Evaluation of the Development of Choices, a Multijurisdictional Police-Led Deflection Program in Southwestern Illinois

Introduction

A significant amount of police engagement involves persons with multiple service needs, such as substance use treatment or mental health services. A public safety and public health partnership encourages police to “deflect” individuals from the criminal justice system by referring them to treatment and other service providers.^[1] Individuals may face several barriers to treatment and services, but deflection can reduce barriers such as social stigma, waiting lists, and limited ability to fund treatment personally.^[2]

We evaluated the action planning process for a deflection program in Southwestern Illinois, later named Choices. The program serves the following counties: Calhoun, Greene, Jersey, Macoupin, Madison, Monroe, Montgomery, and St. Clair. The development of the program began with guided action planning sessions during which community stakeholders agreed that the program’s focus would be substance use and mental health. The program was then developed based on the results of the action planning sessions. The two facilitators of the sessions were from Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities’ Center for Health and Justice (TASC CHJ), and at least one researcher from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) attended each session. Map 1 shows the areas served by the Southwestern Illinois deflection program.

Map 1

Areas Served by the Choices Program

Note. The areas highlighted in light green and orange are served by the Choices Program. The map source is the Illinois State Police Drug Task Force website at https://isp.illinois.gov/DrugEnforcement/DrugEnforcementMap.

Methodology

In evaluating the action planning process, researchers attempted to answer the following research questions:

• Who participated in the action planning process?
• What transpired during the action planning process?
• What feedback about the action planning process did participants provide?
• What was the content of the final action plan?
• To what extent was there collaboration among the participants?
• What areas of collaboration can be enhanced to produce the most effective outcomes?

In order to evaluate the action planning process to develop the deflection program, we examined multiple data sources, including field observations, supporting documents (e.g., sign-in sheets, handouts), and participant surveys. We conducted field observations and took field notes during six action planning sessions in October and December 2022. At the end of each session day, we administered a survey to all participants to obtain their feedback on the program and action planning process. On the final day of action planning, we administered the Wilder Collaboration Survey to gauge participants’ collaboration levels. One study limitation was that not all participants completed every action planning session survey. The number of participants and surveys varied by session. In addition, as Chicago-based researchers, we may not understand the intricacies of the community area.

Key Findings

The action planning process for the Southwestern Illinois deflection program took place over six days. Fifteen representatives from 13 different organizations participated in at least one session. Figure 1 breaks down daily attendance numbers by providers/participants, researchers, TASC staff, and subject matter experts.

Figure 1

Number of Participants Attending Action Planning by Day and Participant Type

Note. Data sources were field observations and attendance sheets.

During observations of action planning, participants appeared unsure about the deflection model or the overall action planning process. Facilitators did most of the talking, and participation was consistent but low. When they joined in, participants were engaged and discussed community issues, needs, collaboration, and program design. The participants completed the action plan document detailing objectives and action steps for the program implementation. However, the participants struggled to produce measurable objectives when finalizing the Solutions Action Plan (SAP).

Based on the survey results, participants felt that collaboration was strong and that those who should have been at the action-planning sessions were already there. By the conclusion of the final session, the majority in attendance reported that they were confident this program would help their community and positively rated the action-planning process.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the evaluation of the Southwestern Illinois action planning process for the deflection program for persons with SUD and mental health disorders, ICJIA recorded observations on the process, including what went well and suggestions for bettering future action planning and program development. From these observations, ICJIA presents the following recommendations.

Improving Collaboration

Team Building Activities

Results of the Wilder Collaboration Survey revealed a clear need for better collaboration among agencies in the community and, more specifically, among members of the Choices leadership team who participated in action planning. The survey indicated a lack of informal conversations about the project with others involved in the collaborative group. Building rapport among the leadership team is essential to the success of the action planning as well as to the continued success of implementation. Research on team building has identified four main components: goal setting, interpersonal relations, problem-solving, and role clarification.^[3] While this action planning process has done well to focus on goal setting, problem-solving, and role clarification, without the interpersonal relations factor, the leadership team may not be as effective or successful as possible.

