September 13, 2019 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board Meeting


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


Friday, September 13th, 2019

10:30 am to 12:30 pm


  • Chicago: 401 South Clinton, 7th Floor Executive Video Conference Room
  • Springfield: 100 South Grand Avenue East, 3rd Floor Executive Conference Room


  1. Call to order/Roll call
  2. DHS updates
  3. Approval of Minutes
  4. RIOB Membership discussion/decision
  5. FY19 year-end fiscal and program summary
  6. FY20 commitments and number served
  7. 13th Circuit budget increase request
  8. Proposed Program and Model Changes
    1. New Redeploy Programs
      1. 1.Workgroup recommendations
      2. Allocation of funding
      3. Implementation timeline
      4. GATA requirements
    2. Current Redeploy Programs
      1. Workgroup recommendations
      2. Allocation of funding
      3. Implementation timeline
      4. GATA requirements
    3. Redeploy Detention Alternative Pilot Programs
      1. Workgroup recommendations
      2. Allocation of funding
      3. Implementation timeline
      4. GATA requirements
  9. Use of EM
  10. RFP/NOFO Youth assessment tool analysis update
  11. ICJIA evaluation update
  12. Adjourn

Upcoming meetings/events:

  • Redeploy Illinois All Sites Meeting: Tuesday and Wednesday, September 17th and 18th, 2019
  • RIOB Executive Committee Meeting: Friday, September 20th, 2019
  • RIOB Planning Meeting: Thursday and Friday, October 17th and 18th, 2019
  • RIOB Full Board Meeting: Friday, October 18th, 2019

