Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

M.H., on behalf of himself and on behalf of the class )

of juvenile parolees who face revocation proceedings, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ADAM MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner )

Review Board; and PAT QUINN, Governor of the )

State of Illinois,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 12CV8523

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff M.H., individually and on behalf of the class of all juvenile parolees who face

parole revocation proceedings, by his undersigned attorneys, for his complaint against ADAM

MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, and PAT QUINN, Governor of the

State of Illinois, alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights class action complaint on behalf of children and teenagers

who have been imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty as a result of the unconstitutional

practices and procedures of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (hereinafter, the PRB) with respect

to the handling of parole revocation proceedings. The PRB’s procedures disregard fairness and

due process and thereby violate the rights of the members of the Plaintiff class under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Illinois Juvenile Court Act.

This court should declare those procedures unlawful and it should enjoin them.

2. Members of the Plaintiff class are routinely incarcerated without a preliminary

hearing to determine whether there is reason to believe that they have actually violated the

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
conditions of their parole. As a result, class members are detained, oftentimes for up to a month or more, without any kind of hearing into the legality of their imprisonment.
3. The full parole revocation hearings that the PRB does conduct are a sham. The PRB keeps secret the evidence it has gathered against the class members. The conditions under which the hearings occur render it impossible for the class members to present witnesses or other evidence on their own behalf, and they are denied the opportunity to confront the evidence used against them at their revocation proceedings. The PRB does not provide counsel to the Plaintiff class members—many of whom have learning disabilities, live with mental illness, and have limited educational attainment— and they are left to navigate the complex revocation proceedings without the support and guidance they obviously need in order to defend themselves.
4. These unlawful tribunals—akin to kangaroo courts— result in the arbitrary detention and imprisonment of over 1,000 young people throughout the state of Illinois each year.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of the Plaintiffs rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 7. M.H. is a seventeen-year-old male who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (hereafter, the DJJ). He has been incarcerated since September 13, 2012, for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. He was never provided a preliminary hearing
2

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to believe he actually violated the conditions of his parole. As of the filing of this complaint, he is still awaiting his final parole revocation hearing.
8. Defendant Adam Monreal is the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, the State agency that makes decisions about juvenile parole matters. Monreal directs and supervises the activities of the PRB members, including each of the members who review juvenile parole cases and make decisions about revocation. Monreal is responsible for implementing the rules, regulations, procedures, and standards governing the parole revocation process in the State of Illinois.
9. Defendant Pat Quinn is the Governor of the State of Illinois and Chief Executive of the state government. As such, Quinn is responsible for the enforcement of State policies by which the rights of the plaintiff class are being violated, as alleged herein. Quinn appointed Mr. Monreal Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 10. Plaintiff M.H. brings this suit on his own behalf and on behalf of all juvenile parolees in the State of Illinois who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 11. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Approximately 1,520 children and teenagers are currently on parole and the PRB conducted over 1,132 revocation hearings last year. The class also includes many future members whose names are not known, since new youth are released from detention and placed on parole daily. 12. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members, including but not limited to whether Illinois parole revocation procedures violate the due process rights of
3

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
juvenile parolees, whether juvenile parolees are entitled to appointed counsel at parole revocation hearings, and whether the hearings, as they are currently being conducted, violate procedural requirements set forth in the applicable provisions of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (see 705 ILCS 405/1-5). Because the practices and procedures challenged in this Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiff and the other members of the class, the claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the class in general.
13. The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. He possesses a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and is represented by experienced counsel with expertise in civil rights litigation. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
14. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class: their policies, procedures, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT Characteristics of the Class 15. During their time on parole, many juvenile parolees will be charged with violations of the terms and conditions of their parole, re-imprisoned, and subjected to parole revocation proceedings in which their liberty will be at stake. 16. Children and teenagers are inherently more vulnerable and less able to effectively represent themselves in complex legal proceedings than their adult counterparts. As described more fully below, youth on parole also demonstrate significantly lower rates of educational achievement, and higher rates of mental health disorders and educational and cognitive
4

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
disabilities, than non-incarcerated youth. Consequently, juvenile parolees are particularly illequipped to assert their due process rights and represent themselves in revocation proceedings.
17. Young people generally enter DJJ custody struggling with low levels of educational achievement, substance abuse problems, and mental health issues. These conditions are likely to be exacerbated during their confinement given the grossly inadequate mental health and educational services provided at DJJ facilities. According to DJJ data, 45% of youth in DJJ custody have identified special education needs, 67% of youth have not graduated from grade school, and 80% need help learning independent learning skills. Seventy-seven percent of youth in DJJ custody had poor school attendance prior to imprisonment. In addition, two-thirds of Illinois youth in custody have diagnosed psychiatric and trauma disorders and 7 out of 10 have a clinical diagnosis of drug dependency. Time spent in DJJ custody can hinder the educational and emotional development of juvenile parolees, leaving them with lower levels of maturity and reasoning skills than the same-age general population.
18. Despite the special needs and inherent vulnerabilities of children and teenagers on parole, juvenile parole proceedings in Illinois are conducted identically to adult parole proceedings. On information and belief, a number of the PRB members responsible for determining whether to revoke the parole of juvenile parolees have little to no background or training in juvenile parole matters.
Overview of Juvenile Parole Proceedings in Illinois 19. Most juvenile parolees remain under the supervision of the PRB until they reach age 21. During this time, the PRB retains authority to deprive these youth of their liberty—the agency can initiate revocation proceedings and order the imprisonment of juvenile parolees and/or impose significant restrictions on juvenile parolees’ freedom of movement. Parole revocation
5

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
proceedings are initiated either for technical parole violations of stated conditions of parole or because new delinquency charges have been filed against a parolee.
20. In theory, all youth on parole in Illinois are entitled to specific due process protections in these parole revocation proceedings, as set forth under controlling United States Supreme Court precedent and under the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. These protections include:
a. The right to a preliminary hearing. All youth on parole are entitled to a timely hearing to determine whether probable cause exists to hold them on the alleged parole violation. Prior to the preliminary hearing, youth must be informed of the charges against them, as well as when and where the preliminary hearing will occur. If a youth waives his right to a preliminary hearing, that waiver must be knowing and voluntary—the youth must fully understand the right at stake and the consequences of waiving that right.
b. The right to confront witnesses and present evidence during the preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing, juvenile parolees are entitled to present documentary evidence and witnesses who can give relevant information to the PRB official hearing the case. Individuals who present information adverse to the youth must be present for questioning. If a juvenile parolee waives his preliminary hearing, or if the PRB determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe a parole violation did occur, then the parolee is incarcerated in a DJJ facility while he awaits his final parole revocation hearing.
c. The right to a final revocation hearing. Prior to the final revocation proceedings, a juvenile parolee has the right to examine the evidence against him. During the hearing, the parolee has the right to be present, in person, before the hearing officer, and to
6

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
present witnesses and evidence on his behalf. The parolee also has the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. PRB officials are not entitled to rely solely on third-party reports, including parole and police officer reports, in revoking parole. d. The right to counsel. Because of their immaturity, lack of educational attainment, and frequent problems with mental illness, youth on parole have a right to counsel appointed at cost to the State at both preliminary and final revocation hearings. Youth who can afford an attorney have the right to retain their own representation at these hearings. e. The right to appeal a decision of the PRB. If the PRB determines that the parolee has violated any of the terms and conditions of parole it must issue a written statement reciting the evidence upon which it relied and the reasons for this determination. The parolee is entitled to receive a copy of this statement. Additionally, youth on parole have a right to receive transcripts of the preliminary and final revocation proceedings, and may appeal the PRB’s decision in a standard review or grievance process.
Denial of Due Process in Illinois Parole Revocation Proceedings 21. In practice, PRB officials consistently disregard the due process protections listed above. As a result, members of the Plaintiff class are arbitrarily detained and deprived of their right to liberty without adequate process in derogation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. 22. The PRB fails to ensure preliminary hearings for class members at the time they are alleged to have violated the conditions of their parole. As a result, class members are imprisoned without any inquiry into the legality of their detention—typically for as long as one month and sometimes for longer—while awaiting their final revocation hearing.
7

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
23. As a matter of course, state officials require that class members sign a form indicating that they have waived their preliminary hearing. However, these waivers are neither fully informed nor voluntary. Prior to signing the waiver form, class members are not instructed as to the purpose of the preliminary hearing, nor are they given guidance from either an attorney or any other advocate. Parole officers regularly misinform class members that signing the waiver form will expedite the revocation process and their release from custody. Class members sign the form believing that it will allow them to return home sooner. In reality, the signature allows the PRB to avoid conducting a preliminary hearing and ensures that the youth will remain incarcerated until the final revocation hearing, regardless of the validity of the alleged parole violation charge.
24. When the PRB does schedule final parole revocation hearings, it fails to do so in a timely manner. The final revocation hearing is consistently delayed due to the DJJ’s policy and practice of transferring juveniles between correctional facilities while they await their final hearing. When they are transferred, the DJJ master files and PRB parole records for these youth frequently remain at the original point of incarceration. Final revocation hearings are further postponed while the master files and parole records are identified and transferred. Youth on parole lack any means by which to object to these transfers or request a more timely hearing, and state law prohibits juvenile offenders from requesting their own master files. The frequent transfer of juvenile parolees causes these youth to be indefinitely detained while awaiting a final revocation hearing.
25. The final revocation hearings conducted by PRB are rote affairs that contain none of the due process protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Illinois state law. PRB members make most revocation decisions based solely on the one- to three-page report prepared
8

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
by the youth’s parole officer, which constitutes unreliable hearsay evidence. Hearing officers rarely, if ever, interview the parole officers. Consequently, youth on parole do not have the opportunity to cross-examine the primary (if not the only) witness who presents evidence against them.
26. The PRB also fails to provide adequate notice to class members as to their right to present evidence on their own behalf. As a result, class members are denied the opportunity to contest their parole officer’s allegations by presenting documentary and physical evidence or live witnesses who can provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence on the parolee’s behalf. To the extent some class members may be informed of their right to present such evidence, they are unable to do so in light of the PRB’s practices and procedures. As a matter of course, the revocation hearings are held in secret, often far from the location of the alleged violation, and neither the PRB hearings officers nor DJJ employees help the class members subpoena witnesses or locate documentary or other physical evidence in their favor. Juvenile parolees lack the capacity to effectively defend themselves from allegations that they violated their conditions of parole.
27. PRB officers consistently fail to inform youth that they have a right to retain counsel to help them navigate these complex adversarial proceedings. Family members and advocates are regularly denied access to the hearings and prohibited from participating on the youth’s behalf. Those attorneys or advocates who do attempt to represent the parolee are not given access to the documents used against the class member in the revocation hearings. Juvenile parolees thus lack any meaningful representation in procedurally complex proceedings in which the class members’ liberty is at stake.
9

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
28. Youth on parole are denied a written explanation of the PRB’s revocation decisions. In most—if not all—cases there is no written or electronic record or transcript of the revocation proceedings. Even if a transcript of the proceedings did exist, the PRB’s revocation decisions are unreviewable. There is no appeal mechanism or grievance procedure by which juvenile parolees can seek a review of PRB decisions. The lack of an appellate process ensures the continuing insulation of the PRB’s juvenile parole revocation process and prevents parolees from challenging the procedures and the outcome of the revocation hearing.
29. Throughout this revocation process, the juvenile class members are severely hampered by their lack of development, low rates of educational achievement and literacy levels, and high rates of mental health disorders and educational and cognitive disabilities. As a consequence, these class members are unable to effectively speak for themselves at parole hearings.
30. The hearings are complex. Fairly conducted, they should involve the presentation of documentary evidence and mitigating circumstances, the cross-examination of witnesses, and oral advocacy, as described above. The juvenile class members, who are almost uniformly indigent, cannot possibly present factual defenses and mitigating evidence without the assistance of competent, fully prepared legal counsel.
31. The PRB lacks any mechanism by which youth on parole can request an appointed attorney. The State would categorically deny any request for appointed counsel because there is no system or funds in place to secure such an appointment. In the circumstances faced by the class members in Illinois juvenile parole revocation proceedings, the failure to provide appointed counsel to the class members contravenes due process.
10

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
32. The systematic and on-going violations described in the preceding paragraphs result in the arbitrary imprisonment of hundreds of youth in Illinois facilities. Youth are consistently subjected to months of unreviewable detention in juvenile prisons without process or remedy. As a result of the PRB’s practices and procedures, the members of the Plaintiff class have suffered and continue to suffer well-established violations of their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as under the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, 705 ILCS 405/1-5.
M.H.’s Parole Proceedings are in Violation of His Right to Adequate Due Process, His Right to Counsel Under the Fourteenth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, and the Illinois Juvenile Court Act 33. Plaintiff M.H. is a seventeen-year-old male whom mental health professionals have deemed “moderately cognitively impaired” and who has been repeatedly institutionalized for substance abuse and mental health treatment. 34. From October to April 2012, M.H. was incarcerated in DJJ custody for possession of a controlled substance. The PRB granted M.H. parole on April 19, 2012. The terms of M.H.’s parole require him to enroll in an alternative high school miles from his home, attend substance abuse counseling, secure employment, meet with a caseworker once every week, meet with a mentor twice a week, and spend Friday and Saturdays engaged in “job-readiness” programs. He will remain on parole until he is 21 years old. 35. On September 7, 2012, M.H.’s parole officer made the determination that M.H. had violated the terms of parole by failing to stay in touch with his parole officer. After a warrant for M.H.’s arrest was issued, he was taken into state custody on September 13, 2012. He is currently imprisoned in the Illinois Youth Center (I.Y.C.)-Chicago while awaiting his parole revocation hearing.
11

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
36. The PRB caused M.H. to involuntarily waive his right to a preliminary hearing. After M.H. was detained, a parole officer presented him with a Parole Violation Report and instructed him to sign it to indicate that he waived his preliminary hearing. M.H. did not understand the form he signed. M.H. believed that his signature would ensure the expedited scheduling of his final parole revocation hearing. M.H. signed the form because he was told it would help him return home quickly. If M.H. fully understood his rights, he would have opted to have a preliminary hearing during which he would have sought to be represented by appointed counsel.
37. M.H. has also been repeatedly denied his right to a timely final revocation hearing. Initially, his final revocation hearing was scheduled on September 20, 2012, at I.Y.C.-Saint Charles. On September 19, state officials informed him that because of an administrative error, the PRB would be unable to hear his case on September 20, but that his case would be heard at the next available PRB hearing date in early October. However, days before the early October hearing date, he was transferred I.Y.C.-Chicago, even though M.H. had informed his counselor at I.Y.C.-St. Charles that he wished to remain at the facility and proceed with the scheduled parole hearing.
38. When he arrived at I.Y.C.-Chicago, M.H.’s parole hearing was delayed an additional three weeks. He is currently scheduled to have a parole revocation hearing on October 24, 2012. By this time he will have been imprisoned without a preliminary or final revocation hearing for over 6 weeks.
39. Given the PRB’s policy of denying parolees appointed counsel, when his parole revocation hearing finally occurs, M.H. will be unrepresented. He will not have the opportunity to examine the evidence his parole officer has gathered against him, nor will be able to confront
12

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
witnesses or present mitigating and exculpatory evidence. The proceedings against him will follow the pattern alleged in paragraphs 21 through 32, above.
40. As a result of the PRB’s unconstitutional parole revocation procedures, M.H.’s rights to adequate due process have been and are continuing to be violated. Due to frequent transfers and delays, he has endured weeks of unlawful imprisonment without a hearing. When he does finally receive a hearing on October 24, it will be without the guarantees of due process or right to counsel prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Illinois state law.
41. For as long as M.H. remains on parole in Illinois he faces an ongoing imminent risk of being subjected to the PRB’s unconstitutional parole procedures.
COUNT I 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Right to Due Process 42. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in this Count. 43. Through this Count, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against all Defendants to prevent the continued violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the class he represents. 44. By continuing to conduct parole revocation proceedings in the manner alleged in this Complaint, and specifically, by failing to provide Plaintiff and the class with adequate notice of their due process rights; by failing to conduct preliminary revocation hearings and timely final revocation hearings; by prohibiting Plaintiff and the class from presenting mitigating and exculpatory evidence; by preventing the participation of parents, guardians, and retained counsel in the revocation proceedings; by denying Plaintiff and the class the right to confront adverse witnesses at their final revocation proceedings; and by denying Plaintiff and the class appointed counsel during all stages of the parole revocation proceedings, Defendants are in continuous
13

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
violation of Plaintiff’s rights and the rights of the members of the class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT II State Law – Violation of Illinois Juvenile Court Act, 705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. 45. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in this Count. 46. Through this Count, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against all Defendants to prevent the continued violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the class he represents. 47. By continuing to conduct parole proceedings in the manner alleged in this Complaint, and specifically, by denying Plaintiff and the class appointed counsel and adequate procedural due process during all stages of their parole revocation proceedings, Defendants are in continuous violation of Plaintiff’s rights and the rights of the members of the class under the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1987, 705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the class he represents respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against the Defendants in the following manner: 1. Enter an Order certifying a class of all juvenile parolees in the State of Illinois who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 2. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint are in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the class he represents under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. 3. Preliminary and permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons under their control from subjecting Plaintiff and the class he represents from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint.
14

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/23/12 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15
4. Retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as the Defendants have fully complied with all orders of the Court, and there is reasonable assurance that the Defendants will continue to comply in the future with these orders.
5. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
6. Award Plaintiff and the class he represents such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, M.H., individually and on behalf of the class of juvenile parolees who face parole revocation proceedings
By: /s/ Alexa Van Brunt One of the class attorneys
Locke E. Bowman Alexa A. Van Brunt Sheila A. Bedi (Pro hac vice motion to be filed) Roderick MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 357 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503-0844
15

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:376

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

M.H., on behalf of himself and on behalf of

)

the class ofjuvenile parolees who face

)

revocation proceedings,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ADAM MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois )

Prisoner Review Board; CANDICE JONES , )

Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice, )

)

Defendants.

)

No. 12-cv-08523 Judge Andrea R. Wood

CONSENT DECREE

On October 23, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned suit asserting constitutional and

state law challenges to the parole revocation process as it pertains to youth who are placed on

parole throughout the State of Illinois. In order to resolve the allegations in the Complaint, the

Parties have entered into the following Consent Decree.

A. SETTLEMENT CLASS & DEFINITIONS

1. The parties agree that to avoid costly and protracted litigation, the claims against

the Defendants should be resolved by this Consent Decree. By entering into this Consent

Decree, or by taking any action in accordance with it, the Defendants do not admit any of the

allegations contained in Plaintiffs' complaint, nor do Defendants admit liability for any purposes.

The parties understand that the Defendants enter into this Consent Decree solely as to the parole

revocation process for youth committed to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice through the

juvenile courts ofthe State of Illinois, and its terms are not intended to apply outside this context.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:377
2. The Parties agree to a settlement class comprised of all juvenile parolees in the State of Illinois who currently or who will in the future face parole revocation proceedings.
3. The Defendants in this lawsuit are the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (PRB) and the Director ofthe Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), both of whom were sued in their official capacities. The Parties intend for this Consent Decree to bind these state officials, their assigns and their successors.
4. The term "youth" refers to any individual who is committed to DJJ custody pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act and:
(i) Is released from a DJJ facility on parole or aftercare status (hereafter "parole"); (ii) Is in physical custody ofDJJ on charges of a violation ofthe conditions of parole;
and (iii) Who faces a continued risk of confinement as a result of parole revocation
proceedings. 5. An "Eligible Youth" refers to any youth who is under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged parole violation. 6. A "Screened Eligible Youth'' is defined as any youth aged 18 or older at the time ofthe alleged parole violation who: (i) Has a timely and colorable claim that that he or she has not committed the alleged
violation ofthe conditions upon which he or she is at liberty; or (ii) Has a claim that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested,
there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present; or (iii) Lacks the capacity to speak effectively for himself or herself before a hearing officer or the Prisoner Review Board.
2

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:378
7. An "Ineligible Youth" is a youth who is not an Eligible Youth or a Screened Eligible Youth.
8. The terms ''serve" or "service" refer to the process during which a youth receives a copy of his or her Parole Violation Report and the accompanying Notice of Rights.
B. REMEDIAL MEASURES 9. The Defendants shall conduct all youth parole revocation proceedings in compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, all applicable state statutes and Faheem-El v. Klincar (N.D. Ill. No . 85-3008) and Downie v. Klincar (N.D. Il l. No. 89 C 2937). I0. The Defendants shall serve all youth within one business day of entering DJJ physical custody. II. The DJJ staff shall provide each youth with "Know Your Rights" materials re lated to the parole revocation process. These materials shall be developed by Class Counsel, subject to reasonable prior approval by Defendants. 12. The DJJ shall accept contact information of attorneys who have indicated a willingness to provide pro bono representation to youth during the parole process and post that information in an area accessible to the youth in DJJ facilities. 13. The Defendants shall appoint counsel to represent each Eligible Youth and Screened Eligible Youth. 14. The Defendants wi II provide sufficient resources so that each Eligible Youth and Screened Eligible Youth is represented by appointed, state-funded counsel ("appointed counsel") at every stage of the parole process after counsel is appointed, including preliminary parole hearings, final revocation hearings and any appeals or requests for reconsideration, as set forth in this Consent Decree. The DJJ shall, pursuant to any reasonable relevant pol icies and procedures,
3

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:379

reasonably accommodate requests by youth to communicate with prospective or retained counsel throughout the parole revocation process. Subject to any reasonable relevant policies and

procedures, youth may communicate confidentially with prospective, retained or appointed

counsel. 15.

The Defendants shall not permit Eligible Youth to waive appointed counsel during

parole proceedings, except that, at the request of the Eligible Youth, he or she may decline to be

represented by appointed counsel and may instead be represented by counsel that he or she has

retained. Any other youth for whom appointed counsel has been provided, including Screened Eligible Youth, may waive appointed counsel during parole hearings and may alternatively choose to retain alternate counsel. In the event a youth elects not to be represented by appointed

counsel, the Defendants have no obligation to pay for retained counsel.

16. The Defendants shall provide all Eligible Youth in DJJ custody awaiting parole

revocation proceedings appointed counsel as soon as possible but in no case later than 5 business days after the youth is served or after the youth's entry into DJJ custody, whichever occurs later.

The Defendants shall provide all Screened Eligible Youth appointed counsel within 3 business

days of the determination.

17. The DJJ staff shall be responsible for making an initial determination regarding whether a youth meets the criterion described in Paragraph 6(iii) regarding a youth ' s capacity to speak effectively. The DJJ staff shall make this determination on an individualized , case-by-case

basis, and the determination shall be made within 3 business days of the youth's entry into DJJ custody. The determination may be made in consultation with DJJ mental health, medical and educational professionals. This determination shall be made based upon an in-person assessment

4

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:380
ofthe youth and a review of all available pertinent information in the youth 's DJJ Master
Record, Medical, Mental Health, and Educational files, including but not limited to:
(i) Documented developmental and/or learning disabilities that impair a youth ' s life functioning including basic comprehension, mental and emotional processing such as thinking, concentrating, following directions and interacting with others, and communication;
(i i) Documented physical disabilities impairing a youth' s ability to communicate and/or comprehend alleged violations, understand legal proceedings and advocate for him or herself, including significant speech, vision, or hearing impairments;
(iii) Mental illness, whether currently treated or untreated, that currently impairs the youth's orientation to time, place and circumstances, and/or basic communication skills, including, but not limited to, an active state of psychosis;
(iv) Active substance abuse that currently impairs the youth's orientation to time, place and circumstances, and/or basic communication skills, at the time the youth has arrived at a DJJ reception center;
(v) Lack of basic English language skills necessary to comprehend the alleged violations and/or communicate in English at a hearing, including youth who required translation services during any prior commitments to DJJ custody; and
(vi) Documentation from a youth's Individualized Education Plan setting forth a requirement for the youth to have assistance in communication, reading comprehension, and/or mental processing.
18. The DJJ shall develop a form that will be completed by the DJJ staff during each
screening as set forth in Paragraph 17. The form shall include, at a minimum, a description of the
information considered by DJJ staff in screening the youth and the DJJ's determination.
19. The Defendants shall provide each youth a preliminary parole hearing to determine
whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged parole violation was committed, except that,
if the alleged parole violation is based upon a new criminal charge against the youth, and the
court presiding over the criminal case finds that there is probable cause that the youth has
committed the crime, the PRB may rely upon that probable cause finding and need not hold a
preliminary parole hearing. The preliminary parole hearing must be scheduled within I0 business
5

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:381

days of the youth entering DJJ custody pursuant to a parole violation report. The preliminary
parole hearings shall be conducted by a PRB hearing officer.
20. Defendants will provide the youth and/or their attorneys all evidence that wil l be
used against the youth during the parole revocation proceedings as follows:
(i) Prior to the effective date of the provisions providing for the screen ing of youth and the appointment of counsel, within 3 business days of service or w ithi n 2 business days of the DJJ's receipt of the evidence, whichever occurs later;
(ii) For El igible Youth, within 2 business days of the appointment of counsel, or within 2 business days of the DJJ's receipt of the evidence, whichever occurs later;
(iii) For Screened Eligible Youth who are appointed attorneys based upon the DJJ staff's initial determination regarding whether a youth meets the criterion described in Paragraph 6(iii), within 2 business days of the appointment of counsel, or within 2 business days of the DJJ's receipt of the evidence, whichever occurs later; and
(iv) For all other youth, within 2 business days of the DJJ staff's initial determination regarding whether the youth meets the criterion described in Paragraph 6(iii), or within 2 business days of the receipt of the DJJ's evidence, whichever occurs later;

(v) If the Defendants elect to provide appointed counsel for all youth, within 2 business days of the appointment of counsel, or within 2 business days of the DJJ's receipt of the evidence, whichever occurs later.
21. Either during or in advance of the preliminary parole hearing, the PRB hearing

officer shall screen each youth who has not been assigned an appointed attorney to determine if

the youth:
t.

