Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • Updates
  • Our Campaign
  • Petitions
  • For Care Providers
  • Resources & Links
    • Civilian Mobile Crisis Response
    • Community Safety
    • Participatory Budgeting
  • Contact Us
  • About Us

A Greenfield People's Budget

Comparing Crisis Responses

set the stage

  • Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) Training
  • Co-response models: Police + Clinician
  • Social Worker/Clinician only response
  • Peer-Led Crisis Response

Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) Training

On the positive side, Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) Training…

  • Teaches officers limited methods for managing and relating to people in mental and behavioral health crisis

On the negative side, Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) Training…

  • Does not reduce residents’ involvement with the criminal legal system
  • Does not reduce use of force, number of arrests, or citizen injuries
  • Does not improve residents’ access to mental/behavioral health services
  • Does not reduce residents’ contact with police
  • Does not reduce police involvement in non-criminal emergencies
  • Does not increase community accountability of law enforcement
  • Does not respond to the demands of people with lived experience of the criminal justice system or coercive psychiatric care
  • Does not reduce the cost of emergency response or public safety for municipalities
  • Does not build civilian capacity to respond to emergencies

Officers who have committed well publicized and widely condemned police killings have received CIT training or even served as local department trainers for CIT.

Based in part on public hearings at the Massachusetts State House on the Alternative Crisis Response Act (SD.2342 / HD.3807, Chang-Diaz / Sabadosa).

Co-response models: Police + Clinician

On the positive side, co-responder models…

  • Show limited increased comfort by residents in distress vs. interactions with police alone
  • Offers limited help with engaging existing care providers, de-escalation, etc.
  • Show some reduction in arrests and psychiatric hospitalizations

Crucially, the literature that highlights the benefits of co-responder models also notes that the participation of the police is almost always unnecessary and often counterproductive in such models. In other words, co-responder models would work better if they were merely civilian social work response without the police.

In addition, many social workers and other clinicians see co-responder models as deeply flawed and problematic.

On the negative side, co-responder models…

  • Create significant ethical problems for care providers
  • Typically enlist large institutionalized social service providers with poor reputations among marginalized residents
  • Do not reduce residents’ contact with police
  • Do not reduce police involvement in non-criminal emergencies
  • Do not increase community accountability of law enforcement
  • Do not reduce the cost of emergency response for municipalities
  • Do not build civilian, community-based capacity to respond to emergencies
  • Do not respond to the demands of people with lived experience of the criminal justice system or coercive psychiatric care

Based in part on public hearings at the Massachusetts State House on the Alternative Crisis Response Act (SD.2342 / HD.3807, Chang-Diaz / Sabadosa).

Clinician-only Response

Peer-Led Crisis Response