November 17, 2017 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board Meeting


Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board Members and Staff. The public is welcome to attend.


Friday, November 17, 2017
9:00am to 11:30am 


This meeting will be conducted via video conference with Chicago & Springfield Locations as follows:

  • Chicago: 401 Clinton Building, 7th Floor Executive video conference room
  • Springfield: Harris Building, 3rd Floor Executive video conference room
  • Call In:  888-494-4032 Code: 5329547331#


  1. Call to order/Roll call
  2. Approval of Minutes
    10.20.2017 meeting
  3. FY18 site updates
    1. September 2017 site visits
    2. DMC action plans and efforts
  4. Redeploy planning grant interest and eligibility
  5. Data Workgroup update and recommendations
    1. Statute review and discussion
    2. Discussion and decision regarding RI participant eligibility per statute
    3. Site perspective and request for expansion
    4. Review and discussion of CY2016 DJJ data
    5. Discussion and decision regarding expansion of RI participant eligibility
  6. Next Full Board Meeting
    February 16, 2018: An executive staff meeting may be held December 15, 2017, if deemed necessary
  7. Adjourn


  1. Call to Order
    The meeting was called to order at 9:06am
  2. Roll Call
    Karrie Rueter, Paula Wolff, George Timberlake, Janet Ahern (appearing by phone), Jim McCarter, Peter Parry, Rick Velasquez, Anne Studzinski, Betsy Clarke, Mary Ann Dyer from ICJIA representing John Maki, Samantha Gaddy from DJJ representing Heidi Mueller Pam Rodriguez (appearing by phone), Dana Weiner (appearing by phone). Jim McCarter stated this would be his last RIOB meeting and he was retiring from his position on the RIOB. Staff and Guests: Mary Ann Dyer, Erica Hughes, Kristen Marshall, Steve Sawyer, John Payne, Lindsey LaPointe, Garien Gatewood, Olivia Wilks, Danielle Kindle, and Jonah Newman (Chicago Reporter).
  3. Approval of Minutes
    The Board discussed the minutes from the October 20, 2017 board meeting.
    Motion: Rick Velasquez motioned to approve the minutes from the October 20, 2017 Board meeting. George Timberlake seconded the motion.
    Decision: The Board approved the minutes from the October 20, 2017 board meeting.
  4. FY18 Site Updates
    Karrie Rueter circulated a document summarizing the September 2017 site visits.
    1. September 2017 site visits - DHS staff reported that they traveled to 9 different sites in September to provide assistance regarding the DMC action plan and requirements. During these visits, they noticed several things. First, all sites are at different points. Some sites are back to the startup because of the impact of the budget impasse on their programs while others were able to sustain their efforts during the impasse. Each provider will submit an individualized DMC action plan that will allow them to start where they are. During the site visits, it was also noticed that accessibility to data for the 9 decision points varies by site. Specific barriers will be shared with each action plan. Other discussions with sites included: expanding eligibility; DJJ data; and the reasoning for youth being admitted to DJJ despite being eligible for Redeploy. Karrie Rueter reported that, because sites are serving low numbers, stakeholders are losing interest.
    2. DMC action plans and efforts - Karrie Rueter reported that weak applications in the area of DMS precipitated the need for this DMC work. One RIOB member stated that site visits are a strong part of the Redeploy program and defense council and public defender's office should be included Karrie Rueter stated that, by establishing connections with sites, efforts going forward can be more collaborative. Another RIOB member stated that Tyler Edmonds, State's Attorney of Union County, is running for At-Large Judge in the First Judicial Circuit, which may be of relevance to the Board going forward.
  5. Redeploy Planning Grant Interest and Eligibility
    DHS staff discussed the handout titled, "Redeploy Illinois 2018 Planning Grant Eligibility IDJJ 3-Year Average (2014-2016)." It was stated that the first table is a list of the counties whose 3-year average was over 10 commitments (eligible under current criteria). The second table depicts circuit eligibility, based on the same criteria. It was noted that there are three circuits (6th, 14th, and 17th) meeting the requirements which also include a single Redeploy county (bolded: Macon, Peoria, and Winnebago). At the bottom of the document there is a list of partial circuit eligibility and the combined number of commitments within the circuit when the Redeploy county is removed, illustrating that most of the commitments from these areas are coming from the active Redeploy county.
