Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois

Team and partner survey

Background
As many of you may know, the Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) program is working
on a corrective action plan which has included a site visit, progress reports and now this brief survey to
team members. The brief survey aims to collect feedback direct from the perspective of team members
on any modifications to the program’s target population and case referral process. The target population
refers to the population that the program is designed to serve (e.g., violent/non-violent, high risk/low
need, high risk/high need, drug-addicted, long or short criminal history, etc.).

Survey responses will be anonymous and we do not ask for your name or position, although we do ask for
the length of time you have been on the team. Note that you will have to write something in for each
answer to move through the survey, except for the last optional question. The words “N/A” can be used,
but please use sparingly. We expect the survey to take about 15 minutes. The information gathered in the
survey will be shared with the Adult Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. Thank-you for taking the time to
complete the survey.

General

1. Please indicate the length of time in years and months that you have worked with the Cook HOPE
Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) team.*

2. What do you consider the biggest strengths of the Cook HOPE ARI program?

3. What do you consider the biggest challenges of the Cook HOPE ARI program?

Target population

4. From your perspective, what is the target population of the Cook HOPE ARI program? (e.g.,
what population is the program designed to serve – violent/non-violent, high risk/low need, high
risk/high need, drug-addicted, long or short criminal history, prison-bound, etc.?)
a. From your perspective, does the program enroll individuals that fit the target population
you indicated above?
b. If not, describe the target population that is routinely admitted to the program.

5. From your perspective, please describe some common reasons that individuals are not accepted
into the program.
a. If this has changed in recent months, please detail changes.

6. Describe any concerns you have related to the target population of the Cook HOPE ARI program.

Case referral process

7. From your perspective, describe any modifications to the case referral process for the Cook
HOPE ARI program from June 2015 to present.
a. If modifications to the case referral process occurred, describe the impact of the changes
on the program.

8. Describe any concerns you have related to the case referral of the Cook HOPE ARI program.
Optional

9. Please use the space for anything else you want to share with Adult Redeploy Illinois.

*To ensure anonymity, results of question #1 will only be shared with Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) and
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) staff.
Respondent Tenure Program strength Program challenge Target Appropriate If no, what Common reasons for Target Modifications to Impact of case referral Case referral Other
population target population population is program denials and population case referral process modifications process
enrolled? enrolled? recent changes? concerns? process? concerns
1 3 (1) The team approach Funding and lack of Probationers Yes N/A The criteria is too strict. The heavy Team members are Resulted the expanding of N/A
years, (Stake holders meeting programs to help who are deemed Changes - reliance on LSIR now included on the the pool of eligible cases
9 to discuss each specific some of the clients. “medium, (1) Receiving cases off scores. LSIR decision.
months case in an effort to medium-high or arraignment scores are not
arrive at a plan that is high” risk the only Cases screened at
tailored to each client). probationers and (2) Screening cases at indicator of the bond court
(2) Success rate of that are prison bond court prison bound
keeping clients out of bound. population. Also, Receiving new cases
IDOC and clients (3) Individual court there are factors off arraignment
turning lives around. rooms screening cases that are not
for inclusion considered or Retaining
reflected when subsequent cases a
(4) Loosening of the calculating the client picks up
criteria LSIR score which
if factored would Cases being referred
(5)Being able to retain result in a higher from other court
case when a client picks LSIR score. rooms.
up a new one
When focusing
on LSIR number
alone the
program is
missing other
individuals who
are prison bound
but because
their LSIR
number is not in
the target area
they are not
being offered the
same
opportunity. The
program is too
focused on the
LSIR score which
alone is not an
accurate
reflection of the
prison bound
population.

The inclusion
into the program
should not be
based solely on
the LSIR score
but on a
combination of
factors which
 includes the LSIR
score.

2 1.5 The family atmosphere. The biggest challenge IDOC bound Yes N/A Low LSIR scores and I think ARI is a I believe we should N/A My only concern
months As the Judge always is that ARI is only Defendants who violent back grounds. wonderful be encouraged to is for this
states “You are now a offered at one court can benefit from program and admit individuals program to
part of our village”. The house. This program the program. should be that may not have a continue to grow
Defendants are is so important and continued. high LSIR score. I say and expand and
invested in ARI and vital, it should be this because we have offer 2nd
view the program as an expanded to other encountered several chances to
extended part of their court houses. defendants who people who need
family. They know our could benefit from it.
goal is to help them the program. For
help themselves. You examples, multiple
can tell by the updates felony convictions
Defendants give during and the need for
court. I have seen many of the
several defendants resources offered
excited to let the court through ARI.
know about a new job, However there is a
good progress, even concern that their
new babies. ARI is not LSIR score may be
just a court call that too low and
simply rotates sometimes-
Defendants without depending on a case
truly getting to know by case basis- a low
who they are. The ARI LSIR score is grounds
team cares. The family for rejection.
atmosphere creates a
safe space for the
Defendant to truly
embrace the program
and expect successful
completion. Even when
we issue sanctions, the
Judge takes the time to
truly explain why and
encourages the
Defendants to be
accountable for their
actions. I believe this
serves as a huge
deterrence and
establishes a level of
respect for the team. In
ARI every violation is
met with a sanction.
However in that same
vein, every triumph is
met with celebration,
no matter how big or
small. ARI is like no
other and we are truly
 invested in helping the
Defendants to a better
place.
3 3 years Close supervision; Volume of caseload; IDOC bound but Yes N/A violence in background We have made Screening for new Changes have increased the Amount of cases
variety of stakeholders; close monitoring of for the ARI adjustments to cases in bond court pool of participants so that being referred is
strong communication participants program ensure that we where defendants more are clearly IDOC high, but so far
between stakeholders; have the correct are IDOC bound in a bound but for ARI referral the volume is
team approach; target traditional manageable
organized screening population which courtroom, but are
process; able to handle is to divert 25% provided an
high volume; close of ARI opportunity to avoid
judicial supervision and participants from IDOC by participating
involvement; variety of IDOC. in ARI
resources available to
refer to

4 2 It gives participants the Getting the Non violent but Yes N/A They have committed None Unknown due to N/A None Excellent
months opportunity to participants to apply high risk drug violent crimes and do not short tenure in program for
implement the skill set all they learn in every addicted. fit the criteria. program behavior
demonstrated in the day situations. modification.
model given. They get
to be change agents in
their own lives.

