Public Act 101-0231
 
HB0386 EnrolledLRB101 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.)