Good morning.

Good morning, ladies.

How are you?

It's a little bit more.

Um, unfortunately, Katie, I just shared a story uh with you.

Uh, Alderman Sparrow's, I don't know if you saw the news this morning yet that uh gentleman running for governor in Minnesota, the Republican candidate.

They found his daughter stabbed to death, and her husband is the suspect.

Oh no.

Oh, that's so unfortunate.

That's horrible.

It is so sad.

And that happened when did that happen this morning or yesterday?

Um, I think if they found her yesterday evening, but I I saw it on the news this morning.

Um, just in FYI, the meetings being taped just for everybody.

But I double uh would love to talk on uh offline about OEMC.

Um, because thank you, all of them for uh for connecting us uh with Director Bell does.

Uh hopefully they're getting some support today.

Thank you for that.

Yes.

Um, but I haven't checked the news this morning.

He's from Minnesota, do you say yeah, he's uh he's uh one of the uh Republican candidates.

Um they quickly uh said uh that the daughter's well his son-in-law is the suspect.

Oh my gosh.

Yeah, and she I I she's young, um, according to the story, the the news.

Um I think she was only in her 20s.

Yeah, that's that's crazy when you start um paying more attention in the news be right back.

Morning.

Hi, good morning, everybody.

Good morning, everyone.

I'll announce this tube is just to let everyone know here as well.

Um, I'm recording the meeting here.

That's and it's being transcribed, so thank you.

Sure.

We could start with the weather report.

It's sunny and almost 40 degrees out.

Gorgeous out.

I know.

It's so nice.

Feels like spring.

It's very I like woke up and I was like, oh my goodness.

This is maybe the groundhog was taking notes from the weathermen and maybe this year, maybe.

It's actually supposed I'm looking at the weather right now.

It's supposed to be really nice the rest of the week, and like not this Thursday, but the following Thursday, it says 60, so that's that's more spring.

40.

That's yeah, that's that's spring.

Yeah, exactly.

But that's Chicago for us.

Anytime it gets above 30, we are like, oh my god, it's like summertime.

I know.

That is that is very true.

Yeah, today I have like my big winter coat, and I'm like, I don't even need this.

So um Amy, you have been in Chicago too long if you think this is nice out.

Oh my god.

I know.

Um, yeah, no, I have been in Chicago for too long if I think this is warm weather, but it's you're you're officially uh Chicago and now.

Oh yes, so yes.

We're celebrating 40.

Yes.

And get out my spring coat.

If you're a Chicagoan, that means you're wearing shorts today.

Like honestly, though, yeah.

It's true.

I still have my heater next to me, and I'm still cold.

I don't know about anybody else.

It's so funny.

No, I'm like hot.

I wore a sweater and I'm like, I don't even need this today.

Well, I turned on the heat in my house and opened up all my drapes so the sun could just come in and and warm it up, and it's actually warmer.

I feel like one of the cats, they're all laid out in front of the window, and that's exactly where I set up.

I set up in front of my window with the sun coming in.

I'm solar powered.

I need positive energy.

I gotta drain it from the sun.

No, honestly.

All right.

I think we'll just give people a few more minutes to hop on here.

I do just want everyone to know that I am uh recording this meeting as well as it will be transcribed, um, just to give everybody a heads up on that.

All right, I think we can get started just kind of as people start to filter in here.

Um hold that up.

So okay, very good.

All right.

Well, I just wanted to go ahead and start by introducing myself.

I'm Amy Melanowski.

I work for uh Commissioner Donna Miller, um, who's kind of been co-tagging this task force with Alderman Tabaris, and we've been working with Katie Dunn from Chicago 77.

Um, you know, this is kind of the first task force of this um, you know, with violence against women.

So just really appreciate everyone being, you know, patient and working with us, and we'll kind of uh see how this goes.

This is the first working group meeting.

So um, I think I sent everybody the agenda, but I know Commissioner Degman will kind of be uh introducing herself as well, and then Katie Dunn has some presentations.

Um so yeah, Katie, do you wanna start off by introducing Commissioner Degman?

Or how do you how would you like to start?

Oh, sure.

Is Commissioner uh Degnan?

I'm sorry, oh great, there she is.

Um uh good morning, everybody.

My name is Katie Dunn.

Um we are so happy you could all join us.

This is the first effort in uh really of its kind of city, state, and county partners.

Um, so bear with us as we kind of uh try and meet with each one of you and keep everybody moving together.

Um Commissioner Dagnan is one of the co-chairs as well as Alderman Tabaris.

Um, and I'm not sure if Commissioner uh Gaynor has joined.

Um, but we're really excited to have all the men and commissioners who are joining this effort um to really help break down barriers and help us move everything forward.

Um so with that, I'll introduce uh Alderman Tabaris and then she can pass it over to Commissioner Degnan.

No, thank you, Katie.

Welcome everybody to our first working group.

Um, and thank you to everybody who's been working hard on this.

I I am looking forward to hearing our conversations and the dialogue and really want to thank all the hard work that Commissioner Degnan is doing, and I want to turn it over to her for a few words of remarks.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to our first task force meeting.

I think we're all looking forward to sussing out all of the issues in this space and then finding solutions for them.

I'm also uh grateful for Katie and Carmen who really spearheaded this whole working group between the city and the county and the state.

Um, and so kudos goes to you guys really for getting us here today.

And thank you to Alderman Tabaras also for being such a strong supporter in this space and um making sure that the city moves along and locks up with the county.

There's a lot of issues to address.

