Case Study on Memphis Model

Critical Elements of the Crisis Intervention Team Model of Jail Diversion:

An Expert Survey Alan B. McGuire, Ph.D.* and Gary R. Bond, Ph.D. y The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model of jail diversion is a promising approach to addressing the over-involvement of people with mental illness with the criminal justice system. Despite its popularity and promising empirical support, the literature has yet to clarify CIT’s critical elements. The aim of this study was to assess the degree to which experts agreement on the importance and perceived implementation of the critical elements of CIT. Study 1 used a literature review to cull potential elements. Three experts familiar with the CIT model reviewed these elements. Study 2 utilized an online survey of 55 CIT co-ordinators/officers and published experts to assess agreement regarding importance and degree the element is implemented. A preliminary list of 36 elements was identified with a high level of expert agreement on their importance regarding importance and implementation. This study developed a preliminary list of elements of the CIT’s program. Further research should develop consensus, explore elements’ association with outcomes, and differentiate elements from those common to all jail diversion programs. Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The over-involvement of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system, or criminalization (Abramson, 1972) is a critical problem. For instance, Teplin (1990) found schizophrenia and major affective disorders to be two to three times as prevalent in the Cook County Jail than in the general population. Teplin (1984) previously indicated criminalization begins with the interaction between police and people with mental illness. Later research indicated police do not intentionally discriminate against people with mental illness, but feel caught between protecting the consumer and society in general (Cotton, 2004). The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model of jail diversion attempts to improve this interaction.

The CIT model includes two collaborative components: (1) specially trained criminal justice officers, and (2) a specialized crisis response site (SCRS; Dupont & Cochran, 2002; Steadman et al., 2001). CIT officers are trained to assess and de- escalate situations involving persons with mental illness and, if necessary, transport them to the SCRS. SCRSs provide centralized drop-off points for police with ‘‘police- friendly’’ policies that allow officers to quickly transfer the individual and return to their patrol duties (Steadman, 2001).

Behavioral Sciences and the Law Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) Published online 21 June 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.941 * Correspondence to: Alan B. McGuire, Ph.D., ACT Center of Indiana, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Department of Psychology, c/o Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, 1481 W. 10th St (11H), Room D6014, Indianapolis, IN 46202, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] yDepartment of Psychiatry, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH 03755-1404, U.S.A.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Preliminary studies of CIT programs yielded promising results regarding response time, rates of arrest, and officer perceptions of CIT (Borum, Deane, Steadman, & Morrissey, 1998; Steadman, Deane, Borum, & Morrissey, 2000). CIT officers also have consistently shown an increased rate of transporting individuals to mental health services. A large, multi-site study including two CIT programs (Lattimore et al., 2003) showed diverted consumers spent more time in the community and indicated that CIT- diverted individuals experience positive mental health and quality-of-life outcomes (Broner, Lattimore, Cowell, & Schlenger, 2004).

However, results from different CIT sites have been inconsistent. Memphis and Portland, the two sites in the multi-site study, differed in relation to various measures of mental health and quality-of-life outcomes (Broner et al., 2004). A CIT program in Akron, Ohio, showed substantially higher arrest rates than previously examined programs (Teller, Munetz, Gil, & Ritter, 2006). The CIT programsexamined in the aforementioned studies differ substantially in the elements included. For instance, one program works in concert with emergency medical services. Another utilizes a 24-hour community-based crisis center rather than a psychiatric emergency room. Because these programs differ in relation to substantive programmatic aspects, it is difficult to discern: (a) what ‘‘model’’ is being examined, and (b) what elements areresponsible for differing results. Critical Elements A critical step in validating a promising model is distilling its critical elements. This process clarifies a model and facilitates the development of a fidelity scale (Bond et al., 2000). Fidelity is the measurement of adherence to model principles. Mowbray, Holter, Teague, and Bybee (2003) emphasized that without ensuring fidelity, studies lack construct validity. Evans (2002) suggested a two-step process for defining critical elements of a developing model: (1) a literature review to extract critical elements, followed by (2) confirmation by expert agreement. Regarding the latter, Bond et al.

(2000) recommend self-administered questionnaires, which have been utilized extensively (Evans, 2002; Marty, Rapp, & Carlson, 2001; Schaedle, McGrew, Bond, & Epstein, 2002).

