CESSA Protocols & Standards Subcommittee Meeting December 19, 2024, 2:30 - 4:00 pm
Meeting Minutes - Approved by Members 01/16/2025
Call to Order/Roll Call
Meeting called to order by Cindy Barbera-Brelle at 2:31 pm (via Zoom)
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from December 5, 2024 Protocols and Standards Meeting
- Brent Reynolds motioned for approval of meeting minutes from December 5, 2024, seconded by Bobby Van Bebber. Motion carried.
- Members present and voted to approve: Rachael Ahart, Cindy Barbera-Brelle, Jessica Gimeno (Designee for Candace Coleman), James Hennessy, Brent Reynolds, Bobby Van Bebber, Brittany Watson
- Members present and abstained: David Albert (Designee-Lee Ann Reinert), Justin Houcek, Pete Dyer
- Members not present at Dec. 19 meeting: Blanca Campos, Drew Hansen
Minutes from December 12, 2024 Presentation: Dispatch of 911 Behavioral Health Crisis Calls for Alternative Response - Denver STAR
- Pete Dyer motioned for approval of meeting minutes, seconded by James Hennessy. Motion carried.
- Members present and voted to approve: Cindy Barbera-Brelle, Jessica Gimeno (Designee for Candace Coleman), Lee Ann Reinert (Designee for David Albert), Rachael Ahart, Pete Dyer, James Hennessy
Minutes from December 16, 2024 Ad Hoc Workgroup - PowerPhone Incident Codes and Third-Party Callers Meeting
- James Hennessy motioned for approval of meeting minutes from the ad hoc work group on December 16. Jessica Gimeno seconded. Motion carried.
- Members present and voted to approve: Rachael Ahart, Cindy Barbera-Brelle, and James Hennessy
- Members present and abstained: Jessica Gimeno (Desigee for Candace Coleman)
State Updates: No updates.
Recommendations from Ad Hoc Workgroup Meeting - PowerPhone incident codes
Summary of the Workgroup Meeting on December 16, 2024
- Lorrie Jones described how group (of PSAP reps, advocates, and people with lived experience) reviewed 80+ PowerPhone protocols/incident codes to determine which are most likely to involve mental health/should be included in the pilot to receive an alternative response. Also reviewed 12 jurisdictions and how they currently respond to behavioral health incidents.
- Lorrie Jones highlighted the list of jurisdictions that the ad hoc workgroup reviewed.
- There were some overarching issues that were identified in the ad hoc workgroup meeting.
- Criteria for Calls Ruled Out for Transfer to 988 and MCRT for a Behavioral Health Response
- Crime in Progress, Active Use of Weapons, Medical Issues/Injuries, Immediate Threats to Life/Property
- Definitions to Help Distinguish Between Types of Calls Transferred to 988 and MCRT
- Operational definitions for unusual behavior, lethal and non-lethal weapons
- Reassignment of Risk
- Flexibility for Telecommunicators re Dispatch/Response Type based on observations and information gathered during calls
- Use of Alerts in Protocols
- Alerts are intended to ask Telecommunicators to consider the possibility of a potential behavioral/mental health component in relation to three specific incidents: Domestic Violence, Criminal Damage and Elevator Rescue. Protocols with Alerts are not automatically linked to the Mental Health protocol. Telecommunicator may access the mental health protocol using their discretion.
Overview of Ad Hoc Workgroup Recommendations
- Six of the Nine PowerPhone Protocols displayed in the table are recommended for inclusion/Bridge to the Mental Health Protocol
- Three of the Protocols contain an Alert which does not result in an automatic bridge to the Mental Health Protocol: Domestic Violence, Criminal Damage and Elevator Rescue.
- Protocols that will include a question to bridge to mental health protocol (after rule-out questions asked)
- Interim Risk Level 1 (a situational assessment by the call-taker may result in re-assignment of risk level)
- Public Disturbance
- Welfare Check
- Suspicious Person
- Abandoned Person
- Interim Risk Level 2 - 4 (a situational assessment by the call-taker may result in re-assignment of risk level)
- Public Indecency
- Trespass
- Alert only
- Domestic Disturbance
- Criminal Damage
- Elevator Rescue
- Questions from the committee
- Jim Hennessy: I think the protocol cards do a very good job of navigating the call takers of where call falls on the risk level so I feel what's missing is helping the call takers figure out if this is something with the appearance of mental health.
- Motion: Jessica Gimeno motioned to approve these recommendations. Pete Dyer second. Motion carried.
- Brent Reynolds before the vote: I am concerned this is a recommendation with less than a good cross section of the state of Illinois' 911 system, law enforcement and fire and EMS input. I am hesitant to put the recommendation forward at this point.
