Evaluation of the Development of a Multijurisdictional Police-Led Deflection Program to Assist Victims of Violent Crime

Introduction

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2019, roughly 1.2 million people were victims of violent crime in the United States.^[1] Based on self-reported National Crime Victimization survey data, the rate of violent victimization reported to the police was 8.6 per 1,000 persons ages 12 or older in 2019.^[2] Victims of crime experience relatively low levels of service utilization and collaboration with police.^[3] In 2019, just 7.7% of U.S. violent crime victims received assistance from a victim-service agency.^[4] Individuals who have been victimized often have needs that can be met through treatment and services such as physical health, mental health, legal assistance, housing, and childcare.^[5]

East St. Louis, Illinois has experienced high rates of violent crime including homicide. In 2019, the city’s homicide rate was 137 per 100,000 residents, which was considerably higher than the state rate and the Chicago rate.^[6] Victims of violent crime may have many service needs, such as behavioral health counseling, medical care, legal services, housing, and financial assistance.^[7] Many crime victims come to the attention of police, so a program was developed in East St. Louis to refer victims to services they need. The East St. Louis Community Engagement Response Team (ESL-CERT) was created to refer victims of crime to necessary services using a law enforcement task force (composed of dedicated Illinois State Police officers) working on violent crime cases in East St. Louis.

The program is considered a “deflection” program in which law enforcement and other first responders (or co-responders) connect individuals to treatment and/or other social services thereby deflecting them from emergency services, crisis interventions, and justice involvement.^[8] The program assists crime victims, so there is no threat of potential arrest charges.

This evaluation examined the ESL-CERT’s action planning process. Local stakeholders met virtually for 21 hours over seven days to develop the program’s Solution Action Plan (SAP). Action planning is a way to increase community engagement, develop clear and concise program goals, and create strategies to effectively achieve those goals.^[9] The action planning work culminated in an action plan with objectives, strategies, and steps needed to aid in program implementation.

Background on Illinois Deflection Project

The East St. Louis deflection project is part of a larger project lead and funded by the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS), in collaboration with the Illinois State Police (ISP). In addition to East St. Louis, additional Illinois sites have created, or are creating, programs in which multijurisdictional task forces deflect community members to needed services including sites in Southern Illinois (multiple southern Illinois counties) and Central Illinois (multiple southern and central Illinois counties). However, hose sites predominately assist persons with behavior health needs, rather than crime victims.

Project Funding

The deflection project was supported with Cannabis Regulation Funds through the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (410 ILCS 705). IDHS receives 20% of Cannabis Regulation Funds after removing costs associated with the implementation, administration, and enforcement of the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act.^[10] Funds are used to address substance use disorder and mental health interventions, including treatment, education, and prevention.^[11] IDHS used the funds to contract with Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC) Center for Health and Justice to conduct action planning in three sites, guide program implementation, and employ program staff. The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) initially provided research support for the sites with U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance grant funds, but in 2022 was funded through a contract with IDHS.

Methodology

To avoid the risk of spreading COVID-19 in 2021, the action planning process was held virtually via Zoom for three-hours per day for seven days. Representatives of several local community agencies and groups participated; 30 participated in at least one session from 23 organizations and 14 organization types (Table 1). There were 30 community representatives, with attendance ranging from 12 to 19 participants per session. In addition to local participants, 26 representatives from outside of the community [IDHS, TASC, ICJIA, and Police, Treatment, and Community Collaborative (PTACC) subject matter experts] attended at least one session each. ICJIA researchers also provided a local crime victim data presentation on day 6.

Table 1

Participants by Organization and Type

Note. Data sources included field observations and attendance sheets.

To evaluate the action planning procedure, the ICJIA research team examined a variety of data sources, including field observations, supporting documents, and participant surveys. The secretary of the ICJIA Institutional Review Board approved the proposed research as a program evaluation.

Three researchers completed 21 hours of field observations of the action planning process from June 30, 2021, to August 8, 2021. All action planning sessions were conducted and recorded virtually through Zoom Video Conferencing. A total of 30 community members participated in at least one of the seven sessions.