Um so I'm excited to get started.

Right.

Do you just want to call it to order?

You can uh um yeah, I can call it to order uh the hour of 10 a.m.

having been reached.

I now call our high priority court order working task group to order.

Um can you call the role, Amy?

Yes, and I just want to see is there any public testimonies today?

Anyone from outside this organization?

I don't believe that there was, so we should call it to order and then it starts and then we then we request public testimony once we're in order.

Because I don't think we're doing public um or I don't think we're doing calling calling to order, but not the um roll call, just because there's we don't know exactly like who is joining, but we can do that for next time.

But um, yeah, just to call to order, I think is great.

Perfect, done.

All right, and then uh I don't think we have any public testimonies.

So if that's the case, um if we want really quick, do we just want to go around and quickly introduce ourselves so everyone kind of knows who's on the high priority uh working group?

Um we can just kind of snowball.

So again, I'm Amy Melanowski.

I'm uh with Commissioner Dunham Miller.

Um I will pass it to uh uh Jack.

I'll pass it to you.

Hey, my name is Jack McNeil, legislative director for uh Commissioner Bridget Dugnan.

I'll pass it to my bot uh my colleague Bailey.

Hi, I'm Bailey Nelson.

I am chief of staff for Commissioner Degnan.

Um I will pass it to Cynthia.

Hi, good morning, everyone.

I am Sergeant Cynthia Flores with the Chicago Police Department um Victim Services Domestic Violence Program.

I will pass it over to Mariana Kirk.

Good morning, everyone.

Um Mariana Martinez, she her pronouns.

I am the assistant director for the um domestic violence and gender-based violence um unit under victim services.

And then if you want to pass it.

I will pass it to Latrice.

Yeah, you go.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Latrice Moram with the Chicago Fire Department and under the office of the first deputy.

And then Christopher, do you want to go next?

You're just next on my muted.

Sorry.

Okay, how about now?

All right, Chris Soderwin.

Um with the special events for the Chicago Fire Department.

I work out of the commissioner's office.

Jason Clark, would you like to go next?

Okay.

Um everybody, I'm Lieutenant Jason Clark.

I work in intergovernmental affairs in the uh legal affairs division for the office of superintendent.

And I'm gonna pass it to one of my favorite people, Renata Steele.

Or not a you knew I was gonna be here, right?

Thank you, Lieutenant.

That's very nice of you.

Um hi everybody.

Um good morning.

My name is Renata Steele, and I am the senior division attorney in the domestic violence division here in Cook County.

Um, and I work alongside presiding judge Judith Rice.

And I will pass it to my colleague, Rebecca Barboza.

Thanks, Renata.

Hi, everybody.

Rebecca Barboza with Maximized Good.

I am a consultant supporting Chief Judge Beach um throughout his transition into the office.

And I will turn it over to Fatrice.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Patrice.

I'm the Chief Deputy Clerk of Domestic Violence, where Mariana Sparapulis is the clerk of the circuit court.

And I will pass it to Catherine Pellick.

Good morning, everyone.

Um my name is Catherine.

I also go by Katie Pellick.

Um, she, her pronouns.

I am the supervisor for the public defender's office at 555 West Harrison.

Um, and I will pass it to my colleague who I believe is present, uh Charlon Grace.

Thanks, Katie.

Hi everyone, Charlotte and Grace.

Um on the policy team at the public defender's office.

And Katie and I are gonna be trying to make sure we cover this as I have to go to legislative sessions on some days of these meetings, and she has to go to court to support our attorneys some days of these meetings.

Um and we're getting to that point in the names where I'm not 100% sure who hasn't gone.

So I'll just let someone who hasn't gone jump in.

I'm sorry about that.

Hi, I'm Hadna Veerley, uh Chief of Staff to Commissioner Gainer.

And um I think my colleague Emily is on as well.

So uh I can pass it to her.

Hi everyone, Emily Bellini with Commissioner Gaynor's office.

Um let's see, who has not gone yet?

Ummissioner Miller's on, so maybe pass it to her, Emily.

Okay, Commissioner Miller, go ahead, pass it to you.

Thanks, everybody.

Good morning.

Having technical difficulties.

It looks like we have such an amazing all-star cast here.

So thank you all for being here.

I'm Commissioner Donna Miller.

And I'm Brian CC, Director of Policy for Commissioner Miller.

Hi, everyone.

Who hasn't gone?

I haven't gone.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Tanae McCoy Cummings.

I am the deputy chief of the Special Victims Bureau at the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

Nice to meet you all.

Hi, I'm Sarah Smith.

I am a senior public policy manager with the Cook County Sheriff.

Um right now I'm the only one from the sheriff on this, but uh we'll bring other people who are more uh subject matter experts on as we do our work.

Okay, wonderful.

Has anyone not uh introduced themselves?

Uh I'm Carmen Dracone.

I'm a volunteer uh with Chicago 77.

Uh worked with uh county government, both the sheriff's office and the clerk of the circuit court um for over 31 years and very uh happy to be doing this work in this space with everyone.

So thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Kieran Gupta.

I'm an attorney with the Illinois Attorney General's office uh in the special prosecutions bureau.

Wonderful.

I guess I'm left.

Um I am Mary Ann McKeever.

I'm the assistant director of 911 operations for the city of Chicago.

All right, I think that's everybody then.

Well, it's great to meet you.

I feel like I've been emailing with everybody, so it's great to put a face to the names, which is which is really nice.

Um and yeah, I'm also really excited to have this be the first uh working group.

And I think we can go ahead and get started.