5 2 years The biggest strengths of The biggest challenge The program is Yes N/A Some individuals are Concerns that Tools to gain We are able to give N/A
the program is our that we face is not designed to denied due to their we may not have participants progress participants a better look at
ability to assist having the finances service school and work the resources to in the program as to who they were when
participants with or resources to give medium/low risk schedules, also because give to our they entered the program
thinking errors as well participants all that participants with the problems haven’t participants even versus who they are as they
as provide a safe they need to be able thinking errors grown enough to where when we can are leaving.
environment for them to provide a better that are made they have begun to affect identify what the
to make the necessary way of life for them worse by the that persons life. problem is
changes that they need as well as their consumption of
to become a stronger families alcohol or use of
and complete individual a substance

6 2 (1)The legal Applying the HOPE Medium- High to Yes, in past 1 – 1.5 More than 1.5 Serious mental health None Referrals now come Bond court referrals may or None I rate the
years, intervention of model with fidelity High risk, years years ago, Prior to issues, low LSIR scores, from bond court, may not have high LSIR success of the
4 consistent certain using a modified nonviolent 1-1.5 years, I recent violent crimes closer scrutiny of scores or meet the eligibility ARI program by
months sanctions removes any version; offenders, IDOC would say LSIR scores criteria, closer scrutiny of observing at
ambivalence from the consolidating data; bound individuals were scores has reduced the least over 30%
participants perspective developing solutions medium risk and number of enrollments of participants
and provides leverage derived from there were who have
to assist the interdisciplinary slightly more successfully
participants in moving perspectives; heroin users and terminated
through various stages mental health their probation,
of change; (2) the team issues. periodically
meetings allow for return to court
input from all when just to check in
discussing participants; and keep
(3) the Judge and other everyone
staff demonstrate a abreast of their
vested interest in the progress in life.
 participants lives by
supporting them in
their positive
extracurricular
activities; (4) also, the
incentive of early
probation termination.

7 1 year The biggest strength of Locating proper The target is for Yes. We admit a lot of Low risk, educated, I feel like the We have changed If certain modifications In the case I believe this is
the HOPE ARI Program candidates. People the High Risk, drug addicts which people who are not program targets the screening were made and considered, referral process, a wonderful
is that it gives people a who really need help IDOC Bound, I feel is not a good showing the risk or are spot on. We process and began to I believe, we would obtain I believe that the program when
second chance. A understanding how High need fit for the factors needed to be just need to accept people who more of the targeted types of ran as
chance to increase their the decisions you population. In program. admittance into our continue to bring are more high risk population for this program violations used intended. I feel
life skills in order to make drectly affect most cases we program. the proper and IDOC bound. and will have better to send people that the
make them productive your life. People who hit the mark. population into This has shown to outcomes. to our program population we
members of society. need help the program. improve the types of are not properly serve can
understanding how people admitted and considered benefit from
to maintain a I believe the type they are benifitting before this program,
productive and of probation the from t he program. recommendation when ran
prosocial lifestyle. person is on (i.e., . properly and
410) should be will continue to
considered do so in the
before they are future
recommended to
the program.

8 1 year Locking people up for The Judge Prison bound Sometimes Mix between Low LSI-R scores, mental That we get first Screening for eligible Just get more cases that We should Judge Portman
petty offenses & legitimate prison health issues time offenders cases now in bond need to be indicted and NEVER get first is extremely
technical violations. bound population, court. sentenced. time offenders, difficult to work
Taking people who are drug addicts, and ever. with and locks
on expungeable cases expungable first everyone up for
and sending them to time offenders petty technical
ARI and intensive violations for
probation. Low level weeks.
offenders being
supervised at the
highest level.

