | and utilization of the statewide, standardized risk | ||||||
| 7 | assessment tool result in at least 75% of supervised | ||||||
| 8 | individuals being supervised in accordance with | ||||||
| 9 | evidence-based practices. The policies, rules, and | ||||||
| 10 | regulations shall: | ||||||
| 11 | (A) Provide for a standardized individual case | ||||||
| 12 | plan that follows the offender through the criminal | ||||||
| 13 | justice system (including in-prison if the supervised | ||||||
| 14 | individual is in prison) that is: | ||||||
| 15 | (i) Based on the assets of the individual as | ||||||
| 16 | well as his or her risks and needs identified | ||||||
| 17 | through the assessment tool as described in this | ||||||
| 18 | Act. | ||||||
| 19 | (ii) Comprised of treatment and supervision | ||||||
| 20 | services appropriate to achieve the purpose of | ||||||
| 21 | this Act. | ||||||
| 22 | (iii) Consistently updated, based on program | ||||||
| 23 | participation by the supervised individual and | ||||||
| 24 | other behavior modification exhibited by the | ||||||
| 25 | supervised individual. | ||||||
| 26 | (B) Concentrate resources and services on | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | high-risk offenders. | ||||||
| 2 | (C) Provide for the use of evidence-based | ||||||
| 3 | programming related to education, job training, | ||||||
| 4 | cognitive behavioral therapy, and other programming | ||||||
| 5 | designed to reduce criminal behavior. | ||||||
| 6 | (C-1) Authorize and implement the use by the | ||||||
| 7 | Department of Corrections of drug detecting scanning | ||||||
| 8 | devices for supervised individuals packages and mail. | ||||||
| 9 | (D) Establish a system of graduated responses. | ||||||
| 10 | (i) The system shall set forth a menu of | ||||||
| 11 | presumptive responses for the most common types of | ||||||
| 12 | supervision violations. | ||||||
| 13 | (ii) The system shall be guided by the model | ||||||
| 14 | list of intermediate sanctions created by the | ||||||
| 15 | Probation Services Division of the State of | ||||||
| 16 | Illinois pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 15 | ||||||
| 17 | of the Probation and Probation Officers Act and | ||||||
| 18 | the system of intermediate sanctions created by | ||||||
| 19 | the Chief Judge of each circuit court pursuant to | ||||||
| 20 | Section 5-6-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections. | ||||||
| 21 | (iii) The system of responses shall take into | ||||||
| 22 | account factors such as the severity of the | ||||||
| 23 | current violation; the supervised individual's | ||||||
| 24 | risk level as determined by a validated assessment | ||||||
| 25 | tool described in this Act; the supervised | ||||||
| 26 | individual's assets; his or her previous criminal | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | record; and the number and severity of any | ||||||
| 2 | previous supervision violations. | ||||||
| 3 | (iv) The system shall also define positive | ||||||
| 4 | reinforcements that supervised individuals may | ||||||
| 5 | receive for compliance with conditions of | ||||||
| 6 | supervision. | ||||||
| 7 | (v) Response to violations should be swift and | ||||||
| 8 | certain and should be imposed as soon as | ||||||
| 9 | practicable but no longer than 3 working days of | ||||||
| 10 | detection of the violation behavior. | ||||||
| 11 | (vi) The system of graduated responses shall | ||||||
| 12 | be published on the Department of Corrections | ||||||
| 13 | website for public view. | ||||||
| 14 | (2) Conditions of local supervision (probation and | ||||||
| 15 | mandatory supervised release). Conditions of local | ||||||
| 16 | supervision whether imposed by a sentencing judge or the | ||||||
| 17 | Prisoner Review Board shall be imposed in accordance with | ||||||
| 18 | the offender's risks, assets, and needs as identified | ||||||
| 19 | through the assessment tool described in this Act. | ||||||
| 20 | (3) The Department of Corrections and the Prisoner | ||||||
| 21 | Review Board shall annually publish an exemplar copy of | ||||||
| 22 | any evidence-based assessments, questionnaires, or other | ||||||
| 23 | instruments used to set conditions of release. | ||||||
| 24 | (c) Evidence-based in-prison programming. | ||||||
| 25 | (1) The Department of Corrections shall adopt | ||||||
| 26 | policies, rules, and regulations that, within the first | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | year of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the | ||||||
| 2 | statewide, standardized risk assessment tool described in | ||||||
| 3 | this Act, result in at least 25% of incarcerated | ||||||
| 4 | individuals receiving services and programming in | ||||||
| 5 | accordance with evidence-based practices; within 3 years | ||||||
| 6 | of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the | ||||||
| 7 | statewide, standardized risk assessment tool result in at | ||||||
| 8 | least 50% of incarcerated individuals receiving services | ||||||
| 9 | and programming in accordance with evidence-based | ||||||
| 10 | practices; and within 5 years of the adoption, validation, | ||||||
| 11 | and utilization of the statewide, standardized risk | ||||||
| 12 | assessment tool result in at least 75% of incarcerated | ||||||
