From Policy to Practice: How Site Visits Support Effective Implementation of Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Abstract

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) are law in 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. ERPOs are an evidence-informed policy that allows for temporary removal of firearms when a judicial officer finds that individuals are at risk of harm to themselves and/or others. Illinois passed its ERPO law, called a firearm restraining order (FRO), in 2018. Additional implementation support is necessary for the law to be utilized. This paper discusses the process for planning an implementation site visit and the lessons learned from the site visit. Site visits serve as a valuable implementation tool to build connections, highlight opportunities for improvement in implementation, and coordinate effective policies to save lives. The site visit in Lake County, Illinois serves as an example of a successful site visit to further FRO implementation. ERPO site visits are dynamic meetings where best practices are shared, conversations with key implementers are facilitated, and challenges to ERPO implementation can be highlighted and overcome. Following the site visit to Lake County, Illinois, several lessons were learned: the importance of their Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator, the challenge and need for standardized data collection, ongoing education and training needs, and the importance of partnership and connectivity. Following the site visit, Lake County, Illinois saw an increase in ERPO cases. Site visits are a useful tool to implement ERPO laws around the country. By bringing people together, ERPO implementers can coordinate services, highlight opportunities to improve implementation, and ensure coordination on firearm relinquishment.

Introduction

In August 2024, members of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions (CGVS), in coordination with the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office, visited Lake County, Ilinois for a site visit to examine and improve firearm restraining order (FRO) implementation. This site visit included a series of meetings with key implementers, including law enforcement, clinicians, attorneys, and advocates to discuss barriers and solutions to extreme risk law implementation. The article highlights the power of site visits as a tool for implementating extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), provides lessons learned from this site visit, and serves as a roadmap for replicating site visits as a tool for training and technical assistance across the country.

What Are Firearms Restraining Orders (FROs)?

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), called Firearm Restraining Orders (FRO) in Illinois, are civil orders that allow law enforcement or family or household members to ask, pending a judge’s approval, that someone be temporarily prohibited from obtaining or possessing firearms, ammunition, or firearm parts for the duration of the order. ¹ Illinois requires individuals to have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card to possess firearms and a concealed carry license (CCL) to carry firearms in public. The Plenary ERPO in Illinois can last from 6 months to up to 1 year but can be extended if risk remains. If granted, the ERPO suspends both the FOID card and CCL while also prohibiting posession and requiring firearm relinquishment.

Once granted by the judge, the ERPO allows law enforcement to seize the respondent’s firearms, ammunition, and firearm parts. The law enforcement officer serving the ERPO shall request the respondent immediately surrender all firearms and ammunition owned by the respondent in their custody, control, or possession, as well as their FOID card and CCL. In addition, the law enforcement officer shall take possession of all firearms and ammunition owned by the respondent. The respondent may not transfer their firearms to another valid FOID card holder—a law enforcement officer must take possession. The respondent can petition the court later to request transferring them to a valid FOID card holder, but the firearms must all initially go to a law enforcement agency. In addition, law enforcement may seek a search warrant to secure the firearms, but the court must make an additional finding of probable cause that the respondent possesses firearms for the judge to issue a search warrant. The court may, as part of the search warrant, direct the law enforcement agency to search the respondent’s residence and other places where the respondent is likely to possess the firearm.

ERPOs have been used in various cases where respondents were threatening suicides, ² domestic violence, ³ political violence, ⁴ mass shootings, ⁵ and other interpersonal violence. ⁶ The FRO Act passed in Illinois in 2018 following a national spate of mass shootings and went into effect January of the following year. Despite being law for several years, much of Illinois has not seen these orders used with the regularity and frequency ⁷ of many other states, ⁸ despite high and rising rates of gun violence. ⁹ Further, while most gun deaths in Illinois are gun homicides (different than the national trend where most gun deaths are suicides), both the number of firearm suicides and the age-adjusted rate of gun suicides in Illinois have been rising in recent years. In just 5 years (2019-2023), the age-adjusted gun suicide rate in Illinois increased by 27.5%. ¹⁰

The Power of Site Visits

The implementation team at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions (CGVS) identified Lake County, Illinois, as an area ripe for further implementation. When the CGVS implementation team—a cohort of individuals with legal and public health expertise focused on implementing firearm removal laws around the country—conducts a site visit, we provide real-time support and training materials, discuss implementation challenges raised in the jurisdiction, coordinate work by implementers on the ground, and further identify promising approaches for implementing ERPO laws that might be replicated around the country.