The current effort is the first to empirically examine the critical elements of CIT (or any specific jail diversion program). Study 1 aimed to develop a list of potential elements of CIT via a literature review and select expert feedback. Study 2 utilized an expert survey to assess agreement and perceived degree of implementation of the elements derived in Study 1. STUDY 1: DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY ELEMENTS Methods The aim of Study I was to form a list of potential elements of the CIT model. Elements were derived from a literature review and feedback from a select group of experts. The Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis institutional review board approved the study.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl 82 A. B. McGuire and G. R. Bond Sample Participants in Study 1 were ‘‘select experts’’ who were willing to be involved more extensively in the research. This group was a convenience sample selected based on their availability and renown in the area. Select experts included two published experts with over 25 years in the field and a senior CIT officer in a mid-sized midwestern city. Procedures Study 1 began with a review of the literature relevant to CIT. The investigator conducted Medline and PsychInfo searches of the following two sets of terms: (1) ‘‘crisis intervention team’’, and (2) (‘‘jail diversion program’’ or ‘‘police’’ or ‘‘criminal justice’’) AND (‘‘mental’’ or ‘‘schizophrenia’’). Results were limited to published books and peer-reviewed journal articles pertinent to jail diversion programs and that examined the CIT model. The first author searched for mention of any element of the CIT program. Next, the select experts critiqued the preliminary list of CIT program elements for appropriateness, wording, and grouping of the items. Results Table 1 contains a list of potential elements and sources citing these elements. Included elements (excluding distracters, items intentionally not relevant to CIT and/or components of different models used to avoid acquiescence bias) were cited by an average of 4.40 sources (SD¼3.27) and ranged from one to 14 citations. The mean number of citations per element differed by category: organization and collaboration (M¼3.00, SD¼0.74), law enforcement (M¼5.78, SD¼3.87), and mental health (M¼3.23, SD¼2.62;F(2, 45)¼4.59,p¼.02. Post-hoc comparisons using a Bonferroni adjustment did not yield significant differences between any pair of categories. STUDY 2: EXPERT AGREEMENT SURVEY Methods Sampling Study 2 employed an iterative process in which experts were identified via multiple sources and then asked to both participate and identify additional experts (Evans, 2002; Hartford, Carey, & Mendonca, 2006). At each step, we sought two, partially overlapping types of experts: published experts and CIT program co-ordinators/ officers. Published experts were authors or co-authors of the literature identified in Study 1; the investigator was able to contact 36 out of 55 (65.5%) of these published experts, including at least one author from all 17 publications reviewed.

The investigator used multiple strategies to identify CIT officers/co-ordinators. A contact list from a previous survey of police-based diversion programs (Reuland, 2004) Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl Crisis Intervention Team model of jail diversion 83 Table 1. Possible elements of the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model and their sources CIT elements Source Philosophy and collaboration 1. Program co-ordinator 13, 16 2. Pre-booking 4, 10, 11, 17 3. Post-booking diversion (distracter) - 4. Jail is avoided 5, 8, 13 5. Charges avoided or reduced 5, 10, 11 6. Treatment mandated (distracter) – 7. Diversion for minor offenses 7, 10 8. Court-based diversion (distracter) – lLaw enforcement roles/services CIT officer selection 9. Voluntary service 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 10. Formal selection process 13, 16, 17 11. Officer’s record 7, 13, 16 12. Experienced officers 4, 7 13. Psychological testing (distracter) – CIT Officer Training 14. Intensive training 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 15. Training for dispatchers 13, 14, 16 16. Department-wide training (distracter) – 17. De-escalation 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18. Persons with mental illness and family member trainers3, 5, 13, 14, 17 19. Mental health provider trainers 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16 20. Practical training 4, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17 21. Cross-training 6, 13 CIT Officer Roles 22. Specialized officers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 23. Mental health officers (distracter) – 24. Specialized officers maintain patrol duties 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17 25. CIT officers function as a team 5, 14 26. On-scene disposition 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14 27. CIT officer is designated officer in charge on mental health calls4, 5, 7, 8, 17 28. CIT officer responds to all mental health calls 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17 29. Specialized unit (distracter) – 30. 24/7 Coverage 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 16 31. De-escalation 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 32. Transport to crisis center 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 17 33. Role in civil commitment process 14 34. CIT officers serve jails/prisons (distracter) – 35. Leadership within agency 7 36. Command staff committed to effective response 14 Mental health services Specialized crisis response site (SCRS) 37. Rapid transfer of responsibility 1, 3, 6, 13, 14, 16 38. Legal grounds for detention 6 39. No-refusal policy 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14 40. Crisis line 6 41. Referral to outpatient community providers 6, 7, 14 42. Specialized crisis response site 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17 43. Services available 24 hour/7 days a week 8, 13, 14 44. Single point of entry 1, 6, 7, 14 45. Secure transportation 6 46. Ambulance service 6, 17 47. SCRS is a secure facility 6 48. No productivity standard 6 (Continues) Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl 84 A. B. McGuire and G. R. Bond provided some CIT program co-ordinators. We bolstered this initial list by searches of online databases, general internet searches, and contact information from conferences and other professional sources. Websites included the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center for Excellence (http://www.neoucom.edu/CJCCOE/), the Consensus Project (http://consensusproject.org), and the NAMI CIT Technical Assistance Center (http:// www. nami.orgv/Template.cfm?Section¼CIT2&Template¼/TaggedPage/TaggedPage Display.cfm&TPLID¼62&ContentID¼35547). In total, we invited 108 CIT officers/ co-ordinators during this wave.

