An Exploratory Evaluation of Redeploy Illinois: Findings on Incentive-Based Juvenile Diversion Services

Introduction

Vast amounts of research indicate diverting youth from formal juvenile justice system processing can be effective at reducing youth justice contact and further justice system involvement.^[1] Lipsey’s (1992) meta-analysis found that delinquent who are treated in the community exhibit a greater reduction in risk for recidivism than those who spend time in secure confinement facilities (state or local).^[2] When comparing multiple models to traditional incarceration, participation in and successful completion of juvenile diversion programs reduce the likelihood of recidivism compared to custodial supervision and removal from the community.^[3] However, in many states, counties do not receive funding to develop community-based programming that would keep youth in the community.

In the early 2000s, Illinois youth advocates grew concerned about the high numbers of non-violent youth being sent to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and the lack of community alternatives for the youth.^[4] Despite a consistent decrease in youth commitments to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) since 2005 (Figure 1),^[5] juvenile diversion programs remain important, as they provide higher-risk youth with more intensive individualized services and treatment to reduce recidivism and divert from admissions to state youth correctional and detention facilities.

Figure 1

Total Number of Youth Commitments to IDJJ from SFY 2005 to SFY 2019

Note. ICJIA analysis of IDJJ data. Redeploy Illinois began in 2005 with two pilot sites. A database for Redeploy Illinois was not fully implemented until 2012.

To explore Illinois juvenile diversion programming, we conducted an exploratory study of a juvenile diversion program called Redeploy Illinois (hereafter referred to as Redeploy). In 2004, Redeploy was created by statute to fund local counties and judicial circuits to,

In addition, the law requires local jurisdiction(s) to pay for utilization of state incarceration as a sanction; therefore, Redeploy is considered an “incentive-based” program. Per statute, youth are diverted from an IDJJ commitment to a community-based supervision alternative using funds reallocated from state youth correctional confinement (or IDJJ) to create and expand services in their local jurisdictions. While most are serving a probation sentence, some youth are under court supervision or pre-trial supervision (deferred prosecution, deferred adjudication). The Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) houses and manages Redeploy and its attending state funding for the diversionary efforts, with the ability to fund and expand services needed in identified Redeploy areas. This includes overseeing Redeploy program sites, funding, reduction in commitments, and reimbursements.

We had the following goals for this exploratory study:

1. Identify the quality of Redeploy administrative data and youth characteristics.
2. Identify the feasibility of linking employment and education data to Redeploy administrative data.
3. Link arrest and corrections data to Redeploy data to identify justice-related outcomes.
4. Assess the feasibility of creating a matched comparison group based on the quality of a site’s data and propose methodology for a match-comparison outcome study.
5. Assess the feasibility of conducting youth and caregiver interviews, such as permissions necessary to contact youth and caregivers, and propose recruitment methodology to conduct these interviews.

We also sought to answer the following research questions:

1. What are characteristics of youth being served through Redeploy (e.g., client characteristics, program activities, risk/need assessment levels, and programmatic outcomes, arrest histories, corrections admissions)?
2. What is the quality of Redeploy data for use practical and evaluation use?
3. What is the feasibility of connecting employment and education data to Redeploy administrative data?
4. What is the feasibility of creating a matched comparison group for possible outcome evaluation?

Methodology

We examined Redeploy youth who exited the program between June 2009 and September 2019. There were 13 sites at the time of the study; however, one site (7th Circuit - Sangamon County) was excluded because no participants had yet been discharged from the program per the Redeploy case management system, eCornerstone, in addition to the site being inactive. Among the 12 remaining sites were a total of six circuit sites with more than two counties; five single-county sites, and one site serving two counties. To date, four of the sites are no longer active Redeploy sites. For the current study, the total number of active sites consisted of five circuits covering 38 counties and two single county sites (40 counties total). There was a total of seven inactive sites that covered seven counties.

Data Sources

Several data sources were used to conduct this study. We conducted descriptive and bivariate analyses using IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 22 and R.

