Illinois House of Representatives
Find food assistance & homeless shelter services. Zoom to the street. Take a destination to Google Maps.
Select a lettered pin for its address, schedule & contact details. R marks an intake office; call for shelter placement.
Loading district boundary…
Preparing the map.
Tap the map or use Pin map center.
Loading food & shelter locations…
Need another option? Find food & mobile distributions · 211 Illinois · Call 211
Published information reviewed 15 September 2026. Call before visiting for hours, eligibility & shelter availability. Pins approximate published addresses; district labels are geographic estimates. This is a selected directory, without live bed counts. Empty results do not establish that no service exists.
Google chooses the route; it may cross outside the district. The boundary is a dated reference layer. Confirm addresses close to the line with the State Board of Elections district locator.
Illinois State Board of Elections · Electoral Districts. 2022 district series. Source record last edited 2025-07-01; this may include attribute edits. Retrieved 2026-09-14. This saved snapshot does not update automatically.
The map uses the complete source geometry with no coordinate rounding or simplification. Street tiles: © OpenStreetMap contributors. Street tiles require an internet connection.
Export downloads a KML outline. On a computer, open Google My Maps, create a map, choose Add layer → Import, then select the downloaded file. Sign in with the Google account used on your phone.
In Google Maps, open Saved → Maps to view your custom map. Menu labels may vary by device. For directions, select a destination on this page, then choose Navigate in Google Maps. A directions link does not transfer the district outline or constrain a route to its borders.
Google’s import instructions · Viewing My Maps in Google Maps
The archive documents campaign-related conversations, introductions, sign handling & photography. It contains recorded requests, refusals, participant interpretations & proposals with no recorded completion. These categories remain distinct throughout the review. [1] [2]
No vote total, vote commitment, audience reach or formal endorsement is established by this audit. The material does not support a campaign-wide management assessment, a comparative performance rating or an election forecast.
Open the original recording Original media remains in its source folder.
The source is a nearly two-hour recording containing one audio stream plus embedded metadata. The file’s audio data decoded to the end. The filename, Drive MIME label & detected container disagree, but that discrepancy did not prevent decoding. [1]
| Property | Measured or observed result |
|---|---|
| Source file | 44,113,221 bytes; original Drive filename ends in .m4a. |
| Detected format | MP4/M4A container with HE-AAC audio. Drive reports audio/mpeg; the downloaded filename acquired an additional .mp3 suffix. The detected container remains MP4/M4A. |
| Duration | 7,015.750 seconds at container level; audio stream: 7,015.723 seconds. |
| Audio stream | 48,000 Hz; two decoded channels; nominal audio bitrate 48,000 bits/s. |
| Text recovered | 704 embedded text packets containing 13,924 word entries with timestamps. |
| Decode result | The entire audio stream decoded successfully in the technical pass. |
| Integrated loudness | −15.1 LUFS, measured across the original decoded two-channel stream. |
| Loudness range | 17.5 LU. This is a measured level-variation statistic, not a speech-intelligibility assessment. |
| Maximum true peak | +3.5 dB relative to digital full scale, in the measurement window ending near 00:16:58.7. |
| Maximum sample peak | +2.23 dBFS in the floating-point decoded signal. |
| Boundary condition | The last transcript entry is a question. The source ends before its answer is established. |
The loudness measurements describe the decoded signal across the complete file, including conversation, movement & any other recorded sound. They do not isolate a speaker or provide an intelligibility measurement. The maximum true peak exceeds digital full scale in the floating-point reconstruction; this does not by itself establish microphone clipping, audible distortion or the cause of the peak. [1] [9]
Five 0.1-second measurement windows had a true peak above full scale: windows ending near 00:00:57.7, 00:01:11.6, 00:16:27.7, 00:16:58.7 & 00:32:52.6. These are signal observations, not identified speech defects. No listening-based finding is made about wind, traffic masking, vocal tone or emotional effect. [1]
The embedded text includes fragmented sentences, uncertain names, phonetic substitutions & multiple speakers within single segments. Its timestamps provide a reproducible index into the source, but they do not authenticate the speech. This report paraphrases the campaign-related passages instead of presenting the automated wording as a verbatim transcript.