Meeting minutes

  1. Call to order/Roll Call
    The meeting was called to order at 10:30 am
    In person: Betsy Clark, Karrie Rueter, Peter Parry, Jason Stamps, Anne Studzinski, Judge George Timberlake, Rick Velasquez, Rich Adkins, Secretary Grace Hou, Tracy Senica, Luis Kline, Garien Gatewood, Paula Wolff, (3 interns), Samantha Gaddy
    By phone: Heidi Mueller, Mary Reynolds, Pam Rodriguez, Mary Ann Dyar
    Staff: Kadima Palles, Olivia Wilks, Judge Steve Sawyer, Kristen Marshall, Erica Hughes
  2. DHS updates
    Karrie Rueter welcomed Jason Stamps, the new acting Executive Director of ICJIA, who previously worked at UIC.
    Secretary Grace Hou said a few words including reiterating the fact that DHS and the Lieutenant Governor's office is interested in working together and is specifically interested in the work of Redeploy.
    Secretary Grace Hou gave a Census project update: 29 million dollars has been appropriated to contribute to census outreach in Illinois. The plan moving forward is to divide IL into 12 regions with each region receiving 1 or 2 intermediaries to serve as a hub. This will allow engagement with more traditionally under-served and under-counted populations, including those who are justice involved. With the allocation of this extra funding, DHS is confident that the Census will be able to prioritize those communities most difficult to count. 
  3. Approval of Minutes
    The Board discussed the minutes from the June 21, 2019 board meeting.
    Motion: Paula Wolff made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 21, 2019 board meeting. Anne Studzinski seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board approved the minutes from the June 21, 2019. 
  4. RIOB Membership discussion/decision
    The Board discussed the fact that some statutorily mandated members have never been appointed to the board. Ms. Rueter reported that the board needed to decide about these positions and whether they want to seek other membership.
    While Judge Timberlake has retired as Chair from the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission, he would like to continue as a Redeploy board member
    Rick Velasquez is now the chairperson for the Juvenile Justice Commission and therefore will remain a board member with no action required by the board. However, because he retired from his role with Youth Outreach Services, the board should consider filling the service provider board slot. DHS reported that they would work with board members to talk to new court and judiciary leadership to discuss appointments to the Redeploy board. To ensure appropriate appointment of these positions, the board agreed that an ad hoc committee of at least 3 board members should be formed with the goal of formulating recommendations for these slots. Recommendations will be brought back to the board for final approval. The board made special note to ensure that the recommendations included more racial and geographic diversity. Garien Gatewood, Betsy Clarke & Judge Timberlake all volunteered to participate on this committee with Judge Sawyer assisting with background research.
    Ms. Studzinski asked whether that group could also consider a Chicago-area provider as well as a downstate provider to sit on the Redeploy board. Pam Rodriquez is now the only board member representing a youth serving organization. The Board would like 1-3 more representatives of the youth serving organization.
    Motion: Ms. Studzinski made a motion to allow Judge George Timberlake to continue to serve on the board. Mr. Velasquez seconded the motion and The Secretary accepted the recommendation.
    Decision: Judge George Timberlake will continue to serve as a board member for the Redeploy board. 
  5. FY19 year-end fiscal and program summary
    Ms. Rueter advised that most programs spent most of their money except for the 4th circuit, the 2nd circuit, and Macon County. Ulrici, the 4th Circuit coordinator, reported to DHS that the 4th circuit was waiting on finalizing a contract with SPERO. She indicated that this delay contributed to their low expenditures. Furthermore, outreach to all counties within the judicial circuit is still in process and lack of awareness has also contributed to their lack in spending. Judge Timberlake advised that it is critical that SPERO should be tightly overseen and held accountable as they did not fulfill their contract in southern Illinois. The board discussed oversight of subcontractors and Ms. Rueter clarified that DHS is responsible for oversight, but subcontractor oversight should be the responsibility of the coordinator. If there are ongoing challenges, staff will have conversations with the subcontractors during site visits. It was also advised that when the 4th circuit is creating the contract with SPERO, there are clauses that allow dissolution of said contract upon failure to meet obligations. Judge Timberlake reiterated that contractual obligation is not the problem; the issue is coordinated quality assurance or general procurement in the Southern region. Judge Sawyer asked if this is a problem because providers are not embedded in the community. Judge Timberlake advised that management over multiple counties and big regions is a challenge with Anne Studzinski indicating that it is typically a rural problem and a problem about spread. Secretary Hou asked for clarification of the specific barriers to serving the Southern Region. Judge Timberlake explained that much of the problem is due to lack of spending their budget for several reasons: 
    1. Larger providers are often not embedded geographically.
    2. Agencies have difficulty attracting and retaining effective staff in part because of low salaries.
    3. Utilization of EBP is very low as there are high administrative costs. In rural these interventions often leave agencies struggling to sustain themselves.
      The board discussed whether Redeploy pay for EBP overhead cost and could offer regional trainings in order to take the burden off agencies. Rick Velasquez indicated that there are models out there, including Washington, where costs are centralized which defrays the burden for providers. Anne Studzinski pointed out that because we have allowed sites to choose the most appropriate evidence-based services, it could be a challenge to centralize training and meet all individual needs.
      Rick Adkins indicated that Montgomery has low detention days and high DJJ commitment which may indicate that they are utilizing DJJ as the alternative to county costs of detention or local supports. Karrie Rueter reminded the board that the 4th circuit is still recovering from the budget impasse.
      Ms. Wolff suggested that Redeploy could also support a centralized workforce development program for Redeploy youth. The Board also discussed working with Janet Ahern about increased partnership with DCFS. According to Ms. Rueter, Redeploy only serves 2 or 3 DCFS youth in a fiscal year.