After each session, we administered a survey to action planning participants using the Zoom poll feature. The survey included questions about the action planning process, collaboration with other participants, and their intentions of post-action planning with responses on a 4-point Likert scale. Respondents totaled between seven and 20 respondents per day (Table 2).

Finally, we administered a second online survey using Qualtrics software. The survey included questions about participants (e.g., demographics information) and one open-ended question requesting their thoughts on the action planning process. A total of 13 participants responded.

Table 2

Survey Respondents through Zoom Poll Feature

Data Analysis

We analyzed field notes and supportive documents. We summarized what transpired sequentially for each of the seven days of action planning as the group built on the previous day’s work in each session. The Zoom platform poll data was exported in Excel for data analysis and the online survey was exported from Qualtrics to Excel for data analysis. We analyzed the poll and online survey data to generate descriptive statistics.

Study Limitations

We encountered some limitations while conducting this evaluation. First, we could only draw from what was said during the sessions. Participants’ internal thoughts and feelings could only be collected through brief, close-ended poll questions. Second, the participants changed each day because many could not attend all seven sessions leading to varying levels of participation in the action planning and polls. Third, while a number of reminders were sent to the group, only 13 participants responded to the online survey to gather participant demographics. Fourth, COVID-19 precipitated the need for virtual action planning, which had its challenges. For example, because of the large number of participants on the virtual platform, it was difficult to discern who was speaking. Finally, as Chicago-based researchers, we were relative outsiders. Without living or working in their community, it was difficult for us to ascertain group dynamics or potential interpersonal issues and understand historical and community context.

Key Findings

We noted a number of key findings on action planning participants, engagement, and discussions, as well as participant feedback on the action planning process. Our survey, taken by 13 action planning participants, revealed most were female, White, non-Latinx, with master’s degrees and incomes over $90,000 (Table 3). Participants had over 20 years of experience in various fields such as social services and criminal justice, and were an average age of 52. A poll taken by seven participants on the last day showed while five worked in East St. Louis, they lived outside of East St. Louis.

Table 3

Demographics of Local Action Planning Participants

Note. Sample size was 13 participants unless noted. The data was collected from a survey.

The group members engaged in discussions to develop the crime victim program. Action planning discussions covered many areas, including:

• Program purpose, capacity, eligibility, and name.
• Community issues, partners, and awareness.
• Outcome measures and strategies.
• Training needs and topics.
• Service provision.
• Data and evaluation.

During our observations of action planning, we noted that at times, likely exacerbated by the virtual format, it was a challenge to engage some action planning group members. In addition, some participants were initially confused about the action planning process and the program model. Finally, some participants had difficulty formulating measurable objectives.

Overall, based on our surveys, participants were pleased with, and supportive of, the action planning process and the program. All participants reported they thought the program would go on to help victims of crime “somewhat” to “a great extent.” Also all indicated they would be “likely” or “very likely” to take an active role in implementation and that the program would be “somewhat” to “very sustainable.” However, three of seven participants noted the program had weak community engagement during the action planning process.

Ultimately, the discussions culminated in an action plan document, the Solutions Action Plan, with objectives and action steps for the next phase of the program—implementation. The action plan contained four outcomes, 11 strategies, and 21 action steps. The community advisory team, a designated subset of the local action planning team, planned to meet regularly to implement the action steps. PSEG, TASC/deflection specialists, community service agencies and ICJIA developed a preliminary plan for evaluating the program. The plan stated leadership team meetings would be held on a continuous basis to address program issues. Figure 1 provides an overview of the proposed deflection program.

Figure 1

East St. Louis Deflection Program Flow Chart

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the evaluation of the action planning process for the deflection program for crime victims, we shared some observations on what went well and some suggestions to potentially enhance future action planning and program development. We understand that some of the recommendations may not be feasible due to the necessity of a virtual format dictated by travel restrictions, schedules, and time limitations or requiring additional, but unavailable, resources.