All chronology times are elapsed offsets from the file’s beginning. The source title gives “Sep 11 at 18-07.” Container metadata reports creation at 2026-09-12 01:04:32 UTC. The Pixel images contain separate local-time EXIF values. These clocks have not been synchronized; no exact audio-to-photo match is asserted.
28 timecoded entries cover the campaign-related passages found across the complete embedded transcript. Unrelated personal conversation is omitted. Each entry records what the text contains, with unresolved outcomes stated beside the event. [1]
The automated text contains a disclosure that audio is being recorded, followed by discussion of phones, photographs & preservation of media. [1]
A recorded disclosure does not establish permission for every later use or every later participant.
The participants discuss visiting acquaintances about a sign. A lookup is mentioned. [1]
This passage records discussion; it contains no completed sign-placement agreement.
A participant reports a first weekly call with state-party personnel, earlier unanswered requests for assistance & questions about access to a voter database. [1]
These are retrospective statements. The folder contains no corresponding email thread, call minutes or support agreement.
The conversation turns to a possible call with another candidate concerning assistance. [1]
No completed call or resulting commitment is documented in this interval.
A participant connects the decision to run with an earlier effort to assist a person experiencing homelessness & a public-camping ordinance. [1]
This records a stated motivation. It does not independently establish the ordinance’s text, history or effects.
The participants identify a campaign sign while travelling, discuss taking its photograph & comment on the resulting frame. [1]
The precise correspondence between this passage & an individual photograph has not been synchronized.
The conversation describes efforts to obtain identity documents, an affidavit or certification, agency correspondence & a mailing arrangement. SNAP & Medicaid are discussed together. [1]
Some assertions can be checked against published rules; the individual case history remains undocumented. See the claim review.
The participants discuss changing their immediate destination to speak with a county official. [1]
The later arrival is recorded separately. This passage alone is a proposal.
A further stop is considered while travelling. [1]
The available text does not establish a completed visit to this separately discussed household.
Data centers, mental-health services, health care & the role of local health departments are mentioned. [1]
The recording supplies no cited budget, facility inventory or hospital-closure documentation for these statements.
The transcript describes arrival, discussion of campaign cards, an approach to a building & an initial greeting. [1]
No endorsement or permission to publish a person’s image follows from arrival or introduction alone.
The participants discuss positioning for a photograph; the text includes a brief acknowledgement after the apparent shutter moment. [1]
This is transcript evidence of photo-making. It is not a verified identification of the resulting file.
A participant introduced in context as a county official discusses shelter locations, staffing, building suitability, existing organizations & prior meetings. [1]
The titles, meeting attendance, capacity figures & status of proposed locations have not been independently corroborated here.
A request to take a photograph is followed by an explicit preference not to appear. The conversation also refers to private cooperation among people. [1]
The private-cooperation remarks do not establish a public endorsement, an authorized quotation or a vote commitment.
The participants describe district boundaries using roads & nearby communities. [1]
No address-level boundary has been validated from this conversation. Informal directions are not a verified district map.
Possible communication with other people & a possible later lunch are mentioned before the visit concludes. [1]
No accepted appointment, date or completed later meeting appears in this passage.
The participants discuss their impressions of the encounter, including a smile & their perception of the interaction. [1]
These are their interpretations. The audit makes no inference about the other participant’s political preference or eventual vote.
A participant describes past protest organizing & earlier interactions with media. [1]
This is a retrospective account, with no event archive or publication history supplied to establish its scope.
An introduction is followed by a request to place a campaign sign. The automated text records assent & a location suggested by the person responding. [1]
The recorded assent concerns the immediate placement being discussed. No separately documented blanket permission, formal endorsement or voting commitment is present.
The transcript describes sign hardware, handling a sign & taking photographs with the rural setting in view. The folder separately contains images of a person handling a sign & a sign standing in grass. [1]
A later assertion that another person’s vote has been won is not corroborated by a statement from that person.
A participant describes someone else having installed a sign previously. The conversation then considers other locations & recounts the two earlier visits. [1]
The prior installer’s role is self-reported. Wider property access is not established by the earlier limited sign-placement exchange.
The participants discuss a potential gathering, a venue, food, costs & possible assistance. [1]
The folder contains no booking, accepted vendor arrangement, event announcement or payment record. The discussion is not presented as a plan endorsed by this audit.
The conversation returns to district geography, signs & possible stops at businesses or a familiar building. [1]
No completed agreement can be inferred from these proposals.
