FY20 Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission Annual Report

FY20 Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission Annual Report


The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (IJJC) is the Illinois State Advisory Group responsible for administering federal Title II juvenile justice grants, ensuring compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, and advising the Illinois governor and General Assembly on matters of juvenile justice. The Commission's goals are to ensure that:

  • Illinois maintains full compliance with the core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act both to ensure continued access to federal funding and to ensure application of humane and effective practices with youth in contact with the juvenile justice system;
  • Youth do not enter or penetrate the state's juvenile justice system unnecessarily, particularly due to unaddressed family, education, mental health, substance abuse, trauma, racial or ethnic disparities or other needs;
  • Youth who do enter the juvenile justice system receive developmentally appropriate, individualized support and services that foster appropriate accountability while building strengths and creating positive opportunities; and
  • Youth leave the juvenile justice system with positive outcomes which in turn enhance public safety.

The Commission is comprised of 25 members appointed by the Governor and serve three-year terms, until such time they have been reappointed or replaced. Commissioners come from an array of professional and lived experience backgrounds and bring a wealth of practice and knowledge to the Commission. (See appendix A for full list of commissioners and membership requirements).


The Commission receives approximately $1.5 million from OJJDP in Title II grant money. The following programs are funded thru IJJC. The Commission has four areas that they fund: Juvenile Justice Councils, Juvenile Justice Youth Serving Programs, Systems Improvement and Training Technical Assistance Support (see appendix for full program descriptions). The following are the FY20' grantees and highlights of their work:

Dekalb County: The DeKalb County Juvenile Justice Council has been active since 2012. One of DeKalb County's significant accomplishments is the creation of an Early Risk Assessment Project (ERAP), which was developed by its Juvenile Justice Council in 2014 as a means to divert youth from justice-system involvement into evidence-based programming. The ERAP partner agencies are Youth Service Bureau (YSB), the CCBYS agency for DeKalb County, and Adventure Works. Each agency has a dedicated ERAP Coordinator/Case Manager. YSB offers youth and family counseling, parenting classes, anger management, and substance abuse treatment. Adventure Works offers individual counseling and several positive youth development groups exposing youth to climbing, conservation, archery, and slacklining. If the youth successfully completes the program, the case is closed without criminal charges.

Kane County; The Kane County Juvenile Justice Council has been active since 2015 and is housed out of the Kane County State's Attorney's Office. The major accomplishments of the Kane County JJC include developing sustainable membership, hosting professional development opportunities, and creating subcommittees to address particular issues. Two of these subcommittees include the RED team and the data subcommittee to build the council's capacity to address RED through data-driven decision making. The Kane County JJC completed a universal needs assessment to improve access to services. Kane County has also provided training for the community on restorative practice.

Midwest Youth Services: Morgan County Juvenile Justice Council has been active since 2017 and is housed at Midwest Youth Services (MYS) which also serves as the local CCBYS provider. This is a unique arrangement with Midwest Youth Services, a community-based agency, convening and administering a local JJC as compared to traditional system partners. The major accomplishments of this council include engaging local juvenile justice stakeholders to build a solid council in its first year and collecting data from 7 juvenile justice data points. Morgan County used data collected in FY18 to determine that youth receiving truancy tickets, youth on probation, or youth assigned to community service were at increased risk of further system involvement and therefore have developed a program to provide mentorship and community engagement opportunities for these youth.

St. Clair County: The St. Clair County Juvenile Justice Council has been active since 2011 and is housed in the St. Clair County's State's Attorney's Office. The major accomplishments of the St. Clair Juvenile Justice Council in FY19 include sustaining robust and active council membership, building their capacity to collect and analyze racially disaggregated data, and providing trainings and information around trauma and trauma-informed services particularly in schools. The St. Clair JJC has worked to expand resources to treatment, mental health services, and improved care coordination for youth in the juvenile justice system. Using data, St. Clair has begun to create a more detailed RED reduction plan. Other historical accomplishments of the St. Clair JJ Council include the establishment of Teen Court and Truancy Review Board to divert more youth entering the juvenile justice system.

