CESSA Protocols and Standards Subcommittee Meeting - Approved Minutes 08/07/2025

CESSA Protocols and Standards Subcommittee Meeting - Approved Minutes 08/07/2025

Time: 2:30-4:00 pm

via Zoom

Call to Order/Review of Official Notices (Cindy Barbera-Brelle)

  • Meeting called to order by Cindy Barbera-Brelle at 2:31 pm (via Zoom)
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle reviewed OMA Official Notices
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle reviewed the agenda and noted that there will not be an action item on the revised IRLM today.

Roll Call (Sarah Ferguson)

  • Members present: Cindy Barbera-Brelle (designee for Alicia Atkinson), Rachael Ahart, Allie Lichterman (designee for David Albert), Blanca Campos, Jessica Gimeno (designee for Candace Coleman), Justin Houcek, Brent Reynolds, Bobby Van Bebber, Pete Dyer
  • Members absent: Drew Hansen, James Hennessy
  • Quorum is present.

Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes (Sarah Ferguson)

  • Approval of minutes from July 10, 2025
    • Bobby Van Bebber made a motion to approve the minutes; Allie Lichterman seconded the motion
    • Members who voted to approve: Cindy Barbera-Brelle, Rachael Ahart, Allie Lichterman, Blanca Campos, Pete Dyer, Jessica Gimeno, Justin Houcek, Brent Reynolds, Bobby Van Bebber
    • July 10, 2025, minutes are approved

State Updates (Allie Lichterman)

  • The CESSA amendment, SB2500, was signed by the Governor.
  • It added language for how MCRTs can work with law enforcement during an involuntary transport or commitment process.
  • The CESSA implementation deadline has been pushed out to July 1, 2027, to scale up sustainably and effectively for full implementation.

Pilot Updates (Cindy Barbera-Brelle)

Total Response and Priority Dispatch

  • Evaluation period is in process
  • Weekly meetings continue with Priority Dispatch PSAPs
  • Bi-weekly meetings continue Total Response PSAPs, Centerstone and MCRTs
  • CESSA implementation Level 1 operations continue

APCO

  • Kick-off Meeting in June
  • Convened second planning meeting with three PSAP pilot sites July 8th
    • Guidance Documents
    • Flowcharts and other resources
    • Training
  • Weekly meetings with PSAP Administrators
  • Convened first meeting with MCRT sites
  • Discussed upcoming APCO pilots with Centerstone
  • Working with APCO and sites to finalize use of protocols and reporting

Continued planning for CESSA implementation

  • Reviewing pilot data
  • Working on proposed updates to the IRLM
  • Developing roll-out plan for expansion

Interim Risk Level Matrix Discussion (Dr. Mary Smith)

Background and Timeline

  • When we met in June, we talked about the possible need for additional meetings, so that's the meeting scheduled for August 14
  • We have a lot of steps to be completed before we can start the next wave of CESSA implementation so that's why we have such an aggressive timeline for updates.
  • Timeline of IRLM updates
    • Overview of IRLM Update Process - August 7, 2025
    • Review of Updated IRLM and Discussion - August 14, 2025
    • Feedback Submitted - August 19, 2025
    • Discussion and Possible Call for a Vote on Updated Risk Level Matrix - August 21, 2025
  • One of the things we want to ask is to socialize the information we go through next Thursday so we can get feedback and have that feedback submitted timely so we can edit incorporate into the version.
  • The deadline for members to submit feedback is August 19, 2025.

Approach to Amending the Illinois Risk Level Matrix (IRLM)

  • Reviewed other risk level matrices nationally
  • Reviewed previous commentary on the IRLM from this Subcommittee, as well as the SAC and I think the RACs
    • There's been lots of discussion about the IRLM over the last two years, and feedback from the SAC and RACs. We went through and reviewed the minutes from this committee and the SAC to ensure we addressed comments that had been made previously.
  • Reviewed information garnered from the pilot, which includes the need for better definitions and how to distinguish which calls can be transferred
  • Created an 'internally consistent' document (all factors addressed across all levels)

Issues Discussed in PSTSC and SAC

  • Issues that have been addressed in the update
    • Levels 1 and 4 are clear-cut; Need to distinguish between levels 2 and 3 in terms of risk and response type
    • Florid psychosis and medical jargon, too confusing; Describe behavior instead
    • Who dispatches MCRT
    • How will changes be made to the IRLM
    • Co-response is currently a response type for level 4 (urgent risk), but not reflected in the IRLM
    • Definitions to Help Distinguish Between Types of Calls Transferred to 988 and MCRT
    • It needs to be clear when a non-law enforcement response instead of a law enforcement response is appropriate
  • Issues that are still ongoing
    • Gather feedback from 911, LE and EMS
    • Variability in resources availability in rural and urban areas that affect response type. Need to be able to address this issue.