The transcript describes stopping at a building, approaching entrances, waiting & eventually speaking to someone about an introduction. [1]
The nature of the organization’s affiliation is not established. Silence in the transcript during the wait is not proof that no sound was recorded.
A participant introduces the candidacy while speaking with a resident. The reply discusses tenancy, an upcoming move & the roadside area. [1]
The automated wording is too uncertain to establish a completed placement agreement or any endorsement.
The participants discuss stopping at an acquaintance’s house. [1]
This passage documents an intended visit, with no outcome in the passage itself.
The automated text records a sign request, an apparent negative reply & a subsequent acknowledgement that the person said no. [1]
The exact wording & speaker attribution remain provisional pending listening verification.
The transcript describes handling a sign, introductions & a final request to put a sign in a yard. The last text segment starts at 01:56:52; the audio ends at approximately 01:56:55.7. [1]
The recording ends before an answer to that last request is established. No outcome is assigned.
Published sources establish several limited facts. They do not authenticate every recollection or resolve an individual person’s case history. Statements about specific people’s intentions remain attributed reports.
| Subject | Recorded or supplied statement | Source comparison & limits |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate identity & election | The folder uses “McRee.” | The Illinois State Board of Elections lists Caroline McCree as the Democratic candidate & Jed Davis as the Republican candidate for the 75th Representative district, with active status for the November 3, 2026 general election. [4] |
| Election countdown | The brief refers to six weeks; the recording includes a shorter informal countdown. | November 3 is 53 days after September 11 & 52 days after September 12. Six weeks equals 42 days. These are calendar calculations, not electoral forecasts. [4] |
| Early-voting reference | At 00:27:57 the text refers to 13 days before early voting. | September 24 is 13 days after September 11. The statewide League of Women Voters calendar identifies September 24 as the first day to vote early or by mail; Henry County’s official calendar separately confirms that date for its clerk’s office. Neither source establishes a particular Kendall County location’s hours. [5] [6] |
| Homeless-status form timing | At 00:36:08 the text describes a form as valid for 30 days. | The Illinois Secretary of State’s March 2026 Homeless Status Certification, DSD A 230.3, states that it must be received at application within 90 days of notarization. The precise form & date used in the earlier individual case are unknown, so this difference does not establish what rule applied in that earlier case. [7] |
| ID-card delivery | The discussion treats lack of a home address as an obstacle to obtaining identity documents. | The same current certification describes delivery of the state ID card to the participating agency, with collection within 60 days of agency receipt. It also requires separate identity documentation. This source concerns a state ID card; it does not resolve Social Security-card procedures or every agency’s capacity to receive mail. [7] |
| SNAP address rule | At 00:37:33–00:39:27 the participants dispute whether a residential address is required. | 7 CFR § 273.3(a) bars requiring an otherwise eligible household to live in a permanent dwelling or possess a fixed mailing address as a SNAP eligibility condition. The regulatory text supports that limited proposition. It does not establish that a particular local agency must accept mail for someone. [8] |
| Medicaid, local shelter capacity & service history | The discussion includes Medicaid access, the status of local shelter services & prior agency responses. | The available folder contains no relevant case correspondence, written agency determination, current capacity inventory or underlying service records. These claims remain uncorroborated here. The SNAP rule above is not treated as proof of a Medicaid rule. |
| Institutional assistance & event arrangements | The recording describes support requests, help from acquaintances & a possible event. | These remain participant reports or proposals unless a specific live exchange is documented in the chronology. No campaign-wide staffing, budget or management conclusion is drawn. |
| Votes, endorsements & audience response | Several passages interpret encounters positively or refer to another person’s possible support. | The archive does not establish a vote commitment by an absent person, an authorized public endorsement or a measurable audience response. One private message is not an electorate sample. [3] |
| First accompanied media session | The brief describes this as the first media material with someone accompanying the candidate. | The supplied photos document more than one person’s involvement in the pictured activity. The folder provides no complete earlier media history from which to establish that this was the first such session. [2] |
The March 2026 ID form & the SNAP residency regulation concern different programs. Neither determines the facts of an individual benefits case, the obligations of a particular local mail-receiving arrangement or the lawfulness of a particular sign location.