We recruited additional participants by placing notices on LISTSERVs maintained by The Consensus Project (Council of State Governments, 2002) and NAMI CIT Technical Assistance Center. The announcements were posted in August (NAMI) and September (Consensus Project) of 2006 and the survey remained accessible until February 1, 2007.

All respondents were asked to identify additional experts; they identified 387 experts, 20 of whom were sent information and a link to the survey directly. The e-mail addresses given for 10 were incorrect, so the investigator sent e-mails and/or voicemails to their agencies. The remaining eight were already contacted in the initial wave.

To be included, participants self-identified as either a published expert in CIT or a CIT co-ordinator/officer (program or state level). In addition, participants were excluded if they did not rate the following items as ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘very important’’:

(2) pre-booking, (22) specialized officers and (42) specialized crisis response site. This criterion ensured participants’ conceptualization of CIT was consistent with the seminal literature (Cochran, Deane, & Borum, 2000; Dupont & Cochran, 2002). Procedures The investigators sent a description of the study and a link to the anonymous survey to participants; this information was also placed on the LISTSERVs. A month after contacting the last wave, a reminder e-mail was sent to all previously contacted experts. Table 1. (Continued) CIT elements Source 49. Easy access to medical treatment 6, 7, 17 Mental health/criminal justice collaboration 50. Involvement in program development 3, 4, 8, 17 51. Boundary spanner 1, 6, 9 52. Mutual respect 6, 8, 14 53. Communication 7, 8, 16 54. Stakeholder meetings 13, 16 55. Ride-alongs 6,7,16 56. Persons with mental illness and family involvement 7,8,16, 17 1, Borum et al. (1998); 2, Borum (2000); 3, Cochran et al. (2000); 4, Dupont & Cochran (2000); 5, Steadman et al. (2000); 6, Steadman et al. (2001); 7, Dupont & Cochran (2002); 8, el-Mallakh, Wulfman, Smock, & Blaser (2003); 9, Hails & Borum (2003); 10, Lattimore et al. (2003); 11, Perez et al. (2003); 12, Broner et al.

(2004); 13, Ohio CIT Coordinators Committee (2004); 14, Reuland (2004); 15, Strauss et al. (2005); 16, Florida CIT Coalition (2005); 17, Teller et al. (2006).

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl Crisis Intervention Team model of jail diversion 85 Measures The current study utilized an online survey posted on www.SurveyMonkey.com that included screening/background questions (available from the author) and questions regarding the importance and implementation of potential elements of the CIT model derived in Study 1. We included distracter items in order to avoid over-agreement (Marty et al., 2001).

Participants rated elements on their importance using a seven-point scale (ranging from 1, extremely unimportant, to 7, extremely important). Next, participants were presented with the full list of elements and asked to select the 10 ‘‘most critical’’ ones.

Finally, CIT officers/co-ordinators were asked to rate the degree to which they believe their CIT program implemented each element (1, not implemented; 2, somewhat implemented; 3, fully implemented). Analyses The investigator used SPSS 14.0 for Windows for all analyses. ANOVAs were calculated to determine differences between referral sources on importance ratings of each item. Intraclass correlations were calculated to determine inter-rater agreement both for importance ratings overall and within each category. Items rated by 50% or more of participants as ‘‘very important’’ were considered critical (McGrew & Bond, 1995). Results Sample One hundred and thirty-four people from 29 states accessed the survey. Forty-four did not fully complete it and one participant gave invalid data. Respondents were excluded from the final sample for the following reasons: did not rate items 2, 22, or 42 as ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘very important’’ (n¼14); they were not CIT co-ordinator/officers, published experts, or statewide CIT coordinators (n¼13); or both (n¼8).

