CESSA Training and Education Subcommittee Meeting - Approved Minutes 02/25/2025

CESSA Training and Education Subcommittee - February 25, 2025, 10:30 am - 12:00 pm

Meeting Minutes - Approved by Members 03/25/2025

The meeting was called to order by Tanya Cooley at 10:32 a.m., who reviewed the OMA procedures, meeting logistics, and agenda.

Present: Michelle Churchey-Mims (Designee for Blanca Campos); Robert "Bobby" Van Bebber; Rachael Ahart; Emily Miller; Tanya Cooley (Designee for David Albert); Jessica Gimeno (Designee for Candace Coleman)

Absent: Emily Miller, Cindy Barbera-Brelle (joined late)

New Business #1: Committee Co-Chair Discussion and Vote (Tanya Cooley)

• Candace Coleman (Designee Jessica Gimeno has agreed to serve as Committee Co-Chair
• Robert Van Bebber made a motion to make Candace Coleman (represented by Jessica Gimeno) Co-chair of the Committee; Michelle Churchey-Mims seconded the motion.
  • Approved by Tanya Cooley, Jessica Gimeno, Robert Van Bebber, Michelle Churchey-Mims, and Rachael Ahart
  • Not present at vote: Cindy Barbera-Brelle and Emily Miller
• Motion carried. All present members voted to approve the new Co-Chair role for Candace Coleman/Jessica Gimeno.

Roll Call and Motion to Approve Minutes from February 11, 2025 (Jessica Gimeno)

• Michelle Churchey-Mims made a motion to approve the minutes; Robert Van Bebber seconded the motion
  • Present and approved by: Tanya Cooley, Jessica Gimeno, Robert Van Bebber, Michelle Churchey-Mims, and Rachael Ahart
  • Not present at vote: Cindy Barbera-Brelle and Emily Miller

Old Business #1: Pilot Core Training Updates (Terry Solomon)

• New training due date for Total Response (formerly PowerPhone) Pilot Sites: February 28, 2025 (originally January 31, 2025)
• On January 14, the training requirements were reviewed with MCRTs serving the APCO and Priority Dispatch Pilot PSAPs. The course is scheduled to be completed on February 28th.
• As of February 24th, 2,843 courses have been completed. Seventeen individuals have requested and received exemptions
• Cumulative Number of Participants Attending Each Pilot Core Training as of February 20, 2025:
  • In the bar graph, each pink/purple value represents the total number of participants in each training as of February 20th
  • Ex. 657 individuals have completed the IL Emergency Crisis System & CESSA training
  • The other color values represent the total participants at any given time period
  • Updated numbers to be provided at the March meeting.

Old Business #2: 911 Revised De-escalation Training Plan

• The Crisis Hub is working on the content with a CIT trainer from the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board and an identified expert consultant.
• The replacement course for the existing de-escalation training is in progress. Updates will be provided in future meetings.
• Rachael Ahart: Is the de-escalation for 988 operators?
  • Terry Solomon: It will be for the telecommunicators and 988.
• Rachael Ahart: Is there a reason you wouldn't use de-escalation training for telecommunicators that already exists? Have you looked into those as an option? Are you using a preexisting curriculum?
  • Terry Solomon: We haven't determined that. We probably will build a new one, because of the feedback we received, that individuals are asking for scenarios to address Risk Level 1. We will share the information and get feedback to see if this info is appropriate for 988 and MCR. We're looking at how to do warm handoffs and creating different scenarios when the telecommunicator receives a call from someone in crisis who is on the ASD. How do you handle those calls? Because as I've looked at some of the curriculums and contents from some of the telecommunicator training; it's focused on a law enforcement perspective as opposed to dealing with calls that a telecommunicator might hand off to 988.
• Tanya Cooley: My understanding is that the current de-escalation training is more for in-person/CIT officers, whereas the telecommunicators want training on how they handle phone calls.
  • Rachael Ahart: There are a lot of existing de-escalation trainings, though, that are purely geared towards a phone call or not in person. But I don't think that would still hit what they're asking for, since they want more of that scenario-based handoff. So, it seems like whatever de-escalation program you would choose, you would still need to sort of add your own information to that curriculum.
  • Terry Solomon: Yes, that is correct.