| 13 | individuals receiving services and programming in | ||||||
| 14 | accordance with evidence-based practices. The policies, | ||||||
| 15 | rules, and regulations shall: | ||||||
| 16 | (A) Provide for the use and development of a case | ||||||
| 17 | plan based on the risks, assets, and needs identified | ||||||
| 18 | through the assessment tool as described in this Act. | ||||||
| 19 | The case plan should be used to determine in-prison | ||||||
| 20 | programming; should be continuously updated based on | ||||||
| 21 | program participation by the prisoner and other | ||||||
| 22 | behavior modification exhibited by the prisoner; and | ||||||
| 23 | should be used when creating the case plan described | ||||||
| 24 | in subsection (b). | ||||||
| 25 | (B) Provide for the use of evidence-based | ||||||
| 26 | programming related to education, job training, | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | cognitive behavioral therapy and other evidence-based | ||||||
| 2 | programming. | ||||||
| 3 | (C) Establish education programs based on a | ||||||
| 4 | teacher to student ratio of no more than 1:30. | ||||||
| 5 | (D) Expand the use of drug prisons, modeled after | ||||||
| 6 | the Sheridan Correctional Center, to provide | ||||||
| 7 | sufficient drug treatment and other support services | ||||||
| 8 | to non-violent inmates with a history of substance | ||||||
| 9 | abuse. | ||||||
| 10 | (E) Establish and implement the use of drug | ||||||
| 11 | detecting devices for the scanning of all prisoner | ||||||
| 12 | mail and packages for suspected drugs. | ||||||
| 13 | (2) Participation and completion of programming by | ||||||
| 14 | prisoners can impact earned time credit as determined | ||||||
| 15 | under Section 3-6-3 of the Unified Code of Corrections. | ||||||
| 16 | (3) The Department of Corrections shall provide its | ||||||
| 17 | employees with intensive and ongoing training and | ||||||
| 18 | professional development services to support the | ||||||
| 19 | implementation of evidence-based practices. The training | ||||||
| 20 | and professional development services shall include | ||||||
| 21 | assessment techniques, case planning, cognitive behavioral | ||||||
| 22 | training, risk reduction and intervention strategies, | ||||||
| 23 | effective communication skills, substance abuse treatment | ||||||
| 24 | education and other topics identified by the Department or | ||||||
| 25 | its employees. | ||||||
| 26 | (d) The Parole Division of the Department of Corrections | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | and the Prisoner Review Board shall provide their employees | ||||||
| 2 | with intensive and ongoing training and professional | ||||||
| 3 | development services to support the implementation of | ||||||
| 4 | evidence-based practices. The training and professional | ||||||
| 5 | development services shall include assessment techniques, case | ||||||
| 6 | planning, cognitive behavioral training, risk reduction and | ||||||
| 7 | intervention strategies, effective communication skills, | ||||||
| 8 | substance abuse treatment education, and other topics | ||||||
| 9 | identified by the agencies or their employees. | ||||||
| 10 | (e) The Department of Corrections, the Prisoner Review | ||||||
| 11 | Board, and other correctional entities referenced in the | ||||||
| 12 | policies, rules, and regulations of this Act shall design, | ||||||
| 13 | implement, and make public a system to evaluate the | ||||||
| 14 | effectiveness of evidence-based practices in increasing public | ||||||
| 15 | safety and in successful reintegration of those under | ||||||
| 16 | supervision into the locality. Annually, each agency shall | ||||||
| 17 | submit to the Sentencing Policy Advisory Council a | ||||||
| 18 | comprehensive report on the success of implementing | ||||||
| 19 | evidence-based practices. The data compiled and analyzed by | ||||||
| 20 | the Council shall be delivered annually to the Governor and | ||||||
| 21 | the General Assembly. | ||||||
| 22 | (f) The Department of Corrections and the Prisoner Review | ||||||
| 23 | Board shall release a report annually published on their | ||||||
| 24 | websites that reports the following information about the | ||||||
| 25 | usage of electronic monitoring and GPS monitoring as a | ||||||
| 26 | condition of parole and mandatory supervised release during | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | the prior calendar year: | ||||||
| 2 | (1) demographic data of individuals on electronic | ||||||
| 3 | monitoring and GPS monitoring, separated by the following | ||||||
| 4 | categories: | ||||||
| 5 | (A) race or ethnicity; | ||||||
| 6 | (B) gender; and | ||||||
| 7 | (C) age; | ||||||
| 8 | (2) incarceration data of individuals subject to | ||||||
| 9 | conditions of electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by | ||||||
| 10 | the following categories: | ||||||
| 11 | (A) highest class of offense for which the | ||||||
| 12 | individuals are currently serving a term of release; | ||||||
| 13 | and | ||||||
| 14 | (B) length of imprisonment served prior to the | ||||||
| 15 | current release period; | ||||||
| 16 | (3) the number of individuals subject to conditions of | ||||||
| 17 | electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the following | ||||||