Regarding rate of response, 59 out of 164 (36.0%) experts contacted completed the survey; 35 (21.3%) were included in the final sample. Response rates cannot be calculated for experts responding to the two LISTSERVs. However, 31 out of 64 (48.4%) participants from these sources accessing the survey completed it, and 20 (17.2%) were included in the final sample. Characteristics of the final sample (n¼55) can be seen in Table 2 and setting of the CIT program in Table 3. Critical elements analyses Thirty-six elements met the critical criterion (Table 4); the inter-rater reliability was high for all 56 items (r¼0.89,F(44, 2420)¼8.79,p<.001). Importance ratings of non-distracter items (M¼6.40, SD¼0.39) was compared with distracter items (M¼5.24, SD¼.92;t(54)¼10.93,p<.001) – distracter items were rated as less important than non-distracter items. Items were grouped into three categories:

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl 86 A. B. McGuire and G. R. Bond organization and collaboration, law enforcement (with its three subcategories of officer selection, officer training, and officer roles), and mental health services. Inter-rater reliability within each category was: organization and collaboration [r¼0.76,F(48, 720)¼4.12,p<.001], law enforcement [r¼0.80,F(50, 1350)¼4.90,p<.001], and mental health services [r¼0.76,F(50, 600)¼4.07,p<.001]. The respective categories Table 2. Sample characteristics VariablesM(SD)/n(%) Age a 45.33 (8.85) Years in law enforcement b 17.31 (9.24) Years in jail diversion b 4.62 (5.63) Recruitment source Invited31 (56.4%) NAMI14 (25.5%) Consensus project6 (10.9%) Snowball4 (7.3%) Highest degree a High school/GED7 (13.0%) Associates7 (13.0%) Bachelors21 (38.9%) Graduate19 (35.2%) Type of expert CIT author/researcher 8 (14.5%) CIT program co-ordinator/officer 35 (63.6%) Both12 (21.8%) Jail diversion co-ordinator 5 (9.1%) Researcher/academician 5 (9.1%) Police officer32 (58.2%) Mental health practitioners 10 (18.2%) Administrator8 (23.5%) Other job16 (29.1%) Primary employment setting Police/sheriff’s office 39 (70.9%) Mental health treatment facility 4 (7.3%) College/university1 (1.8%) Other11 (20.0%) n¼55.