    Karrie Rueter reported that the top table should have an "x" in Sangamon County under the column, "Former Planning Grant site." There are only two counties (Champaign and Rock Island) that have not already participated in a planning grant process. One RIOB member questioned if Cook should be considered a former Redeploy site because of its brief implementation of therapeutic foster care. The Board confirmed that this is correct and there should be an "x" in Cook County under the column, "Prior Redeploy Illinois site." DHS staff further stated that there are sites that were formerly Redeploy-eligible. One RIOB member asked if Winnebago County is still eligible. Karrie Rueter reported that Winnebago County has been a Redeploy site for a short number of months and they were the first county to stop providing services as a result of the budget impasse. Karrie Rueter clarified that the list of eligible sites includes only the counties that are not currently sites.
    Judge Sawyer stated that he has had contact with the representative of the health department in Champaign County, but still struggle to get judicial buy-in. One RIOB member stated that Champaign has a judicial taskforce releasing a report on racial justice this month which could impact county buy-in. Judge Sawyer and Judge Payne also reported that he met with a number of judges from the 9th circuit (Knox. Fulton, McDonough, Hancock, Henderson, and Warren), but it does not appear that they are currently eligible. One RIOB member stated that there is new leadership in Sangamon County. Judge Payne stated that this county was not ready to move forward when he last spoke with them. A member asked if staff are planning on moving forward with a Planning Grant NOFO. Karrie Rueter reported that she is looking for a decision from the board on this.
    One RIOB member asked if there was a chance to get the emerging adults being served through the restorative justice court eligible for Redeploy. The board indicated that this would likely require a change in statute, but may be an expansion worth considering. Another RIOB member stated that the enabling legislation for Redeploy is in the Juvenile Court Act, while the population of restorative justice young adults are coming from the adult court. One RIOB member stated that when he met with judges and probation in Cook County, many of the judges were unfamiliar with Redeploy and thus argued if the board were to pursue another planning grant, more effort should be made to inform key stakeholders. Another RIOB member commented that probation will be low on resources due to the repeal of the soda tax. A different RIOB member stated that there has been a reliance on a higher number of commitments to DCFS in Cook County. One RIOB member suggested an RIOB member participate in meetings with juvenile court personnel in Cook County in order to eliminate questions and ensure all stakeholders are informed.
    One RIOB member reported that commitment numbers in Cook County are down this year, including Bring Back Orders. Another RIOB member stated that bring-back youth tend to receive Redeploy services. Another RIOB member stated that dually-involved (youth involved in the JJ system and DCFS) numbers have remained stable. Another RIOB member stated that the projected number of commitments for Calendar Year 2017 is 240. Thus, there is a concern of reducing commitments by 25% now that commitment numbers are lower. Karrie reminded members that a previous decrease of 25% (recent - past 3 years) could be used to allow them to request a reduction of less than the required 25% reduction. A RIOB member stated that the community court may be a good place to start rather than looking at Cook County as a whole. The downside of that may be more kids going to DJJ. Another RIOB member asked if a grant for therapeutic foster care could be an option. Another RIOB member stated that the only way this can be done is by commitment through DCFS. An RIOB member asked if this is Medicaid-eligible and another RIOB member said that some could be, but not case management and overhead costs, which are the most expensive aspects. A guest attendant stated that there is an issue in that there is no pathway outside of DCFS, which increases costs.
    An RIOB member clarified that planning grants are reciprocal in nature. There is also much to learn from Cook County's reduction in commitments to DJJ, as well as opportunities in Champaign and Sangamon counties. Another RIOB member summarized that the RIOB seems to be agreeing on proceeding with a Planning Grant NOFO. Karrie Rueter stated that she does not believe that there is anything in the statute that would prevent potentially ineligible sites from participating in the planning grant process. Karrie asked if the RIOB would like to open this to individual counties or full circuits. One member stated that this may depend on how a particular circuit is organized. Karrie stated that this may be mathematically complicated, but is something she can work on. Generally, dollar amounts vary based on single counties vs. multiple counties. The RIOB agreed to allow Karrie Rueter to determine fair dollar amounts for counties and circuits. Karrie additionally asked the RIOB if they wanted to allow participation from counties who have participated so long as it has been at least 3 years. The RIOB agreed.
    One RIOB member asked if sites that pulled out due to funding should be given the opportunity to participate again. Another RIOB member clarified that if a site dropped out due to the budget impasse, they have been gone for no more than two years. Karrie Rueter stated that this poses an issue because, of sites that are not funded anymore, only Sangamon and Cook Counties are still eligible. An RIOB member stated that Cook County would need to develop new data if they came back. Karrie Rueter stated that DHS will work on a planning grant that will allow formerly-funded sites to still be eligible. DHS will determine a funding structure for this and try to have this out by the end of January.
