Redeploy Illinois Annual Report - June 20, 2011

• Executive Summary
• Evidence Base for Redeploy Illinois
• Site Compliance
• Detention Analysis
• Redeploy Illinois Program Sites
• Success Stories
• Redeploy Illinois Program ExpansionConclusions and Recommendations
• Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board Members
• References

---

Executive Summary

In State Fiscal Year 2010, the Redeploy Illinois Program continued to serve as a national model for reducing juvenile incarceration and improving public safety by building a continuum of more cost-effective community-based sanctions and services. Statistical trending across the past decade shows a strong correlation between reduced commitments to juvenile correctional facilities (operated by the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ)) in specific counties and the presence of the Redeploy Illinois Program in those same counties. Through the statistical analysis and "real life" impact statements from participants presented in this report, it is clear that the program is not only reducing juvenile incarceration, but saving young lives, strengthening families, changing systems and building healthier communities.

Based on its success, the Redeploy Illinois Program was expanded from four sites to nine in January 2009. Program sites continued growing their operations throughout FY 2010, in spite of continuing hardship caused by the delayed payments as a result of the State's budget crisis. Serving nearly 25 percent of all Illinois counties, sites continued to effectively reduce the incarceration of hundreds of youth while also holding the line on the use of local detention. At the same time, each location continued to address ongoing implementation challenges, the most common of which they reported were addressing budget shortfalls, payment delays, changing the culture of local systems and practitioners, transportation in rural areas, staff development and the lack of family support among many of the youth.

Significant program disruptions occurred in 2009 when FY2010 budget shortfalls caused the temporary elimination of all Redeploy Illinois Program funding from June 30, 2009 to August 2009 and, in many cases, several more months of interrupted services. During that period, most sites either completely shut down operations or significantly reduced them to base-level services through traditional probation. This was especially hard on the five new sites that had only begun programming a few months earlier. In spite of the operational challenges during this point in the program, data for 2009 indicate that 177 youth were diverted from IDJJ commitment in the nine sites. This resulted in an average reduction from the baseline of 47%. This reduction translates into a potential cost avoidance to the state of approximately $8,695,053. The formula from previous annual reports was utilized to calculate the 2009 cost avoidance; it is important to note that these are actual figures over a full 12-month period with no adjustment for service disruptions and the start-up process delay.

The budget crisis revealed, and perhaps strengthened, the tremendous foundation of support and dedication to the goals of the Redeploy Program that had developed over the years. All nine sites demonstrated that they were not only committed to navigating the program shutdown/relaunch processes, but also to finding ways to overcome seriously delayed state payments throughout the remainder of FY2010.

As successful as all of the sites were in addressing these various challenges, the fiscal year concluded with one casualty: The Kankakee County program announced that due to county budget issues, it would not be able to continue to operate a Redeploy Illinois Program in FY 2011 unless a more reliable funding stream could be identified.

The Redeploy Program continued to work toward the ultimate goal of statewide program expansion. All four of the FY09 Annual Report recommendations were successfully implemented and key legislation was passed. Specifically, IDHS, through an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant received from ICJIA, awarded a contract to Illinois State University for the purposes of conducting an evaluation to support a cost-benefit and recidivism study to assist in the statewide planning process. In addition, funds have been identified in that same ARRA grant to offer a new Planning Grant opportunity in FY11, and the addition of one or more sites in 2012. Another strong focus of the year was to enhance the efficiency of the reporting and information sharing process in order to improve program monitoring and timely interventions. A quarterly reporting system was implemented and a monthly reporting system was formally launched in January 2011 following a pilot run at a few of the sites.

In addition, Public Act 95-1050 (730 ILCS 110/16.1) was passed to allow for the establishment of a special reserve of Redeploy Illinois funds for smaller counties that have too few IDJJ commitments to participate in the full program.

Evidence Base for Redeploy Illinois

Juvenile commitments to State-operated juvenile facilities or Illinois Youth Centers increased substantially during the 1990s, driving institution population levels to record highs. The process for intervening with delinquent youth in the States' 102 counties involved multiple service systems, many of which were not integrated with IDJJ (or formerly IDOC). In states (such as Missouri) where systems were better integrated recidivism rates were much lower (Casey Foundation, 2011). That is, the State had not historically been involved with adjudication or adjustment of youth prior to commitment, and county court administrators are not involved with youth after commitment, other than when delinquent youth are committed for court evaluations. This approach resulted in increased exposure of youth to State institutions in place of local interventions within a youth's community, based on the needs of individual youth. However, there was little substantive evidence that there were alternative programs in place within local jurisdictions to divert appropriate youth from State commitment, despite data that revealed during each of the last 13 fiscal years (FY1998 through FY2010) the proportion of juveniles committed to IDJJ from criminal court (felons) never exceeded five percent of new admissions (IDOC and IDJJ, 2011). The majority of State commitments were delinquent youth. Even at the state level, more punitive environments were being created: one Illinois Youth Center, in a community with a high population of youth, was closed while a new boot camp was built in downstate Illinois.

Redeploy Illinois Assessment

During the early implementation phase of the Redeploy Illinois program, the Redeploy Oversight Board allocated funds to Southern Illinois University to conduct a comparison of two pilot sites (Peoria and St. Clair counties) to the similar rural counties adjacent to them (Madison and Tazewell). In addition to geography and proximity, population density and percentage of the population under 18 years of age were also examined. The study found that the additional services and more in-depth supervision provided through Redeploy Illinois allowed for a high number of contact hours with participating youth as caseload sizes for staff were reduced. The study also determined that Redeploy Illinois was able to accomplish "fiscal restructuring" through the provision of financial incentives that reduced state-level confinement options. It further revealed that the funding to support alternatives to incarceration limited the number of court evaluations and, ultimately, commitments to confinement. However, in order to better understand the long-term implications, a longer follow-up period is required. Armstrong, et al., (2011)

Adolescent Brain Development

Science has established that significant brain development continues well into the early 20's. It stands to reason that the justice system should therefore not hold youth offenders, even some violent offenders, to the same standards of accountability as adult criminals. The Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, identified "the immaturity gap," demonstrating that while adolescent intellectual maturity tends to reach adult levels by age 16, adolescent psychosocial development (the source of impulse controls and other guards against delinquent behavior) continues into early adulthood, up to age 25 (MacArthur, 2006). Bennett and Baird (2006) explained that significant age-related changes in brain structure continue after the age of 18 and may represent dynamic changes related to new environmental challenges. Huffine (2002) demonstrated that many youth in the juvenile justice system are misdiagnosed. In particular, he challenged the appropriateness of conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder diagnoses, explaining that youth labeled with these disorders often have co-occurring mental health conditions, such as bipolar disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. Oberstar, Andersen, and Jensen (2006) discussed the forensic implications of research about normal brain development in the context of mental illness, explaining that recent research is consistent with earlier, influential theories of cognitive and moral development, and that these research findings support treating children in the juvenile justice system differently from adults.

Support for Alternative Juvenile Placements

Nationwide, the costs of committing youth to State custody are staggering. Nagin, Piquero, Scott, and Steinberg (2006) note that punitive sanctions to address juvenile crime such as incarceration within a correctional facility are much more expensive than introducing alternative community-based rehabilitation strategies that are perceived as less harsh.

Three options have been increasingly used by states to offset these costs (Armstrong, et al., 2011). First, more and more states are charging local jurisdictions for confinement. Counties in Pennsylvania are charged 40 percent of confinement costs, and the state of California employs a sliding scale, whereby as offense severity decreases the cost of incarceration to the adjudication county increases. California has raised the monthly incarceration charge from $25 per youth to $150 per youth. Second, similar to Redeploy Illinois, monetary incentives are applied to local jurisdictions to develop community-based alternatives. In the third option, a combination of the first two options is established. These approaches arose from situations where State-funded institutional commitments were regarded as a "free" option, as there was an economic incentive not to develop alternatives to incarceration (Miller and Liotta, 2001).

Nagin, Piquero, Scott, and Steinberg (2006) developed a contingent valuation model "which permits the comparison of respondents' willingness to pay for competing policy alternatives." The findings showed that public support for juvenile rehabilitation policies was greater than for punitive incarceration policies. The public has become less supportive of mechanisms that emerged during the 1990s to prosecute youth in criminal court, complemented by changes in laws to expand both the number of eligible offenses and the ages at which offenders can be charged. The public continues to be supportive of adult punishments for youth where large-scale or serious violence is involved but that approach is usually in response to highly publicized crimes as opposed to case-by-case management. These findings were further supported in a telephone-interview study conducted in four states including Illinois (Piquero and Steinberg, 2010). Respondents in Illinois were willing to pay 36 percent more for juvenile rehabilitation than incarceration.

Community-based Programs vs. Incarceration

Beginning with the advent of the first juvenile court established in Cook County in 1899, the primary question has been whether juveniles should be punished in the same manner as adults. The research literature and years of public policy development and statutory enactment suggest that incarceration is highly linked to adult sentencing and community-based punishment is more likely to be imposed on juveniles. However, many states continue to utilize more punitive policies as a result of "truth-in-sentencing" and "super-predator" concepts built in the 1990s despite limited evidence that repeat offending behavior is deterred and some evidence that overly punitive responses actually may increase juvenile criminal activity (Fagan, 1997).

Lipsey (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of treatment of juvenile delinquents involving 443 studies in which he examined the characteristics of different types of programs along with the study methods employed. He found that juvenile delinquents who participated in treatment programs located in alternative settings were more  likely to have lower recidivism rates than those youth placed in custodial environments where services are less  available.

Over the past decade, numerous studies with sound scientific designs have shown that community-based treatment is more effective than institutional treatment for delinquent youth. Gagnon and Richards, for example, in a research report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, affirmed that community-based programs that address several key factors - treatment and therapy, education, family outreach and counseling, and interpersonal skills training - experience lower recidivism rates than institution-based programs (Gagnon and Richards, 2008).

The University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research (Latessa and colleagues) conducted an extensive evaluation of the RECLAIM Ohio initiative. In a recent evaluation report, they concluded that youth correctional treatment programs under RECLAIM Ohio exhibited inconsistent recidivism outcomes (some programs reported higher or similar recidivism rates compared to traditional corrections and probation programs, and some reported significantly lower recidivism rates). They concluded that programs like RECLAIM Ohio work best with high-risk youth, and that the inconsistent recidivism outcomes were primarily linked to program implementation and program integrity, not to a flawed policy. Using the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI), they found that youth programs with significantly lower recidivism rates scored higher on the CPAI, indicating that well managed and well structured programs typically have successful outcomes when compared with traditional corrections and probation programs (Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Lemke, 2006).

Lowenkamp and Latessa also examined the costs of RECLAIM Ohio programs compared to several other treatment and incarceration options in Ohio and estimated that the cost of operating RECLAIM Ohio programs was four to seven times less expensive than other facility-based programs (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005).

