COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY City Hall, Room 400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON CHAIRMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR. CAROLINE STACK, The Clerk P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIR JONES: Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to get started. Thank you for your patience. We are -- as soon as one more member comes in, we will have a quorum, and I will stop the proceedings just to take role to officially establish that quorum. But we are here today. This is the Committee on Public Safety to review Resolution 13 No. 250863. Ms. Stack, will you read the title of this resolution?
Authorizing the Committee on Public Safety to hold a hearing to examine whether death by suicide for first responders should be considered as occurring in the line of duty, and to explore mental health initiatives aimed at preventing suicide and supporting the overall well-being of first responders. CHAIR JONES: Thank you so much, Ms. Stack. I would like to recognize the author of this resolution, President Johnson.
Thank you very much. Chairman Jones, I want to thank you for the opportunity to schedule this hearing, a very, very critically important topic. I want to thank everyone for joining us for this important Committee on Public Safety Hearing. The purpose of today's hearing is twofold: First, to examine the profound psychological toll that police officers, firefighters, and EMS personnel face while serving the city. And second, to consider whether first responders' death by suicide should be considered in the line of duty. Before we begin, I would like to ask that we observe a moment of silence to all of the first responders we have lost in the line of duty, including those who we have lost by suicide. Thank you. Every day in the city of Philadelphia, first responders put their lives on the line to protect the safety of our residents. They are called to the scenes of violence, tragedy, and crisis without hesitation. Repeated exposure to traumatic and life- threatening situations carries a heavy cause; one that increases the risk of PS -- PTSD, depression, anxiety, and suicidal -- and suicidal intentions. Today, we will investigate the mental health resources currently available to first responders in Philadelphia. We need to understand what is working, where gaps exist, and how we can strengthen prevention, early intervention, and ongoing support. Ensuring accessible and confidential mental health services is not optional; it is essential. We also will examine the benefits provided to families in the tragic event of a first responder's death by suicide, and whether such death should be considered in the line of duty. When a first responder dies in the line of duty, their families may receive financial and other critical benefits. However, that support is rarely available in case of suicide, even when that death is likely directly connected to the trauma endured in service to our city. This hearing will explore whether redefining line-of-duty death to include suicide could ensure that surviving families receive the benefits they reserve -- deserve. At that same time, we must be clear; our ultimate goal is prevention. Last, I'd like to thank our witnesses and thank all of them for joining us today. I want to also acknowledge individuals who really brought this topic to my attention who I had opportunity to work with. One is Steve Cullen and Darrell O'Connor. I want to thank them also, as well as Melissa as well, for really advocating and fighting for those who need a voice. And so, with that being said, Mr. Chairman, could you please call the first panel? CHAIR JONES: Before we do that, Mr. President, we're going to establish a quorum and give the other committee members an opportunity to speak. Ms. Stack, would you establish a quorum for us?
Council Member Thomas? Council Member Brooks? Council Member Harrity? Council Member Young? And Councilmember Squilla?
Present. CHAIR JONES: We have established a quorum. I just want to briefly say thank you to the author of this resolution. President Johnson, this is important. I have family members that are retired law enforcement people, and they, from way back in the day, expressed their stress differently. Some of them went to the local tavern, and on a Friday night, you might not have seen them till Monday roll call. But they had an opportunity to do it that way. But I paid particular attention in -- during the pandemic, when all hell was breaking loose in our city, the stabilizing vision that I remember was an officer in a car coming up the block doing his job. He often had to face situations where he might have been exposed to the virus, might have had members of his particular precinct die, perish, then regular stressors beyond that. I don't know what I would do if every day I had to come and see people on their worst day: see people shot; see people in domestic situations that were hard, or if not impossible, to turn off when you go home to play with your children, and to stack that, and stack that, and stack that every day for a career, I don't know how that would impact me. So what you are doing to see if we're doing enough, what we are doing to see what they're going through and how we can do it better, I think, is essential to show our support in more than just words, but in our deeds. Member Lozada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you Council President for bringing this important topic to the table to have a conversation. I arrived in November of 2022, and immediately started hearing from some of our first responders about their experiences in the workplace and how they carried some of these burdens home with them. I'd also like to recognize many of the families who have to support some of our first responders, and the stress and the anxiety that comes with having to support and be present for our family members who come home after seeing so many traumatic experiences in our community. I know that that is absolutely difficult, not just for the significant other, but also for the children who are sometimes silently suffering what mom and dad are going through as a couple or that individual first responder is experiencing as a person. And so I think, you know, this is a very important conversation, and I really am looking forward to hearing some of the lived experiences that many of our first responders are experiencing as well as their family members. So thank you for bringing this to the attention of this committee. CHAIR JONES: Thank you, Member Lozada. Any other members who wish to be recognized? Ms. Gauthier?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you Council President for bringing such an important conversation to the chambers. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a first responder, whether you're an officer or a paramedic, or you work at the 911 call center, and to deal with tragedy and loss on such a consistent basis. Even as a Council person, we only got a small slice of that. During the pandemic, when there was so much death and loss that we were dealing with, we had to seek counseling. I had to seek counseling because I started to internalize all of that loss. And so -- and that's not as a first responder. So to have that every single day must be a huge burden. It must take a huge impact on your mental and your physical health. And I want us to do everything that we can as a city to help to ease that and to make sure that our heroes also are allowed to be -- to feel safe and healthy and whole. So thank you for the conversation. But I know that the conversation is moving towards us doing more as a city, so thank you for that as well. CHAIR JONES: Thank you, Member Gauthier. Member Squilla, you're okay?
He's gone. CHAIR JONES: Oh, he's gone. Okay. He's okay. And let's not forget the coroner's office that goes out, and during that same pandemic, had to go into homes. I remember the coroner herself had to go take body bags to remove corpses that we had no more room in the morgue for it. We had to come up with those temporary -- we went through trauma that we forgot. And I hope we don't forget that our first responders went through it first. So with that -go ahead, Member Johnson.
Mr. Chairman, and I know I have to read from my script to get started, but also just to really add it also in the context that you and I have been on the front line as well as Councilmember Jamie Gauthier and Council Lozada. But really on the issue of how we dealt with gun violence, we are not even first responders, right? And being on the scene dealing with the cleanup of the scene, doing the work with the families, right? And when you talk about trauma, sometimes hurt people hurt people, right? And in this particular case, you have people who sign up to really protect and serve all of us, right? They go out day in and day out and deal with the carnage, right? What we know has -- takes a toll on individuals, takes a toll on the family. And the fact that in the event that a person is dealing with mental issues as it relates to the work that they are doing, their family should be entitled to some level of support, when it's deemed that if a person takes their life, it's connected to the work that they're actually doing day in and day out. And so, thank you for the additional opening remarks. CHAIR JONES: President, this is important. And if we don't protect those who are protecting us, what's the point? Ms. Stack, can you read the first panel to testify?
Regan Falk, founder of the Kevin Regan Family Foundation; John Becker, founder of Guardian Recovery Services; Joe Sue Kaufman, supervisory Special Agent from the US Department of Justice; and Katherine Boyle, founder of Beyond the Uniform. CHAIR JONES: Thank you all. Thank you for your patience and state your name for the record, and please begin your testimony.
My name is Regan Falk. I am the widow of Kevin Regan, who is a Philadelphia 9th District police officer. They're going to know. Kevin said to me as we were standing in the local emergency room Thursday, October 6th. Who is going to know what? I replied. The department. They're going to know something's wrong with me. We're here. It'll be reported back and I'll lose my job. How is it possible that in the middle of a mental health crisis, my husband's biggest concern was losing his job and his credibility? Less than 36 hours later, he was gone. October 8th, 2022, my world came crashing down. I not only became a widow, but our twin 1-year-old boys lost their father. There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding that day and what happened and what went on. But there's one thing I'm a hundred percent certain about, and that's that my husband did not have PTSD and was not in a mental health crisis from spending time with his family. He had PTSD and was in crisis because of the stressors of this job. There is no question that first responders are exposed to more traumatic events in their career than the average human is in their lifetime. In fact, they're five hundred times more likely. In a study done by First Help, it showed that the first responders witnessed anywhere between 400 and 600 traumatic events in a twenty- year career. Eighty-five percent of those people report symptoms related to mental health conditions. Seventy of the eighty- five percent will never use the mental health resources provided to them. Fifty-seven say that they don't ask for help because they're scared of the repercussions associated, and 40 percent specified that the fear is being demoted or fired. How is this possible? How can the men and the women that put their lives on the line for us, day in and day out, fear their own departments, be scared of the benefits that are provided to them, and that they're working hard for? Meanwhile, police, firefighters, and all other first responders are more likely to die by suicide than on the job. Something just doesn't add up. In October of 2020, my husband was on the front line of the Walter Wallace riots, where he was showered with bricks, glass, and a multitude of other weapons, eventually being injured in the line of duty. Days after the riots, he got an email with the information on how to contact EAP. That was it. We contacted EAP the week we got the email. It took four phone calls and countless attempts at getting an appointment with someone before we finally gave up. In October of 2022, days after Kevin's passing, I looked at my family and said, We need to do something. We can't just sit here and let this happen to other people. That day, we came up with the Kevin Regan Family Foundation. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to helping the families of fallen first responders in the tri-state area, specifically those who have taken their own lives or struggle with mental illness. We provide not only financial relief, but mental health resources needed to support struggling frontline fighters and their loved ones. We do the job that we realized was so lacking after Kevin's passing. We communicate with the families, send an initial care package, pay funeral costs, mortgages, whatever we can to provide a benefit for these families. Because in the time of great unexpected loss, money should never be your first thought or burden. We were born out of our very own experience. And I'd like to touch on three points. One, officers are scared to use their health insurance. They're scared of the big brother aspect the department has on them. Astonished at the statistics of how many people want or need services but won't use the ones provided, we created a program where first responders and their families can sign up for mental health services as well as regular healthcare; anonymously, quickly, and at zero cost to them or their family.
Number two, suicide in general but suicide related to PTSD is somehow seen as a lesser than death than those that die in the line of duty. Suicide should be pursued as relentlessly as any other cop killer; together, publicly, and with unabating courage. I won't stand here and diminish in any way, those that make the ultimate sacrifice, those who get dressed for work and never come home, those people are heroes. My question is, how is suicide any different? Both are tragedies of this job. My husband put on that uniform more days than not. Days, nights, weekends, holidays, anniversaries, birthdays, you name it. He left myself and the kids at home and he went to work. The only difference is, his mental load became unbearable. And on the one day he didn't drive himself into work, he took his own life in our bedroom; what's supposed to be our safe space. We're all aware of what happens when an officer dies in the line of duty. There's an outpouring of resources, there's benefits for the family, there's things to lift the mental and emotional burden. When an officer dies of suicide, there's a quiet; an uncomfortable dishonorable quiet. Number three: Money should never be your first worry when you lose your person. About a week after losing Kevin, I got a phone call to let me know that his last check was coming to me in the form of a paper check. However, it was only $900 because they had pro-rated it and stopped his salary the day that he died. I was also informed that I had 18 days to find health insurance because mine would be expiring October 31st for myself and my children. My son, Declan, has Long QT Syndrome, a syndrome that is genetically inherited, in this case from his father. He sees a cardiologist four times per year. He takes medicine three times per day, every single day, since he was seven months old. With police health insurance, that bottle of medicine is $10 a month. Out of pocket or with other insurances, it can range from $275 to $500 per month. Seven days after Kevin was gone, the panic set in: mortgage, bills, no health insurance, twin toddlers, daycare. Everything hit me like a ton of bricks. Three days after that initial panic, I returned to work. Only 10 days after the most traumatic loss of my life, I sat back at a desk in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, left my kids at home with their grandmother who was using her PTO, and I went to work, all because the burden of money and life had just been dropped on my shoulders. I know many families that have had their health insurance end days after the loss of their loved one. There's no monetary benefit; it's just you and your surrounding family left to pick up the pieces of something you never wanted. You're submerged into a life you did not choose. About two weeks after the loss of Kevin and only a week left of health insurance, I realized I needed to stand up and fight for something. There was no way I was able to survive on my one salary, now adding in health insurance, bills, co-pays, and whatever else was thrown my way. I went to the FOP and asked for health insurance for myself and my kids. If I couldn't have his salary, could I at least have health insurance? The president of the FOP granted me five years of health insurance. It's expiring in October of 2027. He told me -- he told me when he resigned as the president of the FOP, he would look into extending it before he left; he never did. I've called four, five times. I've met with the Police Commissioner twice, and still nothing has been done. After fighting for health insurance, I wondered if there was anything else. A woman from the FOP helped me get Kevin's 10-year pension. I wasn't expecting it, but I felt extremely lucky to get it. After speaking with multiple other Philly police widows, it seemed that my loud outspokenness is what granted me these two things I received. These other women received nothing, despite being in the same position, having children and now the sole provider of their household.
The Federal Government marks the suicide of a public safety officer as an on-duty death as long as PTSD is an underlying condition on the death certificate. So why do we, as a state, city, and department, not recognize that? There is a one-time payout benefit for widows or next of kin. The amount changes yearly, but for 2022, the payout was $422. It takes about three years to receive. In those three years, I was forced to sell my home in Pennsylvania, moved to Florida to be near family to have help with childcare. I lost my job in March of 2023 due to not being in office enough because I needed to be home with my kids for doctor's appointments, illnesses, or whatever the case may be. I'm functioning as a single unit, something I never dreamed I'd be. I tell you all of this, not so that you'll take pity on me and my family. We are so lucky. My children are so loved. I was able to get a new job that is much better for myself and my children. I bought a new home, much smaller than the last, but still filled with all the love and safety my children need. I'm working as hard as I can to give my kids the life that Kevin and I had planned for them, all without the help of the city or the department. In the case of having a death benefit, not only is it a need for these families, especially the ones that are not as lucky as I, but it's a want. A want for a chance to breathe, grieve, and adjust to this new life that we did not sign up for. At Kevin's funeral, one of his fellow 9th District officers said to me, He signed the paperwork to put his life on the line, and somehow, now, at the expense of the job, you've given the city your everything and are barely surviving. Thank you for the opportunity today to share my story. Thank you for wanting change for all of us. Being here is leaps further than I ever thought we'd get. So thank you. And I'll leave you with one last question. My husband, like many others, signed up to protect you. Who is going to protect us? Thank you. CHAIR JONES: Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing. And we are deeply sorry for your loss. Please stay because the panel will have questions after this group testifies, please.
Okay. CHAIR JONES: State your name for the record and please begin your testimony.
My name is John Becker. Thank you, first of all, for having me. Okay. Thank you so much for allowing me to come this morning and share my thoughts on this topic. For some background, I'm a licensed professional counselor here in Pennsylvania. I've spent the last years working with veterans and 14 first responders around mental health and substance abuse. I have a private practice where I see clients, both police, fire, EMS, veterans, and I've spent hours and hours with these men and women from these agencies. In addition to that, I'm one of them. I'm a retired police officer and I'm also in recovery from substance abuse. It's been a long time in recovery, which is part of how I got to where I'm at in this line of work as a second career. I wrote a lot, and I know it's probably more than for -- you know, allowable for this morning. So I wanted to really focus on a couple of key points. The biggest is, in the first responder world, it's not okay to ask for help. Your co-workers don't want it. The public doesn't want first responders to have problems. The system within the department, the city, all of that, doesn't want them to have problems. They don't want to have problems. They don't want to be seen as weak or broken or, you know, not being able to handle it. From the moment a police officer or firefighter enters the academy, they are taught to handle things, right? You know, we make decisions quick, assess the problem and make a decision, you know, and often life or death decisions, right? And they do that day in and day out. But part of that does not allow them to not be okay, right? So the culture of the first responder world makes it difficult for people to admit that they're not doing well. And then just as difficult is when they do, how they're, how they're treated, how they get to those resources, what's available, you know, and what that looks like, you know. As a country, we're doing a lot better with that as far as resources and recognizing that, you know, there are issues. Some of the statistics, you know, Regan touched on some of them. But just to give you a little more insight into what the first responders are dealing with, you know, and it's not just trauma. Police and firefighters work shift work, right? So 71 percent of police officers report sleep issues, right? You know, firefighters -- up 45 percent of firefighters have expressed experiencing anxiety at some time, right? And I'm just picking, choosing out of here. Eighteen percent of police officers have been diagnosed with PTSD. That's twice the national average, right? And fire service is similar, right? They're very much in line. When we talk about substance abuse, the numbers are reported anywhere to 35 percent 20 of first responders. I believe 21 it's higher. You know, we don't 22 always admit, but what we do know 23 is up to 50 percent of firefighters 24 will admit that they engage in binge drinking, you know, on their days off medicating themselves. So these statistics, you know, along with -- another big one is, when you talk to EMS providers, up to 73 percent report burnout experience, right? Just the overwhelming of the level of calls they're running on the volume, the hours that they work, and police and fire are very similar. You know, the pandemic was mentioned. That took a toll on a lot of first responders. Everybody else was, you know, home, and they were on the front lines and, fighting, you know, an unknown, right? You know, but still having to do the job. So what works for first responders is kind of what I wanted to talk about and tying that into suicide. You know, first responders don't ask for help because they don't want to be seen as not being in control, right? Nobody wants a firefighter or a police officer or a medic falling apart in the middle of a call, right? Crying because of what they're dealing with, and that's understandable. And first responders get very good at pushing that down.