Katie, did you say you had a presentation that you wanted to present just as like an overview?

Yes, if you don't mind, I just um need to be able to share whenever we get a chance.

And I could just kind of start.

Um so um uh just to reiterate my name, uh, my name is Katie Don Carmen and I, and um uh our kind of our our third counterpart, Sarah Brown, who's a survivor of the system, um a survivor of domestic violence.

I've been working really in in tandem trying to get this um uh off the ground and just be able to help facilitate.

Um Commissioner Miller is on this, and uh Alderman Tabaris who were uh the first two people we spoke with.

So thank you so much.

It's it's honestly hard to believe we're actually here.

Um what we did um with with the help of these amazing women and and Commissioner Degnan, everybody who who has since helped us is really try to speak with as many people, as many offices as possible, um, but most importantly as many survivors of the system.

Um so we've spoken to about a hundred survivors and about 200 people um across city, county, and state governments, um, just off the record conversations, getting advice, trying to really map out the systems and the departments, um, and just really trying to figure out what where um some of the barriers are.

Um as soon as I uh I can share, I'll I'll start kind of going through, but just to give um a little bit of a background.

Um we have um an amazing uh decrease in violent crime in Cook County uh due to so many of you.

Um but unfortunately we continue to have increases in gender-based violence and just overall victimization of women.

Um, and so uh to us that's that's more indicative of something that's not just done uh through a criminal justice system, it's really uh much larger than that.

Um, and so um even the criminal justice reforms are not necessarily uh um making much of a difference in this world because it's a much larger scope um than just criminal justice.

So just to kind of give everybody a breakdown.

Um, unlike um say criminal justice or other systems, uh violence against women really goes across the state, city, county, and local departments, the federal government too, if if you know, uh on a good day.

Um, and so everybody has different statutory responsibilities or tools that they offer um victims, and really there has not been much coordination um on all three levels before.

Um, so um what we're trying to do is get everybody together to convene to to hear the ideas that have been shared with us so far.

Um, we've mapped out some priorities, but this is really a working document.

Um, and we'd like to get everybody's input going forward.

Um, the goal here is to is to make connections to better coordinate, to share more information, to provide more transparency, uh, but really to take the input that we've received from so many victims and survivors um and try and fix the system.

Um so we know there's some some high priority cases in the news.

Um, but you know, every single day there's you know, hundred plus women that are getting orders of protection in Cook County.

Um there's 300, I think 53 calls for serf service for just um the Chicago police department.

Um this is you know a massive um issue and public safety issue and public health issue that's impacting all of our communities.

Um, and so uh we really appreciate everybody's help input.

We'll share our information.

We have a uh an email for all for everybody to um reach out to at any time.

We're gonna have uh individual meetings and then these group meetings um going forward.

We're trying to meet at least eight times before July when we have a series of public hearings scheduled from both the city council and the Cook County Board of Commissioners.

Okay, I could see I could share now, so I will uh get to the points here.

Um, and so we're really going to start from the beginning.

Some people were at the first executive meeting, um, but we are just going to reiterate uh quickly for everybody's because many of these people uh that are joining us today were not able uh to join that meeting, and really this is such an enormous system and enormous amount of information that we're just gonna um start from the beginning and um feel free, like I said, to reach out with uh any questions at any time.

Um so uh just to reiterate, it's after a uh many conversations.

We're trying to build a new model for a coordinated system, um, break down some of the barriers and create um more opportunities for for collaboration.

Um the Chicago Tribune reported that Illinois per capita rate of deaths caused by spouse or intimate partner exceeded the combined rates of the states of New York and California.

Um so this work is really important.

Um some partner agencies that will be working behind the scene um are listed.

We are um they are tasked with different responsibilities, and they are just um kind of initiating those those uh uh priorities as we speak.

Um government partners are the state of Illinois, Cook County government, city of Chicago governments, and local agencies.

Uh, I think there's 170 plus jurisdiction county.

So um fixing the system will help all of um the jurisdictions in um as well.

Um the city of Chicago probably has the best data in terms of domestic related data.

Um, and that's on a dashboard that I'll I'll share later.

Um, but what 2025 is telling us is that um while fatal shootings decreased 33 percent, fatal related shootings increased 50 percent.

Um so that's a stark contrast.

Um also in 2025 homicide victims in domestic cases were 71% African American residents, 17% Hispanic, Latino, and 10% white.

Um, so minority victims comprise 88% of all homicide victims in domestic related cases.

Um, and then as share, the Office of the Inspector General reports that uh on average there's 336 calls per day for service for domestic related calls for the Chicago police department.

This does not include Chicago Fire, who is also on the front lines of this crisis.

Um, and it's one in four of all priority level one calls.

Um this is the timeline that we'll be following um per the resolutions that were passed by uh the commissioners and and also all the men to bars on the city side.

Um so up until June we'll be meeting, trying to get defined these priorities, but also start um with what we can.

Um and then in June we'll be finalizing the official public report, and then in July, these public hearings will be held.

Uh the next iteration of this task force will be defined by everyone who's involved.

Um, but this really is is considered phase one of this, these efforts.

The main priorities is to create a unified victim-centered system.

Um, so some kind of umbrella that that brings everybody together.

Um another tenant of this is uh first responder safety and health.

Many of the um homicides, uh line of duty homicides were domestic calls.

Um, and we're also hearing that a lot of the mental health um um crisis that that's facing first responders.

Um we just heard from somebody yesterday that that's really equating this to domestic violence in their own lives or the the calls that they're responding to.