Redeploy Program Data

Redeploy data on 1,200 youth were retrieved from IDHS’s eCornerstone case management system. Program administrators provided specific access to Redeploy site data within the eCornerstone database. Because the data could not be pulled directly from the case management system, they were entered into an Excel database, by hand, for analysis. Included were over 300 variables on youth enrollment and discharge and from the Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI) and case plan service data. In addition, we examined 2018 Redeploy site assessment reports and the Redeploy statute which provided more detail on the sites and their operations and related statutory requirements. Data was analyzed for descriptive information of the full sample of 874 youth, as well as the final sample of 775 youth. Bivariate analyses also were conducted. We also connected Criminal History Record Information (CHRI), Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ), and IDOC administrative data, excluding Redeploy youth who did not have viable Redeploy start and discharge dates (N = 749).^[6]

Arrest and Court Data

We extracted CHRI data for Redeploy youth, maintained by the Illinois State Police (ISP), and housed for research purposes at ICJIA in May 2020. Arrest data was incorporated to include only the most serious arrest charge per arrest incident. We matched 89% of Redeploy youth to their CHRI data.

Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice Data

Information on IDJJ commitment(s) on/before the Redeploy start date, during Redeploy participation, and/or on/after the Redeploy discharge date was retrieved from files received from IDJJ annually for research purposes. Of the 775 Redeploy youth with viable start and discharge dates, 19% were matched to their IDJJ admissions data.

Illinois Department of Corrections Data

Information for any IDOC commitment(s)^[7] on/before Redeploy start date, during Redeploy, and/or on/after Redeploy discharge date come from IDOC files received annually for research purposes. Of the 775 Redeploy youth with viable start and discharge dates, 13% were matched to their IDOC admissions data.

Findings

We conducted a general data audit of eCornerstone data for completeness, quality, and accuracy of data. We then identified the feasibility of connecting other indicators of Redeploy success, such as educational attainment and obtaining employment through other state data sources.

Redeploy Sites and Participants

Data on 874 Redeploy youth participants identified via the eCornerstone data system were examined for youth who entered and/or were discharged between June 2009 and September 2019.^[8] Youth discharged for reasons beyond their control (e.g., death, site closure) were removed, leaving a sample of 775 youth. Further, youth who spent at least one day in the program with viable start and discharge dates were included for a final sample related to justice outcomes, which consisted of 749 Redeploy youth.

Redeploy Youth at Enrollment

Of the 775 Redeploy youth in the sample, 54% identified as White and 73% were between the ages of 16 and 18, with an average of 15.5 years-old and a median age of 16. Eighty-four percent of Redeploy youth identified as male and 52% entered the program with an arrest for a property crime, per eCornerstone data. Sixty-seven percent of Redeploy youth were referred through probation. Further, 30% of youth entered Redeploy with a Class 1 felony and 24% entered with a Class A misdemeanor. Upon enrollment, most youth were attending traditional school, did not have a high school diploma or GED, were residing at home, and were not employed. Most frequently, Redeploy youth were referred to family service(s), with the next most frequently referred services being school service(s), and aggression-related service(s). Approximately half of Redeploy youth were referred to between one and four services.

Redeploy Youth at Discharge

Upon Redeploy discharge, most frequently, youth participants were attending traditional school and more youth were employed at least part-time compared to at enrollment. Further, a small proportion of youth obtained a high school diploma or GED. However, fewer youth resided at home upon discharge from Redeploy. The number of Redeploy youth participants in a detention facility, IDJJ facility, or county/city jail increased at discharge. Most Redeploy youth had no change in dynamic risk or protective factor levels (low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high, high, very-high) upon leaving the program; however, on average, there were decreases seen in overall dynamic risk scores and increases in overall dynamic protective scores, demonstrating some movement in raw scores in the right directions, though little in changing actual risk and protective levels. Sixty-two percent of Redeploy youth were discharged from Redeploy for completing program requirements; however, these youth may be discharged despite only partially or not at all completing one or more services and may also still have their remaining juvenile probation or supervision sentence to complete.

Table 1 provides information on several characteristics for Redeploy youth at enrollment and discharge.

Table 1

Youth Characteristics at Redeploy Illinois Enrollment and Discharge, 2009 - 2019 (N = 775)

Note. ICJIA analysis of eCornerstone Data. Totals varied based on data availability. Other included homeless youth, unknown living arrangement, and independent living (supported and non-supported). DCFS foster home/residential at discharge also includes DCFS “other” placement and DCFS transitional living placement.

Justice Involvement of Redeploy Youth

Of the 749 youth in the sample,^[9] 66% were arrested at least once post-discharge and 27% were arrested at least once during program participation. Also, 47% were arrested for a felony post-discharge at least once and 40% were arrested for a misdemeanor at least once post-discharge. On or after discharge, 16% of youth received at least one sentence to adult jail, 15% of Redeploy youth had received at least one IDJJ commitment, and 12% had received at least one new IDOC commitment. However, because there is no comparison group for this exploratory evaluation, we are unable to determine the actual efficacy of Redeploy. More information on this limitation is provided in section 6 of this report.