The problem is, they get done with that call and they go to the next one, and the next one, and they do the same thing over and over again, and they never address what they felt. And eventually, you can end up with somebody that doesn't feel anymore, right? Doesn't know how to feel, doesn't know what they feel. And that leads to all kinds of issues, right? First responders don't want to be judged, right, you know, for having an issue. You know, if I tell somebody what I'm thinking, am I going to lose my job? You know, are they going to take my badge away? Are they going to put me on the bench? So there's almost this unwritten cultural message that we don't talk about addiction, mental health or suicide, right? It's very common when there's a suicide, Ah, man, he must have really had some problems, you know. Ah, I don't know what was going on. And there's -- if you -- when we look back, there's always indicators, right? And, you know, and the stress of the job, shift work, things that they've seen and experienced. And, you know, first responders deal with things on a daily basis that most people can't comprehend, and it becomes normal for them. You know, they treat it as normal, but it's anything but, right? So the mindset of a first responder is often we have-- we solve problems, we don't have problems, right? So makes it very difficult to ask for help. And then when they do ask for help, there's a lot of barriers, right? The first being: Who can they talk to? Understanding the mind of a first responder is not something that everybody readily can do. Finding culturally proficient therapists and counselors for them to work with is very, very important. You know, I've been around experiences where a counselor pushed for information the first responder shared it, and it was so horrific the counselor fell apart. Two things happened in that situation. That counselor is probably ruined, right? Going to need work on themselves before they can get back to helping, and that first responder is shut down. They're not going to talk to anybody because, look at what happens when I tell them. So you have to have folks that can actually understand and work with those first responders. They have to trust them. First responders are very slow to trust because of the nature of what they do and the dangers that they face. But once you win their trust, they're in, right? And they'll work and they'll tell you what's going on. So making it easy for them to access services, normalizing it within the department, within the city, right? Making it okay to not be okay. And, you know, that has to be universal. A lot of agencies and departments profess, you know, if you need help, ask for it. But in practice, when they say, I'm not okay, they're getting pushback. Like, well, you know, we really need you, you know, can you finish out the shift? Right? Like, and I get it, there's logistics with that. But if we're doing that, we're not really hearing what the person is saying. They're literally telling you they're not okay, and you want them to keep going, right? So making it okay, having policies in place to say, all right, this is what we're going to do. And make sure they're being followed, right? And perhaps the biggest thing for helping first responders is training. Making people aware, within the department and outside the department, what's going on with them. You know, implementing it, not a, you know, one-time thing, hey, let's do a suicide prevention training, but ongoing training as self-care, right? And promoting self-care for first responders. If you talk to a first responder, you'll hear this a lot. If I ask the question, what do you -- what do you do in your free time? Nothing. I used to. I used to play golf. You know, I used to work out a lot. I used to ride bikes. Whatever. They lose those things. Those hobbies go away because, the job. They identify so strongly with the role. You know, it's more than just a job; you know, it's a purpose.
It's a passion for first responders. And the other things go by the wayside, right? And when their mental health is struggling, they really pull back, they start to isolate. So training is going to be key, followed by a system of support services that work. Peer support is a huge component of that. We know, you know, first responders respond best with their cohort, with other first responders, right? So having a peer support team that is available to help them is key. And having them being used appropriately, right? Being available and making it okay for a peer to, you know, if somebody needs to pull them, you know, pull them aside and talk to them. The other thing is, you know, kind of a follow up and making it okay for a first responder to take some time to get well. I could tell you in working with first responders with substance issues, when they take the time to go away for treatment, get the treatment they need and come back, I'll hear things from their supervisors, co-workers, like, they're a better version of themselves, right? They do a better job than they did before. That's because they're rebuilding themselves; they're kind of emptying that load they've been carrying for so long. And substance abuse -- substance use disorder is just a way of coping, you know. They don't like how they feel. They don't like what they're thinking. When I numb myself out, that goes away, right? And then it becomes a habit, and it, you know, at some point it progresses to the point where they can't control it. Gambling is another way of doing that. Shopping. There's all kinds of other behaviors that first responders and the general public will use, you know, to make themselves not feel the way they're feeling. As far as suicide, you know, education is important. Recognizing, you know, behavior changes, signs, symptoms. And the education is important because, you know, any one major life stressor can put somebody's, you know, bandwidth at maximum, right? But if you have somebody that you're dealing with that has 2, 3, 4 major things going on, right? That risk is so high, so elevated, right? So let's just say they've been struggling, they're drinking a lot. That's one risk factor, you know. And because of their drinking, they've been thrown out of the house, right? There's two, now they have, you know, family issues. It has affected their work performance. So now they're -- maybe they're facing discipline at work. All of a sudden, it snowballs. That discipline affects finance, right? And now all of a sudden, they've got everything. It can feel overwhelming. They're the folks that are really, really at risk, right? And being able to recognize that is difficult, but it can be done right? And making it okay for people to speak up about not being okay will prevent a lot of suicides just by making it okay, you know, and people will know that I don't have to get to that point if I can ask for help ahead of time. So with that, I'm going to wrap up. I appreciate your time and anything, I'd be happy to answer any questions when the time comes. CHAIR JONES: Thank you so much for sharing. What we're going to do is listen to the next testimony, and then we're going to jump in with questions from the committee because they're writing and they're breaking out in words. So we're going to get some of that out, and then have the next group to kind of testify. I want to recognize, for the record, Member Harrity and Member Young who are in attendance on this committee. And so will you please state your name, begin your testimony. It's okay to abbreviate, and then we're going to ask you some questions.
My name is Katherine Boyle. My name is Katherine Boyle. Thank you for having me and for having this hearing. First responders are the people that we call on someone's worst day. They walk into violent scenes, medical emergencies, death notifications, overdoses, child abuse cases, and they do it repeatedly year after year, day after day, and sometimes even hour after hour as part of their job description. They perform these duties in real time in front of the public and in front of the cameras. And their mistakes can be a matter of life or death. This is not something that may or may not happen, or something that happens occasionally; this is the expectation, this is the job. I know this personally because my father is a retired Philadelphia Police Lieutenant, and almost all the men in my family are also retired Philly PD. I have dedicated my life and career to serving this population. I've actually left an established career in another industry to serve first responders, specifically law enforcement. I host a Podcast where I interview active and retired police officers and the other adult children of police officers. And I'm a national speaker to speak to my experience and the experience of other children in this field. Because whether you recognize it or not, this job has a huge impact on the entire family and specifically the children. Before I continue, I want to remind you that first responders are human beings first and foremost. No human being was designed to carry a lifeless -- a child's lifeless body out of their abusive home, and then carry their own child to bed just hours later, which is a real-life example that someone has shared with me. The average person may encounter one or two traumatic events in their lifetime. A first responder encounters hundreds across their career, sometimes several in a -- in a single week. After those experiences, they're expected to go home to their families, put dinner on the table, do a load of laundry, or tuck their kids into bed. And they often do it without any transition and without any tools to process what they just witnessed and experienced. Over time, they find their own ways to cope, numb, and ignore all the warning signs. So what first responders and their families live with is often not one dramatic traumatic incident: it's gradual erosion; distance; trouble sleeping; irritability; emotional withdrawal; silence; constant overtime; and over time, the home starts adapting. They start making things work around the first responder rather than addressing the problem at its core, all of which has become normalized in the first responder industry and the first responder culture. I've watched it happen. I've had men twice my age tearfully express how this exact process unraveled their own life, marriage, and relationships, all before they even knew what happened. I have spouses reach out to me daily because they don't recognize the person they married anymore, and they don't know how to get through to or communicate with them anymore. When getting on the job first responders are taught a set of expectations. They set the expectations for themselves and their families that the job is going to take priority. That they will not see their families much, and that their loyalty should be to the job. That they better get tough because the job is hard. e, the nervous system, or the role it plays in the life of a first responder. First responders are not provided with tools or guidance on how to down-regulate or process their experiences before walking through the front door. Over time, they forget who they are at home. They begin to check out and pull away. The only way they can down- regulate is by crashing out and shutting down, all while their own kids observe and absorb their behaviors and their demeanor.
We cannot forget the families because they too need their own tools to understand what may or may not be going on, what signs to look for in their loved one, and how to properly communicate. Basic understanding of the nervous system: identifying trauma and how to cope with it in a healthy way, and being aware of the silent and sneaky ways it can creep into your life should be taught at academy level. The education and conversation needs to be continued throughout their careers. The trauma and its aftermath is inescapable. So the sooner we introduce this conversation, the sooner it can be normalized within the field. The overwhelming of -- overwhelming majority of first responders that I have talked to never even realized they needed help because abnormal experiences have become so normalized. The culture, the toughen up mentality, and the normalization of compounded trauma are some of the culprits. I don't need help, I am the help has become so ingrained in the standard that they are silencing their own very human needs. For example, the compulsory need to sit facing the door when they are out in public with their families is not normal, but it has become so normalized that it is accepted as normal. In my opinion, there is a deep systematic change that needs to happen within the conversation of trauma and the department's response to it. We need to talk about what this can look like in the family's day-to-day life. Some of the things I think we need are the explanation and understanding of trauma, as well as the nervous system and the role it plays. We need to start conversations at academy level and continue them at a mass scale throughout their careers. We need to bring families into the conversation and provide them with proper tools and awareness. We should offer regular debriefs, check-ins, and wellness follow-ups, and make them mandatory to level the playing field and ensure support reaches those who may not realize they need it yet. And finally, departments should have an embedded psychological support program with an on-site mental health professional on staff who can provide support in real time after mass casualties or critical incidents, or simply to be on standby when an officer needs their expertise or needs a bridge to other crucial connections. I think that we've done a lot of work around the stigma. There needs to be a lot more work done, but one thing we're not recognizing quite as much is how this shows up in the day-to-day. I think there's a much deeper problem we're starting to understand, yes, first responders are going to see trauma, first responders are going to be traumatized, but we're not recognizing what that actually looks like. Hypervigilance when you go home is not something that should be happening. Going into work so that you don't have to figure out how to play with your kids is not something that should be happening. These are all signs that should be recognized as trauma and support should be readily available. And finally, I just want to wrap up with, everything that I shared and the panel shared is having a very serious trickle-down effect on those kids and creating generational trauma and generational cycles that need to be broken because it's obviously, you know, life-changing for those children. But this is a generational field; first responders following their parents' footsteps and their parents' footsteps, and it's just having a carry-over effect. And so this is something that needs to happen immediately. Thank you for your time. CHAIR JONES: So thank you for that testimony. We're going to let the last person on this group testify. And then we're jumping in because I'm seeing Pete Penn is waving. One of the things that resonated with a lot of the members of this committee was, we do sit with our back to the door. And that is from a different set of stressors, not as acute as these first responders, but we can identify with why we do that, and that'll go unsaid.
Can you state your name for the record and begin your testimony? Member Harrity, I got you teed up as well. All right.
My name is Joe Sue Kaufman. I'd like to also thank you for this opportunity and for your interest in destigmatizing mental health issues in first responders. Mental health issues should be labeled as a chronic -- as a job-related illness, just like a broken leg or a broken arm on the job. I am the living example of everything that these folks have been telling you. I was one of the first women in the nation named as a Special Agent by ATF, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. I faced all the difficulties a woman, in a man-dominated profession, must -- breaking into the profession, must face. I did -- I was undercover. I worked with police officers in New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I did undercover by myself in Atlantic City and with a cover agent where I bought guns and drugs off of a total of 54 individuals. Some of these individuals pointed loaded guns at me, threatening me, which I grabbed out of their hands, maintained my cover, did my job. And after eight months, we arrested the 54 people. I also bought handguns, drugs and sawed-off shotguns off of bikers, outlaw bikers. I've had loaded sawed-off shotguns pointed at me in threatening manners, which I, once again, grabbed out of their hands, maintained my cover and bought the weapons. I had two work associates shot and killed in the line of duty. One, a New Jersey State trooper, Al Mallen. He had asked me to go on the search warrant with him that morning, and I just couldn't make it. And a guy came out of the closet and shot and killed Al. Another one, Everett in New York City, went out on undercover. I was a supervisor of the Violent Crime Task Force in New York City. And the guy just got tired of him and just took a gun out and killed him. I was also one of the first women in the nation named by ATF to become a street supervisor. I had to fight my way into New York City, which was a closed shop for outsiders, much less a woman. The boss flew down to Washington to talk to the director to try and stop me. The director called me at my desk and asked me to go somewhere else, I said, no. 7 I went up to New York City. I had a group which included a US Marine, a Navy Seal, hard- nosed New Yorker, and a secretary that threw telephones around the room when she got mad. Within a matter of a few months, and a boss that didn't want me there, the group had turned around, we had become a family. We were one of the top producing groups in the district, if not, the Jamaican organized crime, people were kicking human heads down the street. We -- that group I put in for the award of Investigative Excellence for Secretary of the Treasury Award, and they won. I was not named by my boss because he said, when he signed off, that I was just doing my job. But I got the better award, the group wanted me down there with them when they received it, and I was there. I was then asked to put in for a supervisory job here in Philadelphia. ATF was opening twelve nationwide violent crime task forces; Philly was one of them. I was requested to put in, I did. I got the job here; we worked North Philly. And this group, one of your own men, Darrell O'Connor, his case, the Zulu Nation that was up in North Philadelphia. We supervised; we had shootings up there, we've had a police officer shot, we've had a defendant shot. I had a boss after we had a shooting in North Philly, I called him, he comes up and says to me, oh, I could get shot just standing here. I was then asked -- while that was going on, the Sergeant from the police department, they had report of a man with a gun in the bar. And he asked me to back him up. I backed him up. Then one night, and I had done all of the things this gentleman said in order to cope with everything. I first -- I had a hard time sleeping at night. I tried jogging, I'd come home from work, I'd be in 8 o'clock in the morning. I'd get home 11, 12, 1 o'clock in the morning, I'd take the dog and I'd go for a jog. I then -- we were drinking.
After a job, we'd go out and drink. I -- police bars at the time, you put one drink up twenty on the bar -- well, now it's more than twenty. And I'd have drinks backed up when I left at three or o'clock in the morning. I've been through that. As far as my relationships, I started losing that ability to relate to friends and family and them to me. I would go out with friends and they'd be talking about a recipe or the color a room should be painted, and I'm sitting there thinking I was almost killed tonight. This afternoon, I had to grab a gun out of somebody's hand. I couldn't relate and I couldn't talk to them about it. Family, I'd go and my nieces and nephews, I was the fun aunt, we'd go, I'd buy him toys, we'd do things. And then one night after the shooting in North Philly, where we had a defendant who was shot. After I bought the guys around of drinks, I came home, I started -- tears started coming down my face. I didn't know who I was, who I was anymore. Am I that fun person my nieces think I am? Am I that person out on the street that has lived through all of this? I couldn't feel. I could -- my emotions had been turned off so much I couldn't turn them back on. Things were distant to me, people, everything. I got home, I sat in my car, it was about 2:10 in the morning in the parking lot in the townhouse community. I just sat there and I took my gun out and I put it to my head and it felt good. It felt real good. And I put my finger on the trigger and it -- I could feel the relief in my whole body. And I remembered I forgot to walk the dog. So I obviously put the gun down. And I went in and I walked the dog. And I was back out on the street here in Philly at 7:30 the following morning. You lose contact with everything. This job is not what you do; it's who you are. You are seen as strong, but who do you turn to. If I went forward, finally, in a meeting of other female agents, there were only about twenty of us in the nation at the time. They said to me that -- the other women said, Joe Sue, you know, my bosses tried to force me out. It makes no 13 sense. So I put in and I got help. And do you know the thank you -- the letter I got from ATF, it said to me, Either retire or we will separate you. You are a hindrance upon the effective operation of the agency. This is what -- and this is what you people are doing, not you, but generally, when you deny anyone to come forward and say, I need help. When you call 911 because your life is in danger, they're there for you. Now when they're wanting to call 911, you are not there for them right now. You need to be there for them, and there needs to be preventative measures and it needs to come from the top down. You're not going to lose your job, you're not going to lose your career. Okay? You're not going to lose your pension. And it all comes right here to what you folks decide. Thank you for your time. CHAIR JONES: Thank you for sharing. Thank you all for your service. It goes way beyond the oath that you took. Most important thing you said that I heard is not what you're doing. It's who you are, and the good, the bad, and all that comes with it. So we're going to -
CP. CHAIR JONES: So we're going to go to CP up, Council President, Councilmember Lozada. Jamie. And then we'll go to Jamie, and then we'll go to Harrity and then Young. Please proceed, Mr. President.
First to Ms. Falk. I want to thank you for your courage and turning your pain into purpose, and sharing your story about the loss of your husband. And Joe Sue also for talking about your own personal experience as well as some of the things you've been through in terms of being a former police officer, as well as you being a former agent for the DEA. Ms. Falk, just -- can you talk about it briefly, right? Because the heart of this matter, we are focusing on twofold: one is benefits for those who commit suicide as one part of the mission. Talk about your experience with the Employee Assistance Program in the city of Philadelphia. Can you just summarize it and touch on the type of benefits that you receive and from which agencies and how long.
