Key Takeaways

Lake County’s Redeploy Youth and Family Support Program Using Evidence-Based Practices or RYSE program is partly funded by Juvenile Redeploy Illinois (JRI), and is intended to reduce the use of state secure confinement as a response to juvenile delinquency.
The planning and implementation of RYSE in 2021 and 2022 coincided with two longer-term background trends in Lake County: (1) an increasing share of juveniles placed on probation being male, Hispanic, and charged with firearm-related offenses and felony-level crimes, and (2) significant overall declines in juvenile delinquency petitions filed, juvenile probation and supervision placements, and commitments of Lake County youth to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ).
Consistent with the goals of JRI, RYSE appears to be serving a population that is substantively different from other juveniles on probation in Lake County, both in terms of the nature and seriousness of their adjudicated crimes and their assessed risk levels. In addition, RYSE youth also differ from other juveniles on probation in terms of their sex, race, living arrangements and where they reside in Lake County.
RYSE cases accounted for 37% of all juvenile probation cases at the end of 2024. Through April 2025, a total of 74 juveniles had been admitted to RYSE, and 36 juveniles had been discharged from the program. Among the 38 cases that were still active as of April 2025, 54% were not scheduled to be discharged until after 2025.
Of all the juvenile probation cases discharged in Lake County from 2018 through April 2025, the majority (65%) had a satisfactory termination, meaning they had completed the requirements of their probation sentence. A small share, 8%, had their supervision revoked with a commitment to IDJJ/IDOC or had an unsatisfactory termination with a corresponding commitment to IDJJ/IDOC; an additional 27% of closed probation cases during that period were classified as “unsatisfactory” at termination.
Of all the juvenile probation cases discharged in Lake County from 2018 to 2021, 13% were admitted to the Illinois Department of Corrections by 12/31/24 (after an average of almost 5 years post-juvenile probation discharge).

Introduction

The Lake County Illinois Juvenile Probation Department implemented the Redeploy Youth and Family Support Program Using Evidence-Based Practices or RYSE in April 2022. The goal of RYSE is to provide a higher level of supervision, individualized counseling and appropriate services to youth who have violated probation or been identified as having a higher risk of violating probation, resulting in an increased likelihood of commitment to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) or the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). From its inception through May 2025, 74 juveniles have been enrolled in the RYSE program and 36 have been discharged from the program.

RYSE is supported in part through a Juvenile Redeploy Illinois (JRI) grant from the Illinois Department of Human Services. The goals of JRI are to reduce the use of commitments to secure state facilities and improve the long-term outcomes of youth served by the juvenile justice system.

RYSE is different from standard juvenile probation in several ways. First, RYSE cases are supervised by specific probation officers who have been trained in using Family Functional Probation (FFP), which is an evidence-based program that emphasizes including family members in case planning and during home visits. While general probation contact standards require periodic home visits, RYSE cases have more home visits, and more deliberate interactions with family pursuant to the FFP approach. In addition, all RYSE participants are referred to one of two dedicated therapists who work exclusively with RYSE youth through weekly individual sessions. These sessions are done in-person or virtually when necessary, and under ideal circumstances, at home and involving family members. If a youth is assessed as needing treatment (e.g., drug treatment), that need is addressed before the youth sees the RYSE-dedicated therapist.

Youth can be placed on a RYSE caseload via several different pathways. Some youth are placed in RYSE either by the judge or a probation officer as a result of a violation of standard juvenile probation. In other instances, juveniles may be placed directly into RYSE at the point of being sentenced to probation, either at the recommendation of a probation officer or through the discretion of the judge. When the program was initiated in April 2022, many of the youth placed in RYSE had previously been enrolled in another probation program called HOPE (High-Risk Offender Program), since the eligibility criteria for RYSE and HOPE were similar. Specifically, 11 of the 24 youth ordered to RYSE during 2022 were referred from the HOPE program. This was an efficient way to build the RYSE caseload with existing cases when the program was new; over time, referrals from the court at disposition or in response to violations of probation became the primary source of cases.