Old Business #3: Learning Management System - Articulate 360

• The new learning management system will allow for interactive course content, knowledge checks, and customizable reports to track learning.
• At the March meeting, there will be a short user experience demonstration.

New Business #2: Proposed Revisions to the Core Training Plan

• Effective July 1, 2025: every MCRT, 988, and PSAP staff will be required to take the core CESSA trainings
• Proposed due date for new staff hired after July 1, 2025: 6 months from their start date
• Proposed due date for existing staff: 9 months from July 1, 2025
• The due date for agencies in phase 2 implementation of protocol changes is to be determined, but it will be sooner than 6 or 9 months. It will line up with the phase 2 implementation timeline.
  • Sarah Ferguson: We want everyone to start training in July, but if folks are tapped for the second phase of implementation, they will not have the full 6-9 months to complete training.
• For people who took training courses prior to June 30, 2025 (e.g. pilots), their next due date is 2 years from the completion date (either BHCH training or exempted training)
  • The pilots were required to take the courses. Individuals who have taken the courses will not have to retake them for two years.

Discussion

• Michelle Churchey-Mims: Everyone who's not in the pilot wouldn't be required to complete their core training until 6 months versus before going in the field.
  • Terry Solomon: They have up until 6 months to complete the training. Now, as an agency, you can decide. We're giving you flexibility. We don't know how you train your staff, but our expectation is that within 6 months of hire, they will have completed the training. But remember, they cannot go into the field until they complete their training. So if you want to say that, within 2 days of hire or as part of the onboarding process, they take all the courses, that's your call.
• Michelle Churchey-Mims: I think the slide is confusing, but to me, it looks like they don't have to complete the training until 6 months from their start date.
  • Terry Solomon: We can clean up the language. So, what we're saying is that they have until 6 months to complete the training. We're giving you the flexibility to decide how to onboard your staff when you want them to complete the training, but they have up to 6 months to complete the training.
  • Michelle Churchey-Mims: So maybe the language could be something like "6 months from their start date, however, new staff are required to complete core trainings before going into the field."
• Sarah Ferguson: Is that just for MCRT that new staff are required? Is that proposed language for 911 and 988 as well?
  • Terry Solomon: That was originally proposed for MCRTs because 988 through Vibrant has a different training program.
  • Michelle Churchey-Mims: It says that 988 are required to complete core training before answering calls. So, that would be the same principle that yes, they have 6 months from their start date. However, they're required to complete the core training before answering the calls.
  • Terry Solomon: Yes. And we do recognize that Vibrant has its own training process for onboarding. And so, again, we're giving you the flexibility as a provider to decide the onboarding process and how soon you want your staff to complete the training before they go into the field. But we're saying that within 6 months, the training must be completed.
  • Michelle Churchey-Mims: I thought it was clear. And then your last statement made me think that maybe it wasn't clear. The flexibility is really in allowing 6 months from a start date for that box to be checked, that your staff have completed the training. However, in order to provide services such answering calls and going into the field, the core trainings must be completed.
• Tanya Cooley: To clarify, what's being proposed is that 988 and MCR teams have to take the core trainings before they can go in the field and they have up to 6 months to do that.
• Tanya Cooley: Another area for clarification is that 911 doesn't have a timeline, but that's because the training is slowly being done with the PSAPs. Is that correct?
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle: Well, on the 911 side, we would just make this part of each system's own training, even though I have a legislative requirement to set up a telecommunicator training and certification program. Ultimately, those CESSA classes will either be blended into that or an adjunct opportunity that has to be completed. Now, I don't think it's reasonable/there's enough time to provide a 6 month [rule], that you can't answer any calls for 6 months, or until you get the training done, because there's a bunch of other things that go on besides just being able to handle mental and behavioral health calls.
  • Tanya Cooley: Yeah. Okay, so it'll just kind of be worked in with their training, like, if they have a yearly CIT training they have to do, it'll just kind of be slowly worked in the plan.