      The Board requested that a discussion around centralized and regional services for agency training, support and workplace development be added to the agenda for the planning meeting.
      DHS reported that in order to continue their program, Macon County transitioned their lead agency to be their local mental health board. This transition contributed to lower expenditures. Tara Montgomery in the 2nd circuit, indicated that they thought their circuit would be serving misdemeanors earlier which contributed to their lower expenditures. 
  6. FY20 commitments and number served
    DHS indicated that they had been working on a new spreadsheet for each board meeting to make information regarding number of youth served clearer. The board asked whether racial and ethnic data were available in this spreadsheet and DHS indicated they would try to capture that.
    DHS reported that at the All-Sites meeting, two people per site will get access to business objects so that they can access the reports that DHS sees. Sites will be trained on accessing, manipulating and utilizing this data in order to have the ability to produce data.
    Mr. Velasquez asked whether reporting included information on case closures. Erica Hughes indicated that DHS does have that information. Ms. Rueter reported that moving forward that data point can be requested from sites or Ms. Hughes can enter it into the reporting sheet. One data element that had been reported on in the past, is successful case closure. That data point is defined by where a young person ends up; either they are in secure confinement or in a neutral placement. However, Ms. Rueter will share with the data work group what she has been capturing as it relates to successful discharge to ensure there is a clear definition. Additionally, the board will recommend what constitutes a positive outcome.
    Ms. Rueter reported that the percentage of youth that come out of Redeploy with successful discharge meaning they complete program requirements, they do not get kicked out of the program and/or avoid detention and DJJ - has dropped from 70% to 50%. Unfortunately, half of the youth reported on were in in DJJ at closure. Many youth had re-offended, but some also went to DJJ on their original charge. Ms. Wolff suggested that this could be related that the fact that the program was no longer serving misdemeanors and sites had higher need and risk youth in their programs. DHS also suggested that this could be related to the decreased usage of EBPs through the budget impasse. Ms. Wolff pointed out that if the board found this drop is related serving youth who have committed felonies it is imperative that we question whether our previous success was because we were serving kids with less complex needs. Anecdotally Ms. Rueter suggested that families are seeing positive impacts from Redeploy sites in the home, including better behavior of redeploy youths' siblings, even if youth are sent to DJJ.
    Samantha Gaddy asked whether sites are getting information on who they are sending to DJJ and who they did not need to send to DJJ. Ms. Hughes explained that they do not get that information at this point as the data they get is not detailed beyond the commitment data. Ms. Gaddy asked whether there could be benefit in sharing information to sites about patterns in the youth they send to DJJ.
    Ms. Rueter explained that currently it is a challenge to get information from DJJ regularly. Ms. Hughes indicated that moving forward she will share information on "missed opportunities" during site visits. Ms. Rueter elaborated that DHS has started collecting information on why Redeploy youth went to DJJ. Ms. Wolff asked if the information being collected was disaggregated by race and if not, could that analysis be included in the future. Ms. Studzinski asked if the Board could revisit this once Ms. Rueter determined how to capture this data and Ms. Rueter agreed. Secretary Hou asked if we could do that analysis by geographic area as well and Ms. Rueter indicated yes.
    Funding Projections (New Sites)
    Ms. Rueter outlined all the projects going forward to determine whether there is enough funding in FY20 to make these grants non-competitive. Total grant funds available will be $2.025 million. The projections include funding for eligible sites in 7 counties including Cook, which was separated into 15 regions, specifically for their planning phase. Ms. Rueter estimated that $350K for each site for approximately 6 months of planning, previously planning had been projected at 3 to 4 months, but most sites reported needed 6+ months. Ms. Rueter indicated that based on this budget, Redeploy would be able to fund all 21 sites (15 districts in cook and other 6 sites) in full. She estimates it will cost $1.225 million for sites to be covered in the case that each and one applied for the full amounts.
    The timeline shows that realistically a funding notice will be posted either the 1st or 15th of October and stay posted for 4 weeks. Once all applications are in, funding will begin in December 2019. Most sites will likely be ready for full implementation July 1. Ms. Rueter advised that she will be advocating for grants to be non-competitive - this will allow agencies to be encouraged and supported in applying. Ms. Rueter also has requested exemption for all currently funded sites.
    DHS is projecting a 6-month planning grant process for most sites and therefore it is expected that most sites will not need implementation funds for FY20. The budget plan allows for implementation funding if a site finishes the planning stage early.
    The budget projection indicates that the board could cover implementation costs with the remaining $800,000 assuming every grant is approved and applied without implementation.
    Mr. Velasquez asked if there is a plan for spending if that money is not used for implementation grants. Karrie Rueter indicated that the board would know more in December what their remaining costs will look like. The new detention pilot follows a similar budgetary projection for 49 counties. Per the projection, Redeploy can cover all planning grants and implementation in the case that each eligible site applies.
    The assessment tool budgetary analysis is also summarized on the financial document. Ms. Rueter has applied for exemption requests for the three programmatic NOFOs and it is her expectation that Redeploy will be able to successfully make the case for non-competitive awards. The non-competitive status allows for more technical assistance and support for applicants. Following the planning phase, sites will submit a final report and if they are determined to have successfully completed the planning phase, they will be invited to submit an application for full implementation. If sites complete their applications early, they can get their full grant in place during the same fiscal year. As soon as the board makes a formal decision on RFP parameters board members can discuss the program and applications with jurisdictions about non-competitive status.
