A. APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS

Legal Provisions Relating to Reentry Programs

  • The Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice is mandated "to establish and provide transitional post-release treatment programs for juveniles committed to the Department. Services shall include but are not limited to:
    • family and individual counseling and treatment placement;
    • referral services to any other State or local agencies;
    • mental health services;
    • educational services;
    • family counseling services; and
    • substance abuse services."F081

Legal Provisions Relating to Parole

  • Youth remain on parole until the age of 21 unless discharged early.F082
  • "The Prisoner Review Board may enter an order releasing and discharging one from parole or mandatory supervised release, and his commitment to the Department, when it determines that he is likely to remain at liberty without committing another offense."F083

B. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING YOUTH REENTRY

The Current Parole System Follows an Adult Surveillance Model that is Inconsistent with Best Practices in Juvenile Reentry

Once a youth is released onto parole following incarceration, the youth is transferred to the supervision of the Department of Corrections Parole Services Division under a shared service agreement with DJJ. Although state law allows discharge from parole at any time, youth typically remain on parole until the age of 21.

Adults and juveniles on parole are monitored by the same parole system run by the Department of Corrections - a system designed for adult parolees.F084 At a minimum, all parolees in Illinois are subject to the same seventeen standardized conditions of parole.F085 The parole system acts as a surveillance-only system, primarily ensuring that adults and juveniles on parole do not engage in prohibited behavior. Focused on compliance and calibrated for adults, this system fails to assist juvenile parolees with locating and obtaining necessary services.

Parole is Frequently Revoked for Youth Based on Technical Parole Violations

The adult surveillance-only focus of parole can be seen in the high number of youth whose parole is revoked for a technical parole violation. The Commission found that the majority of youth reincarcerated while on parole were reincarcerated on technical parole violations rather than for a new criminal offense.

  • 54 percent of youth from December 2009 - May 2010 were reincarcerated for technical violations.
  • 34 percent of technical violators were reincarcerated for going AWOL (i.e. losing contact with the parole agent).

Incarceration disrupts a youth's reintegration into school, work, family, and the community. Incarcerating youth for technical parole violations imposes an enormous financial burden on the State of Illinois without increasing public safety and is indicative of the failings of applying the adult surveillance parole model to youth reentry.

Percentage of Parole Violation by Type Pie Chart

Description of Percentage of Parole Violation by Type Pie Chart

Percentage of Parole Violation by Type

Label Percent
Technical Violation 54
New Charge 46

The Juvenile Reentry System Must Encompass Both Surveillance and Services

As a threshold matter, it is important to note that "most children and youth manage to thrive and develop, even in the presence of multiple risk factors."F086 The focus of an effective youth reentry program must therefore be to address the risk factors most likely to influence a youth's outcomes, while building upon juveniles' already existing strengths and coping mechanisms in order to promote long-term pro-social behavior.

Typically, juvenile reentry services should include a "surveillance" and a "service" component,F087 meaning reentry programs both monitor (i.e. "surveil") the juvenile's behavior as well as provide the juvenile with social service programming. Research is mixed, however, on whether the surveillance aspect of reentry is effective in reducing recidivism; intensive post-release surveillance may do nothing more than increase the number of youth rearrested for technical parole violations.F088 Instead, addressing youth needs "in the context of a family-focused, strengths-based, trauma-informed, involved parole model, combined with policy changes that may increase the likelihood of successfully completing parole, holds promise of reducing recidivism."F089

The principles of a successful juvenile reentry program include:

  • Providing sufficient support and supervision to high-risk offenders while avoiding "one size fits all" disruptive interventions with low risk youth;
  • individualized reentry programs targeting each youth's unique strengths and needs;
  • allowing flexibility in the implementation of each case plan in response to changing youth behavior;
  • linking youth to institutional and community-based services; and
  • collaborating with the youth's family and intersecting state systems (e.g. DHS, DCFS, etc.).F090

Researchers have also identified factors that do not work in relation to reentry programs, including: programs focusing on punishment and restraint without treatment; psychopathological approaches; and intrusive supervision of low-risk offenders.F091 An effective reentry system involves specialized staff, small caseloads, and culturally-competent community-based services and strategies intentionally designed to enhance youth outcomes and protect public safety.

