Firearm Violence Research Group (FVRG) Meeting Minutes
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 Time: 9:30am - 11:00AM
Meeting Information
Join from the meeting link
Attendees: Javon Gregoire (IDHS), Sean Gallardo (IDHS), Joe Hoereth(UIC), Daryl Kroner (SIU), Lance Williams (NEIU), David Olson (LUC), Delrice Adams (ICJIA), Soledad, McGrath (NWE), Timothy Lavery (ICJIA), Wendy Nussbaum(IDHS), Christopher Patterson (IDHS), Mehar, Satsangi (UofC), Roy Rothschild (UIC), Jon Patterson, Kim Smith (IDHS), Andrew P. (NWE), Tammy Kochel (SIU), Karrie R. (IDHS)
Absent: Christopher Patterson (IDHS), Norma Ramos (UIC), Ryan Croke
Topic Notes
Welcome/Roll Call/Approval of Minutes
? Joe Hoereth, PhD, Director - Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement, University of Illinois Chicago (UIC)
? Assistant Secretary Christopher Patterson - Office of Firearm Violence Prevention, Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) Meeting Called to order @9:35am
Meeting minutes were approved by consensus
Public Comment
? *Subject to written comment in advance No public comments received
Discussion & Work Items: Joe Hoereth, PhD, Director - Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement, (UIC)
- FVRG Immediate Priorities
- Support for Local Advisory Councils (LACs)
- OFVP Performance Measures and Assessment Tool
Discussion of FVRG Immediate Priorities:
The Research group was made aware that the Violence Prevention NOFO has gone live. Survey link is on the website to share with your networks. They were also informed that the LAC meetings will start in March. LAC's were created by using recommendations that were received from legislature, community and internal sta?. In the process of reviewing with the legislature to get approved. Recommendations will need to be created by April. The LAC's will continue to review/update data. LAC's are in municipalities outside of the city.
Joe Hoereth shared the Literature Review Document is a current priority as it will be included in set of resources provided to the LACs from last week and also the document was emailed to the Research Group and went over the suggestions/updates and asked if the Group had any more suggestions/updates to add. A copy of this document will be provided to the LACs in March with any additional data elements and templates. We talked about basic demographics which we have added to. What was clear is that we need to update as we go along, working with the LAC's to customize data to their speci?c needs. At this point we are taking an approach of lowest common denominator with regard to compiling data about the municipalities. We will continue to customize data moving forward.
Comments from Members:
? It's good to give them something to start within then dig deeper. Maybe someone from Law enforcement would be good to ask for data. IDHS will not have information on the perpetrators. That will have to come from law enforcement. Ask for the most current information that they have from 2021
? In the data pro?les we added data from eligibility tables. We went looking for a possibility of an index to share with the LAC's. Is anyone aware of an index that can be used. There could be a mix of data connected with gun violence and that is not clear. If anything comes to mind please send me an email.
Joe Hoereth shared the Assessment Tool Data spreadsheet and asked the group if they were familiar with PACT. Members have heard of it but never used it. Group shared some recommendations on the Assessment Tool Data.
Comments from members:
? Center for Victims services, you need the tool to be easy for the administrators. I will see if I can ?nd anything through the
programs that we have.
- We don't have the interventions; are we voting all things that happen before intervention. Do we know the programs? Need to make the connection between the assessment.
- Finding your development program. We will fund 3 to 4 youth development programs across the city. We will refer them to you. At minimum the individual ?agged will receive individual case management. Higher risk children will go through the HFS program. The organizations will go through all the assessments. We may look at 2 di?erent screening components to identify high risk. We need the instrument that assesses the children to get to the intervention.
- Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT)/ added mental health component. YASI pre screen will not be su?cient
- The factors and the questions of the Safety Score seem useful
Discussion of Performance Measures/Indicators:
The Research Group wanted to know what info should OFVP be gathering and what questions need to be asked in regards to programs and does the NOFO list types of programs or is it broadly construed? Karrie R. explained the program model: We were descriptive in the program model. For youth development. It was prescriptive. We did leave room for ?exibility to not do various components. High risk program is simple: it's case management and referrals the program has to include case management violence prevention and street outreach has to be done.