Has a timely and colorable claim that he or she has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he or she is at liberty; or

ii. Has a claim that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present; or

6

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:382
111. Lacks the capacity to speak effectively for himself or herself before the PRB hearing officer or the Prisoner Review Board.
See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790-91 (1973) (rejecting ·'inflexible constitutional rule with respect to the requirement of counsel" in favor of a decision made ·' on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of a sound discretion by the state authority charged with the responsibility for administering the probation and parole system"). The PRB hearing officer shall have "considerable discretion" in conducting the screening. See id. at 790. If the PRB hearing officer finds that the youth meets any of the criteria listed above and the PRB hearing officer has sufficient information to make a finding of "no probable cause," the PRB hearing officer shall make a "no probable cause" determination, and the youth's parole revocation proceedings will terminate. If the PRB hearing officer determines that the youth meets any of the criteria above, and the PRB hearing officer cannot make a "no probable cause" determination at this time, the youth shall be deemed a Screened Eligible Youth, and the Defendants shall provide the youth with appointed counsel. Ineligible Youth have the right to request reconsideration of the eligibility determination at their preliminary parole hearing and/or final parole revocation hearing.
22. Youth who are deemed eligible by the PRB hearing officer shall have their preliminary parole hearings re-scheduled within l 0 business days of the eligibility determination. During the rescheduled preliminary parole hearing, the PRB hearing officer is prohibited from considering the information that he or she learned during the screening process set forth in Paragraph 21.
23. The PRB shall develop a form that will be completed by the PRB hearing officer during each PRB screening as set forth in Paragraph 21. The form shall include, at a minimum, a description of the information considered by the PRB hearing officer in screening the youth for appointed counsel, an indication of whether the youth was determined to be eligible or ineligible
7

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:383
for appointed counsel, and a brief rationale for that decision. This form shall be kept in a file that is separate from the youth ' s parole file. This information shall be made available to the Courtappointed Monitor, for the sole purpose of evaluating the Defendants' compliance with this Consent Decree. If the PRB hearing officer or the PRB denies this request, the grounds for refusal should be documented succinctly.
24. The Defendants will provide youth or their attorneys with a written probable cause determination.
25. If the PRB hearing officer finds probable cause at the preliminary parole hearing of an Ineligible Youth, the PRB hearing officer shall inform the Ineligible Youth of his or her right to request that the PRB hearing officer recommend to the PRB that his or her parole violation warrant be withdrawn pending a final revocation hearing. If the Ineligible Youth exercises this option, the PRB hearing officer shall allow him or her to present evidence and/or argue that the parole violation warrant should be withdrawn pending a final revocation hearing. The PRB hearing officer shall communicate the Ineligible Youth's request and the PRB hearing officer's recommendation to the PRB.
26. Except as set forth in this Consent Decree, each youth shall receive a final parole revocation hearing to determine whether a parole violation occurred and whether revocation is appropriate. lfthe violation is a matter of public record, is uncontested, or ifthe youth is found guilty of or pleads guilty to a new criminal violation, the violation shall be deemed to have occurred. In that event, at the final revocation hearing, the PRB hearing officer shall consider only any argument or evidence (aggravating or mitigating) regarding whether or not the youth's parole should be revoked for the violation.
8

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:384
27. This Consent Decree shall not apply to an individual when all of the following are satisfied: (1) he or she is convicted of a new criminal charge; (2) he or she is sentenced to the Department of Corrections; and (3) the DJJ requests discharge of his or her sentence with DJJ.
28. The Defendants shall make every effort to cause each youth to be presented for a final revocation hearing at the next scheduled PRB hearing date. In any event, a final revocation hearing must occur within 45 calendar days after a youth enters custody except where one of the following makes that date impracticable: (1) postponement(s) requested by a youth's attorney, by an Ineligible Youth, or a youth choosing to proceed without counsel; (2) an Ineligible Youth requests reconsideration of the denial of counsel at his final revocation hearing, and that request is granted; or (3) other exceptional or emergency circumstances. In that event, a final revocation hearing shall be rescheduled as soon as is practicable, unless the youth or his attorney requests that the hearing be continued.
29. The Defendants will provide the youth or their attorneys with a written explanation of the PRB's decision in the final parole revocation hearing. The written explanation must include a description and assessment of the evidence and a brief statement describing how the evidence meets the preponderance ofthe evidence standard.
30. The PRB will establish an appeals process so that a youth may appeal the PRB's decision in the parole revocation proceeding. The PRB shall state in writing in a decision revoking parole that "revocation may be appealed." A panel of three PRB members who were not involved in the initial revocation decision shall review any appeals and issue a decision as soon as practical but no later than 21 calendar days after receiving the appeal. A decision by the three PRB members is final.
9

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:385
31. Representation by appointed counsel shall terminate after the PRB's decision becomes final: upon expiration of time to seek reconsideration or appeal or upon the resolution of any request for reconsideration or appeal.
32. An independent monitor (''Monitor'') charged with reporting to the Court on the Defendants' compliance with the Consent Decree and with providing the Defendants with technical assistance to promote compliance with the Consent Decree sha ll be jointly selected by the parties. The Monitor shall have demonstrable qualifications to monitor the terms of this Consent Decree. Such qualifications may include substantial experience in o ne or more of the following areas: juvenile/criminal justice, the provision of legal services to children, the provision ofjuvenile or criminal defense services and the requirements of due process. If the Parties cannot come to consensus, each Party will submit three names of qualified individuals to the Court and the Court will make the final selection. The reasonable cost for the Monitor's fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants.
33. The Defendants shal l provide the Monitor and Class Counsel with reasonable access to all class members. The Defendants shall provide the Monitor with access to the hearings governed by this Consent Decree and shall permit Class Counsel to observe such hearings unless the youth or a witness objects. The Monitor shall also have reasonable opportunities to interview appointed counsel and the members ofthe Defendants' staff who have an essential role in executing the requirements of this Consent Decree. Counsel for the Defendants and Class Counsel may be present at interviews of staff and contractors and during hearings governed by this decree.
34. The Defendants shall provide all facility records related to the Defendants' compliance with this Consent Decree to the Monitor upon request, except as provided in
10

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:386
Paragraph 34. Defendants shall, upon written request, provide the following types of documents to Class Counsel (Attorneys' Eyes Only): parole violation reports, any documentary evidence presented in parole proceedings, any written decisions or recommendations by the PRB or a PRB hearing officer related to the parole violation charge(s) at issue, and, unless Defendants choose to appoint counsel to all youth, the forms referenced in paragraphs 18 and 23. If Plaintiffs believe that additional types of documents are necessary in order to evaluate the Defendants' substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall submit a written request to Defendants and explain why they are necessary for their review; if Defendants refuse Plaintiffs ' request, Plaintiffs may seek an order from the Court directing the Defendants to provide the records if Plaintiffs demonstrate that the request was reasonable and that the particular requested records are necessary to evaluate the Defendants ' substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. The Monitor and Class Counsel will comply with all applicable federal and state laws with regard to confidentiality of class members' records and information.
35. Medical and mental health records shall be provided only as follows: (i) lf the Defendants elect to provide appointed counsel to all youth, neither the
Monitor nor Class Counsel shall have access to medical and mental health records; (ii) Otherwise, medical and mental health records shall not be provided without
consent as required by applicable state and federal laws, and shall be provided only under the following circumstances: a. Subject to the foregoing, in the event the Monitor believes that access to
certain medical or mental health records is required to ensure compliance with this Consent Decree, and the DJJ has not provided such records for any reason, the Monitor and/or Class Counsel may petition the Court for an order requiring
11

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:387

release of the records to the court for an in-camera review to determine

whether the records should be provided to the Monitor.

b. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiffs may seek an order from the Court directing

the DJJ to provide medical and/or mental health records to Class Counsel

(Attorneys' Eyes Only) in the event that they provide a sworn declaration to

the Court and to the Defendants attesting and providing support for the

following: (l) they have reasonable beliefthat the Defendants are committing a

systemic and substantial violation of the Consent Decree; and (2) the

information contained in the specific records requested (medical or mental

health records) is necessary in order to evaluate the Defendants' substantial

compliance with the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs bear the burden to demonstrate

that all records requested are necessary to their evaluation.

36. At any time, if the Monitor believes that Defendants are not in compliance with

any substantive provision of this Consent Decree, the Monitor shall promptly notify the parties in

writing and recommend action steps that, if completed, would attain compliance ("Compliance

Steps"). 37.

On a quarterly basis, the Monitor will submit a comprehensive compliance report

to the Court. The Monitor shall provide the rep01t in draft form to the parties for comments at

least two weeks before filing the report with the Court. The Monitor's report shall track the

Defendants' compliance with each substantive provision of this Consent Decree, including

whether systemic barriers prevent appointed counsel from providing zealous representation. If the Defendants are not in compliance with any substantive provision ofthis Consent Decree, the

Monitor's reports shall include Compliance Steps.

12

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:388
38. At any time, if Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants are not in compliance with any substantive provision ofthis Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall promptly notify the Monitor (during the Monitor's appointment) and Defendants in writing. The parties shall conduct good faith discussions, which may involve the Monitor, to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 21 calendar days of Plaintiffs' written notice, Plaintiffs may seek Court enforcement, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
39. The Independent Monitoring Provisions of this Consent Decree set fotih in Paragraph(s) 31-36 shaii terminate as to a substantive provision when, according to the Monitor's reports, the Defendants have been in substantial compliance with that provision for eighteen months. Upon the termination of the Independent Monitoring Provisions, Class Counsel may continue to monitor (Class Counsel's Monitoring), solely for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this Consent Decree, for twelve months but shall not be entitled to attorneys' fees, costs or expenses for such monitoring. However, the Court may, upon Plaintiffs' motion showing good cause, extend Class Counsel's Monitoring as to any substantive provision for three-month increments. During Class Counsel's Monitoring, Defendants shall permit Class Counsel to interview a reasonable number of appointed counsel and members of the Defendants' staffwho have an essential role in executing the requirements of this Consent Decree; counsel for Defendants may be present at these interviews. This Consent Decree shall terminate upon the conclusion of Class Counsel's Monitoring.
40. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, Defendants are in substantial compliance as to a substantive provision if any violation is minor or occasional, and is neither systemic nor serious. However, if a serious violation of the Consent Decree occurs, the Defendants are in substantial compliance if they promptly identify the violation and develop and implement a timely
13

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:389
and appropriate remedy that results in substantial compliance. Further there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the Defendants have achieved substantial compliance if the Defendants have implemented the Compliance Steps.
41. The Parties agree that upon Plaintiffs' petition. the Court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs directly incurred in enforcing and monitoring the terms of this Consent Decree, except that attorneys' fees and costs for monitoring shall be limited in accordance with the parties' separate agreement. The parties will make every effort to negotiate a resolution of Plaintiffs ' attorneys' fees and costs. In the event these efforts fail, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to file a fee petition with this court, and the Defendants reserve the right to contest the Plaintiffs ' rights to recover fees and costs.
42. In the event that the Defendants elect to forego screening as set forth in Paragraphs 17 and 21, and instead provide appointed counsel for all youth within 5 business days after the youth is served or after the youth' s entry into DJJ custody, whichever occurs later, Paragraphs 13, 16-18, 20(i)-(ii i), 21-23 and 25 of this Consent Decree shall not apply, and those paragraphs shall not be subject to monitoring or enforcement.
43. Defendants shall implement paragraphs 9-10, 19, 20, 24, and 26-30 within 90 calendar days ofthe date this Consent Decree is entered by the Court, and paragraphs 11 and 12 within 90 calendar days of the date this Consent Decree is entered by the Court or within 90 calendar days of when the necessary materials are completed, whichever occurs later. Defendants shall use their best efforts to implement paragraphs 5-7, 13-18, 21-23 , 25, 31-37, 39, and 42 within a reasonable time, but, unless Defendants show good cause for any extension, no later than December 31, 2014. All other paragraphs shall be effective immediately.
14

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:390

44. The Parties agree that the terms_of this Consent Decree will be submitted to the Court for approval, and the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce·the terms thereof.
Date: ~ ~~ ~ J:J D/ <-{ I

·Agreed to by the Parties as indicated by ~eir or their counsel's signature below: For the Plaintiffs:

Date: August 4, 2014
.~ Sheila Bedi Alexa Van Brunt Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue · Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503:.1336
·Alan Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 N. Sheridan Road Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410

0\ st2c ·AdMA- ~ou£CA\

Date:

tt.{

By Defendant Candice Jones:

~~

tf ~· Date:

7 •

Counsel for Defendants: Michael T. Dierkes & Deborah Beltran Assistant Attorneys General General Law Bureau . 100 W. Randolph, 13th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601 · (312) 814-3672/3599

15

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:272

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

M.H., on behalf of himself and on behalf of the class )

of juvenile parolees who face revocation proceedings, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ADAM MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner )

Review Board; and CANDICE JONES,

)

Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice,

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 12CV8523 Judge Andrea R. Wood

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff M.H., individually and on behalf of the class of all juvenile parolees who

currently face or in the future will face parole revocation proceedings, by his undersigned

attorneys, for his complaint against ADAM MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner

Review Board, and CANDICE JONES, Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice, alleges as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights class action complaint on behalf of children and teenagers

who have been imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty as a result of the unconstitutional

practices and procedures of the Department of Juvenile Justice (hereinafter, DJJ) and the Illinois

Prisoner Review Board (hereinafter, the PRB) with respect to the handling of parole revocation

proceedings. The Defendants’ procedures disregard fairness and due process and thereby violate

the rights of the members of the Plaintiff class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:273
States Constitution. This court should declare those procedures unlawful and it should enjoin them.
2. Members of the Plaintiff class are routinely incarcerated in DJJ custody without a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is reason to believe that they have actually violated the conditions of their parole. As a result, class members are detained, oftentimes for up to a month or more, without any kind of hearing into the legality of their imprisonment.
3. The full parole revocation hearings that the PRB does conduct are a sham. The PRB keeps secret the evidence it has gathered against the class members. The conditions under which the hearings occur render it impossible for the class members to present witnesses or other evidence on their own behalf, and they are denied the opportunity to confront the evidence used against them at their revocation proceedings. Neither the DJJ nor the PRB provides counsel to the Plaintiff class members—many of whom have learning disabilities, live with mental illness, and have limited educational attainment— and they are left to navigate the complex revocation proceedings without the support and guidance they obviously need in order to defend themselves.
4. These unlawful tribunals—akin to kangaroo courts— result in the arbitrary detention and imprisonment of over 1,000 young people throughout the state of Illinois each year.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of the Plaintiffs rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint occurred in this judicial district.
2

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:274
PARTIES 7. M.H. is a seventeen-year-old male who is currently in the custody of DJJ. He has been incarcerated since September 13, 2012, for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. He was never provided a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to believe he actually violated the conditions of his parole. As of the filing of this complaint, he is still awaiting his final parole revocation hearing. 8. Defendant Adam Monreal is the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, the State agency that makes decisions about juvenile parole matters. Monreal directs and supervises the activities of the PRB members, including each of the members who review juvenile parole cases and make decisions about revocation. Monreal is responsible for implementing the rules, regulations, procedures, and standards governing the parole revocation process in the State of Illinois. 9. Defendant Candice Jones is the Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice. As such, Jones is responsible for the enforcement of State policies by which the rights of the plaintiff class are being violated, as alleged herein.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 10. Plaintiff M.H. brings this suit on his own behalf and on behalf of all juvenile parolees in the State of Illinois who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 11. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Approximately 1,520 children and teenagers are currently on parole and the PRB conducted over 1,182 revocation hearings in 2012. The class also includes many future members whose names are not known, since new youth are released from detention and placed on parole daily.
3

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:275
12. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members, including but not limited to whether the Defendants’ parole revocation procedures violate the due process rights of juvenile parolees and whether juvenile parolees are entitled to appointed counsel at parole revocation hearings. Because the practices and procedures challenged in this Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiff and the other members of the class, the claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the class in general.
13. The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. He possesses a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and is represented by experienced counsel with expertise in civil rights litigation. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
14. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class: their policies, procedures, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT Characteristics of the Class 15. During their time on parole, many juvenile parolees will be charged with violations of the terms and conditions of their parole, re-imprisoned in DJJ custody, and subjected to parole revocation proceedings in which their liberty will be at stake. 16. Children and teenagers are inherently more vulnerable and less able to effectively represent themselves in complex legal proceedings than their adult counterparts. As described more fully below, youth on parole also demonstrate significantly lower rates of educational achievement, and higher rates of mental health disorders and educational and cognitive
4

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:276
disabilities, than non-incarcerated youth. Consequently, juvenile parolees are particularly illequipped to assert their due process rights and represent themselves in revocation proceedings.
17. Young people generally enter DJJ custody struggling with low levels of educational achievement, substance abuse problems, and mental health issues. These conditions are likely to be exacerbated during their confinement given the grossly inadequate mental health and educational services provided at DJJ facilities. According to DJJ data, 45% of youth in DJJ custody have identified special education needs, 67% of youth have not graduated from grade school, and 80% need help learning independent learning skills. Seventy-seven percent of youth in DJJ custody had poor school attendance prior to imprisonment. In addition, two-thirds of Illinois youth in custody have diagnosed psychiatric and trauma disorders and 7 out of 10 have a clinical diagnosis of drug dependency. Time spent in DJJ custody can hinder the educational and emotional development of juvenile parolees, leaving them with lower levels of maturity and reasoning skills than the same-age general population.
18. Despite the special needs and inherent vulnerabilities of children and teenagers on parole, juvenile parole proceedings in Illinois are conducted identically to adult parole proceedings. On information and belief, a number of the PRB members responsible for determining whether to revoke the parole of juvenile parolees have little to no background or training in juvenile parole matters.
Overview of Juvenile Parole Proceedings in Illinois 19. Most juvenile parolees remain under the supervision of the PRB until they reach age 21. During this time, the PRB retains authority to deprive these youth of their liberty—the agency can initiate revocation proceedings and order the imprisonment of juvenile parolees and/or impose significant restrictions on juvenile parolees’ freedom of movement. Parole revocation
5

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:277
proceedings are initiated either for technical parole violations of stated conditions of parole or because new delinquency charges have been filed against a parolee.
20. In theory, all youth on parole in Illinois are entitled to specific due process protections in these parole revocation proceedings, as set forth under controlling United States Supreme Court precedent. These protections include:
a. The right to a preliminary hearing. All youth on parole are entitled to a timely hearing to determine whether probable cause exists to hold them on the alleged parole violation. Prior to the preliminary hearing, youth must be informed of the charges against them, as well as when and where the preliminary hearing will occur. If a youth waives his right to a preliminary hearing, that waiver must be knowing and voluntary—the youth must fully understand the right at stake and the consequences of waiving that right.
b. The right to confront witnesses and present evidence during the preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing, juvenile parolees are entitled to present documentary evidence and witnesses who can give relevant information to the PRB official hearing the case. Individuals who present information adverse to the youth must be present for questioning. If a juvenile parolee waives his preliminary hearing, or if the PRB determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe a parole violation did occur, then the parolee is incarcerated in a DJJ facility while he awaits his final parole revocation hearing.
c. The right to a final revocation hearing. Prior to the final revocation proceedings, a juvenile parolee has the right to examine the evidence against him. During the hearing, the parolee has the right to be present, in person, before the hearing officer, and to
6

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:278
present witnesses and evidence on his behalf. The parolee also has the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. PRB officials are not entitled to rely solely on third-party reports, including parole and police officer reports, in revoking parole. d. The right to counsel. Because of their immaturity, lack of educational attainment, and frequent problems with mental illness, youth on parole have a right to counsel appointed at cost to the State at both preliminary and final revocation hearings. Youth who can afford an attorney have the right to retain their own representation at these hearings. e. The right to appeal a decision of the PRB. If the PRB determines that the parolee has violated any of the terms and conditions of parole it must issue a written statement reciting the evidence upon which it relied and the reasons for this determination. The parolee is entitled to receive a copy of this statement. Additionally, youth on parole have a right to receive transcripts of the preliminary and final revocation proceedings, and may appeal the PRB’s decision in a standard review or grievance process.
Denial of Due Process in Illinois Parole Revocation Proceedings 21. In practice, PRB and DJJ officials consistently disregard the due process protections listed above. As a result, members of the Plaintiff class are arbitrarily detained and deprived of their right to liberty without adequate process in derogation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 22. The PRB and DJJ fail to ensure preliminary hearings for class members at the time they are alleged to have violated the conditions of their parole. As a result, class members are imprisoned without any inquiry into the legality of their detention—typically for as long as one month and sometimes for longer—while awaiting their final revocation hearing.
7

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:279
23. As a matter of course, state officials require that class members sign a form indicating that they have waived their preliminary hearing. However, these waivers are neither fully informed nor voluntary. Prior to signing the waiver form, class members are not instructed as to the purpose of the preliminary hearing, nor are they given guidance from either an attorney or any other advocate. Parole officers regularly misinform class members that signing the waiver form will expedite the revocation process and their release from custody. Class members sign the form believing that it will allow them to return home sooner. In reality, the signature allows the PRB and DJJ to avoid conducting a preliminary hearing and ensures that the youth will remain incarcerated until the final revocation hearing, regardless of the validity of the alleged parole violation charge.
24. When the Defendants do schedule final parole revocation hearings, they fail to do so in a timely manner. The final revocation hearing is consistently delayed due to the DJJ’s policy and practice of transferring juveniles between correctional facilities while they await their final hearing. When they are transferred, the DJJ master files and PRB parole records for these youth frequently remain at the original point of incarceration. Final revocation hearings are further postponed while the master files and parole records are identified and transferred. Youth on parole lack any means by which to object to these transfers or request a more timely hearing, and state law prohibits juvenile offenders from requesting their own master files. The frequent transfer of juvenile parolees causes these youth to be indefinitely detained while awaiting a final revocation hearing.
25. The final revocation hearings conducted by PRB are rote affairs that contain none of the due process protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. PRB members make most revocation decisions based solely on the one- to three-page report prepared by the youth’s parole
8

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:280
officer, which constitutes unreliable hearsay evidence. Hearing officers rarely, if ever, interview the parole officers. Consequently, youth on parole do not have the opportunity to cross-examine the primary (if not the only) witness who presents evidence against them.
26. The PRB and DJJ also fail to provide adequate notice to class members as to their right to present evidence on their own behalf. As a result, class members are denied the opportunity to contest their parole officer’s allegations by presenting documentary and physical evidence or live witnesses who can provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence on the parolee’s behalf. To the extent some class members may be informed of their right to present such evidence, they are unable to do so in light of the Defendants’ practices and procedures. As a matter of course, the revocation hearings are held in secret, often far from the location of the alleged violation, and neither the PRB hearings officers nor DJJ employees help the class members subpoena witnesses or locate documentary or other physical evidence in their favor. Juvenile parolees lack the capacity to effectively defend themselves from allegations that they violated their conditions of parole.
27. PRB officers and DJJ employees consistently fail to inform youth that they have a right to retain counsel to help them navigate these complex adversarial proceedings. Family members and advocates are regularly denied access to the hearings and prohibited from participating on the youth’s behalf. Those attorneys or advocates who do attempt to represent the parolee are not given access to the documents used against the class member in the revocation hearings. Juvenile parolees thus lack any meaningful representation in procedurally complex proceedings in which the class members’ liberty is at stake.
28. Youth on parole are denied a written explanation of the PRB’s revocation decisions. In most—if not all—cases there is no written or electronic record or transcript of the
9

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:281
revocation proceedings. Even if a transcript of the proceedings did exist, the PRB’s revocation decisions are unreviewable. There is no appeal mechanism or grievance procedure by which juvenile parolees can seek a review of PRB decisions. The lack of an appellate process ensures the continuing insulation of juvenile parole revocation process and prevents parolees from challenging the procedures and the outcome of the revocation hearing.
29. Throughout this revocation process, the juvenile class members are severely hampered by their lack of development, low rates of educational achievement and literacy levels, and high rates of mental health disorders and educational and cognitive disabilities. As a consequence, these class members are unable to effectively speak for themselves at parole hearings.
30. The hearings are complex. Fairly conducted, they should involve the presentation of documentary evidence and mitigating circumstances, the cross-examination of witnesses, and oral advocacy, as described above. The juvenile class members, who are almost uniformly indigent, cannot possibly present factual defenses and mitigating evidence without the assistance of competent, fully prepared legal counsel.
31. The PRB and DJJ lack any mechanism by which youth on parole can request an appointed attorney. The State would categorically deny any request for appointed counsel because there is no system or funds in place to secure such an appointment. In the circumstances faced by the class members in Illinois juvenile parole revocation proceedings, the failure to provide appointed counsel to the class members contravenes due process.
32. The systematic and on-going violations described in the preceding paragraphs result in the arbitrary imprisonment of hundreds of youth in DJJ facilities. Youth are consistently subjected to months of unreviewable detention in juvenile prisons without process or remedy. As
10

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:282
a result of the Defendants’ practices and procedures, the members of the Plaintiff class have suffered and continue to suffer well-established violations of their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
M.H.’s Parole Proceedings are in Violation of His Right to Adequate Due Process and His Right to Counsel Under the Fourteenth Amendment 33. Plaintiff M.H. is a seventeen-year-old male whom mental health professionals have deemed “moderately cognitively impaired” and who has been repeatedly institutionalized for substance abuse and mental health treatment. 34. From October to April 2012, M.H. was incarcerated in DJJ custody for possession of a controlled substance. The PRB granted M.H. parole on April 19, 2012. The terms of M.H.’s parole require him to enroll in an alternative high school miles from his home, attend substance abuse counseling, secure employment, meet with a caseworker once every week, meet with a mentor twice a week, and spend Friday and Saturdays engaged in “job-readiness” programs. He will remain on parole until he is 21 years old. 35. On September 7, 2012, M.H.’s parole officer made the determination that M.H. had violated the terms of parole by failing to stay in touch with his parole officer. After a warrant for M.H.’s arrest was issued, he was taken into state custody on September 13, 2012. He is currently imprisoned in the Illinois Youth Center (I.Y.C.)-Chicago while awaiting his parole revocation hearing. 36. The PRB and DJJ caused M.H. to involuntarily waive his right to a preliminary hearing. After M.H. was detained, a parole officer employed by DJJ presented him with a Parole Violation Report and instructed him to sign it to indicate that he waived his preliminary hearing. M.H. did not understand the form he signed. M.H. believed that his signature would ensure the expedited scheduling of his final parole revocation hearing. M.H. signed the form because he was
11

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:283
told it would help him return home quickly. If M.H. fully understood his rights, he would have opted to have a preliminary hearing during which he would have sought to be represented by appointed counsel.
37. M.H. has also been repeatedly denied his right to a timely final revocation hearing. Initially, his final revocation hearing was scheduled on September 20, 2012, at I.Y.C.-Saint Charles. On September 19, DJJ officials informed him that because of an administrative error, the PRB would be unable to hear his case on September 20, but that his case would be heard at the next available PRB hearing date in early October. However, days before the early October hearing date, he was transferred by DJJ to I.Y.C.-Chicago, even though M.H. had informed his DJJ counselor at I.Y.C.-St. Charles that he wished to remain at the facility and proceed with the scheduled parole hearing.
38. When he arrived at I.Y.C.-Chicago, M.H.’s parole hearing was delayed an additional three weeks. He is currently scheduled to have a parole revocation hearing on October 24, 2012. By this time he will have been imprisoned without a preliminary or final revocation hearing for over 6 weeks.
39. Given the PRB’s and DJJ’s policy of denying parolees appointed counsel, when his parole revocation hearing finally occurs, M.H. will be unrepresented. He will not have the opportunity to examine the evidence his parole officer has gathered against him, nor will be able to confront witnesses or present mitigating and exculpatory evidence. The proceedings against him will follow the pattern alleged in paragraphs 21 through 32, above.
40. As a result of the Defendants’ unconstitutional parole revocation procedures, M.H.’s rights to adequate due process have been and are continuing to be violated. Due to frequent transfers and delays, he has endured weeks of unlawful imprisonment without a hearing.
12

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:284
When he does finally receive a hearing on October 24, it will be without the guarantees of due process or right to counsel prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
41. For as long as M.H. remains on parole in Illinois he faces an ongoing imminent risk of being subjected to the PRB’s and DJJ’s unconstitutional parole procedures.
COUNT I 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Right to Due Process 42. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in this Count. 43. Through this Count, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against all Defendants to prevent the continued violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the class he represents. 44. By continuing to conduct parole revocation proceedings in the manner alleged in this Complaint, and specifically by failing to provide Plaintiff and the class with adequate notice of their due process rights; failing to conduct preliminary revocation hearings and timely final revocation hearings; prohibiting Plaintiff and the class from presenting mitigating and exculpatory evidence; preventing the participation of parents, guardians, and retained counsel in the revocation proceedings; denying Plaintiff and the class the right to confront adverse witnesses at their final revocation proceedings; and denying Plaintiff and the class appointed counsel during all stages of the parole revocation proceedings, Defendants are in continuous violation of Plaintiff’s rights and the rights of the members of the class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the class he represents respectfully pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in the following manner:
13

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:285
1. Enter an Order certifying a class of all juvenile parolees in the State of Illinois who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings.
2. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint are in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the class he represents under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
3. Preliminary and permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons under their control from subjecting Plaintiff and the class he represents from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint.
4. Retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as the Defendants have fully complied with all orders of the Court, and there is reasonable assurance that the Defendants will continue to comply in the future with these orders.
5. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
6. Award Plaintiff and the class he represents such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, M.H., individually and on behalf of the class of juvenile parolees who face parole revocation proceedings, By: /s/ Alexa Van Brunt
One of the class attorneys Alexa A. Van Brunt Sheila A. Bedi Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 357 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503-0844
14

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:286
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that she served the foregoing document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on July 25, 2014.
/s/ Alexa Van Brunt

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/25/14 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:287
SERVICE LIST M.H. v. Monreal et al., 12cv8523
Alan Mills Uptown People’s Law Center 4413 North Sheridan Road Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 On behalf of the putative Plaintiff Class
Michael Dierkes Deboral Beltran Illinois Attorney General’s Office 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814-7198 On behalf of Defendants Monreal and Jones

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 71 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:370

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

M.H., on behalf of himself and on behalf of

)

the class of juvenile parolees who face

)

revocation proceedings,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ADAM MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois )

Prisoner Review Board; CANDICE JONES, )

Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice, )

)

Defendants.

