April 26, 2019 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board Meeting

Audience

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

Date/Time

Friday, April 26th, 2019

9:30am to 11:30am

Location

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

• Chicago: 401 Clinton Building, 7th Floor Executive video conference room
• Springfield: Harris Building, 1st Floor video conference room

Agenda

1. Call to order/Roll call
2. DHS updates
3. Approval of Minutes
4. FY19 Expenditures/commitments/number served update
5. Redeploy Program site information
   1. FY20 applications update
   2. Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction discussion
6. Redeploy Program evaluation update
7. Data Work Group update 
8. Redeploy Illinois Review Work Group
   1. Re-Establishing Baseline
   2. Focused
   3. Detention
   4. Increasing Sites-Expansion
9. Adjourn

Upcoming meetings/events:

• RIOB Meeting: Friday, May 10th, 2019 9:30 to 11:30
• All Sites Meeting: Tuesday, May 22nd (all day) and Wednesday May 23rd (half day) DoubleTree Hotel, Bloomington
• RIOB Planning Meeting: Thursday, June 20th (all day) Friday, June 21st (morning) Hyatt Lodge at McDonald's Campus, Oak Brook
• RIOB Meeting: Friday, June 21st 11:00 to 1:00. Hyatt Lodge at McDonald's Campus, Oak Brook

