Full Text of HB0386 101st General Assembly
HB0386sam002 101ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY | Sen. Robert Peters Filed: 5/2/2019
| | 10100HB0386sam002 | | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 386
| 2 | | AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 386 by replacing | 3 | | everything after the enacting clause with the following:
| 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. |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 2 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | (1) The Parole Division of the Department of | 2 | | Corrections and the Prisoner Review Board shall adopt | 3 | | policies, rules, and regulations that, within the first | 4 | | year of the adoption, validation, and utilization of the | 5 | | statewide, standardized risk assessment tool described in | 6 | | this Act, result in at least 25% of supervised individuals | 7 | | being supervised in accordance with evidence-based | 8 | | practices; within 3 years of the adoption, validation, and | 9 | | utilization of the statewide, standardized risk assessment | 10 | | tool result in at least 50% of supervised individuals being | 11 | | supervised in accordance with evidence-based practices; | 12 | | and within 5 years of the adoption, validation, and | 13 | | utilization of the statewide, standardized risk assessment | 14 | | tool result in at least 75% of supervised individuals being | 15 | | supervised in accordance with evidence-based practices. | 16 | | The policies, rules, and regulations shall: | 17 | | (A) Provide for a standardized individual case | 18 | | plan that follows the offender through the criminal | 19 | | justice system (including in-prison if the supervised | 20 | | individual is in prison) that is:
| 21 | | (i) Based on the assets of the individual as | 22 | | well as his or her risks and needs identified | 23 | | through the assessment tool as described in this | 24 | | Act. | 25 | | (ii) Comprised of treatment and supervision | 26 | | services appropriate to achieve the purpose of |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 3 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | this Act. | 2 | | (iii) Consistently updated, based on program | 3 | | participation by the supervised individual and | 4 | | other behavior modification exhibited by the | 5 | | supervised individual. | 6 | | (B) Concentrate resources and services on | 7 | | high-risk offenders. | 8 | | (C) Provide for the use of evidence-based | 9 | | programming related to education, job training, | 10 | | cognitive behavioral therapy, and other programming | 11 | | designed to reduce criminal behavior. | 12 | | (D) Establish a system of graduated responses. | 13 | | (i) The system shall set forth a menu of | 14 | | presumptive responses for the most common types of | 15 | | supervision violations.
| 16 | | (ii) The system shall be guided by the model | 17 | | list of intermediate sanctions created by the | 18 | | Probation Services Division of the State of | 19 | | Illinois pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 15 | 20 | | of the Probation and Probation Officers Act and the | 21 | | system of intermediate sanctions created by the | 22 | | Chief Judge of each circuit court pursuant to | 23 | | Section 5-6-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections. | 24 | | (iii) The system of responses shall take into | 25 | | account factors such as the severity of the current | 26 | | violation; the supervised individual's risk level |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 4 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | as determined by a validated assessment tool | 2 | | described in this Act; the supervised individual's | 3 | | assets; his or her previous criminal record; and | 4 | | the number and severity of any previous | 5 | | supervision violations. | 6 | | (iv) The system shall also define positive | 7 | | reinforcements that supervised individuals may | 8 | | receive for compliance with conditions of | 9 | | supervision. | 10 | | (v) Response to violations should be swift and | 11 | | certain and should be imposed as soon as | 12 | | practicable but no longer than 3 working days of | 13 | | detection of the violation behavior. | 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 any | 22 | | 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 |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 5 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 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 in | 24 | | subsection (b).
| 25 | | (B) Provide for the use of evidence-based | 26 | | programming related to education, job training, |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 6 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 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 | | (2) Participation and completion of programming by | 11 | | prisoners can impact earned time credit as determined under | 12 | | Section 3-6-3 of the Unified Code of Corrections. | 13 | | (3) The Department of Corrections shall provide its | 14 | | employees with intensive and ongoing training and | 15 | | professional development services to support the | 16 | | implementation of evidence-based practices. The training | 17 | | and professional development services shall include | 18 | | assessment techniques, case planning, cognitive behavioral | 19 | | training, risk reduction and intervention strategies, | 20 | | effective communication skills, substance abuse treatment | 21 | | education and other topics identified by the Department or | 22 | | its employees. | 23 | | (d) The Parole Division of the Department of Corrections | 24 | | and the Prisoner Review Board shall provide their employees | 25 | | with intensive and ongoing training and professional | 26 | | development services to support the implementation of |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 7 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | evidence-based practices. The training and professional | 2 | | development services shall include assessment techniques, case | 3 | | planning, cognitive behavioral training, risk reduction and | 4 | | intervention strategies, effective communication skills, | 5 | | substance abuse treatment education, and other topics | 6 | | identified by the agencies or their employees.
| 7 | | (e) The Department of Corrections, the Prisoner Review | 8 | | Board, and other correctional entities referenced in the | 9 | | policies, rules, and regulations of this Act shall design, | 10 | | implement, and make public a system to evaluate the | 11 | | effectiveness of evidence-based practices in increasing public | 12 | | safety and in successful reintegration of those under | 13 | | supervision into the locality. Annually, each agency shall | 14 | | submit to the Sentencing Policy Advisory Council a | 15 | | comprehensive report on the success of implementing | 16 | | evidence-based practices. The data compiled and analyzed by the | 17 | | Council shall be delivered annually to the Governor and the | 18 | | General Assembly.