Midwest Youth Services: Morgan County Juvenile Justice Youth Serving Program oversees the Early Risk Assessment Project (ERAP). DeKalb County's Early Risk Assessment Project (ERAP) was developed by its Juvenile Justice Council in 2014 as a means to divert first-time juvenile offenders into evidence-based programming. The ERAP partner agencies are Youth Service Bureau (YSB), the CCBYS agency for DeKalb County, and Adventure Works. Each agency has a dedicated ERAP Coordinator/Case Manager. YSB offers youth and family counseling, parenting classes, anger management, and substance abuse treatment. Adventure Works offers individual counseling and several positive youth development groups exposing youth to climbing, conservation, archery, and slacklining.

National Youth Advocate Program (NYAP) is a multi-state non-profit that provides in-home and community-based services for youth and families as an alternative for group homes, detention, and confinement. NYAP has expanded its service population with its 6-month program for pre-adjudicated youth titled the Department of Juvenile Justice Youth Serving Program (DJJYS). DJJYS includes individual, family, and group therapy as well as mentorship. All youth are referred from Cook County Juvenile Probation and are met by a therapist in their home, school, or the community.

Westside Health Authority (WHA) is a community-based organization located in the Austin community of Chicago working to build the capacity of local people to become change agents to improve the health and well-being of Westside residents. WHA's Restoring Youth through Supportive Environments (RYSE) program is a 16-week (2 cohorts) diversion and wrap-around program that offers mentoring, civic engagement, and case management. RSYE participants are young men ages 14-18 years old from the Austin area that have had contact with the juvenile justice system.

Youth Outreach Services (YOS) is a community-based non-profit youth agency serving at-risk youth ages 12 to 21 years. YOS sought funding from the Commission to continue its multi-pronged response to youth exhibiting problematic sexual behavior. YOS will serve 20 youth in Cook County through its two trauma-informed, family-centric, evidence-based models: 1) Multisystemic In-Home Therapy for Problematic Sexual Behaviors (MST-PSB) for youth ages 10-17.5 and Cognitive Behavioral Group Therapy for PSB (PSB-CBT) for youth ages 12 to 18 years. Youth in the MST-PSB will meet with a clinician with their family in their home at least 3 times per week for 6-8 months. PSB-CBT is conducted in 18 weekly, 90-minutes sessions with concurrent caregiver groups and monthly combined sessions.

The Center for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD) at the University of Illinois has a long-standing relationship with the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (IJJC) and the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) through the Juvenile Justice System Improvement Program. CPRD's work for IJJC involves managing and hosting the Illinois Juvenile Monitoring Information System (JMIS), collecting juvenile transfer data, providing data analysis on juvenile detention, juvenile transfer motions, and reporting. JMIS monitors and tracks admissions to all sixteen juvenile detention centers in Illinois and is the only source of statewide secure juvenile detention data. JMIS data is used to analyze detention trends, detention usage and compliance. CPRD has also provided additional analysis of JMIS data for current, relevant juvenile justice issues. A data profile has been provided analyzing young children age 10 through 12 in detention. This analysis included demographic analysis as well as county level data analysis utilizing the most current available detention data.

Most recently JMIS data has been utilized to provide a monthly report on detention admissions, releases and lengths of stay in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report allows review of the current detention population compared to historic patterns. Through the systems improvement program, CPRD strives to provide the juvenile justice community accurate, current, and relevant data on juvenile detention and juvenile transfers to adult court.

Illinois Collaboration on Youth (ICOY) provides training and technical support to the IJJC in the form of grantee support, coordination of racial and ethnic disparities reduction work, communications, board meeting administrative support, compliance monitoring, coordinating the youth advisory board and assistance on special projects. In collaboration with the Commission, ICOY conducted nine grantee site visits in FY20to learn more about services offered and provide technical support and feedback to assist with improvement of services. Support is also provided to Juvenile Justice Councils through monthly coordinator calls to help councils strategize, analyze data and learn best practices together. ICOY also coordinated statewide data collection on racial and ethnic disparities and provided data analysis and data profiles for grantee areas to highlight these disparities across decision points.

ICOY provided support during the pandemic by hosting six virtual "check-ins" for IJJC grantees and the Department of Human Services. These webinars kept communications open between the state and their grantees. This allowed for grantees to ask questions about their program changes and payments during the start of the global pandemic.