Minutes

1. Call to order/Roll call:
   The meeting was called to order at 9:32 am. Due to the absence of RIOB Chair Karrie Rueter, Vice-Chair Anne Studzinski conducted the meeting.
   Board Members On-site: Anne Studzinski, Janet Ahern, Megan Alderden, Betsy Clarke, Garien Gatewood, Peter Parry, Mary Reynolds, Rick Velasquez, Paula Wolff
   By phone: Rich Adkins, Sam Gaddy, Pam Rodriquez, George Timberlake
   Staff: Erica Hughes, Kristen Marshall, Berenice Villalobos, Olivia Wilks, Steve Sawyer
   The Board welcomed Megan Alderden in her new role as Acting Director of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority and Garien Gatewood in his new position at the Illinois Justice Project.
   Ms. Studzinski explained that much of the meeting would focus on matters to be taken up in the next two meetings. At the May meeting applications for FY 2020 would be reviewed for approval. Other agenda items would provide background information and direction for matters to be discussed at the planning meeting scheduled for June 20th. 
2. DHS updates
   Erica Hughes reported that the state has started to penalize grantees by placing them on the stop payment list if fiscal and programmatic reports are submitted late. She noted that, overall, Redeploy sites are quick to submit reports, but are also dependent on timely submission by subcontractors. Sites are also vulnerable to being placed on the list if the other county reports are filed late. Rick Velasquez suggested that with that new standard, there should be a commensurate expectation that the payment should not be delayed when all reports have been submitted. 
3. Approval of Minutes
   Members reviewed the minutes of the February 22, 2019 Oversight Board meeting.
   Motion: Mr. Velasquez moved to approve the minutes. Peter Parry seconded the motion.
   Decision: The board approved the minutes for the April 26, 2019 Redeploy Illinois Board meeting.
   Members of the Executive Committee reviewed the minutes of the March 25, 2019 meeting. Ms. Alderden requested that, as the Acting Executive Director of ICJIA, she be listed as a board member rather than a guest.
   Motion: Mary Reynolds moved to approve the corrected minutes. Janet Ahern seconded the motion.
   Decision: The Executive Committee members present approved the minutes for the March 25, 2019 Redeploy Executive Committee meeting as amended. 
4. FY19 Expenditures/commitments/number served update
   Ms. Hughes reported on Redeploy site expenditures and commitments. According to the data shared, all sites are on track to meet their commitment reduction. Mr. Velasquez requested that in future the report include the commitment total at the bottom of each column. Ms. Alderden asked how the baseline is calculated. Ms. Hughes explained that the baseline is based on the average number of commitments over three years, prior to the year the site joined Redeploy.
   Mr. Velasquez requested that the board take a closer look at the cost of services per youth so that the Board would be prepared if the program were reviewed by the Budgeting for Results Council. Ms. Studzinski suggested that this would be a good topic of conversation for both the application reviews at the next meeting as well as comparing per youth costs to the cost per youth in the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
   In response to questions about clarification on some dates as well as data, Ms. Hughes indicated charts would be updated for the planning meeting and shared with the Data Work Group in advance.
   Ms. Alderden asked why Union County's baseline was 11, but their projected number of youth served is 88. She specifically wanted to know whether this was a net-widening issue. Ms. Studzinski indicated that some of the Union County data has been inaccurate and they are working on whether it can be corrected. George Timberlake suggested that it is not an issue of net widening, but rather an issue of stakeholder engagement and commitment to the program. 
5. Redeploy Program site information
   1. FY20 applications update
      DHS staff reminded the board that the applications are for renewal and not a competitive bid. Ms. Studzinski proposed a process for reviewing the applications in preparation for the May meeting. She suggested that electronic copies of Redeploy site proposals be sent to all board members as soon as possible. For the next meeting, she suggested that DHS staff provide a summary about each proposal. Board members requested that the summaries include a comparison of amounts requested from the previous year, the number of youth to be served, highlight any programmatic changes, the primary mode of service delivery, variable cost site, length of stay in the program, as well as information related to the juvenile risk assessment. Mr. Velasquez asked whether there is a rubric to guide funding decisions. Paula Wolff agreed that DHS should develop a set of criteria that can be the basis for discussion. During the May meeting, board members will vote on the proposals. The board clarified that board members can vote by phone as long as there is a quorum.
   2. Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction discussion
      The board continued its discussion of the use of Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) sentencing in Winnebago County. Betsy Clarke indicated that EJJ was developed as a compromise to avoid automatic transfer and the Illinois usage around violations is a perversion of best practice. Mr. Parry indicated that in Cook County, the state's attorney's office will bring maybe 5 EJJs per year, but the judge will only accept a few. However, in Winnebago County, the state's attorney's office has filed 45 EJJ sentences in the last 3 years. Mr. Parry reported that the state and the judge are using this sentence, in part, because of a reported dissatisfaction with the length of time in DJJ. Mr. Parry also reported hearing that the public defender's office is not arguing against these sentences. Mr. Parry reported that this is particularly concerning because youth can serve the adult sentence for insignificant violations, youth can be as young as 13 to receive this sentence, and Winnebago is filing EJJs on lower offense classes. The board determined that EJJ youth are eligible for Redeploy sentences. However, the only caveat to that eligibility would be if the young person was charged with a Class X felony. Furthermore, youth charged with EJJ sentences, if sent to DJJ should count against a Redeploy site's baseline, if they are not sent on a Class X felony.
