April 4, 2024, The Youth Homelessness Prevention Subcommittee

The Youth Homelessness Prevention Subcommittee

April 4, 2023

10:00AM to 11:30AM

Agenda

1. Open and Introductions
2. Goals of Subcommittee
3. Subcommittee Updates
4. Creation of Data Collection
5. Barriers to Operationalizing Data
6. Small Group Report
7. Public Comment
8. Next Steps and Adjourn

Meeting Information:

Meeting Recording

Meeting Minutes:

1. Open and Introductions by Tedd Peso 
   1. Johnna Lowe, CSH 
   2. Billy Lau, OPEH 
   3. Ashley Bae, DMH 
   4. Teresa Parks, Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission 
   5. Latonia Byrd Williamson, DJJ 
   6. Melishia Bansa, HFS 
   7. Christine Hammond DHS/OPEH 
   8. Sophia Manuel, IDOC 
   9. Karrie Rueter, DHS 
   10. Colleen Mahoney, IDPH 
   11. Valerie Tawrel, 360 Youth Services 
   12. Tedd Peso, The Night Ministry 
   13. Janice Phillips, IDPH 
   14. Nikita Robinson, OPEH 
2. Goals of Subcommittee by Tedd Peso 
   1. Review the discharge planning, service plans, and discharge procedures for youth leaving the custody or guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Human Services' Division of Mental Health, and the Department of Corrections to determine whether such discharge planning and procedures ensure housing stability for youth leaving State systems of care. 
   2. Collect data on the housing stability of youth for one year after they are released from the custody or guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Human Services' Division of Mental Health, or the Department of Corrections. 
   3. Based on data collected under paragraph (2) regarding youth experiencing homelessness after leaving State systems of care, create a plan to improve discharge policies and procedures to ensure housing stability for youth leaving State systems of care. 
   4. Provide recommendations on community plans for sustainable housing; create education and employment plans for homeless youth; and create strategic collaborations between the Department of Children and Family Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Human Services' Division of Mental Health, and the Department of Corrections with respect to youth leaving State systems of care. 
3. Subcommittee Updates by Johnna Lowe 
   1. Youth Engagement Description: We, Tedd, Nick, Kylon, and Johnna, met to review the language of our youth engagement description. We are seeking to have those slots filled. It will be sent to Isabella for review and approval. We will decide on the next steps upon approval. The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless confirmed that they have funds to support youth with lived expertise who participate in our subcommittee. 
   2. Youth Homelessness System Improvement Grant was submitted. Wanted to give space for any updates for those who worked on that. 
      1. The proposal was submitted on time, but we have not heard anything yet. 
4. Creation of Data Collection by Johnna Lowe 
   1. Want to take time to discuss what the creation or implementing data collection from the systems of care would look like. The following is a report out from the individual meetings held with the systems of care. The meetings were categorized in four components: What is the capacity of current data collection platform, what changes to services delivery are needed, what is the approval process, and what would the timeline look like. 
   2. Department of Children and Family Services: 
      1. The current data collection operating system is the State Agency Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS). Reporting details are done by the contracted Child Welfare and the Housing Advocacy Program (HAP) staff. 
      2. Changes to service delivery would include extending the system support for youth until their 22nd birthday. Incorporating aftercare supports in service delivery. Edits to categories of placement within the data platform. Contractual relationships with the Child Welfare Contributing Agencies.
      3. Approval process would include consulting with the DCFS Legal, Budget, and Finance departments. Approval from Deputy Director of Intact/Permanency Timothy Snowden and Acting Director Heidi Mueller. 
      4. Timeline would be 3 to 6 months infrastructure changes usually happen around the beginning of the fiscal year. 
         1. Was there thought given to when that process could potentially get started? 
            1. No, the conversation was not framed around a specific start date. 
   3. Division of Mental Health: 
      1. The operating data collection platform is the Clinical Information Collection System (CICS). Data is collected by the medical records department, specifically by the social work direct service staff. 
      2. Changes to services delivery would include Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) team would have to redesign data entry screens related to data fields. Additional discharge questions assessed by the social work staff and quality assurance by the medical records department. Inclusion of housing stability as a part of the multi-disciplinary clinical discharge team. New aftercare services to track youth post discharge. Youth currently receive "aftercare" supports if they utilize services from the Community Mental Health Centers. 
      3. Approval Process would include the Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) and DMH Legal Department and leadership team of Department of Human Services. 
      4. Timeline for data platform changes could take a week but also could take a lot longer than a week. 
   4. Juvenile Justice: 
      1. The operating data collection platform is the Automated Management System (AMS). Data and notes are collected by the Aftercare specialist and supervisors from the progress review form. Aftercare happens at 6 months, 12 months, and 18-month increments. 