Under the original program design, specific probation officers were expected to supervise RYSE cases exclusively. However, in order to balance out the workload within the Juvenile Probation Unit, these officers were eventually assigned mixed caseloads that consisted of both RYSE cases and non-RYSE youth on probation or supervision.

To support the continued implementation of RYSE, a process and impact evaluation is being performed to determine if the program is reaching its intended population and achieving the intended goals. This research brief summarizes the findings from the first phases of this research.

Context and Trends

Consistent with statewide and regional trends, Lake County’s juvenile delinquency petitions, juvenile probation admissions, and secure commitments to IDJJ facilities have all been declining in recent years.

Lake County saw 44% fewer juvenile delinquency petitions filed in court, and 34% fewer juveniles placed on probation or supervision between 2017 and 2024 (see Figure).

During the same period, there was a comparable decline in juvenile probation numbers in Lake County. By the end of 2024, there were a total of 115 youth on probation and an additional 80 Continuance under Supervision (CUS) youth supervised by the Lake County Juvenile Probation Department (see Figure). Overall, the total number of youth on probation or CUS at the end of 2024 (195) was 30% lower than at the end of 2017 (279).

Of that overall population of 195 youth under probation or CUS at the end of 2024, 44 (or 23%) were enrolled in the RYSE program. When only those cases on formal probation at the end of 2024 were considered, RYSE participants accounted for 42 of the 115 (37%) probation cases (roughly one out of every three probation cases). A relatively small number of RYSE participants—2 of the 44—had a case that was CUS.

Based on data from the IDJJ, which operates the state-level secure custodial facilities for juveniles committed to the state following a delinquency adjudication, there were 15 juveniles committed to IDJJ from Lake County that were eligible for participation in a JRI-funded program in 2017. By 2024, the number of these commitments from Lake County was reduced by 60% (down to 6) (see Figure).

Characteristics of RYSE Participants

In general, the vast majority of RYSE youth were male (98%), Black (59%), adjudicated for a felony-level offense (97%) and for a firearm-related offense (e.g., illegal possession of a firearm, unlawful discharge of a firearm, etc.) (53%), and lived with a single parent (65%, most often their mother). Almost 60% (57%) of the youth in RYSE were from two specific Lake County communities—Waukegan and Zion.

Are RYSE Participants Different from Other Youth on Probation in Lake County?

Given that the goal of the JRI program and grant to Lake County is to reduce the use of incarceration in Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) facilities, it would be expected that the juveniles placed in RYSE would have different characteristics (i.e., be charged with more serious crimes and/or be at a greater risk of probation revocation and subsequent IDJJ commitment) than the general juvenile probation population. In fact, youth that were part of the RYSE program were found to be different from the general Lake County Juvenile probation caseload in various ways, including their demographic characteristics (race, sex), the offenses giving rise to their placement on probation (nature of crime, seriousness of offense), their risk and supervision levels, and the communities where they live.

For purposes of determining the distinctiveness of RYSE youth, we restricted the comparison group to youth place on formal probation (as opposed to youth on CUS, or “supervision”).

Moreover, because the characteristics of youth on juvenile probation in Lake County have changed considerably over the past six years,

we further restricted the comparison group to youth placed on probation more recently—i.e., since 2021.

Demographic Characteristic Comparison Between RYSE and Other Juvenile Probation Cases

Although most juveniles on probation are male, an even larger share of the RYSE participants was male (98%) than the general juvenile probation cases (87%). In addition, a larger share of RYSE youth was Black (56%) than other juveniles on probation (47%), while roughly equal shares—34 to 37%--of youth on general probation and RYSE were identified as Hispanic. On the other hand, only 7% of RYSE youth were non-Hispanic white and only 17% of youth on general probation were non-Hispanic white.

Some differences between RYSE youth and other juveniles on probation were also seen in their living arrangements. Although both groups of youth were most likely to be living with a single parent, and most often their mother, a larger share of RYSE youth (65%) were living with a single parent than other juveniles on probation (53%). On the other hand, although a relatively small proportion of youth were living in a placement setting (e.g., a group home or residential treatment program), the proportion of RYSE youth in these living arrangements (7%) was lower than the general juvenile probation population in Lake County (13%).