In the grand scheme of things, you know, I received way more than anyone I know. Again, the FOP provided me health insurance for five years, it expires October of 2027. Kevin did eight years with the city of Philadelphia, and they granted me his 10-year pension, which again, is beyond what I was expecting. But I also know that I received those things because they saw me coming to their office not backing down. My experience with EAP is a lack thereof situation. You know, I know after the riots at -- and I'd just like to say that the day that Kevin was injured on duty during those Walter Wallace riots, he was scheduled off. We were coming home from our honeymoon; it was our first night home from our honeymoon, and when he saw what was going on in the city, he said I have to get to my guys. And I didn't stop him. And I wish every day that I did -- that I -- that I didn't -- you know, I said, no. We just got home from our honeymoon, you're scheduled off, you're not going in there. But again, as touched on earlier, you know, as the families we, we support, we back them. We do the job that the city and the department doesn't in those moments. So I knew he would be more stressed-out being home and knowing that there was things going on in the city than if he was in the city. Then I woke up at 8:00 am and he still wasn't home. And I got that tearful phone call from him saying that he was in the hospital, that he was okay, but he was in the hospital. And when he came limping in my front door that morning, I knew from that day on, he was never going to be the same police officer. I knew he was scared to be a police officer, which I had never in my life seen before. He was out of work for 40 days with that injury. He returned before recommended by a doctor. And the day that he got into work, EAP so happened to be in the district, I guess talking about the services that were provided. That day, he came home and he said, I think -- I think I'd like to talk to someone. So he asked for the help. Me as the person that I am, immediately called EAP, and was dismissed multiple times over, you know, oh, well you'll have to get this. And oh, what riot did he work through? Oh, why didn't he come in the week of -- like, he had 42 stitches in his leg and couldn't walk or drive himself, that's why he didn't come in, you know. So we kind of just got dismissed over and over again. Every time I tried to set up an appointment, it became some other thing that we had to do, some hurdle we had to jump through to prove that we needed this before we could get it. And it eventually turned into Kevin saying like, I think I'm past it, and I believed him. And that's probably like one of the more -- I say it all the time, if I knew then what I know now, from my experience, from the researches that I've done, from speaking with other officers, our whole world would be different. And I firmly believe he would still be alive, because I would've never let EAP go and I would've gotten him someone else to see out of pocket, out of insurance, whatever the case may be. So that's my experience with them.
Let's talk about the classification, right? How did that -- I guess I'm not going to say back and forth interaction. Suicides take place. We know you touched about it -- touched on -- on the federal level, there's a classification that if an emergency responder dies in a line of duty, particularly classified under suicide, they received the benefits. Talk about when the suicide happened and you approached the city for benefits, the back and forth in terms of the outcome of being supportive or not supportive.
Yeah. As a department, I got nothing. I was very lucky to have what I consider our police family, which does not extend outside of his peers, his co-workers, you know. We had, you know, generational families that now dads were lieutenants and people calling to get basic, like, bagpipes at his funeral. I mean, I was asking for the bare minimum. I was asking for him to be honored in the way that he so deserved. He gave so much, you know. I could wear his badge today and show you the accommodations that he had on it. There was no doubt he was a good police officer. He was in the police department for all the right reasons. CHAIR JONES: Point of information.
Yeah. CHAIR JONES: Am I lost in the differential, in the classification, if he were struck by a bullet, how would that treatment have occurred as opposed to the bullet or the way he died being self-inflicted? How -- is there a different designation that we establish? To your knowledge.
From my understanding, from the police department, if he is struck by a bullet on duty, even crazier, he was scheduled to work that day. Had he driven into work in his uniform and killed himself in his police car, it would be considered an on-duty death because he was clocked into work. Because he was not -- and he was home and he took the day off, it was considered an off-duty death, which were -- which then gives you no benefit. It is exactly as if you're retired, you know, or you left the department, you quit the job. It's the same exact thing. There is no benefit, there is no health insurance, there is -- everything just stops. It comes to a close October 8th, 2022 for me. Had he been struck by a bullet, you know, walking the streets, working, you know, serving a warrant, whatever the case may be, there would be an immediate monetary benefit. I believe, you know -- I was discussing with someone earlier, I believe it's, you know, $1.5 million, something along those lines. There's health insurance for the rest of the life. There's the pension that they're entitled to for the rest of life, or if you decide the one-time payout. There's health insurance for my children till they're 26, and they have to then get their own, as well as all of the bells and whistles that come with a funeral. And again, I had to fight to have bagpipes at his funeral, you know, and silly things like that that some may see is, you know, meaningless or, you know, whatever. But for me, it meant something because he deserved to go out the same way that his brothers had before him. So --
Another question. In terms of your organization and work that you have been doing over the past years, can you give me an estimate number of individuals that were emergency responders that you assisted and worked with who died as a result of suicide?
Yeah. We have 9 provided over $220,000 in monetary 10 benefit to families ranging -- there are some families that, you know, don't reach out initially. We reach out to them, we send them a check, we send them $2,500, you know, which is a number that we came up with as an estimated mortgage payment in the area at the time, pay their mortgage, give them a month to breathe. Some families then come out of the woodwork 6, 7, 8 months later and say like, I'm struggling, my house is going to be taken, I need more money. And we send them what they need. In that situation, we've helped probably families, I think we're at. As of October of 2025, we have the most officers ever enrolled in our mental health benefit program, you know, as we call it. We have 56 officers receiving mental health services. Some that we, you know, directly, you know, they come to us and say, Do you know a therapist? Do you know someone? John Becker is one of those people that I refer them to. There's, you know, Guardian Services that we refer them to, so there's quite a few people on our list. Some reach out to us for just reimbursement, some of those mental health facilities just have our card on file and we never hear a thing again. We just get the sessions, you know. So, you know, in total, probably almost 70 different people/families.
Okay. Thank you. John, you touched on something that's very, very profound, and we'll hear it later from the administration to really see their approach. But you talked about the culture, creating a culture that it's okay to not be okay, right? For individuals who may be dealing with any level of mental stress and anxiety as it relates to the work that they're doing day in and day out, being able to come forward and express themselves in terms of if they want to get help, or might they just be talking to someone, right? Can you elaborate on key recommendations, right, when we talk about changing the culture that you would want to see implemented from your perspective. And then also give me your perspective on suicide as being a part of dying in a line of duty from your perspective. Just for the record.
Absolutely. So to the first question, you know, the -- I call it a system, right? You know, the police department or fire department is a system. And the perception, and often the reality is the system doesn't care about the individual, right? You know, if I'm gone tomorrow, somebody else will fill that spot, right? And that's the system. So the system doesn't work for the individual. If you're lucky within the system, you find one or two individuals that actually care and are able to assist. So, inherently, that has to change, right? You know, first responders need to be treated as people; not numbers, right? And, you know, that kind of goes across not just mental health, but physical injuries, right? I see a lot of first responders that are injured physically and they're out of work, you know, rehabbing or whatever, and they're coming to see me because they're struggling because they feel abandoned, right? They're -- they have to fight for everything they want or need medically, and, you know, they haven't heard from anybody in six months, right? So -- but it was very wisely said that it needs to start at the top, right? It doesn't matter what the rank and file believe, if the folks above them don't see it the same way, right? And the stigma is still very, very strong. We've made progress, but perfect example, you know, the question of over whether or not to have bagpipes at the funeral, that's because it's a stigma, right? Do we real -- do we want to, you know, kind of endorse that, right? Are we going to send -- we're going to honor that person the same way because they don't get it. And so going back to the education, making everyone aware, and it's not a one and done thing. You know, it's going to take time. And over time, you know, you change minds and hearts, right? But getting buy-in within the department itself and then within the city, right? Because it's a blended system where even if it's okay to get help from the department, you run into issues within the city with, you know, coverage and, you know, resources that are available and, you know, denials and things like that. So it's looking at all of that and really streamlining, making it okay to be not okay. And then here's the path, right? So practical solutions, I think great idea to have a mental health professional embedded, right? Normalize somebody like that being there, you know, so there's interactions all the time with a person like that. And when somebody needs something, they can assess and refer. The EAPs are great, they try. One, they're understaffed most of the time. And two, they're not properly trained, right? They don't know everything that they should know in that role. So a lot of things get missed, a lot of things get dismissed, because they don't see it for what it is, or they don't recognize that maybe they should look into it more. So, you know, having a mental health professional embedded, I think is huge. And not just after the fact, right? You know, to do cleanup, but ahead of time, right? Are we doing wellness check-ins, right? You know, periodically, making it, you know, you -- you're going, you don't have to talk, but you're going. And eventually, that normalizes and they will start to trust and talk, right, if you have the right person in that clinical role. So there's a lot of things that can be changed. And it's not just the culture of the department, but it's the culture of the system that needs to change. As far as suicide, you know, I think it's hard to make a blanket statement that every suicide of a first responder would be a line of duty -- caused by something at work, right, from an injury at work. Probably most of them, being honest, you know, and I think it's a disservice to the first responder and the families not to look at it that way, you know, to get to a place where that's the choice, right? There's a lot of pain and a lot of, like, no hope, hopelessness, right? And how did we get there, and we got to fix that.
And as we going to say, that's not from taking care of your kids, right? That's from the things you see and do at work: the stress, you know, the horrible things that human beings do to each other or that happen to us. And that's where that, you know, feeling that the world is, you know, just not worth being in anymore comes from.
Have we had, and I know one of our panels will do a deeper dive on the policy aspect, though, but have you any knowledge on the federal level who actually approved suicide benefits as being a line- of-duty death, right? That criteria, that litmus test that they utilize, because obviously the federal government got it, right? We are advocating on the state level; we're doing a deeper dive here on the city level. Any knowledge from that aspect? I had a Fed say, hey, suicide, EMS workers, we are going to do benefits, period.
No, I know it works. Do you know any knowledge as to how they go about -- how they came to the conclusion that this is something that should be done? That's just a general --
Yeah, I mean, to be honest, I don't know specific -- I would think that they had enough people and experts and clinicians and folks talking about it, making the point and being able to tie it back to the job. Clearly say, you know, this person was fine, and then these things happen and we could follow the chain of events.
Yes. Because remember you said, I'm not going to make a blanket statement that every suicide will classify, but obviously in certain cases you'll see some red flags or a pattern that says, no, this is -- in this part -- Ms. Falk?
I can speak to my experience in applying for the benefit. I had to work with someone in the city, her name is Lori, I can't think of her last name off the top of my head, but she had to go through Kevin's job history and pull documentation of every job he was on, where it was considered a traumatic event. So, you know, Kevin was on a job where a little girl fell out of a window, and it turned out that a mother had pushed this girl out of the window. You know, it was a foster-care situation, like, anything that could be a -- that was not his normal day-to-day, she pulled receipts of death certificates of the people that died from that issue. She pulled, you know, newspaper articles, all of these things, compiled it into a file and submitted it to the state to prove that his PTSD came from this job. I had already had it on his death certificate, but she was the one that pulled all of this information, you know, that I wouldn't have access to, you know. I had to -- I was lucky Kevin kept a record of a lot of the jobs; his goal one day was to write a book. He kept a record of a lot of the jobs that he had been on that were traumatic or significant, you know. He served warrants, he was on the Merck team, so there was a -- he had a lot of background in those, you know, traumatic situations. So he kept a record and I was able to offer her that so that then she could pull the actual receipts of the job; the calls that came out, the tickets he wrote, whatever the case may be, the arrests he made on those days. And that all went to the federal government to back my application.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. CHAIR JONES: Thank you, Mr. President. I now recognize a Member Harrity for comments.
Thank you. First, thank you all for your testimony and that -- quite frankly, the bravery to come and speak. My heart goes out to you. I also thank the Council President and Curtis Jones for having these hearings. Council President, you may remember I spoke about this on the campaign trail. Some point of facts is that, you know, I -- you remember my first budget hearing, I went at the police department on this exact issue. It's personal to me. I can't even fathom the pain you're going through. I am having flashbacks just sitting here. Candor, I just lost a friend of mine to suicide. I didn't see it coming. But as you said, once we looked back, we did see it coming. He was not a police officer. I say that to say, I went at him for this because I heard and found out, firsthand, my sister-in- law is a lieutenant in the Philadelphia Police Department, and my father, as a lot of people know, was the Vice President of the state FOP, but he was an officer for a long, long time. And I see a lot of the representation here, they all knew my father. He was Tri -- State Strike Force Narcotics during the 80s and 90s, a lot of stuff. And a lot of our officers, not only -you know, my father came to the police department with post- traumatic stress already undiagnosed. My father did two tours in Vietnam, Special Forces. He's seen some stuff. My father, like I am, is very open with his recovery. My father has been sober for 40 years. To say I'm very proud of it is an understatement. But I remember, because I was the oldest, and he would come in from his shift, and I was kind of the protector of the family. See, you could tell what kind of day he had by what kind of music came on when he got home. So we knew just by the sound of the music what kind of night it was going to be. And he suffered, man, in silence for years. And, you know, it's kind of funny because you talk about, you know, being there out on the job and all that. And I remember when I first got sober, I was 4 the first time, and we were at 5 South Philly AA group, at 3rd and 6 William. 7 And my father, he had a 8 lot of stories, you know, and he 9 was telling a story about him being 10 undercover with the warlocks and 11 talking about this bust and all 12 this stuff while he was up there. 13 And a gentleman walked in while he 14 was speaking, and I could see my 15 father's face turned a little bit. 16 And once my father was 17 done speaking, he came back over to the table where I was sitting, and he whispered to me, We might have to fight our way out of here. And I looked at him, I said, what are you talking about? He said, That's the warlock I was just telling the story about. Now, recovery is a wondrous thing, and that did not happen. We did not have to fight our way out of it. They actually ended up talking and had a pretty good laugh about it, but that's not -- that was rare. My father was a cop, and like you said, he was supposed to be the running towards you. He was supposed to be the strong man, you know, police officer. But the fact of the matter is, he was suffering in silence for years, undiagnosed with PTSD from Vietnam. He was so damn happy to get out of Vietnam after his second tour that he signed the honorable discharge and went off on his way with 10 percent disability after being blown up. He's got three purple hearts. You know, they call them purple oak leaf clusters, right? This guy came back a war hero. And how he explained it to me was, he said, Jimmy, they sent most of the kids over there, six weeks. They trained and they were over there. He said, I trained for two and a half years before I even made it to Vietnam. I had to go through, jump school, this school, jump this school, this, that, and the other. He said and they taught me how to kill. And he said, you know, I was very good at it, he said, but then I came home and they told me I wasn't allowed to do that anymore. But I had no skills; they didn't teach me anything else.
So he went where he thought his skills were needed, which was the police department. And for him, in the end, it became the saving grace for him. You know, when he first got sober, I didn't really quite get it. I still held a lot of resentment towards him because I actually didn't know his story. It wasn't until I got sober myself and looked back on myself, and I realized that all that times I thought that he owed me an amends, I actually owed him one because I was not easy on him when he was trying to get sober. I didn't understand, I didn't get it because I was a kid, right? But by the grace of God, he did. Somebody did help him. His boss finally seen what was going on. For years, it was, ah, Jimmy is a good guy. He's just got some issues from Vietnam. He drinks a little bit too much, but they didn't see what was going on when he got home, and he couldn't deal with everything he was seeing. So when I found out that the first psychological visit is free, right? But every other visit after that is $150. And when I asked about it, they said to me, well, they could talk to somebody online, just like the school board told us about the kids. And nothing beats being able to actually talk to somebody, to have that contact eye-to-eye, to feel and see that they feel what you feel. And the fact of the matter is that if anybody in the city of Philadelphia deserves to have unlimited psychiatric access, it's our first responders. You made the case yourselves, what they see on a daily basis that they have to let go when they're trying to walk through the door to play with their kids. You know, I don't even know what to say about this, because for me it's a feeling. You know what I mean? I feel it. I felt your pain. But I also felt some relief because somebody was there for my father and, whatever, to make him the man that he is today. My father just retired, he's 80 years old, finally from the FOP. But his duty was with death benefits, and I used to ask him, you know, because in my family, and the Council President knows this, when my dad is involved with the charity or something like that, we are all involved in that charity. My father started the FOP toy program. We do about 30,000 families statewide every year. And his main thing was the death benefits, and he would go and write to the families right when it happened. And he would come home and I could see it. I would've asked him, what -- like, can't somebody else do this? Like, what -- like, if -- and he said if somebody did it for me, then why wouldn't I do it for somebody else? So for me, again, this is personal, I don't think it's right, our first responders should have all the psychological help that they need, and it shouldn't cost them a damn dime because we're the ones that did it to them. So I thank you all. CHAIR JONES: Member Harrity, thank you for sharing. We all know that for you, this is personal, and that's why President Johnson has you on Labor relations. There's a --there's a qualifying factor there. Chair recognizes Member Young.
Thank you so much. And I want to thank you all for your testimony today. You know, just one question I have, you know, there's a stigma around our first responders. I know, I have friends who are first responders and, you know, they drink because that's what they can do. They're not allowed -- they get tested for other substances. And so with Pennsylvania now recognizing -- now having medical marijuana, that's treatment for PTSD, is this something you think could be used as a treatment for our first responders? Yeah, anyone.