Um, and then also to reduce violent crime victimizations.

So the executive committee, which meets once a month, um, and that their next meeting will be Wednesday, and we'll share that information with everybody.

Um their task was really three main goals, and that's transparency, accountability, data sharing, and record access, and develop me, develop uh in a legislative agenda uh that we could take downstate or even in respective ordinances on city and county side.

Um so they're meeting once a month, and there's public um their public meetings Wednesday will be at the Cook County Board of Commissioners here uh boardroom at 10 a.m.

Um, and there is uh a really great expert panel joining us Wednesday, and also um we're lining up more for the coming months.

So the working groups, um there's six working groups.

Um the first one is why we're here today, which is high priority orders.

Um these the high priority orders um that were initially defined by the conversations and recommendations we had is to um look at the the orders that are most um that most um are impacting just the overall system and the ability to provide safeguards to women and uh all uh gender-based violence.

So the um the three orders are orders of protection warrants, um, and then the third um will be firearm uh enforcement.

So um many people have heard of Karina's law.

Um there's a lot of new legislative changes, um, some some really great efforts, some really great um progress.

Um, but from what we're hearing, it would be great to kind of get people more coalesce around these issues, share more data, um, and really start uh sharing more information with the public about these three areas.

Um just to start uh today, we're gonna start just with what are protective orders.

Um we have some experts on the call that that know this obviously much more than we do, but um, so kind of bear with us.

But this is uh this is just the basic overview of protective orders.

So it's documents issued by a judge that's set legal parameters intended to protect victims from future acts of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, workplace violence, threats involving a firearm, and or contact from their abuser.

A police report is not needed to file an order protection.

There's five different types of orders of protection.

Um, the most common would be the domestic violence or order of protection, which is what we'll talk about next.

Um, but there are these other four forms.

Um, each have different legislation around them, and some have some limitations in terms of the ability to be entered into the law enforcement database, the lead system.

Um of the legislative priorities will be to look at each one of these orders.

Um, and Commissioner Miller um is particularly focused on stocking contact order, which requires two instances of stocking documented before the order can be um accepted by the judge or approved by the judge.

Um that's something that um we'll be deliberating, but also um uh we'll we're hopeful to bring that down state in the coming months to kind of uh incorporate some of the input and some of the recommendations of this overall task force.

So for almost each of the orders, there's three types, the emergency order.

Um, and and Carmen, if you are on if you want to hop in here, but um emergency order for the most part goes up to 21 days.

Um, and then most cases, then that sets what ideally would happen would be the respondent would or the abuser would be served, um, and then a plenary hearing would be held.

Um, that plenary hearing could offer protections for up to two years uh to the victim.

Um that process is really integral to protecting everyone involved.

Um, so these are the initial steps to obtaining an order protection.

So once the case is filed with the clerk of the circuit court, the petition is heard by judge.

The judge will determine if an order protection is granted or if a future hearing must be scheduled with both parties.

The petitioner will receive a copy of all orders signed by the judge.

The orders are then sent to the Cook County Sheriff to serve to the respondent with a summons for a future court date.

And then the next hearing will determine the disposition of the order.

In most cases, it will determine how long the order will be in effect.

So in terms of the just initial conversation, like I said, there's a lot of information to dissect here, and for people that are not familiar with the system, um, a lot of information to process.

And so for today, we just really wanted to talk about the uh protective orders.

Um, and in future meetings, we could talk about the other uh high priority court orders.

Um the initial recommendations in terms of talking to um both survivors and um those in the system, subject matter experts.

So this is really a blueprint for every jurisdiction.

It's not just Cook County.

But the first goal would be to improve service rate and expedite service.

So the two main priorities for someone when they file an order protection is obviously that it's served, but also that it's served as quickly as possible.

Currently, by law, the sheriff gets the entire packet to serve.

So the order of the summons.

But local law enforcement officers are able to do what's called a short form notification.

And that's if the order protection is filed into the LEED system.

There's been some issues with data births, which have precluded about one in four orders from ever being entered into LEEDs.

And then, like I said, there's also some orders, uh types of orders that do not go into LEEDs.

So one is is really kind of looking at where we're at with the data.

There's also a data research working group.

We have Commissioner Dagnan has been really helpful trying to help us uh coordinate some conversations around data from the different departments.

Um but we're hoping to be able to give a little bit of a blueprint of what should happen and then and really uh match that with what where the data is at in Cook County and where we can build from.

So basically uh come up with a baseline analysis, and then hopefully going forward, we'll be able to track the progress.

Um the development of a high risk team, this is what most jurisdictions either have in place or are coordinating now.

There's not a one size fits all um, but there is a lot of research around different tools that are used.

Um so I'm gonna just jump ahead here.

The um the um the problem right now in Cook County is really the lack of data sharing, um, which would preclude this from being a potential possibility.

Um, but there's certain factors in really the timeline of domestic abuse that by research and by some you know um evidence-based tools can show that there's a higher likelihood for uh uh lethality.

And so because we have such a high homicide rate, this really needs to be a priority and discussed in Cook County.

And so what these teams would look like, they're multidisciplinary.

They each bring different um, you know, data sets and different backgrounds to the table.

Um, but one of the um one of the tools produces a victim um victim produced timeline um to flag, you know, basically if there are violence is escalating.

Um, and then really there's some um incidents such as uh a choking incident where uh someone loses consciousness where that is basically a red flag.

When that happens, um some research say that more often than not that person will be a homicide uh fatality.