)

No. 12-cv-08523 Judge Andrea R. Wood

ORDER

1. The Parties negotiated a Consent Decree to resolve this case. The proposed terms

of the Consent Decree relate to parole revocation proceedings affecting the Plaintiff class of

juvenile parolees in the State of Illinois. The parties submitted the proposed Consent Decree to

the Court for approval.

2. Pursuant to Court order, the parties provided notice to all class members who

would be bound by the proposed Consent Decree. The notice included (a) the terms of the

proposed Consent Decree; (b) the methods by which they could respond to the proposed Consent

Decree; and (c) that a fairness hearing would be held on July 31, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.

3. On July 31, 2014, this Court held a fairness hearing in open court on the proposed

Consent Decree, in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e).

4. In considering the fairness of the proposed consent decree, the Court considered

the following:

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 71 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:371
a. the operative Complaint; b. the proposed terms of the consent decree; c. the effects on class members bound by this consent decree; d. comments provided by members of the Plaintiff class during focus groups
conducted in Department of Juvenile Justice facilities by class counsel (Doc. No. 67-1), which indicated that the class members were overwhelmingly in favor of the Decree and that there were no substantive objections to the settlement; e. comments on the Decree that were sent to class counsel by other interested parties (Doc. No. 67-2); f. testimony from Lisa Jacobs, a member of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission, who testified that, based on her familiarity and experience with the juvenile parole system, the proposed decree would protect the due process rights of youth facing the revocation of their parole; g. the proceedings in this case to date; h. the apparent lack of any collusion; and i. the likely expense of litigating this matter. 5. The Court invited anyone present to speak, but no class member or other member of the public appeared in open court to offer any comments to the Consent Decree. 6. The Court also granted the Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs related to this case, finding them to be fair and reasonable. 7. Based upon the foregoing, and the Court’s independent review of the consent decree, the Court finds that the consent decree is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and satisfies
2

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 71 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:372

the requirements set forth in FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e). Accordingly, the Consent Decree is hereby approved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2014

ENTERED:

Andrea R. Wood United States District Judge

3

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:466
MH vs. Findley Case Number: 12-cv-08523 Independent Monitor: David Muhammad Consent Decree Compliance Report Quarter 4 (November 2015 – January 2016)
Since the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, Defendants continue to make progress towards complying with the MH Consent Decree. The provisions of Senate Bill 1560, outlined below, appear to have succeeded in significantly reducing the number of youth being held in IDJJ facilities facing Aftercare/Parole revocation. Due to the mandates of the MH Consent Decree, on-going trainings for Parole Revocation Board members and Aftercare Specialists/Parole Agents, and other reforms: Youth consistently receive competent and zealous representation for all phases of the revocation process and Defendants adhere to most mandated timeframes.
Senate Bill 1560, effective January 1, 2016, contained a number of provisions which have accelerated the pace of reform, and, in turn, Defendants’ compliance with the Consent Decree. Key provisions include:
 Youth on IDJJ Aftercare/Parole who are charged with new adult felony offenses are no longer held in IDJJ facilities pending their adjudication in adult court. While pending new adult felony charges, their IDJJ Aftercare/Parole is suspended. Youth on IDJJ Aftercare/Parole who are convicted and sentenced to the Department of Corrections will have their IDJJ jurisdiction terminated. This population accounts for a large number of youth who used to be held in IDJJ facilities pending violation proceedings.
 The length of IDJJ parole terms have been reduced in line with best practices and will no longer go beyond adult parole terms.
 Following the example of several other states, youth adjudicated for misdemeanors have been prohibited from being committed to IDJJ.
These series of reforms that seek to “right size” the system will result in continued improved outcomes for youth and much needed efficiencies in IDJJ. According to IDJJ figures, in January 2015, the number of youth on IDJJ Aftercare/Parole was just over 1200. As of the writing of this report, that number has been nearly cut in half, with less than 600 youth on active IDJJ Aftercare/Parole and another 61 youth whose parole status has been suspended while they are pending new adult felony charges.
Despite the commendable progress that Defendants have made during the course of the current monitoring period, it is important to note that, as outlined in this report, Defendants remain non-compliant with respect to certain provisions of the Consent Decree.
Monitoring Process This report is based upon the following activity that occurred during the reporting period:
 Staff and attorney interviews, IDJJ and PRB;  Interviews of youth who have gone through the revocation process;

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:467
 Review of case files and corresponding revocation paperwork for youth going through the revocation process;
 Interviews of attorneys appointed to represent youth going through the revocation process; and
 Observations of Preliminary and Final Revocation Hearings.
Review of Critical Issues In the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, two critical issues were highlighted:
1) Failure to comply with the requirement for Assessment of Evidence and Preponderance of Evidence Standard; and
2) Delay in Host Sites approval resulting in youth remaining in custody.
Both issues continue to be of serious concern, however meaningful progress has been made by Defendants on the Host Site issue.
1. Assessment of Evidence and Preponderance of Evidence Paragraph 29 of the MH Consent Decree mandates that: “Defendants will provide the youth or their attorneys with a written explanation of the PRB’s decision in the final parole revocation hearing. The written explanation must include a description and assessment of the evidence and a brief statement describing how the evidence meets the preponderance of evidence standard.” (emphasis added)
At the last quarterly status hearing, Defendants maintained that a new training for PRB members, and implementation of an updated form with a slightly expanded number of lines, would be enough to make substantial progress on this issue. Defendants therefore declined to use the new Revocation Hearing Report form prepared by the Monitor.
Although Defendants have made progress on this issue since the last report, both technical and substantive compliance issues remain. Technically, the PRB has improved in providing a written description of the evidence, though there are still numerous instances where that is not the case. However it is still very seldom, if ever, that the PRB provides a written statement describing how the evidence meets the preponderance of evidence standard. PRB members sometimes write “meets the preponderance of evidence standard” on the form, but do not describe how the standard is met. Additionally, in cases where the decision is to declare a youth a violator, but resume the youth on parole, the written explanation at times only includes new parole conditions or reasons why the youth’s parole should be resumed, but not any explanation of why the youth was declared a violator.
Many PRB members have improved their written explanations on the Final Revocation Hearing form, but these still do not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 29 of the Consent Decree. In the last two Quarterly Monitoring Reports, examples were provided reflecting a lack of detail in the explanations provided in the forms; three current examples are provided as an appendix to this Quarterly Report.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:468
Beyond the technical compliance issue stemming from the PRB’s failure to provide an appropriate written description and analysis of how evidence satisfies the preponderance standard, is a more substantive one – is the preponderance of evidence standard actually being met. This challenge is illustrated in the summary of the JC case, below.
JC: JC was accused of violating Aftercare/Parole conditions as related to electronic monitoring requirements.
JC had been directed to stay home to be seen by electronic monitoring technicians and his Aftercare Specialist (ACS). His mother however, pressured him to attend school. JC, his mom, and his aunt all attest that they tried to reach JC’s ACS to seek permission for JC to attend school, to no avail. It was acknowledged at the Final Revocation Hearing that the ACS has been on maternity leave and was therefore unavailable. JC and his family also claim that they called the AMS phone line provided to parolees to check in. JC says he was given permission by the AMS operator to attend school. There is no documentation of such permission being given. JC admitted he attended school, which the ACS determined to be a violation of his electronic monitoring and therefore his Aftercare conditions. A warrant was issued for JC, he was arrested, and he spent 28 days in custody before his Final Revocation Hearing.
At the Final Revocation Hearing, no ACS was present to testify regarding JC’s violations. The IDJJ Staff Attorney acknowledged that there were communication challenges on the Department’s part. Statements were made by JC, his aunt and mother, attesting that he indeed tried to reach his ACS, that he called the AMS system, and that he had been given permission to attend school.
The PRB member ruled that because he admitted to going to school in violation of Aftercare/Parole conditions he was AWOL and in violation. She declared him a violator but, due to the circumstances, did resume his parole. The preponderance of evidence standard was not met in this hearing. Additionally, on JC’s Final Revocation Findings Report, there is no mention by the PRB of how evidence presented in the hearing of his violation met the preponderance standard as required by the MH Consent Decree. In fact, the PRB wrote that, “the state was not able to prove that youth did not contact the Aftercare Specialist”, yet still found him to be a violator.
Recommendations and Defendants’ Response: After reviewing a draft of this Monitoring Report, Defendants sent the Monitor a new Final Revocation Hearing Findings Report form to be used by the PRB. The new form, included in the appendix of this report, incorporates most of the fields and formatting of the form recommended by the Monitor. Additionally, Defendants are planning to conduct further training of PRB members on this subject and have invited the Monitor to provide a training for the PRB. The PRB Chairman has also reported that two PRB members will now be required to attend each Revocation Hearing, which can increase the likelihood that the hearings and Findings report are completed appropriately.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:469
The new form, the trainings, and the commitment by Defendants to correct these deficiencies will likely result in the Defendants coming into compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree. The Monitor does continue to recommend, however, that the new form be converted into a fillable PDF document for completion on a laptop with portable printers stationed at each hearing location.
Consent Decree Compliance
Paragraph 9: All proceedings conducted in compliance with Constitution, state statutes, Faheem-El, and Downie v Klincar. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Paragraph 3 of the Faheem Consent Decree states:
“The parolee shall be afforded an opportunity at the preliminary parole revocation hearing to provide reasons why withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing is appropriate.”
During the last Monitoring visit, Preliminary Hearings observed by the Monitor did not include any opportunity for youth to argue for release pending the Final Revocation Hearing. The Monitor has observed in the past that youth were able to argue for their release pending the Final Revocation Hearing, and in a few cases the PRB has granted release. It must also be noted that the sample size during this period was extremely small as there were only two preliminary hearings scheduled between two facilities visited by the Monitor. A summary of one of these cases is provided below.
DW: DW was charged with six violations of his Aftercare conditions: a new law violation, not reporting his arrest for the new law violation, not reporting to his Aftercare Specialist (ACS), not allowing his ACS to visit his residence, changing his residence without permission, and not making himself available for electronic monitoring (EM) technicians to connect an EM device. DW denied all of the allegations except the reporting of the arrest. The new law violation, a city ordinance violation of disorderly conduct, was dismissed, so no probable cause was found on that violation allegation. The ACS did not appear at the hearing and did not answer his phone the two times the IDJJ Attorney tried to reach him during the hearing. DW, who had been on Aftercare for 11 months before this violation, testified during the hearing that his ACS never made an appointment to come see him, he had never changed his residence, and that he had already successfully completed three months of EM and was never instructed to go back on to EM.
The Hearing Officer found no probable cause on the new law violation, failure to report to ACS, refusal to allow ACS to make a residential visit, and failure to make facilitate EM connection. But probable cause was found on failure to report the arrest, and although there was no live

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:470
testimony to rebut DW’s statements that he had not changed his residence, based on the ACS’ violation report, the Hearing Officer did find probable cause on that charge as well.
Although standard opening comments made by the Hearing Officer indicated that the youth and his attorney would be allowed to argue for the warrant to be dropped pending the Final Revocation Hearing, no such opportunity was ever granted.
Recommendation: At every Preliminary Hearing where probable cause is found, the Hearing Officer should specifically ask if the youth is requesting to be released pending the Final Revocation Hearing and hear arguments on the matter.
Paragraph 8 of the Downie Consent Decree states: “A police or parole agent report which summarizes the statements or observations of a citizen (non-police) witness may bear sufficient reliability upon which to find a violation of parole, absent confrontation, if, and only if, some additional extrinsic factor is presented which adequately enhances the reliability of the police or parole agent report. Such a report, standing alone, unenhanced by any additional extrinsic factors, does not bear sufficient indicia of reliability to revoke parole absent confrontation.”
As anticipated, Senate Bill 1560 has drastically reduced the number of IDJJ youth facing revocation hearings based on new law violations. The Monitor will continue to evaluate this situation and will determine by the next reporting period if Defendants are now compliant with this provision.
A new concern regarding this provision of the Consent Decree has been raised during this monitoring period. In the JC case summarized in an earlier section, the PRB relied solely on an Aftercare Specialist’s report, despite live rebuttal testimony from the youth and statements provided by his aunt and mother to contradict the report. The ACS was not present at the hearing and the PRB found the youth to be a violator solely based on the ACS’s report.
Defendants have reported that the PRB will now require the youth’s ACS or the ACS’s supervisor to attend all Final Revocation Hearings. The Monitor will continue to assess this issue and determine if this is a systemic violation of the Consent Decree.
Paragraph 10: Defendants shall serve all youth with a copy of his/her Parole Violation Report (PVR) within 1 business day of IDJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed PVR service dates for all hearings. Of the files reviewed, a

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:471
small fraction were served later than one business day after being admitted into the facility and all of those were served within a day or two of the MH Consent Decree time frames. In interviewing youth and staff, this practice of timely serving youth with their PVR’s appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 11: Class Counsel shall develop Know Your Rights materials and provide to DJJ. DJJ shall provide Know Your Rights material to each youth. Substantial Compliance? No Status: Plaintiffs submitted a draft of the Know Your Rights material to Defendants and the Monitor on June 29, 2015. The Monitor provided edits to the materials. Plaintiffs report that they are waiting on Defendants’ feedback to finalize. Defendants report that they are reviewing the material and will submit final comments within two weeks.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall provide sufficient resources so that each youth is represented by appointed counsel at every stage of the parole process including Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH), Final Parole Revocation Hearings (FPRH), and appeals or requests for reconsideration. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Youth are being represented at every stage of the parole revocation process. Therefore there could be a finding of substantial compliance with this provision; however, there continues to be a question of resource sufficiency for attorney services.
As noted in the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, there has been a significant delay in attorneys for youth being paid by the state. Though some payments have been made since June, the state’s budget impasse appears to continue to delay matters. Although payments to youth attorneys have been made in the last 30 days, payments remain five months past due to the attorneys.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall accommodate youth requests to communicate confidentially with retained or prospective counsel. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Monitor observes and youth attorneys report that they have been able to regularly meet with their clients confidentially.
Paragraph 15: Youth are not permitted to waive appointed counsel unless private counsel has been retained. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Monitor is not aware of any attempts to waive appointed counsel.
Paragraph 19: Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH) occur within 10 business days of DJJ entry pursuant to a Parole Violation (PV) report to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged PV was committed. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:472
aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed all the dates on which Preliminary Hearings (PH) were held. Of the cases reviewed, the PH was held beyond the 10 day timeframe in a small fraction of cases. In interviewing youth attorneys and staff, the practice of holding PH within 10 business days of youth entry into IDJJ appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 20: Defendants will provide youth and counsel all evidence to be used against youth during Parole Revocation proceeding, within 2 business days of appointment of counsel or receipt of evidence, whichever occurs later. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Though there have been concerns regarding compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree as documented in previous monitoring reports, during this monitoring period, youth attorneys attest that evidence has been provided in accordance with the timeframes. The Monitor will continue to follow this issue closely to ensure compliance is on-going and systematic.
Paragraph 24: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written probable cause determination. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Youth and attorneys are continuing to receive copies of the Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings which documents probable cause determinations. However, the “basis of finding” section of the report does not routinely include an explanation of all alleged violations. The Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings form appropriately lists out all of the alleged violations, but the narrative explanation completed by the Hearing Officers often does not explain the probable cause findings for each violation. (An example of such a Preliminary Hearing Report is included in the appendix)
Recommendation: The PRB should change the Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings form. As a part of this Quarterly Report, the Monitor has again included a draft recommended Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings Form Defendants’ consideration. It is further recommended that this form be converted into a fillable PDF document for completion on a laptop after each hearing. It is often hard to make out the hand writing on the forms. Portable printers can be stationed near each hearing location so the forms can be printed and signed after each hearing. The Monitor recommends that Defendants initially conduct a pilot use of the new form at its St. Charles facility.
Paragraph 26 & 28: Each youth shall receive a Final Parole Revocation Hearing (FRH) within 45 calendar days of entry into custody to determine if PV occurred and if revocation is appropriate. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:473
aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. Though there continue to be cases where Final Revocation Hearing are held more than 45 days after a youth’s entry into custody, the number of those cases has significantly declined, and in most instances the Monitor has been able to determine that the continuance pushing the Hearing out beyond 45 days resulted from a youth attorney’s request.
Though there is a finding of Substantial Compliance with this provision, the following case illustrates an ongoing concern.
BH: BH was admitted to IDJJ on an alleged parole violation on October 1, 2015. BH was scheduled for a Final Revocation Hearing on November 12 that was continued; a December 12 Hearing was also continued, over the objection of BH’s attorney. On January 5, 2016, a Final Revocation Hearing was held, 97 days after BHJ’s admission, which is more than double the amount of time allowed by the MH Consent Decree. When the hearing was finally held, BH was found to be a violator, resumed on Aftercare, but then totally discharged from IDJJ jurisdiction due to the new law which limits the length of Aftercare terms. BH’s Final Revocation Hearing Findings Report, which listed her as a violator but resumed her parole, has no mention at all of any reasons or evidence of how she violated the terms of Aftercare/Parole (BH’s Final Revocation Hearing Findings Report is included as an appendix to this Report.)
Paragraph 29: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written explanation of PRBs decision in the FPRH to include a description and assessment of evidence and brief statement describing how evidence meets preponderance of evidence standard. Substantial Compliance? No Status: The status of this provision is discussed in the Review of Critical Issues section, above.
Paragraph 30: The PRB will establish an appeals process and will include in Parole Revocation decisions a notice that revocation may be appealed. A panel of three PRB members not involved in the original Parole Revocation decision are to hear the appeal and the appeal is to be decided no later than 21 days after receipt Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants have established an appeals process which is in compliance with the Consent Decree. To date, there have been only two appeals filed and none in the current monitoring period. Due to the process being established as required by the Consent Decree, there is a finding of compliance for this provision, but the Monitor will continue to evaluate this issue.
Paragraph 32: An independent monitor will be selected and “reasonable cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants. Substantial Compliance? No

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 94 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:474
Status: The Monitor has understood the slow and bureaucratic process of Illinois procurement, which has resulted in invoices being paid 60 days after submission and therefore sometimes up to 90 days after work or expenses have been incurred. As noted in the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, the usual 60 day period has become much longer. Though the Monitor has begun to receive payments again, as of the writing of this report, the Monitor has not been compensated for the past four months of service and an additional older invoice has also not been paid. A total of five months of Monitoring service and three months of travel expenses have not been paid. If this problem persists, it may affect the Monitor’s ability to travel to the state for monitoring visits.
Paragraph 42: Defendants shall appoint counsel no later than 5 business days after service of PVR or DJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Based on interviews with appointed counsel, Defendants appear to routinely appoint attorneys within five business days after youth’s entrance into IDJJ. Most appointments are done via email. Defendants have begun documenting the appointment dates of counsel on a spreadsheet that was provided to the Monitor. Though the dates on the first report submitted to the Monitor by Defendants showed nearly half of the appointment dates falling outside the timeframe required by this provision of the Consent Decree, it did appear that there was a malfunction with the report. An updated report submitted to the Monitor shows the appointments occurring all within the mandated timeframe, which is consistent with what the attorneys represented.

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:475
MH vs. Findley Case Number: 12-cv-08523 Independent Monitor: David Muhammad Consent Decree Compliance Report Quarter 3 (July 2015 – October 2015)
Over the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, Defendants have made significant progress towards complying with the MH Consent Decree and, as described below, soon to be enacted legislation will serve to further these gains in the near term. Due to the mandates of this Consent Decree, on-going trainings for Parole Revocation Board members and Aftercare Specialists/Parole Agents, and other reforms: Youth are consistently represented by attorneys in all phases of the revocation process (although there have not been any appeals at this point); youth attest and observations confirm that representation is often competent and zealous; most timeframes are generally being adhered to; and the Defendants continue to be responsive to areas of concern raised by the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ Counsel.
Championed by IDJJ Director Candice Jones, passed by the Illinois legislature and signed into law by the Governor, Senate Bill 1560 will go into effect January 2016. This bill will have a significant impact on both the Defendants’ ability to comply with the Consent Decree, as well as the Illinois juvenile justice system as a whole. Key bill provisions include:
 Beginning January 2016, youth on IDJJ Aftercare/Parole who are charged with new adult offenses will no longer be held in IDJJ facilities pending their adjudication in adult court. This population accounts for a large number of youth pending violation proceedings. Due to the pending charges, these cases often result in long continuances of Final Revocation Hearings, beyond the 45 day requirement of this Consent Decree. Youth on DJJ Aftercare/parole who are convicted and sentenced to the Department of Corrections will have their IDJJ jurisdiction terminated.
 The length of IDJJ parole terms will be reduced in line with best practices and will not be longer than adult parole terms.
 Following the example of several other states, youth adjudicated for misdemeanors will be prohibited from being committed to IDJJ.
These series of reforms that seek to “right size” the system should result in improved outcomes for youth and much needed efficiencies in IDJJ.
Despite the commendable progress that Defendants have made during the course of the current monitoring period, as well as the promise of greater improvements to be realized, it is important to note that, as outlined in this report, Defendants remain non-compliant with respect to major provisions of the Consent Decree.
Monitoring Process This report is based upon the following activity that occurred during the reporting period:
 Staff and attorney interviews, IDJJ and PRB;

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:476
 Interviews of youth who have gone through the revocation process;  Reviews of case files and corresponding revocation paperwork for youth going through
the revocation process;  Interviews of attorneys appointed to represent youth going through the
revocation process; and  Observation of Final Revocation Hearings.
The Monitor has now observed hearings, reviewed files, and interviewed staff and youth in all IDJJ facilities that hold hearings.
Review of Critical Issues In the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, two critical issues were highlighted:
1) Failure to comply with the requirement for Assessment of Evidence and Preponderance of Evidence Standard; and
2) Delay in Host Sites keeping youth in custody.
Unfortunately, there has been minimal progress in both of these areas and they remain critical issues. In addition, a new Issue has been added to this section which, while perhaps not Critical, warrants inclusion due to its significance.
1. Assessment of Evidence and Preponderance of Evidence Paragraph 29 of the MH Consent Decree mandates that: “Defendants will provide the youth or their attorneys with a written explanation of the PRB’s decision in the final parole revocation hearing. The written explanation must include a description and assessment of the evidence and a brief statement describing how the evidence meets the preponderance of evidence standard.”
At the last quarterly status hearing, Defendants maintained that a new training for PRB members and an updated form with a slightly expanded number of lines would be enough to make substantial progress on this issue. Defendants therefore declined to use the new Revocation Hearing Report forms prepared by the Monitor.
Although Defendants have made progress on this issue since the last report, both technical and substantive compliance issues remain. Technically, the PRB is not regularly providing a written description and assessment of the evidence and it seldom, if ever, provides a written statement describing how the evidence meets the preponderance of evidence standard. PRB members are now regularly writing that the evidence meets the preponderance of evidence standard, but not “how” it does. In cases where the decision is to declare a youth a violator, but resume the youth on parole, often the written explanation only includes new parole conditions or reasons why the youth’s parole should be resumed, but not any explanation of why the youth was declared a violator.
Many PRB members have improved their written explanations on the Final Revocation Hearing form, but these still do not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 29 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:477
In the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, a few examples were provided reflecting a lack of detail in the explanation given on the Revocation Hearing Reports. Again, four Reports completed during the review period are provided as an Appendix to this report. Three of these reports reflect woefully inadequate written explanations while the fourth, which is better, includes no assessment of the evidence and no explanation of how the evidence meets the preponderance standard. In most of the cases involving the Revocation Reports contained in the appendix, the Monitor was present for the hearings and the preponderance standard was actually met, the written reports which constitute the record was just inadequate.
Beyond the technical compliance issue stemming from the PRB’s failure to provide an appropriate written description and analysis of how the evidence satisfies the preponderance standard, there continues to be a substantive, and more problematic question of whether the preponderance of evidence standard is actually being met.
In a recent Final Revocation Hearing observed by the Monitor, The youth’s appointed counsel said because his client has pending charges, he wanted to have the revocation proceedings completed so he can return to Cook County to focus on the new case. On behalf of the youth, the Attorney then stipulated to the fact that the youth was pending a “serious charge in Cook County” and was okay with a finding of violation and then revocation. The youth seemed confused as he thought he would be resumed, not revoked. The very quick hearing ended with a finding of a violation and a revocation, although there seemed to be no basis for the finding. The PRB member wrote on the Final Revocation Hearing Findings Report that the evidence used to make the decision was “youth has pending charges in Cook County” (this particular Report is included in the Appendix).
Recommendation: The PRB should change the Final Revocation Hearing report form entirely. As a part of this Quarterly Report, the Monitor has again included a draft recommended Final Revocation Hearing Form for Defendants’ consideration. It is further recommended that this form be converted into a fillable PDF document for completion on a laptop after each hearing. It is often difficult to make out the hand writing on the forms; transition to fillable PDF forms, to be implemented in conjunction with portable printers stationed at each hearing location, would mitigate the legibility problem that currently exists.
2. Host Site Delays: There appears to be little change in the Host Site delay issue since the last Quarterly Monitoring Report. Youth who are being resumed on parole often have to wait several days, if not weeks, for IDJJ to approve their release plans, including their own residence, which is known as a “Host Site”. This may be one of the biggest problems delaying Aftercare/Parole, unnecessarily keeping youth incarcerated after they have been approved for release.
Despite statements made by Defendants in the last quarterly hearing that a new policy was implemented to begin investigating Host Site approval of each youth at the time of admission into the facility, this does not appear to have been implemented. During observations of Revocation Hearings in September at the Kewanee facility, in every case observed by the

