NOVDEC MAG.FINAL

43 / 48

Vecchi, and Browning (2011) are in agreement
with Teplin (2000) in revealing other challenges
which pertains to the de-institutionalization
movement, and which includes the restriction of
federal funding for mental health as well as the
introduction of legal reforms which gave persons
with a mental illness the right to live in the com-
munity without receiving treatment. As a result
of this, these individuals came into contact with
law enforcement officials more and more.
In contemporary society, many innovative
criminal justice programs have been developed
for diverting some individuals having a mental
illness from being incarcerated and allowing
for the assistance of these selfsame individuals
through the utilization of diversionary programs
(i.e. mental health courts). One such approach/
special response which has been developed and
which is used by law enforcement and mental
health officials for the purpose of intervening/
assisting those in mental crisis is the “Crisis In-
tervention Team” (CIT).
A review of the literature shows that the uti-
lization of a CIT has been effective in its goal of
assisting those in mental crisis and has expanded
all across the U.S. since its inception in Mem-
phis. Morrissey, Fagan, and Cocozza (2009) state
that more than 300 municipal or county police
departments across the U.S. have utilized their
own CIT and McMains & Mullins support this
by stating that the CIT has been endorsed by
more than 30 states, therefore, illustrating the
need for this type of crisis intervention.
CIT: AN INTRODUCTION
AND OVERVIEW
A Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) is defined
by Browning, Van Hasselt, Tucker, andVecchi (2011)
as “a type police-based specialized response, which
involves collaboration between mental health and
law enforcement involving specialized training for
law enforcement officers in mental health issues,
crisis intervention/de-escalation, and service user-
friendly mental health resources”.
CRISIS INTERVENTION,
AND INDIVIDUALS WITH
A MENTAL ILLNESS:
AN INTRODUCTION
An unfortunate fact of life is that a crisis
can occur at any time and to anyone…
it has no respect of persons. McMains & Mullins
(2014) define a crisis as “a situation that exceeds
a person’s ability to cope”. This definition shows
that a crisis can take many forms (financial, etc.).
A crisis is a dynamic concept in that it is fluid
in nature and has no one set pattern or frame-
work in its occurrence. A crisis intervention is
defined by Lanceley (2003) as “an assortment of
techniques intended to return an individual in
crisis to their normal functioning level and to
get them past potentially dangerous impulses”.
The need for crisis intervention involving those
having a mental illness is a result of the Dein-
stitutionalization Movement which occurred
in the 1970s. Ellis (2011) states that during the
1970s, individuals with a mental illness were de-
institutionalized (removed) from the psychiatric
hospitals wherein they resided. He reveals that
the goal of this movement was for the allowance
of those suffering from chronic mental illnesses
to become reintegrated into society, destigma-
tized, and to receive mental health services on
an individual basis. These services would be ap-
plied by the usage of what is known as the “3R
Conceptual Model of Care”, and which was
comprised of the concepts of response, relapse,
and recovery.
The de-institutionalization of individu-
als with a mental illness was plagued by various
challenges; Ellis discusses some of these chal-
lenges, and which includes the fact that many of
the patients that were released had become “in-
stitutionalized” (accustomed to their controlled
environment) and therefore, had difficulty in
reintegrating back into the community. Other
challenges mentioned is that of these individu-
als having little or no social skills, support, or
resources to assist them. Tucker, Van Hasselt,
continued on page 42
41
N O V 2 0 1 7 D E C