CESSA Technology, Systems Integration & Data Management Subcommittee Meeting - Approved Minutes 05/20/2024

CESSA Subcommittee for Technology, Systems Integration & Data Management (TSIDM)

May 20, 2024, 2:00 - 3:30 pm Via Zoom

Subcommittee members: Brent Reynolds, Cindy Barbera-Brelle, David Albert (Designee-Lee Ann Reinert), Richard Manthy, Jim Kaitschuk, Ashley Thoele (Designee - Robert Van Bebber)

  •  Welcome and Call to Order (Roll Call)
  •  Open Meetings Act
  •  Approval of the Minutes from previous meeting
  •  State updates
  •  Updates from and to other bodies
  •  Planning and updates on Subcommittee deliverables
  •  Next meeting dates
  •  Public comment
  •  Adjournment

The meeting was called to order by Richard Manthy at 2:04 pm.

 Richard Manthy reviewed procedures around the Open Meetings Act and meeting logistics.

Roll call and Motion to approved previous meeting minutes:

  • Motion to approve meeting minutes from March 18, 2024 from Cindy Barbera-Brelle, seconded by Jessica Gimeno.
  • Present: Cindy Barbera-Brelle (approve), Richard Manthy (approve), Lee Ann Reinert (abstain)
  • Absent: Robert Van Bebber, Jim Kaitschuk, Brent Reynolds
  • No quorum. Minutes from April 15, 2024 were not approved.
  • Rick Manthy clarified with UIC Hub staff that Jessica Gimeno is a delegate for SAC member Candace Coleman, but Candace is not a member of the TSIDM Subcommittee.

State updates:

  • We expect the bill with CESSA legislation to move forward and be approved, but that is not official yet so we will continue to monitor.
  • Invitations have been sent out for the Forum by the UIC Crisis Hub. We designed the invitation list so that we have representation of community crisis work across the state. If you are interested but didn't receive an invitation, you can reach out to us and we can put you on the list if registration does open up.

 Updates to and from other bodies: No updates

 Planning and updates on subcommittee deliverables: Pete Eckart

 Meeting Schedule:

  • Today we are talking about the draft report
  • Tomorrow, we will send out a PDF copy of the draft report with a survey so that Subcommittee members can review and comment on the draft.
  • May 29, 2024: Deadline for Subcommittee members to submit feedback
  • June 3, 2024, Meeting: We will, if ready, vote on the revised report on June 3.
  • June 17, 2024, Meeting: We expect to focus on how we want to do this work moving forward. If there is considerable revision needed, we can delay final approval of the report until June 17 and vote then.
  • Jessica Gimeno: Can Access Living offer feedback on the report or is it just for Subcommittee members?
    • Pete Eckart: Members of the public, if you want to receive the report, please put your email address into the chat and Sarah will capture that and we will include you when we send out the distribution. Please don't share it as it's draft.

Review of Draft Deliverables Report:

