Summary Report - August 2022
Office of Firearm Violence Prevention
Background
In accordance with the Reimagine Public Safety Act (RPSA) (430 ILCS 69), the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention (OFVP) housed within the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) "shall create local advisory councils for each of the designated [Greater Illinois] service areas for the purpose of obtaining recommendations on how to distribute funds in these areas to reduce firearm violence incidents." Further, "each local advisory council shall make recommendations on how to allocate distributed resources for its area based on information provided to them by the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention, local law enforcement data, and other locally available data. The Office of Firearm Violence Prevention shall consider the recommendations and determine how to distribute funds through grants to community-based organizations and local governments." To learn more about the LAC structure, purpose, and membership, please visit: https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=143126.
In accordance with the law, the OFVP convened these local advisory councils, starting in March 2020 and provided them with background and resources necessary to compile funding recommendations for each RPSA eligible municipality or municipal cluster to make initial recommendations on how to address firearm violence in their jurisdiction. In May 2022, all LACs were provided with a tool to guide their recommendation process. From this guide, each LAC group submitted recommendations for activities most needed to reduce firearm violence. As a part of the recommendation tool, LACs were instructed to select their top four priorities in each of the following three categories: Direct Violence Prevention Funding, Social Determinant Investments, and Activities. The eligible strategies in each category are listed in the following table:
| Direct Violence Prevention Funding |
Social Determinant Investments |
Activities |
| Violence Prevention |
Financial Stability and Mobility |
Group Violence Intervention |
| Youth Development |
Addressing Racism and Historical Disinvestment in Communities of Color |
Collaboration Between Community and Law Enforcement |
| Street Outreach |
Addressing Substance Use |
Address Access to Firearms |
| Victim Services |
Housing |
Events/Activities to Foster Community Cohesion |
| Trauma Informed Mental or Behavioral Health Services |
Food Insecurity |
Engage in Partnerships with Medical Providers |
| Case Management |
Childcare |
Healing Memorials and Activities |
| High Risk Youth Interventions |
Education Funding |
|
| Hospital Based Violence Interventions |
Family Violence Prevention |
|
| Restorative Justice Activities |
Reentry Supports |
|
LACs were also asked to provide qualitative feedback in response to four questions:
- Describe any other strategies needed.
- Who needs to be prioritized for violence prevention programming?
- Where should violence prevention programming be focused (specific blocks, census tracts, neighborhoods)?
- What best practice interventions are you aware of that are meeting the needs of the community?
- What else is needed in your community to address firearm violence in your community, including funding and activities not described above?
LACs were also invited to add any community level planning attachments that already existed at the community level that demonstrate current, ongoing, and future violence prevention efforts.
The following report summarizes the recommendations received from LACs across Illinois. It is important to note that in responding to these recommendations, OFVP carefully balanced recommendations across LACs to determine consensus recommendations that could support a Statewide NOFO process. OFVP will carry out these recommendations according to our Greater Illinois Funding Strategy.
Summary of LAC Priorities
The LACs were asked to select their top four funding priorities to immediately address firearm violence starting in the Summer of 2022. LACs were given the opportunity to choose from three lists of strategies: direct violence prevention funding, investments in the social determinants of health, and activities.
The following figures are organized by category and serve to summarize the counts of each strategy selected, as well as depict all strategies in each of the three categories that each LAC prioritized, with the LACs' selections highlighted in green.
Category 1: Direct Violence Prevention Funding
The highest-ranked selection overall was High-Risk Youth Interventions (14), followed by Trauma-Informed Mental or Behavioral Health Services (13), Youth Development (10), and Violence Prevention (9).