Community Collaboration

The factor that scored lowest on the Wilder Collaboration Survey was a history of collaboration or cooperation within the community. Since involvement in action planning is strictly voluntary, there may have been a selection bias in the leadership team. Those on the leadership team actively participated, making them fundamentally different from community leaders who chose not to participate. Leadership team members could gain insight from leaders who did not self-select, as well as community members who began the action planning process but did not continue to participate as it progressed. They may learn from these community members issues that should be addressed moving forward, both in action planning and within the community, and ways to encourage better collaboration in the community and among team members. If the community feels heard and their grievances are being addressed, the program has a better chance of garnering partnership and cooperation. Another way collaboration and cooperation might be fostered is for facilitators to provide the local data presentation at the beginning of action planning and collaborate with the community leaders. In that way, those in attendance will understand the facilitators have made an effort to know this community and best understand what issues can be addressed with the deflection program.

Consider Action Planning Attendees

Engage a Larger Number of Local Participants

A decreasing number of participants attended each action planning session, with numbers declining from 14 and 15 on the first two days to 10 or fewer after that. This is despite TASC CHJ’s extensive outreach before the start of action planning to all those in attendance at the kick-off event in August 2022.

Eliciting attendance and active participation from the most significant number of community organizations and local service providers possible is essential for meeting the SUD and mental health needs of community members and avoiding the consequences of not doing so. For example, limited access, or lack thereof, to SUD treatment in rural communities likely hinders the continued involvement of persons entering treatment.^[4] Involving many cross-domain participants in planning makes it possible to examine access from multiple perspectives and work across organizations toward the goal of multidisciplinary care. A multidisciplinary model of care is the most effective way to address the intricacies of SUDs.^[5] Although many social service providers in the community were invited to the kick-off meeting, the number attending action planning was drastically lower for unidentified reasons.

Results from surveys indicated that participants felt the right people were at action planning; however, more social service providers needed to be represented and present at action planning. One possible explanation for the lack of involvement by community service providers could be that individuals who attended the kick-off event but not action planning were already involved in similar programs in the counties. A newer and less developed program may be prioritized less than established programs. Table 1 details the organizations present at least one day of action planning.

Table 1

Participants by Organization and Type

Note. Data sources included field observations and attendance sheets.

Engage Diverse Local Participants

Participants did not represent the diversity of their communities. Our participant survey showed that the majority were White women with an average age of 42. To have a more diverse group, action planning facilitators should try to invite groups that are culturally representative of the local population and inclusive of all genders, ethnicities/races, and age groups. On a positive note, a majority of participants both worked and lived within the counties of the program.

Improve Participant Understanding During Action Planning

Offer Baseline Data

Facilitators provided a brief local data presentation on day three of action planning. While this presentation was generally well-received, data informing the action planning should be presented on the first day.^[6] Ensuring data are presented on the first day of action planning helps participants identify any additional data that may be helpful or necessary for future decision-making.^[7]

Develop Program Goals and Measurable Objectives

One element that seemed to be missing from the action planning process was ensuring that objectives and goals were measurable. As specialists advise, when planning actions, groups should start by creating broader goals and then breaking them down into objectives.^[8]

The action planning process for Southwestern Illinois deflection programs produced many desired objectives; however, very few were realistically measurable. Adding a requirement that each objective must be measurable will aid in evaluating each objective once the program has been fully implemented. It should also be noted that many objectives included a change in attitude among the community. It is unclear how attitude change can be reasonably and accurately measured as community opinion surveys are often resource-intensive and inadequately provide broad points of view to inform policymakers.^[9]

Develop Logic Models

Research has shown that logic models can assist new programs in " getting off to a good start” during the planning phase.^[10] 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.^[11] In addition, logic models can help organize and conceptualize how inputs and outputs will help achieve the intended goals.

As a general rule of thumb, participants in action planning can work collaboratively to develop a logic model and use that model to:

• Clarify program strategy.
• Identify appropriate outcome targets (and avoid over-promising).
• Align efforts with those of other organizations.
• 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 .^[12]

The Southwestern Illinois deflection program action planning group did not work on logic models. Still, organizers and facilitators should consider using logic models in future action-planning sessions to help participants conceptualize their program further.

Conclusion

We evaluated the action planning process to develop a deflection program, Choices, to help persons with substance use and/or mental health disorders in Southwestern Illinois. The action planning sessions for the program identified community issues and discussed community needs, collaboration, and resources to draft the program’s structure, design, and implementation. These discussions led to the final action plan document, which laid out objectives and action steps for the implementation phase of the program. The program employs a police-led deflection model, with the help of multijurisdictional drug task forces, to refer individuals to services in their community. We recommend increased engagement of diverse community members, more clarity on the purpose of the action planning process, and the creation of measurable objectives.