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) published a review of that state's research-based programs for juvenile offenders, funded under the Community Juvenile Accountability Act. Responding to the question about whether the programs 'work' in a real-world setting the report indicated that "…the answer to this question is yes - when the programs are competently delivered" (WSIPP, 2004). WSIPP stressed in their report that Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Aggression Management Training (ART), and coordination of services were all effective in reducing recidivism and costs (WSIPP, 2004).

Perhaps the most overarching reform program in juvenile justice in the non-governmental arena is the Models for Change project sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation. The project, begun in 1996, represents a multi-site program implemented in several states including Illinois in which defined goals, practices, and outcomes can be compared against different jurisdictions. The ideas and associated outcomes from Models for Change can help local-level jurisdictions in Illinois consider other Redeploy Illinois initiatives:

• Pennsylvania (2004) has been making statewide improvements in data collection targeting racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice processing, in identifying and addressing behavioral health needs, and in establishing pilot experiments for comprehensive aftercare.
• Illinois (2005) has been "right-sizing" juvenile justice as public education, training, technical assistance, and research in conjunction with legislation and program implementation such as Redeploy Illinois, extracting juvenile corrections from adult corrections, and conducting a statewide assessment of delinquency legal representation. Also, an array of demonstration projects has been implemented to serve youth locally through community-based responses.
• Louisiana (2006) has been expanding access to local evidence-based alternatives such as the first Functional Family Therapy (FFT), implementing a statewide risk and needs assessment tool for community supervision and service planning, and improving data collection processes directed at referrals, processing, detention, and commitment information.
• Washington (2007) has been developing better approaches to manage truant youth without formal court processing and confinement, creating data driven strategies to reduce minority confinement, and improving information sharing and training techniques for administering over "crossover" systems encompassing juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health.

Characteristics of Effective Juvenile Justice Programs

While several studies have dispelled arguments linking youthful predators to dramatic increases in violent crime in the United States (see, for example, Howell, Krisberg, and Jones, 1995; Kempf-Leonard, Tracy, and Howell, 2001; Howell, 2003), others provide evidence of successful juvenile justice programs, and program elements linked to successful program outcomes (e.g., reduced recidivism).

During the 1990s, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) published the Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders providing the attributes of proven and promising programs and proposals for creating structured community planning efforts (Springer and Roberts, 2011). A key element to the Guide was developing valid classification and assessment instruments that drive case planning and determine the most appropriate interventions given a series of options from which to select.

Howell (2001) describes several successful youth prevention and intervention programs, noting that they use comprehensive service models emphasizing a continuum of care that integrates prevention, early intervention, graduated sanctions, and aftercare. Krisberg and Austin (1998) assessed Massachusetts' removal of nearly 1,000 juveniles from State training schools and their placement in a diverse array of community programs, noting that the continued success of the Massachusetts de-institutionalization policy lies in the small size of rehabilitation programs, and the selective and cost-effective use of secure confinement. Further, pro-social behaviors are more likely to evolve when the youth's family, school, and peers can be integrated as part of the treatment and services needed to address risk factors (Smith and Stern, 1997; Austin, Macgowan, and Wagner, 2005).

Finally, communities that employ best practices, where research-based determinations are oriented toward measurable outcomes, have proven to be the most successful as priority risk factors and gaps in service delivery can be identified. Funding evaluation mechanisms, and improving collaborations and communication links are vital to accomplishing achievements (Springer and Roberts, 2011).

Redeploy Illinois Site Compliance

A fundamental objective of the Redeploy Illinois program is to use financial incentives to encourage the development of a continuum of community-based sanctions and treatment alternatives for juvenile offenders who would be incarcerated if those sanctions and services did not exist. In that regard, program compliance is centered upon a requirement that participating jurisdictions must reduce their annual commitments to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) by a minimum of 25 percent from an established baseline or face a financial penalty.

The 2009 budget crisis resulted in the abrupt elimination of all funding for the program from June 30, 2009 to August 2009 and, in many cases, several more months of interrupted services. During that period, most sites either completely shutdown operations or significantly reduced them to base-level services through traditional probation. Only a few were able to identify temporary funding to maintain services. Despite notification of funding restoration in August, many sites were unable to immediately resume operations because cash-strapped counties required them to wait until the actual funding was received from the state, and many had to re-launch their program and address issues such as reissuance of contracts and re-hiring of laid-off staff. Despite the impact of the budget crisis, the start-up period for five new sites and significant payment delays, all of the program sites exceeded their reduction requirements with the exception of Madison County.

As a result of the disruption in services, the Department of Human Services determined that it would not be appropriate to enforce the standard 25 percent baseline requirements. By adjusting for the actual operational periods for each site, baseline figures were prorated. In spite of the numerous challenges, this adjustment revealed that all program sites, with the exception of Madison, exceeded their commitment reduction goal.

The Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board took the Madison County over-commitments seriously, and engaged in an intensive technical assistance process, including site visits, to help the site overcome challenges. At issue was the fact that Madison County had committed 14 youth to IDJJ during the prorated reporting period, representing an overage of two youth above their prorated baseline limit of 12. Madison County officials not only shared the Board's concerns about program effectiveness, but were particularly concerned about the potential for a contractual penalty of $8,000 ($4,000 per youth over the baseline.)

In lieu of charging Madison County the flat penalty of $8,000, the Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board voted to give the county the option of developing a reform plan based on the Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board's comprehensive site review by board members and staff. Madison County accepted the arrangement as outlined in the plan, including the redirection of funds necessary to implement the changes. The plan was approved by the Board and successfully implemented to address issues of concern, such as:

• Ending policies of using court evaluation/bring back orders as "scare tactics" for youth;
• Reducing court evaluation/bring back orders by increasing investments in underutilized community-based evaluations;
• Improving family engagement programming; and
• Establishing more regular Madison County Redeploy Committee meetings to more carefully monitor IDJJ commitment trending.

Ultimately, Madison County determined that most elements of the plan could be conducted through low cost changes in administrative policy that amounted to far less than $8,000. The County received approval from the Board to redirect the remaining balance of funds back to its original implementation budget.

Detention Analysis

Public Act 95-1050 (730 ILCS 110/16.1(b) addresses the mandate requiring each participating county or circuit to develop a local plan demonstrating how the establishment of Redeploy programming will reduce the site's confinement of juvenile offenders in the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice without increasing detention. The admission data to IDJJ and county detention as depicted below, illustrates that the development of Redeploy in a county or circuit has not increased the rate of admissions to detention as admissions to IDJJ decrease.

Table 1. and Figure 1. provide a composite of the Redeploy Illinois pilot sites across all four jurisdictions (2nd Judicial Circuit, Macon, Peoria, St. Clair) describing admissions to IDJJ. The number of admissions to IDJJ statuses, along with the associated percent changes have all declined across the referenced observation time periods. There were more than 53% less Redeploy Illinois eligible admissions to IDJJ during FY2010 than there were in FY2004. Trend data reveal less utilization of court evaluations and court evaluation returns that correspond with the implementation of the pilot programs. Court evaluation commitments are down 78% and court evaluation returns have been reduced by 87% since FY04.

Table 1. Pilot Sites Composite*

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY04-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	199	182	234	218	183	161	112	96	113	101	-53.7%
Total Admissions from Court	205	194	241	227	191	167	116	102	118	112	-50.7%
Court Evaluation	92	70	119	116	91	42	6	5	9	25	-78.4%
Court Evaluation Return	16	25	28	31	24	16	10	1	1	4	-87.1%

*Pilot Sites started in January 2005

Source:  Illinois Department of Corrections

The decline in commitments to IDJJ is mirrored by reductions in admissions to detention. Admissions to juvenile detention from CY2000 through CY2009 are shown in Table 2. and Figure 2. From CY2004 to CY2009, admissions to detention within the Redeploy Illinois pilot site jurisdictions declined by 433 cases (21.2%). For the five-year period of CY2000 through CY2004, there were an average of 2,097 admissions to detention each year. Since the implementation of the Redeploy Illinois pilot sites, covering the period representing CY2005 through CY2009, there were an average of 1,876 detention admissions per year. This calculates to 221 fewer admissions to detention annually or 10.5%. This outcome may be the result of increased scrutiny by professionals involved in the adjudication decision-making process, congruent with the primary intent of Redeploy Illinois to change the culture of disposition by creating accessible alternatives.

Table 2.  Pilot Sites Composite*

Jurisdiction Admissions to Detention:  CY2000 through CY2009

Jurisdiction Admissions to Detention	CY00	CY01	CY02	CY03	CY04	CY05	CY06	CY07	CY08	CY09	Percent Change CY04-CY09
Admissions to Detention	2,151	2,213	2,099	1,975	1,045	1.982	2,117	1,853	1,816	1,612	-21.2%

*Pilot Sites started in January 2005

Source:  Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority

Redeploy Illinois Program Sites

Overview

The following provides an overview of the history, program design and notable developments for each of the Redeploy Illinois sites during FY 2010. For the purposes of providing historical context, the overviews are divided into sections outlining progress among the original four sites that were launched in 2005 (Phase I sites) and the five additional sites implemented in January 2009 (Phase II sites).

PHASE I Sites

Upon establishment of the Redeploy Illinois Program in state statute in 2004, four pilot programs were launched in 2005: the 2nd Judicial Circuit, Macon County, Peoria County and St. Clair County. Each of these four original sites made tremendous progress during FY 2010, and they continue to build a strong foundation for expansion of the program statewide.

2nd Judicial Circuit

Length of Operations: January 2005 to the present

Management Structure:The program encompasses the 12 rural counties in southeastern Illinois that make up the 2nd Judicial Circuit: Edwards, Richland, Lawrence, Crawford, White, Wabash, Gallatin, Hardin, Jefferson, Wayne, Franklin and Hamilton. It is managed by the Jefferson County Board, which acts as the fiscal agent. The program is coordinated by the 2nd Judicial Circuit Juvenile Justice Council, which acts as a liaison between the 2nd Circuit Redeploy Illinois program and the county stakeholders, including judges, states attorneys, public defenders, the detention center, educators, law enforcement and probation and court services.

Eligibility Criteria: The program serves youth between the ages of 13 to 17 who score medium or high risk on the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI), excluding minors guilty of first degree murder or Class X forcible felony.

Program Components: The 2nd Judicial Circuit has reduced commitments to IDJJ for court evaluations by over 78 percent from FY05 to FY10. The program attributes its success to the creation of a staff-secure Assessment Center. Located in a separate wing of the Franklin County Juvenile Detention Center, the Center is a unique component of the 2nd Judicial Circuit Redeploy Illinois Program. It renders virtually all IDJJ court evaluation commitments unnecessary by assuring judges that each youth will undergo an extensive psychological/psychiatric evaluation locally, and that it will be used to develop individual treatment plans that appropriately address their risks and needs through community-based services.

The 2nd Circuit has worked to develop a continuum of services that best fit the needs of each individual county and youth in the program. Key components include evidence-based programs, such as Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) and cognitive groups, which have been found to reduce delinquency, increase cognitive ability, increase positive family relations, increase competencies and improve attitudes.