Adjudication Offense Comparison Between RYSE and Other Juvenile Probation Cases

Some of the most substantive differences between the RYSE youth and the general juvenile probation population in Lake County had to do with the offense which resulted in their placement on probation, both in terms of the nature of the crime but also the seriousness of the offense from a legal classification. In terms of the offense that resulted in the placement of the youth on probation, a much larger portion of the RYSE youth were adjudicated for a firearm-related offense (e.g., illegal possession of a firearm possession, unlawful discharge, etc.) than was the case among other youth on probation. Specifically, over one-half (56%) of RYSE youth were placed on probation for a firearm-related offense, compared to 25% of the general probation caseload.

In terms of the seriousness of the offense, based on its felony or misdemeanor classification, a much higher proportion of the RYSE cases were on probation for a felony offense (96%) than other youth on probation (66%). Finally, under Illinois law, criminal offenses are classified into classes of offense, and those different classes correspond to the seriousness of the crime from a legal standpoint. Among felonies, Class 4 felonies are the least serious level of offense, with Class 3, 2, 1, and X felonies moving up the scale in terms of seriousness. Murder is its own class of offenses and is obviously the most serious offense and higher than a Class X felony. Not only were the RYSE cases more likely to be on probation for a felony, but also for more serious level felony offenses; that is, more than one-half (56%) of the RYSE cases were on probation for a Class 2, 1, or X felony, and more than one-half of all the felony RYSE cases were for these offenses. By comparison, among the general juvenile probation population in Lake County, 26% of the cases involved a Class 2, 1, or X felony. Because of the larger share of RYSE cases accounted for by felony-level offenses, and more serious classes of felony offenses, the length of the sentence imposed on those in the RYSE program (average of 24 months) was longer than for other juvenile probation cases (average of 16 months) in Lake County.

Community Comparison Between RYSE and Other Juvenile Probation Cases

In addition to RYSE youth being different in terms of their demographic and current offense characteristics, RYSE youth also tended to be from different communities within Lake County than other juveniles placed on probation. For example, 41% of RYSE youth were from Waukegan, the largest of the 52 municipalities in Lake County. The other top cities where RYSE youth live included Zion, North Chicago, and Gurnee. Combined, 71% of RYSE youth were from the four cities of Waukegan, Zion, North Chicago, and Gurnee. By comparison, only 46% of the other youth placed on probation were from these four cities.

Risk Score/Level Comparison Between RYSE and Other Juvenile Probation Cases

Another way to compare youth placed in RYSE with those in the general juvenile probation population in Lake County is by examining the results of the risk assessments performed on youth. In general, juveniles placed on probation in Lake County are administered the Juvenile Risk Assessment (JRA), developed by the University of Cincinnati and used by probation departments across Illinois.

Among those individuals placed in the RYSE program, the average risk score on the first risk assessment performed was 13.8, compared to 12.7 among those placed on probation between 2021 and May 2024. Thus, the risk scores were slightly higher among the RYSE participants than the general probation population. Correspondingly, the RYSE youth were more likely to be classified at a higher risk level than the general probation population. Based on the first assessment score, combined with overrides because of office policy or professional judgement, RYSE youth were more likely to be classified as moderate or high risk, and less likely to be classified as low risk, than the general juvenile probation population in Lake County. For example, only 4% of RYSE youth were classified as low risk because of their first assessment, compared to 18% of other juveniles on probation. Conversely, much larger shares of RYSE youth were classified as moderate risk (74% versus 66%) and high risk (23% versus 15%).

However, the challenge in interpreting these risk scores is that individuals in RYSE could have originally begun on non-RYSE probation or even CUS when their first assessment was performed, but then were placed in RYSE in response to a violation. Thus, the first risk assessment may not be reflective of their risk levels when placed in RYSE. Illustrative of this is that when the date of the first risk assessment performed on the RYSE participants was compared to the date they were ordered to RYSE, the difference between those two dates average 254 days, meaning 254 days elapsed, on average, from their first risk assessment to when they were ordered to RYSE. When the risk assessments that were performed within 60 days before or after being ordered to RYSE were examined, the average score was 15.4 (or higher than the average of 13.8 on only their first risk assessment score). Further, on this assessment, which was closer to when they were ordered to RYSE, resulted in higher assessed levels of risk, with 37% of cases classified as high risk, 60% as moderate risk and only 2% as low risk.

