Sheriffs paid for DHS placement delays

Summary#

HB 5823, titled CRIM PRO-TRANSPORT-TREATMENT, would amend the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. It would require the Department of Human Services (DHS) to pay a sheriff when an ordered placement is delayed, while removing the current 60-day admission deadline and the related court updates. The bill does not state a separate goal; its changes address delays in placing some defendants in secure mental health treatment. It is introduced and is not law.

  • If DHS does not provide placement within 20 days after the court clerk sends the placement order, DHS must pay the sheriff for each day after the defendant has spent 20 days in the sheriff’s custody.
  • The payment is set “as prescribed by the sheriff” and may include housing and mental health services.
  • The bill removes DHS’s current duty to admit the defendant within 60 days, with an exception for documented placement efforts and unavailable beds. It also removes the duty to update the court every 30 days when placement is delayed.
  • The sheriff must contact DHS if, within 45 days of the order being sent, DHS has not given notice of bed and placement availability at the designated facility. DHS must respond within two business days with status, availability, and an estimated admission date.
  • The sheriff would not be held liable for “any issues” after the defendant has remained in the sheriff’s care for more than 20 days.

What it means for you#

  • Defendants ordered to inpatient treatment in DHS custody: The bill does not create a right to admission within 20 days. A defendant may remain in jail while placement is pending; the bill removes the 60-day admission deadline.
  • Sheriffs: They would receive DHS payments for qualifying delays and gain the stated liability protection after the 20th day. If DHS does not provide the required notice within 45 days, the sheriff must ask DHS about placement at the designated facility and other secure facilities.
  • DHS: It would have to pay the sheriff in qualifying cases and respond within two business days to the sheriff’s inquiry. The bill removes the 60-day admission duty and the related 30-day court updates.
  • Courts: They would no longer receive those required 30-day updates. Other placement and treatment provisions in the law are not changed by the bill.
  • Taxpayers: The bill could require public payments to sheriffs, but the available material gives no estimate.

Money#

The bill requires DHS payments to sheriffs for qualifying placement delays, but no cost estimate is available.

  • The sheriff sets the payment terms; housing and mental health services are listed as possible costs.
  • The bill does not state a payment cap, rate, or total budget.
  • The payment trigger and the start of paid days use different time references: 20 days after the order is sent, and days after the defendant has spent 20 days in sheriff custody. How those clocks interact is not explained.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how the sheriff’s payment amount would be calculated, documented, or reviewed.
  • “Any issues” covered by the sheriff’s liability protection is not defined, and the bill does not spell out exceptions.
  • The bill removes the 60-day admission deadline but does not set a replacement deadline. The required two-business-day response gives information, not a guaranteed placement date.
  • The bill does not explain how the two 20-day clocks would work if the order is sent after the defendant enters sheriff custody.
  • The bill text gives no effective date or funding source.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that counties and sheriffs should not have to bear the full cost of holding defendants when DHS placement is delayed.
  • Requiring a prompt DHS response to a sheriff’s inquiry could provide updated placement information and help identify another available secure facility.
  • The bill makes payment to the sheriff a duty when its delay condition is met, rather than leaving that cost unaddressed in the statute.

Case against#

  • One concern is that removing the 60-day admission deadline could leave defendants in jail longer without a statutory limit on the wait.
  • The bill also removes required 30-day updates to the court, reducing one form of ongoing oversight during delays.
  • Payment amounts are not capped or calculated in the bill, and the sheriff sets them. This could make public costs hard to predict.
  • The liability protection is broad as written, but the bill does not define which problems it covers or set out safeguards for defendants held beyond 20 days.