January 16, 2015 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board


Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board Members and Staff. The public is welcome to attend.


January 16, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.


This meeting will be conducted via video conference with Chicago & Springfield Locations as follows:

  • Chicago: 401 Clinton Building, 7th Floor Think Tank conference room
  • Springfield: Harris Building, 3rd Floor Executive video conference room
  • (888) 494-4032; Pass Code: 532.954.7331


  1. Call to Order
  2. Roll Call
  3. State/DHS Updates
  4. Approval of Minutes
    * November 21st, 2014
  5. Policy Decision - Serving Pre-Adjudicated Youth
  6. New Site Evaluation Proposal (Armstrong/Webb) - Funding Decision
  7. Fiscal Update
    1. Site Spending
    2. 1st Circuit Site Amendment Update
  8. FY15 Redeploy Funding Request
    1. Sangamon County
  9. Redeploy Focused Fiscal/Program Update
  10. Redeploy Focused Funding Reallocation Decision
  11. ICOY Redeploy Staff Update
  12. DHS Redeploy Staff Update
  13. IDJJ Commitment Demographic Data in Redeploy Counties - (ICJIA)
  14. Redeploy Retreat - Next Steps (Planning Committee)
  15. Next Meeting
     * RIOB Meeting February 20, 2015
  16. Adjourn


  1. Call to Order
    The meeting was called to order at 1:05 P.M.
  2. Roll Call
    Anne Studzinski, Jim McCarter, George Timberlake, Pat Griffith, Paula Wolff, Rick Velasquez, Scott Clark, Pamela Rodriguez, Mary Reynolds, Faith Seals (representing Janet Ahern) and Grace Hong Duffin. Staff and Guests: Karrie Reuter, John Payne, Steve Sawyer, Ashley Hooks-Williams, Lindsey LaPointe, Esther Franco Payne, Jazzalyn Lamadora, and Angie Jimenez.
  3. Approval of Minutes
    The RIOB discussed the minutes for November 21, 2014. Errors in the retreat minutes were noted to be corrected.
    Motion: Anne Studzinski motioned to approve the minutes with corrections. Jim McCarter seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board approved the November 21, 2014 minutes with corrections.
  4. Policy Decision-Serving Pre-Adjudicated Youth
    The committee work group reported their findings and presented a policy proposal that specified eligibility for serving pre-adjudicated youth. The committee had useful discussions with site representatives about the process of serving non-adjudicated youth under court-order jurisdiction. The level of service varied among sites, but all sites involved believed serving pre-adjudicated youth was appropriate based on their risk of commitment to DJJ as identified in the YASI. The Board discussed the role of true diversion programs and how they should be utilized if offered, before consideration of Redeploy funds/services. Concerns and clarification on what constitutes diversion, jurisdiction, and how or where funds are allocated were discussed. Members expressed concerns that we were only now learning that these youth were being served and why the status of youth was never asked, or differentiated in the data collection. Karrie explained that the new data collection system being implemented this year does collect this kind of information and in fact that is how we learned of the practice as the system was not designed to accommodate pre-adjudicated youth, providers raised the concern.
    Motion: Jim McCarter motioned to adopt the document criteria. Pat Griffith seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board did not approve motion because more discussion was needed about court-order jurisdiction and diversion.
    The definition(s) of diversion from the Juvenile Court Act was examined for clarity and the Board discussed the intent of the legislation as well as their role. The discussion led to a conclusion that the "diversion" language of the statute defines youth not at-risk of commitment to DJJ while Redeploy's intention is to reduce at-risk youth commitments. Several systemic issues such as case processing and lack of counsel in key decision making were identified as issues the Board was concerned with.
    Motion: Jim motioned that the definition of diversion be added. Ann seconded the motion and clarified it was with the assumption that the edits would be made and approved by the Executive Committee. Jim accepted the revision to the motion.
    Decision: The motion was approved pending the additions to be reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee.
  5. New Site Evaluation Proposal-Funding Decision
    Karrie explained how the new sites assessment would establish the base line for future evaluations and the Board reviewed the potential contractor's funding proposal. The evaluators are affiliated with a university and flexible with regard to payment, but would prefer to receive funds directly. The Board discussed their timeline in terms of project deadline and where the funding allocation would come from. A discussion of CJA ongoing participation in the evaluation process and their role sparked concerns on the requested funding proposal. The Board reflected on how the new site evaluation is more like an assessment and more internal than public.
    Motion: Pat motioned to approve proposal for new site evaluation contingent on available funding. George seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board approved the contingency motion. Jim McCarter opposed the motion noting that it is too expensive and CJA should be able to handle it.
  6. 1st Circuit Site Amendment
    Stephen Sawyer reported back on his interactions with the 1st Circuit stating that it has been productive, but there has been a probation misconception of responsibility for what they consider burdens. Jessica has "headquartered" herself in Jackson County and has meetings weekly with probation staff. The main issue identified was communication and these weekly meetings have been helpful to address that. The 1st Circuit is pending amendment. They have reported making their numbers in reductions and have been cooperating more. The additional funds requested include 1) client transportation, 2) client flex funds, and 3) ankle monitors. The Board addressed how probation should be paying for services like client transportation and want to make clear that funding is strictly for Redeploy. Continued concerns with their budget methodology was discussed, reiterating that funding for services must be used only for redeploy youth.
    Motion: Paula motioned to approve the contract up to the requested amount and with the expectation that will work towards adding the currently non-participating counties in the circuit in the next state fiscal year. Rick Velasquez seconded the motion and requested that staff work to ensure that their budget for next year was clearer.
    Decision: The Board approved the amendment request with the stated expectations. Pat opposed the motion because of concerns about the budget methodology.
  7. FY15 Redeploy Funding Request-Sangamon County
    Karrie informed the Board that Sangamon County has reached out to Youth Service Bureau (YSB) for programming and Case Management services for redeploy youth. The county has worked with them in the past with the UDIS program and they enjoyed success. Further, they would be contracting for data analysis indicating the need to update their planning grant. For the sake of time, the Board discussed having the executive committee to look through the request so that Sangamon County doesn't miss the opportunity to begin this fiscal year.
    Motion: Anne made a motion to give the Executive Committee the authority to consider and approve for funding the Sangamon County request for site funding, then to report their decision back to the Board. Pat seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board approved the motion.
  8. Redeploy Focused Funding Reallocation Decision
    The Board discussed funding reallocations.
    Motion: George motioned to reallocate funding to the New Site Evaluation previously approved at this meeting. Pat seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board approved the motion. Jim opposed because he believes the work could be completed by ICJIA and the cost was too high. Rick abstained because of his affiliation with Youth Network Council/ICOY.
  9. Youth Network Council Redeploy Staff Update and DHS Redeploy Staff Update
    Karrie gave an update that the position has not been filled through either Youth Network Council or DHS.
  10. IDJJ Commitment Data in Redeploy Counties and Redeploy Retreat Next Steps
    The Board asked to put the data and Retreat topics at the beginning of the next meeting due to time and priority.
  11. Next Meeting:
    RIOB Meeting: February 20, 2015
  12. Adjourn
    Motion: Rick Velasquez made a motion to adjourn. Pat seconded the motion.
    Decision: The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.