Ideally, we would also like to compare the RYSE and non-RYSE populations with respect to changes in risk levels over time. However, for this purpose it is necessary to have results of assessments administered at multiple points during an individual’s supervision (i.e., at the initial intake and then during reassessments, which are scheduled to occur every 6 months). Because the RYSE program is relatively new (in operation for 3 years), and the amount of time the average RYSE participant has been enrolled is only 15 months, the number of RYSE participants with multiple assessments is limited.

Even though there are limitations with comparing changes in the risk assessment scores over time, due to the low number of individuals with more than 2 scores and the issue with RYSE participants’ first score not necessarily being reflective of when they entered RYSE, analyses of the first and subsequent JRA scores may provide some insight into differences between the RYSE and non-RYSE groups. The first set of analyses included only those individuals in RYSE and the general probation population that had at least 2 JRA assessments. Among the 119 youth on general probation that had at least 2 assessments, the average score fell from an average of 13.7 on the first assessment to an average of 11.4 on the second. By comparison, among the 37 RYSE participants that had at least 2 assessments, the average score increased from an average of 13.9 on the first assessment to an average of 14.7 on the second. This suggests that RYSE participants’ entry into the program may be at a point of heightened/elevated risk.

A similar pattern was evident when those with at least 3 assessments were included, with those on general probation (N=58) seeing decreases with each subsequent assessment and those in RYSE (N=26) experiencing increasing risk scores. Because an element that makes the RYSE program unique is its use of Family Functional Probation (FFP), future analyses of the JRA will determine if specific changes are evident in the family domain of the risk assessment.

Entry Into and Matriculation Through RYSE

Detailed analyses were performed to identify the mechanisms and processes by which youth were enrolled in the RYSE program. Generally, there are two primary mechanisms

by which youth can be placed on the RYSE caseload: 1) being directly placed in RYSE following an adjudication in juvenile court, or 2) being placed in RYSE because of a violation of probation. While we cannot say exactly how common the latter pathway is, we can get some sense by looking at subsequent juvenile court case numbers associated with individuals who ended up in RYSE. Out of the total of 74 RYSE youth, 31 (42%) went into RYSE following a sentencing disposition and were not already on probation or supervision for another case. On the other hand, 43 of the 74 individuals in RYSE (58%) were on probation or supervision for a previous case when ordered to RYSE, and so could have reached the program through the probation violation pathway.

As described earlier, out of the 74 individuals admitted to the RYSE program, 32 have been discharged. Among these 32, the average time in the program was 15.9 months. Among the 38 individuals still in the program, the average time enrolled as of May 15, 2025 (when the data were pulled for this report) was 16.1 months; the average sentence imposed for the case that resulted in their placement in RYSE was 25 months. Thus, more than one-half (54%) of those enrolled in RYSE at the end of April 2025 will not terminate based on their scheduled termination date until after 2025.

At this writing, it is still too early to determine if juveniles in the RYSE program have different rates of probation violations, different rates of probation revocation, or differences in post-discharge recidivism rates, since so few have matriculated through and completed the program. However, at least for some of those who have been discharged, it is possible to examine changes in the risk assessment scores between when they entered RYSE and when they were discharged. Among the 31 RYSE who had their case closed, 19 participants had a risk assessment performed at discharge; among you in this group, the average score fell from 16.1 when they were referred to RYSE to 14.3 when discharged.