So how can we not only put together these teams to analyze the information that we have, um, but also how can we educate victims and survivors as they're coming into the system about where the red flags are and what they need to be aware of for themselves of what is really dangerous um behaviors.

Um and we also want to do this without limiting services to other victims in need.

So this really needs to be supplemental to what's already um taking place.

Um kind of jumping back to orders of protection.

Some of the recommendations would be to improve the um uh numbers of orders served in open court by the judiciary.

Um this is a process that some judges are very, very cutely aware of, and then others are very um confused by.

Um there's been a few reports where um and I believe Black Club Chicago um has some reporting on this, um, but where when a judge served it incorrectly in open court, then it could not be enforced when the order was violated.

So we really want to look at how we can um flag orders of protection in the civil system for the criminal judges, and then really how we can share information with judges about how to um appropriately serve those in open court so they can be updated in leads as served and then therefore enforceable.

Um and then the interagency data center, which will really complement all the efforts of all of this, the task force is to uh is a collaboration with the data and research committee.

um flag orders of protection in the civil system for the criminal judges and then really how we can share information with judges about how to um appropriately serve those in open court um so they can be updated in leads as served and then therefore enforceable um and then the interagency data center which will really complement all the efforts of all of um this the task force um is to uh is a collaboration with the data and research committee and then just kind of initial um partnership would be all of these agencies and what that would do what that would look like is really similar to um the HIDA model for people who are not uh familiar with hide it's the high intensity drug trafficking area partnerships and that includes um some federal partnerships state partnerships county partnerships um and local government partnerships and what is just really either a literal or figurative place where all data um can be matched and transferred and shared among agencies and so um just in terms of say for the birth date example if somebody is filing an order protection or stocking a contact order on someone and they don't know their birth date um and if that order then cannot go into leads it's really not enforceable by law enforcement and so both the Secretary of State, the Cook County Clerk would be interested um have have said that they'd be interested in trying to help in that regard um and providing um some kind of either support or uh in kind positions to the this effort so that those dates of birth can be procured from their systems and verified and update updated so these orders can be entered into leads.

The Illinois state police is the repository for leads um and so um they're very important partner their data is um obviously statewide but they also produce the only county reports that that that I'm aware of um in all these conversations um so uh access to the state police's databases is is vital and they're really just the Chicago first responder data and the Cook County court system and so what we'd like to do is really just start to break down the data silos and have one place and one scope of work where data can so we don't really have you know some solidified plan but that is um something that we would like to discuss in these working groups and try and work towards um what that blueprint would look like um and how we could benefit everybody um uh we have some discussion questions but just kind of in closing um this is something that is you know survivor focused but um as someone who's worked in the criminal justice system I mean most of the the people in the programs that that I worked in you know had been victimized at some point where we're talking about first responders who are currently being um victimized this is something that's really endemic um it goes across the board um you know there's not just a certain population that we're focusing on we're really trying to look at this holistically um and figure out how we can um you know use start with government and work together to do a better job collaborating and the government front but then um also how we can um have government be better partners to some of these community providers and just develop more resources for for everyone who's in need um it's really the intersection of mental health of of economic you know disparities of racial and ethic disparities we discussed before um and so this is a problem that really is just going to take everybody at the table um to discuss and to come to try and and and work on some solutions to um together so Carmen I are here to facilitate Sarah will be joining I'm sure at some point um and we have um this great group of survivors that are also um helping to inform the system that we're going to be in constant communication with so um with that I will stop talking but these are some of the initial uh discussions that we wanted to have with this group um so I'll start with if there's any questions well first Katie can I just say thank you for that really comprehensive overview and we do have a lot of work to do and I'm sure that all of this is familiar to so many people in this group and that's why this is amazing time for us all to come together at one time to try to make an effort to fix some of these problems highlight some of these and be real you know uh advocates for the the victims and there's so many lines involved that we probably not going to get everything done in six months but at least it's a great starting point to continue the work.

So thank you thank you thank you for putting your heart and soul in this thank you.

There is too many people on the screen to I can't see if hands are up.

So if nobody if you have a question just shout out if not we'll just kind of get to some discussion points.

So the and in the chat too if anyone wants to put anything.

Oh sure that's easier.

That's easier.

Okay, fantastic.

Um, and so uh really we just want to hear what people's initial thoughts are.

Like I said, there's experts on this call.

Um, we have not had a chance to talk to everybody.

Um, we'd love to talk to uh to anybody that we haven't met with yet.

Um, but the um the subject matter experts having them on the call, such an honor.

So uh we would love to hear if you uh have any thoughts on the initial priorities and and if we're headed in the right direction.

Katie, this is Renata Steele.

Um thank you so much for for the presentation and for your efforts.

Um, and I wholeheartedly agree that there is a lot of work to be done on this issue.

Um I think it's helpful.

The only thing I wanted to add, I think it's helpful to also just keep in mind the things that when we embark on an endeavor like this to keep in mind what's been done in the past, what's currently happening, um, just so that we are efficient with our um time and our energy.

And so I just wanted to add a couple things that might be helpful for this group to consider.

Um, so one um in response particularly to like the, I think you called it the high risk team, but you know, to identify those cases that are particularly high risk because there are certain lethality factors that are present in those relationships, like either the use of firearms or strangulation, threats to kill, threats of suicide, things like that.

Um, and everything I'm about to say, I feel like can probably be supplemented by either the state's attorney's office, CPD or the sheriff's office, but I'll just at least start.

Um, so over the course of many years, the state's attorney's office and law enforcement, so particularly CPD have been involved in an MDT.