So there's a lot of value with medical marijuana as far as treatment for various things. I think, eventually, that police departments are going to have to figure it out, right? You know, it's starting. Other departments in other states have made it, you know, acceptable for their members to use marijuana, but not to -- above a certain level. You know, they can't have it in their system when they're at work type of thing. Right? As far as treatment, you know, I'm waiting for more evidence. I think there's potential, but it hasn't been proven long enough. I haven't seen enough good outcomes to say, you know, yeah, this really works. And my thoughts are there's other treatment approaches that don't involve any mind or mood-altering substances that are very effective when actually, you know, undertaken. So I -- you know, I would steer away from that personally, you know, in my treatment. I wouldn't want my clients to be doing that because it's just changing, you know, how they feel, kind of, artificially.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIR JONES: Thank you, Member young, and thank you all -- we have -- you want to respond?
Yeah. CHAIR JONES: State your name again for the record and please respond.
I don't know if this -- Oh, it is on. Okay. Regan Falk. I would say after the loss of Kevin, I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress from finding him in our home. And I, weekly, see a therapist. My therapist had recommended medical marijuana to me as something to help me sleep because I do not sleep because the minute I close my eyes, I relive that moment over and over again even three-and-a-half years later. When he first passed, I gave it a try and it helped me sleep. However, he had also recommended EMDR therapy, or EDM -
-- EMDR therapy, which is a, like, desensitizing therapy where I relive the moment over and over. And basically, that has helped me sleep and given me the relief far beyond what medical marijuana ever did for me. And I have not even gone back or tried it since doing that type of therapy. So I think again, in, you know -- in the treatment eyes of it, I think these therapies -- there's other sources that may be more effective for these guys.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: Thank you for your response. Ms. Stack -- thank you for guys for your testimony. You can't hear what they're saying, but some of it had us riveted. And the kind of insight that you're giving us, the President will take into account so that we will take a hard look at our budget, a hard look at policies. I do not understand if you put on your uniform that day and driving to work and commit suicide, that's different from being in the confines of your home or just leaving your shift or those kinds of things. You're going to have to explain it a little better to me and want to see how the feds, the state, and the city treat different classifications. So, with that, thank you so much for your testimony and input. Ms. Stack, will you please read the next panel to testify?
Marsha Greene- Jones, Deputy Director of Employee Benefits from the Office of Human Resources and Sharolyn Murphy, Deputy Director of Finance from the Office of Risk Management. CHAIR JONES: Thank you so much for your patience. Please have a seat at the witness table. And so can you abbreviate because we're going to have questions at the end of your testimony. Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Marsha Greene-Jones. I'm the Deputy Director of Human Resources responsible for employee benefits. Good morning, Chairperson Jones and members of the Committee on Public Safety. I am Marsha Greene-Jones, Deputy Human Resources Director for the City of Philadelphia. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify on Resolution No. 250863, introduced by Councilmember Jones on behalf of Council President Johnson, Authorizing the Committee on Public Safety to hold a hearing to examine whether death by suicide for first responders should be considered as occurring in the line of duty, and to explore the mental health initiatives aimed at preventing suicide and supporting the overall wellbeing of first responders. As someone who works closely with our city employees, I understand the challenges and risk faced by those who serve on the front lines. While first responders are often the focus of public safety discussions, it's critical to recognize that many other city employees also face significant risk and trauma in their daily roles. This includes our sanitation workers, social service employees, and others who are exposed to difficult and oftentimes dangerous situations while serving the public. Equity of treatment is essential for all of our employees. Consider a sanitation worker, a social worker, or parks or recreations employees, who at many times are our initial points of contact for some of our most gruesome intakes and findings. The trauma they endure does not always make it in the headlines, yet they continue to carry it with them. These events are traumatic experiences that can have lasting emotional and psychological impacts, yet these employees often receive very minimal support of any amount or resources compared to our first responders. This is not a pit -- this is not to pit one group or department against another, but rather to advocate for all public- facing city employees, regardless of their department or role, to ensure that they all have the same access level of support and resources. Suicide prevention programs, mental health resources, and wellness initiatives must be shared equitably across all of our departments. Every employee who interacts with the public deserves access to counseling services, peer support programs, and other tools to help them cope with the daily physical and emotional challenges they face. The city has made progress in recognizing the importance of mental health and wellness for its employees, but there is still much work to be done. We must ensure that all employees, not just first responders, are provided with the resources they need to maintain their physical and mental health. This includes addressing the unique challenges faced by employees in roles that may not traditionally be associated with public safety, but are equally exposed to trauma and danger. The mayor has been a strong advocate for well-being of all city employees, emphasizing the importance of creating a safe and supportive environment for everyone who serves the residents of Philadelphia. She recognizes that the health and safety of our workforce directly impacts the quality of service provided to the community. The city does not require a separate line-of-duty policy because we already prioritize the well-being of our employees. We have a robust support systems in place, including employee assistance programs, concierge services through wealthy and comprehensive employee and family wellness resources offered by On the Goga and Securian. In addition, our healthcare provider has taken a significant step towards integrating mental health services in-house, ensuring faster access to care, and breaking down barriers that previously delayed treatment. These initiatives reflect our commitment to providing timely, holistic support for every employee.
It is not my intention to diminish the challenges and sacrifices made by our first responders, but rather to emphasize the need for equity across all departments to support all of our public-facing employees. Every city worker who interacts with the public deserves the same level of care and resources to ensuring their well-being. Thank you for this opportunity and I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIR JONES: Thank you so much. And I know we're going to have questions, we're going to allow the panelists to testify before we begin. Please state your name and begin your testimony.
Sharolyn Murphy. Good morning, Council President Johnson, Chairperson Jones, and members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Sharolyn Murphy and I serve as the Risk Manager for the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to testify and Resolution 250863, introduced by Councilmember Jones for Council President Johnson. This resolution 3 authorizes hearings to examine whether death by suicide for first responders should be considered as occurring in the line of duty and to explore mental health initiatives aimed at preventing suicide and supporting the overall well-being of first responders. For background, the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act specifically precludes benefits for intentionally self-inflicted injury or death. However, Pennsylvania courts have deemed death by suicide compensable if certain criteria are met. The criteria is set forth in a chain of causation test. Before the test is applied, the employer must prove that the death is a suicide. Once this burden of proof is met, the claimant, who's usually the surviving spouse, children, and it could be the parents, may obtain benefits if the claimant proves that the suicide occurred after there was an initial work-related injury, which injury directly caused the employee to be so dominated by a disturbance of the mind so severe as to override normal rational judgment, which disturbance resulted in suicide. If the injury that begins the chain of causation is a mental one, it must be caused by actual objective as opposed to subjective, perceived or imagined employment events. An example of an objective employment related mental injury is one that involved a police officer who was faced with a woman jumping in front of his vehicle, causing her death. In that instance the police officer suffered an actual objective mental injury. One of the foundational principles of workers' compensation is that the injury or death must have resulted from the work. There must be a causal nexus. In the workers' compensation structure, the amount of the death benefit is based on a percentage of the deceased average weekly wage. Average weekly wage is determined by the date of injury and doing a one year look back to determine what rate we're going to use to compensate the individual. This average weekly wage is subject to a maximum that's set forth by the state. And these are the compensation rates. If there's a surviving spouse without children, that individual is entitled to 51 percent of the deceased worker's average weekly wage. If there's a surviving spouse with one child, that family is entitled to 60 percent of the average weekly wage. If there's a surviving spouse with two children or more, that family is entitled to 66 and two thirds of the average weekly wage. If there are children without a surviving spouse, one child will get 32 percent of the average weekly wage, two children would get 43 percent that would be distributed equally among them, three children would get 52 percent distributed equally among them, 62 percent is for four children. For five children, 64 percent of the average weekly wage. And for six children or more, 66 and two thirds of the average weekly wage is distributed equally amongst the children. Now, for line of duty deaths, neither Pennsylvania workers' compensation system nor case law recognizes this construct. In practice, however, the determination is one that is governed by workers' compensation law and also by contractual language. Specifically -- CHAIR JONES: Point of information. This is state mandated?
Yes. Specifically for an injury to be considered line of duty death, the decedent must have sustained a work-related injury or death per the Workers' Compensation Act, which is state and also case law. Contractually, the member must have been killed in the line of duty. And we utilize the plain meaning of the language killed. Legally, kill denotes the act of a person or activity causing another's death. Since 1993 risk management has been tasked with performing the analysis as to whether there is a line of duty death. If the proofs are met, the city would reimburse the respective unit upon the submission of the appropriate documentation for reasonable and necessary funeral expenses up to a maximum of $75,000. The cost of suicide claims can be exorbitant. Looking at the National Violent Death Reporting System, the average age for a person that commits suicide is 49. So what we did is we took that number and we multiplied that number by the average salary for police officers and firefighters to give you an indication of what the cost would be to the city if first responders suicides were deemed line of duty death. And I'm not going to go through all of it. I can see the look on your face. Don't do it.
I just want to do a point of information. So we putting a monetary value, this kind of sound cold, to be honest with you. In terms of somebody losing their life due to suicide, and rather should it be classified or not in terms of their duty. It's going to like -- it's a -- the policy decision is driven by a monetary value. I'm just telling you that's what the testimony sounds like. And we'll do a deeper dive as we go forward. But I hope this surely is in our city's position, that we are making decisions regarding the wellbeing of helping individual families who have lost a loved one to suicide based upon how much it costs. Because that's what the testimony sounds like. And if I misinterpreted then please correct me. But that's what it sounds like you just mentioned.
I didn't finish the testimony. That's just one part. There is a budgetary constraint. And as fiduciaries to the citizens of Philadelphia, we do have an obligation to make sure that we have money and we spend it wisely in their regard and for our employees. So absolutely right. That's one consideration. There are other considerations that I'm about to get to, legal considerations. And also one thing that I want to say is the generosity of the city; is our primary aim to do what's right for our employees. That's why we're here. And we don't let costs dictate whether or not we're going to do the right thing for our employees. But that is a consideration because we don't have unlimited funds. So we have to make some decisions where appropriate. So I was getting to the cost, and I won't go into every single cost, but I will say this to you. For every line of duty death determination there's going to be either a minimum or a maximum cost. The minimum cost to the city may be that $75,000, that's contractual. 69. That's if there is a person 49 years of age married to a person of the same age with two dependents. Now because of the workers' compensation law, that number's going to vary if there are fewer dependents. But for purposes of firefighters, if there are no 4 dependents, then that funeral benefit will be the cost that we're looking at, that $75,000. 25. That's the cost. But that's not the only issue that we're looking at here. We're also looking at legal constraints and legal issues that arise with this kind of resolution. If we were to consider death by suicide for first responders as occurring in the line of duty, that would create an irrebuttable presumption that all first responder suicides are work related despite there being numerous and varied reasons for the commission of suicide. The costs of suicide are very complex. And you've heard that already today. And you already know that they involve personal, socio demographic, medical, and economic factors. Frequently factors associated with suicide include military history, which you've already heard today. Intimate partner relationships, job problems, physical health problems. Consider this hypothetical. A police officer who's been on a leave of absence for one year to take care of his ailing mother, discovers that his house is going into foreclosure and he commits suicide. If this suicide was considered a line of duty death, this would force the city to pay benefits for the death even though it didn't have anything to do with work. And remember, one of the foundational principles of workers' compensation is this causal nexus to work. We believe the city's better served by investing in preventative measures aimed at reducing or eliminating suicides amongst first responders, including mental health examinations, which we already provide through Act 59. Act 59 mandated that mental health examinations must occur if a first responder, in this case a police officer, asks for the evaluation, the commissioner recommends the person for the evaluation, or if the officer has used lethal force. If he has, then he has to have the evaluation and he's put on administrative duty until he could come back to work for full duty. This also includes mental health treatment that we will talk about, that's already provided. And as I stated, we believe our benefits are already very generous. And also outpatient therapy, which also is provided and we think is very generous. And I mentioned other benefits. We also have life insurance payments that are made through the unions and through the city. You've already heard about the Public Safety Officer Benefits, this provides death and disability payments for first responders. It was expanded in 2022 under President Biden to include suicide, PTSD, and other mental health conditions resulting from traumas. Eligible survivors get a lump sum, and in 2026 it was over $460,000, plus they get educational assistance.
Notably, the state of Pennsylvania has not passed legislation extending to first responders, those who commit suicide. But what they have done has made it easier for first responders to get benefits for mental injuries. And these are what we call mental, mental injuries, where there's a mental stimulus that results in a mental disability. Act 121 took out the obligation of proving an abnormal working condition for first responders so that they can meet the burden on a much easier level so that they can get the benefits that they're entitled to. They would get 104 weeks of benefits under that legislation. So we're already doing things to help first responders, as Marsha Greene-Jones has already indicated. Lastly, the law department has indicated that it is the state through the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation system that specifies what events qualify for workers' compensation. And we have to take a look at that in conjunction with what we have to do contractually to make these determinations. So it's not just budgetary, it's legal and it's already the fact that we in the city take pride in offering benefits to our workers. And as Marsha Greene-Jones stated, not just first responders but for all of our employees. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. CHAIR JONES: Well, I need a calculator to figure out all of this, but it gives us a wide range of possibilities. And so these benefits and these restrictions are dictated just to first responders or through City of Philadelphia employees in general? Does this cover all employees or just police and fire personnel?
So for line of duty death benefits, we contractually have that with the first responders. That's going to be police, fire, and it's also going to be paramedics. For other employees that die at work they too get recognized. And we've had some unfortunately. We had Tiffany Fletcher at first. CHAIR JONES: From the Streets Department shoveling snow.
And we had a Streets Department employee who was murdered by gunshot and the city did pay for that funeral. We did provide benefits for those employees. CHAIR JONES: Is it at the same proportion and rate as first responders?
It is not. For first responders, they have the contractual rate of up to $75,000 for their funerals. For the other employees it's much less. What we do, because we honor all employees, is ask that they submit their funeral expenses and the city has paid those funeral expenses in full. CHAIR JONES: Thank you. Member Johnson -- President Johnson.
Yes. Just have a couple of questions. Thank you for clarifying your testimony and going through the rest of your testimony regarding the monetary cost, but also the legality of it as well. So I guess I'll get right into it. So you talked about how you go about clarifying if individual death by suicide should be classified as in the line of duty benefits; is that correct? Did your testimony touch on that earlier, or that is just in general?
So what we do with respect to that, we make the determination as to whether or not the suicide is work related.
If the suicide is. Because we had had some -- unfortunately, some work- related suicides that we have recognized. That's the first step. If the person is in a union then we go to the next step, which is the contractual determination, was this person killed while they were performing their duties. But even if you're not in a union, you can get these benefits that I talked about if you meet the chain of causation test, the city will definitely pay those.
That's it. The chain of causation test. Okay. So does the administration support or oppose classifying first responder suicide as in the line of duty for individuals to receive benefits? Do we support it or not support it?
I would say that we support individuals, but creating a line of duty death classification for these employees, we do not support that, because we already have benefits for these employees, we already have contractual obligations, we already have the workers' compensation law that treats these cases in a certain way if the criteria is met. So I would have to say, although we support people and we definitely support Mrs. Falk and --
And I was saying we support Mrs. Falk and I give her my condolences again as I met her earlier. And so I did want to let her know that we again give her our condolences.
And that classification, separate category. Now, there's a federal standard, and obviously they're reviewing it, and we'll hear from the state senator on the next panel in terms of the status of his legislation. And you're saying the purpose why as a city we support people on a general level but not a separate category. And that's because we are already providing benefits to everybody, correct? In a general sense.
We're already doing that. Yes, in a general sense. And we still have our legal obligation to fulfill by determining whether or not it's a work-related death or not. If it is not, then we don't pay the money associated under the employee disability program. There are other programs that may compensate these people but not the employee disability program.
And when you say the 1.3 to 1.6 million, that's the estimate, right? In terms of money it would cost, right?
Or a lot more. But that's the general that was in your testimony. So just give me an idea. How long have you worked for the city of Philadelphia in this particular department?
2017. And so do you know over the last 10 to 20 years, how many suicide claims involving first responders that the city have actually paid in the past 10 or 20 years?
-- 85. How many we've paid? We paid one in 1985 and one in 1989. We've fortunately only had two.
So we are very fortunate. For the 1989 claim we paid $563,229.85. For the 1985 claim so far we've paid $350,058.23.
-- over the last 10, years for 17 two individuals? If I'm correct -- 18 if I'm listening to the data 19 correctly. 20
Not yet. You're correct. What we do when I talk to you about that average weekly wage, if you go back to a 1985 claim, we have to look at what the person earned that year back. So the compensation rate is probably very, very low. If you look at cases today, the compensation rate is much higher. The statewide average weekly wage right now is $1,394. That's what we would be obligated to pay weekly. That's why the costs are going to be much higher now than they were for a 1985 claim.
I was -- yes. Well, the cost was one aspect that I'm looking at, which obviously is a good thing, and you are only talking about two individuals, right?
Which is a good thing. Which means from a budget standpoint and a monetary standpoint, even in today's time, you know, those still two individuals out of a budget of $7 billion isn't really a significant impact in terms of supporting those families that has been classified as individual down by suicide in the line of duty receiving benefits. I thought the number would probably be much, much higher. I thought you were going to say 10, 20, 30. It's a significant impact on the taxpayer dollars. Because you're right, we do have a fiduciary responsibility. But also we have a heart and compassion for individuals who putting their lives on the front line day in and day out, right? And if you do the causation test that you talked about, and it shows that you had this incident, city- related, they were out on the front line, this incident, this incident, this incident, and the professional psychologist says, yeah, this is post-traumatic stress, this is -- certainly these incidents that have impacted this individual are job related. I think the monetary support for the family to me kind of outweighs, you know, the cost to the city. Chair -- I'm not the chair, excuse me.