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:478
Monitor where a youth was resumed on parole pending Host Site approval, the Host Site investigation had not yet begun. All the youth had been in custody at least 30 days and would have to remain in custody for several days, and more likely weeks, pending approval of the residence or placement to which they would be released.
During the Monitor’s observation of Revocation Hearings at the St. Charles facility in October, of the 11 Revocation Hearings observed, 10 of them resulted in the youth being declared a violator but being resumed on parole. Of these 10 cases:
o the Host Sites in five seemed to have been identified but had not been approved and the youth would remain in custody until approval;
o in 3 the Host Site approval process had clearly not even started with the After Care Specialist responsible for approving the Host Site stating: “this is the first I am hearing about this Host Site”. Note that this was a location the youth was in the process of moving into even before coming into custody; and
o for three the Host Site had been approved by the time of the hearing (the fact of which reflects that Defendants have made some minimal progress on this issue).
The following summary of the case of youth MA was in the last Quarterly Monitoring Report to illustrate challenges with meeting Final Revocation Hearing timelines; an updated version of the summary is included here to illustrate Defendants’ ongoing Host Site issues.
MA MA, who is 16 years old, was brought into custody for a violation stemming from a dispute that occurred at his residential placement, which resulted in a new charge being filed against him. He was admitted to IDJJ on April 15, 2015. On April 29, 2015, a Preliminary Hearing was held to determine if there was probable cause on the six alleged violations of parole/aftercare. Even though the Violation Report alleged a series of violations, MA’s Aftercare Specialist testified that MA’s new offense had been dropped, that he had been reporting regularly and that mostly everything had been fine except MA’s not attending school and not always following the residential center’s rules. Therefore, probable cause was only found on one of the six violations, which was condition number 15, failure to follow additional instructions “school and rules of placement.”
A Final Revocation Hearing was held for MA on May 5, 2015, but the hearing was continued. According to the Final Revocation Hearing report, the hearing was continued due to the youth having lost his Host Site and needing to find a new placement. There is no documentation as to whether or not the youth and his attorney agreed to this continuance, nor does failure to have a Host Site appear to be a legitimate reason to postpone the Final Revocation Hearing. Another Final Revocation Hearing was scheduled on June 2, 2015. This hearing was also continued and the notes on the Final Revocation Hearing report states that the reason for this continuance was that a new offense was pending. This was the very same new offense for which no probable cause was found at the April 29, 2015, Preliminary Hearing, making it wholly inappropriate to serve as the basis for a second continuance of the Final Revocation Hearing.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:479
The new hearing was set for June 16, 2015, far beyond the 45 calendar post-admission timeline for such hearings mandated by the MH Consent Decree.
At the June 16, 2015, hearing, MH was declared a violator and a new Host Site was being sought. MA was not released from IDJJ custody to his new Host Site until September 24, more than five months after his admission. Though MA was involved in an assault on staff during this time, which is totally unacceptable, that incident also exhibits why youth who have been cleared for release and simply awaiting a new Host Site should have an alternative to being incarcerated while awaiting placement.
Recommendation: The above issue may be the subject of a separate consent decree to which IDJJ is a party. If IDJJ successfully addresses this issue under the terms of that consent decree, these recommendations would be moot. Until that time, the following recommendations remain: It is still unclear if IDJJ has modified its policy of postponing investigation of a Host Site for youth who are admitted to IDJJ facilities for revocation proceedings until after their revocation hearings. IDJJ should begin investigating appropriate Aftercare plans upon each youth’s entry into the facility. This should allow youth to be released the day of their Final Revocation Hearing if they are resumed on parole. Also, in those instances where a youth’s parole is resumed, the youth is returning to the same location they were residing in prior to coming into custody for revocation proceedings, and where there are no known changes or challenges to that Host Site, youth should be immediately released to the site pending IDJJ re-investigation and approval. Further, a maximum time, five days for example, should be given to IDJJ to finalize/approve Host Sites after a PRB Hearing results in a decision to parole/release a youth (this would be assuming IDJJ has already had 30 plus days prior to the hearing to investigate the Host Site as well).
IDJJ should strongly consider opening its own group home or non-secure transitional living program so that youth who have been resumed on parole and are awaiting a Host Site can be immediately transferred out of the juvenile institution. With the continual reduction in population in IDJJ facilities, it is feasible that IDJJ custody staff could be reassigned to operate a community based transitional group home. When faced with the exact same circumstances, Washington, DC’s youth commitment system successfully instituted this very strategy.
3. IDJJ Staff Attorney IDJJ has recently hired new Staff Attorneys to assist with the revocation proceedings process and present violations on behalf of IDJJ in Preliminary and Revocation Hearings. The first new Staff Attorney was initially perceived and referred to as the “prosecuting attorney,” a term IDJJ objected to, indicating that serving in a prosecutorial capacity was not the intention of the position.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:480
However, when the Monitor first observed the Staff Attorney, she was acting in the role of a prosecuting attorney, presenting the charges (violations) and encouraging PRB members to consider certain facts that would lead to a finding of violation. The Staff Attorney also examined the Aftercare Specialist during the hearings, eliciting testimony that further supported a finding of violation.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys vehemently opposed the introduction of this new position into the process, claiming it unfair to the youth and a violation of the spirit of this Consent Decree. The Monitor was surprised by this new addition and subsequent change in the revocation process, but was unsure if it amounted to a violation of the Consent Decree. The Monitor sent the Director of IDJJ a series of recommendations on how the role of the Staff Attorney could be amended and in fact be helpful to the process and amenable to all parties.
A conference call was held between the parties on September 22, 2015, and IDJJ maintained that the Staff Attorney position was not intended to be a prosecuting attorney and there should not be any concern about the new addition to the process.
The Monitor interviewed attorneys for the youth about the issue. Some of the attorneys said they were both concerned by, and welcomed, the IDJJ Staff Attorney role in the process, noting a benefit of improved coordination and communication. One of the youth attorneys stated that the IDJJ Staff Attorney was critical to the process.
When the Monitor most recently observed revocation hearings earlier this month, the Staff Attorney had modified her approach, and did not appear to be playing a prosecutorial role. The staff attorney was clearly helpful to the process, occasionally jumping into the discussion to support the youth’s attorney. In a number of cases, the Staff Attorney and youth’s attorney would come into the hearing having made an agreement on the case, which the PRB always agreed. The Staff Attorney was also no longer being referred to as the “prosecutor”, although one PRB member in his opening statements to youth always said, “the burden of proof is on DJJ represented by Ms. Dixon” to prove your violations.
The Monitor will continue to investigate this issue to determine if the participation of IDJJ Staff Attorneys in the hearings constitutes a violation of the Consent Decree. It may also be necessary to have certain written commitments or policies that codify that the Staff Attorney shall not present evidence that was not provided to the youth’s attorney or there not be a Staff Attorney present for cases where youth are not represented.
Consent Decree Compliance
Paragraph 9: All proceedings conducted in compliance with Constitution, state statutes, Faheem-El, and Downie v Klincar.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:481
Substantial Compliance? No Status: Paragraph 5 of the Faheem Consent Decree states:
“In determining whether the parole violation warrant should be withdrawn pending a final revocation hearing, the hearing officer and the Chairman of the Prisoner Review Board, or a member thereof, shall consider, among other factors, whether the parolee appears to present a risk of danger to any person or the community, whether it appears likely that the parolee may flee, or such other reasonable factors as the Prisoner Review Board deems appropriate.”
During the Preliminary Hearings, the Hearing Officers are routinely giving youth and their attorneys the opportunity to argue for the withdrawal of a warrant and for the youth to be released pending the Final Revocation Hearing (FRH). There have now been a few instances where youth have been granted release pending the FRH.
However, as noted in the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, youth attorneys have reported that there continues to be an issue with PRB members considering whether a youth’s residence is too far from the IDJJ facility where the FRH will be held as a reason not to grant the release. Though this could arguably be a factor to consider under the Faheem Consent Decree (“whether it appears likely that the parolee may flee”), determining that a youth cannot be released pending FRH solely based on where they reside seems inappropriate and unfair.
Recommendation: A large number of youth facing revocation proceedings live in Cook County, primarily in Chicago. The two facilities that hold hearings for youth from Cook County are many miles away without public transportation access. IDJJ does have a facility in Chicago. The Defendants should consider holding out of custody FRHs in the IDJJ Chicago facility to make it easier for youth and families to attend and to assuage concerns by PRB members about the distance between a youth’s residence and the FRH location.
Paragraph 8 of the Downie Consent Decree states: “A police or parole agent report which summarizes the statements or observations of a citizen (non-police) witness may bear sufficient reliability upon which to find a violation of parole, absent confrontation, if, and only if, some additional extrinsic factor is presented which adequately enhances the reliability of the police or parole agent report. Such a report, standing alone, unenhanced by any additional extrinsic factors, does not bear sufficient indicia of reliability to revoke parole absent confrontation.”
In nearly every revocation hearing, the sole piece of evidence being considered is the Parole Violation Report (PVR) prepared by the Aftercare Specialist (formerly known as parole agent). And in most of these cases, the PVR is based primarily on a police or arrest report stemming from a new alleged offense by the youth. Attorney interviews and Monitor case file reviews suggest that youth facing revocation hearings are not afforded the opportunity to confront the law enforcement officers whose reports are often the sole or main basis for the revocation proceedings.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:482
Remedy: As mentioned above, due to the new law to take effect January 2016, this issue will be nearly eliminated. There will continue to be the issue of new pending juvenile offenses, which are rare, but the vast majority of violations stemming from new offenses will no longer occur after the New Year.
Paragraph 10: Defendants shall serve all youth with a copy of his/her Parole Violation Report (PVR) within 1 business day of IDJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed PVR service dates for 108 cases. Of those 108 cases, only five youth were served later than one business day after being admitted into the facility and most of those five were served within a day or two of the MH Consent Decree time frames. In interviewing youth and staff, this practice of timely serving youth with their PVR’s appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 11: Class Counsel shall develop Know Your Rights materials and provide to DJJ. DJJ shall provide Know Your Rights material to each youth. Substantial Compliance? No Status: Plaintiffs submitted a draft of the Know Your Rights material to Defendants and the Monitor on June 29, 2015. The Monitor provided edits to the materials but no updates have been given at this point and the Know Your Rights pamphlets have not yet been distributed.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall provide sufficient resources so that each youth is represented by appointed counsel at every stage of the parole process including Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH), Final Parole Revocation Hearings (FPRH), and appeals or requests for reconsideration. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Youth are being represented at every stage of the parole revocation process. Therefore there could be a finding of substantial compliance with this provision; however, there continues to be a question of resource sufficiency for attorney services. As noted in the last two Quarterly Monitoring Report and as raised by Plaintiffs, the compensation structure for attorneys representing youth may pose a barrier to zealous representation. The Monitor continues to look into this issue.
A new related issue has arisen; attorneys for youth have not been paid in four months. Although some IDJJ vendors have reportedly been paid, attorneys for youth have not been provided any resources since June of this year. If this continues, some attorneys may no longer be able to represent youth, causing a major setback.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:483
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall accommodate youth requests to communicate confidentially with retained or prospective counsel. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: In the last Quarterly Monitoring Report, the status of this provision was upgraded from Unclear to Yes. Unfortunately, the status is back to unclear. At most of the facilities, attorneys are able to call their clients, meet with their clients in private, and are provided with adequate time with them. At the Kewanee facility, however, where are a large number of revocation hearings occur, these accommodations do not exist.
The hearing process at Kewanee is chaotic. On the day the Monitor visited, there was a very high volume of revocation hearings, nearly 30. Though this is somewhat unusual, staff at the facility reported that the number of hearings is always high, at least 20 or more. The environment affected the ability to hold appropriate hearings. Attorneys had to meet with clients in an open room with staff and other attorneys and youth present.
Revocation hearings were also held in an open room simultaneously with other regular parole hearings. So two hearings were going at once in the same room, not only making it hard to hear but extremely inappropriate, in that very personal information about youth could be heard by all others in the room (in one instance discussing a youth’s sex offense that the youth in the other hearing could clearly hear). Even when there were not two hearings going on in the same room, there were staff unassociated with the hearings in the back of the room talking loudly and laughing, which was disturbing the hearings. At one point, a staff person who just seemed to be walking through the room had his facility radio on very loudly.
Even though the Kewanee facility was by far the most problematic, even at the St. Charles facility, where most revocation hearings occur, hearings are often held in rooms with the doors open where staff chatter and radios can be easily heard and are sometimes distracting.
Recommendation: IDJJ should ensure that youth and their attorneys are always provided private, closed rooms to talk before, and if need be, after hearings. IDJJ should also ensure that preliminary and revocation hearings are held in closed rooms with no other concurrent activity. At the Kewanee facility, Defendants should consider having two hearing days per month for revocation proceedings or separate the days for revocation proceedings and regular parole hearings so the chaos and large numbers of people are reduced.
Paragraph 15: Youth are not permitted to waive appointed counsel unless private counsel has been retained. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Monitor is not aware of any attempts to waive appointed counsel.
Paragraph 19: Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH) occur within 10 business days of DJJ entry pursuant to a Parole Violation (PV) report to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged PV was committed.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:484
Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed the dates on which Preliminary Hearings (PH) were held. Of the 108 cases reviewed, the PH was held beyond the 10 day timeframe in only two instances. In interviewing youth attorneys and staff, the practice of holding PH within 10 business days of youth entry into IDJJ appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 20: Defendants will provide youth and counsel all evidence to be used against youth during Parole Revocation proceeding, within 2 business days of appointment of counsel or receipt of evidence, whichever occurs later. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Although significant progress has been made in this area, there remains a few challenges. Attorneys continue to report routinely receiving evidence within two business days after appointment, which is almost always the Parole Violation Report. Attorneys are also receiving copies of corresponding police reports. There continues to be problems with pictures contained in police reports. When the reports are scanned and emailed, the quality of the pictures can be very distorted. There also continues to be a question as to drug related violations. When drug use is alleged, the drug analysis documentation rarely, if ever, accompanies the PVR. Although the Aftercare Specialist writing the report often is the one who has tested the youth, that is not the case in all instances.
In a few Revocation Hearings recently observed by the Monitor, information in the youth’s file being reviewed by PRB members included material not made available to the attorney and not even discussed at the Preliminary Hearing. Two such instances involved unclear court documents from other jurisdictions seeming to indicate that the youth had pending charges or a detainer. This information was being discussed and considered by PRB members at the Final Revocation Hearing though the information itself could not be verified, had not been disclosed to the youth’s attorney, and had not had a probable cause finding at a preliminary hearing.
Another related concern that has been raised in previous Monitoring Reports is Defendants’ consistent inability to get updated and accurate information from other jurisdictions regarding pending juvenile, or even criminal, matters.
Recommendation: Defendants should ensure, and it could be an additional role of the new Staff Attorney position, that the file reviewed by the PRB at the Final Revocation Hearing never contains information that has not been provided to the youth’s attorney or evidence regarding an alleged violation which was not determined to have probable cause at a Preliminary Hearing.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:485
Paragraph 24: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written probable cause determination. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Youth and attorneys are continuing to receive copies of the Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings which documents the probable cause determinations. However, the “basis of finding” section of the report does not routinely include an explanation of all the alleged violations. The Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings form appropriately lists out all of the alleged violations, but the narrative explanation completed by the Hearing Officers often does not explain the probable cause findings of each violation.
Recommendation: The PRB should change the Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings form. As a part of this Quarterly Report, the Monitor has again included a draft recommended Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings Form in the appendix for Defendants’ consideration. It is further recommended that this form be converted into a fillable PDF document and be completed on a laptop after each hearing. It is often hard to make out the hand writing on the forms. Portable printers can be stationed near each hearing location so the forms can be printed and signed after each hearing.
Paragraph 26 & 28: Each youth shall receive a Final Parole Revocation Hearing (FRH) within 45 calendar days of entry into custody to determine if PV occurred and if revocation is appropriate. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed the dates for FRHs that occurred.
Of the 108 cases reviewed, Final Revocation Hearings were late 12 times. Of those 12 instances, there was always an initially scheduled hearing within the 45 day standard, but the hearing was continued beyond the time frame. There is not always documentation in the files that indicates whether or not the youth requested or agreed to the postponement. In reviewing files and interviewing appointed counsel, it is clear that nearly all instances of postponed hearings had to do with pending new criminal charges against the youth.
The following is a summary of the hearing for youth TO, a troubling case that exemplifies this challenge:
TO The only violation that made probable cause was a pending criminal charge. The youth’s attorney complained that there had been prior continuances on this case but that his client wanted to have his Final Revocation Hearing. TO was supposedly released on the new offense and wanted to go home to fight the case for which he maintains he is innocent.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:486
The attorney represented that his client wanted to have his revocation hearing as he believed there is no evidence of violation. The PRB member by stating, “I’ll declare him a violator if you want to move forward.” The attorney asked, “what is the preponderance of the evidence?” The PRB member responded, “The preponderance of the evidence is the fact that he was arrested.” The PRB member also stated, “they have shown probable cause” and “I have nothing else to go on but the violation report.”
The youth’s attorney explained that a prior consent decree, also covered by the MH Consent Decree, stipulated that an arrest and a probable cause finding is not sufficient to make a violation and revocation finding. The IDJJ Staff Attorney jumped in suggesting that the youth’s attorney was correct, saying a pending charge could be used to determine what the PRB does once they have found that the youth was guilty of another violation, but not as a basis for a determination of a violation itself.
The PRB member gave a long pause and then asked if the youth had received any tickets (behavior violations) while in custody. The youth’s attorney reminded the PRB member that institutional behavior was inappropriate to consider in the revocation hearing. Even though the youth had already been in custody for 36 days, the PRB member decided to continue the hearing until the next Kewanee docket, at which point they youth will have been in custody for 64 days, 19 days longer than the Consent Decree mandates a Final Revocation Hearing to be completed. The IDJJ Attorney stated her objection to the continuance and the PRB member noted the objection on the Final Revocation Hearings Findings Report.
The continuance of the hearing was a blatant violation of the MH Consent Decree.
Remedy: As mentioned above, due to the new law to take effect January 2016, the example cited above will be moot. There will however continue to be the issue of new pending juvenile offenses, which are the rare case, but the vast majority of violations stemming from new offenses will no longer occur after the New Year and therefore the number of revocation hearings being continued should greatly diminish.
Paragraph 29: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written explanation of PRBs decision in the FPRH to include a description and assessment of evidence and brief statement describing how evidence meets preponderance of evidence standard. Substantial Compliance? No Status: The status of this provision is detailed in the above section, Review of Critical Issues.
Paragraph 30: The PRB will establish an appeals process and will include in Parole Revocation decisions a notice that revocation may be appealed. A panel of three PRB members not involved in the original Parole Revocation decision are to hear the appeal and the appeal is to be decided no later than 21 days after receipt Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Defendants have developed an appeals process. The PRB routinely informs youth of their

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 95 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:487
right to appeal and notice of their right to appeal is also stated on the Final Revocation Hearing report provided to the youth. To date, there have been no appeals filed and therefore the Monitor is unable to make a final determination as if Defendants are compliant with this provision of the Consent Decree. For there to be no appeals filed by youth is surprising and cause for inspection itself, which the Monitor will follow up on.
Paragraph 32: An independent monitor will be selected and “reasonable cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants. Status: The Monitor has understood the slow and bureaucratic process of Illinois procurement, which has resulted in invoices being paid 60 days after submission and therefore sometimes up to 90 days after work or expenses have been incurred. Now, as it is with the youth attorneys, the Monitor has not had fees or even travel expenses reimbursed for more than three months. It was initially assumed that the delay in payment was due to the budget impasse in the Illinois government because no official communication had been provided to the Monitor. But after reviewing a draft of this report, IDJJ informed the Monitor that the delay was not due to the budget impasse, but to a process in the state Comptroller’s office. If this problem persists, it may affect the Monitor’s ability to travel to the state for monitoring visits.
Paragraph 42: Defendants shall appoint counsel no later than 5 business days after service of PVR or DJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Based on interviews with appointed counsel, Defendants do appear to be routinely appointing attorneys within five business days after youth’s entrance into IDJJ. Most appointments are done via email. The Monitor has previously reported that no other documentation is kept and therefore have been unable to confirm appointment timelines. Defendants have now added a column to the spreadsheets held at each facility that documents the other pertinent Consent Decree timelines to capture the date of attorney appointment. This being a new practice, the Monitor is going to assume there is a glitch, as nearly all the appointment dates reflect counsel being appointed far beyond the required five days after a youth’s entry into an IDJJ facility. Being inconsistent with what youth attorneys report, the Monitor will continue to investigate this issue to determine compliance status.

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:488
MH vs. Monreal Case Number: 12-cv-08523 Independent Monitor: David Muhammad Consent Decree Compliance Report Quarter 1 (Jan. 2015 – March 2015)
Six months after the Consent Decree was signed and three full months after its effective date, Defendants have made some progress in compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree and seem sincere in their attempts to ultimately achieve substantial compliance. At this time, however, Defendants are not in substantial compliance with the Consent Decree and have significant progress to make to realize this end.
The Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) has very clearly expressed its intent to make far reaching reforms of its system to improve youth outcomes. These reforms include an overhaul of the parole process, which has already been renamed Aftercare. Implementing the use of graduated sanctions, a new risk assessment, and more access to community based services are all very encouraging. IDJJ’s Director inspires significant confidence in her commitment to make deep and lasting reforms to her department.
The Parole Review Board’s (PRB) new Chairman has also pledged cooperation with the Consent Decree and the PRB has already made promising changes to forms and processes. Youth now regularly have representation during the revocation process. Preliminary Hearings to determine probable cause occur systematically and are operated in a professional manner. The PRB has also announced that it intends to address two large outstanding Consent Decree issues: 1) the need to establish an appeals process for Final Revocation Hearings; and 2) the need to provide a written explanation of the assessment of evidence, and how that evidence meets the preponderance of evidence standard, subsequent to Final Revocation Hearings.
After the Monitor’s visit in February 2015, a memo was sent to the parties outlining several areas of non-compliance and accompanying recommendations. Defendants provided a substantive response to that memo and accordingly made several corrections to revocation forms and held a training for PRB members (Monitor’s Memo and Defendants’ response are provided as Attachments A and B). This immediate follow up was another encouraging sign that Defendants intend to comply with the Consent Decree.
Monitoring Process This report is based upon the following activity that occurred during the report period:
 Staff and attorney interviews, IDJJ and PRB.  Interviews of youth who have gone through the revocation process since the January 1,
2015, enforcement date.  Reviews of case files and corresponding revocation paperwork for youth going through
the revocation process.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:489
 Interviews of attorneys appointed to represent youth going through the revocation process.
 Interviews with members of the PRB, including the outgoing and incoming Chairmen.  Reviews of correspondence and material submitted by Plaintiffs.  Reviews of correspondence and material submitted by Defendants
including information provided pursuant to Monitor request.  Observation of Final Revocation Hearings.  Observation of Preliminary Hearings.
At this point, the Monitor has only visited two facilities to review files, interview youth, and observe hearings. The Monitor has yet to visit two additional facilities that hold Revocation Hearings, Kewanee and Harrisburg. Therefore, although there are a few findings of substantial compliance with portions of the Consent Decree, those findings may need to be considered preliminary until the Monitor can visit all the facilities that hold hearings.
Review of Critical Issues
The final section of this report includes a paragraph by paragraph review of Defendants’ compliance with the Consent Decree; highlighted immediately below are four major concerns and challenges of particular importance at this time.
1. Assessment of Evidence and Preponderance of Evidence Paragraph 29 of the Consent Decree mandates that Defendants provide written explanation of the PRB’s Final Revocation Hearing decisions which includes an assessment of the evidence and how that evidence meets the preponderance of evidence standard. Defendants are wholly noncompliant with this provision of the Consent Decree. This is both a technical issue and a more substantive one. As a technical issue, the PRB is not writing out the reasons for decisions, the evidence those decisions are based on, and are not explaining how the preponderance of evidence standard was met on Final Revocation Hearing forms. Defendants have been made aware of this issue and have pledged to address it.
In addition to not explaining in writing the assessment and preponderance of evidence standard that was considered, in some of the cases observed, it did not appear that the preponderance of evidence standard was used when determining that a youth had violated the terms of Aftercare/Parole. Instead, there appears to be a default determination that a youth is “declared a violator”; in fact, this box is always checked on the Final Revocation Hearing form, regardless of whether or not a youth’s parole was resumed. When asked, attorneys representing youth reported to the Monitor that they could only remember one instance, out of the hundreds of hearings they have collectively participated in, where a youth was not declared a violator.
In one of the hearings observed by the Monitor, a violation was submitted on a youth for a new offense; no violations other than the new offense were alleged in the violation report. By the time of the youth’s Final Revocation Hearing, the new offense had been dismissed. The PRB Member conducting the hearing then decided to resume the youth on parole. Although this was the desired outcome of the attorney and youth, the Final Revocation Hearing form was still marked, youth “declared to be a violator.” There appeared to be no basis for the

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:490
finding of the youth to be a violator. In response to the draft version of this report, Defendants pointed out that this single case could be an anomaly, which is possible. Although the Monitor is concerned that for every file reviewed, the result of each hearing was that the youth was “declared to be a violator” – it is not unrealistic that the majority of youth who reach a final Revocation Hearing will have been found to violate one of the terms of their Aftercare/Parole.
Even when the preponderance of evidence standard appears to be met, there are still problems with what is written on the forms themselves, which are the only record of the hearings. In one case, the PRB Member wrote on the Final Revocation Hearing form, “youth admitted to substance use.” However, the Monitor observed this hearing and the youth never did admit to this. The youth did test positive for drugs and the youth’s attorney agreed to the youth being revoked so that he could move on in the process, but the youth never actually admitted to drug use in the hearing.
Recommendation: There is both a technical and substantive issue. Technically, having better forms that require a written assessment of the evidence and a section specifically to detail how the evidenced meets the preponderance of evidence standard is necessary. One potential remedy is to have law clerks, take notes, complete the forms, and provide general staff support at each Final Revocation Hearing. More substantively, PRB Members need additional training to understand how to conduct a deliberative process where the evidence is assessed and a preponderance of evidence standard is met.
2. Hearing Issues at Final Revocation Not Found to Have Probable Cause Plaintiffs have pointed out and attorneys for the youth have raised concerns that PRB members are hearing and considering alleged violations that were determined not to have probable cause at the Preliminary Hearing. While observing hearings and reviewing files, the Monitor has corroborated this concern.
In one case, the main reason for the violation was a new offense, but no probable cause was found at Preliminary Hearing on that new offense because the attorney argued and the Hearing Officer agreed that a reading of the police report showed that no real criminal offense occurred. Therefore, the Hearing Officer at the Preliminary Hearing ruled that there was no probable cause. And although the new offense was clearly the impetus of the violation being submitted, the Aftercare Specialist also included other violations in the report, which is common practice. Probable cause was found for some of the other lower level violations.
At the revocation hearing, the PRB Member refused not to consider the new offense, which was still pending, saying, “If you have a new charge, I will not release the individual.” When the youth’s attorney pressed the Board member on the issue, saying he was inappropriately considering an issue that was determined not to have probable cause, the PRB Member said “well I will just violate him on the other issues”, which had not yet been discussed. After never hearing arguments regarding the other alleged violations, the PRB Member decided to continue the hearing until the next Board hearing date to see what happens with the pending charge. The PRB Member ended the hearing telling the youth, “if this new case goes away, I will resume you.”
Recommendation: In order to rectify this problem, when probable cause is not found at

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:491
Preliminary Hearing on some violations but is found for others, those violations for which no probable cause was found should be stricken from the violation report and not made available to the PRB at the Final Revocation Hearing.
3. No Appeals Process Paragraph 30 of the Consent Decree mandates that Defendants establish an appeals process for Final Revocation Hearings and inform youth in writing of their right to appeal. To date, no appeals process has been officially established. On March 18, 2015, Defendants did provide Monitor with a one page draft outline of an appeals process that they hope to implement soon.
Defendants were also not informing youth of their right to appeal. After the Monitor’s visit in February, the subsequent memo sent to the parties pointed out that youth were not being notified of their right to appeal the final revocation decision. In response to the memo, the Defendants did add language to the Final Revocation Hearing form that mentions the right to appeal in a small box. It is unclear if youth are even receiving the form with the notice on it and if so if that portion of the form is made known to them. In response to this draft report, Defendants report that youth and attorneys do receive copies of the Final Revocation Hearing form with the notice to appeal language on the form.
Recommendation: Defendants should immediately implement an appeals process with feedback from Monitor and Plaintiffs. Youth should be verbally notified of their right to appeal by the PRB Member immediately following Final Revocation Hearings. The right to appeal and the corresponding process should also be explained in writing to youth and counsel.
4. Host Site Delays: Youth who are being resumed on parole often have to wait several days, if not weeks, for IDJJ to approve their release plans, including their residency, which is known as a “Host Site”. This may be one of the biggest problems delaying Aftercare/Parole, unnecessarily keeping youth incarcerated after they have been approved for release.
In one case, a youth was being violated for failure to take his medications. The only violation that was determined to have probable cause at Preliminary Hearing was his failure to take his medications. The youth testified that he did in deed take himself off of medication and had been fine for a year but had begun having problems and then began re-taking his medication. Since he had been in custody his medication changed. His Aftercare Specialist requested that the PRB revoke his parole and that he remain in custody for at least an additional 30 days (he had been in custody pending his hearing for 30 days already) so that he could become stable on his medication. The PRB Member resumed his parole pending approval of the Host Site, which was the same place the youth had been living before coming into custody, his mother’s house, which had been approved by IDJJ at the youth’s original parole date. Even though the PRB Member did not revoke the youth’s parole, facility staff mentioned after the hearing that it usually takes 14 days to approve the Host Site and that the Aftercare Specialist asking for the additional 30 days to stabilize medication was the same staff person charged with Host Site approval. The inference was that as a result, the desired outcome (continued custody) would be realized regardless of the PRB Member’s decision not to revoke.
Recommendation: IDJJ should modify its policy of postponing investigation of a Host Site for youth who are admitted to IDJJ facilities for revocation proceedings. IDJJ should begin