      2. Changes to services delivery would include additional data fields to capture specifics on housing category, address, and timeframe to discharge location. Currently housing details are collected on the progress review form via notes.
      3. Approval process would include the Clinical Services Supervisor. JJ Legal department. Liaison working with the Automated Management System for data platform. Deputy Director of aftercare Thomas DeBetta to present to Director Robert Vickery for final approval. 
      4. Timeline would be 3 - 4 weeks for new service delivery changes and 3 - 6 months to capture new data collection with AMS. 
   5. Department of Corrections: 
      1. The operating data collection platform is called 360. Parole Reentry Group (PRG) staff are required to start discharge conversation a year prior to release. Correctional Counselors and Field Services Representative address housing and releasing documentation. 
      2. Changes to service delivery would include clarity on tracking stability. Current focus is on safety in housing location, not permanency. Categories with the 360 platform include data related to timeframe of housing location. Data collection and data entry fields that produce reports related to housing stability. 
      3. Approval process would include Assistant Director (Acting Director) Alyssa Williams and Director (Acting Director) Latoya Hughes. 
      4. Timeline would be about 6 months. 
5. Barriers to Operationalizing Data 
   1. We want to think about what barriers are present to implementing data collection and operationalizing. The systems of care will present some of the barriers to the implementation. DCFS mentioned that they are working to implement a new data collection system currently. Some concerns were mentioned around the relevance of building into an old data system collection since they are working to implement a new system. 
   2. DMH - Currently trying to obtain an electronic medical record, which would allow for an easy process for data collection. As far as collecting data, clarifying what questions we want to add is not as challenging. DoIT has barriers as well to change the data entry screens. Some holes in key places inhouse and with DoIT. I. Another challenge would be implementing something to track post discharge. 
   3. DCFS - The hardest part would be managing contact post discharge. Currently we are not successful in doing so. We have a couple ways currently in which we maintain engagement with youth, housing vouchers and private developers who develop housing units. We can try to seek the budget authority to continue to work with youth after they turn 21, but that would require funding. Other barriers could be around legal aspects of systems being able to talk with each other. Local housing authorities and CoC will not share information unless a youth provides specific permission. Not certain how to get around that. 
   4. JJ- An issue would be around maintaining contact with the youth post care. We have the ability to discharge youth early, so monitoring post care would be a bit of challenge. Having the youth to understand the buy in for DJJ to continue monitoring them post discharge. 
   5. Department of Corrections - We won't have challenges to add data points to the system, but it will take time. The concern is if we are asking them questions about housing, we would want to be clear that we are not giving the impression that we can assist with getting them housing. Another barrier is around staff capacity due to staff being low and already stretched thin. Creating a separate data system that staff would have to input information could be a burden for staff. Correctional officers currently collect some housing data that may be useful. 
6. Small Group Report - Any goals or solutions 
   1. DCFS group discussed the release barrier. There is an understanding that we can't just incorporate DCFS into the standard release signed by youth for HMIS, we would potentially need a separate release. John is going to check with an association to see if any states are doing this to better and understand how they are accomplishing this goal. If housing advocates are able to work with young people who don't receive a housing voucher until they are 22 would be helpful in staying connected with the youth. That would require funding and procedural changes. 
      1. We also discussed the 20 ILCS 505/43 intergovernmental agreement, transitioning youth in care. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/002005050K43.htm 
   2. Division of Mental Health group discussed release of information timeframe. Discussed how many youths are leaving our state operated facilities and how many providers we would need to contract with. It would take a few months. Wondering what else the providers and grantees could do besides tracking to support the youth. Potentially could hire a recovery support specialist to better connect with the youth leaving the care. 
   3. Department of Corrections group talked about innovative ways to hire and retain staff. Creating very concise questions and as few as possible. Discussed providing specific language for the staff to use so there is not any confusion for the youth about the questions serving solely for data collection purposes, not being a resource entity for housing. Concerns on liability for some of the questions and proper course of action. Discharge, does that mean leaving the physical facility or does it mean post parole/MSR? When folks are discharged, do we need to create categories for tracking in MSR data tracking? 
7. Public Comment 
   1. N/A 
8. Next Steps and Adjourn 
   1. Moving into implementation 
      1. Discussions with OPEH around what support would be needed to make this implementation a priority. 
   2. Defining categorizing housing stability withing data collection fields 
   3. Next meeting: Thursday, June 6th at 10am
   4. Meeting adjourned at 11:30am