Summary of Improvements: Updated Factors

  • The below current factors were not in every level, but in the revised version they will be.
  • Current factors
    • Threats to life and property
    • Weapons
    • History
    • Intoxication
    • Aggression
    • Unknown Status
    • Psychosis
  • Proposed new factors
    • Threats to life and property
    • Weapons
    • Violence (formerly aggression)
    • Criminal Activity (new category)
    • Mental State and History (merged psychosis and history)
    • Intoxication
    • Unknown current status/well-being check

Additional Significant Changes

  • Defined co-responder models (non-law enforcement, law-enforcement)
  • Introduced diversion into language on Criminal activity
  • Changed response times to expand use of 'up to 60 minutes response times'
    • We did this because, for example, we know 30 minutes is not going to work in rural areas.
  • Defined when MCRT should respond to Unknown status/well-being check
  • Removed use of 'psychosis' term and replaced it with symptom description
  • Removed verbal aggression in Level 4 and moved to Level 3
  • Offered examples of non-lethal weapons
  • Classified domestic violence calls as requiring law enforcement response

Discussion

  • Justin Houcek: It seems like its not static and its slightly flawed right now. When will we know about the data? Measuring the data isn't going to correctly represent what has occurred.
    • Mary Smith: That's a good question. The whole purpose of the pilots was to collect data and to determinate how the IRLM was being used by the PSAPs who participated in the pilot . As part of that process, we've been collecting both qualitative and quantitative data. So that's part of the information being used to update the matrix. So, we have tested the matrix and come up with proposed changes.
    • Blanca Campos: Would you be able to resend the current matrix and the updates that you talked about? I want to make sure that I use the most up to date information available.
  • Mary Smith: We can send the matrix dated 3-21-2024 and can also send this PowerPoint.
  • Brent Reynolds: I want to express how important it is to have the flexibility in this matrix and that I'd be surprised if we had a static matrix in the first five years. I think there will be things that happen that will influence it, and we don't have all the data necessary to lock it down. We need it flexible and adaptable.
    • Mary Smith: The response times and response type are flexible based on what's available in each area.
  • Jessica Gimeno: In the past, when the data was presented about the pilots, there wasn't a denominator. We heard calls transferred from 911 to 988 but not the total number of calls. So, we are using the current IRLM but it might give impression of the rates that don't affect reality.
    • Mary Smith: We are also looking at the pilot evaluation and data now. We have not finished the total evaluation to be able to give you the denominator. We expect the evaluation by August and presented in September. It takes a long time to see changes in something as big as the CESSA process. If you look at other jurisdictions, it took a long time for people to change processes they've done for years.
  • Jessica Gimeno: It would be hard to give input on the IRLM if we haven't seen the data from the pilot yet.
    • Mary Smith: I don't think that the pilot evaluation will give you the information you need because it's such a slow uptake.
    • Jessica Gimeno: Is it possible to revise it again in the future?
    • Mary Smith: This is probably not the last change we will ever see to the risk matrix.
  • Allie Lichterman: What data do you expect from the pilot, the number of transfers aside? Is it going to be qualitative findings? Are there going to be quantitative findings? What are the categories that you that you think will be shared? It's just if more information analysis from the pilot is coming, making choices from the pilot without that analysis is feeling hard.
    • Mary Smith: We're still in the midst of analyzing the data. We've only done some initial basic analyses. The plan is to complete the analysis and the evaluation this month, and to be able to present that information. It's both qualitative and quantitative data.
    • Allie Lichterman: I think the concern is that presentation could have big insights that could influence how people feel about the matrix that they're not going to have access to before voting.
    • Mary Smith: I don't expect it to impact the risk level matrix. You know, one of the things that we've been doing is looking at the data and looking at some of the qualitative things that we've collected actually are more interesting or have a greater impact on the update to the matrix. These are things that we heard during our regular meetings with the PSAP and things that we've taken into account when we put together the suggested changes. I feel confident that we've tried to take into account the information that we've been collecting all along from folks about updating the matrix.
  • Jessica Gimeno: Is there a reason for the rushed timeline?
    • Mary Smith: Well, the urgent event for us is that behind the scenes there's a lot of work that has to be done to prepare for implementation. It's not just revising and approving the risk level matrix. If there is an impact in terms of the software, we're working with vendors who have proprietary software. We have to go back to those vendors to talk about what the changes are. The changes have to be made at that level and then rolled out to each individual PSAP currently participating. Then, we need to work on rollout, recruiting new folks to participate, and training them.
  • Justin Houcek: I'm interested in what you learned from other states and if we can learn from them, what we're doing differently?
    • Mary Smith: We went back and compared the language. Most states use 4 levels. Illinois and Virginia and I think Los Angeles are really leaders in this arena. There are some that aren't called a risk level matrix. Virginia is similar, their level 1 recommendation is a 988 response instead of mobile crisis. Our initiatives are similar but also different.

Next Meeting Dates

  • August 14, 2025, 2:30 - 4:00 pm, via Zoom
  • August 21, 2025, 2:30 - 4:00 pm, via Zoom

Public Comment

  • No hands raised.

Adjournment

  • Bobby Van Bebber made a motion to adjourn the meeting; Pete Dyer seconded the motion.
  • Voted to adjourn: Cindy Barbera-Brelle (designee for Alicia Atkinson), Rachael Ahart, Allie Lichterman (designee for David Albert), Blanca Campos, Jessica Gimeno (designee for Candace Coleman), Justin Houcek, Brent Reynolds, Bobby Van Bebber, Pete Dyer
  • Cindy Barbera-Brelle adjourned the meeting at 3:23 pm.