Illinois Dually-Involved Youth Project

Last updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Quick Facts

Current Phase
Issue Area
Interventions
Project Scope
Development Start
Implementation Start

Adolescent youth in Illinois who are dually-involved in both the criminal justice and child welfare systems will benefit from intensive wraparound services and timely access to evidence-based therapies through a Pay for Success project that has enabled new levels of coordination between these government agencies. A service provider network will safely serve youth in families and communities in lieu of institutional care, preventing repeat delinquent behavior, and supporting successful transitions to adulthood.

Analysis

  • Market Overview

    • Year Launched
      2017
    • Service Delivery Term (Years)
      4.5
    • Motivation for Project
      Dually-involved youth - those involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems - spend an inordinate amount of time in extremely restrictive living placements in Illinois. These youth spend an average of 308 days in congregate care (which includes residential facilities, group homes, and emergency shelters) in the three year-period post-dual involvement.
    • Project Objective(s)
      Improve specific outcomes - restrictive placements, delinquency, and wellbeing - for dually-involved youth by changing behavior at three levels: (1) the systems level, (2) family level, and (3) the youth level
    • Individuals Served
      807
    • Geography
      Illinois
    • Issue Area
      Child Welfare; Recidivism
    • Initial Investment ($ millions) [Note 2]
      16.4
    • [2] This category captures the initial private investment raised to support the project that has the potential to be repaid if the project achieves its pre-determined outcomes. Many projects, particularly those in the supportive housing and health arenas, leverage existing public resources, such as subsidized housing and health insurance, to achieve program impact; the value of these resources is not included in these dollar values but are discussed in more detail in Sections 7, 8 and 9 of this report.
  • Project Partners

    • Service Provider(s) [Note 1]
      Conscience Community Network [Note 16]
    • Payor(s) [Note 2]
      Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)
    • Transaction Coordinator(s) [Note 3]
      Third Sector Capital Partners
    • Evaluator [Note 4]
      University of Michigan School of Social Work
    • Validator [Note 5]
      None
    • Project Manager [Note 6]
      None
    • External Legal Counsel [Note 7]
      Chapman & Cutler, LLP
    • Technical Assistance Provider(s) [Note 8]
      Government Performance Lab
    • [1] Delivers program interventions to target population over the course of the PFS contract
    • [16] Conscience Community Network is a coalition of six Illinois nonprofit child welfare and juvenile justice providers: Maryville Academy, OMNI Youth Services, One Hope United, SGA Youth and Family Services, UCAN, and Youth Outreach Servicies.
    • [2] Makes payments when pre-determined outcomes have been met
    • [3]Roles and responsibilities may include: design and structure of PFS project and financing model; capital raise; stakeholder management; on-going performance management
    • [4] Design and implement plan for determining whether outcomes have been met
    • [5] Verify accuracy of data used in evaluation plan, or evaluation plan itself
    • [6] Intermediary during service delivery phase, and/or fiscal sponsor for project funds
    • [7] Provide assistance in drafting, reviewing and negotiating PFS contracts
    • [8] Provide support and expertise to project stakeholders in the project development and/or project implementation phases
  • Evidence and Program Design

    • Service Intervention(s) Model and/or Type
      Wraparound Milwaukee; Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM); Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT); Treatment Foster Care Oregon (TFCO); Attachment, Self-Regulation and Competency (ARC); Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS)
    • Evidence base for intervention
      Wraparound Milwaukee: numerous non-experimental studies; CYPM: one propensity score matched study; TFCO: eight RCTs; BSFT: two RCTs; ARC: three pilot studies and one cross-site evaluation; SPARCS: three studies using control groups (non RCT), two quasi-experimental studies
    • Has effectiveness of the intervention for PFS project target population been evaluated?
      Partly [Note 14]
    • Has the service provider provided this intervention previously?
      Partly [Note 15]
    • Is PFS project: Scaling an existing intervention by replicating at a larger scale? Demonstrating the effect of a new program model or combination of services? Transplanting an existing intervention(s) to a new target population and/or service delivery setting?
      Demonstrating
    • [14] Both CYPM and Wraparound Milwaukee have been evaluated for their effectiveness at treating dually-involved youth. BSFT, TFCO, ARC, and SPARCS have been evaluated for their impacts on the targeted outcomes but not specifically for the dually-involved youth population.
    • [15] Several of CCN's member agencies have provided different components of the model previously. Specifically, SPARCS has been provided by One Hope United and Omni Youth Services; ARC has been provided by One Hope United; and BSFT has been provided by Youth Outreach Services.
  • Evaluation