Just north of Chicago, Lake County, Illinois is an urban/ suburban community home to over 700 000 people with demographics that relatively mirror that of the United States more broadly. ¹¹ The county has also made a systemic investment to address gun violence through the development of programs and the hiring of staff to focus on targeted violence interruption, restorative justice practices, intentional collaborations and partnerships, and increased education and implementation of programs. ¹² Lake County is comprised of a series of over 40 cities and villages with their own respective police departments. ¹³ The Lake County’s State’s Attorney’s Office, wherein several of this paper’s authors work, is a recipient of Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) funding for further FRO implementation. Byrne SCIP funding, ¹⁴ which was allocated under the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, allocates funding for states to implement crisis intervention orders, including ERPOs.

Given these investments, there was a clear opportunity to strengthen implementation work through a site visit. Over 3 days, CGVS convened stakeholders from Lake County and other parts of the state through a series of meetings. CGVS led a conversation with representatives of the Illinois State Police (ISP) and the Illinois Attorney General’s Office who work on ERPO implementation. The team organized a convening of physicians interested in furthering ERPO implementation; observed a Lake County Chiefs of Police meeting with a presentation on ERPO; hosted a roundtable for any law enforcement working on ERPO, including Chiefs, detectives, and patrol officers. The Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office also hosted a larger community meeting of law enforcement, clinicians, community violence intervention (CVI) professionals, social workers, advocates, and community members to share information and discuss opportunities for improved implementation. These groups were identified in coordination together by CGVS and the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office.

This article, written by members of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions Implementation team, in collaboration with 2 Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office on gun violence prevention employees, and a partner from the Illinois State Police, describes questions raised, lessons learned, and opportunities to further implementation based on the site visit.

While this article focuses on a site visit to Lake County, Illinois, the authors have experience conducting site visits to other jurisdictions with similar success. Other individuals in jurisdictions interested in a site visit should identify key leaders, interested parties, and opportunities to convene these stakeholders in coordination with implementers. The lessons described below are focused on Lake County, Illinois but are intended to support implementation in other jurisdictions. This article serves as an example of site visits as a tool for implementers which may be replicated to support ERPO and other gun violence prevention policies.

Questions and Challenges Raised During the Site Visit

During the law enforcement roundtable, members of law enforcement raised concerns ranging from the officer’s commitment of time spent in court due to staffing shortages, to officer safety in executing the search warrant component of the ERPO. Law enforcement have a 4 days (96 h) turnaround time to execute a search warrant with an ERPO, but doing so safely requires some investigation and verification of the information contained therein.

At the ERPO roundtable with a variety of key stakeholders, as well as at the meeting with clinicians, multiple attendees brought up confusion surrounding the distinction between the Firearms Restraining Order and Clear and Present Danger (C&PD) Reporting. Clear and Present Danger Reporting is part of the FOID Act and has existed for decades. It is an administrative process executed through a portal system run by the Illinois State Police or the Department of Human Services, depending on who is reporting the threatening behavior. ¹⁵ C&PD law requires law enforcement, school officials, and medical professionals (including mental health professionals) to report when an individual is demonstrating threatening behavior. ¹⁶ Once reported, the individual’s FOID card is revoked, but the C&PD does not allow for the possibility of a search warrant to ensure the firearms are removed. Further, it allows the subject of the C&PD to transfer their firearms to another valid FOID card holder, even one who lives in the same house as the prohibited person. Distinguishing the key differences in these 2 tools will clear up confusion and build confidence in those reporting or petitioning that they are using the most effective tool to prevent gun violence. Comparatively, ERPO is a newer court process, with less awareness, and may be more time-intensive than C&PD Reporting. Law enforcement officers requested more clarity on the differences between the tools and how they complement each other.

Some questions continue to persist regarding ERPO implementation: judges have expressed different interpretations of the imminency required to issue an emergency (up to 14 days) and plenary (6 months to 1 year) ERPO, creating confusion for law enforcement on the suitability of ERPO in circumstances. Additionally, given law enforcement staffing issues, there is hesitancy among command staff to direct officers to spend hours in court on an ERPO when these officers are needed to cover patrol. Training on ERPOs has historically been limited to law enforcement, leaving residents, including physicians, domestic violence advocates, city officials, mental health professionals, and other key stakeholders with limited knowledge of the tool.

Lessons Learned From the Site Visit

Through the site visit and the conversations and meetings described above, we were able to highlight many strengths and opportunities to further ERPO implementation in Lake County, Illinois and beyond.

Importance of Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator

Lake County’s State Attorney’s Office employs a Firearm Risk Reduction coordinator. The work of the Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator has 2 components—training and implementation support to law enforcement and other with questions regarding ERPO. Given the limited understanding of ERPO among key stakeholders, including law enforcement, there is an opportunity to increase awareness in Lake County by expanding training and outreach. Stakeholders shared that they were confused about the types of situations when ERPO was applicable, felt intimidated by going to court, and did not have a clear understanding of the ERPO process. In the months following the site visit, the Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator has led over a dozen trainings to law enforcement agencies, behavioral health providers, and domestic violence agencies. These trainings provide information to law enforcement officers about ERPO, types of dangerous behavior that qualify for an ERPO, what to expect in the process, and other resources to support petitioners. Through the site visit, the ERPO coordinator was able to better understand the needs of law enforcement and be responsive to these in the trainings, equipping law enforcement to use this tool.