As transportation and family involvement were found to be considerable service gaps in this rural region, the 2nd Circuit has reported tremendous success in addressing these challenges by implementing home-based therapy as part of the MST component of the program. Bringing therapy to the home has been found to greatly increase the chances of engaging both the youth and his/her family in the program, thereby reducing the youth's chances of being incarcerated at that time and in the future.

From the inception of the program in FY05 through FY10, a total of 486 youth were referred for services. Of that number, 244 were served in FY10 alone.

Table 3. trend data reveal that efforts to reduce jurisdiction admissions to IDJJ across all four categories have occurred with the advent of Redeploy Illinois. The number of Redeploy Illinois eligible commitments to IDJJ has declined by more than 65% (Figure 3.).

Table 3.  2nd Judicial Court (Pilot Site)*

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY04-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	46	43	37	38	28	24	26	20	13	13	-65.8%
Total Admissions from Court	47	43	37	39	28	26	26	22	14	13	-66.7%
Court Evaluation	14	12	19	22	14	6	5	3	1	3	-86.4%
Court Evaluation Return	8	5	3	2	2	3	2	0	0	0	-100.0%

*Pilot Sites started in January 2005

Source:  Illinois Department of Corrections

Average Length of Participation for Each Youth: 9 months

FY10 Program Changes/Developments: Due to the impact of State funding issues during FY10, primarily slow disbursement of funds, the 2nd Circuit reported that it may have to reduce the number of youth enrolled in the MST component of the program, discontinue the Washington Aggression Interruption Training program (WAIT) and eliminate funding for GED testing in FY11.

2nd Judicial Circuit Statement from the Field

"The services that have been provided by Redeploy Illinois dollars to our counties have been invaluable. Our counties are so rural and economically depressed, that the only services youth and families received were those funded through Redeploy. Transportation is a huge obstacle to receiving services. Redeploy funding allowed therapists to go to the home of the youth and provide therapeutic services through the MST program.

Illinois' fiscal crisis is putting this program and services in jeopardy of being eliminated. This will cause many youths' mental health and behavioral issues to be left untreated. The fiscal crisis may also affect our ability to provide psychological and psychiatric evaluations to youth in our circuit. These evaluations help determine the type of services that are needed for each youth. If we cannot provide these evaluations in the community, many youth will be sent to Department of Juvenile Justice just so the court can have an evaluation completed on the youth."

Macon County

Length of Operations: January 2005 to the present

Management Structure: The Macon County Redeploy Illinois Program is called Macon County Community ACCESS. The lead agency is Macon County Probation and Court Services. The Probation Department submitted the original plan to become a Redeploy Illinois site; plays an equal role as a stakeholder in the initiative; and is a conduit to the fiscal agent - the Macon County Treasurer.

Macon County Community ACCESS has two layers of stakeholders who oversee the initiative. The first is the Work Group, which is responsible for development and direct oversight of the services, and processes the day-to-day business of the initiative. The second layer of oversight is provided by the Honorable Judge Lisa Holder White, who has the final decision-making authority regarding the project budget, selects the contractual service providers, hires all paid program staff, and provides support to the Work Group in terms of problem-solving and trouble-shooting.

Eligibility Criteria: The program provides services to youth who are classified as high risk to reoffend, based on a combination of information available from assessment instruments and prior knowledge/experience with the youth and their family.

Program Components: The overarching goal of this program is to create a collaborative approach to increase access to evidence-based services for juveniles, their families, and victims within the community. The program attributes its success in achieving this collaboration to facilitating systems change in the way the justice system approaches youth incarceration.

In addition, juveniles served by Macon County Community ACCESS receive a continuum of services based on their specific needs and risk levels. The program has converted the use of assessments from an "event" into a "process." A unified case plan is developed for each youth, based on his/her individual risks and needs. This plan identifies the programs and services to be implemented. Among the many options are home interventions, parent groups, cognitive interventions, employment opportunities, tutoring, substance abuse and mental health services, mentoring, cultural activities, gender-based groups, Washington Aggression Interruption Training (WAIT), community service, Community Restorative Boards and Teen Court.

Parental and family involvement are considered to be critical components of the program. The program has a requirement that all case plans address cognitive interventions that focus on behavior cycles and stages of change, and that they are the focus of every case contact. Case plans must also ensure the active use of meaningful, positive reinforcements.

Another somewhat unique component of the program is the manner with which it budgets for flex funding. This funding is used to help families move beyond crisis, such as an inability to pay rent or utility bills, so that they can focus on building the healthy and supportive family dynamics needed for the success of each youth in the program.

Table 7. and Figure 7. show that Macon County made great strides as a pilot site in reducing low-level juvenile admissions to IDJJ from FY2004 numbers. However recent data have revealed commitment numbers similar to FY2005.

Table 7.  Macon County (Pilot Site*)

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY04-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	32	42	54	71	30	27	17	16	30	31	-56.3%
Total Admissions from Court	33	43	55	74	30	27	20	16	32	31	-58.1%
Court Evaluation	16	19	31	37	13	0	0	0	4	20	-45.9%
Court Evaluation Return	1	6	11	16	6	2	0	0	0	1	-93.8%

*Pilot Sites started in January 2005

Source:  Illinois Department of Corrections

Macon County Statement from the Field

"Whereas we established goals in FY10, we did not meet many of our targeted goals. Due to considerable funding delays, services were unable to be restarted until 2.5 months into FY10. We had difficulty with families who were not vested in the program because of our inability to deliver consistent service provision and turnover in personnel. Funding delays caused personnel to seek out more stably funded employment opportunities, and we had to restart the hiring process and climb the learning curve. Agencies were worried about funding, or lack thereof, and were unable to meet payroll."

Average Length of Participation for Each Youth:  One Year

FY10 Program Changes/Developments:  In FY09, an employment program was developed, which offers youth hourly wages to provide mowing services to elderly residents of the community.  In FY10, the employment program was continued and youth planted flowers and vegetables in pots for senior an disabled neighbors.  They also developed a community garden where youth cleared the ground and grew tomatoes, squash and peppers.  The program was so successful that youth continued working on the garden, even during the period when there were no funds to sustain it.

Peoria County

Length of Operations: July 1, 2005 to the present

Management Structure: Children's Home Association of Illinois is the primary agency in the provision and delivery of services for the Peoria Redeploy Illinois Program. In that capacity, they either provide the services, broker the services, or ensure that youth receive the necessary services from the other Redeploy service providers or community providers.

Juvenile Probation provides a portion of the administration/monitoring of the juveniles in Redeploy and the overall operations. In addition, Probation Officers can refer youth to the program that are of greatest risk of being sent to IDJJ/IDOC.

The Redeploy program is monitored through the Peoria County Juvenile Justice Council, which is comprised of the following members: Chief Judge, Juvenile Judge, States Attorney's Office, Court Services, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Peoria Police Chief, Peoria City Council, Peoria County Sheriff's Department, Peoria County Board, Social Service, Peoria Public Schools, Religious community, the University of Illinois School of Medicine, community members/activists, and parents/youth on various sub-committees. The Peoria County Juvenile Justice Council has been in existence since 2002.

Eligibility Criteria: The Peoria County Redeploy program's focus is on two groups of youth: current probationers assessed to be at high-risk for commitment to IDJJ and youth before the court who would previously have been sent to IDJJ for an evaluation.

Program Components: Youth are referred to the program via a court order through the Juvenile Judge or based on the criteria that Juvenile Probation has developed for youth that are at risk of being sent to IDJJ. The referrals are sent to the Clinical Coordinator at Children's Home for initial review. Once the initial review has taken place the Clinical Coordinator reviews each case with program staff in an effort to match the youth and their family to most appropriate worker. Once the case is assigned the program staff contacts the youth/family in order to set up the initial intake interview / assessment in order to begin services.

Each youth enrolled in the program begins with an assessment that not only looks at the issues why the youth is on probation but also utilizes the information that has been obtained through the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI). An assessment clinician from Children's Home conducts an in-depth assessment of clinical issues, school issues, family issues, peer issues and any other relevant information that the youth, family, and Probation Officer may provide during the intake. The assessment and service plan are currently a component of the Functional Family Therapy (FFT) services that are provided by program staff.

The youth that have been referred to the program for the purposes of preventing IDJJ commitment for a court evaluation are required to undergo a 21-day stabilization period at a residential facility for their assessment. Upon completion, they are transitioned into the program group.

The central focus of the Peoria program is an intensive case management component encompassing frequent contact with youth and family, requiring a minimum of three or more contacts per week. An integrated array of support services are provided to address the individual needs of each youth, including: mentoring, counseling, family therapy (FFT), anger management (Aggression Replacement Training), education skills (teaching effective study skills/test preparation, organization, and tutoring), independent living skills (budgeting, job applications, resume writing, laundry, cooking, time management), social skills (appropriate speech and conduct in a professional setting, appropriate dress, manners at the dinner table), and community/volunteer work.

Peoria Redeploy Illinois staff have also worked to close service gaps between school personnel and community agency personnel. For example, an area high school partners with a community center to provide youth with positive alternatives through the summer months. These programs include, but are not limited to, basketball camps, football camps, softball and baseball camps, math and English tutoring and community service (cleaning up the neighboring areas).

During FY2009, there was a considerable increase in the number of State commitments, when compared against the preceding four years and FY2010. Overall, there has been limited change in Peoria County admissions to IDJJ other than court evaluations (Table 10. and Figure 10).

Table 10.  Peoria County (Pilot Site*)

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY04-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	81	66	87	42	46	48	49	49	60	44	4.8%
Total Admissions from Court	85	72	88	43	50	51	50	53	61	49	14.0%
Court Evaluation	32	20	26	10	7	2	1	2	4	2	-80.0%
Court Evaluation Return	0	3	3	1	1	0	0	0	1	2	100.0%

*Pilot Sites started in January 2005

Source:  Illinois Department of Corrections

Average Length of Participation for Each Youth: 6 - 9 months

FY10 Program Changes/Developments: The Functional Family Therapy program has been implemented in order to serve not only the child, but also the entire family.

Peoria County Statement from the Field

"At this point everything seems to be functioning like it should but the ongoing challenges with the State budget put needed services for the youth and families in our community at risk. As far as the payment delays in FY10 are concerned, it is a good thing that the core of services is delivered by Children's Home, as they have been able to manage the cash flow issues relatively well."

St. Clair County

Length of Operations: July, 2005 to the present

Management Structure: The St. Clair County Mental Health Board and St. Clair County Health Department jointly administer the St. Clair County Redeploy Program, managing funds, monitoring the program and submitting required reporting. The County subcontracts with Children's Home and Aid (CHA) as the lead agency. The agency monitors direct service subcontracts and purchases of services. The County and CHA actively track trends through statistical data and reporting; use the data to evaluate and improve effectiveness of services; and collaborate with the greater St. Clair County Youth Coalition (SCCYC) to further program implementation successes and to meet needs.