  • Introduction:
    • The legislation doesn't envision a complete technical system that would be required to build out and support crisis response, so we tried to address not only the legislation but also whatever else would be necessary to make this work. We divided up our work into nine actions. At one point we called them tasks and recommendations, all consisting of what we need to make CESSA work.
  • Appendices:
    • The report includes appendices because we didn't want the data elements to weigh down the report. If you're looking for detail, it can be found in the appendices.
  • Action 1: Document currently collected service data from different providers of crisis response services including 911, 988, and MCRT
    • I want to point out the only paragraph that is bold in the document. We wanted to highlight that the legislation did not talk about in-person mobile crisis response. So, we had to assume, even though the legislation was very clear about 911 and 988, that the whole crisis continuum also included mobile crisis response teams.
  • Action 2: Conduct a gap analysis and develop recommendations for comprehensive operational and evaluation data metrics
    • This is where we looked at what's being collect, what's being partially collected, and what's not being collected yet but is useful. That informs the necessary improvements for data that we would be monitoring and evaluating. Actions 1, 2, and 3 all go together.
  • Action 3: Describe necessary improvements for data to be used for monitoring and evaluating Illinois' crisis continuum
    • We spent a few meetings looking at some multi-colored slides that were kind of red, black, and green. The content here is from the colorful slides that the Subcommittee looked at several times.
    • This is the data that we will need for the system to work.
    • So, the big question is, does this report accurately capture my experience as a member of this committee? And are these the recommendations we want to make? Then the SAC will send to the RACs.
  • Action 4: Develop and approve Sample Reports
    • We came up with four reports. Two reports are ones we want to recommend start immediately and two that we would wait for.
    • For the CESSA Administration Report, we've been doing something similar for about a year because it's a requirement of the CESSA legislation.
    • For Crisis Continuum service report, the sample report is in the Appendix.
  • Action 5: Develop recommendations to support the operational procedures for communicating between 911 and 988
    • Mary Smith: We've had lots of discussion about this area, but there are draft operational procedures that are being developed. Because they're still in the process of being developed, the Subcommittee hasn't been able to review them. But in the last year and a half, we've reviewed other things, including information from the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) on what they are looking at and information from NASHPD's Playbook for Public Safety Answering Points. So even though the procedures are draft, there are things that we know should be included such as warm hand-offs.
  • Action 6: Develop recommendations to support the operational procedures for communicating between 988 and MCRT
    • Mary Smith: In lieu of recommendations, we took a look at the operational procedures and recommend the data elements that are part of the interim guidance for operational procedures.
    • Pete Eckart: You may be seeing overlap here from Actions 1-3 and for the sample reports in Action 4. I think we'll go ahead and add guidance at the start of the report to recognize that sometimes the same data elements are required for different purposes. Sometimes it's how to measure, provide, or coordinate. There is a reason some of these things are repeated.
  • Action 7: Develop recommendations for technical systems and infrastructure necessary to facilitate and automate data collection, including implementation
    • Mary Smith: This is the system that will collect aggregate data. This is the interim system that DMH, Cindy, and the UIC Hub has been developing with the UIC CCTS. Many of the elements this system would collect are already being collected as part of evaluation and DMH contractual requirements.
    • Pete Eckart: We can add a sentence about the two separate systems that need to be created for CESSA. One for aggregate data and one to coordinate services.
    • Jessica Gimeno: Can you give an example of "placeholders"?
  • Mary Smith: We don't have data from 911. I wonder how many BH/MH crisis calls go to 911 every year. We don't have that, maybe the PSAPs do, so as we move forward to design the system, that's something we'd want to collect. We'll need that data to populate the indicators.
  • Jessica Gimeno: So, what would the placeholder or proxy be?
  • Mary Smith: It's the ability of the developers of the system to have some section in the system, we have a field that says number of 911 calls that couldn't be populated right now, it would just be a placeholder.
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle: I'm doing an experiment and asking the 911 PSAPs how many of these types of calls occurred during the 2023 calendar year. I haven't consolidated it yet but it's all over the place. I'm asked what's the difference between a mental health crisis call and a behavioral health crisis call. We don't have a definition for that yet. It may be difficult to discern that. We could consider getting everyone across the state on the same page using the same incident type codes but that's a heavy lift since there are so many different CAD systems.
  • Mary Smith: I have high hopes that working with the protocol vendors the way we are, incorporating the incidents and severity levels from the IRLM, even if the vendors use different codes, that we would be able to put together some common codes on the back end so that we would be able to take a look at the number of BH/MH crisis calls that come in to 911 and that 911 sends to 988.
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle: When we met with Priority Dispatch, we were presented with an opportunity to see their reporting. What we don't know is what PPH and APCO do. So, I will follow up and share that information.
    • Susan Schafer: How will duplication of counts from 911, 988, MCRT be handled in the aggregate?
  • Mary Smith: We aren't going to be able to duplicate these contacts because it's all aggregate. This system does not collect any client information. But as we move towards the broader system, we'd be able to un-duplicate the contacts and even track people's progress from 988 to 911 to MCRT.
  • Pete Eckart: It's important to recognize there are two different systems.
  • Susan Schafer: When you do analysis of how the system is working with the aggregate data, are you going to be able to account for duplication?
  • Mary Smith: I think they are relevant but the kind of questions that can be answered with aggregate data are different than the kinds of questions that can be answered with a more comprehensive system.
  • Pete Eckart: It's worth noting that there are very few questions we can answer at all right now. We can answer some questions about people who call 988 and what happens when they call, but we don't have perfect information there. Similarly, with MCRT, we have some answers about what happens when people call MCRT and services are delivered but there are a lot of providers across the state and we aren't currently adding all of that up. If we were to implement even the modest elements of the system in Action 7, we'd have a much better understanding of how the system is working, especially if we gather that every month.
  • Action 8: Develop recommendations for technical systems and infrastructure necessary to facilitate and automate contact transfers, including implementation
    • Mary Smith: This is the broader system we've talked about being similar to air-traffic control. We've talked about how it would be incremental for some components.
  • Action 9: Develop recommendations for a phased training plan for each element of the work plan above
    • Sarah Ferguson: The Charter identifies the need to have an implementation plan and the SC decided early on that training would be part of implementation. When you introduce a new data system, folks need to be trained how to use it. So, this is a summary of where training will be needed, from what you all have recommended over the last two years. We reviewed this in the most recent mtg in April 15, so these recommendations will hopefully look familiar.
  • Survey
    • Please confirm your name and title are correct if you are a Subcommittee member.
    • There is a space for each one of the Actions, 1 through 9.

Next Meetings:

Monday, June 3, 2024, 2:00-3:30 pm

Monday, June 17, 2024, 2:00-3:30 pm

Public Comment:

  • Susan Schafer: I have a question for Cindy. Are you moving towards one statewide mobile crisis dispatch that dispatches? Is there a timeframe?
    • Cindy Barbera-Brelle: The plan is to have a centralized dispatch to mobilize the mobile crisis response teams.
    • Lee Ann Reinert: Centralized dispatch is a function that other states have used to ensure that no one falls through gaps in where MCRT may be available. It's a complicated thing to get set-up and we're talking it through with some state partners. I really do think this will be the overall vision moving forward. We may have to do a temporary fix in the meantime, perhaps through one of our 988 contracts, but I have to be careful what I say because it's related to potential procurement in the future. The vision is that you have a streamlined way to get to our MCRT system that right now is very fragmented.
  • Susan Schafer: Is it part of the STBHCC?
    • Lee Ann Reinert: Even before the STBHCC there was the technical assistance that the state received which included recommendations for a centralized dispatch system. But there's a lot to put in place and we can't wait for a whole system to be built to test the CESSA stuff so we need something interim.

Adjournment:

Meeting adjourned by Richard Manthy at 3:20 pm.