| 19 | | (f) The Department of Corrections and the Prisoner Review | 20 | | Board shall release a report annually published on their | 21 | | websites that reports the following information about the usage | 22 | | of electronic monitoring and GPS monitoring as a condition of | 23 | | parole and mandatory supervised release during the prior | 24 | | calendar year: | 25 | | (1) demographic data of individuals on electronic | 26 | | monitoring and GPS monitoring, separated by the following |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 8 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | categories: | 2 | | (A) race or ethnicity; | 3 | | (B) gender; and | 4 | | (C) age; | 5 | | (2) incarceration data of individuals subject to | 6 | | conditions of electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by | 7 | | the following categories: | 8 | | (A) highest class of offense for which the | 9 | | individuals is currently serving a term of release; and | 10 | | (B) length of imprisonment served prior to the | 11 | | current release period; | 12 | | (3) the number of individuals subject to conditions of | 13 | | electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the following | 14 | | categories: | 15 | | (A) the number of individuals subject to | 16 | | monitoring under Section 5-8A-6 of the Unified Code of | 17 | | Corrections; | 18 | | (B) the number of individuals subject monitoring | 19 | | under Section 5-8A-7 of the Unified Code of | 20 | | Corrections; | 21 | | (C) the number of individuals subject to | 22 | | monitoring under a discretionary order of the Prisoner | 23 | | Review Board at the time of their release; and | 24 | | (D) the number of individuals subject to | 25 | | monitoring as a sanction for violations of parole or | 26 | | mandatory supervised release, separated by the |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 9 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | following categories: | 2 | | (i) the number of individuals subject to | 3 | | monitoring as part of a graduated sanctions | 4 | | program; and | 5 | | (ii) the number of individuals subject to | 6 | | monitoring as a new condition of re-release after a | 7 | | revocation hearing before the Prisoner Review | 8 | | Board; | 9 | | (4) the number of discretionary monitoring orders | 10 | | issued by the Prisoner Review Board, separated by the | 11 | | following categories: | 12 | | (A) less than 30 days; | 13 | | (B) 31 to 60 days; | 14 | | (C) 61 to 90 days; | 15 | | (D) 91 to 120 days; | 16 | | (E) 121 to 150 days; | 17 | | (F) 151 to 180 days; | 18 | | (G) 181 to 364 days; | 19 | | (H) 365 days or more; and | 20 | | (I) duration of release term; | 21 | | (5) the number of discretionary monitoring orders by | 22 | | the Board which removed or terminated monitoring prior to | 23 | | the completion of the original period ordered; | 24 | | (6) the number and severity category for sanctions | 25 | | imposed on individuals on electronic or GPS monitoring, | 26 | | separated by the following categories: |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 10 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | (A) absconding from electronic monitoring or GPS; | 2 | | (B) tampering or removing the electronic | 3 | | monitoring or GPS device; | 4 | | (C) unauthorized leaving of the residence; | 5 | | (D) presence of the individual in a prohibited | 6 | | area; or | 7 | | (E) other violations of the terms of the electronic | 8 | | monitoring program; | 9 | | (7) the number of individuals for whom a parole | 10 | | revocation case was filed for failure to comply with the | 11 | | terms of electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the | 12 | | following categories: | 13 | | (A) cases when failure to comply with the terms of | 14 | | monitoring was the sole violation alleged; and | 15 | | (B) cases when failure to comply with the terms of | 16 | | monitoring was alleged in conjunction with other | 17 | | alleged violations; | 18 | | (8) residential data for individuals subject to | 19 | | electronic or GPS monitoring, separated by the following | 20 | | categories: | 21 | | (A) the county of the residence address for | 22 | | individuals subject to electronic or GPS monitoring as | 23 | | a condition of their release; and | 24 | | (B) for counties with a population over 3,000,000, | 25 | | the zip codes of the residence address for individuals | 26 | | subject to electronic or GPS monitoring as a condition |
| | | 10100HB0386sam002 | - 11 - | LRB101 03664 SLF 60156 a |
|
| 1 | | of their release; | 2 | | (9) the number of individuals for whom parole | 3 | | revocation cases were filed due to violations of paragraph | 4 | | (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the Unified Code | 5 | | of Corrections, separated by the following categories: | 6 | | (A) the number of individuals whose violation of | 7 | | paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the | 8 | | Unified Code of Corrections allegedly occurred while | 9 | | the individual was subject to conditions of electronic | 10 | | or GPS monitoring; | 11 | | (B) the number of individuals who had violations of | 12 | | paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the | 13 | | Unified Code of Corrections alleged against them who | 14 | | were never subject to electronic or GPS monitoring | 15 | | during their current term of release; and | 16 | | (C) the number of individuals who had violations of | 17 | | paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the | 18 | | Unified Code of Corrections alleged against them who | 19 | | were subject to electronic or GPS monitoring for any | 20 | | period of time during their current term of their | 21 | | release, but who were not subject to such monitoring at | 22 | | the time of the alleged violation of paragraph (1) of | 23 | | subsection (a) of Section 3-3-7 of the Unified Code of | 24 | | Corrections. | 25 | | (Source: P.A. 96-761, eff. 1-1-10.)".
|
|