This SCCYC, consisting of over 100 local stakeholders and service providers, offers direct oversight to the Redeploy program, helps mediate systems issues, implementation issues, gaps in services, and leadership in system delivery and program implementation. The SCCYC mission is based on the belief that gaps in services can be addressed, and a seamless delivery of services to youth and families can occur through this partnership.

The St. Clair County Juvenile Probation Department has also been a very active and supportive agency with Redeploy. The Probation department assigns one specific probation officer to Redeploy caseloads for a more effective collaboration between Probation and the Redeploy case managers. This also increases the supervision and direction interventions taken in regard to youth on the caseload.

Judge Walter Brandon, of the Juvenile Court, has been an active participant and supporter of the Redeploy program since taking the bench in FY08. Judge Brandon regularly refers youth to the program and has participated in "graduation" parties for youth successfully completing Redeploy. Judge Brandon participates in trainings and other workshops offered in the state as it pertains to Redeploy and other juvenile initiatives that impact St. Clair County.

Eligibility Criteria: Youth are eligible for the program if they have a YASI score of medium-to-high risk, are returning to court on a probation violation, or if they are facing a court evaluation commitment to IDJJ.

Program Components: St. Clair County and Madison share a similar program model, and are both served by the Children's Home and Aid (CHA). One of the most unique, and effective, aspects of the St. Clair and Madison County Redeploy programs is the Court Liaison component. One of the first points of contact for the program, the Court Liaison acts as a resource for the court and helps identify Redeploy eligible youth. Acting as a resource for families and youth that are coming into court, the Liaison speaks with them about areas of need and concern, makes linkages to resources in the community and follows up with them within 30 days to ensure those linkages have been made.

Once a youth is referred to the Redeploy program, the Court Liaison is usually present to initiate intake paperwork, releases of information on the youth and the family and then coordinates meeting times between the Redeploy case manager, the youth and their family. The case managers have 24 hours to initiate contact with the youth and their family and are required to have a school staffing or acquire school records during the first week of the youth being referred.

Upon admission to the program, each youth receives a thorough psychological assessment that includes a review of family, school, medical, psychiatric, and relational history of the youth and family system. A YASI assessment also assists in highlighting risk and protective factors in a multitude of life domains. These assessments, coupled with strong youth/family involvement in determining strategies, guide the case manager in the development of individualized goals. This includes goals and resources that are unique for that youth and their community and goals that are also culturally competent.

Another core component of the St. Clair County Redeploy program is its intensive case management component, which requires a minimum of three contacts per week with the youth and their family. Case managers work closely with youth and their families to both develop and achieve the goals of their individualized service plans. Through its broad network of providers and services directly funded by Redeploy Illinois, the case managers have a broad array of programs and services to refer youth to help them achieve those goals. The case managers monitor service delivery and provide interventions that include after hours crisis services and screening for psychiatric placement if needed.

The St. Clair County Redeploy program includes, but is not limited to: MST, FFT, Art Therapy, Equine Therapy, WAIT, inpatient and outpatient drug treatment, mentoring, tutoring, recreational opportunities, employment assistance, independent living planning, and any other linkages that are necessary for the youth and their family.

The program also uses two evidence-based programs to effect change in the family systems of Redeploy youth, including Family Functional Therapy (FFT) and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST). While FFT is available to Redeploy through an existing contract, more MST capacity was developed specifically for the Redeploy initiative in St. Clair County and a subcontract agreement is in place.

Since 2007, St. Clair County has established a threshold of jurisdiction admissions to IDJJ much lower than that found during the first half of the decade, with evidence that the court evaluation disposition resulting in State commitment has almost been abolished (Table 11.). The data indicate considerable declines among the percent change calculations since Redeploy Illinois was initiated (Figure 11.).

Table 11.  St. Clair County (Pilot Site*)

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY04-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	40	31	56	67	79	62	20	11	10	13	-80.6%
Total Admissions from Court	40	35	61	71	83	63	20	11	11	19	-73.2%
Court Evaluation	30	19	43	47	57	34	0	0	0	0	-100.0%
Court Evaluation Return	7	11	11	12	15	11	8	1	0	1	-91.7%

*Pilot Sites started in January 2005

Source: Illinois Department of Corrections

Average Length of Participation: 8 months

FY10 Program Changes/Developments: All Redeploy staff have been trained in WAIT as well as the concepts of Solution Focused Therapy, which has already been implemented in the County and viewed as a valuable resource. Redeploy has also been an integral part in the St. Clair County Youth Coalition faith-based committee that helped a local church to organize a monthly Open Gym night for youth in the community.

In addition, Reclaiming Futures, an approach to serving substance abusing youth, has been funded through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as a result of identifying Redeploy youth with mental health and substance abuse issues. This approach provides treatment, better treatment, and beyond treatment for juveniles identified with alcohol or substance abuse issues. The program is also working with Prevention First, Inc., a non-profit substance abuse prevention organization, and local Student Assistance Programs to collaborate to ensure that the youth receive support services and community resources that assist them in achieving academic success.

The Open Gym program has provided access for nearly 200 youth to a positive environment with recreation, food, and positive role models. This event has now been in effect for over two years. The St. Clair County Redeploy Program has identified high numbers of youth with functioning issues and developmental delays as a population that finds it difficult to be successful in a variety of environments.

Redeploy staff have been trained how to access services for this population, but continue to run into issues of Developmental Disability Services more targeted toward adult clients and having a limited capacity for the adult population. Redeploy continues to advocate for these youth through active participation in Individualized Education Plans, advocating through the school districts, and facilitate educational changes when necessary.

St. Clair County Statement from the Field

"St. Clair County Redeploy has done an outstanding job in regard to the reductions in commitments and evaluations in the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. Since FY 07, there have not been any youth sent to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice for an evaluation resulting in a 100 percent reduction in the population over the past 3 years. The issue of how realistic it would be to continue reducing numbers by 25 percent has been posed to the Oversight Board. Because of how effective they have been the goal of FY 11 would not exceed 16.

St. Clair County has learned that collaborating with agencies and especially a partnership with Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville has helped open doors for resources and services with clients. These partnerships continue to be strong as well as the St. Clair County Youth Coalition's support and oversight of the program. Redeploy has found youth to have had success in newly formed groups of Equine therapy and a Female Offenders group. In addition to this, the Open Gym night that Redeploy sponsors through the youth coalition continues to offer a positive support for youth and their families. Redeploy has identified a parent in the community that may be interested in taking some ownership in that committee and helping to gear Open Gym to a more community driven effort. In addition, Redeploy has identified two potential spots in Cahokia and East St. Louis where other Open Gym nights may be initiated within the coming year."

PHASE II Sites

After the considerable success of the original four pilot sites, the program expanded in January 2009 to five new jurisdictions, following a concerted outreach and planning effort by the Redeploy Illinois Board and staff. The new sites were: the 4th Judicial Circuit, Lee County, McLean County, Madison County and Kankakee County.

4th Judicial Circuit

Length of Operations: April 1, 2009 to the present

Management Structure: Montgomery County is the lead County for the 4th Judicial Circuit Redeploy Illinois grant. While the Circuit consists of nine counties, only five participated in the program in FY10, including Christian, Clinton, Fayette, Marion and Montgomery Counties. The remaining four counties, Clay, Effingham, Jasper and Shelby, will be included by FY11.

The probation departments in the Fourth Judicial Circuit acts as the lead broker of services, and the Chief Managing Officers of the department works closely with the juvenile officers to ensure guidelines are followed. The juvenile officers are responsible for the screenings and assessments necessary to determine each youth's eligibility for the Redeploy Program.

All counties in the Circuit have a local consortium of stakeholders with memberships consisting of State's Attorneys, Public Defenders/Guardians Ad Litem, Chief Probation Officers, Juvenile Probation Officers, Juvenile Judges, Associate Judges, educators, law enforcement, service agencies, Department of Children and Family Services caseworkers, and staff of the Department of Human Services. These groups have been in existence for the past three years dealing with juvenile issues such as detention.

The local stakeholders attend their respective Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) meetings where problems and service gaps are continually identified and possible solutions discussed to keep youth from being committed to the IDJJ. The Chief Judge is in support of the efforts of the Fourth Judicial Circuit.

Eligibility Criteria: Eligibility criteria includes youth 13-17 years of age, and who have been adjudicated delinquent for an offense punishable by an IDJJ commitment, and assessed with an overall YASI score of medium- to high-risk.

Program Components: Upon referral to the program from the Court, State's Attorney, Public Defender/Guardian Ad Litem and/or probation, each youth is required to meet with a juvenile probation officer to complete an intake worksheet, which includes information regarding demographics, education, substance abuse, mental health, family history, criminal history, employment, peers, and community and leisure activities. In addition, the officer will complete a full YASI, interview family and school officials and obtain any additional helpful information about each youth. Based on the results of the assessment, each Redeploy youth will be referred to the appropriate services.

The 4th Judicial Circuit Redeploy Program offers youth and their families a wide array of program and services including, but not be limited to: Unified Delinquency Intervention Services, Screening Assessment and Support Services, Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST). Transportation is also provided to and from some of these services for the individuals in need.

4th Judicial Circuit is a Phase II site, the declines experienced thus far in admissions to IDJJ are slight as diversion efforts have just begun. However, there was an immediate reduction impact on court evaluation commitments (see Table 4. and Figure 4.).

Table 4. 4th Judicial Circuit (Phase II Site*)

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY04-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	35	46	24	50	39	42	31	27	22	21	-4.5%
Total Admissions from Court	36	46	24	50	41	42	31	27	22	21	-4.5%
Court Evaluation	12	12	10	18	15	12	6	6	12	8	-33.3%
Court Evaluation Return	4	5	2	10	5	1	7	3	4	4	0.0%

*Phase II Sites began during January 2009

Source: Illinois Department of Corrections

Average Length of Participation: 12 months

FY10 Program Changes/Developments: Services were added or expanded in the community, including psychological testing, Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) and transportation to and from services. In addition, the service area for our Redeploy Program for FY10 included Christian, Clinton, Fayette, Marion and Montgomery Counties. For FY11, the service area will expand to include Clay, Effingham, Jasper and Shelby Counties, thus bringing in all of the Fourth Judicial Circuit.

4th Judicial Circuit Statement from the Field

"We are very committed to the idea of improving our communities by reaching across agency lines. Our Redeploy program has become much more than a way to keep high-risk youth from going to IDJJ. While reducing our commitments remains our primary focus, the fact remains that change in thinking and old practices have been greatly impacted by new relationships and working together with understanding and one goal which are community-based and not agency [based]. This program has allowed us to share our new found relationships and practices with the rest of the counties within our circuit."

Lee County

Length of Operations: April 1, 2009 to the present

Management Structure: Lee County, on behalf of Lee County Probation, acts as the lead agency for the Redeploy Illinois Program. The Probation Department has assumed the oversight of the program grant and the resource allocation through a contractual agreement with a local mental health agency.