  6. Data Workgroup Update and Recommendations
    1. Statute review and discussion
    2. Discussion and decision regarding RI participant eligibility per statute
    3. Site perspective and request for expansion
    4. Review and discussion of CY2016 DJJ data
    5. Discussion and decision regarding expansion of RI participant eligibility
      A data workgroup/RIOB member reported that one goal of the data workgroup is to pilot eligibility expansion for Redeploy services in three phases. The first phase would take place January through June in order to let current sites expand their populations. DHS legal will need to be in agreement with this, and Karrie Rueter stated that they are currently. The second phase would include planning a formal expansion. It will be important to look at intended and unintended consequences at this point. It will also be important to analyze how success is measured, as the 25% reduction may not be a good fit with the expanding population. Historically, meeting a de minimis level allowed the use of funds as seen fit. Thus, the RIOB will need some help in determining these numbers. The third phase will be the implementation of the expansion, with the goal of beginning this in the next fiscal year. One RIOB member asked if this would involve changing the statute and the data workgroup member stated that she does not believe this would be necessary.
      The data workgroup/RIOB member stated that one unintended consequence may include bringing kids into the system despite eligibility for diversion. Another RIOB member stated that basing decisions and funding on risk-based assessments tends to widen the net and contribute to DMC. Another issue is that counties need resources in order to prevent unnecessary detention of children. Karrie Rueter added that it is important to be careful regarding assessment-based decisions and their potential impact on DMC. If the way that the YASI is used changes and it is used to determine whether or not a kid receives services, it is important to look at any available evidence that suggests that that instrument leads to disproportionate decision-making. The RIOB clarified that both the adult and juvenile risk assessment instruments might be changing. The data workgroup/RIOB member stated that, when she looked at the sites, they did not feel like the delinquency charge itself was a good screening tool either.
      Karrie Rueter stated that moving forward with the expansion would require notifying sites and asking them to submit a revised plan and that could either be a revision of the current plan or a separate plan. Her expectation is that they could do this within the current budget allocation, with a possible revision with reallocations.
      Karrie Rueter stated that the statute allows expansion in terms of who is served within the juvenile court jurisdiction, but not expansion in age outside of the juvenile court jurisdiction. One RIOB member stated that 30% of those in DOC are within that age group of the emerging adult population. Another RIOB member asked if we are looking at only reductions in DJJ confinements or reductions in the utilization of all confinements, including detention. The data workgroup/RIOB member stated that the starting point is avoiding sending kids to DJJ. Then, the RIOB must consider if they want to determine priority populations, ask sites what they want, or do a combination of the two.
      A DHS staff member stated that he perceived reductions in county detention, jail confinement, and DJJ confinement as all part of the overall goal of deinstitutionalization. Thus, even when dealing with detention as an objective of the general goal, it is important to still have some sanctions for failure to meet objectives. One RIOB member stated that the penalty issue is measured by DJJ commitments regardless of how the population is expanded. An RIOB member stated that, because contracts are already in place, it would be difficult to add a further sanction other than commitments to DJJ and this must be considered for a permanent expansion. This would require changing the statute. Another RIOB member commented that providing a pilot raises expectations going forward and also creates issues for the overall program by adding misdemeanants to the population. She highlighted the Miami-Dade Model of civil citation, stating that it is important to have a very good explanation and vision before beginning a pilot.
      A DHS staff member stated that the DJJ reduction requirement is at the end of the statute as permissive rather than mandated. It is preceded by provisions stating the local plan must refer to and deal with issues of local confinement. It is also preceded by a section discussing reallocation of funding and penalties. The 25% reduction is one means by which a county can reduce institutionalization and specifically DJJ commitments. However, a program of expansion does not necessarily need to be tied to this reduction contract because it may not be necessary to have this contract in the first place.
      Staff summarized that reducing numbers in detention is a beneficial task, though this may or may not need to involve Redeploy. Redeploy may need to change the model to expand the population. Staff is also concerned about allowing sites to serve kids at their own discretion because this may lead to serving kids that are considered less difficult in the long term. Thus, an alternative may be limiting expansion to recently-excluded felonies, while not including misdemeanors. One RIOB member stated that counties that are neither Redeploy sites nor eligible should be considered as well.
      The data workgroup would like to expand to have a planning group, and include4 site representatives (i.e. a planning provider and someone from probation).