9 3 The staff’s dedication to Maintaining and Defendants The program does The target 1) The state’s attorney’s Without more Originally, referrals In general, the While the state is I have been
years, working with clients. modifying the currently enroll some population is office excludes them input by the passed from modifications have resulted still screening with the
11 program to be more charged with (or appropriate generally based on their record- other probation (culled in more high-risk individuals cases based on program for
months in line with evidence- on probation for) individuals and appropriate. The based screening criteria stakeholders in from appropriate being referred to the their internal several years,
based standards and non-violent will hopefully parties need to prior to staffing; 2) their the screening pending violation program. However, the criteria and was
practices regarding offenses, at high increase that continue to work LSI-R score was process, the requests) to the complete lack of (regarding the privileged to
incentives and risk to re-offend number through to screen out, or significantly below 25 and program will state. The state participation of probation, nature of the attend a
sanctions. Providing with low need in the new not screen in, there were no continue to miss would screen the the public defender, and the offense and the number of
training and terms of initiatives. The individuals extenuating appropriate requests based Court in staffing/screening defendant’s national and
background in HOPE services. These screening process inappropriate for circumstances individuals and primarily on their the direct referral cases background) state-wide
and evidence-based individuals are still, ARI-HOPE either demonstrating they were screen in criteria regarding prior to the case appearing which does seminars on
standards and prison-bound, unfortunately, because they are high-risk or appropriate inappropriate background/record, before the Court for service the need specialty and
practices to the typically because excludes so clearly low-risk for ARI-HOPE as individuals. and if the state did arraignment (with an offer to screen out problem-
largely new staff with they have re- individuals who (or not in need of determined during not unilaterally reject being made of ARI violent solving courts.
the limited training offended (many would otherwise HOPE/COG staffing; 3) they were the defendant the probation) has recently offenders, I understand
budget available. after previous be appropriate for services) or determined to be in need case would be resulted in a number of additional work that in the past
prison intervention, because they are of significant mental referred to the inappropriate referrals. The is needed to several years
sentences) but based on criteria high-need, in need health services and were defense/court for an parties hope to address this identify and our budget has
are ripe for HOPE related to their of services referred to mental health appearance date with more rigorous screen out suffered and
probation allegedly violent unavailable to ARI- probation, typically several weeks later. screening and a process by individuals money for
because their prior conduct (e.g. HOPE, and following (or in lieu of) At the screening date which the other inappropriate for these trainings
criminality tends gun priors). In incapable because transfer to ARI under the probation and the stakeholders/parties have referral on the has been cut in
to have its roots addition, the new of their high needs original probation- defense would input into the screening need axis. In order to try to
in criminal screening to benefit from or referral system. provide intake process for the direct cases. addition, a maintain
thinking and initiative has not comply with ARI- information, the continued effort services to our
behaviors that been effective in HOPE. Because it was state would provide to debate and clients. We
can be addressed screening out low- anticipated the new offense and potentially currently have
and redirected risk/high-need bond-court initiative background challenge the all new
through the individuals, would produce more information, and the state’s position probation
services available however the high-risk/low-need parties would staff on individuals officers and a
to ARI-HOPE. parties are individuals, the parties the case and decide appropriate but new states
meeting to have increased scrutiny whether to accept excluded by the attorney. It
High need hopefully address on probation referrals the transfer to ARI. state’s criteria would be
clients, this issue. under category two (through a wonderful if
specifically those above (rejecting those In addition, the State staffing of ARI could assist
whose with LSI-R scores well is now screenin cases referrals us in finding a
criminality is below 25 without directly from bond- potentially) is way to provide
driven primarily significant extenuating court, and offering necessary. peer-led
by the need to circumstances). The new defendants 24 trainings on
service their bond-court direct months ARI these topics for
drug addiction, referrals are currently probation in lieu of our new (and
or is directly screened or reviewed an IDOC offer. The old) staff.
related to only by the State, this has defendants are
significant resulted in a number of transferred to the
mental health inappropriate transfers in ARI courtroom for
issues, are not the last several weeks arraignment and
appropriate for (e.g. low risk clients and they are informed of
HOPE because 1) high-need clients). The the offer. If they
ARI-HOPE does parties are working on a accept the offer they
not have the system to prevent this in plead guilty and are
resources to deal the future including, placed on ARI
with these hopefully, more probation, and if not
significant participation by the other they are transferred
problems; and 2) stakeholders in the for reassignment to a
because the screening process. trial courtroom.
evidence based
research as
shown that the
premise/operati
on of HOPE
(cognitive
behavioral
therapy/interven
tion through
strict
enforcement of
rules, etc.) is
 inappropriate
and counter-
productive with
such individuals.

10 11 The Probation The Judge. She is Prison-bound Most of the time N/A Spanish-speaking None. Regarding the LSI-R It would depend on the In my
months Supervisor and the typically rude and probationers yes. There should individuals cannot be score: allowing modification. For example, observations,
Officers. They all have condescending to the be strict following allowed in the program at probationers in that if the numbers of those the members of
an insight and unique team members of the current and this time as there are no have an LSI-R score enrolled needs to be higher the team from
perspective to the which makes each of established Spanish/bi-lingual of 25 and above than perhaps expanding the the Probation
supervision of the them feel unvalued criteria though. If members on the team. must be followed. referrals for potential Department, as
probationers as they and anxious to leave they individual Suggesting to the probationers to be able to well as the
spend the most time the program. She he does not fit the The recent CAP findings team to modfiy the come from other judicial Public
with them, which is a very unprofessional criteria then they have changed many score after the fact is districts besides 26th and Defender, work
different perspective and offensive. should not be things in the program. not truthful. The California alone should be very well
than that of the State’s accepted. They The Probation Officers score will be what considered. Instead of the together and
Attorney and Judge shouldn’t trying to now have to conduct the score is and if it sentencing judges for cases demonstrate
who seem to simply do fit a square peg in intake interviews and eliminates the only at 26th, allow suburban the proper
things mechanically. a round hole to complete the initial case probationer from judges to refer as well. If communication
justify their assessment due to the being eligible than this were to occur numbers that is needed
existence. arraignments and direct tha’sthe way it is. If go up then additional staff for a team to
sentences. Although it is there arent’t enough would be be needed. function
understood that the probationers to properly. They
submission of the justify the program do not
monthly stats is than it ends. demonstrate
necessary to understand the need for
outcomes, the current competition or
process is cumbersome the desire to
and the project manager undercut one
seems unorganized all of another . Their
the time. focus is on the
probationer, as
it should be.
Others, not so
much.

11 1 year The immediate The biggest The ARI program The program does Lately the target Gun offenses or deemed My only Modifications that I think if these modifications My only I think the ARI
sanctions and the fact challenges of the ARI is designed to enroll the target population ineligible by the state. concerns are could be made are took place we would get concerns are program in
that these offenders program, are the serve the high population but admitted to the that we are not that we hit more of more of the target that the program Cook County is
could go to jail and they clients, lately the risk population not enough of the program has been Things have changed getting enough the younger population that we desire is not getting the a good program
know that. Also the fact program has been that is not drug target population. drug addicted recently due to the of the desired offender/reoffender and the resources that we population it was overall, at
that they see their getting more drug addicted. ARI There are too offenders that criteria of ARI changing. target target populations have implemented in the designed for and times it can be
Judge more often and addicts which it was should be many drug have tested ARI asked for more high population and and stop taking as programs would be put to the resources micro managed
know that she is going not designed to deal dealing with the addicted older positive again or risk offenders so things we are spending many drug addicted better use to serve our that are provided but ultimately it
to get an update on with and its hard to youth that are offenders enrolled have committed a have changed. to much time individuals especially targeted population. for the program serves the
their progress every put them in constant in the program theft to support dealing with the of the older variety are stretched out clients. The
month good or bad is programs and keep offenders and that take away their habits. Also drug addicted that have been because the staffing
motivation for the them on the right need to be from dealing with there have been a population. addicted for 20 targeted conferences
individual. The course through out turned in the younger few offenders that There are other years. Also we should population is not can be a bit
offenders know the their time in ARI. another offenders that are are admitted for programs that not just accept be met and we over bearing
Judge cares about their Another challenge of direction. The higher risk. petty infractions deal directly with individuals because have more drug but everyone
progress and will give the program can be ARI program is while they are on the drug they have violated addicted wants to be
them feed back the changes on the designed to try regular probation, addicted their probation individuals. involved . The
 whether good or bad. fly that have been and catch the like not population. because they did not smaller the
necessary. younger completing complete their amount of
reoffenders in community community service. client it is the
my opinion, to service, I don’t Those individuals more beneficial
try and steer think this is what should continue with I believe it is for
them in the right the ARI program their regular the population
direction before was designed to probation. it serves. ARI
it is ultimately deal with. Offenders on 410 or has to find a
too late. 1410 probation also common
should not be include ground of
in the referral professionalism
process, they are not in the
are targeted courtroom and
population. getting the
point across to
the defendants.