an¼54. bn¼42. CIT, Crisis Intervention Team; GED, General Educational Development; NAMI, National Alliance on Mental Illness. Table 3. Characteristics of Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) jurisdictions VariablesM(SD)/n(%) Setting Urban31 (68.9%) Small city14 (31.1%) Years since first CIT training a 4.32 (3.81) Years since 24/7 CIT coverage b 3.73 (3.27) Division Patrol21 (72.4%) Special operations1 (3.4%) Training1 (3.4%) Mental health agency 0 (0.0%) Other6 (20.7%) an¼44. bn¼22.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl Crisis Intervention Team model of jail diversion 87 did not differ in the percentage of items within the category reaching criticality: 10 (66.7%), 16 (57.1%), and 10 (76.9%) [x 2(2)¼1.56,p¼.46]. Implementation Analyses of level of element implementation were limited to participants who were affiliated with a specific CIT program; 44 of the 48 affiliated participants rated implementation. Investigators considered items with a mean rating of two or greater ‘‘implemented’’ (n¼39, 69.6%). Thirty-three out of 36 (91.7%) critical items met the Table 4. Items rated ‘‘very important’’ by 50% of sample No. Itemn(%) a Philosophy and collaboration 1 Program coordinator 36 (65.5%) 2 Pre-booking 36 (65.5%) 4 Jail is avoided 32 (58.2%) 6 Treatment mandated (distracter) 30 (54.5%) 50 Involvement in program development 45 (81.8%) 51 Boundary spanner 39 (70.9%) 52 Mutual respect (interagency) 42 (76.4%) 53 Communication (interagency) 43 (78.2%) 54 Stakeholder meetings 38 (69.1%) 56 Persons with mental illness and family involvement 35 (63.6%) Officer roles/services Officer selection 9 Voluntary service 28 (50.9%) Officer training 14 Intensive training 49 (89.1%) 15 Training for dispatchers 31 (56.4%) 17 De-escalation training 46 (83.6%) 18 Persons with mental illness and family member trainers 38 (69.1%) 19 Mental health provider trainers 42 (76.4%) 20 Practical training 40 (72.7%) Officer roles 22 Specialized officers 40 (72.7%) 25 CIT officers function as a team 30 (54.5%) 26 On-Scene disposition 41 (74.5%) 27 CIT officer is designated officer in charge on mental health calls 30 (54.5%) 28 CIT officer responds to all mental health calls 33 (30.0%) 30 24/7 coverage (CIT officers) 39 (70.9%) 31 De-escalation 48 (87.3%) 32 Transport to crisis center 33 (60.0%) 36 Command staff committed to effective response 44 (80.0%) Mental health services 37 Rapid transfer of responsibility 47 (85.5%) 38 Legal grounds for detention 37 (67.3%) 39 No-refusal policy 44 (80.0%) 40 Crisis line 40 (72.7%) 41 Referral to outpatient community providers 33 (60.0%) 42 Specialized crisis response site 41 (74.5%) 43 Services available 24 hour/7 days a week (mental health) 48 (87.3%) 44 Single point of entry 30 (54.5%) 47 SCRS is a secure facility 32 (58.2%) 49 Easy access to medical treatment 33 (60.0%) aNumber (%) rating as ‘‘very important’’. CIT, Crisis Intervention Team.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl 88 A. B. McGuire and G. R. Bond criterion for implemented (Table 5); six out of 20 (30.0%) non-critical items met the criterion for implemented (Table 6) [x 2(1)¼23.13,p<.001]. Critical items received higher implementation ratings (M¼2.42, SD¼0.35) than non-critical items [M¼1.87, SD¼0.28;t(43)¼ 15.28,p<.001]. The average implementation rating across both critical and non-critical items indicated that non-distracter items had higher implementation ratings on average (2.41, SD¼0.32) than distracter items [1.62, SD¼0.32;t(44)¼ 15.83,p<.001].

Level of implementation related to years since the agency first established 24/7 CIT coverage (r¼0.52,p¼.02,n¼19). Conversely, respondent characteristics were not related to rating of implementation: age (r¼ 0.18,p¼.24,n¼43), years in law enforcement (r¼ 0.14,p¼.41,n¼38), and years in jail diversion ( 0.12,p¼.48, n¼37). The percentage of implemented items did not differ by category: organization and collaboration (n¼10, 66.7%), law enforcement (n¼21, 75.0%), and mental health services [n¼8, 61.5%;x 2(2)¼0.85,p¼.66). Table 5. Implementation of critical items Implementation HighLow 1. Program co-ordinator 6. Treatment mandated (distracter) 2. Pre-booking 44. Single point of entry 4. Jail is avoided 47. SCRS is a secure facility 9. Voluntary service 14. Intensive training 15. Training for dispatchers 17. De-escalation training 18. Persons with mental illness and family member trainers 19. Mental health provider trainers 20. Practical training 22. Specialized officers 25. CIT officers function as a team 26. On-scene disposition 27. CIT officer is designated officer in charge on mental health calls 28. CIT officer responds to all mental health calls 30. 24/7 coverage 31. De-escalation 32. Transport to crisis center 36. Command staff committed to effective response 37. Rapid transfer of responsibility 38. Legal grounds for detention 39. No-refusal policy 40. Crisis line 41. Referral to outpatient community provider 42. Specialized crisis response site 43. Services available 24 hour/7 days a week 49. Easy access to medical treatment 50. Involvement in program development 51. Boundary spanner 52. Mutual respect 53. Communication 54. Stakeholder meetings 56. Persons with mental illness and family involvement Critical items determined by more than 50% or respondents rating as ‘‘Very Important.’’ Implementation is divided as such: high elements with mean of ‘‘2- partially implemented’’ or higher.

CIT, Crisis Intervention Team.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl Crisis Intervention Team model of jail diversion 89 DISCUSSION This study identified a preliminary list of 36 elements of the CIT model with expert agreement regarding their importance. Elements were grouped into the following categories: philosophy and collaboration, law enforcement, and mental health services.