The Lee County Juvenile Justice Council (JJC), a forum used to meet with juvenile justice stakeholders to evaluate/improve service delivery, provides oversight for the program. The council is presently set up through the grants committee to provide that oversight and presently oversees several other existing programs currently providing serviced to youth involved in the Lee County Court System.

Eligibility Criteria: The program serves youth between the ages of 11 and 18, who are assessed as medium-to-high risk on the YASI and have demonstrated a significant risk in the following areas: family, attitudes, criminal history, violence and substance abuse.

Program Components: Upon referral to Lee County Probation, a full assessment is conducted of each youth, including the YASI. Youth that score medium-to-high risk on the YASI are reviewed extensively in a staffing for placement in the Redeploy Program by a large team, including the probation officer, assistant state's attorney, treatment staff and the Redeploy Illinois Program/Quality Assurance Manager. During the staffing, the youth's risks and protective factors are discussed to determine appropriate placement into the program. From there, an intensive and comprehensive plan is created to address the unique needs of each youth and their family.

With case management led by the Probation Officer, the Redeploy Program offers several different programs to support the successful completion of each youth's individual plan, including: intensive family interventions utilizing the "Parenting with Love & Limits (PLL) curriculum;" interventions to address criminal attitudes, values and beliefs using the National Institute of Corrections "Thinking for a Change" curriculum; mentoring/tutoring services; employment assistance; structured free-time activities; and family strengthening weekend activities.

A large focus of the Lee county program is centered on the "Parenting with Love & Limits (PLL)" program. PLL is a community-based, intensive family intervention that is designed to engage difficult parents and teach them effective family management skills. The program combines a six-week parent education class, group therapy with the youth and four or more individual family coaching sessions for minors and their parents upon completion of the classes.

In addition, Lee County has created a new, part-time position with Redeploy Illinois funding, called the Program/Quality Assurance Manager. The individual is responsible for meeting with community agencies to assist them with designing their programs to address the needs of medium-to-high risk youth. They are also providing: an evaluation of the structure and delivery of existing service provider programs; a process to enhance and develop gaps that are identified through the evaluation process; training for service providers on effective interventions for minors at risk to recidivate; quality assurance measures to insure program integrity; quality data collection systems for service providers; and the development of a comprehensive, community-based, intensive program for high risk minors residing in Lee County.

Lee County experienced the least amount of juvenile-related official contacts among each of the nine Redeploy Illinois sites (see Table 6. and Figure 6.). The trend data for the jurisdiction admissions to IDJJ categories reveal that during FY2010, there was literally only one admission from court that was also Redeploy Illinois eligible because the youth was a court evaluation return. This followed a year where there were only three total admissions from court.

Table 6. Lee County (Phase II Site*)

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY09-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	12	10	7	3	12	18	5	8	3	1	-66.7%
Total Admissions from Court	12	10	7	3	12	18	6	8	3	1	-66.7%
Court Evaluation	4	2	2	0	6	3	2	1	1	0	-100.0%
Court Evaluation Return	0	0	1	0	2	1	0	1	0	1	100.0%

*Phase II Site began during January 2009

Source: Illinois Department of Corrections

Average Length of Participation: 6-8 months

FY10 Program Changes/Developments: There has been positive feedback on the Program/Quality Assurance Manager's work from the two agencies with whom she is currently working. They want to provide the most effective services that follow evidence-based practices and appreciate her services in helping them achieve this goal. The agencies have also expressed positive feedback to the recent training and the continued quarterly meetings.

Lee County Statement from the Field

"The data for 2009 provided effective results with our high-risk youth and families. Risk has been lowered or maintained with minors, as well as protective factors have increased. In addition, our commitments have been reduced by 82 percent. At this point, all of the services we are providing are needed for the success of this program.

What continues to receive positive responses from parents, once they have graduated from the PLL groups, are the insight they have learned. The feedback we are receiving include comments about how they like having coaching sessions for them and the minor occurring in the home, and how this gives them the ability to practice what they have learned. With the families that have graduated from the program, they report continued success and that they have gained insight into understanding the importance of providing structure for their children because it provides good outcomes in the end."

McLean County

Length of Operations: April, 2009 to the present

Management Structure: The lead agency for the McLean County Redeploy Program is McLean County Court Services. As the lead agency, Court Services identifies those youth who meet the criteria for involvement in Redeploy and refer them to community stakeholders for evaluation and program planning. Further, Court Services will monitor services being provided for program integrity and allocation of necessary resources.

The Juvenile Probation Department determines which youth are eligible for the Redeploy program. Participating youth are monitored by a Redeploy Illinois Probation Officer who is responsible for supervision, record keeping and service brokerage. The McLean County Juvenile Justice Council provides the Redeploy Illinois Program oversight. The council members consist of representatives from social service agencies, the judiciary, the court system, local police and sheriff's departments, the faith-based community, education and private enterprise. Its role is to support ongoing interagency cooperation and programs to address juvenile delinquency and juvenile crime.

Eligibility Criteria: The program serves youth from the ages of 13 and older, who have a YASI score of moderate-high or high, and that are adjudicated wards of the court, including those that are dually involved with the juvenile justice system and the Department of Children & Family Services.

Program Components: As soon as a youth is identified as Redeploy eligible, a WRAP meeting is convened with the Redeploy Probation Officer and community stakeholders, and a detailed, individualized plan, including a prioritized order of needs, is developed.

Based on research conducted by Illinois State University, the McLean County Redeploy Program developed a network of contracting agencies to help address the needs outlined in each youth's plan. Programs being offered by the McLean County Program include: Washington Aggression Interruption Training (WAIT), the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (ACRA), GED and career planning services (Transition Course), Family Advocacy, and tele-psychiatry. In addition, free transportation is provided to all participants.

As research indicated service gaps in McLean County for groups dealing with anger issues, McLean County added the WAIT program, a cognitive-based program, to address anger issues. In addition, the Family Advocacy program was being implemented to bridge the gap between work being done with the youth and their family. Based on a family systems approach, using a Family Assessment and Support Tool, the program is able to develop an Individual Plan of Care for the family that is a collaborative effort of the social service agencies, criminal justice system the youth and their family. As some families need more support than others, Family Advocacy Case Management also provided more comprehensive/intensive Family Advocacy Services for 8-12 of the highest need families.

Table 9. and Figure 9. provide trend data for McLean County admissions to IDJJ. The advent of Redeploy Illinois as a Phase II site had an immediate reduction on court evaluation and court evaluation return processes that coincided with fewer overall commitments. If these trends continue, McLean County will quickly have to establish a revised penalty baseline.

Table 9. McLean County (Phase II Site*)

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY09-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	50	28	35	30	23	27	22	14	13	7	-46.2%
Total Admissions from Court	52	29	35	31	24	27	23	16	13	8	-38.5%
Court Evaluation	27	12	19	13	10	13	11	1	0	0	0.0%
Court Evaluation Return	13	5	4	7	9	9	7	7	0	0	0.0%

*Phase II Sites began during January 2009

Source: Illinois Department of Corrections

Average Length of Participation: 7-8 months

FY10 Program Changes/Developments: In a recent report, the McLean County Redeploy Program reported that more attention will be directed toward strengthening the family unit in FY11, as well as expanding Family Advocacy Services to include an additional Family Advocacy Case Manager to assist in determining the needs of the families and ensuring that resources are provided. The report stated: "The importance of this was underestimated in previous program years. Many of the Redeploy youths' parents are either overwhelmed by the behavior of their child or are disinterested in being a part of their success."

McLean County Statement from the Field

"McLean County far exceeded its goal of a 25 percent reduction in IDJJ commitments, in that only 6 youth were committed during the contractual period. Although, it is arguably too soon to determine with scientific certainty that the programs are the cause for the reduction in IDJJ commitments, McLean County believes that these programs played an integral part."

Madison County

Length of Operations: April, 2009 to the present.

Management Structure: Children's Home + Aid (CH+A) is the lead agency for the Redeploy Illinois Program in Madison County. The agency monitors sub-contracts and purchases of services, actively tracks trends through statistical data and reporting, uses the data to evaluate and improve effectiveness of services, manages funds provided by the state, and collaborates with the stakeholders; probation, public defender, state's attorney and the juvenile judge on program implementation successes and needs. The Madison County Juvenile Probation Department continues to be an active support for the program and also provides representation at the stakeholder's meeting as well as the juvenile justice committee, soon to be a juvenile justice council.

The probation department has also taken an active role in a clinical staffing committee, initiated by Redeploy, which entails a variety of service providers attempting to provide resolutions in difficult probation cases. The Redeploy case managers keep the probation officers updated on a weekly basis regarding client issues. The Director of Probation continues to be a support for the program and is constantly working to address issues and resolve problems regarding program implementation and changes in the juvenile justice system.

The probation department also allowed one of their officers to be trained in Washington Aggression Interruption Training (WAIT). This officer was able to co-facilitate a WAIT group with one of the Redeploy case managers. Redeploy believes this is a resource and a collaboration that will continue.

The Redeploy Program is also coordinated with the Madison County Juvenile Justice Committee, which has been in operation for over a year. While the committee is still developing, it is already starting to see the potential it has in solving problems and addressing gaps in resources. This committee currently is comprised of the juvenile judge, the State's Attorney's office, the Public Defender's office, Probation, and several school districts are represented as well.

The Chief Judge was supportive of the initial development of Redeploy and has been kept informed by the Juvenile Court Judge of any pertinent issues as they have developed. The Chief Judge has been active in implementing new policies regarding the Redeploy program and the Juvenile Court. These include Administrative Orders that require youth facing DJJ to get a Redeploy evaluation as well. The Chief Judge has expressed commitment to making the program a success in the county.

In the past year there has been a new Assistant State's Attorney and Judge assigned to the juvenile courtroom. Both parties have been supportive and are continuing to utilize Redeploy as a resource for those youth facing a potential commitment to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. The new juvenile judge, Judge Janet Heflin has been supportive of this initiative and also provides representation on the juvenile justice committee and in the Redeploy stakeholder's meeting.

Eligibility Criteria: The program serves youth who are 13 to 21 years old with at least one prior delinquent offense; who are currently adjudicated for an offense which is punishable by a IDJJ commitment, including a probation violation or a court evaluation; and who have a YASI score of medium or high risk.

Program Components: Madison County and St. Clair County share a similar program model, and are both served by the Children's Home + Aid (CH+A.) One of the most unique, and effective, aspects of the Madison County Redeploy program is the Court Liaison component. One of the first points of contact for the program, the Court Liaison acts as a resource for the court and helps identify Redeploy eligible youth. Acting as a resource for families and youth that are coming into court, the Liaison speaks with them about areas of need and concern, makes linkages to resources in the community and follows up with them within 30 days to ensure those linkages have been made.

Once a youth is referred to the Redeploy program, the Court Liaison is usually present to initiate intake paperwork, releases of information on the youth and the family and then coordinates meeting times between the Redeploy case manager, the youth and their family. The case managers have 24 hours to initiate contact with the youth and their family and are required to have a school staffing or acquire school records during the first week of the youth being referred.