Because we can't look at this in a vacuum. We have those claims, but the city has over 3,500 claims that we have every year. So we have to take all of those costs into consideration, not just these two. We have to look at what we pay every year for every claim.
Yeah. We settled -- I'm very aware. We settle on a regular basis. We rarely go into court and fight, but also sometimes I see we do go and fight against individuals that I think we probably should be protecting as opposed to making it harder for them to receive support. That's just my personal experience.
Thank you. It's a point of information along those lines. Since 1985, we've had two suicide claims paid out?
I don't have any claims that were denied. I can take a look back at that, but from what I understand, I looked for every suicide claim, whether it was accepted or denied. And we have two, which is great news. Some suicide claims might not have been presented to risk management because we deal with work-related claims. So I'm not sure if they've been presented on the other side of the house, which would be the health benefits side.
So the health -- I'm sorry, I'll ask my question when I go to -- when it's time for my question. Thank you. CHAIR JONES: We're going to go to my vice chair, and then we're going to go to Jamie.
Yeah. I just want to follow up on that exact -- I mean, I was going to ask that exact question, right? What's the number of claims that were submitted that are connected to a suicide that were denied. My -- I guess I'm having a really hard time understanding how -- if we know that this is -- I mean, the data tells us, right? That there's a certain percentage of these first responders that experience all of this. And so how do we determine -- whose job is it to determine, right, whether this is connected to the job or not. We obviously know based on the data that tells us that these people are experiencing PTSD, depression, anxiety, all of these things that lead someone to that dark place. How is it that we as a city don't recognize such a death in a person's family as not associated, right? How do -- how are we so disconnected that we can't -- we can't kind of like recognize that as a cause that should be paid out. This person, and somebody said it in their testimony, right, this person gave their life every day -- every day, gave their life for the people of our city. How is it that at the end, at their most darkest moment, the city is saying, we don't recognize your situation, right? Obviously, Mr. Chair, Council President, we have a lot of work to do. Because this is -- to me this is not the way that we pay first responders for the service that they have given to our city and for the safety of our city, right? The data tells us one thing, their data as it relates to how many cases they've paid out. And action doesn't add up. There's something not right. And at what point do the people who are processing these claims speak up and say there's something not right here. And we need to look at how we process claims and how we look at the situations or the incidents that are brought in front of us. So we have a lot of work to do, obviously. CHAIR JONES: Member Gauthier. Chair recognizes Member Gauthier.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, first, I'm so sorry that I had to step out. We had -- I had an important meeting on the school facilities plan. But I wanted to say, after hearing the first panel, that one, thank you so much to Ms. Falk, and to Special Agent Kaufman for sharing such harrowing experiences and moving on from those experiences to build and to care for other people. I was really touched by that, and shame on whatever person or entities denied Special Agent Kaufman her recognition for her trailblazing heroism that you can just tell in the testimony she gave so much of her life, and her -- sacrifice so much of her life and her emotions for, I hope that she gets the recognition that she deserves. And in particular, I found so much value in the testimonies of John Becker and Katherine Boyle. It was almost like a how to. It was very instructional in terms of what we should be doing in this area. You all talked about having accessible, you know, mental health supports. You talked about making sure that counselors have culturally relevant experience and that they're able to build trust with first responders. You talked about having peer support so that peers can help one another as they -- as they weather this. You know, Ms. Boyle talked about making sure that care surrounds the whole family because there's this invisible impact on young people. I kind of, you know, felt after that panel that we should take that testimony and figure out how to operationalize it. And so I want to ask, can we do that? Can we develop a task force or a table with experts like the ones we heard from today, who can help us to operationalize these ideas that we should be doing already? And then I also wanted to ask, and I'm not sure if anyone can answer this, are there places that are doing this right that we can point to, that we can learn from and where we can just adopt what it is that they're doing to support and care for their first responders? So I'm not sure who can answer those questions, but those were the things that popped into my mind after hearing the first panel. CHAIR JONES: Anyone interested in responding?
Yes. Marsha Greene-Jones, Deputy Director of Human Resources. Thank you so much for your question. One of the things that we've been working on over the past several years -- certainly the pandemic taught us a lot of lessons in terms of the care, not only for our employees, but for the family in a more holistic way. So over the past few years, we have focused on developing resources to support what you've just talked about, in terms of EAP services to provide support for the entire family, in regard to mental health coverage. One of the things that I mentioned in my testimony was that Independence Blue Cross, who all of the unions, as well as the CAP plan have as their provider for mental health, they now have taken those services in-house. And one of the things that you talked about was cultural competency. That's very, very important to that mental health experience, ensuring that you have people who have had those same lived experiences. In addition to that, ease of use in terms of mental health. So what does that mean? For one individual it could be, can I go to my car at lunchtime and make a call and set up an appointment to talk to a mental health provider? Yes, that's available. So Telemental Mental Health Behavioral Health is also available to employees. And also with the Mental Health Parity Act, what it does, it provides mental health support at the same cost as a PCP visit. Many of our unions make that support at zero copay. Others have a nominal amount that you actually pay. Formerly before the Mental Health Parity it was at a specialist copay rate. Now, it's at the same rate as you would go to your regular doctor's visit. So with Telebehavioral Health, you can actually have a visit with the same practitioner. If you need that support every week, you can have it at that same time with that same provider on a weekly basis. In addition to that, we've rolled out a number of products and programs to support not only the employee but the family, because that's important. Your family sees you day in and day out. They see what you're going through. So we've rolled out On the Goga, which also is self-navigating, that employees, their family members can navigate through. We've also rolled out Wellthy Concierge services. This is a new initiative that was just rolled out in the fall. One of the things we recognize is mental health. So it's not just your mental health. What contributes to that? Finances, care for your elder parents, care for if you have a child that's neuro divergent, care for your personal health, your financial health. All of those things come into play in terms of your personal health experience. Those things can contribute to your mental health wellbeing. We know that we have to approach the entire employee and their family members. So we rolled that initiative out. In addition to that, Securian is our life insurance provider that provides life insurance to all of our employees. So what do they do? They have four pillars that they actually provide help with from a mental health perspective, if you need assistance for legal aid, you can call them. You can have continuous help through an attorney over your issues, whatever those issues are; grief counseling, setting up a will, a trust. All these benefits are available free of charge to all our city employees. In addition to that, we also -- and the other thing is we have wellness. Wellness -- the police department, they have a wellness program. The fire department, they have a wellness program. Every single union, I have to say, has a wellness program.
Can I -- may I have a point of information real quick?
Thank you. Well, thank you Chairman Jones. So from my understanding, there isn't a staff clinician that was requested for the fire department, but they say they don't have one. Is that accurate?
That the fire department does not have their own clinician?
They repeatedly requested to have a clinician, right, to deal with wellness, to deal with the therapy, the emotional trauma.
They don't have a clinician, but they do have a variety of services. I think you heard from one of the clinicians that helped support the fire department. So they have access to a crisis network. They have peer-to-peer counseling.
So the police department or the fire department request --
So the police department has one, but the fire department doesn't have one. And what's the reasoning why one has one and one doesn't?
Well, I think if you look at the totality of all the various unions, they determine what benefits they want to offer their employees. They negotiate programming to support what they believe is best for their individual members.
And so having had this conversation today, it's something certainly that we can take back and we can discuss. I am a trustee for all the health plans and we can certainly discuss it.
My understanding is that they've requested several times and have been denied. And so I'm like, if this is a priority for the city and we are trying to make sure that we're addressing the wellness of our emergency responders, I would think that would be a higher priority. So I guess, as you said, you could take it back and kind of do a deeper dive.
But again, if we talking about the wellness of these individuals, and I'm thinking beyond the -- I guess you're talking about the policy regarding negotiating with the city and the unions. I guess, that's a part of the larger conversations, is what you're saying.
I think it's a larger conversation for each individual union because they determine what benefit offerings they're going to offer to their members.
So say for instance, the police department recognized that there was a need for a clinician. So they actually have a doctor in residence who is -- actually is a psychologist, who actually conducts meetings one-on- ones with individual members. So that's a discussion that the fire department, they need to determine if that's something they'd like to do. It's certainly something I can take back as a trustee for that fund. I can't make any commitments on their behalf, but I can certainly take it back to them.
Yeah. On the record from my understanding is they've been denied the request several different times. So --
Now, one thing the city does have, we just recently hired, I don't know if you're aware of it. We have a psychologist on board at MEU. So we didn't formally have a psychologist several years ago. Now we have a psychologist in residence who actually is there if there's a need that a department needs to refer someone to the psychologist down at MEU, that also is a service available to all city employees.
All right. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, just one more last question. And this is my first time getting a chance to meet the two of you, so it's a pleasure meeting you as well. Didn't even know you-all were part of city works.
So pleasure meeting you in this. Give me -- what's your -- what's your department's total budget compared to the other departments here in the city of Philadelphia? What's your department's budget?
Okay. So my total budget -- and this is for the city administered health plan and some collateral benefits that are offered to all employees. So basically it's the healthcare for the CAP plan. My budget is about $98 million.
Okay. And in terms of your department size, how many staff have you have working under you to make sure that we're addressing wellness and the benefits that individuals need? Just in general, what's your total size of your staff?
I have 13 individuals on my staff to service not only the CAP plan but all city employees.
Are you two a part of the same team, Ms. Murphy? No. You are in a different -- you deal with the money.
Okay. And Finance. Are you with Rob Dubow and his team?
Okay. All right. Just wanted to get some clarity on that. That's all I have. And, Mr. chairman, I've elapsed my time, sir.
And, Council President -- I'm sorry. I just wanted to address the Councilmember about the cultural competence if I can, because I thought you raised an excellent point.
And I just wanted you to know that when I started with the city in 2017, lots of folks did not even know that we recognized mental injuries, and that mental illness was a thing in the city. And we worked hard from 2017 up to today to change that mindset, to change that culture, to let everybody know that mental illness was a thing that was very important. This administration is a huge advocate for mental wellness and health, and we put a lot of time and money into training departments to make sure that everybody has that message that this is important and that we're doing everything we can do. But it's also our obligation, one last thing, to pay the claims that we owe, but to not pay the ones that we don't owe. But we take this very seriously and we put our money where our mouth is and we do whatever we can do because these are our colleagues and we want them to have the best.
And I just think -- and I spoke with the administration yesterday, and I guess for a variety of different reasons regarding legality around this issue, that we couldn't have our commissioner of the police or the fire department to really talk about, not if they support or not support suicide in terms of inner line of duty, but the actual wellness progress, the changing of the culture that Jack talked about, the making sure that we have an environment that's conducive to people walking around and say it's okay to not be okay. And I think that part was kind of lost today for -- but I understand why they couldn't, you know, be here. But I think members at some point in time will want to have a conversation, whether it's on the record, off the record, to at least hear this is the progress that we have been making to elevate -- what you just said, elevate mental health to get rid of that stigma, right? That it is okay to not be okay when you're fighting to help keep our city safe. And so, you know, at some point in time we will still have that conversation. CHAIR JONES: So --
Mr. Chairman. CHAIR JONES: So we want to go back. Oh, Kendra Brooks is here for the record. Thank you, Member Brooks. And we want to -- we want to remember that Jamie Gauthier had the mic, and then we will go to Member Lozada.
Thank you. And this is my first time, I think, meeting both of you as well. And it sounds like you've worked hard to set up a structure where we have a lot of benefits available to first responders and all of our employees. But I think -- and I'm sorry if I didn't phrase my question correctly, but I'm not just asking about the list of programs we have, right? And I -- I'm often as a council representative caught in conversations where a city department can tick off, we offer this, this, this, this, this, this, this. And where a constituent or employee is completely disconnected on the other side about accessing those benefits or about the quality of those programs. And so I think I'm not only asking what we offer, I'm asking how it's working, and if we have -- are doing all we can to understand, one, how it's working, and second, if we need to do more. And I think that information comes not sort of top down. It comes from the people who are expected to be the users of these services and the people who are most impacted. And so we've had a lot of really valuable testimony today from people who have just given their whole lives, and experienced a lot of trauma and a lot of negative impacts as a result. And I'm saying, would it behoove us to take those learnings, and to compare it to what we're doing and to talk to our staff and to answer the question of how it's working, and what more we need to do. I would like to see that come out of this conversation. And I understand from the testimony I heard that some of these issues are state issues. But from a city perspective, we want to know that we're doing all we can from a local level with the resources and the powers that are within our control.
I agree with you 110 percent. One of the things that when you -- whenever you roll out any benefit, it's important to understand who's using it and how you're communicating, and to ensure that people know what's available and when it's available. And if you think back, the testimony that we heard earlier today were really about during COVID, right?
Fast forward to now, this is 2026. The reality is we've learned some very valuable lessons in terms of how we need to communicate and what we need to communicate. Our data shows us that prior to COVID, mental health was not even on the radar in terms of the top -- in the top 10 chronic disease states. Now, mental health is number three or number five on most lists.
And what that tells me is, the message is getting out to people. Services are available to you and your loved ones, and people are taking advantage of those services that are available.
All of the unions have recognized this as well. If you look at their websites, say let's take police for example, on their website they are talking about their crisis intervention. They're talking about 24-hour intervention. They're talking about peer support. They now have one day off per fiscal year for wellness. They have a wellness committee. Fire has a wellness committee. All of the programs and the unions are really focused on the wellbeing of their employees. Every single union has a wellness program whereby they incentivize their employees for participating in wellness initiatives. And how do I know that? Because my department actually processes the incentives for some of the unions themselves. So I know when they have a cadet force in the fire department, how many cadets are actually awarded that $800 for the first year. How many firefighters and their spouses were awarded the incentive program? So I know that it's working and that people are seeing the interconnection between their personal health and their mental health by the fact that people are doing the things that they are hearing about and that are being communicated by their leadership and by their union health and welfare plans. So it is working. Does it take time? Yes. Do we have opportunity? Yes. There's always opportunity, I think, to continue to educate employees, to continue to spread the word to employees, to ensure that they have the tools to make informed decisions. Health literacy is the key to everything. We have Lunch & Learns in the city for the past -over last year we had over 6,000 employees participate in Lunch & Learns. And what were those subjects about? They were about financial wellbeing, mental health, about how to utilize your EAP services, about how to -- not only were they for employees, but the HR communities, and for employees and for leadership managers. We had separate sessions on how to use EAP benefits. So we're trying to educate people because when people know better they do better. So we're continuing to focus on that. And it's not going to be solved overnight. We're going to fall down sometimes, but we'll have to get ourselves up to try to figure out what's working, what's not working, and how we can continue to develop. But the unions are really taking this on hand and the CAP plan, and that they are tracking what people are doing. They have the information on their websites. People are looking at it. And by virtue of the fact of the mental health component that people are utilizing those benefits, tells me it's real and people know it's there.
You're welcome. CHAIR JONES: Thank you, Member. Chair recognizes Member Lozada.
Thank you for sharing that information. I literally -- before Councilmember spoke, I wrote down EAP, and that is because I can't tell you the number of times that I have received calls from some of our first responders. And to me, I think I hear more from the firefighters and their concerns, their struggles and their frustrations with dealing with EAP. And so how you mentioned education and outreach and some of our first responders knowing that these programs are available and doing Lunch & Learns, has anyone ever said to you, Hey, this system and this process and the way that we seek support from EAP is challenging? Because I've heard it many times, right? And I've also heard that some of our first responders' directives are not up to date. And the way, when you call certain numbers, they're outdated. Have you all heard -- dealing with folks directly, have you all heard some of those concerns? I usually get the largest concerns from folks who are in the fire department.
I can't say that I've heard that, but I recently -- I go on the site periodically to see what's going on, to see what's listed, to see the information that's there. And the information is updated annually and if they change your provider. So that information is there and it is available. Now, as I mentioned, I'm a trustee for the health and welfare funds for all the unions. And when we have a trustee meeting, we talk about claims issues, we'll talk about things that we need to do differently and better. But I have to be honest, that has not come up, that firefighters have not been able to contact the EAP. Because remember, an EAP is available 24/7. And so when someone says to me they weren't -- I find -- because if someone said to me that they weren't able to contact an EAP, and they're supposed to be available 24/7, that would tell me we need to find a new EAP.
Because that's the expectation. And the other thing that we need to really understand is an EAP, the way I see it, it's a point in time. So if someone needs ongoing care and support, all of the EAPs are set up in such a way that if they find that in an intake process they're talking to someone, and it seems as though they need more care, because typically EAPs are licensed sociologists, and they're licensed psychologists and psychiatrists, typically. If they find that someone needs ongoing care, they're going to do a warm transfer for that same individual over to the mental health provider through the healthcare plan. That's their responsibility to do. If that member doesn't follow up then that's another situation. Because what'll happen is that member will call back to the EAP and probably question them again. But typically, sometimes people want to go the EAP route because it's free. EAP is free. So all the plans, some have 10 visits, some have six visits. It depends on how the plan has actually designed the program. But typically EAPs are available 24/7. I have to say I have not heard of anyone saying they cannot get in touch with an EAP. And I would -- if they said that to you I would start asking more in-depth questions, because that means that we need to seek another one.