    Motion: Betsy Clark made a motion for DHS to move forward with the Redeploy Illinois new site two-phase non-competitive application. Mr. Velasquez seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board approved moving forward with the Redeploy Illinois new site two-phase non-competitive application.
    Mr. Velasquez requested assistance in how to best articulate this application in a clear and succinct way. 
  7. 13th Circuit budget increase request
    Motion: Judge Timberlake motioned to approve the 13th Circuit budget increase request. Ms. Studzinski seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board approved the 13th Circuit budget increase request.
    Judge Timberlake indicated that DHS should require outcome-based data as part of applications and the board ultimately should review this data when considering further budget increases. 
  8. Proposed Program and Model Changes
    1. New Redeploy Program
      When considering baselines for new sites the Board decided that it will consider the previous 3 years of data and it will only include the primary target population. New sites will be held to the 25% reduction requirement. A year after their start-up phase ends, sites must reach the 25% reduction. Penalties will be deferred until sites go through a board directed corrective plan. If the site fails to comply or implement the corrective action, there will be penalty imposed based on individual determination by the board.
      These requirements were decided without additional comments, the draft will become final Monday Sept. 23rd.
      Judge Timberlake reiterated the importance of including outcomes into the application, he will share a draft to DHS of some outcomes used in a different project.
      Judge Sawyer suggested including a clarifying line that current sites "will not be subject to requirements for further reduction beyond 25%". He suggested the draft my benefit from some minor word changes/or eliminating language around penalties.
    2. Established Redeploy Programs:
      The Board read through the meeting documents outlining proposed changes to current Redeploy sites. Ms. Rueter clarified to the Board that sites become 'established' after consistent 25% DJJ reductions for 5 years. This requires sites to maintain rather than further reduce and a new baseline will be established. The expectation of the sites is to maintain that new 3-year average. Any site that hits that 3-year average or less, will automatically be funded the next year. Any site that exceeds that will be evaluated on an individual basis to determine possible status changes and outcomes.
      Ms. Wolff asked whether this 'established' status could include incentives to sites to continue efforts to further reduce their DJJ population versus making it easier for them to maintain the status quo. She suggested that we could include language and resources to incentivize reduction further than maintaining established baselines.
      Ms. Rueter will rewrite the current contracts for sites to reflect these updates.
      Motion: Judge Timberlake made a motion to amend the current Redeploy sites' contracts to allow providers to expand their service population and move forward with a new model for FY20. Ms. Clarke seconded the motion.
      Decision: The board approved the motion to amend the current Redeploy sites' contracts to allow providers to expand their service populations and move forward with the new model in FY20. 
    3. Redeploy Detention Alternative Pilot Programs:
      The Board decided that there will be ongoing discussion of the detention pilot; however, it was agreed that the detention pilot is being designed as a mirror of the Established Redeploy Illinois program. The detention pilot is targeted at sites that are not eligible to become full Redeploy sites and do not have a detention center. The Board reviewed the draft of the detention pilot planning grant. Currently, the Board will use JMIS as the data source for this program and will look at the previous 3-year average of total detention days for a site. For this program, the measure used to determine success is reduction in total detention days. Initially it was determined that sites will prioritize interventions with 10 to 12-year olds; however, Judge Timberlake and Betsy Clarke requested the program to include 13-year olds. Successful sites will have a 25% reduction in detention days. The Board discussed this number and Ms. Rueter suggested that there could be a cost-benefit analysis done to determine the penalty. The Board asked Mr. Adkins to assist in coming up with an average cost of detention in Illinois. The implementation timeline for this pilot will be the same as all other Redeploy grants.
      Motion: Ms. Clarke made a motion to set aside $1.225 million for the detention pilot, with the addition of including 13-year olds to the priority target age range. Peter Parry seconded the motion.
      Decision: The Board approved the motion to allocate $1.225 million for the detention pilot with the priority target age range being 10-13. 
  9. Use of EM (Electronic Monitoring)
    While the Board decided in the previous meeting to discontinue Redeploy funding for EM in FY20, notes from the previous meeting instructed the Board to continue the conversation. The Board agreed that while they would allow sites to continue using EM, funds for FY 20 and all future grants and programs would not pay for it. Karrie Rueter would like to ensure consistency on how EM is handled going into next year for all programs.
    Motion: Ms. Clarke made a motion that EM cannot be paid for with Redeploy funds for any of the Redeploy programs. Judge Timberlake seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board determined that EM cannot be paid for with Redeploy funds for any of the Redeploy programs.
    It was agreed that sites should be prepared for restrictions in FY20 and grant applicants should be educated on that determination. There will be further information on this topic at the planning meeting and Judge Timberlake requested that the Board go beyond itself to get more information regarding the current state of EM. 
  10. RFP/NOFO Youth assessment tool analysis update
    Ms. Rueter discussed the need for a youth assessment tool and whether it would be most effective to seek a program specific tool or one that could be implemented statewide with other programs or systems. Ms. Rueter proposed $125,000 for this analysis.
    Motion: Ms. Studzinski made a motion to move forward with creating a competitive NOFO for $125,000 for a meta-analysis on youth assessments. Judge Timberlake seconded the motion. Jason Stamps abstained. Decision: The Board will release a NOFO for $125,000 seeking a meta-analysis on youth assessments. 
  11. ICJIA evaluation update
    Ms. Hughes reported that ICJIA has entered the majority of Redeploy data and they should be able to start audits and analysis shortly. 
  12. Adjourn 
    Motion: Garien Gatewood motioned to adjourn at 12:13
    Decision: The meeting adjourned at 12:50.