The Department of Human Services (DHS) under Public Act 89-0507 is authorized and empowered to discharge any and all responsibilities imposed on such bodies by the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) of 2002 (reauthorized 2018) including monitoring compliance with the following JJDPA core requirements:

  • Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders: No minor accused of a status offense - an act that would not be criminal if committed by an adult - may be securely detained in a jail, lockup, or juvenile detention center. Examples of status offenses are truancy, running away, curfew violations, underage drinking and being ungovernable. This requirement also extends to non-offenders, children who fall under the Juvenile Court Act for abuse, neglect and/or dependency.
  • Sight and Sound Separation of Juveniles from Adult Offenders: Juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, status offenders, and non-offenders shall not have contact with adult persons who are incarcerated because they have been convicted of a crime or are awaiting trial on criminal charges. The separation of juveniles from adults must be both by sight and sound.
  • Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jail and Lockups: Illinois uses the six-hour hold exception, allowing juveniles to be held for up to six hours in an adult facility. Illinois begins tracking this six-hour window the moment a juvenile is placed into a locked setting. This includes any locked room or being handcuffed to a stationary object. At the end of the six hours, the juvenile must be released or transferred to a juvenile detention center.

Each year OJJDP publishes annually calculated compliance standards that Illinois must meet to be eligible for full Title II funding. Table One shows the OJJDP standards and the number of violations occurring in FY 2019 (October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019.)

Table One FFY2019 Compliance Data

FFY 2019 FY19 OJJDP Standard per 100,000 youth Illinois Rate (n=2,962,134) Number of Illinois Violations Permitted (n=2,962,134) Actual # of Violations
DSO 4.87 0.52 Less than145 14
Jail Removal 5.4 4.15 Less than 160 123
Separation 2.56 0 Less than176 0

*The Illinois Juvenile Court Act has several provisions in direct conflict with the Jail Removal requirement of the JJDP Act. The law permits county jails and municipal lockups to detain minors 12 years of age and older up to 12 hours, unless the offense is a crime of violence, in which case the minor may be detained up to 24 hours. In spite of the conflicts, Illinois has remained in compliance with the OJJDP standards; (See Table Two); however YTD jail removal data indicates that Illinois may be out of compliance for FFY20. (See Table Three)

Table Two Compliance Data by Year

Compliance Data by Year

DSO in 2013 50. Jail Removal 136. 2014, DSO 45, Jail Removal 155. 2015 DSO 18 Jail Removal 187. 2016 DSO 18 Jail Removal 223. 2017 DSO 25 Jail Removal 228. 2018 DSO 12, Jail Removal 162. 2019 DSO 14 J

*Illinois has had no Sight and Sound Separations for several years; therefore no "sight and sound" data is included on TABLE THREE. In addition, in 2018, Illinois stopped reporting six-hour jail removal violation from the Juvenile Intervention Services Center (JISC) in Chicago, after an OJJDP determination that the JISC should not be categorized as an Adult Jail or Lockup.

Table Three FFY2020 Compliance Data

FFY 2020 OJJDP Standards per 100,00 youth
(based on FFY2020-FFY2021
standards have not been released)
Estimated Illinois Rate
(Pro-rated based on
data through March 31,
Number of Violations Permitted
YTD Violations
(not all departments
have submitted
complete data for
October through March)
Estimated # of
(Pro-rated based
on data through
March 31,2020)
DSO 4.87 0.81 Less than 145 12 24
Jail Removal 5.4 8.3 Less than 160 123 246*
Separation 2.56 0 Less than 76 0 0

In order to address jail removals of youth, IJJC has been involved with the City of Chicago efforts this year to "reimagine" the Juvenile Intervention Service Center (JISC) to improve diversion while reducing jail removal violations in the future.


Pursuant to the JJDPA, as amended at 34 U.S.C. § 11133(a)(15), states must "implement policy, practice, and system improvement strategies at the state, territorial, local, and tribal levels, as applicable, to identify and reduce racial and ethnic disparities among youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system". States achieve compliance with this core requirement when they address racial and ethnic disparities through the following: identification, development of an action plan, and an outcome-based evaluation. There are five contact points by which states must report on: arrests, diversion, detention, confinement and adult transfer. Table Four breaks down the five decision points and the populations impacted in 2018.

