Meeting Minutes
Firearm Violence Research Group (FVRG) Meeting Minutes
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022
Time: 9:30am - 11:00AM
Meeting Information
via webex
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), Christopher Patterson (IDHS)
Absent: Norma Ramos (UIC), Ryan Croke
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 @9:34am
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)
? Discussion of potential impact and performance measures
Discussion of potential assessment tools
Assistant Secretary Christopher Patterson
Spoken words of welcome and shared with FVRG some exciting news that have come up in the last few weeks.
? Local Advisory is going to start up today and making steady progress and word is getting out. Some type of development coming up and looking forward to sharing with FVRG.
Facilitator Hoereth
We have an exciting meeting this afternoon with the Local Advisory Council Membership and FVRG were all sent invites to join.
Would like to pick up a discussion of potential impact and performance measures
Discussion of potential impact and performance measures:
Facilitator Hoereth:
Would like to pick up a discussion of potential impact and performance measures and can provide an update on how we've been working together on that, and where our thinking stands and how best everyone will be able to support the process. In previous meetings a list of performance measures Member Lavery shared from the R3 program. Would like to have a conversation about supporting this office in terms of more broadly thinking about how to properly evaluate itself and receive feedback. Tracking the information that needs to be tracked on a regular basis. A framework that tracks its down success overall.
From the more general academic perspective thinking about things like:
? Formative vs summative evaluation
Obviously, summative at the end when you are thinking about the actual impact of a program and drawing conclusions about the difference that it made vs a set of very high-level goals such as reducing firearms violence or injury or death from firearms violence.
Would like to have a 30-minute open discussion on any recommendations or suggestions for evaluation framework for an office such as OFVP might be familiar with or at least share some thinking perspective.
Comments from Members:
- One thing to think about them serving the function of speaking clearly about the extent and nature of what gun violence in Illinois looks like. There is no entity in the state that produces any kind of assessment on a regular or annual basis. The Criminal justice authority has some information, but this is an example of where we had access to public health data.
- BJA Funds are contemplating this year to potentially do a big project where we try to increase holdings and learn about more data sets and increase holdings. We need to get that data to get the landscape if we're going to get the overall impact throughout the state.
- Connect the theory of actions in terms of what the program pops program types are doing and create some logic models that connect back to specifically for those programs.
- Echo Kim's comment on the logic world it would be good to see a real user friendly logic model of the approach. A very public type of document and user friendly so people can intuitively look at it and say "I see what they're trying to do".
- Talking about prevention and the programs definitely, we're all still in different places and the office setting itself up is one of the key things that it can do to help create that.
- Basic standardization knowing that every community is unique and different but there are some level settings that can be done. And also, what the office is going to do in terms of its convening power and bringing coordination being explicit and transparent about how that is happening. It's really one of the most important roles that the office can have.
Assistant Secretary Christopher Patterson
Asked FVRG to think about what information OFVP needs to gather in order to make the best decision or put the best decisions out there for the general public in Illinois. How do we create a system? An office that really answers what it is that we're looking for data as it concerns firearm violence across Illinois. One of the things on his bucket list is
addressing everything that is centered around violence prevention.
- Are there any connections in roles with the state police? They may have backing tools or at least mapping data for municipalities behind Chicago.
- State police don't have a comprehensive dataset that looks at firearm violence. It's agency by agency.
- There is interest in understanding what the impact of the program is on individuals who are receiving services. One type of data we need to collect individuals who are being connected to services. That is very sensitive data in the context of violence prevention.
- Trying to get a better sense of the qualitative and don't see in any kind for us to employ to gather information. Getting perspective from the victims and perpetrators. Own personal research has been interested in the perpetrators' kind of perspective of all this stuff and seems to always be missing.
- The qualitative is very critical and it does help inform not just the solutions and the problems it helps us tell a better story about what's happening and informs outcomes as well as we think about performance metrics and what the state will be looking it's important to think about outcomes in that concept, in that context taking in the qualitative as well as the quantitative information. It's incredibly labor intensive but it's really critical. If the office is looking to push boundaries this is really one place the office can push research and push research to transform the culture of research in this space.