12 3 The ARI probation I believe that team Based on the I’m not sure that I don’t believe It was always my There is a The biggest change is This new change has The main issue I I believe that
years, team, particularly the communication, initial criteria, it Cook HOPE was that there is a understanding that an specific the fact that directly affected and have seen is in there just
9 probation officers. They once a strength of was my belief always targeting specific individual would not be population that individuals are now increased the job duties of the new needs to be
months are the ones doing the Cook HOPE ARI, is that Cook HOPE the correct population that is accepted into Cook HOPE is admitted to being directly the ARI probation officers. screening more of a team
majority of the legwork now becoming an was established individuals. Based admitted to the only if the current the program. sentenced to 24 They are now required to process for the approach to the
in the program, often challenge. Many to target non- on probation program. A probation case involved a months ARI conduct intake interviews direct sentences. whole
under intense scrutiny issues, which could violent, prison criteria, an participant could violent offense. However, probation. These and complete assessments, However, this is programand
from the judge. This is be dealt with in bound individual could be anyone from a I believe that the States individuals are whereas before the new new to the ARI that is should
all in addition to the staffing, are now individuals who be referred to ARI hardcore Attorney’s Office was screened to ARI by cases were transferred to team and I’m be the judge
extra responsibilities often dealt with were found tom for any technical heroin/cocaine rejecting individuals the States Attorne’s them after already being on sure any issues who reflects
placed upon them by ahead of time be medium to offense. I assume user to someone based on a violent Office. probation for some time. will be worked this attitude. I
the corrective action through emails. high-medium on that, technically, a who never tests background. Cook HOPE out. have never
plan. These emails are the LSI-R. I’m not defendant could positive for drugs has also, traditionally, not seen or heard
often communicated really sure what be sentenced to but failed to accepted into the of some of the
after work hours, the target IDOC if he goes report for one program those individual things that
and staff are population is before a month or got who had mental health occcur with
expected to answer now, as the CAP sentencing judge terminated from a issues or who are non- Cook HOPE
as soon as possible. I is requiring at on a VOP for only community English speaking. The taking place in
believe that another least 50% of the completing 20/30 service site. reasonf or this is because any other
issue is how the new referrals be community we did not have the specialty court.
judge almost micro- high-medium service hours or resources/staff to I believe that
manages the staff, (25+). testing positive effectively assist these some of the
whic often puts once for individuals. unnecessary
unneeded stress on marijuana. These stress placed
them. Probation are offenses that The States Attorney has upon team
officers should be could get an began accepting some members by
allowed to do their individual cases that they originally the judge is
jobs and report any transferred into would have rejected, having a
issues in staffing on ARI. The reality is, based on the CAP. negative impact
the respective court however, that this Probation has also been on team
date person would concentrating on morale. This is
never be referring those also a reason
sentenced to IDOC individuals who score 25 why there is
for the above or higher on the LSI-R. such high
mentioned turnover
infractions. among the
 probation
officers and the
States
Attorneys.
Those team
members who
have left the
program are
usually
extremely
relieved once
they are out.
Which is a very
unfortunate
circumstance,
because I
believe that,
with the
appropriate
personnel in
place, this
could be an
exceptional
program.