I'll do that. But I've heard it several times, which is scary, right? The number of people. And it's not just one person, right? Like I said, I've heard it multiple times and it's usually associated with the fire department, who has also had challenges with their directives, by the way. And just how do people report certain incidents that are -- that are -- that are interfering with their mental health wellbeing and the stigma around how they report and how they're treated after? It -- to me there seems to be a larger issue. And I -- you know, I work very closely with the police department and the fire department, but I hear of these issues more associated with the fire department.
So, Member Lozada, it comes to mind it's not natural for a -- I got -- it's not natural for a firefighter to want to run into danger. It is not natural to hear gunshots and you run to the source of the gunshots. So they're being wired differently anyway. So we're going to go with Member Young, and then we're going to go with Member Harrity.
Oh, Member Brooks is here. Did I recognize you yet? I'm just making sure everybody know that you are here. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What it sounds like, what I'm hearing is that there isn't parity amongst our first responders here in some of the cases. And I would hope I understand that that's something that you're saying is a negotiated thing with the unions. But I hope that as a city, right, we treat everyone fairly, and we treat everyone who put themselves in these traumatic situations. You know, we treat them, you know, with the same level of care. We give them the same level of care. But one question I have, I guess, is maybe -- I have a few questions. So has the city done an analysis on how Act 121 affects -- could affect potential suicide claims? Act 121, giving first responders this ability to say that their PTSI is from, you know, the job related? Have you done an analysis on if it now will affect claims regarding suicide?
So with respect to Act 121, it just became effective October 29th of 2025. So we don't have a lot of data on the impact that it will have. I will say this, that we have seen more claims for mental mental distress come about since the enactment of Act 121. But we still don't have as much data. What we did do to try to get some analysis is to look at statewide where the numbers are, and there's just not enough data as of yet to give you any type of trending on where we're going with that. But we have seen a slight increase in the number of mental claims.
And under our current, I guess, workers' compensation laws, it does say that -- and of course, it's, you know, intentional -- intentional death is barred, essentially. But can the city create a program or a scope outside -- yeah, a program outside the scope of the Workers' Compensation Act to be able to pay for some of these claims?
But for the most part we follow the law, but the city's already done things that took us over and above what was required by the state. The state has the workers' compensation system, and I'm pretty sure all of you know that the city has Regulation 32, in which we provide enhanced benefits to our employees because we want to take care of our employees and pay them more than what they would get from the state. But when it comes to classifications of injuries, we do, for the most part, abide by what the state law dictates. And there's case law involved with it, and in some of these matters we end up in litigation in court. So we do strictly follow what the law dictates. But in terms of paying benefits, we do pay more than what the state requires.
Thank you. And in the testimony of risk management, you outlined some -- we'll call it exorbitant costs if suicides were treated as a line of duty death, you know, with this broad presumption, so can you provide a modeled scenario and like compare them against what the cost of prevention would be versus the cost of -- the cost of paying out these benefit claims? So, you know, having embedded clinicians, you know, the mandatory check-ins. We've heard from my colleagues about the issues with the EAP access. Like can we -- can you give us a cost on what that would be versus paying out the claims you said can be up to 1.6 million plus dollars.
I can give you the cost of paying. I'm sure that Marsha Greene-Jones can give you the other aspect of that, because the cost of paying out the claims we take a look at the person's life expectancy. So if a life -- if a person is married to an officer or a firefighter who is 29 years old, we look at the life expectancy of that spouse. If that life expectancy is 50, 60, 70 years, we pay for the life expectancy of that spouse. That's why I used the word exorbitant. And I indicated that 1.6 million could be the max, but it could be millions upon millions depending upon the life expectancy of the person. So in terms of comparing that to what it would cost us to impose new standards or initiate new programs, I believe Marsha can handle that for you.
It would be something we would have to look into and get back to you on that.
Thank you. I think that this council would appreciate that, right? As we go through our budgetary process, I mean, as you can hear, this is something that's very important to us on council. We want to make sure these programs are actually working. If we're not -- if the city isn't going to move toward actually, you know, saying, you know, suicide is a death- related incident -- I mean, a job-related, you know, death, then we need to be able to provide, you know, our employees, right? Our city -- the first responders, specifically, with some alternatives that can help them navigate their mental health issues to prevent those things, right? Because if we're not going to pay out on the back end we at least got to prevent it on the front end. And one last question is, what data does Philadelphia currently track on the first responders suicide risks, right, associated with this, right? The same -- along the same lines. Do you track attempts, ideation, EAP utilization, time of care? Like, are you tracking these types of things?
Yes, we do -- we do track EAP utilization, and I have to say the city EAP utilization is one of the highest, it's very high. So typically, EAP utilization is about five percent. The city has typically tracked at about percent utilization. So 7 I'll get the numbers for last year 8 next month so I'll have a better 9 idea of what that utilization is. 10
So I 11 guess my question is, I guess, 12 specifically for specific 13 individuals, right? Because we can 14 track that data overall, but if we 15 are trying to ensure that an 16 individual first responder or an 17 employee doesn't get to the point 18 where they want to commit suicide, 19 are we -- like, is there a check-in 20 point? Like, again, do we know if 21 -- you know, what their leave 22 patterns are? Do we know, you 23 know, what the retention is? Do we 24 know all these things that could lead up to them -- that could cause a supervisor or someone to say, hmm, let's check-in on this person to see what's really going on? Like, Councilmember Harrity said, his dad's, you know, boss said, oh, you know, he drinks a lot, but he's all right. But they don't really check-in to see -- you know, they don't really take everything into consideration and say, well, maybe that is something we should look at a little bit further, right? So does the city like, I guess, monitor those things for particularly the first responders that we're talking about here.
I have to be honest with you. What you're talking about is -- if you take it on a granular level, what you're talking about is managerial responsibilities. When you're a manager or supervisor of people, one of the first things you do is if you know that one of your employees has been involved in some type of critical or traumatic situation, you need to be tracking that individual, right? So a good manager should be tracking those individuals. We don't have -- I don't know, and I'd have to follow up with the uniform divisions if there is a standard operating procedure to track someone once they've encountered that kind of situation. But good management is that if you have someone that you know had a traumatic experience, whether they're uniform or not, you should be checking in with that individual. If you see that they're absent from work, you check-in with that individual. If you see that they're taking time off excessively, that's part of your managerial responsibilities. I don't know that the city has a program, to be honest, that does that sort of thing, because that's getting down to a very granular -- a granular level. And that would be somewhat difficult to do. But as a manager, if you have a team of people, you would 12 take that on as your responsibility 13 to track the performance and the 14 day-to-day activities of your team. 15
See, 16 I would disagree with that, right? 17 I would disagree. I think that 18 that should be an HR function, 19 right? Because HR, or some -- a 20 function other than -- particularly for our first responders, right, that shouldn't be -- a sergeant shouldn't be doing that, right? I don't think that that's their -that's their job. I do think that if we -- because the sergeant may not know, or a manager may not know that this person had accessed these types of services, you know, on a consistent basis. So but if someone from the city or someone from an HR level or a clinician level can see this person has accessed services X amount of times, we see that this person has taken off, you know, these amount of days, particularly when we are going through these -- you know, some of these mental health days, they got to use their sick time and things like that. So like people, I think it could -- we can track that a little differently when it comes to the first responders specifically. I'm not saying that for, you know, all -- every city employee, but if the first responders are having -- we see by and large having the most difficulty with, you know, PTSI and things like that, we should be monitoring that again on the front end to prevent things from happening on the back end. I don't think that that should be someone's -- the manager -- I don't think a sergeant should be doing that, for, you know, the -- you know, the 22nd Police District.
I -- okay. One of the things you're talking about is HIPAA related information. So all HR people don't have access to that. They don't see the claims for people who were involved in an accident. A person who was involved in -- they don't see the claims information. There's a strong line of demarcation between health-related information and attendance -- and attendance.
Well, I'm sorry, whomever, right? It's not -- I may not be the -- it might not be an HR person. It may not -- whomever. I think there should be someone, some entity, some office that's it -- that their function as a part of their duty is to monitor the usage of these benefits from first responders to look at patterns, right? Because you can check patterns to see what's happening here to get to prevent some of the -- you know, the long-term costs, right, or payouts that the city may have to pay in the future. So -- but thank you Madam Vice Chair. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Member. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Harrity.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you all for your service. Ms. Murphy, you know, I get it, you're deputy finance director, risk management. But hearing your testimony with the numbers kind of reminded me of the book about insurance, right? Delay, defend, deny. I really get upset when we use these actuarial numbers in order to assess how much someone's life is worth. Who are we to put a number on something like that. There are so many variables. He may be a police officer now but he may invent something later. He may do something. So for me to have this stuff put into numbers, I just don't see it. First off, these are the people that protect and serve us every day. As Councilman Jones said, when everybody else is running away, they're running in. That takes a special kind of person. But we all know with that special kind of person comes a special level of trauma. Everything's trauma. And I speak about this daily. You have firsthand trauma, you have secondhand trauma. Trauma is trauma. It all catches up with us eventually. I don't think we should be labeling somebody a number when it comes to things like this. I believe that whatever the cost is, just like with our children in school, when it comes to mental health of our first responders, no 18 number should be too high. These are the people that we count on every day, my neighbors count on every day. I live in Kensington. First responders are what we know, right? That's our lifeblood. They protect us. They keep us safe. Could you tell me what change of the classification would do to the law? Like what would actually happen? What -- we're looking to you guys to tell us how do we fix this problem? Because everybody here I think will admit that this is a bad problem. This is -- it's rough in this day and age that the stigma for mental health is still out there, right? We need to allow to see -- our first responders to see somebody as often as they possibly need to see somebody. It's going to be different for everybody. And I get that. And I get your job is the numbers. But whenever somebody leads off with numbers, for me it kind of messes me up. And I don't know you, it's the first time I'm meeting you. But I just want to know what's the answer here? How do we come to this? Because for me, no suicide death, I don't care if they're home, I don't care if they're on vacation. We know their job did it. So how can we change it?
Thank you for that, Councilmember. And I don't want you to think that we do this job without compassion. These are our colleagues. These are people that I work with. These are people that I see on the street every day. I have the utmost respect for them. and it's not just about numbers, although I do have to be fiscally responsible. But it's not just about numbers. Each person out there protecting and defending, they're protecting and defending me as well. So I want everybody to get the benefit that is due to them. Everybody. I know that police officers and firefighters, their lives matter, of course. We have streets employees, their lives matter, of course. I've had stories from streets employees that told me how the great citizens of Philadelphia treat them when they go to pick up their trash, pelting them with cans and food. I understand it's tough out there. We all have a tough job to do. But when it comes to benefits that the city can provide, we have to take a sober approach to it. And we have to do what's right by everybody. The citizens of Philadelphia, this is their money. I can't just utilize their money for things that I want to do, because I do admire police officers and firefighters. I want the best for them. But I have to look at what the citizens have called us to do. And that's to make decisions based upon the facts, based upon the law, based upon the finances, based upon everything that we know from our experiences to get the best outcome for everyone. I'm trying to get the best outcome for everyone; the citizens of Philadelphia, our firefighters, our police officers, risk management. We're trying to get the best outcome. You asked what it would do for us to just not do our jobs and say we're going to compensate people.
I said we're counting too much on a number. That doesn't mean anything. We can't project what somebody's going to do in their lifetime, ma'am. Listen, I get it. You're a numbers person and that's your job. I get that. I get that.
What would the cost be -- what would the cost be to give the firefighters the same access that the police -- the fire -- the police have, that you said, the difference? How much would that cost? Because that's where we can start.
Yes, that's it. You said that the police, they have negotiated it into their contract.
That's what bothers me. Why do we have to negotiate that into their contract? We should just have that as part of the benefit.
And that's something we can take back to Local trustee meeting and we'll discuss if that's something that they think that they want to provide to their members. Because what happens is in the budget process each union is given a pot of money. And that money, they determine how they want to spend it. Whether it's to buy additional resources for their members, if it's to have a cancer prevention program, if it's to -- they have a program where they go to the different firehouses and they check the blood pressure of each person. Whatever they determine is best for their members, that's what they put into the plan based upon the budget that they have. Now, we do have some --
We could just give it to them as a city, right? We could give them that as a city.
This is a point of information. And I think you're helping with some additional clarity, too. So is what we do as a city and what we value as a city and what we provide as a city, and then you have the contractual relationship between the union and the city; is that correct?
Okay. That that was -- now, that's new information from a clarity standpoint for me. I was just thinking, overall, we have certain values that we support as a city. And some of the policies will be reflected in how we look at health wellness just in general across the board. But if there's a collective bargaining component, is what I'm hearing now, where the union should be advocating for certain things for their members, then it seems like that's their responsibility if they want it in their contract.
Exactly. And if they want it as a part of their benefit package.
Because we give them X amount of dollars. They determine what that X amount of dollars what they want to buy.
And as a city, we -- because it's their money now. Because we've given it to them from a budgetary perspective.
And again, you educated me as well. I think I picked up one of my members just saying this as well. But wouldn't it be a baseline for certain things we just provide just --
Just as a -- just as a baseline. You don't even have to fight for this because part of our $7 billion budget, we just want to make sure that fire, EMT -- or EMTs and fires are part of each other and the police. We're just going to make sure they get a clinician, period, as a part of our overall cost. As a part of what we would assign value. I mean, help me out with that if you don't mind.
I'm glad you brought that up. There are some things that we do give across -- give across the board to all employees. You're absolutely right. So, okay. Medical prescription, dental and vision. All employees have those particular benefits. Each union determines what that looks like, what it covers, et cetera, et cetera. There are other benefits that we, the Office of Human Resources, that we provide to employees. So we provide life insurance, we provide the backup care program that you've heard a lot about through Wellthy. We've provided the concierge services, which are for family members to help support families. We provide On the Goga wellness platform for all city employees. We provide the Lunch & Learn program for all city employees. These are just some examples that -- these are programs we negotiated for all employees, that I have to -- that I present to the leadership and say, these are the things I'd like all employees to take advantage of. Because there are some affiliations that don't have certain things. So my thought process is equity for all. So backup care made sense. Why can't all employees have access to backup care? Why can't all employees have access to concierge care? So those are the things we can. Other things -- and if you think about if I did a chart and showed you the various levels of benefits that all the unions have, there's a -- there's disparity across the board, right? Everyone doesn't have all the same things. In the CAP plan, I can't even afford all the things that the unions have. So say for instance, they have Hello Heart, a heart monitoring program, they have cancer screenings. We can't afford that. They have guardian nurses who go to the bedside of members who are hospitalized who help them. They go to doctors' visits, et cetera. Those aren't things that we have. Does DC 33 have them? No. Their employees are actually exposed to the elements? No, they don't have those. Does DC 47 have them? Yes. They have guardian nurses. Does fire have guardian nurses? Yes. Does police have guardian nurses? Yes. And so there's some discrepancies. The basic health and welfare funds for each union determine what they'd like to cover, what they'd like to present to their members and what they think makes sense. And how do they determine that? Based upon the feedback they receive from their members. Members give them feedback and say, we'd like to have this program. They look at it from a budgetary perspective and determine, yes, this is feasible. We can work this into our budget or no, it's not feasible. Me on the benefits side for the city overarching, when I actually roll out benefit programs, when I'm -- like the Wellthy one, which I'm really proud of because we needed to help families in terms of backup care when there's an emergency, child care, we want people to be able to come back to work. That was really, really important. Some of the programs that we're talking about right now in terms of psychological support, we did put a psychologist in MEU. That's something that the Office of Human Resources budgeted and is paying for. And so we do see and we understand there are some things we need to do in an overarching way. And who can utilize that psychologist over at MEU? Hopefully DC 33 members are utilizing it, hopefully DC 47 members are utilizing it. I don't know if Local 22, but we know that LEHB doesn't need it because they have their own psychologists. So those are the kinds of things that we're trying to look at and understand. And the unions in their part, they look at what they have and say -- when they're negotiating their contract they're looking at, okay, so what do my members need? What are you giving me from a budgetary perspective that I need to add or what am I going to take away? Because they have to think in a holistic way in terms of the feedback they've gotten from their members. And if -- we are not in a position to tell a union you must do X, Y, Z, right?
If -- especially if they're paying for it out of their budget. CHAIR JONES: Thank you. We're going to go with -- you're asking for a point of personal information? Yes, Member Harrity.
Why can't we decide what we want to pay for? Why can't we decide that that's a service just like dental and vision that we would do. That's all I was trying to get at. Why can't we give them the mental health, to the first responders, just like dental and vision?
Well, they do have mental health -- they do have a mental health benefit.
One visit a year and then the rest are $150 a visit.
Oh, no, absolutely not. Do you know a mental health visit is $20? It depends on your plan -- the most -- remember I talked about mental health parity? You cannot charge more than the cost of a PCP visit for a mental health visit. That's illegal.
If the doctor is in network. If it's not it's 150. I went through this with my kid and not even an officer, but with a child. It cost me $150 because I couldn't find a child's psychiatrist to deal with the issue because we don't have them. That's another thing, we don't have, but I get it. CHAIR JONES: Can you provide those rates to the chair and I will disperse it to the members of this committee?
The rates from mental health co-pays? CHAIR JONES: Yes. Yeah.