The Commission found that the current surveillance-only model for juvenile parole in Illinois is ineffective, if not counterproductive, in terms of encouraging pro-social youth behavior and minimizing recidivism. The particular failings of the Illinois parole system as applied to youth are discussed in greater detail below.

Release Plans Developed by DJJ and Parole Provide Only Nominal Preparation for Youth Release

Each youth is readied for release through the preparation of a release plan, which must include "where and with whom [the youth] will live, location in terms of employment or school attendance, family relationships and obligations to be assumed on release."F092 DJJ submits a host site ("where and with whom [the youth] will live") to the DOC Parole Division for approval.

At some Illinois Youth Centers, the staff may be willing to work more thoroughly with a youth to help him or her prepare a detailed release plan prior to presentation before the PRB; however, this kind of individual attention is not always provided. In addition, there appears to be no mechanism for youth to revise or seek reconsideration of a rejected release plan. Such rejections are common, particularly given DOC's stringent and adult-based requirements regarding host sites.F093

The PRB Orders Services Regardless of Whether the Services Are Available in the Youth's Community

Many conditions of parole mandated by the Prisoner Review Board at parole hearings require a youth's engagement with community-based resources and programming.F094 However, PRB members do not assess the availability of programming in a youth's community when mandating parole conditions.

Parole Agents Do Not Assist Youth in Finding or Financing Mandated Services

By statute, the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice is mandated to establish and provide transitional post-release treatment programs for juveniles once a youth has been released on parole by the Prisoner Review Board. Under the current system, through a shared services agreement, the Department of Corrections Parole Division is responsible for juveniles' post-release transitional programs. However, DOC's adult-oriented Parole Division is neither designed nor equipped to identify and provide effective transitional post-release support for youth.

The Commission tracked the frequency with which parole agents referredF095 and linkedF096 a youth to a mandated community-based program and found that parole agents rarely, if ever, link youth to these PRB-mandated transitional programs. Juvenile parolees are expected to independently find and finance mandated treatment and programming.F097

The chart below indicates how infrequently the current parole system actually refers or links youth to the services ordered.

Percent of Youth Receiving Service Referal and Linkage Column Chart

Description of Percent of Youth Receiving Service Referal and Linkage Column Chart

Percentage of Youth Receiving Service Referral and Linkage During Parole

Youth Mandated to Service
as a Parole Condition
Youth Receiving
Service Referral
Youth Receiving
Service Linkage
School 86 13.2 1.6
Employment 74.6 7.3 0.5
Substance Abuse 73.1 28.8 4.9
Mental Health 34.7 10.2 2.1
  • Only 3 percent of the 386 youth tracked by the Commission were linked to mandated community-based services by their parole agent.F098

Indeed, rather than linking youth to mandated programs and treatment, some parole agents impose disciplinary sanctions when youth face hurdles accessing necessary programming or services.F099

  • A parole agent acknowledged the severity of a youth's clinical needs: "[He] has tested positive 3xs for THC...and [his] father has passed away which will send youth over the edge." But instead of attempting to link the youth to a provider for his mandated community-based substance abuse programming, the agent violated the youth for failing multiple drug tests and revoked the youth's parole.F100
  • A youth explained to her parole agent that she was having problems with her mental health counselor. The agent failed to respond to the youth's concern, did not investigate the problem, and did not link the youth to a different service provider. After the youth stopped attending counseling the agent promptly violated her for "failure to comply with [the] mental health condition" of parole.F101

Graduated Sanctions for Noncompliant Youth Behavior are Inconsistently Implemented by Parole Agents

