CLEVELAND — Cleveland’s Public Safety Committee heard hours of testimony on ordinance 11‑98‑2024, commonly called “Tanisha’s Law,” which would add a new Chapter 147 to the city code to create a Department of Community Crisis Response and codify clinician‑led, unarmed crisis response teams.

Sponsors Councilwoman Stephanie House Jones, Councilman Slife and Councilwoman Moore framed the ordinance as a step toward integrating mental‑health expertise into 911 dispatch, ensuring dedicated funding, standardizing training and annual reporting, and protecting community‑based responders from being folded into a policing model. "We need this because people need help," said advocate Pete Van Leer, arguing the city should not leave care response inside an outside, unaccountable structure.

Family members and mental‑health professionals urged passage. Michael Anderson, Tanisha Anderson’s uncle, said the family disagreed with prior official responses to his niece’s death and asked the committee to act so other families do not endure a similar outcome. "I'm Tanisha Anderson's uncle...we were not in agreement with that response," Anderson said.

The administration, represented by Director of Public Safety Wayne Drummond and Assistant Director Jason Schachner, told the committee it supports the legislation’s goals but not the creation of a new cabinet‑level department at this time. Reading an administration memo dated Nov. 10, 2025, the chair summarized the administration's stance: "We support the intent of Tanisha's Law ... however, the administration does not support the creation of a new department," and it labeled the ordinance administratively premature pending a third‑party call‑type analysis tied to the Connect and Protect grant.

The committee heard technical and programmatic details from advocates and city staff. Sponsors proposed a modest initial budget — about $800,000 in the first year — to stand up a departmental structure, hire clinicians and supervisors, and pilot live clinician responses while a call‑type analysis proceeds. Sponsors said the bill would codify coresponse and CIT (crisis intervention training) minimums and require annual reporting on effectiveness and fiscal impacts. "This launches a department of community crisis response," one sponsor said while outlining data and training requirements.

The Department of Justice monitoring team letter, read aloud by a sponsor, clarified that the consent decree’s paragraph 1.56 applies to calls that require police response, not to calls eligible for non‑police response. The DOJ language — included in the hearing record — was offered by sponsors to show legal room for alternative responses when appropriate.

Council members pressed administration witnesses on operational questions: how 911 triage currently works, who dispatches coresponse teams, clinician employer relationships, training hours and response rates. Lieutenant John Mullins reported there are 175 officers with CIT‑related training and seven full coresponse teams that pair a specially trained officer with a contracted clinician; current clinicians are employed by Frontline Services and Mortis Taylor (contracted through the Adams Board). Training figures discussed at the hearing included basic CIT training during the academy (reported at 24 hours), ongoing annual refreshers, and 40‑hour specialized SCIT training for some officers.

The administration repeatedly recommended completing the third‑party call‑type analysis funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance grant (Connect and Protect) before embedding a permanent structure in city code; sponsors and advocates countered that staffing and basic departmental infrastructure can be stood up while the analysis proceeds.

Chair and several council members demanded written materials and follow‑up from the administration: job descriptions and pay bands for clinicians, the Adams Board contract amounts, district assignment logic, and detailed call/demand data broken down by district. The chair asked the administration to provide proposed amendments it had discussed internally; the administration agreed to provide those in writing.

No formal vote occurred. The committee chair said the item would be held "until further notice" but signaled that the council intends to press for a final decision early next year and urged the administration to cooperate. "The train is leaving the station," the chair said in closing.

What’s next: The committee requested written budgets, amendments and operational data from the administration and sponsors; the ordinance remains under committee consideration pending those materials and further meetings.

Sources: testimony and presentations to the Cleveland Public Safety Committee (ordinance 11‑98‑2024), public comment from Michael Anderson, Pete Van Leer, Stephanie Ash and Josiah Quarles; administration presentation from Director Wayne Drummond and Assistant Director Jason Schachner; sponsors’ presentation and cited DOJ monitoring letter.