Considerations for an Eventual Assessment of the Impact of RYSE

When a juvenile is placed on probation or supervision, there are several outcomes that can be examined to gauge the efficacy of the services provided. One frequent measure used is whether a juvenile violated probation conditions, such as by missing appointments with their probation officer or not complying with court orders (e.g., not attending school or participating in court-ordered treatment programs). In addition to these technical violations, if a juvenile is arrested for a crime while on probation, that too is considered a violation. If a violation occurs, the probation officer must notify the State’s Attorney, and if a petition is filed, a hearing will be held to determine if a violation did in fact occur, and if so, what sanction might be imposed for the violation. The response to violations can range from increased requirements (e.g., increased reporting to their probation officer), placement into a specialized supervision program (e.g., placement into RYSE), or, the most serious response, a revocation of the original placement on probation and the imposition of a more serious sentence, such as commitment to IDJJ. Because youth can be placed on RYSE in response to a violation of supervision, it is important to distinguish between violations that occurred before placement into RYSE versus those that occurred while in RYSE.

RYSE program outcomes, including the rates at which juveniles placed in the RYSE program have violated probation conditions or had their probation revoked, cannot be assessed until a sufficient number have had their cases terminated to allow for meaningful analysis. However, we can say something about the general outcomes of closed juvenile probation cases in Lake County, with which RYSE outcomes can eventually be compared.

Overall, less than one-half of closed juvenile probation cases in Lake County between 2018 and 2024 had violations noted. Among all closed juvenile probation cases, 38% had one or more “technical” violations noted and an additional 4% had one or more violations for a new offense/arrest.

Despite these rates of violations, which were primarily technical in nature, very few juveniles had their probation revoked or were committed to IDJJ/IDOC. For example, of all the closed juvenile probation cases in Lake County, only 8% were revoked with a commitment to IDJJ/IDOC or had an unsatisfactory termination with a commitment to IDJJ/IDOC. An additional 27% of closed probation cases were classified as “unsatisfactory” at termination.

When the same analyses were performed, but the pool narrowed to include only closed probation cases accounted for by males adjudicated for a felony-level offense (to mirror more closely the RYSE participants), 10% were revoked with a commitment to IDJJ/IDOC or had an unsatisfactory termination with a commitment to IDJJ/IDOC, only slightly higher than the overall probation discharges. Of this narrowed group, an additional 29% were classified as unsatisfactory at termination.

Thus, for purposes of evaluating the impact of RYSE on these probation outcomes, prior to RYSE most (92%) were not terminated from probation and sentenced to IDJJ/IDOC, but a substantial portion (27%) were unsatisfactorily terminated.

Examining Recidivism of Youth Discharged from Lake County Juvenile Probation Department

Another way that case outcomes can be examined is by looking at the extent to which youth discharged from probation in Lake County are subsequently involved in the justice system (i.e., did they “recidivate”?). Ideally, measuring recidivism involves the collection and analyses of data to determine if someone is arrested or convicted following their discharge from supervision. To perform this type of analyses, researchers in Illinois have historically had access to the State’s Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) data that captures information on all arrests and convictions that occur throughout Illinois.

Here again, a recidivism analysis of RYSE participants must wait until more youth have completed the program and gone through a sufficient follow-up period. However, to provide a baseline for eventual comparison, analyses were performed to measure the extent and nature of post-probation discharge recidivism (i.e., arrest) among the overall probation population. Using data provided by the Lake County Juvenile Probation Department for all cases assigned to probation or supervision from 2018 to 2024, the research team provided the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) with individual identifiers for the 1,035 unique individuals (name, race, sex, date of birth) included in those 2018 to 2024 data. Of these 1,035 unique individuals, Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) data were provided (i.e., there was a CHRI match) for 570 of the individuals, meaning that person had a criminal history record.

To examine post-probation arrest patterns, the juvenile probation cases that were terminated prior to 1/1/2022 were selected for analyses. Since the CHRI data were generated in December 2024, the selection of cases terminated prior to 1/1/2022 would ensure that all cases had at least 3 years of post-probation follow-up to measure recidivism (a standard follow-up period in these types of analyses). When a juvenile had multiple cases terminated during the period examined, the case with the most recent termination date was included for purposes of measuring post-probation recidivism. This selection process resulted in 508 unique individuals who had a termination date between 1/1/2018 and 1/1/2022. Of these 508 unique individuals discharged from probation prior to 1/1/2022, 233 (45.9%) were not matched to CHRI (i.e., no criminal history record), while 275 (54.1%) had CHRI information. Of these 508 individuals, roughly 40% were 18 years of age or older on the date they were discharged from supervision.