Upon admission to the program, each youth receives a thorough psychological assessment that includes a review of family, school, medical, psychiatric, and relational history of the youth and family system. A YASI assessment also assists in highlighting risk and protective factors in a multitude of life domains. These assessments, coupled with strong youth/family involvement in determining strategies, guide the case manager in the development of individualized goals. This includes goals and resources that are unique for that youth and their community and goals that are also culturally competent.

Another core component of the Madison County Redeploy program is its intensive case management component. Case managers work closely with youth and their families to both develop and achieve the goals of their individualized service plans. Through its broad network of providers and services directly funded by Redeploy Illinois, the case managers have a broad array of programs and services to refer youth to help them achieve those goals. The case managers monitor service delivery and provide interventions that include after hours crisis services and screening for psychiatric placement if needed.

The Madison County Redeploy program includes, but is not limited to: FFT, Art Therapy, Equine Therapy, WAIT, inpatient and outpatient drug treatment, mentoring, tutoring, recreational opportunities, employment assistance, independent living planning, and any other linkages that are necessary for the youth and their family.

The program uses two evidence-based programs to effect change in the family systems of Redeploy youth, including FFT and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST). While FFT is available to Redeploy through an existing contract, a MST based philosophy was developed specifically for the Redeploy initiative in Madison County and a subcontract agreement is in place.

The volume of commitments to IDJJ from Madison County is fairly low, which suggests that trend data need to evolve over a longer observation period to show less fluctuation in the results (Table 8. and Figure 8.). This should be achieved as this Phase II site becomes fully implemented and integrated within juvenile court processes.

Table 8. Madison County (Phase II Site*)

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY09-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	24	32	28	34	26	26	29	28	29	30	3.4%
Total Admissions from Court	27	40	34	41	37	42	31	30	32	31	-3.1%
Court Evaluation	11	13	9	22	21	12	11	12	11	8	-27.3%
Court Evaluation Return	4	7	1	5	6	5	4	5	3	7	133.3%

*Phase II Sites began during January 2009

Source: Illinois Department of Corrections

Average Length of Participation: 9 months.

FY10 Program Changes/Developments: Redeploy staff were trained in Washington Aggression Interruption Training (WAIT) and were able to implement a group in the past year successfully. A new group will start during the FY11 school year. In addition, Redeploy has been able to utilize Equine and Art therapy for youth on the caseload. This is a practice that has been effective in helping many youth open up and progress through some of their own personal issues. Redeploy plans to continue utilizing these forms of therapy in the coming year. Redeploy also operates an open gym in a neighboring county. This open gym affords youth to socialize and have recreation at a positive place with prosocial teens and adults. Many of the Madison County youth benefit from this event when transportation is available.

In addition, the Madison County Redeploy program reported significant concerns about domestic violence in the community. This was a statement from the FY11 Program Plan: "Redeploy has come across a preponderance of physical abuse and domestic violence issues in families since the inception of Redeploy in Madison County. Because of this, there is a significant amount of issues that must be addressed with parents and guardians. Some parents that have had a long history with social services agencies including DCFS, have been reluctant to address domestic violence and physical abuse issues. Some parents have even refused to participate in Family Functional Therapy.

If there is a family system issue, this must be addressed in order to effectively impact change with the youth. Redeploy has worked with the Court in an attempt to hold parents more accountable through court ordered participation in counseling by the parent. The Court is currently exploring how to make Orders of Supervision on parents legally binding with some leverage behind them. Presently, Redeploy is working with Dr. Jewell and developing a group that targets parents and accountability as well as better ways to cope and address inappropriate behavior from youth on the caseload.

All youth on Redeploy now have unlimited access to Family Functional Therapy which is an evidence based program that normally has a long waiting list and is costly. Redeploy funds have also been able to introduce Art and Equine therapy to these youth including funding an existing probation summer camp that is a week long."

Madison County Statement from the Field

"The first major hurdle in getting Redeploy to Madison County was to get all pertinent parties and stakeholders in agreement with the philosophy of the program and acquiring a commitment to making that program work.

The second major hurdle was getting a court system that had not experienced change in a long time, become open to making some adjustments to accommodate the program. This included allowing the Redeploy Court Liaison to operate out of the court and not only work with Redeploy youth and provide resources to the court, but to also screen every youth that comes into the court as a means of prevention and making linkages to resources. Initially the courtroom personnel were not willing to allow the liaison to remain in the court room but would give her a 30 day presence so she could make all pertinent stakeholders and attorneys aware of Redeploy. However, since that time, the liaison has become a permanent fixture there and is now viewed as a resource by court personnel."

Kankakee County

Length of Operations: April 2009 to June 30, 2010.

Management Structure: Kankakee County Probation Department serves as the lead agency for the Redeploy Program in Kankakee County. The Juvenile Probation Supervisors serve as Co-Program Directors and oversee all program operations. Their responsibilities include supervision of the Redeploy Coordinator, subcontractor negotiations, budget development and fiscal oversight, and participant selection. The Kankakee County Auditor's Office serves as the fiscal agent for grant funds.

Juvenile Probation Division plays the primary leadership role in the Redeploy Program. The Department contracts with agencies that provide the services locally or in the youth's home, and provides case management for all Redeploy cases.

At the present time, an oversight board has not been established. However, monthly meetings are held with representatives of the agencies providing services to the minors in the program, including those who do not receive funding from the Redeploy Illinois initiative, along with the Redeploy Coordinator, Probation Officers, Probation Supervisors, and Technical Advisor. In addition to reviewing the progress of each minor, the meeting participants also share information about community resources and make suggestions about how program operations can be improved.

In addition to the agencies that receive funds from the Redeploy Illinois initiative, several others who provide community-based services to delinquent youth participate in the monthly staffing meetings. Local stakeholders work collaboratively to ensure that each minor and his/her family members are provided with an appropriate constellation of services to keep the juvenile from reoffending. There is a very high level of cooperation between the services providers and adjustments are made in service delivery arrangements in order to maximize the participation by the youth involved.

Eligibility Criteria: The program serves youth that are a minimum of 13 years old, and are assessed as medium-to-high risk based on prior knowledge or experience with the youth and his/her parents or guardians; behaviors and interactions observed in court; prior non-compliance with treatment and court orders; and/or their YASI score.

Program Components: The Kankakee County Redeploy Program utilizes two avenues for program admission: A minor may be recommended for Redeploy as part of a social history investigation ordered by the juvenile judge; or, a minor may enter the Redeploy program as a result of their Probation Officer identifying needs and resources that are only available through the Redeploy program. In both cases the willingness of the minor and their family is addressed prior to a staffing and/or social history recommendation. If a minor enters Redeploy Illinois via his/her Probation Officer, services would start immediately. A minor that enters via a social history recommendation, would start receiving services upon disposition of the case. In both instances, the Probation Officer requests a staffing with the Juvenile Division Supervisors and Redeploy Coordinator and completes a case analysis document to facilitate the planning process. The case analysis takes into account the Youth Assessment Scoring Instrument (YASI) score, treatment needs (substance abuse, mental health, etc.), and compliance with previously Court ordered treatment, the current offense, prior evaluations, and any other relevant information.

If the process results in a recommendation to admit a youth to the Redeploy Program, a follow-up meeting is scheduled with the youth and their family to discuss needs and expectations. Upon agreeing to comply with the program requirements, the youth and their family complete intake forms, services are discussed and confirmed, and a contract is signed by the youth and their family, the Juvenile Division Supervisors, and the Redeploy Coordinator. The contract outlines the terms of participation and the expectations of the parties involved. Within 30 days, the Coordinator prepares a service plan for the minor, and family, when appropriate. Initially, weekly meetings are held between the minor/family and the Coordinator to review the prior week's activities, make adjustments in the services/expectations and prepare a new task sheet for the following week.

In order to support the youth and their family in achieving their individual goals, the Kankakee County Redeploy program has developed a network of service providers to support them. The providers been trained to provide the following evidence based programs to help youth to improve self-control, anger management, and decision-making:

• Washington Aggression Interruption Training (WAIT), which consists of weekly cognitive behavioral interventions designed to assist youth with aggression, reduce anti-social behaviors and teach pro-social skills.
• Moral Reconation Therapy, which combines elements from a variety of psychological traditions to progressively address ego, social, moral, and positive behavioral growth. This treatment can be offered in an individual or group setting, and includes a parent component.

* "Girls . . . Moving On," which is a program for criminal justice involved females aged 12-21. It is based on the "Moving On" program designed for adult female offenders. The program uses cognitive-behavioral techniques to help girls build new skills.

Two sessions are delivered individually and the other five delivered in a group setting. Services also include: Individual and group counseling, mentoring for minors and parents, tutoring, and credit recovery services will be provided by trained/licensed providers using proven and promising practices.

The services included in the service plan, reflect each minor's YASI score, Behavior Health Screen (BHS) results, school records, psychiatric assessment records, pertinent information (such as prior mental health or substance abuse concerns, family issues), and input from other service providers and the Probation Officer. The minor and his/her family are also involved in making decisions about the service plan.

Initially, a group staffing involving the Redeploy Coordinator, the assigned Probation Officer, and the Juvenile Probation Supervisors meet to develop a draft plan to discuss with the minor and his/her family.

After the service plan is finalized, it is then monitored, revised, and updated - daily, weekly, monthly, as needed. The Coordinator completes a Task Sheet weekly with the minor to remind him/her of what is expected. His/her family is included in this process, when they are available. Service compliance is then reviewed at the monthly meetings between the service providers and the Probation staff. The service plan is updated at least every 3 months when the YASI is updated.

Table 5 and Figure 5 provide the trend data for Kankakee County. The data show that Kankakee County has experienced declines among all of the measures across the observation periods. Almost no youth have been committed to IDJJ through the court evaluation and court evaluation review route over the last five years. Also, during FY10, there were considerable reductions in jurisdiction admissions to IDJJ among the Redeploy Illinois eligible and total admissions from court categories.

Table 5. Kankakee County (Phase II Site*)

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ:  FY2001 through FY2010

Jurisdiction Admissions to IDJJ	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	Percent Change FY09-FY10
Redeploy Illinois Eligible	32	51	46	20	25	25	33	30	30	21	-30.0%
Total Admissions from Court	34	56	48	21	26	29	34	37	30	22	-26.7%
Court Evaluation	17	33	23	4	0	0	1	1	1	0	-100.0%
Court Evaluation Return	7	11	13	7	4	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

*Phase II Sites began during January 2009

Source: Illinois Department of Corrections

Average Length of Program Participation: 9-12 months.