- Members present and voted to approve: Rachael Ahart, Cindy Barbera-Brelle, Jessica Gimeno (Designee for Candace Coleman), James Hennessy, Brent Reynolds, Bobby Van Bebber, Brittany Watson, David Albert (Designee-Lee Ann Reinert), Justin Houcek, Pete Dyer
- Members not present at Dec. 19 meeting: Blanca Campos, Drew Hansen
Subcommittee Comments Post-Vote
- Lorrie Jones: Brent, this is a pilot for twelve PSAPs. We will gather information and make changes necessary to move forward. I would like to follow up with you about how to bring folks along on this process.
- Brent Reynolds: I voted in the affirmative because I understand that its a pilot and if we don't move forward, we're delaying any progress. Maybe what the pilot progress flushes out will give us a better idea of what changes need to be made and maybe that will spark participation.
- Lorrie Jones: We are in step with what is happening nationally. I know that's not the same as having the PSAPs across the state on board. I think change is difficult but there is precedent for what we have decided to do. We will collect data for our own state and its an iterative process so we will make changes.
- Rachael Ahart: This is the first time I've seen the information presented in this way after the workgroup. I approved for this moving forward for the pilot also but I'm looking at the public indecency and trespass which has been listed under risk level 2-4. My understanding is that if it's 2-4, it would not meet the criteria for transport to 988. And if that's the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be more clear to present those items under alert-only, just like domestic disturbance, criminal damage, and elevator rescue, as a reminder that law enforcement on scene can request MCR if warranted. Just something to look at or consider as we go forward if we're identifying in the pilot that those types of calls are not meeting the criteria to be eligible for transfer.
- Lorrie Jones: We will consider that and see how to make it more clear. The only difference is not a transfer. Level 2-4 is a bridge to the protocol, not a transfer to 988.
Update on Work with Protocol Vendors (Cindy Barbera-Brelle)
PowerPhone/Total Response
- Mary summarized progress about starting PowerPhone pilots at the end of January: finalized recommendations from Ad Hoc Workgroup to PSTSC Workgroup; completed successful Denver STAR presentation on 12/12; continuing to train pilot participants; and working on updating software for all PSAPS participating in the pilot.
- We will meet with the PSAPs taking part in the pilots on January 7 for further discussion about the pilots, the process, the data, and supplemental/additional training needs.
Priority Dispatch
- Meeting Friday December 20th to continue work to crosswalk Priority Dispatch Protocols to IRLM risk factors and acuity
- Identifying Pre-test and Pilot Sites
APCO
- APCO - Continued review of protocols
- Identifying Pre-test and Pilot Sites
Discussion
- Jim Hennesy question: From the pre-test, I remember after it was done, it was said that the data showed that there wasn't as many calls flagged for 988 that is also shown by national data, so it was under the 3-5% they wanted. There were some negative connotations to that like something went wrong during the pre-test, and if we're looking at national data for people who have mobile crisis response, isn't most of the MCRT teams that are being utilized in major metropolitan areas different than small communities where at least one of the pre-test was? Where the data wouldn't align.
- Mary Smith: I don't think its a negative connection, but just an observation. What we found from other jurisdictions is that it takes a period of time to see an increase in referrals.
- Cindy Barbara-Brelle: A big part of that is getting the word out to the community so that they're aware that these resources are available to them.
- Lorrie Jones: We will be tracking that in the pilot; the pilot will be intentional in trying to reach/represent different kinds of communities.
- Cindy Barbara-Brelle: The objective of the pilot is to get a pilot PSAP in each region, so we are getting coverage across the whole state. In some cases, there are not a lot of APCO users so regions wouldn't be represented.
- Justin Houcek: First, I found the presentation to be informative. I recommend that if you haven't seen it to watch it. Number two, could someone help explain the automatic bridging or linking? Is there any AI involved?
- Lorrie Jones: There's no AI involved. What the bridge means is that each protocol has a set of standardized questions typically sequentially. There are rule outs like if a crime is involved that are earlier in the questions. After they go through their routine questions, there is a mental health question that is added, they then define it with examples. That represents the bridge over to the mental health protocols.
- Justin Houcek: What is automatic mean?
- Lorrie Jones: It means that the questions are included in the protocols.
Next Meeting Date:
Meetings are held virtually 2:30-4:00 PM on the first and third Thursdays of each month, unless otherwise noted.
Public Comment:
* Shelley Dallas: Thank you for the Denver Star presentation, it was very beneficial. There's been a ton of work over the last two years and just the last two weeks. I think its important to note that even in Denver Star team was formed prior to a lot of the dispatch changes being made. The resources were already in place prior to the dispatch changes so that is one of the difficulties with the state of Illinois. And also the state of Illinois is looking at the this on a much larger scale. Denver was very specific with their needs and resources and Illinois will look so different across the state. It was also interesting to note that they don't use standard protocols. It will be interesting to note as we move forward that these have been embedded and will take time to change. We don't want to rush this, we want to make sure we get it right.
Adjournment: Cindy Barbera-Brelle adjourned the meeting at 3:17 pm.