The Commission found that parole agents are inconsistent in their response to youth noncompliance (i.e. any failure to abide by a condition of parole).F102

  • A parole agent warned a youth that one more instance of noncompliance would result in placement on Electronic Detention. Ten days later, the agent placed the youth on Electronic Detention, even the though the youth had not misbehaved.F103
  • An agent initially responded to a youth's noncompliance by requesting diversion. Then, before waiting to see whether the diversion request has been approved, and without any further instances of noncompliance by the youth, the agent submitted a warrant and violated the youth's parole.F104
  • A youth's grandfather, who lived out of state, fell ill. The youth's host (his mother) requested permission for the youth to join her in visiting the youth's ailing grandfather. Instead of allowing out-of-state movement, the parole agent suggested placing the youth in "Half-Way Back" (a DJJ diversion program inside IYC Chicago that assists parolees experiencing difficulties transitioning into the community) for 14 days while his mother traveled out of state. The youth refused to be placed in Half-Way Back and left the state to visit his grandfather, after which the agent issued a warrant.F105
  • A youth requested permission to attend his father's funeral. The youth received no response from parole about his request, so he attended the funeral. An automatic warrant was issued for unpermitted movement and the youth's parole was promptly revoked.F106

Because graduated sanctions and diversion measures are applied inconsistently, youth are left with an unclear understanding of appropriate parole behavior or presented with untenable choices to make.

Parole Agents Are Often Not Accessible to Respond to Youth and Family Requests for Assistance

The Commission found that parole agents often failed to respond to youth needs in a timely manner. The Commission found lengthy, unexplained delays by parole agents in visiting, attempting contact, or following up with youth on their case loads.

  • After an initial face-to-face meeting with a recently paroled youth, the parole agent did not make contact with the youth for one year. The agent attempted to make contact with the youth twice after a full year had elapsed, then violated the youth for his unavailability for visits by the parole agent.F107
  • Some agents did not attempt to make initial contact with youth until long after the mandated 72-hour period had passed.F108 Whether or not they have been placed on house arrest as a condition of parole, all youth are required to remain inside their host site until a parole agent comes to see them.

In addition to these lapses in agent contact, the Commission found that many agents did not respond to time-sensitive youth needs.

  • A youth left a message for his parole agent explaining that he has been "stabbed in the jaw." The agent did not attempt to make contact or follow-up with the youth until three weeks later.F109
  • A youth was doing well in school, in sports, and in complying with parole conditions. Letters sent from the youth's school, host (his mother), and his prospective employer all indicated that they could not get in touch with the agent, and that the agent was not responsive. Instead of responding to the concerns of the youth's support network, the agent violated the youth for failing to update the sex offender registry with a change of address.F110
  • A youth requested to be placed on electronic monitoring for a 15-day period because she believed it would help her stay out of trouble. The parole agent never followed up.F111
  • A youth's host repeatedly called the parole agent to report the youth's substance abuse and behavioral problems, including drunkenness and school suspension. The agent did not respond to the host.F112
  • A youth and his mother left several messages for the parole agent reporting problems with the youth's host site (an inpatient treatment center), claiming that the center's staff has been threatening the youth and requesting help finding a new host site. The agent did not respond to or investigate these reports.F113
  • A youth was sent to Half-Way Back by the parole agent for failing to comply with parole conditions. The parole agent failed to notify the youth's DCFS worker that the youth had been sent to Half-Way Back, did not return four calls from the youth's DCFS caseworker inquiring about the whereabouts of the youth, and failed to return three calls from the youth's foster mother (host) wondering the same thing.F114
  • A youth and his mother called the parole agent several times requesting to a curfew extension so the youth could attend an evening GED class to fulfill his parole condition. The agent never responded to the request, the youth attended the GED class and was subsequently violated by the parole agent for breaking curfew.F115

Youth are unable to contact parole agents directly, even if their designated agent is working and available. Instead, youth must filter all attempts to contact their agent through the AMS service, relying upon contract phone operators to accurately relay messages to their agents. Youth then wait for their parole agents to return their communication. The Commission observed that parole agent unresponsiveness often resulted in feelings of frustration and helplessness for the youth and those supporting the youth during the challenging reentry transition.