Priority Selection - Direct Violence Prevention Funding
| Category |
Number of Times Prioritized |
| Case Management |
3 |
| High Risk Youth Interventions |
14 |
| Hospital Based Interventions |
1 |
| Restorative Justice Activities |
5 |
| Street Outreach |
7 |
| Trauma Informed Mental or Behavioral Health Services |
13 |
| Victim Services |
3 |
| Violence Prevention |
9 |
| Youth Development |
10 |
|
Aurora |
Belleville Cluster |
Berwyn-Cicero |
Calumet City Cluster |
Champaign Urbana |
Chicago Heights Cluster |
Danville |
Decatur |
Joliet |
Kankakee |
Maywood-Bellwood |
Peoria |
Rock Island |
Rockford |
Springfield |
Waukegan- North Chicago |
| Restorative Justice Activities |
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
| Hospital Based Violence Interventions |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| High Risk Youth Interventions |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| Case Management |
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Trauma Informed Mental or Behavioral Health Services |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
| Victim Services |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
| Street Outreach |
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
| Youth Development |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
| Violence Prevention |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
Category 2: Investments in Social Determinants of Health
In terms of investments to address the social determinants of health, LACs ranked Addressing Racism and Historical Disinvestment in Communities of Color (14) as the highest priority, followed by Financial Stability and Mobility (12), Family Violence Prevention (12), and Housing (9).
Priority Selection - Social Determinants of Health
| Category |
Number of Times Prioritized |
| Addressing Racism and Historical Disinvestment in Communities of Color |
14 |
| Addressing Substance Use |
4 |
| Childcare |
3 |
| Education Funding |
4 |
| Family Violence Prevention |
12 |
| Financial Stability and Mobility |
12 |
| Food Insecurity |
4 |
| Housing |
9 |
| Reentry Supports |
6 |
| Category |
Aurora |
Belleville Cluster |
Berwyn-Cicero |
Calumet City Cluster |
Champaign Urbana |
Chicago Heights Cluster |
Danville |
Decatur |
Joliet |
Kankakee |
Maywood-Bellwood |
Peoria |
Rock Island |
Rockford |
Springfield |
Waukegan- North Chicago |
| Reentry Supports |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
| Family Violence Prevention |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
| Education Funding |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
| Childcare |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
| Food Insecurity |
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Housing |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
| Addressing Substance Use |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
| Addressing Racism and Historical Disinvestment in Communities of Color |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| Financial Stability and Mobility |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
Category 3: Activities
When prioritizing different categories of activities for summer funding, Collaboration Between the Community and Law Enforcement (14), Events/Activities to Foster Social Cohesion (14) and Group Violence Intervention (14) all tied as the category selected most often by LACs.
Priority Selection - Activities
| Category |
Number of Times Prioritized |
| Address Access to Firearms |
8 |
| Collaboration Between Community and Law Enforcement |
14 |
| Engage in Partnerships with Medical Providers |
9 |
| Events/Activities to Foster Community Cohesion |
14 |
| Group Violence Intervention |
14 |
| Healing Memorials and Activities |
3 |
| Category |
Aurora |
Belleville Cluster |
Berwyn-Cicero |
Calumet City Cluster |
Champaign Urbana |
Chicago Heights Cluster |
Danville |
Decatur |
Joliet |
Kankakee |
Maywood-Bellwood |
Peoria |
Rock Island |
Rockford |
Springfield |
Waukegan- North Chicago |
| Healing Memorials and Activities |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
| Engage in Partnerships with Medical Providers |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
| Events/Activities to Foster Community Cohesion |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
| Address Access to Firearms |
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
| Collaboration Between Community and Law Enforcement |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
| Group Violence Intervention |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
Qualitative Data Summary
In addition to the exercise of checking the boxes, LACs were also asked five questions that allowed them to provide further detail on their thinking regarding violence prevention programming in their communities. They were asked:
- Describe any other strategies needed:
- Who needs to be prioritized for violence prevention programming?
- Where should violence prevention programming be focused (specific blocks, census tracts, neighborhoods)?
- What best practice interventions are you aware of that are meeting the needs of the community?
- What else is needed in your community to address firearm violence in your community, including funding and activities not described above?
LAC responses to these questions varied greatly and were wide-ranging. Some LACs mentioned very specific activities or programs underway in their communities, while others mentioned very general ideas or referenced known program models that were of interest or that they would like to replicate. Also some LACs responded to every question with great detail while others didn't respond to all questions or provided very brief responses. Based on this varied feedback, IDHS will work to follow up individually with each LAC to ensure that their uniquely identified needs are met either through our NOFO process or through other IDHS supports. This follow up will be pursued following the release of the first round of Greater Illinois funding opportunities.
The list below summarizes these responses at a general level. Many responses across all questions described or made reference to the following topics (not mutually exclusive).
