in-20260930-IR-210260360RAA: 2024 / 403

TITLE 210 IAC 5 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION- DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES Regulatory Analysis LSA Document #26-360 I. Description of Rule II. Fiscal Impact Analysis III. Impacted Parties Year / # Releases # Youth Reviewed # Youth Placed on Comm. Supervision # Youth Who Would Be Reviewed Now 2024 / 403 75 75 403 2025 / 533 70 70 533 Year / # Releases # Youth Reviewed # Youth Placed on Comm. Supervision (As of 08-19-2026) 230 (As of 08-19-2026) 230 (As of 08-19-2026) 13 IV. Changes in Proposed Rule V. Benefit Analysis VI. Cost Analysis VII. Sources of Information VIII. Regulatory Analysis IX. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions Readoption Review I. Statement Whether the Subject Matter Covered by the Rule Remains Carried Out by the Agency II. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule  III. Analysis of fees, fines, and civil penalties under IC 4-22-2-19.6 IV. Cost-Benefit, Economic Impact, Fiscal Impact, or Regulatory Burden Statements V. Alternative Methods of Achieving the Purpose of the Rule VI. Complaints and Comments VII. Difficulties Encountered VIII. Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors IX. Other State or Federal Requirements State Citation Comparison to Indiana Idaho Idaho Code § 20-533 Idaho Adm. Code 05.02.01.155 In Idaho, all counties reassume jurisdiction and place youth on probation automatically.  Unfortunately, Indiana judges rejected a similar proposal in Indiana, and they reserved the right to reassume jurisdiction with probation or not.  Therefore, Indiana must have a process to evaluate each youth's individual need for community supervision if the court does not reassume jurisdiction with probation.  However, in the Idaho Administrative Code, they have a required individual evaluation process for deciding if a youth is released home or to a placement provider: It is a Reintegration Staffing meeting of stakeholders much like our ARC, and they review a youth's individual needs and relapse prevention plans, just as we review each youth's individual needs and re-entry plans. Illinois 705 ILCS 405/5-750 20 Ill. Adm. Code Part 2470 In Illinois, it appears that youth are automatically incarcerated until age 21 for first degree murder or are given an indeterminate sentence until released to a certain amount of "aftercare release" administered by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).  The length of time is based on the severity of the youth's committing offenses.  It appears then there is no probation services at all for DJJ youth.  Instead, they all receive this form of parole/community supervision, and the DJJ must solicit the court's approval to release the youth off of aftercare release.  Indiana DYS does not have dedicated juvenile parole/community supervision staff to supervise every youth after release.  Plus, we are not required to ask the court for permission to release the youth from community supervision because the court decided not to reassume jurisdiction. / However, like our ARC, it appears that each youth is individually evaluated for the amount of time they will go on "aftercare release." Kentucky 505 KAR 1:310 505 KAR 1:370 505 KAR 1:310 relates to temporary leaves (furloughs) with step-down to detention and release.  This then does not apply, as Indiana DYS temporary leaves do not involve any form of release. 505 KAR 1:370 states that a youth's length of stay is indeterminate for youthful offenses but has a set number of days for other offenses.  The department may ask for an extension of that time under certain circumstances.  However, it appears that youth are discharged from the department without supervision.  This differs from Indiana DYS in that we want to be able to release certain youth on community supervision instead of discharge without supervision due to their individual risk factors. Michigan MCLA § 803.225 It appears that Michigan youth remain in the department or county juvenile agency, as applicable, until they can argue the youth "has been rehabilitated and does not present a serious risk to public safety."  They then "petition the court to conduct a review hearing at any time before the juvenile becomes 19 years of age or, if the committing court has continued jurisdiction over the juvenile, at any time before the juvenile becomes 21 years of age."  Again, it appears that the court either decides that the youth should remain in the department up to age 21 or is discharged.  In Indiana, only youth with an alternative sentence may be ordered by the court to remain in DYS until age 21. If given an indeterminate sentence, the court does not control the youth's release, only if they plan to place the youth back on probation. Again, Indiana DYS is trying to provide more flexibility and individualization of supervision needs so that we do not keep a youth incarcerated arbitrarily who is ready for release, as evidence-based practice shows that youth who remain incarcerated past the completion of their treatment risk, not only losing the progress they've made, but also increasing their risk of recidivism. Ohio Ohio Adm. Code 5139-68 Ohio places all youth on parole supervision: "Youth approved for release shall receive notification of the approval and be advised of any modifications to the community/parole plan and have a parole on or after date (POA) and a period of parole supervision established." Indiana DYS does not have dedicated juvenile parole/community supervision staff to supervise every youth after release.  Therefore, we require an individual screening of each youth to target community supervision (under a parole agent) to youth with the highest risk factors and greatest needs.  Youth who are at lower risk and have protective factors could have these factors disrupted by required parole rules and requirements, which could increase their risk of violation.  It is better to discharge these youth as their protective factors will provide the aftercare they need. South Dakota SDCL 26-11A-12 through SDCL 26-11A-20 South Dakota seems to have a system similar to Indiana's in that youth appear to be discharged unless youth "have been conditionally released from a department facility or program, the Human Services Center, detention, shelter, or a group home, group care center, or residential treatment center."  For these youth, the Department of Corrections may establish an aftercare supervision program to supervise these juveniles in the community. Our individual screening also requires community supervision be provided via parole for youth who are being released to placement providers.  If they do not require this type of release, then the screening continues to look at individual risk and protective factor to see if a parole agent providing community supervision in the youth's home, school, and community would still be helpful. X. Previous Amendments XI. Integration into Indiana Code XII. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions Notice of First Public Comment Period: 20260930-IR-210260360FNA Notice of Determination Received: August 27, 2026