? The information that Tim L shared in the previous meeting was helpful. Language of performance impact and measures can be confusing. The OFVP will have to gather information
/performance measures.
- Some of these organizations will be applying for similar dollars and if not coordinated it could be an overload of data. That is just a caution that I would recommend. How can we support the organizations that are supplying the data?
- There could be confusion where funding overlaps in the neighborhood. What is the impact of state v. city funding. It would be helpful to state that the services led to a speci?c impact to be able to continue with funding
The NOFO is going to Chicago eligible communities ?rst. Then after LAC is developed we will send out all communities with their recommendations speci?c to their mouth dev performance measure will be more speci?c. Just because it is not a measure there is still data being collected so that we can produce outcome statements. We have not put together what the report will look like or what syte in
place to collect data.
Kim S. stated the one measure not captured is what shared information provided meets the criteria of the data collected. Adds numbers of individuals that meet the criteria for programs. We need a performance measure that does this
Karrie R stated that they will consider letting each do their own thing at a later date. We need to make decisions on what the local community needs. They will be reporting this to us collectively until we get a measuring tool in place. The feedback will help us determine commonalities. We have a minimum of 5 and max possible. If we do have custard areas they are more than happy to be a part.have a program that has that speci?c element but now they do is that an
Javon G. infomed the Research Group that the community groups will be representative of the community to create a broad approach for serving individuals in a community with a greater need. Increasing access in those areas but there is room to measure more. County level; we are working with Reps to create NOFOS. We want to make sure every area is not being left out. Let's increase capacity for new providers to feel more welcomed. We also would like to have merics. How do the TA providers support the program? Does what they're doing provide data support? Is it a part of their scope of work? Trying to ?gure out how to reduce the data collection on the providers.
- It is a part of their scope of work.
- The grant given to the provider will have to ?gure out how to gather data. That is a requirement. They have to tell us how they are going to manage doing that. Monthly updates on programming but not so much on data. Data on Quarterly reports. We will be relying on UIC and Team to train us on how to input and pull data once the system is in place.
Given that there is an inner gov focus n violence prevention it is an opportunity to streamline the data to be more manageable?
- That is the reason that we participate in the inner gov. entities to gather this information. We have convo on what the consistencies are and what are the overarching goals for the community. Hoping these cities and county programs will have a successful outcome.
- Our NOFO at the starting point are more complementary to each other.
ICJIA measures are project based. There will be longer outcomes that will be di?cult for the grantees down the line. The longer term outcomes that they don't have the data for. Are we limited to that scope or are we looking beyond.
David Olson commented in the chat: I would be remiss if I didn't point out (and Andy & Soledad would be surprised if I didn't): in the NOFO it lists "Prior arrest(s), charge(s), or conviction(s) for violent felonies (e.g., homicide, aggravated battery, armed robbery, weapons charges)" as a criteria, and I'd suggest that illegal possession of a ?rearm (i.e., "weapon o?enses") are not in and of themselves violent crimes from either a legal perspective or a non-spurious correlate.
Elected o?cials describe those who illegally possess guns as "violent gun o?enders" but this is more for in?uencing public perceptions (or their misunderstanding of what "unlawful use of a weapon" really entails--it means illegally possessing a gun).
Grant conditions are not stated.
Next Steps
- Action Items and Timeline
- Goals for Next Meeting/Closeout
- Next Meeting Date/ Time
- Information on the NOFO Page 140713
Proposed Next Meeting Date/ Time
- March 15th
- Meetings will be once a month moving forward ? It will be a great confusion of funding and overlaps in the neighborhood receiving funding. What is the impact of state
v. city funding. It would be helpful to state that the services led to a speci?c impact to be able to continue with funding
- How are we analyzing e?orts to be able to sustain? (On-going Conversation)
- Tim will reach out to Racheal Garthe
- Any comments on unlawful use of firearms? I will follow up with that.
- Will follow up with updates
- Meeting adjourned @11:09am