Through that MDT, they developed a partnership also with an advocacy agency, with two advocacy agencies, so lifespan and family rescue.

And they came up with a Chicago-based um risk assessment.

So there isn't really a great validated pretrial risk assessment that exists currently.

Um, and so the risk assessment that they came up with hasn't been officially validated, but it is an excellent risk assessment from like unofficial perspective, um, asks a lot of those questions.

And it is only being implemented in the CPD districts that have family rescue co-locating with them.

Um, because the idea is the last thing you want to do is ask someone all these questions, educate them on their level of risk, and then leave them alone without any support or wraparound services or how to respond to that risk.

Um so it's a really great system.

And the way that we've thought about it is it ideally it would be expanded across all CPD districts.

Obviously, funding is an issue and resources are an issue.

Um, but I think it's available currently in like four or five districts.

Um, and it also addresses one of the challenges in conducting a risk assessment, which is the best time to do it, just based on some of the research that my team has done nationwide.

The best time to do it is at the time of the offense when you have everybody present when you have victims input.

Um, because when you try to do it later down the road, it's difficult sometimes to get in touch with the victim, especially um in advance of first appearance court.

That is a particularly difficult time to get information from a victim, but judges are then making these decisions based on less effective risk assessments.

Um these CPD risk assessments are done on the scene um with an advocate present um with the victim's consent and are asked particular questions that then help identify whether or not they're um particularly um at risk of lethality.

So I think that is something that is you know, we should celebrate.

I think it's great.

I think we could build off of it because I really do think it's it's excellent.

I think we just need to expand its use.

The other thing I wanted to mention with regards to service, um, I would say over the last year or so, um, the county sheriff's department has poured a ton of resources into domestic violence.

And so they've added the domestic violence um victim services team, and then they've also increased their efforts on service by using sheriff's police to help civil process.

And so not only is the packet now going to civil process, but it's also being dispatched almost immediately to sheriff's police in the area where it needs to be served, and the sheriff's police is short form notifying respondents.

So we've we've at least anecdotally, and I think there is some data to support it, has we've seen a really significant increase in service.

Um, and then the other thing that I have heard, at least from the sheriff from the sheriff's office, um, with respect to the date of birth question or issue, which I agree is challenging for survivors who don't have the accurate date of birth.

Um, my understanding is that law enforcement does use all their access to nationwide databases and local databases to try to find that date of birth.

So they do some of their own research.

And if they can find a date of birth that matches the other criteria that are that's provided for a respondent, um, they will they will add that data birth.

Um so it can be entered into leads.

And then the last thing I wanted to say is as we're um working with survivors, um, you know, so my most of you probably don't know this, but so the majority of my background was representing survivors of domestic violence in protective order cases through legal aid.

So um a public interest attorney, and I've been in this role with the court for just four years and thinking about survivors.

Um, so if I was representing a survivor and they were speaking to something like this, particularly in public, um, just thinking about any collateral risk to them.

So, you know, if they have pending litigation or if they have allegations that are pending before the court, just being cautious about the things that they say to the public, because all of that can be used against them in court, also could um potentially incite some retaliation by a respondent.

So just being, you know, considerate and thoughtful and making sure that they're going into this very informed and aware of any risks that their participation might bring, and then um related to that, just verifying, like doing some research to verify, you know, just getting a full picture and what we're hearing from them.

Because I really, again, having worked with survivors for so many years, um, someone who's going through crisis has a very unique perspective on what they're experiencing, but there might be additional information that if we're really trying to do this like holistically and like with truly informed about where the gaps are, just making sure that we're verifying their stories because they might be confused, they might not understand.

Um, you know, they might have one perception of where the gaps lie, but in reality, if we do some, you know, some research on what actually went on in their case, we might identify some additional barriers that we need to address.

So sorry you guys, that was really long-winded.

I'm done.

No, that was great, Renata.

That's that's the conversation we're looking for, right?

That like that's why we're all here.

Not everyone has all the answers, but together we can figure out quite a bit.

So that was very helpful.

Thank you.

Um, Renato, I just have um one question.

Um, Amy Fox is presenting Wednesday um about the MDTs, but is that just for criminal cases.

Sorry, you're on uh mute uh right now.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Yes, I just noticed.

Um the yes, my understanding is that that MDT, and I've never been involved with that MDT, my understanding is that MDT is specific to prosecutions in Cook.

Um, but that's not to say that.

So my understanding is that even even though that MDT is specific to Cook, like the risk assessment that they developed can still be used in any case where somebody is calling 911 and law enforcement and Tana's on this call, she probably can speak so much better to all of us than I.

Um, but but the you know, the the risk assessment, as long as it's you know, in one of the districts that there is partnership exists, even if there isn't a criminal case moving forward, it can still be used with survivors that end up then coming in and getting a civil protective order.

So um just to kind of clarify, so if you came in to get an order protection, no 911 initiation or no police initiation, um, you wouldn't you wouldn't get assessed now with the risk assessment, like your order protection, it's not a lethal assessment on on orders of protection.

Not on so as part of that one, no, that's when you call 911 and CPD responds and it's in one of those districts.

When someone comes into the building at 555, and I'll speak just to 555 rather than the districts because they all operate a little differently, um, there is a screening process for survivors.

Um, and they do receive information along with a link to the um Jackie Campbell risk assessment that they can take.

But the goal is to connect people to services here too.

Um, and so we're very fortunate to have so many partner agencies in the building, so that we can we can help kind of triage.