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:492
investigating appropriate Aftercare plans upon each youth’s entry into the facility. This should allow youth to be released the day of their Final Revocation Hearing if they are resumed on parole. Also, in those instances where a youth’s parole is resumed, the youth is returning to the same location they were residing in prior to coming into custody for revocation proceedings, and where there are no known changes or challenges to that Host Site, youth should be immediately released to the site pending IDJJ re-investigation and approval. Lastly, a maximum time should be given to IDJJ to finalize/approve Host Sites after a PRB Hearing results in a decision to parole/release a youth.
Consent Decree Compliance
Paragraph 9: All proceedings conducted in compliance with Constitution, state statutes, FaheemEl, and Downie v Klincar. Substantial Compliance? No Status: Paragraph 5 of the Faheem Consent Decree states:
“In determining whether the parole violation warrant should be withdrawn pending a final revocation hearing, the hearing officer and the Chairman of the Prisoner Review Board, or a member thereof, shall consider, among other factors, whether the parolee appears to present a risk of danger to any person or the community, whether it appears likely that the parolee may flee, or such other reasonable factors as the Prisoner Review Board deems appropriate.”
Although the Preliminary Hearings currently occurring at IDJJ include a quick consideration of whether the parole violation warrant should be dropped pending the Final Revocation Hearing, there is no evidence that there is consideration of the factors listed in this section of the Faheem Consent Decree. Further, the Monitor has not found any instances where a youth has been granted their request to lift the warrant and be released pending a Final Revocation Hearing. After the first draft of this report was prepared, Defendants did report that there has been a single case of a youth’s warrant being lifted and released pending the Final Revocation Hearing.
Concerning the Downie Consent Decree, as noted under Paragraph 20, youth are regularly revoked based solely on allegations contained in police and parole violation reports — with no extrinsic corroborating evidence or ability to subpoena relevant witnesses. This problem is also connected to a larger issue, one that has not been considered as a factor of Defendants’ compliance to this provision of the MH Consent Decree:
Allegation of New Criminal Violation, Case Pending The majority of violation cases that Monitor has observed or reviewed stem from allegations of new criminal offenses. In all circumstances, the criminal matter was either unresolved or dismissed. Youth charged with a new criminal offense in adult court are often released on bond by the criminal court having jurisdiction over the new offense; these youth are then transferred to an IDJJ facility to address the juvenile parole violation matter. At the FPRH, with the criminal case still pending, the parole violation hearing is often continued pending resolution of the criminal charge. The youth, who has often been authorized for bond release by the criminal court, is held in IDJJ during this continuation period. Though initial FPRHs are occurring within the 45 day period, these continuances extend the period beyond that

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:493
timeframe, all the while keeping youth in custody.
A seminal question arises – should Defendants move forward with a parole revocation proceeding based on an allegation of a new criminal offense where that offense is pending? In lieu of the existing practice of concurrent parole violation and new criminal offense proceedings, trailing disposition of the parole violation matter until the adjudication of the criminal proceeding, would result in a more appropriate outcome for most youth (e.g. these youth would not be held in a custody setting).
Paragraph 10: Defendants shall serve all youth with copy of his/her Parole Violation Report (PVR) and the accompanying within 1 business day of IDJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: During the most recent visit, 29 youth cases were reviewed; only three youth were not served their PVR report within 2 business days of entry. In interviewing youth and staff, this practice of serving youth with their PVR appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 11: Class Counsel shall develop Know Your Rights materials and provide to DJJ. DJJ shall provide Know Your Rights material to each youth. Substantial Compliance? N/A Status: Plaintiffs have not completed the material.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall provide sufficient resources so that each youth is represented by appointed counsel at every stage of the parole process including Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH), Final Parole Revocation Hearings (FPRH), and appeals or requests for reconsideration. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: With the exception of the appeals process, which has not been implemented yet, youth are being represented at every stage of the parole revocation process. Therefore there could be a finding of substantial compliance with this provision; however the question of resource sufficiency for attorney services is currently at issue, as reflected in the motion to compel filed by the Plaintiffs. While the question is outstanding, Monitor observations do corroborate Plaintiffs’ concern regarding the quality of representation. Specifically, Monitor observed attorneys preparing for hearings only minutes before those hearings were to begin, a clear lack of preparation in most instances, and at times minimal in-hearing advocacy, as evidenced in part by youth speaking freely and in a self-incriminating fashion, unimpeded or protected by counsel.
Monitor’s independent review of attorney contracts indicates that some of identified issues could be addressed in part through contract modification as follows:
 The Scopes of Services are limited and not specifically reflective of Consent Decree objectives. The Scopes of Services need to be broadened to clearly reflect representation objectives outlined under Consent Decree.
 The contracts are written in such a way that the inference is that compensation is tied only to work onsite at IDJJ facilities on hearing days. This is also how the attorneys understand the contracts. The contract language suggests and the appointed attorneys understand that they are not permitted to bill for any time preparing for case outsides of days they are onsite at IDJJ facilities for hearings.
The Monitor has asked Defendants about this issue and the response was that

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:494
appointed attorneys are compensated at a full day’s rate for any day they are in IDJJ facilities representing youth. Defendants claim and the Monitor has observed that very rarely, if ever, are attorneys actually in the facilities representing youth for full business days and that they are often there only half of the day, which the attorneys corroborated. Defendants argue that non-compensated time preparing for hearings is balanced by full day rates being paid for days that the attorneys work significantly less than full days.
 There is no mention of appeals process representation in the contracts. Contracts should be amended to reflect an appeals process.
 Anticipated caseload/client levels: Defendants should estimate numbers of youth to be represented by each attorney over the course of a contract year. Without this information, attorneys do not know what the workload associated with these contracts will be, and cannot proactively adjust non-contract appointments/caseloads accordingly to ensure adequate time for youth representation.
 Referral mechanism: Contracts need to be modified to outline the process by which counsel appointments will be made, including relevant timeframes.
The Monitor will continue to engage appointed counsel to determine if sufficient resources are being provided or if the contracts should be restructured.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall accommodate youth requests to communicate confidentially with retained or prospective counsel. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Monitor observed appointed counsel meeting privately with youth immediately prior to hearings. However, counsel articulated concerns, verified by Monitor observation, that IDJJ staff sometimes rush these meetings in order to begin the hearings such that the sufficiency of private communication time is questionable. Further, one attorney reported that she had attempted to call a client on a number of occasions and had been unable to speak to the youth at the facility. No attorney reported that they have been able to talk to their clients via the phone. Defendants note that a process has now been put in place for attorneys to talk with youth via phone.
Paragraph 15: Youth are not permitted to waive appointed counsel unless private counsel has been retained. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Monitor is not aware of any attempts to waive appointed counsel.
Paragraph 19: Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH) occur within 10 business days of DJJ entry pursuant to a Parole Violation (PV) report to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged PV was committed. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: During both monitoring visits, Defendants provided the Monitor with a spreadsheet showing youth who were having PPHs. During the first visit, of the 26 youth who were on the spreadsheet who had PPHs, only one was listed as having their hearing more than 10 business days after admission to IDJJ. On the second visit, of the 13 youth on the spreadsheet who had

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:495
received PHHs, only one was listed as having their hearing more than 10 business days after admission to IDJJ. In interviewing youth and staff, this practice of holding a PHH within 10 business days of DJJ entry appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 20: Defendants will provide youth and counsel all evidence to be used against youth during Parole Revocation proceeding, within 2 business days of appointment of counsel or receipt of evidence, whichever occurs later. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Counsel typically receive the PV Report upon appointment, which is the main evidence used in the Final Revocation Hearings. But a majority of violations are based on allegations of new offenses, and during the interview of appointed counsel, all reported that they rarely receive the police reports connected to the alleged new offenses. Limited access to any evidence as related to those new offenses is problematic. Counsel specifically outlined concerns regarding lack of access to police reports, and their inability to exercise subpoena power (as they would be able to do in a regular court proceeding) as factors contributing to inability to zealously defend youth. In response to this draft report, Defendants reported that in all cases where the appointed counsel have requested a subpoena, the PRB has processed those requests within 1-2 days. Defendants add that the documentation appointed counsel indicate that they are not receiving is information that the PRB itself does not yet possess.
The Monitor will continue to monitor this issue to determine compliance status.
Paragraph 24: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written probable cause determination. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Preliminary Hearing Report of Findings documents the probable cause determination. These reports are provided to youth routinely after the Preliminary Hearing. It is worth noting that, in response to the Consent Decree, Defendants hired Hearing Officers at each facility to conduct Preliminary Hearings to determine Probable Cause. The Hearing Officer at the St. Charles facility is very professional and thorough in conducting the hearings.
Paragraph 24 & 28: Each youth shall receive a Final Parole Revocation Hearing (FPRH) within 45 days of entry into custody to determine if PV occurred and if revocation is appropriate. If the violation is a matter of public record, is uncontested, or if the youth is found guilty of or pleads to a new criminal violation, the violation shall be deemed to have occurred. In that event, at the final revocation hearing, PRB hearing officer to consider only any argument or evidence regarding whether or not youth’s parole should be revoked for the violation. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Youth are routinely having their FPRHs within 45 days. Off all hearings the Monitor observed and the many files the Monitor reviewed, none reflected cases where the violation was based on a new offense with a conviction or a guilty plea. Therefore, there is a determination of substantial compliance.
A concern has come up related to this provision of the Consent Decree however. The Consent Decree is narrowly constructed as related to factors to be considered at the FPRH. Specifically, the Consent Decree indicates that where a new criminal violation can be deemed to have occurred, the PRB Member will consider only any argument or evidence related to whether or not the youth’s parole should be revoked for that violation. The Consent Decree does not

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:496
speak to factors to be taken into account at FPRH under any other circumstance. But a concerning pattern has come up that could relate to this provision of the Consent Decree:
Consideration of In-Custody Behavior In many interviews with youth and in hearings observed, PRB Members are taking into account behaviors that the youth exhibited while in-custody, post violation, in adjudicating the parole violation. Between the first and second Monitoring visits, Defendants appear to have made some progress on this issue; but continued diligence is needed to ensure that PRB Members are considering only the original violation/s in determinations, not post-violation institutional behavior.
Although, based on the strict letter of the Consent Decree, Defendants appear to be in substantial compliance with this provision, serious concerns are raised by Defendants’ practice as regards to the consideration of institutional behavior in violation determinations.
Paragraph 29: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written explanation of PRBs decision in the FPRH to include a description and assessment of evidence and brief statement describing how evidence meets preponderance standard. Substantial Compliance? No Status: The status of this provision is detailed in the above section in Review of Critical Issues.
Paragraph 30: The PRB will establish an appeals process and will include in Parole Revocation decisions a notice that revocation may be appealed. A panel of three PRB members not involved in the original Parole Revocation decision are to hear the appeal and the appeal is to be decided no later than 21 days after receipt Substantial Compliance? No Status: The status of this provision is detailed in the above section in Review of Critical Issues.
Paragraph 42: Defendants shall appoint counsel no later than 5 business days after service of PVR or DJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: Attorney appointments are done via email; accordingly, a file review does not enable confirmation of appointment timelines. Defendants verbally outlined an appointment timeline that does meet the Consent Decree standards, but when interviewed the attorneys suggested that the 5 day timeframe is not regularly met.
The Monitor will continue to investigate this issue to determine compliance status.
Additional Issues
While the subject of this section may fall outside of the scope of the Consent Decree, the issue of committing youth to the state system for relatively minor offenses, strikes at the heart of the purpose of the Consent Decree itself.
Nationwide, a number of states have eliminated the practice of committing youth to state systems for minor offenses. While in Illinois the practice is declining, especially with the passage of Redeploy Illinois, there are still a number of youth on Aftercare/Parole in Illinois whose original offense for which they are on parole is relatively minor. These offenses include simple drug

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 96 Filed: 02/17/16 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:497
possession, trespassing, theft, and even obstruction of identification, which can reflect something as minor as giving a police officer a fake name. Though the basis for original IDJJ jurisdiction is not at issue in this Consent Decree, when these youth have minor violations of the terms of their Aftercare/Parole and are then arrested and incarcerated for 30-60 days pending revocation proceedings, the concern regarding the underlying reason for state involvement becomes inherently intertwined with the purpose of the Consent Decree.
Even for youth who are accused of major violations of their Aftercare/Parole conditions, which is arguably the majority of the youth who are appearing before the Parole Review Board, the comfort that the system has with keeping these youth in custody for several days and weeks even after a decision to release them has been made is concerning and possibly implicates due process violations.
In fact, suspicion of being in violation of Aftercare/Parole conditions has become the primary reason youth are admitted into IDJJ facilities. A report released by IDJJ in November of 2014, “Trends & Characteristics of Youth Admitted to the IDJJ, 1993-2013,” includes its most recent data. According to the report, “during the period from 1993 to 1996, technical parole violators accounted for less than 20 percent of all IDJJ admissions, but . . . by 2013, technical violators accounted for 50% of all admissions to IDJJ.”
Numerous studies, reports, and quality research has proven that incarceration has harmful effects on youth and causes further trauma to a population that has often already suffered many adverse childhood experiences. Compliant with federal guidelines and congruent with most other states in the country, Illinois state law indicates that “Juveniles should be treated in the least restrictive manner possible while maintaining the safety of the community.”

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 101 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:502
MH vs. Findley Case Number: 12-cv-08523 Independent Monitor: David Muhammad Consent Decree Quarterly Compliance Report (February – April 2016) May 1, 2016
Since the inception of the MH Consent Decree the status of due process rights and quality of the parole revocation process for youth in the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) has vastly improved. Youth now consistently receive competent and zealous representation for all phases of the revocation process and Defendants now adhere to all mandated timeframes. Sixteen months since the implementation of the Consent Decree, and with some exception, Defendants are near substantial compliance.
As highlighted in previous Monitoring Reports, general reforms to the juvenile justice system in Illinois has also contributed to successful compliance with the Consent Decree. New laws that have sought to “right size” the system have resulted in continued improved outcomes for youth and much needed efficiencies in IDJJ. According to IDJJ figures, in the last four years, there has been a 60 percent reduction in the number of youth confined in IDJJ facilities, from more than 1000 in 2012 to 400 today. In January 2015, when the MH Consent Decree was enacted, more than half of all youth admitted into IDJJ facilities were for parole violations; today that number is down to 34 percent.
Despite the commendable progress that Defendants have made during the course of the current monitoring period, it is important to note that, as outlined in this report, Defendants remain non-compliant with a few remaining provisions of the Consent Decree.
Monitoring Process This report is based upon the following activity that occurred during the reporting period:
 Staff and attorney interviews, IDJJ and PRB;  Interviews of youth who have gone through the revocation process;  Review of case files and corresponding revocation paperwork for youth going through
the revocation process;  Interviews of attorneys appointed to represent youth going through the
revocation process; and  Observations of Preliminary and Final Revocation Hearings.
All of the previous Quarterly Monitoring Reports included a section on “Critical Issues”. The main two issues have consistently been: 1) Failure to comply with the requirement for Assessment of Evidence and Preponderance of Evidence Standard; and 2) Delay in Host Sites approval resulting in youth remaining in custody. While these two issues remain a concern, progress on these items have modified their “Critical" status.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 101 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:503
Consent Decree Compliance
Paragraph 9: All proceedings conducted in compliance with Constitution, state statutes, Faheem-El, and Downie v Klincar. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Paragraph 3 of the Faheem Consent Decree states:
“The parolee shall be afforded an opportunity at the preliminary parole revocation hearing to provide reasons why withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing is appropriate.”
Defendants have made progress on this provision in the last quarter. It appears youth are routinely afforded the opportunity to request the withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing and a small number of youth have had these requests granted.
Paragraph 8 of the Downie Consent Decree states: “A police or parole agent report which summarizes the statements or observations of a citizen (non-police) witness may bear sufficient reliability upon which to find a violation of parole, absent confrontation, if, and only if, some additional extrinsic factor is presented which adequately enhances the reliability of the police or parole agent report. Such a report, standing alone, unenhanced by any additional extrinsic factors, does not bear sufficient indicia of reliability to revoke parole absent confrontation.”
As anticipated, Senate Bill 1560 has drastically reduced the number of IDJJ youth facing revocation hearings based on new law violations. But youth facing new juvenile delinquency charges still face the challenge of their violation reports being based primarily on police reports, with the police officer who authored the report not being present at their revocation hearings. Similarly, where parole violation reports are the only revocation hearing evidence, the Aftercare Specialist/Parole Agents who authored those reports are not always present.
In compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree, the PRB has implemented a new practice of entering a finding of no violation when an alleged violation is based on a police or parole violation report and the author of the report is not present at the hearing either in person or by telephone.
Paragraph 10: Defendants shall serve all youth with a copy of his/her Parole Violation Report (PVR) within 1 business day of IDJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 101 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:504
period, the Monitor reviewed PVR service dates for all hearings. Of the files reviewed, no violation reports were served later than one business day after the youth being admitted into the facility. In interviewing youth and staff, this practice of timely serving youth with their PVR’s appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 11: Class Counsel shall develop Know Your Rights materials and provide to DJJ. DJJ shall provide Know Your Rights material to each youth. Substantial Compliance? No Status: Plaintiffs submitted a draft of the Know Your Rights material to Defendants and the Monitor on June 29, 2015. The Monitor provided edits to the materials. Defendants provided edits of the material to Plaintiffs in March 2016. Plaintiffs’ attorneys accepted all edits on May 13, 2016. Defendants are in the process of printing and distributing material to youth. To date, Know Your Rights material have not been provided to youth.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall provide sufficient resources so that each youth is represented by appointed counsel at every stage of the parole process including Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH), Final Parole Revocation Hearings (FPRH), and appeals or requests for reconsideration. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Youth are being represented at every stage of the parole revocation process. There had been a concern over the past two quarters regarding attorneys not receiving payment. Those issues seem to have been resolved.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall accommodate youth requests to communicate confidentially with retained or prospective counsel. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Monitor observes and youth attorneys report that they have been able to regularly meet with their clients confidentially.
Paragraph 15: Youth are not permitted to waive appointed counsel unless private counsel has been retained. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Monitor is not aware of any attempts to waive appointed counsel.
Paragraph 19: Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH) occur within 10 business days of DJJ entry pursuant to a Parole Violation (PV) report to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged PV was committed. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed all

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 101 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:505
the dates on which Preliminary Hearings (PH) were held. Of the cases reviewed, the PH was held beyond the 10 day timeframe in a small fraction of cases. In interviewing youth attorneys and staff, the practice of holding PH within 10 business days of youth entry into IDJJ appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 20: Defendants will provide youth and counsel all evidence to be used against youth during Parole Revocation proceeding, within 2 business days of appointment of counsel or receipt of evidence, whichever occurs later. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Though there have been concerns regarding compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree as documented in previous monitoring reports, during this monitoring period, youth attorneys attest that evidence has been provided in accordance with the timeframes.
Paragraph 24: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written probable cause determination. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the adoption of new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made on this provision in the last quarter. Now each separate alleged violation receives its own written description and determination.
Paragraph 26 & 28: Each youth shall receive a Final Parole Revocation Hearing (FRH) within 45 calendar days of entry into custody to determine if PV occurred and if revocation is appropriate. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes the key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During this last quarter, there were no hearings reviewed that were held more than 45 days after the youth’s entry into IDJJ, unless there was documented agreement by the youth’s attorney.
Paragraph 29: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written explanation of PRBs decision in the FPRH to include a description and assessment of evidence and brief statement describing how evidence meets preponderance of evidence standard. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the adoption of new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made on this provision in the last quarter. The PRB is much more consistently and appropriately documenting on the Findings Report of the Final Revocation Hearing a description of the evidence and how the evidence meets the preponderance standard. The PRB has also agreed to allow the Monitor to conduct a series of trainings for PRB members. The first training for PRB members in the southern section of the

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 101 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:506
state was conducted in April and a second training will be scheduled for PRB members in the north.
Significant variances in how some PRB members complete the forms remain however. Even with the use of the new forms, several reviewed by the Monitor this period did not adequately meet the requirements of this provision. Two examples of such completed forms are attached along with two forms that are appropriately completed, showing the stark contrast in how the PRB is providing written documentation of the hearings.
Even though there has been consistent and systemic serious violations of this provision, which remains to a smaller degree, there is a finding of compliance of this provision based the Defendants implementation of the Monitor’s recommendations and the significant progress made since implementation. This finding is based on Paragraph 40 of the Consent Decree, which states “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the Defendants have achieved substantial compliance if the Defendants have implemented the Compliance Steps.”
Recommendations: The continued use of the new forms and the completion of the Monitor’s training of PRB members will likely result in substantial compliance in the near future.
Paragraph 30: The PRB will establish an appeals process and will include in Parole Revocation decisions a notice that revocation may be appealed. A panel of three PRB members not involved in the original Parole Revocation decision are to hear the appeal and the appeal is to be decided no later than 21 calendar days after receipt of the appeal. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants have established an appeals process which is in compliance with the Consent Decree. There have only been three appeals filed since the appeals process was established. Of those three, one appeal was filed during this Monitoring period. An appeal was filed for youth KH on March 28, 2016, for a Revocation Hearing that was held on March 1, 2016. The PRB did not issues a decision on this appeal until 41 days after it was sent to the Chairman of the PRB.
Although the youth’s attorney filed the appeal in an email to the Chairman of the PRB, which the Chairman acknowledged receiving in a response email the same day, the youth’s attorney did not follow the appeal process protocol that the PRB established and distributed to all of the attorneys in August 2015. That process calls for the youth’s attorney to file the appeal with the clerk of the PRB, which was not done. However, when the PRB was alerted to the time delay in not responding to the appeal, it made an immediate decision, which was to grant the appeal, and the youth was released from custody.
Paragraph 32: An independent monitor will be selected and “reasonable cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants. Substantial Compliance? No Status: The Monitor has understood the slow and bureaucratic process of Illinois procurement, which has resulted in invoices being paid 60 days after submission and therefore sometimes up to

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 101 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:507
90 days after work or expenses have been incurred. As noted in the last two Quarterly Monitoring Report, the usual 60 day period has become much longer. Though the Monitor has begun to receive payments again, as of the writing of this report, the Monitor has not been compensated for the past four months of service and one additional older invoice has also not been paid. A total of five months of Monitoring service and four months of travel expenses have not been paid. If this problem persists, it may affect the Monitor’s ability to travel to the state for monitoring visits.
Paragraph 33: Defendants shall provide Monitor and Class Counsel reasonable access to all class members. The Defendants shall provide Monitor access to hearings governed by this Consent Decree and shall permit Class Counsel to observe such hearings unless the youth or a witness objects (partial quote of Paragraph 33). Substantial Compliance? Unclear The PRB has recently begun a new practice where two to three Board members hear the same case and after evidence is presented by the IDJJ attorney and youth’s attorney, the parties leave the room to allow the PRB to deliberate. During a recent series of hearings that the Monitor observed, the PRB did not allow the Monitor to sit in on their deliberations. Although the Monitor believes that he should be allowed to observe the deliberations, this provision of the Consent Decree does not specify, and or appear to contemplate, the Monitor’s access to deliberations.
Paragraph 42: Defendants shall appoint counsel no later than 5 business days after service of PVR or DJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Based on interviews with appointed counsel, Defendants appear to routinely appoint attorneys within five business days after youth’s entrance into IDJJ. Most appointments are done via email. Defendants have begun documenting the appointment dates of counsel on a spreadsheet that was provided to the Monitor. That report reflects appointments occurring all within the mandated timeframe, which is consistent with what the attorneys represented.

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 102 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:508
MH vs. Findley Case Number: 12-cv-08523 Independent Monitor: David Muhammad Consent Decree Quarterly Compliance Report (May – August 2016) September 6, 2016
Less than two years after its issuance, the spirit of the MH Consent Decree is being fulfilled and Defendants are in substantial compliance. Youth are being represented by competent and zealous attorneys at all phases of the revocation process and mandated notification and hearing timeframes are adhered to by Defendants. Revocation proceedings now reflect a deliberative process where youth have their due process rights maintained.
As highlighted in previous Monitoring Reports, reforms to the Illinois juvenile justice system have also contributed to successful compliance with the Consent Decree. In addition to Senate Bill 1560 enacted in January 2016, which resulted in a reduction of the state juvenile justice system, another omnibus bill was passed by the Illinois legislature that will take effect in January 2017. Senate Bill 2777 will continue to “right size” the system (although there is one provision of the bill that could slightly increase the population within state juvenile facilities that is not germane to the MH Consent Decree).
With the significant reduction of the total number of youth committed to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) and the appropriate use of graduated sanctions and diversion, the number of violations filed and revocation hearings held has dropped dramatically. This reduction has also made the revocation process more manageable, which is another factor that has led to substantial compliance.
There is a concern that the significant progress made in the past nineteen months may be in jeopardy due to the many transitions occurring in the administration of both IDJJ and the Parole Review Board (PRB). The dynamic Director of IDJJ, credited for many recent reform efforts, resigned in June, as did IDJJ’s General Counsel. Additionally, PRB’s Chief Legal Counsel left his position and the terms of several PRB members expire at the end of the year. There is also the on-going state budget impasse that threatens progress as well. While some of these transitions present welcome opportunities, they also highlight the need for consistent monitoring.
Monitoring Process This report is based upon the following activity that occurred during the reporting period:
 Staff and attorney interviews, IDJJ and PRB;  Interviews of youth who have gone through the revocation process;  Review of case files and corresponding revocation paperwork for youth going through
the revocation process;  Interviews of attorneys appointed to represent youth going through the
revocation process; and

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 102 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:509
 Observations of Preliminary and Final Revocation Hearings.
Case Summary Although the following case may not reflect technical non-compliance with any provision of the Consent Decree, it illustrates continued implementation challenges:
DH Fifteen-year-old DH was brought into IDJJ custody for suspicion of being in violation of parole after being initially released on parole/after care only one week prior. DH was charged with four violations, but only one of those charges, Failure to Report to After Care Specialist (ACS), was found to have probable cause and was the subject of a Final Revocation Hearing.
At the Revocation Hearing, it was acknowledged by his ACS that the allegation of Failure to Report was based on a single incident where the ACS made a surprise visit to the youth’s house; the youth was not home and the ACS instructed his mom to ensure he was at the home the following day for an in-person visit. Although the ACS acknowledged that she never communicated directly with the youth, the next day when she came to the house, the youth was not present which constitutes the sole basis of the violation.
During the Revocation Hearing, the three Parole Review Board (PRB) members hearing the case quickly came to the conclusion that a violation had occurred. During the finding phase of the hearing, neither DH or his attorney presented any rebuttal to the ACS testimony except to point out that it was extremely rare for a revocation to be found based on one instance of a youth not being available for a meeting with his/her ACS. During the disposition phase of the hearing, however, DH made a fairly compelling argument that a violation had not occurred. DH testified that he waited at the house for his ACS until 2 pm, did not hear from her and he did not know what time she was supposed to arrive. DH had no other restrictions on his movement other than an 8pm curfew. DH said that at 2 pm he assumed the ACS was not coming that day so he left the house.
As outlined above, there is a question about the very limited evidence supporting a finding of violation in this case, but there were additional concerns with how the disposition phase discussion unfolded. During the disposition phase of the hearing, the IDJJ Attorney introduced aggravating factors for the PRB to consider. This information had been received the morning of the Revocation Hearing and was only shared with the youth’s attorney less than two hours before the Hearing, and was not included in the Violation Report or presented during the Preliminary Hearing. The youth’s attorney objected to the information being introduced but the PRB denied the request to prevent the information from being presented. The IDJJ Attorney proceed to inform the PRB that DH apparently had a new pending juvenile charge based on an email from a State’s Attorney; there was no documentation to review. The PRB offered DH and his attorney a two-week continuance but since DH would remain in custody during that time and the basis of his violation was so minor, the youth’s attorney decided to go forward with the hearing.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 102 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:510
In addition to the new information being introduced about the possible pending charges, the PRB also asked about a copy of a photo in the Revocation Hearing packet. The print out was of an alleged photo taken from a social media account of the youth holding a firearm. The very grainy photo was deemed inadmissible at the Preliminary Hearing but it was still included in the Revocation Hearing packet and it appeared that the PRB took it into consideration.
After deliberation, the PRB maintained the finding that DH violated his parole but decided to resume his parole/aftercare and place him on electronic monitoring.
Consent Decree Compliance
Paragraph 9: All proceedings conducted in compliance with Constitution, state statutes, Faheem-El, and Downie v Klincar. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Paragraph 3 of the Faheem Consent Decree states:
“The parolee shall be afforded an opportunity at the preliminary parole revocation hearing to provide reasons why withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing is appropriate.”
This paragraph of the Faheem Consent Decree has been a provision Defendants have not been in compliance with in the past. Youth are now routinely afforded the opportunity to request the withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing and a very small number of youth have had these requests granted.
Paragraph 8 of the Downie Consent Decree states: “A police or parole agent report which summarizes the statements or observations of a citizen (non-police) witness may bear sufficient reliability upon which to find a violation of parole, absent confrontation, if, and only if, some additional extrinsic factor is presented which adequately enhances the reliability of the police or parole agent report. Such a report, standing alone, unenhanced by any additional extrinsic factors, does not bear sufficient indicia of reliability to revoke parole absent confrontation.”
This paragraph of the Downie Consent Decree has been a provision Defendants have not been in compliance with in the past. As mentioned in prior reports, Senate Bill 1560 has drastically reduced the number of IDJJ youth facing revocation hearings based on new law violations.
The Monitor has not observed, found any documentation, or received any reports from youth attorneys that this provision has been violated by Defendants. The PRB has implemented a new practice of entering a finding of no violation when an alleged violation is based on a police or parole violation report and the author of the report is not present at the hearing either in person or by telephone.
Paragraph 10: Defendants shall serve all youth with a copy of his/her Parole Violation Report

