NOVDEC MAG.FINAL

www.fbinaa.org

N O V 2 0 1 7 D E C

CRISIS INTERVENTION, AND INDIVIDUALS WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS: AN INTRODUCTION A n 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,

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”.

continued on page 42

41