13 1 year If this program were The greatest I believe the Initially, the I would not say Initially, we were not I feel that since In the last few The population we are I would like to
run as it should be, it challenge of this TARGET program was not there is a target rejecting many cases. The the corrective months, we began serving is more in line with express that
has the potential to program is that it not population of enrolling this population that only cases I seen rejected action plan was conducting a new L- the target population. We this program
rehabilitate offenders in being effectively or this program are population. When we are routinely in the initial few months I put into place, SIR assessment on are noticing that the truly does have
a manner that is both efficiently run. The individuals who I first joined the admitting at this was in the program were we have begun cases that were number of high-medium potential if it
effective and efficient. idea of this program are convicted of program, we were time. I outlined cases in which the client to accept cases referred to the and high cases has gone up were to be run
People should not be is that it should save non-violent accepting above the types of had a severe mental that are more in program from other drastically within the last correctly.
seen as irredeemable. taxpayers money by crimes and individuals for any clients that we health diagnosis which the range of the officers. Initially, we few months. We are no However, I do
This program offers offering an would otherwise violation of have taken had the possibility to intended would conduct a new longer receiving cases not see this
clients facing charges alternative to be facing IDOC probation previously as well impede on their ability to population. L-SIR assessment if where this is the program being
for certain non-violent incarceration. time. From my regardless of as the types of follow program However, I do the client had not client's first arrest or successful as
offenses the However, individuals perspective this individual clients that we objectives. believe that we had a reassessment only violation. long as Judge
opportunity to redeem in this unit are placed group of circumstances. have begun to are accepting too conducted within the Portman is
themselves and become into custody for individuals This included first accept within the In the last few months, many long-term last 3 months. As of I did not think it was presiding over
active and contributing petty violations, should include time offenders, last few months. however, more cases drug addicts who the last month or so, necessary for us to conduct it. I would hate
members of society. It which in my opinion, offenders with offenders on 1410 The guidelines of have been rejected or would be better we have begun a new L-SIR score on every to see a
has the potential to are not worth my lengthy criminal (expungeable which types of been found ineligible for suited for conducting a new L- new case referred to us in program with
reduce recidivism levels money as a taxpayer. backgrounds or probation), and cases we are ARI probation. We are intensive drug SIR score on every the beginning of our such potential
while utilizing less I don’t think it’s more than one individuals in accepting seem to now rejecting cases in probation. case referral, attempt to coincide with be dissolved
county resources. justifiable to lock felony violation for petty change every which the client has an L- regardless of the last the corrective action plan. and I genuinely
Proper operation of this someone up for a conviction, offenses. This also other week so SIR score of 24 or below. I do not have any time an assessment The policy of the probation hope that ARI
program would provide week for not individuals who included some I'm not sure substantial was done. I also think department is that a full can see how
the county with the completing two have either been individuals who there is any In order to meet the concerns about that we are reassessment should be amazing this
opportunity to save hours of community to prison before were in violation consistency in the objectives of the ARI the target beginning to only conducted every year and program could
taxpayers thousands of service. Two hours of or have had their for testing positive target population corrective action plan, population of take cases that are at with special cases, every six be if it were to
dollars (perhaps community service is probation for illegal at this time. cases referred from other this program if least at a high- months. An L-SIR score will be run by
millions, this is only my simply not the revoked substances on officers are not being we continue to medium level or may not change very drastically someone else.
estimate). Additionally, equivalence of one previously. It their first drug accepted unless they accept cases that be within a few over the course of several
it should be noted that week of custody. may also include test (within weeks have an L-SIR score of 25 are truly IDOC points of a high- weeks or a couple months. Judge Portman
the cost of There are other individuals who of being or higher. bound and at medium level and Therefore, I do not feel is disrespectful,
incarceration goes situations in which have picked up sentenced to higher risk of capable of being what we were doing initially unprofessional,
beyond dollar amounts. this occurs, this is multiple arrests probation). We recidivism/highe reassessed at a high- was necessary. However, it and inefficient.
Locking an individual up just one common while on have also r need. medium level. seems that in the last Her
prevents them from example. probation. It accepted many month or so we have "speech&
being contributing should include long-time drug stopped conducting new quot; that she
members of society. Additionally, I individuals at addicts, who assessments on referred gives to new
Furthermore, those don't believe high risk of would most likely cases as we are only clients is
sentenced to custody we are taking the recidivism and a be better suited accepting cases at a high- extremely
are more likely to enter right approach to high need for intensive drug medium level., so this note inappropriate
the “revolving door“- addressing the needs supervision level. probation or drug is no longer relevant. and frankly,
phenomenon of the of our clients. We Additionally, it court. unnecessary. I
criminal justice system. lack resources and should include do not feel it is
Once labeled as funding for proper individuals who Since the criteria appropriate for
prisoners, they fall into treatment. meet the above has changed in the anyone,
certain stigmas and Moreover, I don’t criteria and who last few months, particularly a
have a harder time think we give people do not have a we have begun Judge to speak
rehabilitating the proper chance or steady history of enrolling more of human
themselves once they opportunity to be employment or individuals within genitals within
are released. While rehabilitated. We structure in their the targeted the courtroom.
probation and punish people for lives. population. We More so, she
specifically ARI being addicts instead are now accepting does so in a
probation is not an of giving them the clients directly manner that is
appropriate placement time and chance to from sentencing unprofessional
for every individual, reach sobriety. I have and are only and tacky and
there are certainly had clients who have accepting referrals strays from the
thousands of eligible openly admitted to from other main focus. I
individuals who would being addicts and officers if the understand
benefit from such a have begged for help client has an L-SIR that she is
program. In return, the in reaching sobriety. I score of 25 or trying to get
county would try my best to set above and hence, through to the
experience reduced them up with the is at higher risk of clients and
levels of recidivism at a appropriate recidivism and has relay the
lower cost (both resources as soon as a high need for information in a
monetary and non- I can, however, more intensive way that they
monetary) to society. sometimes it takes supervision. understand it,
time for a bed to but it is far too
open up or a facility much. A Judge
to respond. In the is
meantime, they are representative
being drug tested of the entire
once a week or twice court system
a week or what have and frankly, her
you and are being mannerisms
locked up for testing reflect very
positive. Judge poorly upon the
Portman expects court system.
clients to come off of Her behavior is
hard drugs such as absolutely
heroin and cocaine embarrassing
cold-turkey and at and uncalled
their own-will...this is for.
just not possible. Additionally,
this
As a member of the "speech&
ARI team, the quot; that she
greatest challenge in gives lasts
this program for me nearly 45
personally is working minutes. I am
with Judge Jackie certain that our
Portman. clients are not
able to direct
their full
attention to
this speech for
that long of a
time period.
*Also, please
note that if
certain
individuals of
status are in
the courtroom,
this speech will
be modified.*