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 102 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:511
(PVR) within 1 business day of IDJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which include their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed PVR service dates for most hearings. Of the files reviewed, no violation reports were served later than one business day after the youth being admitted into the facility. In interviewing youth and staff, this practice of timely serving youth with their PVR’s appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 11: Class Counsel shall develop Know Your Rights materials and provide to DJJ. DJJ shall provide Know Your Rights material to each youth. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Know Your Rights brochure developed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel and reviewed and approved by Defendants and the Monitor has been finalized. Although the Know Your Rights material have not yet been provided to youth, Defendants are in the process of printing the brochures and have shared the distribution plan with the Monitor. Know Your Rights brochures are due to be distributed to all youth leaving IDJJ facilities and all youth being admitted to IDJJ facilities for revocation proceedings.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall provide sufficient resources so that each youth is represented by appointed counsel at every stage of the parole process including Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH), Final Parole Revocation Hearings (FPRH), and appeals or requests for reconsideration. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Youth are being represented at every stage of the parole revocation process. Although the issue of payments to attorneys seems to have been resolved, the Monitor notes that the state has fallen back to a three month backlog in attorney payments.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall accommodate youth requests to communicate confidentially with retained or prospective counsel. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Monitor observes and youth attorneys report that they have been able to regularly meet with their clients confidentially.
Paragraph 15: Youth are not permitted to waive appointed counsel unless private counsel has been retained. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Monitor is not aware of any attempts to waive appointed counsel.
Paragraph 19: Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH) occur within 10 business days of DJJ entry

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 102 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:512
pursuant to a Parole Violation (PV) report to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged PV was committed. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed most the dates on which Preliminary Hearings (PH) were held. Of the cases reviewed, there were no PHs held beyond the 10-day timeframe. In interviewing youth attorneys and staff, the practice of holding PHs within 10 business days of youth entry into IDJJ appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 20: Defendants will provide youth and counsel all evidence to be used against youth during Parole Revocation proceeding, within 2 business days of appointment of counsel or receipt of evidence, whichever occurs later. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Although Defendants are considered to be in substantial compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree, the highlighted case of DH raises concerns that will continue to be monitored.
Paragraph 24: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written probable cause determination. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the adoption of new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made on this provision in the last two quarters. Now each separate alleged violation receives its own written description and determination.
Paragraph 26 & 28: Each youth shall receive a Final Parole Revocation Hearing (FRH) within 45 calendar days of entry into custody to determine if PV occurred and if revocation is appropriate. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During this last quarter, there were no hearings reviewed that were held more than 45 days after the youth’s entry into IDJJ, unless there was documented agreement by the youth’s attorney.
Paragraph 29: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written explanation of PRBs decision in the FPRH to include a description and assessment of evidence and brief statement describing how evidence meets preponderance of evidence standard.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 102 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:513
Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the adoption of new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made on this provision in the last two quarters. The PRB is much more consistently and appropriately documenting on the Findings Report of the Final Revocation Hearing a description of the evidence and how the evidence meets the preponderance standard. The PRB initially agreed to allow the Monitor to conduct a series of trainings for PRB members. The first training for PRB members in the southern region of the state was conducted in April of this year and a second training was tentatively scheduled but not finalized by the PRB. PRB’s new Chief Legal Counsel has pledged to schedule the training before the end of the year.
Variances in how some PRB members complete the forms remain however. Two Final Revocation Hearing Findings reports completed during this monitoring period are included in the appendix as examples of the continued training the PRB needs.
Even though there had been consistent and serious violations of this provision, there is a finding of compliance based on the Defendants’ implementation of the Monitor’s recommendations and the significant progress made since implementation. This finding is based on Paragraph 40 of the Consent Decree, which states “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the Defendants have achieved substantial compliance if the Defendants have implemented the Compliance Steps.”
Paragraph 30: The PRB will establish an appeals process and will include in Parole Revocation decisions a notice that revocation may be appealed. A panel of three PRB members not involved in the original Parole Revocation decision are to hear the appeal and the appeal is to be decided no later than 21 calendar days after receipt of the appeal. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants have established an appeals process which is in compliance with the Consent Decree. There have been very few appeals filed since the appeals process was established.
Paragraph 32: An independent monitor will be selected and “reasonable cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: After nearly a year of payments and reimbursements being up to six months late, in June Defendants rectified the issue and all payments were made up to date. Although this development has resulted in a finding of substantial compliance with this provision, payments have fallen back to being three months late as of the writing of this report.
Paragraph 33: Defendants shall provide Monitor and Class Counsel reasonable access to all class members. The Defendants shall provide Monitor access to hearings governed by this Consent Decree and shall permit Class Counsel to observe such hearings unless the youth or a witness objects (partial quote of Paragraph 33). Substantial Compliance? Unclear The PRB instituted a new practice earlier this year where two to three Board members hear the same case and after evidence is presented by the IDJJ attorney and youth’s attorney, the

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 102 Filed: 09/19/16 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:514
parties leave the room to allow the PRB to deliberate. PRB has taken the position that the Monitor is not allowed to observe these deliberations. Although the Monitor believes that he should be allowed to observe, this provision of the Consent Decree does not specify, or appear to contemplate, the Monitor’s access to PRB deliberations. Based on the lack of clarity regarding this matter and the Monitor’s current position that observation is not critical, this PRB practice is not deemed to result in non-compliance with the Consent Decree.
Paragraph 42: Defendants shall appoint counsel no later than 5 business days after service of PVR or DJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Based on interviews with appointed counsel, Defendants appear to routinely appoint attorneys within five business days after youth’s entrance into IDJJ. Most appointments are done via email. Defendants have begun documenting the appointment dates of counsel on a spreadsheet that was provided to the Monitor. That report reflects appointments occurring all within the mandated timeframe, which is consistent with what the attorneys represented.

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 105 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:517
MH vs. Findley Case Number: 12-cv-08523 Independent Monitor: David Muhammad Consent Decree Quarterly Compliance Report (September – December 2016) December 28, 2016
Defendants remain in full substantial compliance with the MH Consent Decree. Youth are represented by competent and zealous attorneys at all phases of the revocation process and mandated notification and hearing timeframes are adhered to by Defendants. Most often, revocation proceedings reflect a deliberative process where the due process rights of youth are maintained.
While Defendants are complying with the provisions of the Consent Decree, there are continuing concerns regarding the institutionalization of the reforms efforts that have been made which may jeopardize long-term compliance. In addition, there are on-going incidents that may not constitute systemic non-compliance, but raise concerns.
Monitoring Process This report is based upon the following activity that occurred during the reporting period:
 Staff and attorney interviews, IDJJ and PRB;  Interviews of youth who have gone through the revocation process;  Review of case files and corresponding revocation paperwork for youth going through
the revocation process;  Interviews of attorneys appointed to represent youth going through the
revocation process;  Observations of Preliminary and Final Revocation Hearings; and  Training of members of the PRB.
Consent Decree Compliance
Paragraph 9: All proceedings conducted in compliance with Constitution, state statutes, Faheem-El, and Downie v Klincar. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Paragraph 3 of the Faheem Consent Decree states:
“The parolee shall be afforded an opportunity at the preliminary parole revocation hearing to provide reasons why withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing is appropriate.”
Youth are now routinely afforded the opportunity to request the withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing and a very small number of youth have had these requests granted.
Paragraph 8 of the Downie Consent Decree states:

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 105 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:518
“A police or parole agent report which summarizes the statements or observations of a citizen (non-police) witness may bear sufficient reliability upon which to find a violation of parole, absent confrontation, if, and only if, some additional extrinsic factor is presented which adequately enhances the reliability of the police or parole agent report. Such a report, standing alone, unenhanced by any additional extrinsic factors, does not bear sufficient indicia of reliability to revoke parole absent confrontation.”
The Monitor has not observed, found any documentation, or received any reports from youth attorneys that this provision has been violated by Defendants. The PRB implemented a new practice of entering a finding of no violation when an alleged violation is based on a police or parole violation report and the author of the report is not present at the hearing either in person or by telephone.
Paragraph 10: Defendants shall serve all youth with a copy of his/her Parole Violation Report (PVR) within 1 business day of IDJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which include their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed PVR service dates for most hearings. Of the files reviewed, only a small number of violation reports were served later than one business day after the youth being admitted into the facility, in those cases they were served the next day. In interviewing youth and staff, this practice of timely serving youth with their PVR’s appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 11: Class Counsel shall develop Know Your Rights materials and provide to DJJ. DJJ shall provide Know Your Rights material to each youth. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Know Your Rights brochure developed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel and reviewed and approved by Defendants and the Monitor has been finalized. Defendants report that Know Your Rights material is now being provided to youth and the Monitor has observed signed acknowledgment forms in youth files when youth are given the information at intake.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall provide sufficient resources so that each youth is represented by appointed counsel at every stage of the parole process including Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH), Final Parole Revocation Hearings (FPRH), and appeals or requests for reconsideration. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Youth are being represented at every stage of the parole revocation process. Although payments to attorneys are currently up to date, during this Monitoring period the payments have been as late at five months backlogged.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 105 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:519
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall accommodate youth requests to communicate confidentially with retained or prospective counsel. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Monitor observes and youth attorneys report that they have been able to regularly meet with their clients confidentially.
Paragraph 15: Youth are not permitted to waive appointed counsel unless private counsel has been retained. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Monitor is not aware of any attempts to waive appointed counsel.
Paragraph 19: Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH) occur within 10 business days of DJJ entry pursuant to a Parole Violation (PV) report to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged PV was committed. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During the last reporting period, the Monitor reviewed most of the dates on which Preliminary Hearings (PH) were held. Of the cases reviewed, there were no PHs held beyond the 10-day timeframe. In interviewing youth attorneys and staff, the practice of holding PHs within 10 business days of youth entry into IDJJ appears to be consistent and systematic.
Paragraph 20: Defendants will provide youth and counsel all evidence to be used against youth during Parole Revocation proceeding, within 2 business days of appointment of counsel or receipt of evidence, whichever occurs later. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Although Defendants are considered to be in substantial compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree, there continues to be concerns with information regarding pending court cases being presented at Revocation Hearings that was not shared as part of the Preliminary Hearing process. It appears that Defendants provide this information to the youth’s attorneys soon after they receive it, but there is a question about the appropriate use of this information in Revocation Hearings. The Monitor will continue to observe hearings and develop recommendations for resolving this challenge.
Paragraph 24: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written probable cause determination. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the adoption of new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made as to this provision. Now each separate alleged violation receives its own written description and determination.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 105 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:520
Paragraph 26 & 28: Each youth shall receive a Final Parole Revocation Hearing (FRH) within 45 calendar days of entry into custody to determine if PV occurred and if revocation is appropriate. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During this last quarter, there were no hearings reviewed that were held more than 45 days after the youth’s entry into IDJJ, unless there was documented agreement by the youth’s attorney.
Paragraph 29: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written explanation of PRBs decision in the FPRH to include a description and assessment of evidence and brief statement describing how evidence meets preponderance of evidence standard. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the adoption of new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made on this provision. The PRB is much more consistently and appropriately documenting the evidence, and how that evidence meets the preponderance standard, on the Findings Report of the Final Revocation Hearing. There remains significant variation in how PRB members document the findings on the forms, with some providing detailed, very helpful information, and others providing very limited information.
The Monitor conducted a training for PRB members in the northern section of the state in November 2016. Most of the training had to do with this provision of the Consent Decree, which has been the most challenging for Defendants. It is anticipated that over time, and with additional training, greater consistency will be achieved among all PRB members.
Paragraph 30: The PRB will establish an appeals process and will include in Parole Revocation decisions a notice that revocation may be appealed. A panel of three PRB members not involved in the original Parole Revocation decision are to hear the appeal and the appeal is to be decided no later than 21 calendar days after receipt of the appeal. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants have established an appeals process which is in compliance with the Consent Decree. There have been very few appeals filed since the appeals process was established.
Paragraph 32: An independent monitor will be selected and “reasonable cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: At one point during the Monitoring period, payments and travel reimbursements were four months behind. After accounting for recent payments, the backlog is now only two months.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 105 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:521
Paragraph 33: Defendants shall provide Monitor and Class Counsel reasonable access to all class members. The Defendants shall provide Monitor access to hearings governed by this Consent Decree and shall permit Class Counsel to observe such hearings unless the youth or a witness objects (partial quote of Paragraph 33). Substantial Compliance? Yes Although the Monitor is not granted access to observe PRB deliberations, the Monitor continues to receive full access to all Preliminary and Revocation Hearings.
Paragraph 42: Defendants shall appoint counsel no later than 5 business days after service of PVR or DJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Based on interviews with appointed counsel, Defendants appear to routinely appoint attorneys within five business days after youth’s entrance into IDJJ. Most appointments are done via email. Defendants document the appointment dates of counsel on a spreadsheet that is occasionally provided to the Monitor. That report reflects appointments occurring all within the mandated timeframe, which is consistent with what the attorneys represented.

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 106 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:522
MH vs. Findley Case Number: 12-cv-08523 Independent Monitor: David Muhammad Consent Decree Quarterly Compliance Report (January – April 2017) April 2017
Although Defendants largely remain in substantial compliance with the MH Consent Decree, there have been a few provisions that have fallen back into non-compliance or an unclear status and there continue to be concerns with individual cases that may not constitute noncompliance with a particular provision of the Consent Decree.
Overall, youth who have been accused of violating their parole in Illinois are represented by competent and zealous attorneys at all phases of the revocation process and mandated notification and hearing timeframes are adhered to by Defendants. Most often, revocation proceedings reflect a deliberative process where the due process rights of youth are maintained.
There are many provisions to the MH Consent Decree that Defendants have achieved substantial compliance with for 18 consecutive months, and in accord with paragraph 39 of the Consent Decree, those provisions will no longer be actively monitored. Included in the appendix of this report is a matrix that tracks each substantial provision of the Consent Decree and its status per Quarterly Monitoring Report. Five provisions of the Consent Decree had been deemed compliant for 18 consecutive months as of the last Quarterly Report in January 2017, and two additional provisions have been determined compliant for 18 months as of this report. In the next reporting period, eight relevant and substantive provisions of the Consent Decree will continue to be monitored.
Monitoring Process This report is based upon the following activity that occurred during the reporting period:
• Staff and attorney interviews, IDJJ and PRB; • Interviews of youth who have gone through the revocation process; • Review of case files and corresponding revocation paperwork for youth going through
the revocation process; • Interviews of attorneys appointed to represent youth going through the
revocation process; and • Observations of Preliminary and Final Revocation Hearings
Consent Decree Compliance
Paragraph 9: All proceedings conducted in compliance with Constitution, state statutes, Faheem-El, and Downie v Klincar. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Paragraph 3 of the Faheem Consent Decree states:

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 106 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:523
“The parolee shall be afforded an opportunity at the preliminary parole revocation hearing to provide reasons why withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing is appropriate.”
Youth are now routinely afforded the opportunity to request the withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing. During this reporting period, the Monitor observed Preliminary Hearings, all of which allowed youth and their attorneys the opportunity to argue for the withdrawal of the warrant and the youth’s release pending the Final Revocation Hearing. In one such Preliminary Hearing, the youth was granted release. He returned for the Revocation Hearing as directed.
Paragraph 8 of the Downie Consent Decree states: “A police or parole agent report which summarizes the statements or observations of a citizen (non-police) witness may bear sufficient reliability upon which to find a violation of parole, absent confrontation, if, and only if, some additional extrinsic factor is presented which adequately enhances the reliability of the police or parole agent report. Such a report, standing alone, unenhanced by any additional extrinsic factors, does not bear sufficient indicia of reliability to revoke parole absent confrontation.”
The Monitor has not observed, found any documentation, or received any reports from youth attorneys that this provision has been violated by Defendants. The PRB implemented a practice of entering a finding of no violation when an alleged violation is based on a police or parole violation report and the author of the report is not present at the hearing either in person or by telephone.
Paragraph 10: Defendants shall serve all youth with a copy of his/her Parole Violation Report (PVR) within 1 business day of IDJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Has been compliant for 18 consecutive months and is no longer actively monitored.
Paragraph 11: Class Counsel shall develop Know Your Rights materials and provide to DJJ. DJJ shall provide Know Your Rights material to each youth. Substantial Compliance? Unclear Status: It is unclear as to whether the “Know Your Rights” material is being distributed to the youth. During the Monitor’s visit to the IDJJ Harrisburg facility in February 2017, none of the youth interviewed had any recollection of receiving or reviewing the brochure developed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel and accepted by Defendants. When asked, the staff at the facility said they do provide youth with the Know Your Rights brochure but that they do not have the youth sign any type of acknowledgement. In the St. Charles facility, there was some confusion among staff about whether the Know Your Rights material was added to the Youth Handbook or whether youth were given the brochure separately. It was ultimately stated that the youth are separately receiving the brochure. Some youth files did in fact include a signed acknowledgement of receiving the material and other files did not have such documentation.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 106 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:524
Defendants report that youth admitted for violations are receiving the Know Your Rights brochure upon admission to a IDJJ facility and moving forward that documentation will now uniformly be kept in the youth files.
Defendants argue they are in compliance with this measure since they were found in compliance before and they report nothing has changed. But with the combination of several youth reporting not receiving the material and the lack of documentation proving the material was distributed to youth, the Monitor does not have adequate proof that defendants are in fact in compliance. The Monitor will continue to review files and interview youth to ensure youth are receiving the required material.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall provide sufficient resources so that each youth is represented by appointed counsel at every stage of the parole process including Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH), Final Parole Revocation Hearings (FPRH), and appeals or requests for reconsideration. Substantial Compliance? No Status: Youth are being represented at every stage of the parole revocation process, but youth attorneys have gone at least five months without receiving compensation from the State and some attorneys have gone nine months without receiving payment. Some of the attorneys operate solo practices and rely heavily on such payments. The State’s consistently delayed payments threatens the ability for youth to receive appropriate representation.
Defendants argue that since youth are in-deed receiving representation at every stage of the process, that they are in compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree. But this provision of the Consent Decree specifically mandates “state-funded counsel” be provided to youth which is not occurring.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall accommodate youth requests to communicate confidentially with retained or prospective counsel. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Monitor observes and youth attorneys report that they have been able to regularly meet with their clients confidentially.
Paragraph 15: Youth are not permitted to waive appointed counsel unless private counsel has been retained. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Has been compliant for 18 consecutive months and is no longer monitored.
Paragraph 19: Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH) occur within 10 business days of DJJ entry pursuant to a Parole Violation (PV) report to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged PV was committed. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Has been compliant for 18 consecutive months and is no longer monitored.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 106 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:525
Paragraph 20: Defendants will provide youth and counsel all evidence to be used against youth during Parole Revocation proceeding, within 2 business days of appointment of counsel or receipt of evidence, whichever occurs later. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Although Defendants are considered to be in substantial compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree, there continues to be concerns with information regarding pending court cases being presented at Revocation Hearings that have not been shared as part of the Preliminary Hearing process. It appears that Defendants provide this information to the youth’s attorneys soon after they receive it, but there is a question about the appropriate use of this information in Revocation Hearings. The Monitor will continue to observe hearings and develop recommendations for resolving this challenge.
Paragraph 24: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written probable cause determination. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the use of the new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made as to this provision. Now each separate alleged violation receives its own written description and determination.
Paragraph 26 & 28: Each youth shall receive a Final Parole Revocation Hearing (FRH) within 45 calendar days of entry into custody to determine if PV occurred and if revocation is appropriate. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During this last quarter, there were no hearings reviewed that were held more than 45 days after the youth’s entry into IDJJ, unless there was documented agreement by the youth’s attorney.
There is a new concern regarding this provision. Since a new law that took effect in January 2017 that removed the PRB’s authority to hear regular parole hearings and transferred that authority to IDJJ, it appears that the PRB has raised its standards for information on release plans in Revocation hearings. Prior to the new law’s implementation, the PRB regularly accepted the word of a youth’s attorney or their guardian regarding plans for certain services when the youth is released, like education or employment. Although the details of such plans are usually developed by the youth’s Aftercare Specialist outside of the Revocation hearing, occasionally a youth’s attorney will provide information about specific opportunities a youth may have available. The PRB has begun requesting documentation on such claims to verify their availability to the youth. While this in and of itself is not a problem, there have been occasions where such requirements have resulted in a continuance of Revocation hearings. These continuances have not resulted in exceeding the 45-day maximum of holding a Revocation

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 106 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:526
Hearing in accordance with this provision of the Consent Decree, but some have come close and there is concern that if they increase, the time limits could be affected.
Paragraph 29: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written explanation of PRBs decision in the FPRH to include a description and assessment of evidence and brief statement describing how evidence meets preponderance of evidence standard. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the use of new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made on this provision. The PRB has improved its documentation of the evidence presented in the hearings and how that evidence meets the preponderance standard, on the Findings Report of the Final Revocation Hearing. There remains significant variation in how PRB members document the findings on the forms, with some providing detailed, very helpful information, and others providing very limited information.
The Revocation Hearings themselves are also being held in a significantly different manner at the two main facilities that hold hearings. At the St. Charles facility, three PRB members sit as a panel and hear each case together. After arguments are made by the IDJJ attorney and then the youth’s attorney, the PRB deliberates in private for a brief time and then calls the parties back into the room and delivers a decision that is then written up on the new forms. At the Harrisburg facility, although there are three PRB members who conduct hearings, only one member hears a case at a time. After the hearing, a decision is not made, but the one Board member confers with their other two colleagues and a final decision is made later in the day. Both of these approaches appear to comply with the Consent Decree, with a few possible exceptions.
In one case, a PRB member at Harrisburg asked the youth and the attorney to sign the Final Revocation Hearing Findings Report prior to a decision being made. When asked, the PRB member said he usual does this for expediency but that they always inform the youth of the outcome. Another more senior PRB member said he would discuss the issue with the PRB member who was doing this and the assumption is this practice would not continue. The Monitor will continue to assess this issue.
The second concern is that it was not clear whether youth were always being informed of the outcome of their hearings prior to being sent back to their living units. In the one case the Monitor tracked regarding this issue, the youth was informed of the outcome before leaving the reception area where the hearings were being held, but it was still unclear if other youth were informed of their outcomes.
One of the benefits of the Harrisburg hearing style is that the two PRB members not hearing a case are able to read the file of the case they are about to hear ahead of time, which is a luxury the PRB members at St. Charles do not have as they read the Revocation reports and other file material during the hearing.
Paragraph 30: The PRB will establish an appeals process and will include in Parole Revocation

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 106 Filed: 04/26/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:527
decisions a notice that revocation may be appealed. A panel of three PRB members not involved in the original Parole Revocation decision are to hear the appeal and the appeal is to be decided no later than 21 calendar days after receipt of the appeal. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants have established an appeals process which is in compliance with the Consent Decree. There have been very few appeals filed since the appeals process was established.
Paragraph 32: An independent monitor will be selected and “reasonable cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants. Substantial Compliance? No Status: The Monitor has not received compensation or travel reimbursement from the State in more than five months. This extreme delay in payment is likely to effect the Monitor’s ability to provide on-going monitoring.
Paragraph 33: Defendants shall provide Monitor and Class Counsel reasonable access to all class members. The Defendants shall provide Monitor access to hearings governed by this Consent Decree and shall permit Class Counsel to observe such hearings unless the youth or a witness objects (partial quote of Paragraph 33). Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Has been compliant for 18 consecutive months and is no longer monitored.
Paragraph 42: Defendants shall appoint counsel no later than 5 business days after service of PVR or DJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Based on interviews with appointed counsel, Defendants appear to routinely appoint attorneys within five business days after youth’s entrance into IDJJ. Most appointments are done via email. Defendants document the appointment dates of counsel on a spreadsheet that is occasionally provided to the Monitor. That report reflects appointments occurring all within the mandated timeframe, which is consistent with what the attorneys report.
Additional Issues: In several past Quarterly Monitoring Reports, the issue of Host Site delays has been highlighted. The case of JL in the non-public appendix of this report raises significant concerns.