We see ourselves as like an emergency room and somebody comes in and we deter help them navigate the system and connect them with resources when they need them.

Um, so at some point, there will likely be some type of risk assessment done and safety planning if we can get someone connected with an advocate, but even if we can't connect them with an advocate in the moment, um the courts litigant services associate team works really closely with the advocates that are on site and making a warm handoff to them.

So even if in the moment they can't get connected, um, make a warm introduction so that they can reach out to them afterwards and safety plan and receive ongoing services for like future court dates and things like that, and like bare bare minimum, like the very end of the spectrum is everyone gets the number for the Illinois domestic violence hotline and is encouraged to contact the hotline when they're coming in with any concern so that they can get a risk assessment through that and talk to someone about safety planning and kind of identifying what their hierarchy of needs is.

Because the other thing that I think is really important for us to remember is that you know, court is not going to be the best solution for every person at, you know, in at that initial point of crisis.

They might need housing, they might need transportation, they might need financial resources, they might need medical assistance.

So you know it's important for someone to be emotionally ready to come to court and to present their case, especially when we know that the majority of them are coming unrepresented.

Um and so, you know, litigating on your own behalf and in is about an issue that is is so emotionally charged is is challenging.

Um and so we also recognize just kind of you know, very survivor-led, letting people be educated on their options and be connected with somebody who can help them determine their hierarchy of needs and and an order of protection may not always be at the top of that list.

Okay, and then I'm not sure if if it's you or if I should ask um the representative from the sheriff, but um in terms of discord processes, I know there's different remedies the judges can't can initiate, you know, in an order or remand it in order.

Is there a uh difference between a short form like notification?

Is that less than ideal or is there um some issue with the remedies?

That's something that's come up a lot in discussions.

Um just leads doesn't have the remedies um for local law enforcement to share.

And does that have any legal implications?

So pursuant to the IDBA, a short form notification serves the same purpose as regular service of process um in terms of barriers to the short form notification.

I mean, so the remedies of the order should all go into leads.

Um and so I I didn't know this until maybe a year or two years ago, but um leads is just like essentially like an old DOS system.

So you're not uploading documents.

And so the leads clerks are the ones who are entering, and obviously, Katie, you know this, the leads clerks are entering, you know, just typing in what the remedies are.

And so my experience has been that they do that accurately, um, so that anyone who is looking in leads, any law enforcement agency that's looking in leads to determine whether or not there's an order of protection and what those remedies are, they're able to see what those remedies are.

And I think that is what law enforcement relies on when they're short form notifying somebody rather than having the order itself in hand.

Um and then the short form notification is you know, just one piece of paper, um, which I think that's the challenge is that you're leaving a respondent without the order itself, with you know, the onus on law enforcement to tell them what these remedies are, to check off those remedies on, you know, a sheet of paper that probably has limited space, um, and having the confidence that they actually have been um sufficiently notified of what they're subject to pursuant to that order.

And so I think some of the challenges come in where short form notification might be easier to challenge in the event of a violation.

Um, and so when the state, you know, the first the first statutory factor they have to meet is that the respondent had noticed and that they were they were served.

And so, you know, if there's any question as to what the respondents' understanding was of, you know, what or what they were served with or what they were notified of, then I think that is like a weak point.

Um, but I you know, I can't speak to how often it's it's a barrier.

I think service is um, like I said, short form notification satisfies service requirements.

Um, so I think it's better for respondents to know.

And the good thing is that law enforcement responds to orders regardless of whether or not they're served.

Um so they'll still come to the scene, they can inform if the respondent is there.

And but yes, no, I think that the best case scenario is serving someone with the full paperwork.

Um, but just being realistic, you know, of what we're working with.

Sure.

Short form is a good option.

Um, I just wanted to jump in really quick, uh, since we only have about 10 minutes left.

Um, are there any other agencies that kind of want to go over uh their initial thoughts or or anything?

Um, are there any other agencies that kind of want to go over uh their initial thoughts or or anything, and then we can kind of discuss, you know, uh assignments or kind of next steps for the next meeting, if that if that makes sense just in these uh last 10 minutes here.

Let's see what Sarah said.

Uh Sarah, I don't think from ISP uh to discuss leads, but I can follow that up with you.

Um I don't think they're on this call, um, but they are part of the project.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Cummings.

Hi, I just wanted to say I absolutely agree with everything that Renata said, and I just kind of wanted to put a pin in short form notification from a prosecution standpoint.

So we absolutely believe that short form notification um satisfies service, but where we sometimes see as issue is if that information is not put into leads or we are unable to get the short form notification.

So the way it works in prosecution is if I don't know who served it, then I can't prove up proper service.

So it's the kind of an unknown.

And that does happen sometimes in our cases.

Maybe that one piece of paper didn't arrive to the clerk's office.

It maybe didn't arrive to leads, maybe we're unable to determine the officer.

And then that's where we have an issue um with short form notification.

But the process itself is, you know, we want the respondent to be given that information.

And if it's not able to be absolutely served with the paperwork, short form notification is the secondary, but it's just the the follow-up that sometimes uh we have a difficulty in a prosecution standpoint.

Then Renata also mentioned MDT, MDT is a grant that we have um with regards to the risk assessment.

Everything she said was correct, but I also wanted to take note of suburban agencies in Cook County.

And so what we find is that there are risk assessments that are used there too.

Um a lot of different agencies use a lot of different risk assessments.

And so I just kind of wanted to acknowledge that in other uh locations with other police agencies, they are doing some type of risk assessment.