    • Evaluation Design Methodology
      RCT (outcomes 1 and 2) and non-experimental (outcomes 3, 4, and 5)
    • Data Source(s) for Evaluation
      Illinois adminstrative data
    • Outcomes Tied to Success Payments
      1) Reduction in congregate care days; 2) Reduction in recidivism; 3) Success rate in education goals; 4) Success rate in placement stability; 5) Success rate in program fidelity
    • Outcomes Tracked, Not Tied to Success Payments
      None
    • Length of Evaluation Period
      7.5 years
  • Service Provider Characteristics and Service Delivery

    • Single or multiple service providers?
      Multiple
    • Service provider type(s) (nonprofit, government, private)
      Nonprofit
    • Service provider OR site selection method
      RFP for service provider; CCN and the State select implementation sites
    • Service Provider Experience with PFS Intervention
      Several of the CCN member agencies have previously provided some of the different models used in the intervention - specifically, SPARCS has been provided by One Hope United and Omni Youth Services; ARC has been provided by One Hope United; and BSFT has been provided by Youth Outreach Services
    • Referral Method for PFS Target Population
      Eligible participants come from six different pathways: three through the child welfare system (station adjustment, arrested & released, and arrested & detained) and three through the juvenile justice system (sentenced to DCFS, released from incarceration to DCFS, and enter DCFS on probation or parole supervision)
    • Did the project have a ramp-up phase? (Y/N; brief description)
      Yes: 1.5 year ramp-up prior to transaction launch; 71 youth served; funded through a consortium of philanthropic funders, CCN, and the State
  • Basic Repayment Structure

    • Initial Investment ($Millions)
      16.4
    • Maximum Repayment Funds Committed by Payor ($Millions)
      21.3
    • Full service delivery term (years)
      4.5
    • Full repayment period (years)
      7.5
    • Interim outcomes reported? Tied to payments?
      Yes/Yes
    • Sustainability/ Recycling of Funds
      None specified
  • Detailed Repayment Terms

    • Interest
      [Note 12]
    • Trigger for initial repayment of principal [Note 1]
      [Note 12]
    • Threshold for full repayment of principal
      [Note 12]
    • Threshold for full repayment of principal plus maximum success payments
      [Note 12]
    • Repayment timing
      [Note 12]
    • Return to Investor [Note 2]
      [Note 12]
    • Success Payment to Other Stakeholders? [Note 3]
      [Note 12]
    • [12] Capital not fully closed at time of publication
    • [1] Initial repayment does not equate to full principal return. Investors may recover only part of their principal if projects do not meet a certain level of success.
    • [12] Capital not fully closed at time of publication
    • [12] Capital not fully closed at time of publication
    • [12] Capital not fully closed at time of publication
    • [12] Capital not fully closed at time of publication
    • [2] There is no standard methodology for calculating investor return. These numbers are what is publically reported, and comparing from one project to another may not be an apples-to-apples comparison for the reason of potentially different calculation methodologies. Calculation methodologies may be provided in investor agreements, which are not available publically and were not available for this report’s analysis.
    • [12] Capital not fully closed at time of publication
    • [3] Success payments for other stakeholders such as project managers and service providers create a financial incentive for project success.
    • [12] Capital not fully closed at time of publication
  • Project Costs

    • Project Development Costs Not Covered by PFS Capital Raise
      Transaction coordinator fees; Government Performance Lab fellow; Legal services
    • Funding source(s) for project development costs, if any
      Dunham Fund; Chicago Community Trust; Living Cities; Laura and John Arnold Foundation; Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission
    • Project Implementation Costs not covered by PFS Capital
      None
    • Funding sources for implementation costs not covered by PFS capital
      None