In addition to training, the Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator also serves as a local ERPO navigator. By working closely with law enforcement and key stakeholders, the Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator screens cases and incidents where individuals are exhibiting dangerous behavior and making threats against their own life or someone else’s life. After reviewing cases, the Firearm Risk Reduction coordinator works closely with the responding law enforcement officer, victim specialist, Assistant State’s Attorney, and other stakeholders to learn more about the situation, discuss next steps, share information about relevant violence prevention laws, and answer questions. The Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator is not a lawyer and does not provide legal advice to petitioners; however, she does accompany petitioners to court, directs them to resources for filing an ERPO, and demystifies the court process. Through the site visit, the Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator was able to meet with many key law enforcement officials around the county. Future site visits should consider what personnel supports implementation and what gaps may remain.

Standardized Data Collection

To understand how FROs are used and what the possible gaps in implementation may be, data is key to better understanding these challenges and opportunities. By standardizing data collection, including information on the types of threat presented, number and types of firearms removed, and demographic information about the respondent, across Lake County and around Illinois, jurisdictions can better understand the implementation of the law. Standardizing data collection was identified as a priority following the site visit and is being incorporated into the Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator’s portfolio and standardized across the county’s over 40 police departments. Going forward, site visits should include a discussion of data collection and the importance of standardization.

Education and Training Needs

Across different meetings, the need for additional and specialized educational and training materials was raised. Physicians articulated the need for information-sharing about ERPO as a resource in a clinical setting, to serve as a reminder of ERPO and provide a Quick Response (QR) code for additional information. Law enforcement shared the need for more education and training. Different audiences, such as those working with veterans and in domestic violence victim services, requested training tailored to address the needs of the clients they serve. These materials and trainings are in the process of being created and/or disseminated.

In Illinois, physicians cannot file for ERPOs. (Clinicians can file for C&PD. ¹⁷ ) However, given the relatively high number of interactions with individuals who are exhibiting dangerous behavior and may be at risk of harming themselves or someone else, the CGVS and Lake County Firearm Risk Reduction Coordinator wanted to engage them in a conversation on their understanding of the tool, existing resources available, and how to strengthen connectivity with the medical community. The conversation included multiple emergency medicine physicians, a gynecologist, and medical students. Clinicians were uncertain about how the ERPO worked and when it was an appropriate tool to use. This has subsequently led to the development of specific resources for clinicians to better understand how FROs work and when and how to coordinate with others to use this tool.

Training needs may vary across jurisdictions. Future site visits should seek to uncover what instructional materials are still needed and how they can be most appropriately geared toward key implementer audiences.

Importance of Partnership and Connectivity

Implementation of any law or policy requires coordination and collaboration. Within Lake County—and, indeed, in many jurisdictions around the country—people may work in one city but live in another, requiring coordination and partnership among law enforcement agencies to execute ERPOs. Effective implementation also requires coordination across disciplines—between prosecutors, law enforcement, community groups, behavioral health providers, court clerks, and victim advocates, among others. By bringing people together and building relationships, it created a foundation upon which to further implementation. During this site visit, a larger roundtable conversation brought together an interdisciplinary group of implementers to exchange information and challenges. This group continues to meet, including through ongoing trainings and other ERPO meetings. The convening power of a site visit, to bring people together who coordinate but may not have the opportunity to meet, is a key element to replicate in other site visits.

Ongoing Impact of Site Visit

Following the site visit, the usage of ERPO in Lake County has surged. Lake County has the highest rate of ERPO usage in Illinois in counties with a population over 50 000 people, ¹⁸ and 44% of all ERPOs filed in Lake County in 2024 were in the last 3 months of the year (after the site visit). ¹⁹ The ERPO Coordinator within the State’s Attorney’s Office has become a familiar and vital resource in Lake County, and around Illinois, when people who may be contemplating petitioning for a ERPO have questions.

Conclusion

Site visits serve as a valuable implementation tool to build connections, highlight opportunities for improvement in implementation, and coordinate effective policies to save lives. Site visits offer a hands-on, dynamic way of delivering technical assistance to implementers on the ground and offer more effective training by basing any educational materials more concretely in the context of challenges experienced and other dynamics that may be affecting implementation. Site visits also allow for shared learning and create a unique opportunity to bring together individuals with a shared purpose who do not normally have the opportunity to coordinate with one another. Key partnerships established during the August 2024 site visit continue to collaborate in furtherance of ERPO implementation. The ERPO site visit in Lake County, Illinois serves as an example of a successful site visit, providing technical assistance that furthered ERPO implementation in Lake County.