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle: Correct. I think we could give the new hires an opportunity to expose them as a part of their probationary period, and then the existing telecommunicators before they begin in the case of non-pilot locations as we roll out. We certainly want them to get the training done before. We'll give them plenty of notice. Honestly, they could start taking the training now unless we're anticipating any changes, and the only thing that we're really looking at changing is the de-escalation piece. Terry and I will have some further conversations about that and determine what makes sense to deploy to the 170 PSAPs we have.
• Rachael Ahart: What was the intention for the 6 or 9-month deadline? If we're saying that MCR can't go out into the field without having completed these, why are we putting a deadline and not leaving it up to the agency? Someone could get hired, not get through the training, and not be able to get out in the field.
  • Terry Solomon: At some point, the training needs to be completed. We say that, as a provider, you can determine how soon you want your staff to go into the field. We say new staff must complete the training before new staff can enter the field. If you want to take 6 months before you allow them to go into the field, that's up to you. If you want to do training within two days of onboarding, that's up to you. We're giving you the flexibility, the timeframe can be however long or short you determine.
  • Rachael Ahart: So, just to clarify, 988 call takers cannot answer the phones until they've completed their core training, and then the mobile crisis cannot go into the field until they've completed their core training.
  • Terry Solomon: Yes. One of the things we seek is consistency in information, in how we provide training under CESSA, so everyone needs to know about the Illinois crisis system. For the core courses, there are 6 or 8 topics where everyone needs to have the same information. Can you speak specifically to your concern?
  • Rachael Ahart: I guess my question is, for the group, is it easier/more streamlined for us to just put into place what these groups are not allowed to do until certain trainings are completed and then leave the timeframe up to the agency or the location? I don't really understand the hardline rule of 6-9 months. If we're saying, you know, mobile crisis response is required to complete core training before they can go into the field, I don't know if there are other pieces of their job that we may want to require training before they do. Like, will mobile crisis be answering phone calls or doing any sort of de-escalation via phone? If so, would that be something that they should complete trainings before answering calls? If that's what's being expected of 988, I guess I'm trying to get some more insight on why it was decided to have a 6-9 month rule as opposed to saying these trainings are required before XYZ.
  • Terry Solomon: Please email me your suggestions and recommendations so we can discuss them as a group in March.
• Kathleen Mcnamara: I am representing the police social work, co-responding community. Are the police social work co-responders expected/required to take these trainings?
  • Terry Solomon: Are you an MCR team?
  • Kathleen McNamara: No, I represent police/social work. My understanding is that in a situation in which a mobile crisis response team isn't available, the call might be switched back to 911, and they're going to ask to send the police if you can have a co-responder outside of the MCR team. So, I was just asking what that statute requires of us. Do we have to take these trainings?
  • Terry Solomon: First, I would like for you to email me your questions, concerns, and recommendations. Second, I will ask Cindy to respond to the co-responder model questions. Third, Kathleen, I would love to have you speak at the March meeting about the great work that you do so we can better understand.
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle: If the communities that the social workers serve are in place today, they will continue to be the first co-responders. It won't be, a transfer to 988, and then mobile crisis team, and they're not available and coming back to you. No, it will be the co-responder going first, assuming they're available. And I think Dr. Solomon is right. We probably need a bit more information. Are you guys 24/7 or work specific hours? The PSAPs that you're already working with probably have a good idea what your schedule is, when they can reach out to you, and maybe it's a reach out by law enforcement, they get on the scene, and they said, "We need a social worker to respond." It isn't changing. The only time that the PSAP should go then to a mobile crisis when they have a co-responder model is if the co-responder model isn't available. Does that make sense?