Table Four
Illinois Statewide RED Data 2018

Measure Race: White Black American Indian Asia Hispanic/Latino Biracial/Multiracial Unknown
Population 699,796 212,854 2,579 72,509 330,807
Arrest Number 3,802 10,973 0 0 2,553
Percentage 0.54% 5.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.77%
Diversion Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Percentage 0 0 0 0 0
Detention Number 2,342 5,246 5 17 1,140
Percentage 0.33% 2.46% 0.19% 0.02% 0.34%
Confinement Number 154 428 3 1 74 38
Percentage 0.02% 0.20% 0.12% 0.001% 0.02%
Adult Transfer Number 5 36 0 0 2 0 51
Percentage 0.0007% 0.02% 0 0 0.0006% 0

Data Challenges in Illinois

Arrest Data- Illinois' arrest data does not fully capture juvenile arrests and the disparities that may exist because the Criminal Identification Act (20 ILCS 2630/5) only mandates that an arrest fingerprint card be submitted for all minors age 10 and over arrested for an offense which would be a felony offense or driving under the influence. Submitting arrest fingerprint cards is optional for minors arrested for class A or B misdemeanor offenses.

Diversion Data- Illinois uses several diversion programs, including station adjustment, informal Probation, Continued Under Supervision (CUS) and others. The variety of diversion methods across jurisdictions limits the accuracy and availability of diversion data.

Adult Transfer Data- Effective January 2016, Circuit Court Clerks are mandated to track and report information twice annually on the filing and disposition of these proceedings. However, most jurisdictions do not collect race and ethnicity data, resulting in most of the data being considered "unknown".

Racial and Ethnic Disparity Goals for Next Year
Consistent with the previous year, success in racial and ethnic disparities in Illinois' juvenile justice system would look like a decrease in the number of Black and Latino youth arrested, detained, and sent to secure confinement. Illinois plans to achieve this reduction with the following interventions and strategies: intervention at arrest, detention alternatives, secure confinement alternatives and conducting a racial equity impact assessment on current policies being considered for reform.

Arrest-- Illinois would like to see the rate of Black youth arrested decrease by 20%.

Detention--Illinois would like to see a decrease in the number of Black youth in secure detention by 10% and Latino youth by 25%.

Secure Confinement--Illinois aims to see a reduction in Black youth in secure confinement by 25%.

Data Collection
To improve data analysis of all decision points, Illinois plans to explore data collection efforts and roadblocks to collecting RED data for diversion and adult transfer. Illinois would like to see more coordinated data collection efforts, with at least 20% of counties reporting RED data.


In the last decade, the Commission's work has contributed directly to sweeping changes in the state's juvenile justice system. These systemic changes include the creation of an "aftercare" system to support youth leaving the custody of the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to include 17 year olds, stopping the expansion of registry requirements and restrictions for youth who have been adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense, significantly scaling back the trial and punishment of youth as adults and creating "automatic" expungement mechanisms for arrest and juvenile court records which would otherwise create lifelong obstacles for young people. Each of these policy changes has reduced harms and created opportunities for positive outcomes for youth of color, who are disproportionately brought into contact with the state's juvenile justice systems.

Continuing this focus on systemic change, the Commission has launched a new effort to develop strategies to stop the detention of young children (10 - 12-year olds), 71% of whom are children of color. The Commission's report and recommendations will be available for the next session of the General Assembly.


As Illinois grapples with these data challenges and - more importantly - with the deep-rooted racial inequities in our state and nation, there are changes we could make now to greatly reduce the harm of juvenile justice system involvement for youth of color. In June 2020, the Commission issued six recommendations, based on its research and analysis, for statutory and policy changes which would greatly reduce racial disparities in our state's juvenile justice systems and reduce the harm disproportionately born by children, youth and families of color. Those recommendations include:

