This article emphasizes the importance of law enforcement to either collaborate with mental health professionals or have knowledge on what to do and implement proper intervention techniques during a mental health crisis.
Two goals of law enforcement during a mental health crisis include:
-
Ensuring safety
-
Connecting the person in crisis to appropriate treatment.
Understanding Crisis Intervention
When law enforcement is the first or only to arrive at a mental health crisis call, it is important that they must utilize their crisis intervention skills including approaching the person with empathy rather than authority, slowing down, and active listening. Officers receive some training in these interventions, but they are not mental health experts, and the distinction between specialties becomes evident when someone is overwhelmed, frightened, or displaying symptoms of mental illness.
This shows why Crisis Response Teams (CRT), Mobile Crisis Units, and Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) are so vital during mental health crises. These teams allow mental health professionals and law enforcement to leverage their different specialized skills to their advantage by partnering together. For example, these teams give police officers more space and tools to do their job effectively by focusing on whether a crime was committed and controlling the bystanders, ensuring safety, while the mental health crisis is simultaneously being taken care of appropriately.
Understanding Trauma-Informed Care in a Crisis
Trauma has a significant influence on how people act when they are overwhelmed, frightened, or agitated. To authorities, fear or confusion may be perceived as disobedience or noncompliance. Instead, when a person appears angry, withdrawn, or out of control, they may not be reacting to the current moment but reliving something painful, feeling trapped, or confused about their surroundings creating a natural fight, flight, or freeze response.
This is where trauma-informed care changes the entire approach to mental health crisis intervention. Instead of assuming the worst, responders consider the root cause of a person’s behavior. This alone can lower the emotional intensity of the situation and foster a sense of safety.
A trauma-informed response includes:
-
maintaining a calm tone
-
slowing down the pace
-
recognizing nonverbal communication
-
suggesting options
It is important to focus on these response skills because when they are implemented, people feel less threatened and the entire situation may start to de-escalate, making it easier to manage. When the crisis is more manageable, law enforcement can focus on proper intervention techniques instead of reacting to chaos supporting more safety.
When mental health professionals are joined with law enforcement, it adds another layer to the crisis intervention. They can assess mental health symptoms, guide communication, and focus on the interaction being grounded on safety and respect for the individual. Their goal is to understand the moment, stabilize it, and support the person in crisis rather than seeking a sense of control.
First Objective: Ensuring Safety
One of the primary goals of law enforcement is to protect human life, which means ensuring immediate safety for the individual experiencing a crisis, bystanders, and authorities. In a mental health crisis, it is imperative that law enforcement must collaborate with alternative response teams to effectively and efficiently promote safety. Trained law enforcement responders may be able to apply crisis-intervention skills at a surface level but they are not mental health professionals. The best way to ensure safety is for authorities to secure the scene and conduct crowd control to protect the bystanders and themselves while the alternative response teams focus on de-escalation and beginning a clinical assessment. With all teams working together, they can more effectively handle both physical and emotional safety.
How Specialized Teams Improve Safety
Co-response and alternative response teams lead to minimized inflicted trauma and lower arrest rates than police only responses since they can contribute their mental health expertise. This includes different knowledge about mental illnesses, different attitudes about mental illnesses and treatments, self-efficacy for de-escalating crises, and specific skills enabling them to make accurate referrals to appropriate services. They are more effective at de-escalating an individual who is overwhelmed and panicked by focusing on compassion and support instead of compliance and arrest.
Two Crisis Scenarios with Different Outcomes
Consider a case involving an agitated man who is yelling to himself, swatting the air, disrupting the people around him, and becoming increasingly escalated. Below is a comparison showing how different response models can completely change the direction of a crisis intervention.
Scenario Comparison Table
|
Scenario A (Law Enforcement) |
Scenario B (Co-Response Team) |
|
Police only dispatch. |
Police and a mental health team are both dispatched. |
|
Authorities assess criminal behavior and conduct crowd control. |
Authorities maintain crowd safety while CRT begin mental health assessment and de-escalation techniques. |
|
Police demand compliance resulting in a lack of cooperation. |
CRT use de-escalation techniques tailored to the observed mental health symptoms. |
|
The crisis remains unstable but the crowd is safe. |
The team assesses that the man is responding to internal stimuli and adjusts their approach to ensure safety. |
|
Situation remains vulnerable for all parties. |
Once the crisis is understood as a mental health crisis, safety improves. |
When co-responders recognize the situation as a mental health crisis, and understand uncooperative behavior as a symptom rather than a criminal act, their attitudes and the outcomes change significantly. By recognizing the difference, it influences the level of escalation, trauma, and could initiate unnecessary legal consequences. Assessing it appropriately and treating it as a mental health crisis changes chaos into stabilization and punishment into support which is the goal of a mental health crisis intervention.
Second Objective: Individuals to Treatment
After the mental health crisis is properly assessed, it is imperative that the individual be connected to appropriate treatment, steering away from punitive action. An alternative to punitive action is jail diversion, which directs individuals with mental illnesses away from incarceration and towards psychiatric hospitals, substance abuse centers, and other community-based supports based on their mental health needs. This is the best situation to help the overall well-being of the individual and foster dignity. Unfortunately, when a crisis goes unrecognized, this critical step never occurs, and the consequences can be severe.
Different Ending When Incarceration Is Prioritized
When jail diversion is absent, as seen in Scenario A, the consequences are significant. Without the crisis being assessed or identified as a mental health crisis, there was a lack of necessary mental health intervention skills from responders. Therefore, the man is arrested and booked into jail which does not address his mental health symptoms but worsens them. Incarceration can deepen trauma, delay necessary treatment, and also contribute to the individual reoffending. In the end, this approach did not ensure safety, and was not met with support and was not directed towards appropriate treatment.
Different Ending When Treatment Is Prioritized
Looking at Scenario B, law enforcement ensured the safety of the bystanders while the man was being taken care of by the CRT where it was observed this was a mental health crisis. With support from a co-response team, the man is de-escalated and agrees to voluntarily go to a psychiatric hospital and receive treatment where he is diagnosed with a condition involving severe hallucinations.
Jail diversion is the most appropriate response for this man because it aligns more effectively with the goals of safety, stabilization, and long-term recovery more effectively than punitive measures. It also finds the root causes of mental health symptoms, lowers risk of harm, prevents criminalizing mental illness, and upholds dignity.
Final Thoughts
Mental health crises are complex, emotional, and deeply human situations. When law enforcement responds, they face the difficult task of balancing safety, compassion, and quick-decision making. By ensuring immediate safety and connecting individuals to appropriate mental health resources offers a humane and effective framework for crisis response.
These goals shift the focus from control to care and from punishment to support, affirming that when law enforcement and mental health professionals work together, crises become opportunities for healing rather than harm.
Ultimately, responding to a mental health crisis is not just about resolving a moment – it is about creating a safe, healthier community where every person is treated with dignity and understanding.