Okay. Yes, I can provide mental health co-pays. CHAIR JONES: Appreciate you.
I'm good. Thank you. CHAIR JONES: All right. Member Brooks, thank you for your patience.
No 9 problem. Thank you so much. I just have a clarifying question, I think along the lines of what Council President and Councilmember Young were asking in terms of, if I heard you correctly, when the union goes for collective bargaining, cancer and mental health are selections that they could potentially get? Is that what I heard? And I'm trying to think about the parity between police and fire.
Sure. Sure. Okay. So each union health plan has a plan administrator. And the plan administrator's responsibility is to listen to the members to understand what benefits they need to provide to their members. The plan administrator will make a recommendation to the -- because they can add benefits every year, just like we do. We add new benefits every open enrollment sometimes. They do the same things. So plan administrator will come to the trustees and say, I'd like to -- we've been looking at this particular provider, we'd like to add this particular benefit for our employee population. We've gotten feedback. We think that it'll help us manage, say our cardiac issues, because we see it's going up, and we'd like to roll this particular program out. The trustees would vote on adding that particular benefit and they'll also look at if they can afford that particular benefit. And that's how that benefit becomes a part of an offering for a healthcare plan. So each healthcare plan determines what offerings they are going to make outside of the basic ones, you know, that they always offer.
And that's what I'm trying to get to. So, like, if they don't have enough, like suppose by the time they select whatever menu of recommendations they have -- and what I'm hearing is that the fire department didn't have enough to cover the mental health benefit that they need for suicide.
No. So if I -- point of information, my understanding of what I heard was that they -- each union negotiates a pool of money that they then present to their members in a cafeteria style selection. Some people have more emphasis on cancer treatment and mental health. So they make that decision, pitch it to their members and that's what they go with.
And to -- that's what I -- I hear that part. So to Council President's point, like as a city, we have the ability to offer certain things. I think like to make -- the fire department decide do they want to cover cancer or mental health because they can't afford it it's ridiculous. And their job requires them to go into situations where they can be exposed to carcinogens. And I'm like, I don't know if I'm not hearing this correctly.
They all cover mental health. Every single plan covers mental health. Every single plan. It's part of the plan design.
So the program that we talked about, this is discrepancy between the fire department and the police department. It's the fire department.
That was because they have a psychologist, and I thought that was a very good point from the councilman.
Are we asking them to choose from an in-house psychologist to be available to them or cancer treatment? Like, I just --
Because if the money is the same why can't we just blanket, if we are talking about parity, police and fire, which are emergency responders that have high risk jobs, they're going to do a certain thing. Why wouldn't that just be the same?
Because, as I explained, they all have their own individual budgets. They determine what they want to use that money for. So police saw a need so they hired their own internal psychologists. Now, one of the things that I -- and I think it's a really good point. That's something that we can take back to the Fire Department. Is that something they've been considering? I don't know the answer to that. It hasn't come up at a trustee meeting to be quite honest.
And I'm -- my concern is like, I don't want them to be in a position to choose between whether you have a in-house psychologist and you're going through PTI, and/or the cancer because of money. Is there something we can do as the city --
I don't know that it's a issue of money, to be quite honest. I don't know if it's something that they just haven't considered. I don't know if it's an issue of money. Because the other point that I need to make is, when you're -- the city would -- that when they negotiate a contract, sometimes they ask for certain things and sometimes they don't, from a budgetary perspective. They have a budget of X and they determine how they would like to use that money of X. So I don't know -- I can't say honestly, if having a psychologist on staff was a decision or a discussion with Local 22. I can't say that that was a discussion. Is that something I can take back to the trustees? Absolutely. To ask them that question, is that something they've been considering? Is that something they'd like to consider in future? And if they don't want to consider it, then I can ask them why not, because I can speak very honestly.
And then is the amount -- the pool of money that's being spent between police and Fire towards these services the same?
-- police has X number of employees and Fire has X number. So it's based upon how they've negotiated their contract in terms of how much they're going to receive from a -- how much they're going to receive and how much they're going to use for employee benefits.
And I'm hearing what you're saying, but my concern is, and even you brought up DC 33, when we think about city employees in general, and we know the risk solely associated with certain jobs, what type of investments are we making in the base package to make sure that city employees that will be affected in a certain way by whatever elements because of their job, is part of their core package. And I hear that, you know, the pools of money may differentiate between 33 or or 21 FOP, but the basic needs of jobs, 22 whether it's the psychologists for emergency responders, even if it's 911, which is a different union, or if it's carcinogen cancer treatment or whatever package, it'll be available to 33 because those are the ones that are digging in the ground and handling hazardous materials. Are we taking consideration the base issues of particular jobs within the city where we're negotiating these contracts and not making that part of the menu, but based on their job responsibilities that we are putting them at risk for in making these deals. So it's not like in a negotiated thing where we know this is something they're going to need and why we are making this an additional expense.
Okay. In negotiations, it's a shared responsibility. There's push and pull. There's a shared responsibility between the union and the city. And based upon what the needs and the wants of both groups, that's where the push and pull comes into play. I'm not a part of the negotiating committee, but I can say that if I'm asked questions about what I think we should consider or should not consider, I'll give my opinion. But at the end of the day, it's about that negotiating team that determines based upon what the union is asking for and what the city can afford. It's that push and pull that they come to a realization and to a conclusion of that contract that they've agreed to, whatever those terms and conditions are. So the union has to make a stringent voice to say, this is what we think we need for our members, and the city will listen and take that into consideration.
You're welcome. CHAIR JONES: Thank you so much Member Brooks. Do we have any other questions from this panel? Seeing none, Ms. Stack, can you -- thank you for your --
So, you know, some things we're going to agree to disagree on, right? But we do want to thank you all for work -- being here today, and your testimony. It is not personal. This is our first time meeting you all. And so I'm a Cherelle guy, gang -- the women gang. CHAIR JONES: Yeah, we know. She got a deep bench.
But we thank you-all for your time and any additional follow up information, we'll also do reach out and follow up on those ones. CHAIR JONES: Welcome to City Council.
Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Have a great day. CHAIR JONES: Ms. Stack, who is the next panel of witnesses to testify?
Emily Chow, widow of Pennsylvania State Trooper and Senator Steve Santarsiero from the Pennsylvania General Assembly. CHAIR JONES: Senator, I truly apologize for Ms. Stack treating you like a Republican, and we should have had you up here first, but welcome. Thank you for your patience. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Yeah. That's -- CHAIR JONES: Please state your name and begin your testimony. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: That's quite all right, Mr. Chairman. Actually, Mr. Chairman, if it pleases the committee, Ms. Chow would like to testify first if it would be all right. CHAIR JONES: Oh, look at you. Chivalry is not dead. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you. CHAIR JONES: He's yielding the mic. Please state your name and begin your testimony.
Hi, I am Emily Chow Gray. I'm the widow of Pennsylvania State Trooper Brian F. Gray. On January 19th, 2024, my beloved husband made the unimaginable decision to take his own life. The weight of his first responder experience left scars of trauma, PTSI, that he and so many first responders suffer from. Brian honorably served this country and the US Army, supporting the global war on terror, most notably, as a member of the Elite special forces. After his service, Brian came home and applied to serve once more with the Pennsylvania State Police. He worked for five years for the city of Philadelphia. He was assigned to Troop K. At the time of his death, he was a senior leader of his midnight squad. He received many accolades within and outside the department for his calm demeanor and unwavering professionalism on the job. Philadelphia was his region. As a state trooper, Brian often responded to devastating events on Philadelphia's highways. The most catastrophic and devastating event occurred March 2022. Brian and his partner were on patrol in the county. , the call came across, officers down. Two of his troopers, along with the pedestrian that they were trying to help, were struck and killed by DUI driver on I-95. Brian responded, not only as a grieving coworker, but he also immediately worked the case. I'll personally never forget when he walked through that door. After that call, he collapsed into my arms, and he was never the same after that day. That event, along with the culmination of a lot of other traumatic events that he experienced on this job, resulted in him suffering from PTSI symptoms. He witnessed drownings, suicides, graphic fatal accidents with body parts littering the highway, numerous other incidents involving reckless drivers almost hitting him and running him over. A state trooper car during the pandemic was lit on fire in front of our apartment. He responded to calls of his co-workers. He was, at the time, the only state trooper that was not hit by a car in his squad. And someone high on PCP attacked him, requiring hospitalization. These are only the select few of the traumatic events that happened at work. As you've all heard, mental health is currently not compulsory, which allows the stigma to exist. Brian felt that stigma and never, in his words, wanted to disgrace the badge or appear weak, especially as a senior leader of his squad. Shortly before his untimely death, he did agree to seek help. But alas, only days after celebrating his 36th birthday, I still lost him, proving that PTSI does not discriminate. I then had to live through the trauma of being informed of my husband's suicide death in the wee hours of the morning, instantly becoming a 34-year-old widow, mother of a one-and-a-half-year-old and newly pregnant. Mere hours later, I got a call from the Pennsylvania State representative who had to inform me that as of that day, I was now also without health insurance or any standard of line-of-duty death benefits because PTSI was not recognized as a line-of-duty death. And as law enforcement, obviously they were required to follow the law. So my goal now is to say that the law is incomplete and that through all of the data that you've heard, through all of the access to the information, to all of the clinical information, that it is, in fact, a work-related death. And that my husband's death and all of the other deaths that you've heard of today should also be considered line-of-duty death. Brian spent his adult life serving this country and the Commonwealth so that we could all be safe and free. But that safety and that freedom is not free. Brian ended up paying with his life. I lost my husband and my two children lost their father, one who will never know their dad or have one picture with their father. These first responders are never off duty; their hearts are always heavy with the weight of what they see and experience on the job.
But behind every single uniform is a family who shares the invisible weight of their service. So thank you for letting me speak today, and I ask for your empathy, your action, and the change. CHAIR JONES: No, we thank you. You honor this chamber by sharing your story, your sacrifice, and thank you for your husband's service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: We -- there are no words that will adequately define your sacrifice, your family's sacrifice, but I'm looking forward to the Senator's testimony, because it may well be the solution to most of what we heard today. And so please stick around. Senator, thank you for your discernment in allowing her to testify first, it set the tone. State your name for the record and begin your testimony. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Santarsiero and I'm a member of the Pennsylvania State Senate representing the 10th District, which is in Bucks County. I think you're right. I think what Emily just shared definitely underscores why we're all here today. And I think your first panel made that case as well with their personal experiences that really do explain why there needs to be a change in the law. And I will speak in a moment about what the change -- the proposed change is here in Pennsylvania, what we're proposing in the State Senate and also in the State House. But I want to step back for a moment to make a broader point, because the testimony you've heard today is testimony that most of our constituents usually don't think about. We know that first responders have a difficult job. We know that we ask them to do, very often, impossible tasks, but seldom do we really think what that means and how that impacts them. You heard the experience of Trooper Gray. Even in the town in which Emily and I live, Lower Makefield Township, just about 30 miles north of where we're sitting today, there are things that happen on a daily basis that residents have no clue about. Just a couple of years ago, local police officers had to respond to a home where they found two bodies: a father who had murdered his 9-year-old son; and then his own body after he took his own life. Now, think for a moment what impact that had on those responding officers to see that. That is what our first responders have to go through. And, you know, Council President Johnson, it's good to see you again. Earlier in the previous panel, there was discussion obviously about costs, and I know that that's a significant issue for the city as it is for the state. And I know you have to weigh those costs when you're thinking about changing policy like this. But if I may offer, we make a social contract with our first responders and their families for that matter, and that social contract asks them to undertake this work; this often dangerous work; this often traumatizing work. It's a social contract we ask their families to bear the results of. We have an obligation to fulfill our end of that bargain, which is not merely to make sure that they're paid, which is not merely to pass legislation that helps to protect them, which is not merely to make sure that they receive proper benefits while they are alive, but also to ensure that when they pass, that their families are being taken care of. That's what this is about. And the issue, and Councilman Harrity, thank you for sharing your dad's story earlier, I thought that was -- that was very powerful, I appreciate that. The issue for us is whether we are finally going to step out from beyond the stigma that so many mental health issues, to this day, have. And as has been so eloquently described in previous testimony, how that stigma impacts the culture of first responders themselves. Are we going to step back from that stigma and do the right thing to make sure that even when a death occurs in the line of duty by suicide, that benefits will be there. That's the question. And I applaud -- I applaud this committee and I applaud President Johnson for bringing this issue forward for the -- for the city to consider doing this important step here in the City of Philadelphia. We would like to make sure we do it in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as it relates to the death benefit that would otherwise be available and heretofore has been denied Emily and her children.
So that's why we have introduced Senate Bill 110. And I'm happy to say it's a bipartisan bill in the state senate. I've teamed up with Senator Camera Bartolotta from the other side of the state. She would be here today but for the fact that it's probably about a six-hour drive to get -- to get here to propose this legislation. It's a very simple bill, it's only a few pages long and it amends what we have here in Pennsylvania, which is known as Act 101, which is the Emergency and Law Enforcement Personnel Death Benefits Act. That Act allows for surviving spouses, minor children, or parents of first responders, and first responders under the Act include firefighters, ambulance or rescue squad members, law enforcement, and members of the Pennsylvania Civil Air Patrol or National Guard who die in a line of duty to receive death benefits from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But the question is: what is covered by dying in the line of duty? So very simply, Senate Bill 101, and we have a House companion bill, and that House companion bill is House Bill 237, which is being offered by Representatives Melissa Cerrato, Jen O'Mara, and Brian Munroe. It would expand dying in the line of duty to include deaths by suicide, whether because of a diagnosed condition prior to the death or in the case where diagnosis has not been made, where the death occurs 45 days from the traumatic event. They would be covered, and the death benefit would be available to the families. Again, a simple idea, but it's an issue of our values and whether we, as policy makers, whether at the city or at the state level, are going to acknowledge that social contract and our obligation under it. I'm happy to report that the bill, Senate bill 110, is currently in front of the Senate Veterans Affairs and Emergency Preparedness Committee. I am hopeful and President Johnson knows how this works in Harrisburg, so I'm not going to jinx myself by opining when this is going to be brought up, but I'm hopeful it's going to be soon, and that we will get it out of committee and get it to the floor and then over to the other chamber. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether it's the Senate bill 6 or the House bill; they're identical. What matters is that we get it to Governor Shapiro's desk so he can sign it into law. I am, again, grateful for you to have taken up this issue to have highlighted it here in this committee hearing today. I think it's been a very good hearing and I've -- you've gotten some really great information, both with respect to the problem and also with respect to how it potentially -- a solution potentially impacts the city financially. But I will say once again, from my own standpoint, and this goes for the state too, our obligation is overarching. And while we need to be good fiscal stewards, and while we need to observe that fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer, we also need to make sure that we're providing for these heroes and their families. With that, we're happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIR JONES: So you have proved positive, both at the local level and hopefully at the federal level, that good legislation can be brought from whatever house to whatever party because it really helps people, and I am grateful. I'm going to turn the mic over to Member Gauthier.
Thank you so much both of you for being here, thank you for sharing your story, and thank you for this bill. I am hopeful that it's brought up soon, I am hopeful -I'm glad that it's a bipartisan effort and I hope that it sells through because it's very important. One thing I wanted to put on the table, and this is something that has been a part of my work for the last several years, and I will say it's really the Chair of the Public Safety Committee, which, first, kind of brought my attention to the plight of the workers in our 911 call center. But this especially hit home for me after the Kingsessing massacre which occurred in my district in which sort of the call was erroneously deployed to North 56th Street after the first victim who was shot almost two days before the next six victims. And because the call was deployed three miles away, we, I think, missed a huge opportunity to maybe save many more lives. And so that really got me looking into what happens in the 911 call center, what we can do to head off mistakes like these, which can be disastrous. But what I found was that these are very overworked employees of ours. These are mostly Black women, Brown women who don't really have -- they're not protected by the same union and offered the same benefits. They do not have the same pipeline for career success, they're stressed, they're tired, they're overworked, and they also deal with quite a lot of trauma. They are answering the phones during people's worst moments. And so I've been working in my role as a Councilmember to make sure that they are paid adequately. I found that there was a big disparity between what we were offering our 911 call center operators and what other counties offer. And then I also found that they are not considered in the state's definition, at least from my understanding, as first responders. And I believe that there is a bill that would change this at the state level. But I wanted to ask you, in this wonderful work that you're doing, can you carry that with you as well. And if there's anything that you can do to help these first, first responders, I think that they should be included in all of this for the very significant role that they play, that is often overlooked in the city and at the State level. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you, Councilwoman. I -absolutely, you make an excellent point. They do face many of the same issues based on what they have to hear on a daily basis, and so we will absolutely look into that and I'll try to find that legislation you're referencing.
Thank you so much. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you. CHAIR JONES: We can skip to President Johnson.
Well, first, welcome. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you.
That's the first part. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Yeah.
And it's always good to see you, and most of my members probably may or may not know, but I served with Steve as part of my freshman class, so we see that bond, right, and he went from state house, now he's on the senate side. So I'm always proud to see the work that you are doing. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you.