  • Eliminate detention of children 10-12 years old: Illinois law allows children as young as 10 years old to be securely detained, despite the large body of research which documents the immediate and long term harms of detention.1 The numbers of children 10-12 years old securely detained is falling in Illinois, with some communities avoiding detention of children altogether. Still, in 2018, there were 111 secure detention admissions for children 10-12 years old. Shockingly, 71% of detained children 10-12 years old are children of color.2 Illinois should immediately raise the minimum age of secure detention to at least 13 years old and instead utilize community-based resources to meet the needs of children and families.
  • Require use of alternatives to arrest and detention for children and youth in crisis: Current juvenile justice data suggests that youth continue to be arrested and referred to the juvenile justice system for needs that could be better met in their communities. For example, in Illinois, children and youth of any age can be arrested and charged with "domestic battery" arising out of conflicts within their families. In 2018, there were 587 secure detention admissions for these domestic battery charges. While African American or Black youth comprise approximately 16% of the Illinois youth population, they accounted for over 37% of the youth detained for these family conflict-driven charges. While an arrest for domestic battery places a young person on a trajectory toward detention and future justice system involvement, it does nothing to address the underlying needs of the youth and family. Illinois has a robust network of community-based human services providers that must be utilized to support these and other youth and families in crisis as an alternative to arrest and justice system referral.
  • Restrict secure detention to situations in which community safety is at risk: Illinois detention data reveals that youth are still being detained for low-level or non-violent behaviors which could be more effectively addressed in community-based settings, at a lower cost. Illinois has significantly reduced the use of detention over the last decade and a half through state and local leadership, partnerships with community-based youth serving organization and the efforts of community stakeholders. But youth of color have not benefitted equally from these decreases. In 2018, there were 9,014 admissions to secure youth detention centers in Illinois; 5346 of these admissions were Black or African American youth. Put another way, while Black or African American youth comprise less than 16% of the Illinois youth population, they comprise 59% of detention admissions. Nebraska recently changed state law to eliminate detention of young people except when necessary to protect the physical safety of community members. Illinois should do the same.
  • Limit the role of policing in schools: School districts across Illinois have entered agreements with local law enforcement agencies to provide policing or "school resource officers" in schools. However, there is little research available on the benefits of school policing. In fact, available data suggests that the presence of police in schools is associated with higher rates of suspensions, expulsions, and arrests for low-level offenses such as disorderly conduct.5 Students of color disproportionately bear the harms of over-policing schools according to national and local data.6 To compound matters, these school policing models consume scarce resources that could be better spent on students and the school personnel that support them,7 and instead push young people into the juvenile justice system. For example, Chicago Public Schools has a $33 million contract with the Chicago Police Department to provide "security services" to the schools. This funding can be diverted to pay for more social workers, counselors, nurses, and other helping professionals who are better positioned to reach our youth. Illinois should rethink the role of police in schools and immediately limit school-based arrests to conduct which endangers the safety of students, school personnel, or the community.
  • Eliminate the trial, sentencing, and punishment of youth as adults: A wealth of research has incontrovertibly demonstrated that adolescent decision making and behavior is different than that of mature adults.8 The United States Supreme Court has recognized these fundamental youth/adult difference in a series of cases requiring courts to take the diminished "culpability" of youth and their capacity for positive change into account.9 However, despite recent legislative actions scaling back the "transfer" of youth to adult court, Illinois law still permits the trial and sentencing of youth as adults. And these transfer laws still disproportionately affect youth of color. In 2017, at least 53% of youth subject to a motion to transfer to adult court or to an "automatic" transfer were youth of color.10 Illinois must fully align its laws with developmental science and the findings of the United Supreme Court and prohibit the trial, sentencing, and punishment of youth as adults.
  • Expand automatic expungement of juvenile records: The purpose of the juvenile court is to appropriately hold youth accountable for misconduct and place young people on a path toward success in their lives and communities. Juvenile arrest and court records often place unnecessary barriers between young people and jobs, education, and healthy futures, "threaten[ing] public safety, produc[ing] substantial unnecessary costs, and imped[ing] young people's ability to transition to productive adulthood."11 Because Black youth are arrested and referred to courts at much higher rates than their peers - despite similar patterns of delinquent conduct - they disproportionately bear the burdens these records create.12 Illinois has taken important steps to expunge juvenile records when youth have successfully exited juvenile justice systems, but there is much more work to be done to ensure that records of contact with a justice system - which is intended to improve youth outcomes - don't instead destroy the futures of young people.


