To be sure, the need for mental health resources isn’t limited to the United States. Mental illness is an issue everywhere around the globe and the need for the most humane and appropriate response is as pertinent in America as it is in Britain, Bahrain, or anywhere else. Clearly, however, different cultures and justice systems take the need for differential responses with varied levels of importance. Most Western nations, fortunately, see this as an area that needs investment and exploration.

Fortunately, exceptional numbers of studies have looked at co-response programs and their effectiveness. One of the best meta-analysis (a look at trends from numerous studies rather than just one) published looked at studies from the United Kingdom (https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-018-1836-2). In short, it was noted that co-response programs may reduce the number of people taken into custody by police. But few other constants exist.

Limitations with co-responder programs are significant. Foremost, very few co-responder programs work without police, which is against the intent of the program. Few mental health professionals will enter situations that are uncertain or blatantly unsafe. Generally by the time the police are involved, this is the type of situation the public is looking at. So if people want to remove police from the situation entirely, the co-responder model won’t work. You can’t expect MHPs to put themselves at risk.

Additionally, few co-responder programs are fully staffed. Funding is limited for these roles and people best able to serve in these positions are worthy of pay higher than the average available in co-response roles, so they tend to be employed elsewhere. Without fully staffed programs, true understanding is impossible to ascertain.

Ultimately, when you hear someone tell you that co-responders work, or that they don’t work, know they’re speaking from opinion, not fact.

The post A Review of Co-Responders appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.