      Karrie Rueter reminded the Board that there is one primary reason for this discussion: the RIOB has financial capacity. On other occasions, the RIOB has made the decision that if someone is not eligible for commitment to DJJ, that person does not receive Redeploy services. Some sites may not have other resources in their area, but that does not necessarily mean that these youth should be considered for Redeploy. Considering this, Karrie asked the RIOB if expansion beyond the target population is a conversation that the RIOB wants to have. One RIOB member stated that the 2nd circuit's ability to maintain reduction while serving outside the target population is evidence that it is worth considering expanding the population. DHS staff highlighted that providers need support to educate stakeholders in order to address kids going to DJJ, despite eligibility for Redeploy. One site shared that there are state's attorneys telling kids not to plea for a lesser offense in order to be eligible for Redeploy services. One RIOB member pointed out that this highlights the need for technical assistance across the state. One RIOB member asked if Redeploy should be referring to other programs/services. Another RIOB member stated that there is either CCBYS or Redeploy. Karrie Rueter stated that CCBYS is the perfect venue for these kids. However, the problem over the last few years has been the budget impasse and lack of payment for GR programs. As this stabilizes, sites will have more financial capabilities to work with this population.
      Karrie Rueter stated that the primary Redeploy provider is also the primary CCBYS provider in most sites. A DHS staff member said that sites have also expressed fears if not allowed to expand that they may be forced to shut down. One RIOB member agreed that if CCBYS works, this is a good alternative to expanding the Redeploy population. Karrie Rueter stated that it may be helpful to build a requirement that local CCBYS providers be included in planning grant applications. Additionally, it could be required that Redeploy expansion is done in conjunction with CCBYS. A separate funding notice could be circulated to do this and the CCBYS provider could still subcontract to provide these services. The complication is that the extra financial capacity is sitting in Redeploy funds, not CCBYS.
      A DHS staff member stated that kids eligible for Redeploy that went to DJJ total 195. Karrie Rueter stated that this number does not distinguish kids that may have gone to Redeploy first, only that they went to DJJ. Thus, one RIOB member stated these 195 kids should be the RIOB's focus.
      One DHS staff member stated that any youth getting a social investigation must also be evaluated by Redeploy staff. However, this is not always happening. Karrie Rueter stated that another three years of intensive site visits is past due. Thus, she asked if there is a way to learn from the various stakeholders why Redeploy evaluations are not happening and hopefully effect change.
      An RIOB member stated that the priority for the near future is for sites to consider what can be done to prevent those 195 kids from going to DJJ. DHS staff stated that sites that were shut down during the budget impasse are working to reopen. RIOB members stated that the logical next step is to send DHS staff out to sites to have conversations. Another RIOB member stated that this involves a deeper understanding of the criminal history and justice system responses of the kids as well as the services and dispositional requirements. Karrie Rueter recommended requiring all sites to go through the planning process again. Karrie Rueter stated that they will provide funding to sites who are willing to analyze kids who are going to DJJ. DHS staff will also look at detention numbers since Redeploy began. Karrie also offered the possibility of using Redeploy funds to facilitate training opportunities between Redeploy and CCBYS.
      One RIOB member made a series of recommendations: requiring CCBYS and Redeploy work together as part of planning grant process; building this relationship in to contracts going forward; and reevaluating funds similar to a planning grant process in order to either alter the plan for next year or create a parallel program addressing kids outside of the Redeploy target population. A DHS staff member stated that some sites fear shut down given drops in numbers resulting from changes in eligibility. One RIOB member clarified that Class X and misdemeanors can be served, and sites need to be reminded of this. This does not change requirements for reducing commitments with felonies. Karrie Rueter emphasized that the current contract requires DJJ-eligibility for Redeploy services,
      Karrie Rueter stated that she had an understanding of how to move forward and next drew the RIOB's attention to the final item on the agenda, the budget provided in their packets. This handout demonstrates the proposed format to share each month with a table and brief narrative. One RIOB member stated that the proposed budget format is good.
      Motion: Jim McCarter suggested Peter Parry take his place on the Redeploy Executive Committee. Peter Parry stated that he is willing. Rick Velasquez motioned to appoint Peter Parry to the Redeploy Executive Committee. Betsy Clarke seconded the motion. Motion passes
      Karrie Rueter asked the Board to hold December 15th for a possible executive staff meeting.
  7. Adjourn
    Anne Studzinski made a motion to adjourn. Peter Parry seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 12:03 p.m.