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 108 Filed: 08/14/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:529
MH vs. Findley Case Number: 12-cv-08523 Independent Monitor: David Muhammad Consent Decree Quarterly Compliance Report (May – July 2017) August 2017
Defendants continue to be in substantial compliance with most provisions of the MH Consent Decree. However, there continue to be concerns with individual cases that may not constitute a violation of a particular provision of the Consent Decree. Further, Defendants remain in noncompliance with providing timely payments to both the Monitor and youth attorneys.
Overall, youth who have been accused of violating their parole in Illinois are represented by competent and zealous attorneys at all phases of the revocation process and mandated notification and hearing timeframes are adhered to by Defendants. Most often, revocation proceedings reflect a deliberative process where the due process rights of youth are maintained.
There are many provisions of the MH Consent Decree that Defendants have achieved substantial compliance with for 18 consecutive months, and in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Consent Decree, these provisions will no longer be actively monitored. Included in the appendix of this report is a matrix that tracks each substantive provision of the Consent Decree and its status per Quarterly Monitoring Report. Five provisions of the Consent Decree had been deemed compliant for 18 consecutive months as of the last Quarterly Report in April 2017, and five additional provisions have been determined compliant for 18 months as of this report. In the next reporting period, six (possibly seven) relevant and substantive provisions of the Consent Decree will continue to be monitored.
Monitoring Process This report is based upon the following activity that occurred during the reporting period:
• Staff and attorney interviews, IDJJ and PRB; • Interviews of youth who have gone through the revocation process; • Review of case files and corresponding revocation paperwork for youth going through
the revocation process; • Interviews of attorneys appointed to represent youth going through the
revocation process; and • Observations of Preliminary and Final Revocation Hearings
Consent Decree Compliance
Paragraph 9: All proceedings conducted in compliance with Constitution, state statutes, Faheem-El, and Downie v Klincar. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Paragraph 3 of the Faheem Consent Decree states:

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 108 Filed: 08/14/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:530
“The parolee shall be afforded an opportunity at the preliminary parole revocation hearing to provide reasons why withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing is appropriate.”
Youth are now routinely afforded the opportunity to request the withdrawal of the parole violation warrant pending the final parole revocation hearing. In Preliminary Hearings observed by the Monitor, youth and their attorneys were provided the opportunity to argue for the withdrawal of the warrant and the youth’s release pending the Final Revocation Hearing.
Paragraph 8 of the Downie Consent Decree states: “A police or parole agent report which summarizes the statements or observations of a citizen (non-police) witness may bear sufficient reliability upon which to find a violation of parole, absent confrontation, if, and only if, some additional extrinsic factor is presented which adequately enhances the reliability of the police or parole agent report. Such a report, standing alone, unenhanced by any additional extrinsic factors, does not bear sufficient indicia of reliability to revoke parole absent confrontation.”
The Monitor has not observed, found any documentation, or received any reports from youth attorneys that this provision has been violated by Defendants. The PRB implemented a practice of entering a finding of no violation when an alleged violation is based on a police or parole violation report and the author of the report is not present at the hearing either in person or by telephone.
Paragraph 10: Defendants shall serve all youth with a copy of his/her Parole Violation Report (PVR) within 1 business day of IDJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Has been compliant for 18 consecutive months and is no longer actively monitored.
Paragraph 11: Class Counsel shall develop Know Your Rights materials and provide to DJJ. DJJ shall provide Know Your Rights material to each youth. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Plaintiffs’ Counsel developed the “Know Your Rights” material and Defendants and the Monitor edited and approved the material. Defendants reported that they have been distributing the “Know Your Rights” material to youth entering IDJJ facilities for parole revocation proceedings since January 2017, however there was no documentation of such distribution until March or April, 2017.
Although there is now documentation of receipt, youth interviewed by the Monitor do not recall receiving the Know Your Rights material. The Monitor will continue to review files and interview youth and their attorneys to ensure youth are receiving the required material.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall provide sufficient resources so that each youth is represented by appointed counsel at every stage of the parole process including Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH), Final Parole Revocation Hearings (FPRH), and appeals or requests for

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 108 Filed: 08/14/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:531
reconsideration. Substantial Compliance? No Status: Youth are being represented at every stage of the parole revocation process, but youth attorneys have gone at least five months without receiving compensation from the State and one attorney has gone more than one year without receiving payment. Some of the attorneys operate solo practices and rely heavily on such payments. The State’s consistently delayed payments threaten the ability of youth to receive appropriate representation.
Defendants argue that since youth are indeed receiving representation at every stage of the process, they are in compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree. But this provision of the Consent Decree specifically mandates “state-funded counsel” be provided to youth; the unduly delayed payments to counsel render Defendants non-compliant with this provision of the Consent Decree.
Paragraph 14: Defendants shall accommodate youth requests to communicate confidentially with retained or prospective counsel. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: The Monitor observes and youth attorneys report that they have been able to regularly meet with their clients confidentially. This portion of the Consent Decree has now been in compliance for 18 consecutive months and will no longer be monitored.
Paragraph 15: Youth are not permitted to waive appointed counsel unless private counsel has been retained. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Has been compliant for 18 consecutive months and is no longer monitored.
Paragraph 19: Preliminary Parole Hearings (PPH) occur within 10 business days of DJJ entry pursuant to a Parole Violation (PV) report to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged PV was committed. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Has been compliant for 18 consecutive months and is no longer monitored.
Paragraph 20: Defendants will provide youth and counsel all evidence to be used against youth during Parole Revocation proceeding, within 2 business days of appointment of counsel or receipt of evidence, whichever occurs later. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Although Defendants are considered to be in substantial compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree, there continue to be concerns with information presented at Revocation Hearings that has not been shared as part of the Preliminary Hearing process. In the past, the concerns have been regarding potential pending court cases that were not addressed and determined to meet probable cause at the Preliminary Hearing. An additional concern was recently observed in the case of IH below. After being immediately alerted about the case, Defendants responded by conducting a new training for Aftercare Specialists to reemphasize agency protocols on how staff are to represent at Parole Review Board hearings. If implemented, this solution would

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 108 Filed: 08/14/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:532
rectify the particular issue raised in this case.
Although this provision of the Consent Decree has now been in compliance status for 18 consecutive months as of this Quarterly Monitoring Report, the Monitor requests that there be continued review of this provision for an additional quarter.
Case of IH: Youth IH was in custody on his original commitment from January 18, 2017, to April 7, 2017. A few weeks after being released, IH was arrested for suspicion of a burglary that occurred on January 8, 2017, prior to his original commitment to IDJJ.
When he was arrested, IH’s Aftercare Specialist filed a violation primarily for the arrest but also included in the violation report the fact that the youth had violated his Electronic Monitoring (EM) conditions and had not completed a GED program.
IH was sent to IYC St. Charles for revocation proceedings. At the onset of his Final Revocation Hearing, the youth’s attorney stipulated to the violations regarding EM and not completing a GED program. The Parole Review Board (PRB) accepted the stipulations and went straight into arguments regarding mitigation and aggravation to determine if they would revoke or resume aftercare/parole. Although it was later reported that the youth, who is now 18, pled guilty to misdemeanor theft in the old case, received time served, and that the case was closed – no arguments were heard regarding the violation for a new offense (the old case). The violation for a new offense was also not listed on the Findings Report for the Revocation Hearing.
With the main reason for the violation no longer being an issue, the remaining items were violating EM and not completing a GED program. But during the Revocation Hearing, the youth’s Aftercare Specialist (ACS) tried to introduce additional information, but the IDJJ Attorney stopped him before he presented the information, saying it had not been presented at the Preliminary Hearing. Toward the end of the hearing, the PRB members seemed to be favoring resuming IH’s aftercare/parole. When the parties were dismissed to allow the PRB to deliberate, the youth’s ACS remained behind. The Monitor was the last person out of the room other than the ACS and could hear the ACS telling the PRB members something to the effect of “what I was trying to say . . .”. The Monitor did not hear any other details of the discussion. The ACS remained in the office with the PRB for approximately two more minutes then left the room. After approximately five minutes of deliberation, the PRB called the parties back into the room and announced they had decided to revoke IH’s aftercare/parole. Given the discussion during the hearing, this decision was a significant surprise to both the Monitor and the youth’s attorney. While the stipulation did in fact give the PRB grounds to revoke IH’s parole, it did appear as if information provided by the ACS during the break may have contributed to the decision.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 108 Filed: 08/14/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:533
Paragraph 24: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written probable cause determination. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the use of the new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made as to this provision. Now each separate alleged violation receives its own written description and determination. This provision of the Consent Decree has now been in compliance for 18 consecutive months and will no longer be monitored.
Paragraph 26 & 28: Each youth shall receive a Final Parole Revocation Hearing (FRH) within 45 calendar days of entry into custody to determine if PV occurred and if revocation is appropriate. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants maintain a spreadsheet at each IDJJ facility of youth admitted for an aftercare/parole violation, which includes key dates in the MH Consent Decree. When reviewing the individual physical files of youth, which includes their signatures and dates on different forms, the Monitor cross references the dates on the spreadsheet as a random verification process. The dates on the signed forms almost always match the spreadsheet, even when a particular date falls outside of the compliance timeframe. During this last quarter, there were no hearings reviewed that were held more than 45 days after the youth’s entry into IDJJ, unless there was documented agreement by the youth’s attorney.
This provision of the Consent Decree has now been in compliance for 18 consecutive months and will no longer be monitored.
Paragraph 29: Defendants shall provide youth and counsel with a written explanation of PRBs decision in the FPRH to include a description and assessment of evidence and brief statement describing how evidence meets preponderance of evidence standard. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: With the use of new forms requested by the Monitor and on-going training of PRB members, there has been tremendous progress made on this provision. The PRB has improved its documentation of the evidence presented in the hearings and how that evidence meets the preponderance standard, on the Findings Report of the Final Revocation Hearing. There remains significant variation in how PRB members document the findings on the forms, with some providing detailed, very helpful information, and others providing very limited information. But in all files reviewed, Defendants are now complying with this provision of the Consent Decree.
Paragraph 30: The PRB will establish an appeals process and will include in Parole Revocation decisions a notice that revocation may be appealed. A panel of three PRB members not involved in the original Parole Revocation decision are to hear the appeal and the appeal is to be decided no later than 21 calendar days after receipt of the appeal. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Defendants have established an appeals process which is in compliance with the Consent Decree. There have been very few appeals filed since the appeals process was established. This

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 108 Filed: 08/14/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:534
provision of the Consent Decree has been in compliance for 18 consecutive months and will no longer be monitored.
Paragraph 32: An independent monitor will be selected and “reasonable cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: On August 7, the Monitor received three months of back payments from the state. These payments have finally brought the Defendants in compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree, with there being two months of payments due, which had been the established acceptable arears balance.
Paragraph 33: Defendants shall provide Monitor and Class Counsel reasonable access to all class members. The Defendants shall provide Monitor access to hearings governed by this Consent Decree and shall permit Class Counsel to observe such hearings unless the youth or a witness objects (partial quote of Paragraph 33). Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Has been compliant for 18 consecutive months and is no longer monitored.
Paragraph 42: Defendants shall appoint counsel no later than 5 business days after service of PVR or DJJ entry. Substantial Compliance? Yes Status: Based on interviews with appointed counsel, Defendants appear to routinely appoint attorneys within five business days after youth’s entrance into IDJJ. Most appointments are done via email. Defendants document the appointment dates of counsel on a spreadsheet that is occasionally provided to the Monitor. That report reflects appointments occurring all within the mandated timeframe, which is consistent with what the attorneys report.
This provision of the Consent Decree has been in compliance for 18 consecutive months and will no longer be monitored.

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 121 Filed: 09/21/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:553
September 21, 2018
United States District Court Norther District of Illinois Honorable Judge Andrea R. Wood 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Judge Wood:
In response to your court order on September 13, below is a brief summary of my assessment of Defendants’ compliance of Paragraph 14 of the MH v Monreal Consent Decree.
The relevant portion of Paragraph 14 the Consent Decree states that: “The Defendants will provide sufficient resources so that each Eligible Youth and Screening Eligible Youth is represented by appointed, state-funded counsel (“appointed counsel) at every stage of the parole process after counsel is appointed, including preliminary parole hearings, final revocation hearings and any appeals or requests for reconsideration, as set forth in this Consent Decree.”
Shortly after this Consent Decree was entered into, Defendants developed contracts with attorneys in different parts of the state to represent youth going through juvenile parole revocation proceedings. Youth have been consistently represented by counsel since that time. Therefore, arguably Defendants have been in compliance with the spirit of this provision of the Consent Decree since May 2015.
Over the course of the past three and a half years, Defendants have failed to make timely payments to appointed counsel. In some instances, payments have been as late as nine months. In monitoring this Consent Decree, I have heard from several of the appointed counsel that the significant gap in payments has affected the quality of representation and that some of the attorneys were hesitant to complain for fear of retaliation from the State.
Even after reports by Defendants that payments would be made promptly and an expedited process would be implemented, appointed counsel continued to go unpaid for many months. Given the Consent Decree explicitly states that Defendants would “provide sufficient resources . . . for state-funded counsel” I do believe these very long delays in payment amount to a violation of the Consent Decree.
It is my understanding that appointed-counsel have received payments recently to bring them up to date through June 2018, which would make Defendants at this moment in substantial compliance with Paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree. Defendants had a nine-month period that they were in compliance with this provision followed by many months of non-compliance

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 121 Filed: 09/21/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:554
and have not been in substantial compliance for more than three months since. Defendants’ current compliance has not been a full quarter.
Although Defendants have not been in substantial compliance with this provision of the Consent Decree for 18 consecutive months, due to this being the last remaining provision and more importantly because youth have continued to receive representation, it is my opinion that there is no longer a need for active monitoring by the Court Monitor. Plaintiffs’ counsel can continue to monitor this provision.
Sincerely,
David Muhammad
David Muhammad Court Appointed Monitor

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:376

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

M.H., on behalf of himself and on behalf of

)

the class ofjuvenile parolees who face

)

revocation proceedings,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ADAM MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois )

Prisoner Review Board; CANDICE JONES , )

Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice, )

)

Defendants.

)

No. 12-cv-08523 Judge Andrea R. Wood

CONSENT DECREE

On October 23, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned suit asserting constitutional and

state law challenges to the parole revocation process as it pertains to youth who are placed on

parole throughout the State of Illinois. In order to resolve the allegations in the Complaint, the

Parties have entered into the following Consent Decree.

A. SETTLEMENT CLASS & DEFINITIONS

1. The parties agree that to avoid costly and protracted litigation, the claims against

the Defendants should be resolved by this Consent Decree. By entering into this Consent

Decree, or by taking any action in accordance with it, the Defendants do not admit any of the

allegations contained in Plaintiffs' complaint, nor do Defendants admit liability for any purposes.

The parties understand that the Defendants enter into this Consent Decree solely as to the parole

revocation process for youth committed to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice through the

juvenile courts ofthe State of Illinois, and its terms are not intended to apply outside this context.

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:377
2. The Parties agree to a settlement class comprised of all juvenile parolees in the State of Illinois who currently or who will in the future face parole revocation proceedings.
3. The Defendants in this lawsuit are the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (PRB) and the Director ofthe Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), both of whom were sued in their official capacities. The Parties intend for this Consent Decree to bind these state officials, their assigns and their successors.
4. The term "youth" refers to any individual who is committed to DJJ custody pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act and:
(i) Is released from a DJJ facility on parole or aftercare status (hereafter "parole"); (ii) Is in physical custody ofDJJ on charges of a violation ofthe conditions of parole;
and (iii) Who faces a continued risk of confinement as a result of parole revocation
proceedings. 5. An "Eligible Youth" refers to any youth who is under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged parole violation. 6. A "Screened Eligible Youth'' is defined as any youth aged 18 or older at the time ofthe alleged parole violation who: (i) Has a timely and colorable claim that that he or she has not committed the alleged
violation ofthe conditions upon which he or she is at liberty; or (ii) Has a claim that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested,
there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present; or (iii) Lacks the capacity to speak effectively for himself or herself before a hearing officer or the Prisoner Review Board.
2

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:378
7. An "Ineligible Youth" is a youth who is not an Eligible Youth or a Screened Eligible Youth.
8. The terms ''serve" or "service" refer to the process during which a youth receives a copy of his or her Parole Violation Report and the accompanying Notice of Rights.
B. REMEDIAL MEASURES 9. The Defendants shall conduct all youth parole revocation proceedings in compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, all applicable state statutes and Faheem-El v. Klincar (N.D. Ill. No . 85-3008) and Downie v. Klincar (N.D. Il l. No. 89 C 2937). I0. The Defendants shall serve all youth within one business day of entering DJJ physical custody. II. The DJJ staff shall provide each youth with "Know Your Rights" materials re lated to the parole revocation process. These materials shall be developed by Class Counsel, subject to reasonable prior approval by Defendants. 12. The DJJ shall accept contact information of attorneys who have indicated a willingness to provide pro bono representation to youth during the parole process and post that information in an area accessible to the youth in DJJ facilities. 13. The Defendants shall appoint counsel to represent each Eligible Youth and Screened Eligible Youth. 14. The Defendants wi II provide sufficient resources so that each Eligible Youth and Screened Eligible Youth is represented by appointed, state-funded counsel ("appointed counsel") at every stage of the parole process after counsel is appointed, including preliminary parole hearings, final revocation hearings and any appeals or requests for reconsideration, as set forth in this Consent Decree. The DJJ shall, pursuant to any reasonable relevant pol icies and procedures,
3

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:379

reasonably accommodate requests by youth to communicate with prospective or retained counsel throughout the parole revocation process. Subject to any reasonable relevant policies and

procedures, youth may communicate confidentially with prospective, retained or appointed

counsel. 15.

The Defendants shall not permit Eligible Youth to waive appointed counsel during

parole proceedings, except that, at the request of the Eligible Youth, he or she may decline to be

represented by appointed counsel and may instead be represented by counsel that he or she has

retained. Any other youth for whom appointed counsel has been provided, including Screened Eligible Youth, may waive appointed counsel during parole hearings and may alternatively choose to retain alternate counsel. In the event a youth elects not to be represented by appointed

counsel, the Defendants have no obligation to pay for retained counsel.

16. The Defendants shall provide all Eligible Youth in DJJ custody awaiting parole

revocation proceedings appointed counsel as soon as possible but in no case later than 5 business days after the youth is served or after the youth's entry into DJJ custody, whichever occurs later.

The Defendants shall provide all Screened Eligible Youth appointed counsel within 3 business

days of the determination.

17. The DJJ staff shall be responsible for making an initial determination regarding whether a youth meets the criterion described in Paragraph 6(iii) regarding a youth ' s capacity to speak effectively. The DJJ staff shall make this determination on an individualized , case-by-case

basis, and the determination shall be made within 3 business days of the youth's entry into DJJ custody. The determination may be made in consultation with DJJ mental health, medical and educational professionals. This determination shall be made based upon an in-person assessment

4

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:380
ofthe youth and a review of all available pertinent information in the youth 's DJJ Master
Record, Medical, Mental Health, and Educational files, including but not limited to:
(i) Documented developmental and/or learning disabilities that impair a youth ' s life functioning including basic comprehension, mental and emotional processing such as thinking, concentrating, following directions and interacting with others, and communication;
(i i) Documented physical disabilities impairing a youth' s ability to communicate and/or comprehend alleged violations, understand legal proceedings and advocate for him or herself, including significant speech, vision, or hearing impairments;
(iii) Mental illness, whether currently treated or untreated, that currently impairs the youth's orientation to time, place and circumstances, and/or basic communication skills, including, but not limited to, an active state of psychosis;
(iv) Active substance abuse that currently impairs the youth's orientation to time, place and circumstances, and/or basic communication skills, at the time the youth has arrived at a DJJ reception center;
(v) Lack of basic English language skills necessary to comprehend the alleged violations and/or communicate in English at a hearing, including youth who required translation services during any prior commitments to DJJ custody; and
(vi) Documentation from a youth's Individualized Education Plan setting forth a requirement for the youth to have assistance in communication, reading comprehension, and/or mental processing.
18. The DJJ shall develop a form that will be completed by the DJJ staff during each
screening as set forth in Paragraph 17. The form shall include, at a minimum, a description of the
information considered by DJJ staff in screening the youth and the DJJ's determination.
19. The Defendants shall provide each youth a preliminary parole hearing to determine
whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged parole violation was committed, except that,
if the alleged parole violation is based upon a new criminal charge against the youth, and the
court presiding over the criminal case finds that there is probable cause that the youth has
committed the crime, the PRB may rely upon that probable cause finding and need not hold a
preliminary parole hearing. The preliminary parole hearing must be scheduled within I0 business
5

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:381

days of the youth entering DJJ custody pursuant to a parole violation report. The preliminary
parole hearings shall be conducted by a PRB hearing officer.
20. Defendants will provide the youth and/or their attorneys all evidence that wil l be
used against the youth during the parole revocation proceedings as follows:
(i) Prior to the effective date of the provisions providing for the screen ing of youth and the appointment of counsel, within 3 business days of service or w ithi n 2 business days of the DJJ's receipt of the evidence, whichever occurs later;
(ii) For El igible Youth, within 2 business days of the appointment of counsel, or within 2 business days of the DJJ's receipt of the evidence, whichever occurs later;
(iii) For Screened Eligible Youth who are appointed attorneys based upon the DJJ staff's initial determination regarding whether a youth meets the criterion described in Paragraph 6(iii), within 2 business days of the appointment of counsel, or within 2 business days of the DJJ's receipt of the evidence, whichever occurs later; and
(iv) For all other youth, within 2 business days of the DJJ staff's initial determination regarding whether the youth meets the criterion described in Paragraph 6(iii), or within 2 business days of the receipt of the DJJ's evidence, whichever occurs later;

(v) If the Defendants elect to provide appointed counsel for all youth, within 2 business days of the appointment of counsel, or within 2 business days of the DJJ's receipt of the evidence, whichever occurs later.
21. Either during or in advance of the preliminary parole hearing, the PRB hearing

officer shall screen each youth who has not been assigned an appointed attorney to determine if

the youth:
t.

Has a timely and colorable claim that he or she has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he or she is at liberty; or

ii. Has a claim that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present; or

6

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:382
111. Lacks the capacity to speak effectively for himself or herself before the PRB hearing officer or the Prisoner Review Board.
See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790-91 (1973) (rejecting ·'inflexible constitutional rule with respect to the requirement of counsel" in favor of a decision made ·' on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of a sound discretion by the state authority charged with the responsibility for administering the probation and parole system"). The PRB hearing officer shall have "considerable discretion" in conducting the screening. See id. at 790. If the PRB hearing officer finds that the youth meets any of the criteria listed above and the PRB hearing officer has sufficient information to make a finding of "no probable cause," the PRB hearing officer shall make a "no probable cause" determination, and the youth's parole revocation proceedings will terminate. If the PRB hearing officer determines that the youth meets any of the criteria above, and the PRB hearing officer cannot make a "no probable cause" determination at this time, the youth shall be deemed a Screened Eligible Youth, and the Defendants shall provide the youth with appointed counsel. Ineligible Youth have the right to request reconsideration of the eligibility determination at their preliminary parole hearing and/or final parole revocation hearing.
22. Youth who are deemed eligible by the PRB hearing officer shall have their preliminary parole hearings re-scheduled within l 0 business days of the eligibility determination. During the rescheduled preliminary parole hearing, the PRB hearing officer is prohibited from considering the information that he or she learned during the screening process set forth in Paragraph 21.
23. The PRB shall develop a form that will be completed by the PRB hearing officer during each PRB screening as set forth in Paragraph 21. The form shall include, at a minimum, a description of the information considered by the PRB hearing officer in screening the youth for appointed counsel, an indication of whether the youth was determined to be eligible or ineligible
7

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:383
for appointed counsel, and a brief rationale for that decision. This form shall be kept in a file that is separate from the youth ' s parole file. This information shall be made available to the Courtappointed Monitor, for the sole purpose of evaluating the Defendants' compliance with this Consent Decree. If the PRB hearing officer or the PRB denies this request, the grounds for refusal should be documented succinctly.
24. The Defendants will provide youth or their attorneys with a written probable cause determination.
25. If the PRB hearing officer finds probable cause at the preliminary parole hearing of an Ineligible Youth, the PRB hearing officer shall inform the Ineligible Youth of his or her right to request that the PRB hearing officer recommend to the PRB that his or her parole violation warrant be withdrawn pending a final revocation hearing. If the Ineligible Youth exercises this option, the PRB hearing officer shall allow him or her to present evidence and/or argue that the parole violation warrant should be withdrawn pending a final revocation hearing. The PRB hearing officer shall communicate the Ineligible Youth's request and the PRB hearing officer's recommendation to the PRB.
26. Except as set forth in this Consent Decree, each youth shall receive a final parole revocation hearing to determine whether a parole violation occurred and whether revocation is appropriate. lfthe violation is a matter of public record, is uncontested, or ifthe youth is found guilty of or pleads guilty to a new criminal violation, the violation shall be deemed to have occurred. In that event, at the final revocation hearing, the PRB hearing officer shall consider only any argument or evidence (aggravating or mitigating) regarding whether or not the youth's parole should be revoked for the violation.
8

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:384
27. This Consent Decree shall not apply to an individual when all of the following are satisfied: (1) he or she is convicted of a new criminal charge; (2) he or she is sentenced to the Department of Corrections; and (3) the DJJ requests discharge of his or her sentence with DJJ.
28. The Defendants shall make every effort to cause each youth to be presented for a final revocation hearing at the next scheduled PRB hearing date. In any event, a final revocation hearing must occur within 45 calendar days after a youth enters custody except where one of the following makes that date impracticable: (1) postponement(s) requested by a youth's attorney, by an Ineligible Youth, or a youth choosing to proceed without counsel; (2) an Ineligible Youth requests reconsideration of the denial of counsel at his final revocation hearing, and that request is granted; or (3) other exceptional or emergency circumstances. In that event, a final revocation hearing shall be rescheduled as soon as is practicable, unless the youth or his attorney requests that the hearing be continued.
29. The Defendants will provide the youth or their attorneys with a written explanation of the PRB's decision in the final parole revocation hearing. The written explanation must include a description and assessment of the evidence and a brief statement describing how the evidence meets the preponderance ofthe evidence standard.
30. The PRB will establish an appeals process so that a youth may appeal the PRB's decision in the parole revocation proceeding. The PRB shall state in writing in a decision revoking parole that "revocation may be appealed." A panel of three PRB members who were not involved in the initial revocation decision shall review any appeals and issue a decision as soon as practical but no later than 21 calendar days after receiving the appeal. A decision by the three PRB members is final.
9

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:385
31. Representation by appointed counsel shall terminate after the PRB's decision becomes final: upon expiration of time to seek reconsideration or appeal or upon the resolution of any request for reconsideration or appeal.
32. An independent monitor (''Monitor'') charged with reporting to the Court on the Defendants' compliance with the Consent Decree and with providing the Defendants with technical assistance to promote compliance with the Consent Decree sha ll be jointly selected by the parties. The Monitor shall have demonstrable qualifications to monitor the terms of this Consent Decree. Such qualifications may include substantial experience in o ne or more of the following areas: juvenile/criminal justice, the provision of legal services to children, the provision ofjuvenile or criminal defense services and the requirements of due process. If the Parties cannot come to consensus, each Party will submit three names of qualified individuals to the Court and the Court will make the final selection. The reasonable cost for the Monitor's fees and expenses will be borne by the Defendants.
33. The Defendants shal l provide the Monitor and Class Counsel with reasonable access to all class members. The Defendants shall provide the Monitor with access to the hearings governed by this Consent Decree and shall permit Class Counsel to observe such hearings unless the youth or a witness objects. The Monitor shall also have reasonable opportunities to interview appointed counsel and the members ofthe Defendants' staff who have an essential role in executing the requirements of this Consent Decree. Counsel for the Defendants and Class Counsel may be present at interviews of staff and contractors and during hearings governed by this decree.
34. The Defendants shall provide all facility records related to the Defendants' compliance with this Consent Decree to the Monitor upon request, except as provided in
10

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:386
Paragraph 34. Defendants shall, upon written request, provide the following types of documents to Class Counsel (Attorneys' Eyes Only): parole violation reports, any documentary evidence presented in parole proceedings, any written decisions or recommendations by the PRB or a PRB hearing officer related to the parole violation charge(s) at issue, and, unless Defendants choose to appoint counsel to all youth, the forms referenced in paragraphs 18 and 23. If Plaintiffs believe that additional types of documents are necessary in order to evaluate the Defendants' substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall submit a written request to Defendants and explain why they are necessary for their review; if Defendants refuse Plaintiffs ' request, Plaintiffs may seek an order from the Court directing the Defendants to provide the records if Plaintiffs demonstrate that the request was reasonable and that the particular requested records are necessary to evaluate the Defendants ' substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. The Monitor and Class Counsel will comply with all applicable federal and state laws with regard to confidentiality of class members' records and information.
35. Medical and mental health records shall be provided only as follows: (i) lf the Defendants elect to provide appointed counsel to all youth, neither the
Monitor nor Class Counsel shall have access to medical and mental health records; (ii) Otherwise, medical and mental health records shall not be provided without
consent as required by applicable state and federal laws, and shall be provided only under the following circumstances: a. Subject to the foregoing, in the event the Monitor believes that access to
certain medical or mental health records is required to ensure compliance with this Consent Decree, and the DJJ has not provided such records for any reason, the Monitor and/or Class Counsel may petition the Court for an order requiring
11

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:387

release of the records to the court for an in-camera review to determine

whether the records should be provided to the Monitor.

b. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiffs may seek an order from the Court directing

the DJJ to provide medical and/or mental health records to Class Counsel

(Attorneys' Eyes Only) in the event that they provide a sworn declaration to

the Court and to the Defendants attesting and providing support for the

following: (l) they have reasonable beliefthat the Defendants are committing a

systemic and substantial violation of the Consent Decree; and (2) the

information contained in the specific records requested (medical or mental

health records) is necessary in order to evaluate the Defendants' substantial

compliance with the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs bear the burden to demonstrate

that all records requested are necessary to their evaluation.

36. At any time, if the Monitor believes that Defendants are not in compliance with

any substantive provision of this Consent Decree, the Monitor shall promptly notify the parties in

writing and recommend action steps that, if completed, would attain compliance ("Compliance

Steps"). 37.

On a quarterly basis, the Monitor will submit a comprehensive compliance report

to the Court. The Monitor shall provide the rep01t in draft form to the parties for comments at

least two weeks before filing the report with the Court. The Monitor's report shall track the

Defendants' compliance with each substantive provision of this Consent Decree, including

whether systemic barriers prevent appointed counsel from providing zealous representation. If the Defendants are not in compliance with any substantive provision ofthis Consent Decree, the

Monitor's reports shall include Compliance Steps.