Many Youth Experience Host Site Challenges upon Release

The physical remoteness of many Illinois Youth Centers often prevents families from visiting incarcerated youth. Youth who are released from these facilities have been away from their families for months or years; during this time both youth and their families may have changed considerably. It is unsurprising that many youth experience challenges reintegrating into family life following release from incarceration.

  • In the Commission's study, 32 percent of youth experienced host site problems while on parole.

Notably, the DOC Parole Sanction Matrix categorizes "no suitable or approved host site" as a "severe" parole violation, resulting in the automatic issuance of a warrant for parole revocation.F116

  • A youth left a message for his agent (through AMS), explaining that he must flee his host site to a location out of state because he has been shot in the face and his life was endangered. The agent called the youth's host, who verified that it would be safer for the youth to be out of state. Instead of attempting to ensure the youth's safety, the agent requested a warrant two days later and violated the youth for losing his host site and leaving the state without approval because "gangs are trying to get him."F117
  • A youth had no prior instances of parole noncompliance when he was asked to leave his host site. Instead of making an effort to help the youth secure a new placement, the parole agent responded by immediately running LEADS to see if the youth had any new arrests. The parole agent found no new charges but nevertheless violated the youth's parole for losing his host site. The violation report was filed just 12 hours after the youth has been asked to leave his host site; the parole agent did not attempt any sanctions or diversion efforts.F118
  • A youth called her agent three times over the course of two months, leaving messages about the difficulties at her host site, her need to move, and her efforts to secure a new host site. Without returning any calls or attempting any contact with the youth, and without taking any steps to approve the youth's new residence as a host site, the parole agent began revocation proceedings and violated the youth because her new home had not been approved as a host site.F119

C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM

DJJ Aftercare Specialists Must Replace DOC Parole Agents in Supervising Youth Reentry

Based on the Commission's reentry study findings, as well as the Commission's research on best practices in juvenile reentry, the Commission recommends shifting youth from adult parole supervision to a youth-focused aftercare model. The Commission accordingly recommends that the Legislature fund the Department of Juvenile Justice Aftercare Specialist program statewide, allowing all youth to remain under the direct supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

In designing and implementing its Aftercare Pilot, the Department of Juvenile Justice is in the process of implementing a new Aftercare Specialist system for juvenile reentry. In April 2011, seven Aftercare Specialists began working with incarcerated youth from Cook Country. In August 2011, the Department of Juvenile Justice expanded the number of Aftercare Specialists in Cook County to 22. The Commission recommends that DJJ expand the Aftercare Specialist program to include all youth in custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice as soon as is practicable. By doing so, youth will no longer be subject to the ineffective DOC-run, adult-focused parole system which only serves as a surveillance and revocation mechanism.

The Department of Juvenile Justice recognizes that Aftercare Specialists must facilitate a cohesive stage-based continuum of services and programming for youth from incarceration through reentry. Aftercare Specialists will begin their relationship with a youth upon the youth's initial incarceration. During incarceration, the Aftercare Specialist will facilitate quarterly Transitional Youth and Family Team meetings to develop an individualized aftercare service plan with input from the youth, the youth's family/support system, and service providers (e.g. counselors, school staff, and mentors).The aftercare service plan created during incarceration establishes the goals and program involvement during supervised release (i.e. parole). Aftercare Specialists will coordinate with community service providers and link youth to programming outlined in the aftercare service plan.

For the first 90 days following release, a youth's Aftercare Specialist will maintain weekly face-to-face contact with the youth, after which the Aftercare Specialist will visit the youth monthly until the youth is discharged from parole. The Aftercare Specialist will also meet monthly with service providers and the youth's school.