| 18 | categories: | ||||||
| 19 | (A) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
| 20 | monitoring under Section 5-8A-6 of the Unified Code of | ||||||
| 21 | Corrections; | ||||||
| 22 | (B) the number of individuals subject monitoring | ||||||
| 23 | under Section 5-8A-7 of the Unified Code of | ||||||
| 24 | Corrections; | ||||||
| 25 | (C) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
| 26 | monitoring under a discretionary order of the Prisoner | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | Review Board at the time of their release; and | ||||||
| 2 | (D) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
| 3 | monitoring as a sanction for violations of parole or | ||||||
| 4 | mandatory supervised release, separated by the | ||||||
| 5 | following categories: | ||||||
| 6 | (i) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
| 7 | monitoring as part of a graduated sanctions | ||||||
| 8 | program; and | ||||||
| 9 | (ii) the number of individuals subject to | ||||||
| 10 | monitoring as a new condition of re-release after | ||||||
| 11 | a revocation hearing before the Prisoner Review | ||||||
| 12 | Board; | ||||||
| 13 | (4) the number of discretionary monitoring orders | ||||||
| 14 | issued by the Prisoner Review Board, separated by the | ||||||
| 15 | following categories: | ||||||
| 16 | (A) less than 30 days; | ||||||
| 17 | (B) 31 to 60 days; | ||||||
| 18 | (C) 61 to 90 days; | ||||||
| 19 | (D) 91 to 120 days; | ||||||
| 20 | (E) 121 to 150 days; | ||||||
| 21 | (F) 151 to 180 days; | ||||||
| 22 | (G) 181 to 364 days; | ||||||
| 23 | (H) 365 days or more; and | ||||||
| 24 | (I) duration of release term; | ||||||
| 25 | (5) the number of discretionary monitoring orders by | ||||||
| 26 | the Board which removed or terminated monitoring prior to | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | the completion of the original period ordered; | ||||||
| 2 | (6) the number and severity category for sanctions | ||||||
| 3 | imposed on individuals on electronic or GPS monitoring, | ||||||
| 4 | separated by the following categories: | ||||||
| 5 | (A) absconding from electronic monitoring or GPS; | ||||||
| 6 | (B) tampering or removing the electronic | ||||||
| 7 | monitoring or GPS device; | ||||||
| 8 | (C) unauthorized leaving of the residence; | ||||||
| 9 | (D) presence of the individual in a prohibited | ||||||
| 10 | area; or | ||||||
| 11 | (E) other violations of the terms of the | ||||||
| 12 | electronic monitoring program; | ||||||
| 13 | (7) the number of individuals for whom a parole | ||||||
| 14 | revocation case was filed for failure to comply with the | ||||||
| 15 | terms of electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the | ||||||
| 16 | following categories: | ||||||
| 17 | (A) cases when failure to comply with the terms of | ||||||
| 18 | monitoring was the sole violation alleged; and | ||||||
| 19 | (B) cases when failure to comply with the terms of | ||||||
| 20 | monitoring was alleged in conjunction with other | ||||||
| 21 | alleged violations; | ||||||
| 22 | (8) residential data for individuals subject to | ||||||
| 23 | electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the following | ||||||
| 24 | categories: | ||||||
| 25 | (A) the county of the residence address for | ||||||
| 26 | individuals subject to electronic or GPS monitoring as | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | a condition of their release; and | ||||||
| 2 | (B) for counties with a population over 3,000,000, | ||||||
| 3 | the zip codes of the residence address for individuals | ||||||
| 4 | subject to electronic or GPS monitoring as a condition | ||||||
| 5 | of their release; | ||||||
| 6 | (9) the number of individuals for whom parole | ||||||
| 7 | revocation cases were filed due to violations of paragraph | ||||||
| 8 | (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the Unified Code | ||||||
| 9 | of Corrections, separated by the following categories: | ||||||
| 10 | (A) the number of individuals whose violation of | ||||||
| 11 | paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of | ||||||
| 12 | the Unified Code of Corrections allegedly occurred | ||||||
| 13 | while the individual was subject to conditions of | ||||||
| 14 | electronic or GPS monitoring; | ||||||
| 15 | (B) the number of individuals who had violations | ||||||
| 16 | of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of | ||||||
| 17 | the Unified Code of Corrections alleged against them | ||||||
| 18 | who were never subject to electronic or GPS monitoring | ||||||
| 19 | during their current term of release; and | ||||||
| 20 | (C) the number of individuals who had violations | ||||||
| 21 | of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of | ||||||
| 22 | the Unified Code of Corrections alleged against them | ||||||
| 23 | who were subject to electronic or GPS monitoring for | ||||||
| 24 | any period of time during their current term of their | ||||||
| 25 | release, but who were not subject to such monitoring | ||||||
| 26 | at the time of the alleged violation of paragraph (1) | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the Unified Code | ||||||
| 2 | of Corrections. | ||||||
| 3 | (Source: P.A. 102-558, eff. 8-20-21; 103-271, eff. 1-1-24.) | ||||||