FY10 Program Changes/Developments: Due to ongoing funding challenges and delayed payments, the Kankakee County Redeploy Illinois site reported that it would not continue its participation in FY11. Prior to Redeploy, the majority of service providers in the region did not go into the youth's home, and reliable and consistent transportation was a major barrier to successful completion of treatment. In addition, it was challenging to schedule appointments and to remain in contact with the youth and their family due to sporadic phone service and unstable housing. As a result of Redeploy Illinois, services were expanded/developed throughout the course of the program, including: educational and vocational services; in home counseling, that include the minor and family; MRT, WAIT, and Girls . . . Moving On group sessions; expanded substance abuse and mental health treatment availability, including the elimination of transportation barrier; introducing global positioning system (GPS) monitoring; assisting families with life skills through mentoring for both the minor and parent; and providing a parent support group.

Kankakee County Statement from the Field

"The Redeploy program gave us the freedom to explore options and it changed the way we think about supporting individuals on probation. Having money to do more things has expanded our minds. Before it was not even an option to purchase other services and programming because we did not have any money for these items. Now that we are brainstorming about different programs, we have realized that programs do not generally cost as much as we thought. We have also found out about options that were free or available at low cost to us that we could have been using before. But, because we never really thought about it before Redeploy, it just did not come up.

This has been eye-opening to us. When you do have some freedom, other things fall into your lap. We were able to offer much more programming, even to juveniles that are not in Redeploy. It has even changed things in the Adult Division. They are offering more services now that we have connected with more people and know about these other free and low-cost services that are available in the community. Particularly beneficial are the educational services available through the Kankakee Community College and Governors State University (GSU). One of the new initiatives we have been able to develop is an internship program with GSU, where their counseling students will be working with juvenile and adult groups at minimal cost to Probation."

As a result of Redeploy our department had the money available to train our staff to facilitate evidence based programming in-house. This allowed us to control each program implemented to ensure the highest quality possible. If changes needed to be made they would be made immediately. We no longer had to worry about agency turnover or how to address conflicts between juveniles and a facilitator we did not know well. Our staff ran the groups and were aware of how a minor was progressing every step of the way.

Redeploy Illinois Success Stories

The statistical trending detailed in this report provides indisputable evidence of Redeploy Illinois' success in reducing juvenile incarceration. However, an even greater comprehension of that success - and the great challenges that still lie ahead -- can be derived from examining the "real life" stories of the ways participating youth, their families and their communities are using this program to surmount challenges, change lives and improve systems.

The following is a set of anecdotes regarding such individual successes and systems change reforms, as reported by the nine Redeploy Illinois sites:

Youth Success Stories

Youth A resides in a gang infested neighborhood, similar to many of the Redeploy program participants in the region, but his family is more heavily involved in gang activities than most. The gang culture is like a family business passed from generation to generation; it is almost a requirement for Youth A to be a part of his family's particular gang. Furthermore, his mother is in and out of the picture, works two jobs and rarely has the time to monitor the young man in his school or social activities. By the time he was referred to the Redeploy program, Youth A was on the brink of expulsion from school.

The Redeploy clinician and counselor first worked to prevent the youth's expulsion from school through intensive advocacy and constant presence in the school. As a result, he was awarded one more chance to stay in school if he improved his behavior and efforts to improve. In addition, the youth counselor spent hours working with the youth on his goals and, surprisingly enough, was able to engage his mother in the process. As a result of building trust with the family, the counselor was able to link this family to needed resources, such as furniture, food and clothing, and provided transportation to help them obtain what was needed.

As Youth A progressed, he became more involved in pro-social activities. He not only participated in a community center basketball program, but attended tutoring, and even began doing maintenance work for a local social service organization. After staying busy in positive programming throughout the year, Youth A successfully completed the 8th grade with no absences from December 2009 through June 2010. He completed the school year ready to begin high school classes that fall, and has begun practice with the football team as well.

Upon his enrollment in the Redeploy program, Youth B, a 16-year-old, had been struggling with mental health issues and demonstrating intimidating behavior toward others as a tactic to keep other people away from him on an emotional level. He initially resisted Redeploy services. While he would meet with his case worker, he refused to make any effort towards achieving his established goals in the program, such as following rules put in place at his grandparent's home, scheduling monthly appointments with his psychiatrist and school consistently.

Through the Redeploy program, Youth B first was enrolled in Washington Aggression Interruption Training (WAIT) classes. Early on, he admitted that he only attended WAIT because he was court ordered to comply with Redeploy recommendations. He often interrupted the group, brought negative attention to himself, used inappropriate language and did not follow directives. As a result of his mental health issues, he would even hit himself in the face to scare other youth and the facilitators. As he is a very large young man, the two program facilitators found it increasingly difficult to de-escalate and redirect his behavior, and had to remove him from group on two separate occasions.

Despite Youth B's challenges, the facilitators of WAIT were unwilling to give up on him, and continued to encourage and engage him throughout the group process. By the second month of sessions, he began completing assigned WAIT homework and even participated in leading the group on one occasion. By the end of WAIT classes, he demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the material. He was not only able to pass the final test, but even earned the Most Improved award.

Youth B has stated that he really enjoyed WAIT and would like to participate in those classes again. He also began taking his medication as prescribed. His outlook on life began to improve as well as his relationship with his Redeploy case worker. While it took a lot of patience, the case worker's consistent efforts with him have resulted in the development of a greater comfort level to discuss his problems and work on goals.

As a result of his healthier interactions with people through the program, Youth B's school performance made a drastic turn around for the better. While he had previously averaged only 20-40 percent daily attendance, he has enrolled in summer school and has not missed a single session. Furthermore, he has also been actively participating in Art Therapy and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), with no missed appointments.

Upon admission to the Redeploy program, Youth C's YASI score was determined to be high risk in family, community and peers, school and legal. He had been achieving failing grades in school, had very low attendance and was easily influenced by peer pressure. Raised by a single mother, the youth's biological father and stepfather were both incarcerated throughout his childhood. While his biological father had been in prison for most of his life, he was released while the youth was in the midst of completing the last six months of his probation. The painful issues associated with his father's release from prison and broken promises presented difficult challenges to Youth C's progress. While Youth C's mother has been very supportive of him and his younger sister, she has had little time to spend with them because she has been enrolled in nursing school and works full-time. In addition, he does have both sets of grandparents who are active in his life and a source of support for his family.

Through Redeploy Youth C was offered a series of services to address many of his risk factors. He participated in tutoring one day per week with his home intervention specialist at a local church, and ultimately passed his classes with a low B average and attended summer school to make up credits for previous failed classes. In addition, he graduated from a personal and social responsibility class (Parent Project) without the attendance of his mother, he participated in a mowing employment program after summer school and he completed 60 hours of community service, plus an additional 45 hours. Youth C also successfully participated in a Community Restorative Board (CRB). Ultimately, Youth C successfully completed the program and probation. He has not re-offended, and he continues to maintain contact with his home intervention specialist and his probation officer.

Youth D was on probation for Domestic Battery and Criminal Damage to Property. It had been his second term of supervision. He was in heavy denial about his substance abuse issues early on in his probation. He had two previous in-patient treatment stays with Riverside Resolve Center in 2008. He made significant progress while in treatment, but he reverted back to his old behavior upon release. He was ultimately discharged from treatment unsuccessfully after failing to enroll in continuing care and relapsing. During his treatment, his parents were uncooperative and offered only minimal participation. They often did not return phone calls or attend sessions. They did not follow through with any recommendations.

Nearing the end of his second residential stay it was determined that Youth D and his family could benefit from the Redeploy program in order to address some of the problems that they had experienced with his last discharge. Upon release, he started Redeploy on April 10, 2009 and began receiving out-patient continuing care services. He attends two sessions a week and his counselor reports strong participation from him.

Through the Redeploy program's work with family engagement, Youth D's parents have participated in family sessions with this worker, give feedback and concerns, and have been active in transporting Youth D to his appointments and helping him stay on task. As a result, Youth D has passed all of his drug tests since being back in the community. He has also participated in a mental health program, and received mentoring services. He became more cooperative and displayed an overall positive attitude towards working to achieve his treatment plan goals.

When Youth D attended his first court date since being enrolled in Redeploy, he wore a shirt and tie and gave a speech about wanting to do better that was an inspiration for everyone in the courtroom. He returned to school and did not have any behavioral problems. Despite having a history of being aggressive and violent, there have been no recent reports of those behaviors. Youth D's parents reported a complete turnaround in his behavior, and that he is following household rules, has even repaired some of the damage to the walls of the home that he has caused in the past.

Redeploy Illinois Program Expansion

A standing objective of the Redeploy Illinois Program is the ultimate statewide expansion of the program and its core principles of shifting juvenile incarceration resources to more effective community-based sanctions and services. Throughout FY2010, the Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board made strides toward achieving those goals through legislative advancements, improved data collection and the acquisition of federal resources to help fund the program evaluations necessary to guide statewide planning. In fact, the Board aggressively took action on all recommendations made in the FY2009 Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly.

Specifically, the Department of Human Services secured an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant to fund an evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the program and recidivism rates among program participants. The evaluation is being conducted by Illinois State University, and is intended to yield valuable information needed to develop policies and implementation practices for statewide expansion planning.

In order to improve real-time program monitoring and interventions, significant improvements were also made to the data collection process regarding program activities, administration and evaluation. A more complete quarterly reporting system was temporarily implemented that improved the collection of data regarding IDJJ commitments, gender, race/ethnicity, offense type, admission type, release type and a number of other helpful factors. This system was used as a basis to prepare sites for a more comprehensive monthly reporting system that was launched in January 2011 after being successfully piloted at a few volunteer sites throughout FY2010.

The Board also took action to continue the practice of awarding planning grants prior to the development of Redeploy Illinois Program proposals, and by extending the planning period from three months to four months, in response to recommendations from the field. ARRA grant dollars were also secured to fund additional planning grants in FY11.

Finally, legislation was passed in 2010 to keep moving the Redeploy Program out of a "pilot" phase and into a Statewide program by authorizing the creation of a special reserve of Redeploy Illinois funds that will, when implemented, allow counties with very few IDJJ commitments, for whom a 25 percent baseline reduction in IDJJ commitments is not practical, to provide Redeploy Illinois programs and services under Public Act 95-1050. A special subcommittee was designated to monitor resource allocations and individualized service requests agreements. Public Act 95-1050 also expanded the number of representatives on the Oversight Board to additional individuals that possess knowledge of juvenile justice issues and reflect public/private collaborative relationships of Redeploy Illinois programs.

The progress and results of the juvenile Redeploy Illinois program provided the impetus for establishing an Adult Redeploy Illinois program under the Illinois Crime Reduction Act of 2009. The Crime Reduction Act sets into law initiatives targeting reduced commitments of adult offenders to IDOC as a model for improved legislative resource appropriations and government resource allocations. With an emphasis on best practices and evidence-based programs an instrument for evaluating offender behavior, criminogenic factors, and potential community threat during each decision point will be developed to determine which adults meet the admission criteria.

Just as it applies to the juvenile program, the concept of keeping low-level or non-serious offenders from being exposed to harsher incarceration settings is expected to reduce Again, an Oversight Board is required by law, and that Oversight Board has already completed the work that established programs in DuPage, Jersey, Knox, Macon, and St. Clair counties.

