Crisis Intervention TeamEdit
Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs represent a targeted approach to handling psychiatric crises in the community. Rooted in collaboration between law enforcement and mental health services, CIT trains officers to recognize signs of mental illness, de-escalate tense encounters, and connect individuals in crisis to appropriate treatment rather than defaulting to arrest or detention. The aim is practical: reduce harm to the person in crisis, protect the public, and improve outcomes by channeling people toward care options that can stabilize situations without unnecessary confinement or force.
The concept grew out of a need to address recurring problems in crisis encounters—high-risk interactions, use of force, and beds that could not accommodate the demand for psychiatric care. The model most often associated with the program originated in the old industrial city of memphis, Tennessee, where early implementation emphasized a coordinated response: a dedicated team of officers trained in mental health crisis response, coupled with partnerships to link people to local services. That Memphis-based framework spread across many jurisdictions and evolved into a family of approaches, from single-officer specialists to full co-responder arrangements with mental health professionals on scene or dispatched with police units. Across the country, the idea has become a standard element of many police departments’ community safety portfolios, alongside broader reforms in public safety and health care access. See Memphis, Tennessee for the origin story and the widely cited version of the program.
Origins and evolution
CIT programs emerged from the recognition that psychiatric crises are not primarily about crime but about distress that can escalate without proper support. The early work highlighted the value of training front-line officers to recognize symptoms of serious mental illness, respond with calm and clear communication, and expedite referrals to treatment services. While the core of the model remains consistent—training, partnerships, and a process for safe transport—the specifics vary by city and county. Some departments emphasize a dedicated cadre of CIT-certified officers who handle calls involving mental health crises; others lean toward a co-responder approach, pairing an officer with a Mobile crisis team or a mental health clinician who can assess and intervene on the spot. See Mobile crisis team and Co-responder for related concepts.
Core components
Training and certification: Officers complete an in-depth curriculum focused on de-escalation, recognizing signs of mental illness, crisis communication, safety planning, and appropriate transport. The goal is to reduce the likelihood of force and to increase the chance of successful linkage to treatment, rather than jail. See Crisis Intervention Team and de-escalation.
On-scene response and transport: When feasible, responders determine the safest mode of transport for the person in crisis, prioritizing medical clearance and option to be taken to a psychiatric facility or community-based services rather than incarceration. See psychiatric hospitalization and jail.
Partnerships with mental health systems: CIT relies on formal ties with local mental health networks, including crisis hotlines, mobile crisis teams, and community therapists, to ensure rapid entry into treatment and aftercare planning. See mental health and Mobile crisis team.
Dispatch and custody decisions: Some models include specialized dispatch protocols and a clear pathway for holding a person in crisis accountable for safety while avoiding unnecessary detention. See dispatch and public safety.
Data and accountability: Programs often track outcomes such as injuries, use of force, transports to facilities, and disposition of the encounter to improve practice and justify resources. See data collection in policing.
Implementation and variations
CIT is not a one-size-fits-all program. Jurisdictions adapt the framework to local needs, budgets, and service landscapes. Variations include:
Full co-responder models: A clinician accompanies officers to calls and can perform on-scene assessments or initiate treatment plans, sometimes with the ability to order short-term care or crisis stabilization. See co-responder.
On-call crisis teams: A mobile crisis unit can be dispatched alongside or instead of police for certain calls, blending public safety with mental health expertise. See Mobile crisis team.
Jail-diversion emphasis: In some places, CIT aims to divert individuals with mental illness away from jail toward treatment options, with case management that continues after the arrest decision. See jail and diversion.
Community integration: Programs increasingly coordinate with housing, employment services, and social supports to reduce relapse and recidivism, reflecting a broader public-safety strategy that emphasizes stabilization and recovery. See housing and social services.
Outcomes and evidence
Research and practitioner reports show mixed but often favorable effects when CIT is well implemented:
Safer interactions and fewer injuries: Departments with robust CIT training report reduced incidents of officer-involved use of force in encounters with people in crisis and fewer injuries to both officers and civilians. See use of force.
More appropriate dispositions: A higher share of crisis calls result in transport to treatment or referral to mental health resources rather than arrest. See arrest and psychiatric hospitalization.
Costs and savings: While CIT requires upfront investment in training and partner agencies, some jurisdictions report cost offsets through reduced hospitalizations, improved outcomes, and fewer court appearances tied to untreated crises. See cost-benefit analysis.
Variability by location: The strength of outcomes often depends on the depth of partnerships with local mental health providers, the availability of on-scene clinicians, and the broader availability of community-based supports. See program evaluation.
Controversies and debates
CIT sits at the intersection of public safety, health care, and community policy, so it attracts a range of viewpoints. From a practical, results-focused perspective, supporters emphasize safety, efficiency, and outcomes; critics question reliance on police, resource allocation, and broader social goals.
Role of police in health crises: Critics argue that relying on police to handle psychiatric emergencies can normalize policing of behaviors that stem from health issues, potentially prioritizing public order over treatment. Proponents counter that CIT is designed to reduce force, keep people safe, and connect them with care quickly, especially when mental health resources are scarce or overwhelmed.
Resource allocation and cost: Some critics worry that CIT diverts funds from other essential mental health services or social supports. Proponents argue that CIT is a targeted, cost-effective way to de-escalate crises in the moment while expanding the pipeline to services, ultimately reducing costs related to injury, jail time, or hospital emergency department use. See cost-benefit analysis.
Civil liberties and accountability: Any program that expands police discretion in crisis situations raises questions about civil liberties and accountability. Supporters emphasize rigorous training, clear protocols, and data collection to ensure accountability, while acknowledging the need for ongoing oversight and reform where necessary. See civil liberties.
Racial and community relations concerns: In some communities, concerns persist that crisis calls disproportionately involve marginalized groups and that policing can add stigma or fear. Advocates argue that well-structured CIT, with strong partnerships to community-based services, can reduce harmful outcomes by routing people to care rather than punishment. Critics contend that improvements in outcomes must be matched with broader reforms in policing and mental health access. See racial disparities and community relations.
Woke criticisms and responses: Some critics view CIT as a policing-focused fix that does not address underlying social determinants of mental illness or the root causes of crisis, and they urge broader reform of health care and safety nets. Proponents respond that CIT is a pragmatic, immediate step that improves safety and etiquette in dangerous situations while simultaneously expanding access to treatment; it is not a substitute for comprehensive mental health reform. They argue that pointing to CIT as the sole solution is a straw man, and that the program is compatible with ongoing policy efforts to improve health care efficiency and community safety. See public policy.