The Aftercare Specialist will convene monthly Youth and Family Team Meetings during the first 90 days following a youth's release from incarceration. The Youth and Family Team may include: youth, family members, host (if different from parent/guardian), school personnel, counselors, and service providers. Youth and Family Team Meetings will assess the youth's reentry adjustment, identify challenges the youth is experiencing, identify additional strategies and services necessary for successful reentry, and review the appropriateness of the aftercare service plan.

As the Aftercare Specialist program is expanded, it must be continually assessed and revised according to lessons learned from the pilot implementation. Additionally, the Department of Juvenile Justice must develop a grievance and feedback system for youth and families to voice critiques of the Aftercare Specialist system to better inform the development of the program as it expands across the state. Adopting the Aftercare Specialist program system-wide as soon as practicable not only ensures that youth will no longer be subject to an ineffective adult parole model, but will also direct scarce public resources toward evidence-based supervision and service strategies.

The State Must Reduce the Length of Parole by Statute and in Practice

All available data indicates that youth routinely remain on parole until their 21st birthday in Illinois. Thus many youth are under the costly current adult surveillance system for two, three, four, or even five years. For the majority of youth, excessive time on parole only increases the likelihood of costly reincarceration for technical violations and does little to enhance their successful reintegration into the community.F120 Therefore before the Aftercare Specialist pilot programming has been implemented across the state, the General Assembly should immediately amend the parole statute consistent with the purpose of current law to indicate that parole should last no longer than 6 months.F121 Once the Aftercare Specialist program has been implemented statewide, successful completion of a youth's aftercare case plan must result in youth discharged from state supervision. The expectations for completing each stage of programming must be clearly articulated to the youth and members of the youth's support network.

DJJ Must Develop Youth-Appropriate Post-Release Conditions and Sanctions

Youth must no longer be subject to adult conditions of parole. Instead, the Department of Juvenile Justice must develop youth-appropriate conditions of aftercare supervision.F122 PRB-mandated conditions of parole should be consistent with DJJ's recommended aftercare plan, providing individualized parameters for each youth's post-release supervision.

The Department of Juvenile Justice must also develop youth-appropriate graduated sanctions for instances of noncompliance that take into account adolescent behavior and development. Behavior expectations and graduated sanctions must be clearly articulated to youth and their families as well as consistently and fairly implemented. Reliance on reincarceration in response to technical parole violations is not only fiscally inefficient, but is counter-productive to sustained pro-social youth behavior. As such, youth-appropriate graduated sanctions must be designed to substantively address, rather than merely punish, multiple relapses or misconduct, allowing youth to learn from relapses and increase their own accountability within the community.F123 Youth-appropriate graduated sanctions must ensure that Aftercare Specialists respond to instances of non-compliance by making every available effort to keep youth out of secure custody.

DJJ Must Ensure Continuity of Programming and Information Sharing

In order to ensure a continuity of case planning and services for youth, the Department of Juvenile Justice and its Aftercare Specialists must actively develop a network of existing community-based service providers, organizations, and resources capable of working with delinquent youth.

To provide continuity between IYC school and community school, Aftercare Specialists must ensure that youth have physical copies of their school records.F124 The Aftercare Specialist must define educational goals with the youth while the youth is incarcerated, in order to encourage the youth to continuously pursue appropriate educational advancement during incarceration and upon release.F125

Additionally, in order for the expanded Aftercare Specialist program to be successful, DJJ must implement an integrated case management system to facilitate information sharing and continuous case planning from incarceration through reentry.