- Engage community partners
- Partnerships and programming with police
- Mentoring and youth targeted programming
- Addressing the social determinants of health
- School-based programming
- Trauma focused programming
- Interrupter or Street outreach programming
- Partnerships with local institutions or government
- Social services
- Adult education/employment programming
- Justice system-related programming
- Determining root causes
- Data or information needs
"Other Strategies Needed"
When prompted in question one to "Describe any other strategies needed" responses varied and included many references to specific programs. The topics that were heard across LAC responses included references to engaging community partners, social determinants of health, mentoring, and youth targeted programming. For example, some responses that referenced mentoring and youth targeted programming as a needed strategy included:
- Education funding: implement after school programs to have medium to low-income families in town don't have the funding for example to have membership to the YMCA. So, creating after school programs to train students and prepare them for the workforce. Vocational training, creative and arts programs. [Kankakee LAC]
- Mentoring one on one mentoring, guest speakers/ student mentoring someone people can rely on outside of the family unit. Not sure how this can work but the process seems to be fruitful. Monitored and safe mentoring. Police department and fire department partnering with the youth. [Calumet City LAC]
- Youth Drop-in Center. [Waukegan LAC]
Again, it is important to note that responses varied across LACs. Some of that variation is due to the different strategies mentioned related to addressing the social determinants of health that many considered to be the root causes of community violence. Examples mentioned:
- Financial/Homeowner Education. [Joliet LAC]
- Need housing but density may not be the answer, need to promote quality of life and build affordable housing all over. Need to provide parks and other activities. Park district to offer more free services to the community. [Aurora LAC]
- Housing: a lot of abandoned houses not being used. People having problems finding housing. High rent, availability of safe affordable sanitary housing. Students who suffer from housing insecurity and that affects their ability to concentrate in school. [Kankakee LAC]
LACs indicated it was important to include community partners in strategies. Some examples of those references are:
- Have specific communities identified in their Strategic Plan and want the NOFO written in a way that is targeting those specific community organizations in those identified parts/areas of the city that need targeted funding. [Champaign/Urbana LAC]
- Community Partners and Services working together -Schools, Churches, Organizations, Services etc. [Rock Island LAC]
- Community safety/neighborhood watch. [Joliet LAC]
Although mentioned less often than those above, several other topics were mentioned by LACs including addressing social determinants of health, strategies related to the justice system, and trauma focused strategies.
"Who" and "Where"
Questions two and three are distinct from the other questions in that they were not about a specific model or program strategy. These questions centered on who should be the focus of the violence prevention work, and where should those resources be directed within the community. Therefore, these questions required response categories distinct from the other questions. Based on the responses themselves, the responses about "who" programming should be focused on had the following codes:
- Youth (age unspecified)
- Families
- High risk for violence perpetration/victimization
- Youth/young adult specified (8-24)
- Intermediary orgs - community orgs
- Individuals exposed to trauma
- Young adults (age unspecified)
- Disabled
- Black and Latino communities
- Youth (specified up to 14)
- School based programming
- Males
- Females
Nearly all responses identified Youth as a key focus area, although the references were inconsistent with regard to age range as many did not specify the age range to which they are referring. Some LACs also mentioned the focus should be on families as a unit, and on those at high risk of violence perpetration. Some highlights of responses to Question 2 are:
- Young males who are engaged in shooting or potentially engaged in shooting over this summer. Young ladies as well. [Champaign-Urbana LAC]
- Youth needs to be prioritized. 10 years-25 years old. [Calumet City LAC]
- Working with DCFS to have better access to data that could help us identify youth who are more at risk. Can we work with schools to identify youth who are more at risk? Monitor trunancy, youth who are suspended multiple times, youth that are sent to the alternative school at ROE- how can our organizations/community intervene before the situation escalates too much? How can we be in touch with teachers, administrators, school supportive staff- to intervene in a timely way? [Waukegan LAC]
- High-risk youth with escalating offenses. Those individuals who influence identified high-risk youth.Those individuals influenced by identified high-risk youth.Those youth reentering our community from IDJJC. [Decatur LAC]
Regarding where in each community LACs felt that resources should flow, responses were just as wide-ranging as with other questions. Generally, however, the responses fell into the following categories.