Overall Rate and Pattern of Post-Probation Arrest

Overall, 164 (32%) of the 508 individuals had an arrest recorded for a misdemeanor or felony offense in the Illinois State Police’s Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) system within 3 years following their discharge from supervision/probation (Figure 1). Interestingly, there was not much of a difference or correlation between the age at discharge and whether the individual was arrested within 3 years of discharge.

Of those with a post-discharge arrest within 3 years, 48% had just 1 arrest, 23% had 2 arrests, and 29% had 3 or more arrests.

In recidivism research, the first arrest event is often focused on since, depending on the severity of the charge, it may reduce the opportunity for subsequent arrests (i.e., the first arrest could result in incarceration for the remainer of the follow-up period). When just the first post-discharge arrest was examined, in most cases (77%) the arrest was made in Lake County, followed by Cook County (10), and McHenry County (5%). The remaining 8% of arrests were distributed across 11 other Illinois counties. Thus, out of the 508 individuals included in the analyses, 67% were not arrested, 26% were arrested in Lake County and 7% were arrested in other counties.

While 32% of the probation discharge cohort had an arrest within 3 years, it is obvious that examining the nature of the charges among those arrested is important. Specifically, an arrest that involves charges for violent crimes is more concerning than arrest charges that involve less serious, non-violent offenses, regardless of whether the arrest was the first within the 3-year follow-up period. Among the overall cohort studied, 68% had no arrests, 18% had an arrest that included a charge for a violent offense, and 14% had arrests for other, non-violent offenses (Figure 3). Another way to measure the seriousness of post-probation arrests is whether the arrest involved a felony-level offense. Overall, 24% of the youth tracked for post-discharge arrests had an arrest of a felony-level offense within 3 years.

To provide a more appropriate comparison group for the population enrolled in RYSE, individuals with similar characteristics to most RYSE participants were selected in the cohort of cases examined in the recidivism analyses. Specially, individuals in the sample of 508 that were male, non-white, charged with a felony-level offense, and placed on probation were selected and their post-discharge recidivism rates calculated. As seen in the table below, while the three-year post-discharge recidivism rate for the whole sample was 32%, for those that were non-white males who had been on probation for a felony-level offense (i.e., they had all three characteristics) their three-year recidivism rate was slightly higher at 40%. They were also slightly more likely to have a subsequent arrest for a felony-level offense and an arrest for a violent charge. Among those who did not have all three of the characteristics (i.e., those that were not non-white males who had been on probation for a felony-level offense), their three-year post-probation recidivism rate was lower.

Examining Recidivism Using Prison Admission as the Outcome

To further illustrate and examine patterns of recidivism, analyses were performed to determine whether juveniles discharged from probation in Lake County between 2018 and 2021 were subsequently committed to prison in Illinois through December 2024. Although this measure significantly restricts the measure to that which involves more serious offenses and sentences (i.e., conviction for a felony-level offense and the imposition of a prison sentence), it is readily available and can provide some insight into post-probation recidivism. Further, since roughly 50% of all juveniles discharged from probation in Lake County were 18 years of age or older at the time of discharge (i.e., legally an adult from the standpoint of the criminal justice system), using admissions only to the Illinois Department of Corrections to measure recidivism would miss those who may have subsequently been committed to IDJJ. IDJJ commitments were only included if they were specified in the discharge notes for the cases included in the analyses. Among the unique individuals discharged from juvenile probation in Lake County between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, 13% had been subsequently sentenced to prison in Illinois through December 31, 2024, and an additional 3% were noted as having been discharged to IDJJ/IDOC at case discharge.

Further, among all those subsequently sentenced to prison following discharge from either juvenile probation or supervision, 45% were convicted of violent crimes and an additional 31% were sentenced for illegal possession of a firearm.