2.) Judge
Portman is very
difficult to work
with: I have
always felt very
passionate
about the field
of criminal
justice and for
the last few
years, my
dream was to
become an
adult probation
officer. I love
the duties that
my job entails. I
love my
caseload, I love
working with
individuals to
help better
themselves, I
even love
creating case
plans and other
standard
documentation.
However, I
cannot enjoy
coming to work
while she is a
part of this
program. I
don’t’ feel I
have any power
or control over
my caseload as
she insists on
micro-
managing the
entire program.
I don’t feel like I
have any
discretion in
certain
situations as
giving Judge
Portman your
input is a lost
cause. When
deciding how to
address a
violation she
may on
occasion, ask
for your
opinion or the
opinion of
other
individuals in
the room.
However, she
tells each
member of the
team from the
very beginning
that if their
opinion differs
from her own,
she will argue
with you and if
she decides to
follow your
decision and
you are wrong,
she will never
let you live it
down.
Therefore,
every member
of the team
feels compelled
to agree with
her on
everything.
Essentially, she
bullies each
member of the
team into
taking her
position. This is
not how a
courtroom
should
function. The
role of the
assistant state’s
attorney should
be to address
all issues and
violations in a
manner that
they see fit and
according to
what is best per
Illinois policy,
not to side with
Judge Jackie
Portman
because she
will bully you if
you do not.
Furthermore,
her behavior is
unpredictable.
Walking into
her courtroom,
I’m never
certain which
Judge Portman
you’r going to
get. Some days
she is cheerful
and wants to
be your friend,
some days she
makes you feel
as if you are
completely
worthless. I do
my job to the
best of my
ability as does
everyone in the
unit, but it
never seems to
be enough to
her. I generally
care for the
well-being of
my clients and
want nothing
but the best for
them. I work
very hard to
help them be
successful.
However, she
makes me feel
as if I’m
completely
incompetent
and incapable
of doing my
job. I know this
is not a
personal thing
as each
member in the
unit has had
this experience
at one time or
another. You
can never truly
tell what is
going to set her
off. Each day I
am here I feel
as if I’m walking
on eggshells. It
may be
something as
simple as
forgetting to
include her
name on an e-
mail, but she
will at one time
or another go
off on you and
it will be
completely
unexpected
and
unwarranted. I
take great pride
in my work and
truly feel that I
am in the line
of work that I
was destined to
be in. I am
always given
praise from my
supervisor and
other
individuals in
the
department,
yet Judge
Portman makes
me feel
worthless in my
position. She is
the reason the
morale of this
entire unit is so
low and that
strays each of
us from our
main priority-
the clients. She
feels a sense of
entitlement
because she is
a Judge,
however, I
don’t think she
realizes that
respect must
be earned. She
commonly tells
people that you
need to treat
others the way
you would like
to be treated,
however, she
absolutely does
not adhere to
this mantra
herself.

3.) I believe the

procedures
followed in this
court room are
very inefficient
and ineffective.
This program
uses a drug
hotline number
to conduct
random drug
testing.
However,
unlike other
program
hotlines, our
clients only
have between
the hours of
8:30 and 11:00
a.m. to call AND
get down to the
department to
submit to a
drop. I think it
is unrealistic to
expect clients
who live all
over the county
to be able to
get here before
11:00 a.m. In
my opinion,
they should
have until the
end of the day
to report for a
drop.

4.) The only

sanctions we
use in this
program are
custody and
SWAP. I think
there need to
be more
alternatives.
Although I
understand
that this an
intensive form
of supervision, I
don’tt think it is
necessary to
lock people up
for many of the
reasons we do.
(Especially
when we
initially had
lower risk
clients who
were with us
for petty
offenses, but
were otherwise
doing well in
their
rehabilitation
process.)

5.) I think this

program needs
more
resources. The
only program
we ever send
people to is
Westcare.
Westcare is not
always the best
option for a
client. (Also in
regards to
Westcare, I
think it is
unrealistic to
not allow them
a single
absence and
only 1 tardy in a
program that
takes several
months to
complete). I
think we should
have more
programs
available for
clients such as
parenting or
job training. In
regards to
treatment
facilities, we
have limited
openings for
clients. We
could also use
more
information
regarding job
postings,
education
opportunities,
etc....resources
are severely
limited and I
feel that this
program would
be more
effective if we
had access to
more/better
resources.

Overall, I
believe in this
program and in
the potential
that it has. I
love being a
part of such a
cause and
working with
the population
we do. I truly
believe ARI
could be a
wonderful
program that
would have
amazing
results.
However, as
previously
mentioned, I
feel this
program would
be significantly
more successful
if it were
presided over
by another
individual.
Respondent Tenure Program Program Target population Appropriate If no, what Common Target Modifications to Impact of case Case referral Other
strength challenge target population is reasons for population case referral referral process
population enrolled? program concerns? process? process concerns
enrolled? denials and modifications
recent
changes?
1 3 (1) The team Funding Medium, Yes N/A The criteria is Heavy reliance Team members are Expanded of N/A
years, approach. (2) and lack medium-high or too strict. on LSIR scores now included on pool of eligible
9 Success rate of of high” risk which are not the decision. cases.
months keeping clients programs probationers Recent the only
out of IDOC and to help changes - indicator of the Cases now screened
clients turning some of Prison bound. (1) Receiving prison bound at bond court
lives around. the cases off population.
clients. arraignment Receiving new cases
A sole focus on off arraignment
(2) Screening LSIR score misses
cases at bond some individuals Retaining
court who are prison subsequent cases a
bound with a low client picks up
(3) Individual LSI-R score.
court rooms Determination to Cases being
screening cases enroll should be referred from other
for inclusion based on more court rooms.
than the LSI-R
(4) Loosening score.
of the criteria

(5)Ability to
retain case
when a client
picks up a new
one

2 1.5 The family The IDOC bound. Yes N/A Low LSIR A focus on N/A N/A A desire for
months atmosphere, limitation scores. certain LSI-R the
team to one scores screens program to
atmosphere and courthous Violent back out defendants continue to
team’s e. grounds. with lower LSI-R expand and
investment in scores who may offer
the defendant’s. be a good fit for chances to
the program. people who
need it.
3 3 years Close Volume of IDOC bound. Yes N/A Violence in We have made Screening for new Increase in There is a
supervision; caseload; background adjustments to cases in bond court. participant large
variety of close ensure that we pool, increase number of
stakeholders; monitorin have the correct in pool of referrals, but
strong g of target IDOC-bound pool is still
 communication participan population which participants. manageable.
between ts is to divert 25%
stakeholders; of ARI
team approach; participants from
organized IDOC.
screening
process; ability
to handle high
volume; close
judicial
supervision and
involvement;
variety of
resources
available for
referrals

4 2 Provides skills to Participan Non-violent Yes N/A Violent None, Unknown. N/A None Excellent
months participants so t change. . offenses. program
they can change High risk for
their lives. behavior
Drug addicted. modificatio
n.