Footers

  1. 730 ILCS 5/3-2.5-20.
    Return to reference 81.
  2. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-8(a).
    Return to reference 82.
  3. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-8(b).
    Return to reference 83.
  4. Cook County has a separate Juvenile Parole Division, but it is under the umbrella of the Department of Corrections.
    Return to reference 84.
  5. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a).
    Return to reference 85.
  6. JEFFREY A. BUTTS, GORDON BAZEMORE & AUNDRA SAA MEROE, COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE, POSITIVE YOUTH JUSTICE: FRAMING JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS USING THE CONCEPTS OF POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT 9 (2010).
    Return to reference 86.
  7. Jeffrey A. Bouffard & Kathleen J. Bergseth, The Impact of Reentry Services on Juvenile Offenders' Recidivism, 6 Youth Violence and Juv. Just. 295, 295 (2008).
    Return to reference 87.
  8. Joshua S. Meisel, Juvenile Parole and Reentry: A Critical Reflection on the Aftercare Evaluation Research, Paper Presented at Annual Meeting of American Society of Criminology, St. Louis, MO (Nov. 2008) at 13.
    Return to reference 88.
  9. Jason Brennen, Gary McClelland, Alison Schneider, Mike Stiehl & Dana Weiner, Mental Health Services & Policy Program, Northwestern University Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, DATA ANALYSIS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS: JUVENILE JUSTICE AFTERCARE PLANNING 34 (Sept. 2009) (manuscript on file with the Commission).
    Return to reference 89.
  10. See, e.g., CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA RESEARCH TO PRACTICE INITIATIVE, JUVENILE JUSTICE AFTERCARE: A PRACTICE SAMPLER (Mar. 2004).
    Return to reference 90.
  11. Id.
    Return to reference 91.
  12. 20 IL ADC 1610.35(e).
    Return to reference 92.
  13. Currently, the adult Department of Corrections approves host sites for juvenile parolees by using the same criteria for approval as it does for adults. Although an adult resident signs the host site agreement with IDOC, any household infraction can result in the youth's parole being revoked due to loss of the host site. In such cases, the youth is usually reincarcerated in a DJJ facility, even when the infraction is one over which teenagers do not normally have control in the household. Examples include: nonpayment of a land line phone bill (resulting in loss of electronic monitoring signal), a sibling or relative moving into the house (if there is any known gang affiliation), or even a resident at the house adopting a dog (if it is not neutered and microchipped, per 720 ILCS 12-36). Many of the host site requirements are onerous for adult parolees, but adults do have the option of renting an apartment and being responsible for their own living situation. Juvenile parolees ordinarily must live with family members or guardians. Additionally, the PRB frequently adds "obey all host site rules" as a frequent special condition of parole. While abiding by house rules seems to be a reasonable requirement for any teenager, parole conditions like this have unintended consequences, potentially elevating any standard family quarrel to the level of state intervention, parole sanction or even reincarceration.
    Return to reference 93.
  14. Approximately three-quarters of the youth studied by the Commission were ordered to participate in a community-based program or treatment by the Prisoner Review Board.
    Return to reference 94.
  15. For the purposes of this file review, "referred" is defined as a parole agent providing a treatment provider's contact information.
    Return to reference 95.
  16. For the purposes of this file review, "linked" is defined as a parole agent assisting with scheduling or accompanying a youth to a program for an initial visit.
    Return to reference 96.
  17. Youth and their families are solely responsible for financing any program mandated by the Prisoner Review Board. One youth tracked by the Commission canceled a scheduled counseling appointment, explaining to his parole agent that he had no money to pay for the mental health service. The agent recorded only the following unsympathetic response: "It is only $8 and he needs to get it done." Parolee File 376.
    Return to reference 97.