- For R3 is very explicitly adopting a community-based research model and one thing we asked partners of Great Cities to develop a community-based research playbook/guidebook. Reviewing it as a document that can be shared with the communities and agencies.
- Another consideration is the audience for whatever impact or outcomes. We want to be able to report out to legislators who are trying to figure out whether or not to sustain investment. What types of information they need to be able to feel confident to advocate to their colleagues is a worthwhile investment if it is residents or neighborhoods where the dollars are going?
Discussion of Potential assessment tools:
Facilitator Hoereth:
The research around what kind of tool or tools would be best for this office to either require or push forward or have its providers use in their work and there's really two levels of that.
- Screening Tools a set of questions that a program might ask a participant if its youth program or an adult of what their needs are. Charge includes
- Trauma informed
- Programming
- Recognition
- Full assessment tool
We just want to step back a little and have a conversation and it made a more general level about the nature of these tools in general and maybe some suggestions you all have about the best way this office can go thinking about conversations I had with people.
Comments from Members
- Risk assessment tool vs a screening tool it's easy to develop a screening tool with appropriate cut point and for it to have high utility. Doing it in house that would get around certain problems;
- Copyright issues
- Length issues
- Content issues
- If we develop screening tools ourselves, we would include the trauma informed. Items you can also include.
- General mental health
- General risk for gun violence
- If you compare it to developing a risk assessment tool where you have to look at long term outcomes, all the factors that Member Lavery listed off come into play. A screen tool 10 to 13 items some other data just to get a sense so that you can make false, positive, false negative those types of cut point decisions.
Karrie R. stated because the youth development program is an after school program, and it serves a wide range of youth that age everywhere from 6 up to 17 maybe 18 if they're still in school there may or may not be a single instrument that is effective with each of those different age groups. It's something to consider although the language in the act that we need to assess every youth in that program to determine essentially if they need to be moved up to the next level program. We have softened the language a bit, so we qualify that language as necessary. We are looking for more of a screen at this stage.
We anticipate that every youth in that high-risk program will at a minimum receive individualized case management services based off of a comprehensive assessment. Depending on what that assessment says, if it indicates a significant need for mental health trauma or ect. The organization would implement that mental health assessment.
We are entering into an agreement with Orbis to make changes to YASI screening assessments. We have been developing an entire matrix programming of different areas. We want them to make changes too. We are looking at putting YASI through some significant changes over the course of the next year.
- In terms of getting a brand-new screen going you have the advantage right now you already have a prescreening instrument being administered and get it going in two or three months.
- If you had an instrument that they've already tested and validated, they tell you specifically then modify and add questions the responsible thing to do is to test the impacts. It might be quicker if we're perfectly satisfied with 11 out of 12 questions.
- When they are doing the pre-screen, ask five additional questions that we think are really important that really get it and a test along the way.
- A number of trauma questionnaires that are out there are more about exposure to trauma and we don't want the exposure to trauma because then we'll run the risk of everybody coming up on a high level. There can be mental health issues that are independent from the trauma.
- We've just identified areas we think are high on gun violence to address gun violence, but we've widened the net to say mental health problems are what we are here to address. It's a disconnect for me to go from focusing so much on gun violence and now saying we don't really want to identify kids who are at risk for gun violence.
Facilitator Hoereth:
If they're related to mental health factors in an individual child part of what the research shows are cumulative sets of factors. Becoming a victim in perpetrating firearm violence. I'm not going to pull that connection all the way through to an outcome of being injured or being a shooter.
Next Steps
- Action Items and Timeline
- Goals for Next Meeting/Closeout
- Next Meeting Date/ Time
Proposed Next Meeting Date/ Time
- April 19th
- Meetings will be once a month moving forward
- Come back to FVRG with a framework or a logic model. What the implications might be of that framework or that model.
- Advising on how best to think about impacts, whether it's specific evaluation or whether it's Member McGrath suggestion about what kind of platform OFVP has around convening and defining what violence prevention means of the state of Illinois more broadly both aspects things that this body could be advising on.
- Joe Hoereth to create spreadsheet and add tool
- Who is it administrative by?
- What is the target group?
- What kind of factors does it touch on mental health?
- Will follow up with updates
Meeting adjourned 11:01
