Introduction
Some law enforcement agencies in the area are making drastic changes to their policies regarding mental health calls for service, which could impact legal policy in the future. This shift in some law enforcement policy fails to recognize the vital role law enforcement plays in protecting and assisting individuals experiencing mental health crises—and the unique value of co-response teams in ensuring both safety and care without unnecessary force. My hope is that policymakers take a statewide perspective prior to making decisions about mental health calls for service and look at how co-response teams could be the answer to these calls.
Why Co-Response Teams Are Essential
Co-response teams—partnerships between law enforcement and mental health clinicians—offer a proven alternative to traditional policing in crisis situations. These units are designed to de-escalate situations, provide immediate intervention, and ensure that individuals receive the care they need without unnecessary force or incarceration. The current legislative push to remove law enforcement from these calls overlooks key realities:
Fire personnel cannot write 5150 applications, but some county personnel can. However, only designated peace officers have the authority to detain individuals for psychiatric evaluation.
Mental health crises often involve high-risk behaviors that may require law enforcement presence to ensure safety.
Without proper intervention, individuals in crisis may escalate to dangerous levels, posing risks to themselves and others.
The Success of Co-Response Units: A Data-Driven Approach
Research consistently supports the effectiveness of co-response models in improving crisis outcomes. Studies show that jurisdictions with co-response units experience:
A 40% reduction in use-of-force incidents during mental health crises.
A 60% decrease in involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations, as crisis teams provide stabilization and community-based alternatives.
Fewer repeat mental health-related 911 calls, reducing strain on emergency services.
Significantly lower arrest rates among individuals with mental health conditions, preventing unnecessary criminalization.
One notable study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law found that co-response teams increase voluntary treatment compliance, as individuals are more likely to accept help when engaged in a non-threatening, collaborative manner.
Case Studies: The Real Impact of Co-Response Units
Case Study 1: Preventing a Suicide in Progress
A man experiencing severe psychosis stood on a bridge, threatening to jump. Traditional law enforcement response might have escalated the situation, but a co-response clinician engaged in dialogue, using motivational interviewing techniques to build trust. Over 45 minutes, the individual was convinced to step down, was placed on a voluntary 5150 hold, and later connected with ongoing care.
Case Study 2: Avoiding a Use-of-Force Incident
Deputies responded to a call involving a woman with schizophrenia who was reportedly aggressive toward her neighbors. Upon arrival, instead of deploying force, the co-response team de-escalated the situation, recognizing that the individual was off her medication. A clinician helped re-establish contact with her mental health provider, and the situation was resolved without force, hospitalization, or arrest.
Case Study 3: Reducing Repeat Calls for Service
A man experiencing chronic homelessness and severe bipolar disorder had dozens of interactions with law enforcement over the past year. After CCIT engaged him, he was linked with intensive case management, housing assistance, and outpatient psychiatric care. His repeat crisis calls dropped by 85%, saving significant resources for emergency responders.
The Reality of Mental Health Crises: Why Law Enforcement is Needed
Mental health crises do not always present as peaceful, manageable situations. Often, individuals in distress:
Are experiencing severe psychosis, paranoia, or suicidal ideation.
May pose a danger to themselves, their families, or the public.
Need immediate intervention that only trained personnel can provide.
In many cases, law enforcement officers are the only ones legally allowed to detain someone for psychiatric evaluation under a 5150 application. If officers are removed from these situations, individuals who need urgent stabilization will not receive it, leading to increased suicides, self-harm, or harm to others.
Training and the Role of Law Enforcement in Mental Health Response
The argument against law enforcement responding to mental health calls assumes that officers only use force-based tactics—but this is simply not the case. Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) provides law enforcement with the skills to:
Use verbal de-escalation techniques instead of physical force.
Follow clinicians’ lead in crisis situations.
Apply motivational interviewing strategies to engage individuals and guide them toward voluntary cooperation.
Take a slow, measured approach instead of rushing to resolve calls quickly.
When properly trained, law enforcement officers become an essential part of the solution—not a threat.
Beyond Crime: The Role of Law Enforcement in Protecting Vulnerable Populations
Yes, many mental health calls do not involve a crime. However, the role of law enforcement is not just about responding to crime—it is about protecting the community. That includes:
Ensuring the safety of individuals who cannot care for themselves.
Intervening before a crisis escalates to violence.
Providing emergency stabilization when no other entity can.
Law enforcement officers do not lose their qualified immunity by responding to mental health calls; they only lose it if they use excessive force. If trained properly in Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) techniques and with a CIT clinician present, the likelihood of excessive force decreases drastically. Why wouldn't all law enforcement agencies want a co-response team?
Policy Recommendations: A Call for Informed Decision-Making
Instead of eliminating law enforcement’s role in crisis response, policymakers should consider expanding and enhancing co-response programs. This approach allows for:
More CIT training for officers to improve their ability to de-escalate without force.
Increased funding for co-response teams to ensure 24/7 coverage in all counties.
Closer collaboration between law enforcement and mental health agencies to refine best practices and improve crisis outcomes.
Public education on co-response models to shift perceptions away from force-based policing toward intervention-based crisis management.
Conclusion
Removing law enforcement from mental health crisis calls is not the answer. Properly trained officers, working alongside mental health clinicians in co-response units, offer the safest, most effective model for crisis intervention. Research from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) indicates that Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) leads to a significant reduction in use-of-force incidents, increases voluntary compliance, and improves outcomes for individuals in crisis. Additionally, studies have shown that jurisdictions with robust co-response programs experience a 25% decrease in arrests of individuals with mental illness and a 40% decrease in use-of-force incidents. California policymakers must look at this evidence, listen to those on the front lines, and make informed decisions that protect both law enforcement officers and the individuals they are sworn to serve. The answer is not exclusion—it is collaboration.
Comments