  18. Substance abuse: conditions of parole for 282 youth; 111 youth referred; 19 youth linked. Mental health treatment: condition of parole for 134 youth; 40 youth referred; 8 youth linked. Employment: condition of parole for 288 youth; 28 youth referred; 2 youth linked. Parenting skills program: condition of parole for 24 youth; 4 youth referred; 0 youth linked. School (GED/high school/college): condition of parole for 332 youth; 51 youth referred; 6 youth linked. Mentorship program: condition of parole for 18 youth, 0 youth referred, 0 youth linked. Anger management program: condition of parole for 33 youth; 1 youth referred; 0 youth linked. Sex offender counseling: condition of parole for 34 youth; 6 youth referred; 1 youth linked.
    Return to reference 98.
  19. The Department of Corrections Parole Division uses a Sanction Matrix to address noncompliance. See Appendix I for a copy of the Parole Division's Sanction Matrix.
    Return to reference 99.
  20. Parolee File 33.
    Return to reference 100.
  21. Parolee File 19. The case management file of Parolee 326 told a similar story: paroled to a live-in mental health treatment facility, the youth reported "having trouble dealing with not knowing where father is located." Soon after this problem was reported, the parolee attempted suicide. Instead of working with the facility staff or engaging other professional service providers to respond to the youth's mental health crisis, the agent violated the youth back into DJJ custody.
    Return to reference 101.
  22. In the Commission's file review, parole officers revoked nearly 20 percent of youth after just one instance of noncompliance despite an official graduated sanctions policy. 12 percent of youth were revoked after two instances of noncompliance, 15 percent were revoked after three, 6 percent were revoked after four, and the remainder were revoked after five or more instances of noncompliance, ranging up to 20 instances of noncompliance.
    Return to reference 102.
  23. Parolee File 195.
    Return to reference 103.
  24. Parolee File 118.
    Return to reference 104.
  25. Parolee File 165.
    Return to reference 105.
  26. Parolee File 304.
    Return to reference 106.
  27. Parolee File 229.
    Return to reference 107.
  28. See, e.g., Parolee File 37 (Agent did not make initial contact with the youth until two weeks after the youth had been paroled. After this delayed initial meeting, the agent did not attempt to make contact with the youth again for another three months); Parolee File 170 (Agent did not make initial contact with the youth until 40 days after his release from DJJ custody).
    Return to reference 108.
  29. Parolee File 266.
    Return to reference 109.
  30. Parolee File 227.
    Return to reference 110.
  31. Parolee File 25.
    Return to reference 111.
  32. Parolee File 28.
    Return to reference 112.
  33. Parolee File 34.
    Return to reference 113.
  34. Parolee File 395.
    Return to reference 114.
  35. Parolee File 113.
    Return to reference 115.
  36. See Appendix I.
    Return to reference 116.
  37. Parolee File 42.
    Return to reference 117.
  38. Parolee File 145.
    Return to reference 118.
  39. Parolee File 29.
    Return to reference 119.
  40. Although youths who are under intensive supervision program are much more likely to violate their parole on a technical violation, they are less likely to recidivate if they receive necessary treatment and services. See, e.g., Justin Austin et al., Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULL. (Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention) (Sept. 2005) at 21.
    Return to reference 120.
  41. The current statute can be found at 730 ILCS 5/3-3-8(a).
    Return to reference 121.
  42. For a model of youth-appropriate conditions of parole (from Missouri), see Appendix J.
    Return to reference 122.
  43. Relapses include the loss of employment, a positive drug test, failed participation in a mentoring program, etc. Noncompliance does not denote a new criminal charge.
    Return to reference 123.
  44. One youth requested IYC school records from his parole agent. The parole agent responded that records were confidential. Subsequently, the youth could not reenroll in school. Parole File 258.
    Return to reference 124.
  45. Currently, there is a presumption that juveniles will participate in a GED program rather than reenroll in school. Research indicates a significant disparity in future employment between individuals with a high school diploma and a GED. When possible and appropriate, youth must be encouraged to reenroll in and graduate from high school. Where reenrollment in high school is not appropriate, youth must be linked to a GED or vocational program where the juvenile's unique strengths and aspirations will be fostered. See, e.g., The Children's Research Center, Improving Educational Outcomes of Youth in Juvenile Facilities.
    Return to reference 125.