12

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:388
38. At any time, if Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants are not in compliance with any substantive provision ofthis Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall promptly notify the Monitor (during the Monitor's appointment) and Defendants in writing. The parties shall conduct good faith discussions, which may involve the Monitor, to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 21 calendar days of Plaintiffs' written notice, Plaintiffs may seek Court enforcement, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
39. The Independent Monitoring Provisions of this Consent Decree set fotih in Paragraph(s) 31-36 shaii terminate as to a substantive provision when, according to the Monitor's reports, the Defendants have been in substantial compliance with that provision for eighteen months. Upon the termination of the Independent Monitoring Provisions, Class Counsel may continue to monitor (Class Counsel's Monitoring), solely for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this Consent Decree, for twelve months but shall not be entitled to attorneys' fees, costs or expenses for such monitoring. However, the Court may, upon Plaintiffs' motion showing good cause, extend Class Counsel's Monitoring as to any substantive provision for three-month increments. During Class Counsel's Monitoring, Defendants shall permit Class Counsel to interview a reasonable number of appointed counsel and members of the Defendants' staffwho have an essential role in executing the requirements of this Consent Decree; counsel for Defendants may be present at these interviews. This Consent Decree shall terminate upon the conclusion of Class Counsel's Monitoring.
40. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, Defendants are in substantial compliance as to a substantive provision if any violation is minor or occasional, and is neither systemic nor serious. However, if a serious violation of the Consent Decree occurs, the Defendants are in substantial compliance if they promptly identify the violation and develop and implement a timely
13

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:389
and appropriate remedy that results in substantial compliance. Further there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the Defendants have achieved substantial compliance if the Defendants have implemented the Compliance Steps.
41. The Parties agree that upon Plaintiffs' petition. the Court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs directly incurred in enforcing and monitoring the terms of this Consent Decree, except that attorneys' fees and costs for monitoring shall be limited in accordance with the parties' separate agreement. The parties will make every effort to negotiate a resolution of Plaintiffs ' attorneys' fees and costs. In the event these efforts fail, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to file a fee petition with this court, and the Defendants reserve the right to contest the Plaintiffs ' rights to recover fees and costs.
42. In the event that the Defendants elect to forego screening as set forth in Paragraphs 17 and 21, and instead provide appointed counsel for all youth within 5 business days after the youth is served or after the youth' s entry into DJJ custody, whichever occurs later, Paragraphs 13, 16-18, 20(i)-(ii i), 21-23 and 25 of this Consent Decree shall not apply, and those paragraphs shall not be subject to monitoring or enforcement.
43. Defendants shall implement paragraphs 9-10, 19, 20, 24, and 26-30 within 90 calendar days ofthe date this Consent Decree is entered by the Court, and paragraphs 11 and 12 within 90 calendar days of the date this Consent Decree is entered by the Court or within 90 calendar days of when the necessary materials are completed, whichever occurs later. Defendants shall use their best efforts to implement paragraphs 5-7, 13-18, 21-23 , 25, 31-37, 39, and 42 within a reasonable time, but, unless Defendants show good cause for any extension, no later than December 31, 2014. All other paragraphs shall be effective immediately.
14

Case: 1:12-cv-08523 Document #: 72 Filed: 08/28/14 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:390

44. The Parties agree that the terms_of this Consent Decree will be submitted to the Court for approval, and the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce·the terms thereof.
Date: ~ ~~ ~ J:J D/ <-{ I

·Agreed to by the Parties as indicated by ~eir or their counsel's signature below: For the Plaintiffs:

Date: August 4, 2014
.~ Sheila Bedi Alexa Van Brunt Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue · Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503:.1336
·Alan Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 N. Sheridan Road Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410

0\ st2c ·AdMA- ~ou£CA\

Date:

tt.{

By Defendant Candice Jones:

~~

tf ~· Date:

7 •

Counsel for Defendants: Michael T. Dierkes & Deborah Beltran Assistant Attorneys General General Law Bureau . 100 W. Randolph, 13th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601 · (312) 814-3672/3599

15

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 1 of 11
MASON,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12−cv−08523

M.H. v. Monreal et al Assigned to: Honorable Andrea R. Wood Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
M.H. on behalf of himself and on behalf of the class of juvenile parolees who face revocation proceedings

Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Date Terminated: 08/28/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alexa Van Brunt Macarthur Justice Center 375 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 503−1336 Email: a−vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan S. Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, IL 60646 (773) 769−1411 Email: alan@uplcchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth N. Mazur Uptown People's Law Center 4413 N. Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 773−769−1411 Email: liz@uplcchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi Roderick Macarthur Justice Center 375 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 503−2492 Email: sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Del Valle Roderick And Solange Macarthur Justice Center Northwestern University School Of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 503−5932 Email: vanessa.delvalle@law.northwestern.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Adam Monreal Chariman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board

represented by Thomas A. Ioppolo Illinois Attorney General's Office (100 W) 100 West Randolph Street

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 2 of 11

Chicago, IL 60601 (312)814−7198 Email: tioppolo@atg.state.il.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah Morgan Beltran Illinois Office of the Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 312 814 3599 Email: dbeltran@atg.state.il.us TERMINATED: 05/20/2015

Michael T. Dierkes Illinois Attorney General's Office (100 W) 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814−3672 Email: mdierkes@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Pat Quinn Govoner of the State of Illinois TERMINATED: 07/25/2014

represented by Thomas A. Ioppolo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah Morgan Beltran (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/20/2015

Michael T. Dierkes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Candice Jones

Date Filed 10/23/2012 10/23/2012 10/23/2012 10/23/2012
10/23/2012 10/24/2012 10/31/2012 11/14/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by M.H.; Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0752−7684144.(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
3 MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. to certify class (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
4 MEMORANDUM by M.H. in support of motion to certify class 3 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: DJJ PowerPoint Presentation, # 2 Exhibit B: PRB FOIA Response, # 3 Exhibit C: Declaration of M.H., # 4 Exhibit D: Declaration of A. Van Brunt)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Michael T. Mason. (cft, ) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff M.H. by Alexa Van Brunt (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
6 Entered in error. Modified on 2/26/2013 (pcs, ). (Entered: 10/31/2012)
7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn by Thomas A. Ioppolo (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 3 of 11

11/28/2012 11/28/2012 12/10/2012
12/19/2012 12/19/2012 01/02/2013
02/13/2013 02/13/2013 02/14/2013
02/15/2013 02/26/2013 03/28/2013 03/28/2013 04/02/2013
05/13/2013 05/13/2013

8 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by M.H.. Adam Monreal waiver sent on 10/24/2012, answer due 12/24/2012. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by M.H.. Pat Quinn waiver sent on 10/24/2012, answer due 12/24/2012. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
10 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Initial status hearing set for 01/08/13 at 9:00 a.m. At least four working days before the initial status hearing, the parties shall conduct a FRCP 26(f) conference and file a joint written Initial Status Report, not to exceed five pages in length, and file the Court's Joint Jurisdictional Status Report and deliver courtesy copies to this Court's Courtroom Deputy in room 1908. The Court's standing orders on the Initial Status Report and Joint Jurisdictional Status Report maybe obtained from Judge Der−Yeghiayan's web page or from this Court's Courtroom Deputy. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
11 MOTION by Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn for extension of time (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
12 NOTICE of Motion by Thomas A. Ioppolo for presentment of extension of time 11 before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan on 1/3/2013 at 09:00 AM. (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
13 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Defendants' motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead 11 is granted to and including 02/19/13. Initial status hearing reset to 02/27/13 at 9:00 a.m. Noticed motion date of 01/03/13 and status hearing date of 01/08/13 are stricken. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
14 MOTION by Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn for extension of time (Unopposed) (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
15 NOTICE of Motion by Thomas A. Ioppolo for presentment of extension of time 14 before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan on 2/19/2013 at 09:00 AM. (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
16 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Defendants' second unopposed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead 14 is granted to and including 04/05/13. Initial status hearing reset to 04/10/13 at 9:00 a.m. Noticed motion date of 02/19/13 and status hearing date of 02/27/13 are stricken. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
17 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Having been entered in the wrong action, Sheila Bedi's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice 6 is hereby stricken off of this Court's docket. Mailed notices. (pcs, ) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
18 NOTICE of Correction 6 (pcs, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
19 MOTION by Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn for extension of time (Unopposed) (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
20 NOTICE of Motion by Thomas A. Ioppolo for presentment of extension of time 19 before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan on 4/3/2013 at 09:00 AM. (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
21 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Based upon counsels' representations that settlement negotiations are ongoing, Defendants' third unopposed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead 19 is granted to and including 05/20/13. Initial status hearing reset to 05/22/13 at 9:00 a.m. Noticed motion date of 04/03/13 and status hearing date of 04/10/13 are stricken. Mailed notice (mw, ) Modified on 5/15/2013 (tlp, ). (Entered: 04/02/2013)
22 MOTION by Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn for extension of time (Fourth) (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
23 NOTICE of Motion by Thomas A. Ioppolo for presentment of extension of time 22 before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan on 5/22/2013 at 09:00 AM. (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 4 of 11

05/21/2013 07/01/2013 07/01/2013 07/01/2013 07/18/2013
09/05/2013 09/05/2013 09/09/2013 09/10/2013
09/11/2013 09/25/2013 11/04/2013 11/18/2013
11/18/2013

24 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Defendants' fourth motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead 22 is granted to and including 07/08/13. Status hearing reset 07/23/13 at 9:00 a.m. Noticed motion date and status hearing date of 05/22/13 is stricken. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
25 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn by Michael T. Dierkes (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
26 MOTION by Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn for extension of time (unopposed) (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
27 NOTICE of Motion by Michael T. Dierkes for presentment of extension of time 26 before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan on 7/18/2013 at 09:00 AM. (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
28 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Motion hearing held. No one appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff on Defendants' noticed motion. Defendants' fifth motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead 26 is granted to and including 09/06/13. Status hearing reset to 09/10/13 at 9:00 a.m. Status hearing date of 07/23/13 is stricken. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
29 MOTION by Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint 1 (unopposed) (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
30 NOTICE of Motion by Michael T. Dierkes for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer, motion for relief 29 before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan on 9/10/2013 at 09:00 AM. (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
31 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0752−8714063. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
32 ORDER: Status hearing held and continued to 12/10/13 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead 29 is granted to and including 12/05/13. Sheila Bedi's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice for Plaintiff 31 is granted. Signed by the Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan on 9/10/2013: (mb, ) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
33 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff M.H. by Alexa Van Brunt Sheila Bedi (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
34 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Plaintiff's motion to certify class 3 is stricken without prejudice. Plaintiff has preserved his right to request class certification, and is given leave to reinstate the motion to certify class within 90 days of this order. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
35 MINUTE entry before Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan: Status hearing reset to 12/12/13 at 9:00 a.m. Status hearing set for 12/10/13 is stricken. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
36 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: It appearing that, pursuant to the Executive Committee Order entered on November 5, 2013, the civil cases on the attached list have been selected for reassignment to form the initial calendar of the Honorable Andrea R. Wood, therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached list of 300 cases be reassigned to the Honorable Andrea R. Wood. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall become effective on Tuesday, November 19,2013. Case reassigned to the Honorable Andrea R. Wood for all further proceedings. Signed by Executive Committee on 11/18/2013. (td, ) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
37 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: This case has been reassigned to the calendar of District Judge Andrea R. Wood. All previously set status dates and motion hearing dates are hereby stricken. The Court will set a date for a reassignment status conference by separate order. The parties are directed not to notice any motions for presentment prior to the reassignment status conference without first contacting chambers. Inquiries should be directed to the courtroom deputy before the motion is filed. Unless otherwise ordered by this Court, all other hearing dates, deadlines and schedules in effect as of the date of this Order remain in effect. To help the Court learn about the case, counsel for the parties shall confer and then prepare and file a joint Reassignment Status Report, not to exceed five pages, within 14 days of the entry of

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 5 of 11

12/02/2013 12/02/2013
12/04/2013 12/04/2013 12/12/2013
01/29/2014 01/30/2014 01/30/2014 02/03/2014
02/18/2014 02/19/2014
03/13/2014

this Order. If defendants counsel has not yet filed an appearance, the Reassignment Status Report should be prepared by plaintiffs counsel. A template for the Reassignment Status Report, setting forth the information required, is attached to this Order and can be found on the Courts website at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under District Judges, Judge Andrea R. Wood. (For further details, see attachment.) Mailed notice (jp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2013: # 1 Reassignment Status Report) (jp, ). (Entered: 11/21/2013)
38 Joint Reassignment Status Report by M.H. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
39 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for 12/12/2013 at 09:00 a.m in courtroom 1725. Parties may notice motions for presentment at that time. Written notice of the intent to present a motion must be filed and served on all parties at least three business days in advance of the hearing. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
40 MOTION by Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn to stay deadline to respond to plaintiff's complaint pending January 2014 status hearing (UNOPPOSED) (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
41 NOTICE of Motion by Michael T. Dierkes for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 40 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 12/12/2013 at 09:00 AM. (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
42 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Status hearing held; continued to 1/30/2014 at 09:00 AM. The date for Defendant to answer or otherwise response to the Complaint is extended until 3/1/2014. The parties hsall inform the Court regarding the status of settlement discussions at the next status hearing. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
43 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn by Deborah Morgan Beltran (Beltran, Deborah) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
44 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Michael T. Mason for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: settlement conference.(jms, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 01/30/2014)
45 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Status hearing held and continued to 2/19/2014 at 09:00 AM. Answer date of 3/1/2014 shall stand. The case will be referred to the magistrate judge for a settlement conference.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
46 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Michael T. Mason:This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Mason to conduct a settlement conference. An initial status hearing is set for 2/19/14 at 09:00 a.m. in courtroom 2266 for the sole purpose of scheduling a settlement conference. However, counsel may confer with each other and contact the courtroom deputy (312) 435−6051 by 2/13/14 to schedule the conference in lieu of attending the 2/19/14 status. Mailed notice. (rbf, ) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
47 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Upon the Court's own motion, status hearing set for 2/19/2014 is stricken. Status hearing reset to 3/13/2014 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
48 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Michael T. Mason:Case called for status hearing. Counsel for all parties failed to appear. Plaintiff's counsel contacted this Court's courtroom deputy to confirm a settlement conference date. Settlement Conference set for 4/3/2014 at 01:30 p.m. in courtroom 2266. Parties shall strictly abide by this Court's Standing Order for Settlement Conference. Plaintiff's counsel shall submit copies of both plaintiff's settlement demand letter as well as defendant's response letter to chambers, room 2270 by 3/31/14. Mailed notice. (rbf, ) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
49 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Status hearing held; continued to 3/27/2014 at 9:00 a.m. The parties reported they are engaged in settlement negotiations. Defendants have not filed an answer to the Complaint. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 4/3/2014. The parties shall inform the Court of the progress of the settlement negotiations at the next status hearing. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 6 of 11

03/17/2014 03/27/2014
03/28/2014
04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/23/2014
05/02/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014 05/08/2014

50 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff M.H. by Alan S. Mills (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
52 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held; continued to 4/23/2014 at 9:00 a.m. The parties reported that they have reached a settlement in principle, subject to the approval of the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General. In light of the pending settlement, Defendants' time to respond to Plaintiff's complaint is stayed until further order of court. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court, the parties shall be prepared to present their proposal for resolving the case at the next status hearing. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 03/30/2014)
51 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Michael T. Mason: On 3/27/14, counsel apprised the Court that the parties reached a settlement. The 4/3/14 settlement conference date is stricken. All matters relating to the referral of this case having been completed, the referral is closed and the case is returned to the assigned judge. Judge Michael T. Mason no longer referred to the case.Mailed notice (rbf, ) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
53 MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. to approve consent judgment (joint) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit B: Proposed Notice of Settlement)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
54 MEMORANDUM by M.H. in support of motion to approve consent judgment 53 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: L.H. v. Schwarzenegger Stipulated Order)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
55 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment 53 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 4/23/2014 at 09:00 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
56 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held; continued to 5/8/2014 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall file his motions for leave to amend the complaint and for approval of a settlement class by 5/2/2014. Fairness hearing set for 7/31/2014 at 10:00 a.m. The parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree 53 is entered and continued to 5/8/2014 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
57 MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. to certify class (Joint) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Declarations of Class Counsel, # 2 Exhibit B: Declaration of M.H.)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
58 MEMORANDUM by M.H. in support of motion to certify class 57 (Joint) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Bishop PowerPoint)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
59 MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. for leave to file Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Unopposed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: First Amended Complaint)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
60 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of motion to certify class 57 , motion for leave to file 59 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 5/8/2014 at 10:00 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
61 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Motion hearing held on the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the proposed consent decree 53 , the parties' joint motion for class certification 57 , and Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file the first amended complaint 59 . The motions are granted. The Court finds that the proposed settlement class meets the requirements for certification set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. By no later than 7/24/2014, in addition to providing the Court with copies of any objections received in response to the Notice of Settlement, the parties shall file with the Court a summary of the objections. The summary shall include the following information: (1) the total number of class members, (2) the total number of objections received, (3) the total number of objections that the parties reasonably believe to remain unresolved after the objectors have consulted with class counsel, and (4) a short statement describing the substance of the remaining objections. Fairness hearing set for 7/31/2014 at 10:00 a.m. to remain in place. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 05/12/2014)

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 7 of 11

06/26/2014 06/26/2014 06/27/2014
07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/28/2014 07/28/2014 07/28/2014 07/31/2014
08/28/2014 08/28/2014 09/09/2014
10/15/2014 11/25/2014 11/26/2014

62 MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. for extension of time to file summary of objections to proposed consent decree (unopposed) (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
63 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of extension of time 62 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 7/1/2014 at 09:00 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
64 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Plaintiff's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the summary of objections 62 is granted. The summary of objections shall be filed by 7/28/2014. The motion presentment date of 7/1/2014 is stricken. Parties need not appear. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
65 First AMENDED complaint by M.H. against All Defendants and terminating Pat Quinn (Govoner of the State of Illinois) (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
66 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by M.H.. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
67 Joint Summary of Objections to Consent Decree by M.H. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Focus Group Comments (redacted), # 2 Exhibit B: Mailed Comments (redacted))(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
68 Unopposed Motion to Approve Parties' Fee Agreement by M.H. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
69 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 7/31/2014 at 10:00 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
70 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Hearing held on approval of class settlement. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court finds that the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and otherwise satisfies the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Accordingly, the Court approves the class action settlement. The parties shall submit a Word version of a proposed order granting final approval of the class action settlement and a final version of the consent decree to the Court's Proposed Order e−mailbox at Proposed_Order_Wood@ilnd.uscourts.gov, for entry by the Court. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's unopposed motion to approve the parties' fee agreement governing attorneys' fees 68 is also granted. The parties shall submit a copy of the final fee agreement to chambers. Status hearing set for 9/10/2014 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
71 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 8/28/2014. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
72 CONSENT DECREE Signed by the Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 8/28/2014. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
73 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Pursuant to Plaintiff's telephonic request and with no objection from Defendants, status hearing set for 9/10/2014 is stricken. Status hearing is reset for 10/15/2014 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
74 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held; continued to 11/26/2014 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
75 NOTICE of Parties' Selection of Independent Monitor by M.H. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bedi, Sheila) Docket Text Modified by Clerks Office on 11/26/2014 (jh, ). (Entered: 11/25/2014)
76 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held; continued to 1/29/2015 at 10:00 a.m. The parties reported that pursuant to Paragraph 32 of the Consent Decree 72 , they have jointly selected Mr. David Muhammad to serve as the independent monitor for this matter. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court, the Court approves the parties' selection of Mr. Muhammad as the independent monitor. Mr. Muhammad shall appear at the next status hearing in person. If Mr. Muhammad is not available on 1/29/2015, the parties shall contact this Courts courtroom deputy to propose an alternative status hearing date that is agreeable to Mr. Muhammad's schedule. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 8 of 11

01/26/2015 02/04/2015 02/04/2015 02/06/2015
02/20/2015 02/25/2015 03/05/2015 04/02/2015 04/02/2015 04/08/2015 04/16/2015
05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/20/2015 07/15/2015

77 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Pursuant to the request of the parties, the status hearing set for 1/29/2015 is stricken. Status hearing set for 2/6/2015 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
78 MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. to enforce consent decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
79 NOTICE of Motion by Sheila A Bedi for presentment of motion to enforce 78 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 2/10/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
80 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. Defendants response to Plaintiffs' motion to enforce consent decree 78 shall be filed by 2/20/2015. Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion, if any, shall be filed by 2/25/2015. The monitor's quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 3/31/2015. Motion hearing set for 2/10/2015 is stricken and reset for 3/5/2015 at 2:00 PM. Status hearing set for 4/16/2015 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
81 RESPONSE by Candice Jones, Adam Monrealin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. to enforce consent decree 78 (Beltran, Deborah) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
82 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY in Support of their Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree 81 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One) (Van Brunt, Alexa) Docket Text Modified by Clerks Office on 3/4/2015 (jh, ). (Entered: 02/25/2015)
83 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to enforce the consent decree 78 is taken under advisement and the Court will issue a ruling in short order. The status hearing set for 4/16/2015 at 10:00 a.m. 80 remains firm. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
84 MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. to withdraw motion to enforce 78 (Unopposed) (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
85 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of unopposed motion to withdraw their motion to enforce the consent decree 84 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 4/9/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office on 4/3/2015 (jh, ). (Entered: 04/02/2015)
86 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Plaintiff's unopposed motion to withdraw their motion to enforce the consent decree 84 is granted. Plaintiff's motion to enforce consent decree 78 is withdrawn. The motion presentment date of 4/9/2015 is stricken. Parties need not appear. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
87 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status Hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's second quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 6/30/2015. Status hearing set for 7/15/2015 at 10:00 AM. (Entered: 04/20/2015)
88 MOTION by counsel for Defendants Candice Jones, Adam Monreal to withdraw as attorney (Beltran, Deborah) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
89 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Morgan Beltran for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 88 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 5/27/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Beltran, Deborah) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
90 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Motion by counsel for Defendants to withdraw as attorney 88 is granted. Attorney Deborah Morgan Beltran is withdrawn as counsel of record for Defendants. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
91 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 9/30/2015. Status hearing set for 11/6/2015 at 12:15 PM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 07/16/2015)

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 9 of 11

08/28/2015 11/06/2015
02/17/2016 02/17/2016 02/17/2016 02/17/2016 02/17/2016
05/24/2016
07/14/2016 09/19/2016 09/19/2016 09/19/2016
01/11/2017
04/26/2017 04/26/2017 04/26/2017

92 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: On the Court's own motion, Status hearing set for 11/6/2015 at 12:15 p.m. is reset for 11/6/2015 at 11:00 a.m. TIME CHANGE ONLY. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
93 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 2/1/2016. Class counsel and defense counsel shall be jointly responsible for ensuring that the monitor's report is filed as part of the public docket. A courtesy copy of the monitors report shall also be e−mailed to the Courts courtroom deputy. Status hearing set for 2/17/2016 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
94 Third Monitor's Report by M.H. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
95 Second Monitor's Report by M.H. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
96 First Monitor's Report by M.H. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
97 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff M.H. by Vanessa Del Valle Vanessa del Valle (Del Valle, Vanessa) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
98 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 5/2/2016. A courtesy copy of the monitor's report shall also be e−mailed to the Courts courtroom deputy. Status hearing set for 5/24/2016 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
99 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 8/25/2016. A courtesy copy of the monitor's report shall also be e−mailed to the Courts courtroom deputy. Status hearing set for 9/8/2016 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
100 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: By request and agreement of the parties, the Status hearing set for 9/8/2016 is stricken and reset for 9/19/2016 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
101 Fifth Quarterly Monitor's Report by M.H. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
102 Sixth Quarterly Monitor's Report by M.H. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
103 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 12/31/2016. A courtesy copy of the monitor's report shall also be e−mailed to the Courts courtroom deputy. Status hearing set for 1/11/2017 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
104 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 4/12/2017. A courtesy copy of the monitor's report shall also be e−mailed to the Courts courtroom deputy. Status hearing set for 4/26/2017 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
105 Seventh Quarterly Monitoring Report by M.H. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
106 Eighth Quarterly Monitoring Report by M.H. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
107 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 7/31/2017. A courtesy copy of the monitor's report shall also be e−mailed to the Courts courtroom deputy. Status hearing set for

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 10 of 11

08/14/2017 08/15/2017
09/28/2017 10/05/2017 10/05/2017 11/28/2017 03/13/2018 07/20/2018
07/23/2018

8/15/2017 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
108 Ninth Quarterly Monitoring Report by M.H. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
109 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court, by 9/28/2017, the parties shall submit a status report regarding payments to attorneys assigned to represent youth as contemplated by the Consent Decree. A status hearing regarding the payment issue is set for 10/5/2017 at 10:30 AM. As discussed on the record, if the payment issue has not been resolved, the Court will consider issuing an order requiring the State Comptroller to appear and show cause why payments are not being made. The monitor's presence is waived at the 10/5/2017 hearing. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 10/31/2017. A courtesy copy of the monitor's report shall also be e−mailed to the Courts courtroom deputy. Status hearing set for 11/28/2017 at 11:00 AM Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
110 STATUS Report regarding payments to attorneys by Candice Jones, Adam Monreal (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
111 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for 10/5/2017 at 10:30 AM is reset for 10/5/2017 at 10:45 AM. TIME CHANGE ONLY. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
112 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The parties reported on the payment issues. No further action by the Court is necessary at this time. Status hearing set for 11/28/2017 109 remains firm. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
113 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. The monitor's next quarterly report pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be filed by 2/13/2018. A courtesy copy of the monitor's report shall also be e−mailed to the Courts courtroom deputy. Status hearing set for 3/13/2018 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
114 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The independent monitor appeared along with counsel for the parties. The monitor provided an oral report to the Court. Final Status hearing set for 7/20/2018 at 9:00 AM. The independent monitor is granted leave to appear by phone at the next status hearing. The monitor must e−mail this Court's courtroom deputy 24 hours in advance of the status hearing to provide a telephone number where he can be reached when the case is called. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
115 ORDER: Status hearing held. Counsel for the parties appeared and the independent monitor appeared by phone. The parties reported that the payment issue has not been resolved. By 8/10/2018, Defense Counsel shall provide the Court and Class Counsel with a written submission describing the state's payment process for youth counsel vouchers and identifying where the delay of payment is occurring. In response, by 8/31/2018, Class Counsel shall provide the Court and Defense Counsel with a written submission stating whether they are satisfied or listing their concerns and/or recommendations. The parties' written submissions may be e−mailed to the Court's courtroom deputy at enjoli_fletcher@ilnd.uscourts.gov. As discussed on the record, if the payment issue has not been resolved, the Court will consider issuing an order requiring the State Comptroller to appear through counsel and show cause why payments are not being made. Status hearing set for 9/12/2018 at 11:00 AM. The independent monitor is granted leave to appear by phone at the next status hearing. The monitor must e−mail this Court's courtroom deputy 24 hours in advance of the status hearing to provide a telephone number where he can be reached when the case is called. Signed by the Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 7/20/2018. Mailed notice (yap, ) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
116 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff M.H. by Elizabeth N. Mazur (Mazur, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

Case: 1:12-cv-8523 As of: 03/20/2019 06:06 PM CDT 11 of 11

08/29/2018 08/29/2018 08/30/2018
09/12/2018
09/21/2018 10/12/2018

117 MOTION by Plaintiff M.H. for extension of time to file Plaintiffs' Written Submission (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
118 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of extension of time 117 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 9/4/2018 at 09:00 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
119 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Plaintiffs' Motion for extension of time 117 is granted. By 9/6/2018, Class Counsel shall provide the Court and Defense Counsel with a written submission stating whether they are satisfied or listing their concerns and/or recommendations. The parties' written submissions may be e−mailed to the Court's courtroom deputy at enjoli_fletcher@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The motion presentment date of 9/4/2018 is stricken; parties need not appear. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
120 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. By 9/21/2018, the independent monitor shall transmit to the parties and the parties shall cause to be filed with the Court a letter stating the monitor's positions with respect to: (1) whether Defendants are currently in substantial compliance with paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree, (2) if so, how long Defendants have been in substantial compliance with paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree, and (3) whether independent monitoring should continue with respect to the requirements of paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree or should independent monitoring of that provision be terminated pursuant to paragraph 39 of the Consent Decree. The independent monitor shall appear by phone at the next status hearing. The monitor must e−mail this Court's courtroom deputy 24 hours in advance of the status hearing to provide a telephone number where he can be reached when the case is called. Status hearing set for 10/12/2018 at 9:30 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
121 Letter from Independent Monitor Pursuant to Dkt. No. 120 by Candice Jones, Adam Monreal (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
122 ORDER: Status hearing held on 10/12/18. As stated on the record, the Independent Monitor requirements of the Consent Decree are terminated. Signed by the Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 10/12/2018. Mailed notice (jh, ) (Entered: 10/15/2018)