How the state's attorneys kind of use them is when we come to first appearance court.

So we will use the information that we get from whatever risk assessment to pretty much have a conversation with the victim and then acknowledge that, look into it and give that information to the judge.

So I just kind of wanted to explain how from the prosecution standpoint, we're able to utilize that information, especially when trying to determine whether we are going to go forward on detentions and kind of proven that up on whether we are going for conditions.

One more thing, I have a question.

When we talk about warrants, I just wanted to clarify.

Are we talking about warrants from a criminal standpoint when we are in cases?

So just make sure I understand the parameter when we say warrants.

Um we are gonna look at both sides.

So criminal warrants and now the civil um warrants that are, you know, are are being issued now at probably a higher rate.

Um and so we're waiting on some data because right now we just really don't have much to go off of.

So I think we're gonna put a pin in that until we get um just some numbers.

Um, but at last count, I think last time it was um shared publicly.

I think there was uh 40 plus thousand, and I think 7,000 were domestic related.

Um so obviously that's a high percentage of the amount of outstanding warrants um that would have been for mostly violations of orders of protection.

And so we just kind of want to dissect that data again.

Katie, I think you just went mute.

Oh, sorry.

Um my computer probably knows best to mute me.

Um, but yeah, that um so we're gonna try and and see what what data we can extract and then we'll go from there.

Um, but we'd love to know just like violation of order protection data.

Um and just talk to the law enforcement partners about you know, service, especially we know as Renata shared everybody shared, some of these are, you know, when you have this high risk, and then if there is a warrant issued, you know, how can we make sure that that warrant uh team understands the risk?

Um so just kind of trying to kind of kind of go through the system and figure out um how we can expedite in ways um that and I'm not saying it's not currently happening, it just um just to have the conversation or that everybody knows uh you know exactly the the risk and and and um especially when people are talking about firearms.

There's um, you know, Carmen ran uh the awards team for a long time at the sheriff's office.

I it's just a few things I can mention.

First I want to mention uh the short forms for us uh just so everybody knows um some of the issues I know we had with it was it was a two-sided document and the back side had the signature of the supervisors our sergeants were the ones that serve it um where they would sign it you would have the name um I know deputy director milstein uh we identified that that issue um sometimes it wasn't sent over properly and get both sides so we had some issues getting that stuff under the leads so he's reformatted so it's all on one page uh I'm not sure if that's rolled out yet or what the timetable is yet uh we can get that from him uh in a later meeting but uh that should solve some of those issues that we're having with short forms um and I definitely want to do uh deeper dive at least from CPD standpoint with Karina's law and just to talk about some of the challenges but also some of our successes too um I'm looking at getting the numbers of you know how many warrants we received how many were served how many weapons were recovered um how many negations we might have had extensions that were possibly required uh but just to kind of get into some of those challenges because you know we're always nervous when we have to get an extension because that means that that's longer until that order protection gets served.

So we want to make sure things are handled safely but they're served as soon as possible and we get those weapons as safely as possible too.

So definitely a deeper conversation in that and then uh the uh just a note on the risk assessment I was recently contacted by my counterpart at state police Captain John Thompson and he told me that there's a state initiative to make that risk assessment a statewide uh now they're gonna put it in a bill however they're gonna read I haven't uh seen the draft or any language on it but they want to mirror our efforts in the risk assessment and go statewide uh you told me there's some jurisdictions in the state that do use something similar um but you know we were kind of the pioneers in it um so those conversations are ongoing with deputy director Mike Milstein and his office so because that really is a it's a fantastic uh program um those risk assessments mean everything um not only from our side and how we handle the situation on scene but moving forward when it gets in the courts um but those are just a few things I wanted to mention I was gonna say thank you that was excellent and I think that really goes to what we're saying about creating uniformity and if if we had statewide uh that could be something we could help advocate for as this group so thank you definitely and then Fitrice if you want to um have uh I know you have your hand raised and then no we didn't really get to next steps but I'm planning on sending an email out anyway just to kind of like reiterate what we talked in this meeting and to you know go forward.

So Fatrice if you just have any last minute words.

Yes um I was interested in what they were saying about the short notice with uh Renata uh it become we receive the short notice from the clerk's office uh sometimes through the mail in its days later and they possibly already been to court is it a possibility where when the sheriff police do serve it that it can also be transmitted to come back through I uh through uh ISP so that way it can be pushed into the clerk system like they would if it's a civil uh process server where it's automatically uploaded as a service that uh that is one of my questions that I wanted to know about yes thank you no we'll definitely we will look into that I think um there's just a lot of you know questions going around and everyone came in you know really like Renata thank you so much every time you just give such a good background on everything Katie your presentation I think this is a really great group thank you all so much for your expertise um I will be sending out an email just you know to go over what we discussed today and then um kind of next steps the details about the next working group meeting um we do have our executive meeting tomorrow um at the Cook County building uh I think I've sent everyone an email about that too so if you're able to attend that that's great um and then that way you know we'll be in person we can talk a little bit more and um any questions always feel reach out to me reach out to the task force email I think I put that in the chat and uh thank you so much everybody I think we'll we'll stop there because we have our next working group meeting um but again anything if we want to go over just please reach out thank you AB thank you I think we need to adjourn so we are joined thank you thank you

I think I put that in the chat.

And uh thank you so much, everybody.

I think we'll we'll stop there because we have our next working group meeting.

Um, but again, anything we want to go over, just please reach out.

Thank you, AB.

Thank you.

I think we need to adjourn.

So we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.