Couple things, well, I'm glad you gave us an update on where the legislation is thus far, and so you don't have to elaborate on that. And I just sent out to my colleagues also a resolution also calling on General Assembly to be supportive of your bill. Can you give any background regarding how this works on the federal level, right? Because the feds, I mean, I got a fact sheet right here, the Public Safety Officer Benefits Program, it's a done deal on the state level non-controversial, right? And obviously we want to see the same type of model on the state and the city level. So tell me, like, what is the litmus test? Because I think that's the million- dollar question, right? How do you determine that the suicide was in the line-of-duty service to qualify for the benefits? SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right. So our bill is actually modeled on the federal legislation which is -- was passed in 2022 called the Public Safety Officer Support Act. And essentially, what it boils down to is, again, in a situation where you have a diagnosed condition, that's pretty straight, right? That's pretty straightforward, in a situation where it has not previously been diagnosed, but the -- but the death occurs within 45 days of an event. That is where the determination has to be made, that event is what ultimately was the triggering factor in the -- in the suicide.
Okay. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: so -- and the bill goes into some detail in terms of the different traumas that are -- that are considered. Yeah.
And how was the totality of an individual's employment in that particular profession, right? And I think somebody talked about this earlier. Let's say there's a series of events that kind of leads up to individual who may engage in suicide, right? Who would make those decisions in terms of looking at the patterns that these are the stressors that has a significant impact on the individual? SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right. So in terms of considering a claim under the law, I'm sure that would be people with a medical background to do that. But, you know, the interesting thing is, again, it's getting back to so much of what was discussed today, which is getting the services to people sooner.
Yes, that's true. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Because, ideally, I mean, we're talking about the worst-case scenario today, right? We're talking about providing benefits after the most horrible thing imaginable could happen; that is someone taking their own lives. Hopefully by providing benefits more broadly and better benefits, we avoid that, as Councilman Harrity described in his dad's case where he got the help. But that often then could lead to a diagnosis ahead of time as well.
Okay. All right. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: So, but again --
The ultimate goal of prevention. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right. But -- and here's the other thing I will say, it's on us at the state level, we have to do a better job funding mental illness services. We absolutely have to do it. Look, I hear it from my county all the time. One of my commissioners is a social worker, and she is -- she is one of the best advocates I know when it comes to this issue. We do not do enough as a state. And that's something where your advocacy with your delegation, obviously, but I'm sure in your delegation, you're preaching to the choir, but we need all to be singing from the same music sheet on this. The state needs to do a better job providing for mental health services. No question about it.
And just wrapping up, I just want to commend Ms. Gray just for getting the courage, your testimony, continue to fight the good fight on behalf of your husband keeping his legacy alive. And I'm hopeful, right, because I do know from doing this work on the brief time I have been -- I have been doing it, like this, even having a conversation publicly about mental health, right? SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right.
And my colleagues hosting different either task forces or round tables on events just around mental health, because, you know, in every community, right, there's some level of stigma. And in the African- American household, you won't talk about what's going on in the household. We keep everything inside the house, so you don't talk about. Well, that's how it used to be, right? So even the whole concept of going to get therapy, right -- SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right.
-- has been foreign or looked down upon, where now you have to have a conversation and it's becoming more acceptable to say -- to be in a conversation with some men and they say, oh, you know, I got a therapist and nobody think nothing of -- oh, okay, cool, and go about, you know, your day to day conversations. And so -- but this is also -- I'm glad you talked about it from a social contract standpoint, right, because there's some things that we can do from a policy standpoint, and there's some things we do because it's the morally right thing to do. And so, Ms. Gray, again, thank you for turning your pain into purpose, and State Senator, thank you for your leadership on this issue. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you, Council President. If I -- if I can just add, I -- Emily is amazing. I mean, for someone to have two young children -- those of us who are parents know what it's like when your kids are really young, and yet to be this tireless advocate for this issue, not just for herself, but for all the other families that are in this position, we should be very thankful and grateful. CHAIR JONES: Thank you for sharing. Thank you so much. Chair recognizes Member Harrity.
Oh, I'm sorry, I think Council President got it, I'll -- CHAIR JONES: Okay. All right. Got it.
-- we're in. CHAIR JONES: So if I took anything away from these things -- I got three. That we have to do more for prevention, mental health days, and those kinds of therapeutic refreshes. If Joel Embiid can experience load management playing basketball, a kids' game, then we need to have load management on first responders. The second thing I take away is removing that stigma. President Johnson is right. I've been in -- when I was coming up, if you hang out on a basketball court and you said, oh, by the way, I got to go because my therapist is waiting, we'd to look at you differently than we look at you today, and that is progress. That is progress. And then No. 3, that we are zeroing in on what is -- what can be tightened up about suicide causal relationships that allow more families to take this occupational hazard and not wind up in the poor house because they made -- their spouses made sacrifices for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So if I take away three things, those are the three things that I thank you for --
And if I may add one -- CHAIR JONES: Please do. State your name again.
Emily Chow Gray, the widow of State Trooper Brian Gray. And one thing I would say is, yes, everything that you recapped is exactly correct. I think in terms of the gap, in a way from what we're talking about stigma is -- especially in law enforcement, these men and women that put on the badge, you know, from day one in the academy, they are taught you are the calm in the chaos. They're never taught how to calm their chaos. And so -- CHAIR JONES: Wow.
-- one of the biggest things that I really think would be the difference is not only having these programs offered by the EAP and available to them, it has to be mandatory. It has to be in order, and it has to be something that every single one of them is required to do, because that is going to remove the stigma. That is the -- in my opinion, going to be the reason. Because my husband cried to me and said, I can't unsee the things that I've seen, and I called EAP and I told them in June that he was at risk to kill himself, and in January, six months later, he did. CHAIR JONES: From pain to purpose is what I heard a lot of as well. So thank you for staying steadfast in his memory to make sure it had a purpose. I know that -- I know the city and the Police Commissioner and the Mayor, because of legal matters, couldn't testify today, but I know they're listening. And one of the things that we need to add in our recruitment efforts to get new officers to say, we got you. We got you. And this is -- that we're going to make sure that when you are with us, that you know we got you. Pain into purpose.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: If -- without any other questions -- thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: Appreciate you so much for sharing. Ms. Stack, can you tell us the next group to testify? It's public comment.
Eugene Blackman, Melissa Rice and Steve Cohen. CHAIR JONES: Okay. We're good. We're good. Thank you, Vice Chair for hanging in there. And we got it. We got it the rest of the way.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: Thank you for your patience, sir. And thank you for making sure, Eugene, you got to add the FOP's perspective. I know sometimes it's perceived that because your advocacy for your memberships that we're pulling on one arm, but you better know that the FOP is pulling at the other arm to keep their membership included. I know we've been talking about what the city's obligation to insurance and death benefits, but I also know that the FOP did not wait --
They got this. CHAIR JONES: Yeah, they passed the hat and they said, all you who wear this badge --
-- you're going to get that. CHAIR JONES: -- you're going to ante up, and we're going to take care of ourselves first. So with that, state your name for the record and please give us your comments.
Melissa, just for the record, separate from your name, could you -- could you just also state the symposium you co-founded; the work that you are doing.
Yes. So I co-founded the First Responders Suicide Prevention Symposium of Philadelphia. We had military personnel and all first responders; it was an awareness event. This is where I met President, Chairman Kenyatta Johnson and all of these amazing speakers who spoke today. It was a really powerful event and really set the stage for why this change is needed. And Steve Cohen over here was actually the main sponsor.
Sure. My name is Melissa Rice. I'm a mental health advocate. When I was first asked to speak and help run a First Responder's Mental Health Suicide Prevention Symposium, I remember thinking, how can I truly relate? I've never worn the uniform, I've never responded to calls, I have not experienced what they experienced, especially the family members. But I've lived through my own battle. At years old, I 5 experienced suicide ideation. I 6 was deeply struggling with anxiety, 7 depression since five, while also 8 carrying the stigma of being told 9 to hide it, to push through, to not 10 talk about it, to live two 11 different lives, just like first 12 responders. 13 What change my life was a 14 friend, a friend who listened, who 15 noticed, a friend who helped me when I could not help myself, who looked beyond the stigma. And I was lucky, but sadly, it's not always the outcome. Because of that moment, I'm here today. As for the past 16 years, I've been speaking publicly about mental health. I've shared my story in schools, universities, communities, because I believe that conversations save lives. I believe visibility reduces stigma. I believe honesty builds connection. So while I cannot fully understand what first responders and their families experience with a job, I deeply understand what it feels like to suffer in silence. I understand pretending you're okay, understand carrying something heavy alone, the fear of being judged for needing help. And as I listen today to the courageous stories of first responders and their family members navigating suicide loss, mental health struggles, and the pressure to appear strong at all times, I knew this fight brings us all together. Mental health does not discriminate by profession, but stigma thrives in silence. Although more resources all are available, there are more people talking about it yes, celebrities, athletes; the statistics show that suicide is actually still on the rise, people are afraid to seek help compared to college students. Fifty percent of college students are struggling; 75 percent of the 50 who are struggling do not seek help due to stigma. In terms of health insurance, it only covers certain therapists, most of the time, not experts in the type of mental health issues that are needed. And usually this is paid out of pocket, just like my family had to do. This goes back to one of the witnesses, sharing that first responders should be given a psychologist or psychiatrist who can relate and understand and not be shocked and just interested to hear the details of their story. What unites us is not identical experience; it's shared humanity. Every person on this panel has said it beautifully, their courage to speak openly is changing the culture in real time. And for that, I'm so grateful. I'm grateful to see Cohen for believing in this, to the FRSP team, to City Council, to Councilman Kenyatta Johnson for your care, support, and moving this important change forward. This how change happens when leaders listen, communities respond; and when people decide, the conversation cannot stop. We have to keep talking, we have to keep reducing stigma. We have to build systems that support people who run towards danger while the rest of us run away. It's powerful and long overdue. We are finally recognizing how important it is to protect and support those who dedicate their lives to saving ours. And the conversation cannot end today, because sometimes it takes one person, one friend, one colleague, one leader to interrupt the silence and save a life. And yes, prevention is key, and I love starting at the academy. And there are some programs happening, and having the whole Philadelphia Academy attend last year's FRSP event was huge. That work is worth continuing. So thank you for today and every day that we fight for our general public and especially our first responders in the struggle and battle with mental health, and especially supporting their families. Thank you.
CHAIR JONES: Thank you so much for being one of the motivating factors to get us here today. We appreciate, we appreciate your comments. Next speakers.
My name is Eugene Blackman, I'm from the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 13 5 and the State Lodge. I didn't have any prepared testimony because I wasn't prepared to speak, but I just wanted to speak on one thing that the City commented on. All the stuff that they're taking credit for, we had to fight them tooth and nail for decades to get that done. They're sitting back there like they -- they never heard the word wellness before we came along. So for them to take credit for that is kind of disingenuous, I guess is the word you use now. So I just wanted to say that we, at the FOP, want to partner with you on this issue. It's very important and whatever we need to do to get it done, we will get -- work with you to get it done. All I say, ask any city -- ask any police officer, any firefighter you know, ask him if he thinks the city has his back. That's all you have to do. The answer will always be the same, trust me. CHAIR JONES: Eugene, it is just good to see you. Okay, Steve. Hold up a minute. Hold up.
Not yet. CHAIR JONES: Give me a second. Let me -- let me give my guys his flowers. From my freshman year, you were sitting in that seat over there, and often, you would be taking notes and kind of asking questions about what did we mean when we said this or that. And it always went back in a way that made sense for your members. And so you have never come in this chamber and asked for much, you didn't wait for us. You guys -- I've been -- we've been to way too many police officers' funerals, way too many. But they were done with dignity, they were done with respect for the services given to our city, and we are thankful for our partnership. And sometimes, you know, City of Philadelphia takes a little credit for things that, you know, they didn't do, but we are glad you did so that we could follow suit, so thank you and welcome back, sir. Thank you and welcome back.
Thank you, sir. We want to partner with you, we want people to say that City Council is -- does have their back, and that's all we really want. CHAIR JONES: Agreed. Well, we're here to represent that. Now, Steve, go for it. State your name for the record --
My name is Steve Cohen. My many thanks to this City Council and to President Kenyatta Johnson and to you Councilman Jones for -- and your colleagues here for allowing us to speak. Several years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting Darrell O'Connor, Darrell O'Connor, a Special Agent with the ATF, and actually, I met him through a very close friend of mine by the name of Hardy Williams, State Senator Pennsylvania, introduced me to my wife 69 years ago, for which I'm very grateful to him. And Hardy and I became very close friends. When he retired from the state senate, he represented our family in a matter of quite a few legal matters for which we are very grateful to him. And I met Kenyatta, with whom I'm grateful, because he's taken -- helped me take up a challenge here regarding our first responders. I'm very much involved through our foundation with helping and assisting those people in need with mental illness, mental health issues. Several years ago, when I met Darrell and I did speak to Councilman Johnson, I hope you don't mind if I call you Kenyatta, my age, Kenyatta, gives me some privileges, and I will not be intrusive on you. We spoke about our first responders, and I recognized how grateful I am to live in this beautiful country. Our country is great. We offer so much to everybody, and yet we never gave the recognition, as far as I'm concerned, to our first responders. Our first responders make this democracy work in this country, they put their neck on the line, their bodies, their minds, their life on the line all the time. And they make it possible for us to live in the democracy and the freedom that we have here, for which I am eternally grateful. And as a result of that, our family decided with Darrell O'Connor's help, Bill Fleischer, Messisa, to sponsor a symposium for mental health issues as it pertains to our first responders. That our first responders would attend this symposium to learn what it -- to speak out about the stigma, the challenges that they have every day, and to help them recognize that they must seek help to prevent them from committing suicide. And so we had our first responder -- our first responders symposium at Temple University a year ago. We were delighted that Police Commissioner Johnson and Fire Commissioner Johnson was there to help us get this message out to our community, our first responders' community. Thank you, Kenyatta, for helping us get this to our first responders' community. Temple University was grateful to have us there; we were grateful to be there. Our second symposium was held this past September at Immaculata University for which Kenyatta joined us there to give opening remarks. We had our police department, young people, come to this symposium to understand, and I mean these are the recruits that were at the police academy, to come there and understand that if they need help, please feel free to reach out and get the help. We will continue to run these symposiums. At Temple University, we had 450 people attend. I think it was a great response considering that many people who suffer our first responders from mental health issues really don't want to attend these sessions. They don't want to -- they don't want to be seen. And we had our second program at Immaculata University. We had over 400 people attend. So I'm grateful to have the opportunity to come before this council. I thank you for your service and I want you to know that our family is committed to do whatever we can as it relates to mental health issues pertaining to our first responders. And we also sponsor a program for college students because the suicide rate amongst college students has skyrocketed. And we support a program called CogWell, which I think Missy heads it up, and we have, I believe, seven or eight universities or so that are part of the program. So this is a serious epidemic that's in our country, and we must do everything we can to help our first responders seek help, prevent suicide.
And if we save one life, we've accomplished not all of what we would like, but certainly some of what we like. So, Councilman Jones, thank you so much. Thank you, President Kenyatta, and thank you for your service of your father who experienced things that I've never experienced. I'm grateful to be in this country and to have the kind of life I have. But we as society must reach out and do all we can to protect those who protect us every day and put their line -- their life on the line. So thank you all for your service. Thank you very much. CHAIR JONES: Thank you. Again, all of this is a convergence and it's making a difference. It's on the record. The only thing, before I let our President close out, is I was sitting here thinking that for those people that are being recruited to become first responders, police officers, firemen, people who deal with 911 calls, if we don't, in the recruitment part, say we got your back, and here's how that whether your body breaks on you or whether your will and mind break on you, we got you, and more, or as importantly, your family, then we are -- we are not giving them the full respect of the job that they're undertaking. Think about this: had everyone that went in 9/11 Twin Towers after the towers began to catch fire, if you'd have told them, at the end of the day, if your body or your mind break, we don't have your family's back, how many would've went in? So we've got -- they do their part, we have to do ours. With that, I recognize Councilman President Kenyatta Johnson.
I just want to thank the members for your time and your schedule and just sticking to it. And also thank Gene and thank you Steve Cohen, particularly around this particular topic, you brought to my attention at the symposium and it was a no brainer, because again, as it was talked about earlier by State Senator Steve Sentarsiero, it is a social contract with our first responders. They get up every single day and put their lives on the line for us, and it's only right that we figure out ways to be supportive of them as much as we can do possibly. And so I just want to thank all of you for your testimony and Dr. Melissa Rice as well for your leadership on this particular topic, as well, in terms of how we put the panel together as well. CHAIR JONES: Amazing job, Mr. President. Anyone else?
There's one thing -- there's one thing I wanted to add. When they were talking about, they'd only had two suicides submitted to them over the years, I had two suicides in my squad in the 16th District, 39th, Lincoln, one of the smallest districts in the city. And we had two homicides in the 90s, and both of those guys were under 40 years old. They said the average age of the suicide is 49. They didn't say the average age of police suicides is 49. So they're taking numbers and kind of moving them around conveniently. CHAIR JONES: We -- that's on the record now and we will follow up on that. Is that it for the Chair?
That's all I have, sir. CHAIR JONES: All right. That's all you have? All right. So this concludes the hearing -- a Public Safety Hearing on Resolution 4 No. 250863. Thank you all, I thank the listening audience. This concludes our business. (Committee on Public Safety hearing concluded at 2:10 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me of the above case, and this copy is a correct transcript of the same. _______________ Samanda J. Rios