As noted previously, the Commission has a strong track record in catalyzing fundamental systemic changes - from supporting the creation of a youth-focused reentry program within the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice to changing the boundaries of juvenile court jurisdiction to keep more young people out of the adult criminal justice system. As the Commission continues to monitor the state's compliance with the federal JJDPA and continues to fund, monitor and support local system improvement efforts and community-based youth services as described herein, there are several ongoing areas of work to note:

Three Year Planning Process 
The IJJC is currently in the process of identifying the issues this body will take on in the future thru our 3-year planning process. Pursuant to Title II, Part B, of the JJDP Act (34 U.S.C. §§ 11131-11133), to receive formula grants, states must submit a plan for carrying out Formula Grants Program activities applicable to a 3-year period. IJJC has been working with the OJJDP's Coordinated Assistance to States Program (CCAS) who has provided coordinated resources and training and technical assistance (TTA) to assist in planning, operating, and assessing delinquency prevention, intervention, and juvenile justice systems improvement efforts. The goal is to have a robust 3 Year Plan by December 2020.

Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities 
The Racial and Ethnic Disparities Committee is currently being revamped and are recruiting new Commissioners, providers and stakeholders to join. IJJC's new members have brought on an increased expertise in addressing racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice. This revamped committee will kick off its work by participating in training together on conducting a Racial Equity Impact Assessment on current juvenile justice policies that IJJC could potentially support. The Commission's recommendations, issued in June 2020, can serve as a starting place for this analysis.

Statewide Youth Advisory Council 
Through the leadership of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (IJJC), in collaboration with Illinois Collaboration on Youth (ICOY), the Youth Advisory Board (YAB) will advise the Commission on issues related to the juvenile justice system from the perspective of young adults. Youth who have a passion to improve the juvenile justice system and who have been involved with the juvenile justice system will have the opportunity to make a difference through efforts such as: creating public awareness campaigns, providing trainings on emerging issues, advocating for more resources and informing on legislative reform. IJJC is currently working with ICOY to develop this council. We have created a committee led by two youth commissioners to help lead this process.

Use of video hearings in juvenile courts
The Commission has launched a workgroup to document and analyze the use of remote hearings in juvenile delinquency cases in Illinois. In 2015, the Commission researched the use of video hearings by juvenile courts (specifically, looking at the use of video technology to conduct detention hearings) and concluded that remote hearings were not appropriate with youth. The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed the landscape for justice systems, with the state's juvenile courts now authorized and encouraged to use remote hearings in all cases, including juvenile justice matters. In light of this fundamental change for juvenile courts, the Commission's workgroup is analyzing due process protections and concerns in remote hearings, whether and how these processes can effectively engage youth and families, how remote hearings affect youth representation and advocacy and recommendations for best practices for as long as remote hearings remain necessary.

Detention of Young Children
The Illinois Juvenile Court Act currently permits secure detention of youth 10 years old or older. More than 2/3 of the children detained in Illinois are Black or African American. Research on the impact of detention on youth has prompted, in the last two sessions of the Illinois General Assembly, introduction of legislation to prohibit detention of children under the age of 13. The most recent version of the legislation introduced would require the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission to examine the issues arising when young children are presented for detention and recommend alternative services and strategies that could reduce or eliminate the use of detention for children under age 13. In anticipation of renewed legislative consideration of prohibitions on the use of detention for young children, and in recognition of the importance of the issue to Illinois' children, juvenile justice practitioners and communities, the Commission has convened a "study group" to analyze detention of young children and recommend changes in Illinois law, policy and / or programming which would meet the needs of these children and prevent their admission to a secure detention facility, while protecting public safety.

Statewide Detention Screening Tool
One of the issues the detention study group will address is the lack of a statewide uniform empirically based detention screening tool that could guide utilization of community diversion programs in the future. Currently each detention center uses their own tools to screen youth entering the centers. The lack of uniformity can create inconsistencies in assessment and treatment and potentially increase racial and ethnic disparities within the detention system. IJJC is in the process of collaborating with stakeholders on development of an empirical, objective and fair statewide screening tool.