Conclusions & Recommendations

2009/2010 presented some of the greatest challenges in the history of the Redeploy Program, but also resulted in continued success as evidenced by the results of the 2009 Cost Benefit Analysis. The fact that all but one site exceeded the required reductions in commitments to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, despite significant state budget shortfalls, demonstrated that the program is indeed achieving its goal of cultivating locally-grown support for shifting policies, attitudes and practices toward reducing juvenile incarceration and strengthening community-based alternatives.

Furthermore, important lessons have been learned from the ways that funding and implementation challenges were addressed that will help guide future policy and resource investment decisions. In addition, the Board's experience working with Madison County to successfully address their compliance shortfall provided valuable insights on improved methods of program monitoring and effective intervention practices that can support continued program development and expansion efforts.

The Oversight Board's progress with implementation of all of the FY2009 Annual Report recommendations, particularly the recent investments in enhanced data collection and cost effectiveness evaluation, will help establish the needed foundation for an effective statewide expansion. While a great deal was learned from the ways that sites addressed budget shortfalls, the cost effectiveness evaluation may lead toward ways to implement the ultimate policy goal of truly shifting current resources from juvenile incarceration to effective community-based sanctions and services.

To remain successful, Redeploy must reflect upon the challenges of the past year and continue to grow the program toward the goal of statewide implementation. The program must take several significant steps, and must continually adapt to changes in local and state-level conditions. The Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board recommends that the Governor, the General Assembly and all partners remain diligent on implementing recommended improvements from previous annual reports, and take the following steps to expand this successful program, and insure its success in the immediate future as well as in the long-term:

• Recommendation No. 1: The Redeploy Illinois appropriation should be increased to provide for full statewide expansion of the initiative.
• Recommendation No. 2: In order to address the financial hardships endured by sites resulting from delayed payments throughout FY10, the Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board should explore strategies for expedient payments.
• Recommendation No. 3: Redeploy Illinois should continue the use of annual site meetings to convene staff from all of the Redeploy Illinois sites statewide for the purpose of sharing information, insights and trending.
• Recommendation No. 4: Redeploy Illinois should initiate an aggressive communications plan to build awareness of the availability of funding established through the passage of legislation (Public Act 95-1050) designating a reserve of Redeploy Illinois funds for smaller counties that have too few IDJJ commitments to participate in the full program, Ultimately, this process will support the long-term goal of statewide expansion.
• Recommendation No. 5: Redeploy Illinois should work to ensure that an automated reporting system that facilitates faster, more effective, more comprehensive statistical information should be developed in order to help support improved site management.
• Recommendation No. 6: Redeploy Illinois should develop a long-term tracking process that follows youth and their progress beyond their participation in the program to document whether the program creates enduring long-term positive outcomes

---

Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board Members

Thomas Bilyk

Office of Cook County State's Attorney

2245 West Ogden, 6th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60612

(312) 433-7082

tbilyk@cookcountygov.com

Betsy Clarke

Juvenile Justice Initiative

2301 Sherman

Evanston, Illinois 60201

(847) 864-1567

bcjuv@aol.com

Marcia Cullen

Illinois State Board of Education

100 North First Street, C-215

Springfield, Illinois 62777

(217) 557-7323

mcullen@isbe.net

Grace Hong Duffin, Chief of Staff

Illinois Department of Human Services

401 South Clinton, 7th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

grace.hongduffin@illinois.gov

Margie Groot

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts

222 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 793-3250 p

(312) 793-1335 f

mgroot@court.state.il.us

Jim McCarter

Maryville Academy-Scott Nolan Center

555 Wilson Lane

Des Plaines, Illinois 60016

(847) 768-5386

mccarterj@maryvilleacademy.org

Mark W. Solock

Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender

69 West Washington, 16th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 603-0640

msolock@cookcountygov.com

The Honorable Michael W. Stuttley

Supervising Judge, Juvenile Justice

Circuit Court of Cook County

16501 South Kedzie Parkway, Room 099

michaelstuttley@hotmail.com

Arthur Bishop

Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice

1301 Concordia Court

Springfield, Illinois 62794

(217) 522-2666

arthur.d.bishop@doc.illinois.gov

Chip Coldren

Governor's State University

Criminal Justice Department (E2538)

1 University Parkway

University Park, Illinois 60466

(708) 534-7865

j-coldren@govst.edu

Jack Cutrone

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority

300 West Adams Street, Suite 700

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 793-1306

jack.cutrone@illinois.gov

Patricia Griffith

Kids Hope United- Hudelson Region

#3 South, Old State Capitol Plaza, Suite 300

Springfield, Illinois 62701

(217) 789-7637

pgriffith@onehopeunited.org

James Jackson

Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 600

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-4588

James.S.Jackson@illinois.gov

Pamela F. Rodriguez, M.A.

Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission

1500 North Halsted Street

Chicago, Illinois 60622

(312) 573-8372

prodriguez@tasc-il.org

Anne Studzinski

Illinois Childhood Trauma Coalition

Voices for Illinois Children

208 South LaSalle, Suite 1490

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 516-5560

astudzinski@voices4kids.org

Honorable George W. Timberlake, Ret. Chief Judge

MacArthur Foundation, Models for Change

P.O. Box 794

Mt. Vernon, Illinois 62864

(618) 204-5075

gwtimberlake@gmail.com

Rick Velasquez

Youth Outreach Services

2411 West Congress Parkway

Chicago, Illinois 60612

(773) 777-7112 x7225

rickv@yos.org

Paula Wolff

Chicago Metropolis 2020

30 West Monroe, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 332-8185

paula.wolff@cm2020.org

---

References

Aos, S., and Drake, E.. 2010. WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Tool for States: Examining Policy Options in Sentencing and Corrections. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Document ID: (10-08-1201).

Armstrong, G., Armstrong, T., Webb, V., and Atkin, C. 2011. Can Financial Incentives Reduce Juvenile Confinement Levels? An Evaluation of the Redeploy Illinois Program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39: 183-191.

Austin, A., Macgowan, M., and Wagner, E. 2005. Effective Family-based Interventions for Adolescents with Substance Use Problems: A Systematic Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 15:67-83.

Bennett, C. and Baird, A. 2006. Anatomical Changes in the Emerging Adult Brain: A Voxel-Based Morphometry Study. Human Brain Mapping, 27:766-777. Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Casey Foundation. 2011. The Missouri Model Reinventing the Practice of Rehabilitating Youthful Offenders. Downloaded from http://www.aecf.org/SearchResults.aspx?keywords=missouri&source=topsearch on April 1, 2011.

Fagan, J. 1997. The Comparative Advantages of Juvenile Versus Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism Among Adolescent Felony Offenders. Law and Policy, 18:77-115.

Gagnon, J. C., & Richards, C. 2008. Making the right turn: A guide about improving transition outcomes of youth involved in the juvenile corrections system. Washington, DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership.

Howell, J.C. 2003. Preventing & Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howell, J.C., Krisberg, B., and Jones, M. 1995. Trends in Juvenile Crime and Youth Violence (in Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, pp. 1-35, James C. Howell, Barry Krisberg, et. al., eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Huffine, C. 2002. Conduct Disorder Should Be Eliminated From the DSM. (in Adolescent Psychiatry: Vol. 26 The Annals of the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, Lois T. Flaherty, ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press, Inc.

Illinois Compiled Statutes. 2011. 730 ILCS 110/16.1 Redeploy Illinois Program. Downloaded from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs2.asp?ChapterID=55 on April 1, 2011.

Illinois Compiled Statutes. 2011. 730 ILCS 190 Illinois Crime Reduction Act of 2009. Downloaded from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3156&ChapterID=55 on April 1, 2011.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 2011. Historical data provided by the Research and Analysis Unit.

Illinois Department of Corrections and Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. 2011. Historical data provided the Planning and Research Unit.

Kempf-Leonard, K., Tracy, P., and Howell, J.C. 2001. Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juveile Offenders:  The Relationship of Delinquency Career Types to Adul Criminality.  Justice Quarterly, 18 (3):449-478.

Krisberg, B., and Austin, J. 1998. What Works with Juvenile Offenders: The Massachusetts Experiment (in Reforming Juvenile Justice: Reasons and Strategies for the 21st Century, pp. 173-196, Dan Macallair and Vincent Schiraldi, eds.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

Lipsy, M. 1992. Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-analytic Inquiry into the Variability of Effects (in Meta-analysis for Explanation: A Casebook, pp. 83-127, T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges & R. J. Light, et al., eds.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lowenkamp, C. & Latessa, E. 2005. Evaluation of Ohio's CCA Funded Programs- Executive Summary. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research.

Lowenkamp, C. & Latessa, E. 2005. Evaluation of Ohio's RECLAIM Funded Programs, Community Corrections Facilities, And DYS Facilities - Executive Summary. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research.

Lowenkamp, C. & Latessa, E. and Lemke, R. 2006. Evaluation of Ohio's RECLAIM Funded Programs, Community Corrections Facilities, And DYS Facilities: FY 2002 - CCF Supplementary Report. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research.

MacArthur Foundation. 2006. Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Department of Psychology.

MacArthur Foundation. 2011. Models for Change: Systems Reform for Juvenile Justice. Downloaded from http://www.modelsforchange.net/index.html on April 1, 2011.

Miller, K. and Liotta A. 2001. RECLAIM Ohio: Building Ohio's Juvenile Justice Infrastructure. Corrections Today, 63(7):84-86.

Nagin, D., Piquero, A., Scott, E., and Steinberg, L. 2006. Public Preferences for Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey. Criminology and Public Policy, 5:301-326.

Oberstar, J., Andersen, E., and Jensen, J. 2006. Cognitive and Moral Development, Brain Development, and Mental Illness: Important Considerations for the Juvenile Justice System (in Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry 259, Diane H. Schetky, and Elissa P. Benedeck, eds.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

Orbis Partners, Inc. 2009. YASI: Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument. Downloaded from http://www.orbispartners.com/index.php/assessment/yasi/ on December 3, 2009.

Piquero, A., and Steinberg, L. 2010. Public Preferences for Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38:1-6.

Roman, J. 2004. Can Cost-Benefit Analysis Answer Criminal Justice Policy Questions, and If So, How? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20(3):257-275.

Roman, J., Sundquist, A., Butts, J., Chalfin, A. and Simon, T. 2010. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reclaiming Futures. A Reclaiming Futures National Evaluation Report. Portland, OR: Reclaiming Futures National Program Office, Portland State University.

Smith, C. & Stern, S. 1997. Delinquency and Antisocial Behavior: A Review of Family Processes and Intervention Research. Social Service Review, 71:382 to 420.

Springer, D. & Roberts, A. 2011. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Vera Institute of Justice. 2011. Knowledge Bank for Cost-Benefit Analysis in Criminal Justice. Downloaded from http://www.vera.org/project/cba-knowledge-bank on April 1, 2011.

Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. The True Cost of Prisons. Downloaded from http://www.vera.org/project/true-cost-prisons on April 1, 2011.

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 2004. Outcome Evaluation of Washington State's Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.