Figure 2

Percentage of Redeploy Youth with at Least One Arrest on or After Redeploy Discharge Date, by Discharge Reason, 2009 - 2019

Note. ICJIA analysis of CHRI and eCornerstone.

Data Audit

Overall, eCornerstone data provided useful information; however, there were several data discrepancies and areas to consider for reliability and consistency. This included consistency on who enters data into eCornerstone; information sharing between probation and service providers to enter accurate information; enhanced clarification and description in the data manual as to what data should be provided, especially data related to offense, legal history, and legal status. Further, risk and needs assessment (RNA) information that could be corroborated with other data, such as enrollment and discharge information and CHRI data, showed some discrepancies, especially related to legal history and school domains of the Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI).

Recommendations

Recommendation #1: Enhance adherence to RNA and the Risk-Need-Responsivity model for youth assessment and treatment, including Redeploy youth eligibility and case planning.

Based on the data and document review, Redeploy should provide for the creation, enhancement, and use of evidence-informed and evidence-based practices for youth diversion; recommend services to youth based on a RNA; and ensure those that are highest risk for recidivism are provided with a higher dosage (intensity, frequency) of services to target appropriate risk factors and additional factors that may be barriers to successfully completing services and supervision, increase protective factors to build resilience, and enhance development from youth, to adolescence, onto adulthood.

Recommendation #2: Greater consideration of developmental, age-graded nature of youth offending and separate evaluation of Redeploy services to ensure services are meeting youth needs and adhering to best practices.

Some service definitions identified in eCornerstone were too broad, while others were too limited; some services had unknown quality or efficacy for targeting specific criminogenic needs or responsivity factors for youth. Further, it is important to consider that Redeploy youth participants ranged in age from 10 to 25 and that services are best tailored based on the participants’ developmental, age-graded nature of youth offending and pro-criminal behaviors.^[10] Based on eCornerstone data, it was also unknown which services Redeploy payed for and which costs were covered by other entities (likely identified in the grant agreements). More effective use of the RNA will allow for more strategic use of the data to identify service needs for youth in the locality and for service creation and expansion in local jurisdictions.

Recommendation #3: Revise and refine data collection, measures, and information sharing policies and practices.

There was inconsistency in who entered data into eCornerstone for Redeploy youth, which limits each entity (probation or providers) to input data that they are aware of, especially if there is limited data sharing to inform the case management system.^[11] Further, the data manual for eCornerstone could benefit from greater description of the items as to what they mean and what information should be provided, particularly offense- and justice-related items as those had the largest discrepancies, in addition to actual closing YASI assessment dates rather than when the case is closed. Data within eCornerstone or outside the scope of eCornerstone could be collected to measure other potential positive outcomes for youth, including satisfaction with services, providers, and supervision to gauge therapeutic alliance and collaborative working relationships, as well as measurement of skill acquisition.^[12] Further, it is imperative that Redeploy develop a new database or rectify issues with the current database for staff to pull, use, and analyze data from eCornerstone to make data-driven decisions that ensure Redeploy engages in effective programming and policies as well as help local Redeploy sites with technical assistance and monitoring areas of strength and areas for improvement.

Recommendation #4: More concretely define success for Redeploy youth or revise what success means and how Redeploy functions.

At its core, the Redeploy statute indicated Redeploy funds must be used to divert youth from IDJJ commitment; however, Redeploy sites functioned only somewhat in alignment with this statutory mandate. First, since 2012, IDJJ saw a steady and significant decrease in IDJJ commitments, largely the result of PA 99-0268 and PA 99-0628, prohibiting IDJJ commitments for youth with misdemeanors and some low-level, class 4 felonies, respectively. Further, new IDJJ policies making recommitment a last resort for youth supervised on aftercare have resulted in far fewer recommitments for technical violations.^[13]

While some of the commitment decrease may be attributable to Redeploy, new laws have had the largest impact. Redeploy statute revisions could be considered to more heavily emphasize and incorporate youth assessment to identify and serve those at high risk to recidivate, regardless of their risk for an IDJJ commitment. This also could help divert youth from detention facilities and further involvement in the justice system. However, it is imperative that eligibility is based on an RNA, as research indicates intensive services to lower risk youth may increase dynamic risk factors and decrease dynamic protective factors.^[14]