APPENDIX A-IJJC Membership Requirements
The Reauthorized Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act provides that each state shall provide for an advisory group that--
(A) shall consist of not less than 15 and not more than 33 members appointed by the chief executive officer of the State-
(i) which members have training, experience, or special knowledge concerning adolescent development, the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency, the administration of juvenile justice, or the reduction of juvenile delinquency;
(ii) which members include-
(I) at least 1 locally elected official representing general purpose local government;
(II) representatives of law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies, including juvenile and family court judges, prosecutors, counsel for children and youth, and probation workers;
(III) representatives of public agencies concerned with delinquency prevention or treatment, such as welfare, social services, child and adolescent mental health, education, child and adolescent substance abuse, special education, services for youth with disabilities, recreation, and youth services;
(IV) representatives of private nonprofit organizations, including persons with a special focus on preserving and strengthening families, parent
groups and parent self-help groups, youth development, delinquency prevention and treatment, neglected or dependent children, the quality of juvenile justice, education, and social services for children;
(V) volunteers who work with delinquent youth or youth at risk of delinquency;
(VI) representatives of programs that are alternatives to incarceration, including programs providing organized recreation activities;
(VII) persons with special experience and competence in addressing problems related to school violence and vandalism and alternatives to suspension and expulsion;
(VIII) persons, licensed or certified by the applicable State, with expertise and competence in preventing and addressing mental health and substance abuse needs in delinquent youth and youth at risk of delinquency;
(IX) representatives of victim or witness advocacy groups, including at least one individual with expertise in addressing the challenges of sexual abuse and exploitation and trauma, particularly the needs of youth who experience disproportionate levels of sexual abuse, exploitation, and trauma before entering the juvenile justice system; and
(X) for a State in which one or more Indian Tribes are located, an Indian tribal representative (if such representative is available) or other individual with significant expertise in tribal law enforcement and juvenile justice in Indian tribal communities;
(iii) a majority of which members (including the chairperson) shall not be full-time employees of the Federal, State, or local government;
(iv) at least one-fifth of which members shall be under the age of 28 at the time of initial appointment; and
(v) at least 3 members who have been or are currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice sys-tem or, if not feasible and in appropriate circumstances, who is the parent or guardian of someone who has been or is currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system;

IJJC Current Commissioner Member Roster

Name Affiliation/Organization Representation
Rodney Ahitow Retired Corrections Adult and Youth
  • Law enforcement/juvenile justice agencies
  • Exp. w/school issues
Marshan Allen Fair and Just Prosecution
  • Non-profit
  • Volunteer for at-risk youth
  • Justice system involved
Julie Biehl Northwestern University
  • Non-profit
  • Victim/Witness Advocacy
Jacqueline Bullard Illinois Juvenile Defender Resource Center
  • Law enforcement/juvenile justice agencies
  • Full-time Government
Shelley Davis Forest Preserve Foundation
  • Non-profit
Veronica Dixon Youth
  • Delinquency Prevention
  • Exp. w/school issues
  • Youth member
Savannah Felix Justice Advisory Council
  • Full-time government
Esther Franco-Payne Cabrini Green Legal Aid
  • Non-profit
George Hill Retired CEO
  • Non-profit
  • Exp. w/school issues
Arnetra Jackson Youth
  • Delinquency prevention
  • Youth member
  • Justice system involved
Ja'Vaune Jackson Youth
  • Volunteer for at-risk youth
  • Youth member
  • Justice system involved
Lisa Jacobs (Vice Chair) Loyola University
  • Non-profit
  • Exp. w/school issues
Amanda Klonsky Researcher & Consultant
  • Law enforcement
  • Juvenile justice agencies
Era Laudermilk The Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender
  • Full-time government
  • Law enforcement/juvenile justice agencies
  • Delinquency Prevention
Patrick Nelson Cook County Probation
  • Volunteer for at-risk youth
  • Exp. w/school issues
  • Full-time government
Brianna Payton Youth
  • Youth Member
Edward Rangle Youth
  • Exp. w/school issues
  • Youth member
Mary Reynolds Illinois State Board of Education
  • Delinquency Prevention
Judge Ben Roe Ogle County
  • Elected Official
  • Law enforcement/juvenile justice agencies
  • Full-time government
Angela Rudolph City of Chicago - Department of Family & Support Services
  • Delinquency Prevention
  • Full-time government
Rick Velasquez (Chair) Retired CEO of Youth Outreach Services
  • Non-profit
  • Alternatives to Confinement
Ethan Viets-VanLear Youth
  • Volunteer for at-risk youth
  • Exp. w/school issues
  • Youth member
Dana Weiner Chapin Hall
  • Non-profit
  • Licensed mental health/substance use