5 2 years Safety and Lack of Medium/low risk Yes N/A Denials due to Participants have Expanded eligibility N/A N/A
structure for resources participants school and higher needs criteria.
participants, for work than program is
cognitive- participan Thinking errors schedules. able to address.
behavioral work ts. that are made
with participants worse by the
consumption of
alcohol or use of a
substance

6 2 (1) Consistent Interdisci Medium- High to Yes, in past 1 Previously Serious mental None Referrals now come More scrutiny None Many
years, and certain plinary High risk, – 1.5 years medium risk health issues, from bond court of LSI-R scores success
4 sanctions; (2) the collaborat has reduced participants
months team meetings ion Nonviolent Previously more Low LSIR Closer scrutiny of the number of return to
and input from offenders heroin users and scores LSIR scores overall court to
all members; (3) Consolida mental health enrollments reconnect.
the Judge and ting data IDOC bound issues. Recent violent
team’s genuine crimes
interested in Running a
participants (4) modified
incentive of early HOPE
probation program
termination. with
 fidelity

7 1 year A second change Identifyin High Risk Yes. Program admits Low risk. Now accepting Even more The types of Great
for participants g proper too many Type of more high risk and modifications violations for program if
for candidate IDOC Bound participants with probation the IDOC- bound would result in referrals to run
rehabilitation, to s. addiction issues. person is on (i.e., people, more of the HOPE need properly.
increase life High need 410) should be appropriate more
skills. Participan considered target consideratio
t change before they are population. n.
recommended to
the program.

8 1 year Locking people The Judge Prison bound Sometimes Mixed – Low LSI-R Some Screening for Expansion of We should Judge is
up for petty scores participants are eligible cases now in cases.. NEVER get difficult to
offenses & Prison bound first time bond court. first time work
technical population Mental health offenders offenders,
violations. issues ever. Judge locks
Taking people Drug addicts everyone
who are on up for petty
expungeable Expungable first technical
cases and time offenders violations
sending them to for weeks.
ARI and
intensive
probation. Low
level offenders
being supervised
at the highest
level.

9 3 The staff’s Maintaini Non-violent Some Generally Screened out Inappropriate Originally, referrals More high-risk Additional Concerns
years, dedication to ng appropriate appropriate. due to criminal referrals will passed from referrals. work is on lack of
11 working with evidence- High risk to re- people are history before continue unless pending probation needed to training
months clients. based offend enrolled. Work still needed staffing. more violations to the Lack of full identify and budget and
practices on screening out stakeholders are state for screening team in screen out need for
(EPBs) Low need Screening high needs and Low LSI-R involved in on screening (the individuals training for
process still low risk scores. screening criteria/background direct referral inappropriat new team
Lack of excludes individuals. (especially from /record. If state did cases) results e for referral members.
training/ appropriate Needs too bond court). not unilaterally in due to high ARI could
backgrou participants high. reject the inappropriate needs. assist us in
nd in (for violence defendant, the case referrals. finding a
HOPE and in was referred to the Continued way to
EBPs to background). defense/court for The parties effort to provide
the an appearance date hope to debate and peer-led
largely Low-risk, high- several weeks later. address this by challenge trainings on
new staff need are still At the screening using more the state’s these
 being date probation and screening and position on topics for
screened, but the defense would creating a individuals our new
Limited team is provide intake process for excluded by (and old)
training working on information, the other team the state’s staff.
budget this. state would provide members have criteria such
available. offense and input into the as a staffing
background screening of referrals.
information, and process for the
the parties would direct cases.
staff the case and
decide whether to
accept the transfer
to ARI.

In addition, the
State is now
screening cases
directly from bond-
court, and offering
defendants 24
months ARI
probation in lieu of
an IDOC offer. The
defendants are
transferred to the
ARI courtroom for
arraignment and
they are informed
of the offer. If they
accept the offer
they plead guilty
and are placed on
ARI probation, and
if not they are
transferred for
reassignment to a
trial courtroom.

10 11 The probation The Prison-bound Most of the N/A Spanish- None. Current focus on Concern The current
months team. They are Judge. probationers time yes. speakers (no LSI-R scores of 25 or about process of
most engaged Spanish/bi- above. suggestions data
team members. Typically Need straight lingual to modify collection is
rude, enforcement members on LSI-R scores cumbersom
unprofess of current the team). to make e and the
ional, established participants project
offensive, target Changes- eligible. manager
and population The Probation seems
 condesce criteria. Officers now unorganize
nding to conduct intake d all of the
the team interviews and time
members initial case
. assessment Some team
Team due to the members
members arraignments (probation,
feel and direct public
unvalued sentences. defender)
and . work and
anxious, communica
creating te well
turnover together.
within Other team
team. members
don’t work
as well
together
and show
competitio
n and the
desire to
undercut
each other.
.

11 1 year The immediate Client High risk Yes, but still Lately drug Gun offenses Not getting Program not Good
sanctions needs, in enrolling in addicted enough of the getting the program
particular Not drug appropriate offenders that Deemed desired target population it overall that
More frequent when high addicted. individuals have tested ineligible by population was serves
interaction with drug need too. positive again or the state. designed for clients.
the Judge and clients are ARI program is have committed Spending too and program
the team. enrolled. designed to try Too many a theft to support Changes - much time resources At times it
and catch the drug addicted their habits. Things have dealing with the are can be
Offenders know Changes younger older changed drug addicted stretched micro
that the Judge to the reoffenders, to try offenders Some recently due to population who thin managed
cares. . program and steering the enrolled. enrollments are the criteria of are better suited because the
on the fly. right direction too low risk and ARI changing, to other participants The staffing
need, for more high risk programs. are too high conference
instance, petty offenders so need (drug s can be a
infractions while things have Offenders on 410 addicted). bit over
on regular changed. or 1410 bearing but
probation. probation also everyone
should not be wants to be
include in the involved
referral process,
they are not are ARI has to
 targeted find a
population. common
ground of
Program should profession
focus more on alism in the
the younger courtroom
offender/reoffen and getting
der target the point
populations and across to
stop taking drug the
addicted defendants
individual. .
.