Get the Most out of a Virtual Format

Virtual meetings can have benefits such as eliminating travel coordination, time, and costs. Difficulty having conversations and a lack of engagement among action planning group members are potential downsides. Virtual action planning sessions for the deflection program were necessary due to COVID-19. There are some ways to get the most out of a virtual meeting. The action planning process hosts followed best practices for virtual meetings, including:

• Testing before the sessions started to ensure software and sound were working properly.^[12]
• Encouraging all participants to use their video cameras. ^[13]
• Designating a person that is not the facilitator to help attendees with problems.^[14]
• Conducting the session like a regular meeting with designated breaks.^[15]
• Regularly encouraging feedback from participants.^[16]

On day 7 of action planning, five of seven participants indicated the virtual format was good or very good.

Although the virtual format worked fairly well, we offer some suggestions to be considered for future virtual action planning sessions, including:

• Offering personal invitations to all participants prior to the meeting to confirm their attendance and to ask about their goals and vested interest in the sessions.^[17]
• Designating time for small talk and introductions before the session starts.^[18] This allows for members to become familiar with each other and feel more comfortable speaking up during the session. It may also be useful to tell members to sign in with their name and organization so that other members attending can identify them.^[19]
• Using polls in which participants can vote and discuss results.^[20]

Finally, there were a total of seven sessions spread out over three weeks from the end of June to the beginning of August. This arrangement was necessary due in part to schedules, vacations, and holidays. However, it is not ideal to spread action planning across too many meetings because it requires regrouping each time and potentially losing steam along the way.^[21] Whenever possible, fewer sessions over a shorter time span should occur to complete the process more efficiently.^[22]

Consider Action Planning Attendees

Engage Diverse Local Participants

A large number of local action planning participants (n = 30) represented many different community groups and agencies in the East St. Louis area. However, our participant survey revealed none of the respondents lived in the East St. Louis area and a majority were White and older, with an average age of 52 years old. Therefore, for a more diverse group, action planning organizers should try to engage and invite persons who live in the East St. Louis area, a group that is culturally representative of the local population, and participants of all age groups.

Limit Outsider Participants

During action planning, outsiders included many representatives from IDHS, TASC, ICJIA, and subject matter experts. A total of 26 outsiders and 30 insiders participated; however, not all of them attended all the sessions. On day 1, there were five outsiders for every three insiders. The organizers should consider the number of “outsiders,” who do not live or work in the East St. Louis area, necessary to attend with the local “insiders.”^[23] Among the outsiders, six subject matter experts attended throughout the sessions, but a smaller number may have better aided in the building of trust, rapport, and relationships. In addition, all were men and half were law enforcement, so there should be more diversity of the subject matter experts as. Also, four were from other states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Ohio) and just two were from Illinois, but from Northern Illinois not near East St. Louis. Therefore, if possible, more local experts who are insiders should be invited to attend.

Enhance Participant Understanding During Action Planning

Create Roadmap for Participants

At various times, participants were confused about the action planning process. There was a kick-off meeting prior to the start of action planning that provided background information and an explanation of the action planning process. However, many participants did not attend the kick-off meeting. In addition, some participants were unclear on the premise of the program they were to develop, as well as the role of the deflection specialist. As one survey participant wrote, “I think that, at times, the process got bogged down when it wasn’t understood that we would be engaging victims and not deflecting criminals.”

To provide clarity and mutual understanding among action planning participants, experts recommend “begin(ning) with the end in mind.”^[24] The purpose of the sessions should be established and made clear to all participants. This includes what the group wants to accomplish and the roles of the participants, facilitator, organizers, researchers, and any others attending the action planning session.^[25] A purpose statement can be shared in advance to “ensure everyone who attends the meeting comes with shared goals and expectations.”^[26]

Introduce Participants at Every Session

During the kick-off meeting, introductions were made by all who would be participating and their roles. Again, some participants were not present at the kick-off meeting, so they did not receive that information. During action planning over the course of seven days, some participants only attended some of the sessions or were invited later. Six subject matter experts attended, but participants did not regularly get introductions to their backgrounds, their role, or their length of involvement in the project. According to Cruikshank (1990), “there is a strong need for both outsider practitioners and community groups to clarify their roles and responsibilities before entering a working relationship.”^[27] Therefore, time should be allotted for introductions and attendance at every virtual session. Taking attendance can also help the researchers more easily and accurately document who is present each day. In addition, participants can be provided with a daily list of attendees, their affiliations, and contact information, as well as bios for the representatives of partner agencies, and subject matter experts.