In addition, what defined a successful Redeploy participant was unclear and the definition could benefit from clarification, including a revised logic model that incorporates outputs (or what is measured). For example, Redeploy youth can successfully complete Redeploy requirements, while only partially or not completing services, remaining on probation or court supervision, or having additional law enforcement contact. The unclear definition of success may also be the product of probation and providers distinct separation as it relates to Redeploy in that Redeploy only funds services for youth participants and does not provide for, or incentivize, collaboration between probation and providers to work together. An emphasis on collaboration—and possible funding to Redeploy probation officers—may be useful, as it seemed to operate side-by-side rather than collaboratively together.

Recommendation #5: Reduce the overuse of assessments, especially duplicative ones, and over-prescription of services.

In general, practice can be made more efficient, eliminating duplicity of assessments and case planning if the probation officer conducts an RNA to determine a youth’s highest need areas (criminogenic needs, also known as dynamic risk factors) and risk for recidivism to best identify supervision frequency and triaging caseloads to focus more attention, support, and services on those that are at highest risk to recidivate. The probation officer also provides the handoff and linkage of youth to providers regarding those highest need areas, who can best identify specific programming and services by using additional, more in-depth, and specific assessment(s) for appropriate service placement, service levels, and service intensities and dosages. At the time of this evaluation, both probation and providers used the YASI. Starting in 2019, a new RNA was implemented for the courts, the Juvenile Risk Assessment (JRA),^[15] that will be used by probation officers and the courts moving forward. It is unknown how Redeploy intends to move forward with these changes from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC). Regardless, there was inconsistency in who and how RNAs are being conducted for Redeploy youth, whether there is duplicative assessment occurring and how frequently this is occurring, and how Redeploy intends to move forward given AOIC changes to RNAs. While AOIC is not funded through Redeploy, decisions made by AOIC directly affect Redeploy youth as they are under probation or court supervision at the time of Redeploy.

The YASI and JRA are both fourth generation^[16] RNAs that assess the same/similar domains.^[17] Overassessment of youth (and adults) can yield less reliable results over time as youth start to feel continually assessed and exhausted with the same or similar questions by separate individuals.^[18] Overassessment of youth also could re-traumatize youth who have difficult and traumatic histories.^[19] The flow of assessment could come from the initial RNA from probation, linking youth and families to service providers. Those providers could then conduct more in-depth and specific assessments related to the need areas rather than conducting another RNA, for example, the Illinois Medicaid Comprehensive Assessment of needs and Strengths (IM+CANS), the Daily Living Activities (DLA) functional assessment, or the Wahler Self-Description Inventory, depending on the highest need area for which the youth has been assessed and assessments appropriate for the local jurisdiction. Further, it is important to consider that requiring youth to participate in more than two or three services at any given time can result in unintended negative consequences, including the inability to complete requirements, reduction in motivation, and feeling overwhelmed.^[20]

Study Limitations

We noted several study limitations, including the availability, accuracy, and retrieval of data, and issues with differences among and within sites and how they operate. Further, the inability to create a matched comparison sample for all Redeploy participants across sites limits the ability to know Redeploy’s impact, as sites vary drastically in their implementation of Redeploy. Lastly, because there are no standard definitions for discharge reasons for Redeploy youth, it limited our ability to conduct analyses and interpret those analyses in a meaningful way. This information is provided in further description in Section 4.3 (data audit findings) and Section 6 (data limitations) in the full report.

Conclusion

The majority of Redeploy youth sampled for this study identified as White, male, and an average age of 15.5. Most frequently, these youth were referred to Redeploy by probation officers, with current offenses identified as a Class 1 felony or a Class A misdemeanor. Redeploy youth participants examined found some decreases in overall numerical dynamic risk scores and smaller increases to overall numerical dynamic protective scores. However, based on risk category, little change was seen in Redeploy youths’ overall dynamic risk or overall dynamic protective levels. Redeploy youth most frequently had at least one family service identified in their case plan, with the next most frequent services related to school and aggression-related services.^[21] Sixty-six percent of youth were arrested at least once on or after Redeploy discharge; 28% were arrested at least once while participating in Redeploy. Fifteen percent of Redeploy youth were admitted at least once to IDJJ on or after their Redeploy discharge date, and 12% were sentenced to at least one IDOC commitment for a new sentence. However, these findings varied based on Redeploy site.