      The board discussed whether sites can serve youth charged with Class X felonies and Mr. Parry indicated that the statute does not preclude sites from serving these youth, but these offenses are not counted against their baseline. Ms. Studzinski asked the board if a Redeploy site wanted to serve a youth charged with a Class X felony, and all board members said yes.
      Samantha Gaddy, from DJJ, indicated that she has been in discussion with their data team and they could pull EJJ data for the Redeploy board. Ms. Wolff asked the board to consider whether Redeploy sites would start charging youth with Class X felonies so that they would not be counted against their baseline. Mr. Velasquez suggested that the Redeploy board could give Redeploy sites some type of credit for serving Class X youth in order to incentivize serving higher offense youth. The board discussed what this credit could look like. Mr. Velasquez tied this conversation to the previous conversation about examining the cost per youth. The board discussed exploring this topic more in upcoming meetings.
      Ms. Wolff suggested connecting with Dave Olsen to learn more about the prevalence of EJJ per county. Ms. Alderden indicated she would introduce Olivia Wilks to Dave Olsen.
      Ms. Wolff suggested that the EJJ statute may need to be changed. Ms. Clarke suggested that at this point, the board should seek more data to determine who is using EJJ. 
6. Redeploy Program evaluation update
   Ms. Alderden reported that ICJIA is waiting for all the agreements to be signed by DHS to begin the evaluation work. Ms. Hughes indicated that Redeploy staff are waiting on the signature from the Secretary. In the meantime, Ms. Hughes said that IT is pulling relevant data together. She also announced that two representatives from ICJIA will be attending the all-sites meeting. 
7. Data Work Group update
   Ms. Studzinski indicated that the Data Work Group discussed detention as it relates to expansion and suggested that the board needs to include the same provision that youth cannot have gone through detention as a sanction to participate in Redeploy. Ms. Studzinski reported that one issue the Data Work Group has discussed is regarding the JMIS system. JMIS does not currently indicate whether youth has been in detention pre or post adjudication. Mr. Timberlake indicated that he would be meeting with Shawn Freeman, who has replaced Susan Witkin at CPRD.
   DHS staff reported that they are working to ensure eCornerstone is able to measure educational and employment success. DHS worked with Mary Reynolds at the Illinois State Board of Education and they have created designations to demonstrate whether youth have improved, stayed the same, or reduced. DHS IT will start updating the education outcome report soon. DHS staff will be presenting this new report at the all-sites meeting. 
8. Redeploy Illinois Review Work Group
   Ms. Studzinski indicated that this work group was created to address Redeploy Focused. However, this expanded into a larger conversation about policy and program practice. Ms. Studzinski suggested that there are a few things that may need further discussion or intervention. The first being the need to clarify probation personnel costs through Redeploy.
   Rich Adkins reported that because the supreme court's budget has been flat for years, probation budget has gone down. He explained that other costs go up each year including e-filing costs and judicial compensation. Those demands, Mr. Adkins reported, negatively impact probation salaries, even though they are statutorily set. This year, probation is only being reimbursed at 66% of statutory costs. The AOIC has engaged legislative leaders about this challenge and they are hoping for a return to funding.
   Ms. Clark suggested moving that conversation to the June conversation. The board briefly discussed about additional work probation would need to do beyond their regular job. The board briefly discussed probation's move to the JRA and Mr. Adkins reported that they are still working on getting information into an online system.
   The second topic Ms. Studzinski discussed was that in the Redeploy statute, there are positions that are supposed to be appointed by the chief justice. The board has inquired about these appointments and were told they will not be made. Therefore, Ms. Studzinski suggested they board could remove that from the statute. The board discussed the need to remove this because it is noted any time the program is audited. Ms. Clarke suggested postponing this conversation until June. 
   1. Re-Establishing Baseline
      The board discussed whether, after 15 years in some cases, the baseline needed to be recalculated or changed. The board reiterated the need to discuss this because in the future sites may not be able to meet a 25% reduction if their numbers get too low. Peter Parry pointed out that the statute allows the board to recalculate the baseline. Ms. Studzinski indicated that it is also important to discuss the baseline recalculation because of the significant changes in law and practice around commitments to DJJ. The board agreed to discuss the baseline in more detail at the planning meeting. Ms. Alderden suggested that if Redeploy is serving going to start serving youth that are not eligible for DJJ commitment, the board will need to determine a different comparison cost. 
   2. Focused
      Finally, Ms. Studzinski reported that Redeploy Focused needs to be part of the June conversation. The work group has determined that the board can make changes to avoid the double review by appointing current board members to serve as the county review committee. The board discussed that while the application may be burdensome, the board still needs to know whether the youth is eligible. Ms. Clarke indicated that because the Juvenile Court Act is being reprinted as well as a document sharing information on where to find service providers, there could also be a one-pager distributed to defenders on Redeploy Focused. The board discussed the relevance of this to the Justice Equity and Opportunity project and its focused on how to build integration and accountability between departments. The board decided they would discuss this further in June and suggested inviting Quinn Rallins to the June meeting. 
   3. Detention: This was postponed for the June meeting.
   4. Increasing Sites-Expansion: This was postponed for the June meeting.
9. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 11:14am.