- Specific corners, blocks, or "hotspots"
- Areas to be identified based on data
- Unspecified areas within community
- Public housing
- In schools
- Community defined areas
- Black and brown neighborhoods
- Co-located with community partners
The responses heard most often across all LACs were those that mentioned the super-local locations like specific corners, blocks, or known violence "hot-spots". While it may not be useful for those outside of a specific community to hear the exact references to specific areas, it is useful to hear how some respondents felt data could be utilized to help them identify where to prioritize resources.
- Troubled census tracts based on data. [Danville LAC]
- Utilize data to constantly determine hot spots for crime and violence. [Peoria LAC]
- Historical data (eg. spot shooter, geo coding). [Springfield LAC]
- Programming will run concurrently with identifying high-risk youth regardless of geographic location within the city, and programs in neighborhoods with highest number of reported shots fired over the past year. [Decatur LAC]
- Services should be imbedded where children exposed to trauma are found - in schools, community centers, and juvenile assessment centers. What we have learned from the UIC/police project, community gap document and additional interviews with persons with lived experience. [Rockford LAC]
"Best Practices" and "What else Might be Needed"
Like question one, questions four and five centered on asking LACs to identify strategies and approaches that appeal to them in one way or another. Question four invited LACs to share best practice interventions currently happening in their communities, while question five asked them to identify what programming might be needed in their communities with regard violence prevention. Due to the nature of the questions, question four responses tended to mention or reference an existing specific program in their communities, while question five responses were references to a general known model or a specific program run in another community that they have an interest in replicating.
Given that both questions identify strategies for which LACs may want to support with funding, it made sense to summarize these questions together. The topics referenced most consistently across LACs for this question were mentoring and youth targeted programming, engaging community partners, and programming that involved partnerships with the police. Examples of responses to these questions that were focused on mentoring and youth targeted programming included:
- Iceberg (OAKOCC) program for youth up to 18 years old) - provides academic tutoring and wrap-around services for youth not-yet-involved with the juvenile justice system. Goal is to provide services to youth before they get into trouble. JRI funding only covers youth who are court referred. [Decatur LAC]
- Youth Jobs programs (the old PIC Program). Free or subsidized programming for youth at Park Districts. [Joliet LAC]
- Mentorship Programming. Real life testimonies - opportunities to engage the youth and show real life examples. {Springfield LAC]
- Giving youth a voice in programming and community needs. [Aurora LAC]
- Mentoring is key, every child needs 5 people in their life that cares about them. Children and young adults need mentors, we need to be developing mentorshhip training them and possibly giving stipend to people who will not typically see themselves as mentors. We need to continue the recruitment of community members to follow up. There are no places that are safe for children to go after these programs. There is no sustainable place, so we definitely need safe places beyond your typical amount. [Kankakee LAC]
- For young community members there is a push to engage in activities that involve guns as a means of generating income. They are looking for equity and resources in order to be able to engage successfully. [Rockford LAC]
Examples of responses to questions four and five that referenced the need to engage with community partners include:
- Shemilah Outreach Center - objective is to prevent violence by providing structured recreation, educational, work ethic, and cultural enrichment opportunities for community youth. [Decatur LAC]
- Working with community churches, food pantries, and CEDA. [Berwyn-Cicero LAC]
- We need to involve churches and other faith-based institutions in the work. [Waukegan LAC]
- Capacity building/support for organizations. [Peoria LAC]
Responses that referenced partnerships with police were also common across LACs in answers to questions four and five. Some examples of those references are:
- Neighborhood Engagement Initiative. Gun Buy Back program. Co-responder model. Safety Network (SNET). Connecting and communicating the services and resources that are available (education, medical, law enforcement, social services).[Peoria LAC]
- Police officers participate in community activities un-uniformed in order to build a relationship with the community and the children. [Rockford]
- Diversion Programs. [Belleville Cluster LAC, Aurora LAC]
- Focused Deterrence Model. [Springfield LAC]
- More police, reintroduce neighborhood watch, Ring-door program. Perhaps FLOCK system. [Chicago Heights LAC]
Closing
The OFVP has taken into consideration all recommendations and have compiled them into a broad Greater Illinois Funding Strategy. OFVPs approach to funding Greater Illinois RPSA eligible areas according to these recommendations can be accessed here: https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=145462.
If you have further questions about the results of LAC recommendations, please contact Awisi Bustos at awisi.bustos@illinois.gov.