Offer Baseline Data

Researchers provided a local data presentation on day 6 and although well received, data informing action planning should be done on day 1.^[28] As Wilkinson (2012) stated, “You may have been in the room when a team has made a decision based on the best information available, only to discover that if they had been aware of other information that had not been brought into the room, they would have likely have made a different decision.^[29] Therefore, the timing of the data sharing should occur early on and participants can identify additional data that may be needed for group for decision making.^[30]

Set Program Goals and Measurable Objectives

As observed during the action planning process, some participants had difficulty formulating measurable objectives. When action planning, groups should start with broader goals and then develop their objectives.^[31] “Goals are set to achieve the mission of an organization or individual, while objectives are set for the accomplishment of goals. Goals are thus higher in order than objectives.”^[32] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention^[33]:

• Goals are statements explaining what the program seeks to accomplish. Goals are broad general statements with long-range direction. Objectives break the goal down into smaller parts that provide specific, measurable.

• Objectives are the results expected to achieve by the program.

  • Process objectives are activities to be completed in a specific time period.
  • Outcome objectives are intended results or effects of a program, often changes in policy, knowledge, attitudes, or behavior.

Good objectives should be S.M.A.R.T—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound.^[34] However, many of the goals were not measurable. The first outcome developed was “law enforcement upholds its oath and community sees law enforcement as partners and allies.” It is unclear how this can be measured as community opinion surveys are resource-intensive and often inadequate to provide broad points of view to inform policy makers.^[35] The other objectives involve increasing requesting, receiving, and engaging victims in services and decreasing revictimization and retaliation. However, a baseline measure is needed to be able to note changes in those areas over time.^[36] Therefore, the group should establish baseline data that is specific by year and data source.^[37]

Develop Logic Models

Logic models can help new programs during the planning phase to “get off to a good start.”^[38] Logic models visually depict the relationship between inputs (e.g., resources, stakeholders), outputs (e.g., program activities), ways to measure outputs, and short- and long-term goals.^[39] They help organize and conceptualize how the programs inputs and outputs will help achieve its intended goals.^[40]

Action planning participants can collectively develop a logic model during planning and use them to:

• Clarify program strategy.
• Identify appropriate outcome targets (and avoid over-promising).
• Align efforts with those of other organizations.
• Write a grant proposal or a request for proposals.
• Assess the potential effectiveness of an approach.
• Set priorities for allocating resources.
• Estimate timelines.
• Identify necessary partnerships.
• Negotiate roles and responsibilities.
• Focus discussions and make planning time more efficient.^[41]

Conclusion

Action planning is a way to increase community engagement, develop clear and concise goals, and plan the steps to achieve goals and objectives. We examined action planning to develop a "deflection” model in which police in a multijurisdictional task force in East St. Louis (PSEG, which responds to violent crime) refers victims of crime to services. These referrals may deflect them them from emergency services, crisis interventions, and potential future justice involvement. The action planning process was lengthy, spanning seven days, and engaged a large number of representatives of local community agencies and groups. The group discussed community issues, needs, collaboration, and resources, as well as program structure, design, and implementation.

Overall, the action planning process resulted in a plan to implement a new deflection program to assist victims of violent crime in East St. Louis. The action plan document contained four objectives, 11 strategies, and 21 action steps. The next steps for the program after action planning, was implementation of the program in which the group would work on completing their action steps. Ultimately, this program supports goals of the Illinois Statewide Violence Prevention Plan including collaborations, pro-social programming, and comprehensive case management and clinical support for victims.^[42]