  • Kathleen McNamara: It does. I was just asking this question-so, if there's a 911 call, and it's a person in distress, we would normally go out with the officers; we wouldn't look to send that to the 988 system. My question is, if 988 received a call, and it really is appropriate for 988 mobile crisis response, but there is no one available to do that crisis response, my impression is that there might be a system in which 988 bounces it back to 911 for the usual police and co-response. My question was, in that scenario from 988 to 911, are we just acting as always, or are we somehow now acting as sort of quasi-mobile crisis responders? It's kind of a liability question, and I'm just trying to understand what you guys think about how we fit into this.
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle: The thing to ask is, how did 988 get the phone call? If the 911 PSAP gets the call, and there's a co-responding model in place, that's the direction they're going to go. If they know that the co-responder that's generally available locally is not available, then that transfer is going to go to 988 for MCR. Now, if someone called 988 directly, not 911, and they don't have an MCR available, they're going to have to reach back out to say, "We need a law enforcement response," or "We need a co-responder response," etc. A lot of this stuff will get fleshed out as we continue to do the pilots. So, the Total Response pilot is in full swing, we probably have 6 or 7 PSAPs that have significant time in, the pre-testers went right from pretest to pilot, and then we've brought in some new PSAPs that are just strictly doing the pilot where they're actually transferring the call to 988, mitigating, involving mobile crisis as necessary. Or if 911 gets the call and a co-responder model is in place, they're taking that route.
  • Kathleen McNamara: In some rural areas or just some very busy areas, we anticipate it could happen that 988 the call goes to 988 first, the call taker is trying to use all those wonderful skills of de-escalation, etc. However, they determined that this really could use a mobile response, but we don't have anyone available in the timeframe required. In that scenario, my impression was that it would go back to 911. And obviously, what I would say is, yes, if it goes back to 911, the police go, and they work their co-responder, normal co-responder model as normal. I just want to make sure that that is what you, good folks understand. And I'm just trying to make sure: were there any expectations of us as co-responders? Do I need to fulfill these trainings or do I need to do other things? Would we be considered almost quasi mobile crisis responders rather than police department co-responders?
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle: I think you're always going to be a co-responder. But I need to go back and look at my guidance documents and refresh my memory on that. And you raise a good point; we need to make sure that the guidance documents that we're providing to the 988 resources and to the 911 resources are very clear about when 988 gets the call, and there's no resource available, what's their next step? Is it to transfer it back or transfer it initially to 911? Of course, you can't just transfer a call from 988 to 911, it's not mechanically there. But we certainly can provide, you know, 24/7 direct transfer numbers for each of the PSAPs in the State, so they have that information readily available. They don't have to go digging for it. So, I think there's a little bit of a piece there that we need to do some more on.
  • Terry Solomon: Are you funded through DMH?
  • Kathleen McNamara: No, so for those of us who are municipal employees, we are paid by our municipalities to serve as police social workers or police social services workers. Those are police social work programs that are grant-funded, most of those through 708 boards and so forth. I am not familiar with any police social work unit that DMH or DHS funded.
  • Terry Solomon: Thank you for expanding our knowledge. We can connect and discuss your presentation at the next meeting and again clarify the issues raised in the email.
• Michelle Churchey-Mims: Are there reporting requirements for completing or sending back information about staff completing trainings within 6 months? I just wanted to clarify that before I sent my recommendations as to whether there is an administrative burden of needing to track and report what folks have completed within 6 months.
  • Terry Solomon: We are able to document in our system, particularly in July when we have our LMS ready for training. But currently, we document everyone who takes a course and send a weekly report to the Agency Supervisor for everyone who has taken a training on a weekly basis. My recommendation is for each agency to keep an internal record of individuals who are taking the trainings. Then, we can cross reference that with the Hub's information. It's important the agency have a system in place to track their staff as part of best practices at the agency level.

Meeting Calendar

• Tuesday March 25, 10:30 am -12 pm
• Tuesday, April 22, 10:30 am -12 pm
• Tuesday, May 27, 10:30 am -12 pm
• Tuesday, June 24, 10:30 am -12 pm

Public Comment

• Sarah Ferguson introduced Jessica Robinson, a new expert consultant who will weigh in from a PSAP perspective when revising training plans.

Adjournment

• Michelle Churchey-Mims motioned to adjourn the meeting, and Robert Van Bebber approved.