12 3 The ARI Communi Initially - Based on No specific target State’s There is no Now direct Increased the Still need to More team
years, probation team, cation is probation population. A Attorney’s specific sentences to 24 job duties of smooth out approach
9 particularly the now a Non-violent criteria, most wide range of Office rejects population that months ARI the ARI the new needed,
months probation challenge. probation people are individuals is admitted to probation, probation screening should be
officers. Prison bound technical enrolled from a based on a the program. screened to ARI by officers who process for initiated by
Many violators were drug addict to violent the States are now the direct Judge.
Probation is issues, Medium to high- admitted someone who background. Attorney’s Office. required to sentences. .
doing the which medium on the when the failed to The States conduct intake Stress on
majority of the could be LSI-R. likelihood of complete Attorney now interviews and team (from
legwork in the dealt with IDOC was low. community accepts some complete Judge)
program, often in staffing, Not really sure service while on cases that they assessments, creates low
under intense are now what the target regular originally whereas before morale and
scrutiny from the often population is now, probation. would have the new cases unnecessar
judge, in dealt with as the CAP is rejected, based were y turnover.
addition to the ahead of requiring at least on the CAP. transferred to
extra time 50% of the new Probation has them after Could be
responsibilities through referrals be high- also been already being an
of the the emails medium (25+). concentrating on probation exceptional
corrective action often on referring for some time. program if
plan. after work those right team
hours individuals who was in
with an score 25 or place.
expectati higher on the
on of a LSI-R.
response.
High mental
Judge health needs
almost or Spanish
micro- speaking due
manages to a lack of
the staff. resources.

13 1 year If this program Program Non-violent. Since the No consistent In the last few I do not have any Recently L-SIR Current We are no The
were run as it has much IDOC bound. criteria has target population months, substantial assessments are population is longer program
should be, it has potential changed in is routinely however, more concerns about conducted on cases more in line receiving has
the potential to to From my the last few enrolled at this cases have the target referred to the with the target cases of a potential,
rehabilitate rehabilitat perspective this months, we time. Too many been rejected population of program regardless population and first arrest of but will not
offenders in a e group of have begun recent changes in or been found this program if of time of last the number of first violation be
manner that is offenders, individuals should enrolling criteria to know if ineligible for we continue to assessment. high-medium of probation. successful
both effective reduce include offenders more program is ARI probation accept cases that Program is and high cases with the
and efficient. recidivism with lengthy individuals enrolling since the are truly IDOC beginning to only has gone up It’s not current
People should and utilize criminal within the appropriate program is now bound and at take cases that are drastically necessary to Judge.
not be seen as less backgrounds or targeted target rejecting cases higher risk of at least at a high- within the last conduct a
irredeemable. county more than one population. population. where client recidivism/higher medium level on few months. new L-SIR The Judge
This program resources. felony conviction, We are now has an L-SIR need. the LSI-R. score on is
offers clients individuals who accepting score of 24 or every new disrespectf
facing charges A lack of have either been clients directly below. Changes have case referred ul,
for certain non- efficiency to prison before from been made with to the unprofessio
violent offenses and or have had their sentencing In order to corrective action program and nal, and
the opportunity effectiven probation and are only meet the plan however the inefficient.
to redeem ess in revoked accepting objectives of the program is probation
themselves and running previously. It may referrals from the ARI still accepting policy of a The new
become active the also include other officers corrective too many long- full client
and contributing program. individuals who if the client action plan, term drug reassessmen speech is
members of Petty have picked up has an L-SIR cases referred addicts who t every year extremely
society. It has probation multiple arrests score of 25 or from other would be better would inappropria
the potential to violations while on above and officers are not suited for suffice. An L- te,
reduce should probation. It hence, is at being accepted intensive drug SIR score will unnecessar
recidivism levels not be should include higher risk of unless they probation. not change y and too
while utilizing admitted individuals at high recidivism and have an L-SIR drastically long (45
less county to risk of recidivism has a high score of 25 or over the minutes).
resources. program and a high need need for more higher. course of It’s not
Proper operation or supervision level. intensive several appropriate
of this program incarcerat Additionally, it supervision. weeks or a for anyone,
would provide ed while should include couple particularly
the county with in individuals who months a Judge to
the opportunity program meet the above therefore speak of
to save taxpayers for criteria and who the human
thousands of smaller do not have a reassessmen genitals
dollars (perhaps infraction steady history of ts are not within the
millions, this is s like employment or necessary. courtroom.
only my failing to structure in their Just in the More so,
estimate). complete lives. last month, it’s
Additionally, it communit the program unprofessio
should be noted y services. has stopped nal, tacky
that the cost of conducting and strays
incarceration Program new from the
goes beyond lacks assessments main focus.
dollar amounts. resources on referred A Judge is
Locking an for proper cases as we representat
individual up treatment are only ive of the
prevents them and does accepting entire court
from being not cases at a system and
contributing provide high- frankly,
members of proper medium these
society. chance level. mannerism
Furthermore, for s reflect
those sentenced rehabilitat very poorly
to custody are ion, upon the
more likely to therefore court
enter the punishing system. Her
“revolving door“- addicts behavior is
phenomenon of for a lack absolutely
the criminal of embarrassi
justice system. sobriety. ng and
Once labeled as The uncalled
prisoners, they expectati for. Note
fall into certain ons on that if
stigmas and have sobriety certain
a harder time are too individuals
rehabilitating high. of status
themselves once are in the
they are Working courtroom,
released. While with this speech
probation and Judge will be
specifically ARI Portman modified.
probation is not is the
an appropriate biggest The Judge
placement for challenge. is difficult
every individual, to work
there are with and
certainly removes
thousands of power from
eligible the case
individuals who plans by
would benefit micromana
from such a ging the
program. In program
return, the and
county would removes
experience discretion.
reduced levels of Team
recidivism at a members
lower cost (both feel
monetary and compelled
non-monetary) to agree
to society. with the
Judge due
to bullying
and
unpredicta
ble
behavior.
The Judge
makes
team
members
feel
worthless.

The drug
hotline
number
and limited
hours are
unrealistic.

More
sanctions
are needed
since it is
currently
just SWAP
and jail.

Program
needs more
resources
and only
WestCare is
utilized
which is
not always
the best
option.
Program
would be
more
effective
with access
to more
and better
resources.