The folder has 36 JPEG images, one PNG screenshot, one audio file & one ZIP. The JPEG collection comprises 32 Pixel photographs plus four files labelled “Caroline’s Photos.” The separately attached profile screenshot is additional context, outside the 39-file folder count. [2]
The three figures reproduce supplied source images. Their captions describe visible content without inferring the identity, political preference or permission of another person; the one identification given is the photographed participant's own. The photographed actions are not treated as measures of campaign effectiveness.
| Source group | Visible content | Evidence limit |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel photos 01–04 | Travel views, streetscape & roadside campaign sign. | File sequence records views from a vehicle; it does not establish a route-completion log. |
| Pixel photo 05 | Printed promotional material. | The image is not an executed event agreement or payment record. |
| Pixel photos 06–07 | Interior workspace with desks & screens. | Screen contents & private interior details are not reproduced in the report. |
| Pixel photo 08 | A person standing outdoors with printed material. | The image alone does not establish an endorsement by an occupant or property owner. |
| Pixel photos 09–11 | Tree details & a campaign sign beside a road. | A visible sign establishes its presence in the image; exact placement permissions are separate evidence. |
| Pixel photos 12–26 | Low-light view, building exteriors, windows, interior views & street scenes. | These photographs do not establish the organization’s affiliation, property rights or shelter capacity. |
| Pixel photo 27 | Frame appears almost entirely black at ordinary viewing exposure. | No campaign action can be confidently described from the ordinary rendering. |
| Pixel photos 28–32 | Five closely timed night views from the Route 47 rail overpass in Yorkville (location per the photographed participant), with a sign visible in the scene. | Separate frames are not counted as separate visits, permissions or people. |
| Caroline photos A & D | A McCree sign standing beside a rural road, shown at different framings. | These views do not establish an additional independent location or agreement. |
| Caroline photo C | A person handling a McCree sign beside a road at sunset. | This documents visible sign handling, without establishing who owns the roadside strip. |
| Caroline photo B | Rob Gryder holding a McCree sign over the railing of the Route 47 rail overpass, Yorkville, at night, backlit by headlights at Boombah Lane. | Identity, location & the intent to suspend the sign from the bridge are the participant's own statement. The image does not document an installation, a placement permission or audience response. |
| Private message screenshot | A message declining participation in a supporting video & stating the sender’s political views. | The sender’s name, telephone number & detailed private views are omitted. This is one communication, not a survey. |
| Attached profile screenshot | A profile page displaying a small sign-handling photograph. | The displayed friend count is not evidence of post reach, voter reach, approval or voting intent. |
All 32 ZIP members are byte-for-byte duplicates of the corresponding loose Pixel files, verified using SHA-256. No additional media or transcript is present inside that ZIP. The loose Pixel EXIF date/time values run from September 11, 2026 at 18:40:22 to 20:32:28. These are file metadata, not independently authenticated wall-clock observations. [2]
The final five Pixel images were captured within roughly three seconds according to their filenames & metadata. The sequence is a burst of related night views. The four Caroline-labelled files include alternate views of sign activity, but their filenames alone do not establish four separate events. [2]
This review covers the complete embedded transcript, a full technical pass through the audio, visual inspection of all 37 folder images, comparison of all 32 ZIP members & the separately attached profile screenshot. Public-source checks were completed on September 12, 2026. No additional campaign correspondence, account analytics, staffing records, financial ledger or earlier complete media archive was supplied. [1] [2]
The transcript was recovered directly from the source’s timed metadata packets. The report’s event summaries are paraphrases; automated speaker labels are not used as verified identities. Exact elapsed offsets are retained. Words outside the campaign-related scope, personal health details, private phone numbers, residential directions & unrelated allegations are omitted from the report.
The original audio was inspected with FFprobe & decoded with FFmpeg 6.1.1. Integrated loudness, loudness range & true peak were measured using the ebur128 filter with true-peak measurement enabled; sample statistics came from astats. Measurements use the original decoded two-channel signal without gain changes. Successful decoding establishes file readability, not historical completeness or authenticity. [9]
The record establishes the existence of particular recorded statements & visible images. It does not establish the representativeness of these encounters, how anyone later voted, whether every discussed action occurred or whether any private individual authorized an endorsement.
SHA-256 of the 44,113,221-byte recording:
c5ac7bdb4f978b0ab6a590712a47903e290acdf771ba72fa6d7c8598cd278d6dThe digest identifies the exact file inspected. It is not an authenticity certification.