Illinois locked up children and then failed to protect them
If you were sexually abused by staff while you were held in an Illinois youth centre or a county detention centre as a child, you are not the only one, and you are not remembering it wrong. Hundreds of people have now come forward about the same facilities, the same shifts, and in some cases the same staff.
Almost everyone who contacts us about this says a version of the same thing first: nobody believed me then, so why would anyone believe me now. The honest answer is that what has changed is not you. What has changed is that the pattern is documented, other survivors have come forward, and the institutions involved now have to answer for it in a way they never had to at the time.
Many people held in these facilities were placed there because something had already gone wrong in their lives that adults were supposed to have handled. Being harmed again, by the people paid to keep you safe, is a particular kind of betrayal. It is also, in law, an institution’s failure, not yours.
Why these claims are different from other abuse cases
A claim arising from state custody is not the same as a claim against a private organisation, and the difference is not cosmetic.
- The defendant is the State. The Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice runs the state youth centres, and claims against the State are brought in the Illinois Court of Claims, under its own filing requirements and damages limits. It is the first thing that has to be looked at, and it is why a general personal injury practice can get this wrong.
- County detention centres are a separate analysis. IDJJ states plainly that Illinois county juvenile detention centres do not fall under its jurisdiction. The Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Centre has been run by the Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County since 2008, so a claim can involve both Cook County and the State, and which one depends on when and how the abuse happened.
- The records exist, and they are the case. Custodial facilities generate paper continuously, shift rosters, incident reports, grievance forms, transfer records, movement logs, personnel files. That evidence exists whether or not anyone believed you at the time, and whether or not a report was ever taken seriously.
- You were a child in custody. You could not leave, could not choose who supervised you, and had no realistic way to report safely. Courts understand that context.
The facilities
Claims we look at arise from the Illinois youth centres and from county detention centres. Some of these facilities have changed name or closed. Neither ends a claim. What matters is where you were held and when.
| Facility | Where | Status |
|---|---|---|
| IYC St. Charles | 3825 Campton Hills Rd, St. Charles (Kane County) | Historically the main intake facility for youth committed from the Chicago area. The site now operates as the PEACE Center, a different programme launched in January 2024 for ages 17 to 20. Claims concern the earlier facility. |
| IYC Warrenville | 30 W 200 Ferry Rd, the address is in Naperville (DuPage County), despite the name | Open since 1973. Capacity 70. The only IDJJ facility holding girls as well as boys. |
| IYC Harrisburg | 1201 W. Poplar, Harrisburg (Saline County) | Open since July 1983. Rated capacity 319. |
| IYC Pere Marquette | 17808 State Highway 100W, Grafton (Jersey County) | Open since March 1963, the oldest facility still operating as an IYC. Capacity 40, the smallest. Open-campus, step-down facility. |
| IYC Kewanee | Henry County | Closed as a youth facility in 2016 and transferred to the Department of Corrections, reopening as an adult centre. A closed facility does not extinguish a claim arising from the years it operated. |
| Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Centre | Chicago, the Audy Home | A county facility, outside IDJJ’s jurisdiction. Separate defendant, separate analysis. |
If the facility you were held in is not on this list, that does not mean there is no claim. Tell us where you were and we will look.
What the institution had a duty to do
These cases turn on what the facility knew and what it did about it. In practice the failure usually looks like one of these:
- Negligent hiring, someone was put in charge of children without the checks that would have surfaced a history.
- Negligent supervision, a member of staff was left alone with a child in circumstances the facility should never have allowed. In a custodial setting, where staff control movement, meals, showers and sleep, this is the failure that recurs most.
- Negligent retention, a complaint was made, and the person stayed.
- Failure to report, staff who were legally required to report a suspicion did not.
A facility that logged a grievance and filed it, moved a staff member to a different wing, or transferred a child to another site rather than investigating, has left a record of that decision. That record is often what a case turns on.
Questions people ask about these claims
I never reported it. Does that end it?
No. Very few people in custody reported at the time, for reasons that are obvious once you have been there. You had to report the incident to colleagues of the person who did it, and you were going back onto the same wing afterwards. Not reporting is close to universal in these cases and is understood as such.
Nobody was ever charged. Does that matter?
No. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. A civil claim uses a lower standard and is usually brought against the institution rather than the individual. Claims proceed regularly where there was never a charge.
I do not remember dates, or the person’s full name.
That is normal and it is not a barrier. Records are how these cases are built, the facility knows who was on shift, which wing you were on, and when you were moved. You are not expected to arrive with evidence.
The facility has closed or changed its name.
It makes no difference to whether a claim can be brought. The responsible body still exists. IYC Kewanee closed in 2016 and St. Charles now runs a different programme; neither fact affects a claim about what happened while they were operating.
Is it too late?
That depends on your age at the time, which body was responsible, and the particular facts, and claims against a public body carry their own requirements, which is exactly why it is worth asking rather than assuming. People regularly assume they are out of time and turn out not to be. Asking costs nothing and commits you to nothing.
Will my family find out?
Not from us. What you tell us is confidential from the first conversation, whether or not you go ahead. If you do bring a claim, steps can be taken to protect your identity in the court record, and we will explain those before anything is filed.
I am asking on behalf of someone else.
That is fine and it happens often. We can explain how this works so you can pass it on. There is no obligation on the person involved to do anything.