Abstract
Purpose– Extant literature resoundingly praises Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs for the multitude of benefits they provide for law enforcement agencies and individuals with mental illnesses. The majority of CIT research is based on perceived benefits of this approach. Most of the goals of CIT programs are readily amenable to empirical study, yet there are few outcome evaluations of the programs. The purpose of this paper is to examine why empirical studies examining the effectiveness of CIT programs are nominal. Design/methodology/approach– Structural and practical impediments to the collection of empirical data for CIT programs were identified through including examinations of the types of data routinely collected, interviews with CIT participants, and the researchers’ own observations of hindrances to the data collection processes. By triangulating these methods, the authors were able to observe a number of impediments to the collection of empirical data on this topic. Findings– The multi-jurisdictional CIT program under review had several data problems. First, there was a lack of official data concerning CIT calls. Second, it was virtually impossible to follow a person with mental illness throughout the system from first contact to final disposition. Third, data sharing was hindered by a lack of memorandums of understanding. Fourth, important information was not being properly recorded. Originality/value– This manuscript provides recommendations to address data concerns for CIT evaluations. Suggestions are intended to help facilitate more robust data for analysis and evaluation purposes, helping to grow the literature on the effectiveness and efficiency of CIT programs.
Purpose– Extant literature resoundingly praises Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs for the multitude of benefits they provide for law enforcement agencies and individuals with mental illnesses. The majority of CIT research is based on perceived benefits of this approach. Most of the goals of CIT programs are readily amenable to empirical study, yet there are few outcome evaluations of the programs. The purpose of this paper is to examine why empirical studies examining the effectiveness of CIT programs are nominal. Design/methodology/approach– Structural and practical impediments to the collection of empirical data for CIT programs were identified through including examinations of the types of data routinely collected, interviews with CIT participants, and the researchers’ own observations of hindrances to the data collection processes. By triangulating these methods, the authors were able to observe a number of impediments to the collection of empirical data on this topic. Findings– The multi-jurisdictional CIT program under review had several data problems. First, there was a lack of official data concerning CIT calls. Second, it was virtually impossible to follow a person with mental illness throughout the system from first contact to final disposition. Third, data sharing was hindered by a lack of memorandums of understanding. Fourth, important information was not being properly recorded. Originality/value– This manuscript provides recommendations to address data concerns for CIT evaluations. Suggestions are intended to help facilitate more robust data for analysis and evaluation purposes, helping to grow the literature on the effectiveness and efficiency of CIT programs.