In general, experts viewed these items not only as important, but also as implemented. Elements Philosophy and collaboration The philosophy and collaboration elements dealt with the guiding vision and infrastructure of a CIT program. CIT is a pre-booking diversion program – diversion takes place before a person is arrested and/or placed in a criminal justice facility (Steadman, Morris, & Dennis, 1995). We used importance ratings of this element as an inclusion criterion because it is so defining of the CIT program (Dupont & Cochran, 2002; Steadman et al., 2001) Experts in the current study and other efforts (Council of State Governments, 2007) highlighted the importance of collaboration across agencies and stakeholder groups. All stakeholders must communicate, be involved from program inception, and maintain an attitude of mutual respect. Experts in the current study affirmed Steadman’s (1992) call for a ‘‘boundary spanner’’ who is charged with facilitating this collaboration.

Philosophical differences between stakeholder groups present challenges, though.

For instance, the inclusion of mandated treatment is at odds with some stakeholders’ ‘‘recovery’’-oriented philosophy (Frese, Stanley, Kress, & Vogel-Scibilia, 2001).

Results also highlight the need for leadership. CIT programs need a program co- ordinator. Extant literature on implementation of evidence-based practices emphasizes the importance of a program coordinator (Torrey, Finnerty, Evans, & Wyzik, 2003). Table 6. Implementation of non-critical items Implementation HighLow 7. Diversion for minor offenses 3. Post-booking diversion (distracter) 10. Formal selection process 5. Charges avoided or reduced 11. Officer’s record 8. Court-based diversion (distracter) 12. Experienced officers 13. Psychological testing (distracter) 24. Specialized officers maintain patrol duties 16. Department-wide training (distracter) 35. Leadership within agency 21. Cross-training 23. Mental health officers (distracter) 29. Specialized unit (distracter) 33. Role in civil commitment process 34. CIT officers serve jails/prisons (distracter) 45. Secure transportation 46. Ambulance service 48. No productivity standard 55. Ride-alongs Critical items are determined by more than 50% or respondents rating as ‘‘very important.’’ Implementation is divided as follows: high elements with mean of ‘‘2, partially implemented’’ or higher.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl 90 A. B. McGuire and G. R. Bond Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou (2004) also emphasize the need for a ‘‘champion’’. Although these two roles can overlap, the former indicates an instrumental role, whereas the latter is a social and philosophical motivator.

In contrast to the seminal literature (Dupont & Cochran, 2002), experts in the current study did not agree on diversion being limited to minor offenses. Consistent with this, empirical evidence supports the successful diversion of people with more serious (e.g., violent) charges (Naples & Steadman, 2003). Also, although the published literature states that charges should be reduced or dropped (Lattimore, Broner, Sherman, Frisman, & Shafer, 2003; Perez, Leifman, & Estrada, 2003; Steadman et al., 2000), experts in the current study did not agree. Finally, experts did agree that treatment should be mandated. What emerges is a model intended to forcefully place people with mental illness in treatment, rather than assist in maintaining them in the community. Law enforcement Law enforcement elements clarify how officers are selected for CIT duty, CIT training, and the roles and responsibilities of CIT officers. These elements represent the largest proportion of items culled from the literature in Study 1 and those reaching agreement in Study 2. Their over-representation points to the disproportionate attention law enforcement elements receive over mental health services. Elements regarding CIT officers’ roles and responsibilities indicate the importance of specialized CIT officers who are available 24/7 to de-escalate situations involving mental illness and dispose the cases appropriately.

Regarding training, experts specified the importance of training being intensive, practical, and provided to CIT officers and call-takers. These findings are consistent with the Consensus Project’s list of essential elements (Council of State Governments, 2007). Regarding training content, one item that bears comment is de-escalation. First, anecdotally, the investigator observed several agencies claiming to be a ‘‘CIT’’ program that have only de-escalation training and/or training on mental illness. For instance, some correctional facilities provide ‘‘CIT training’’ for their correctional officers. These programs differ from programs including co-ordinated efforts between criminal justice and mental health treatment settings. Secondly, although crisis de-escalation is popular in the literature and the experts in the current study endorsed its importance, the scant and outdated literature regarding training in crisis de-escalation does not support its effectiveness (Lieberman & Schwartz, 1973; Mulvey & Reppucci, 1981).

Regarding the target population for training, two issues arise. Consistent with both the literature and specialist model of CIT, experts did not endorse department-wide training as critical. However, respondents from non-urban areas rated this item higher (M¼5.93, SD¼1.21) than respondents in urban areas [M¼4.71, SD¼2.13;t(41)¼- 2.44,p¼.02); this split is consistent with the Ohio formulation of CIT (Ohio CIT Committee, 2004).

In contrast, training for call-takers was considered important in the current study and has been included in other formulations of CIT (Ohio CIT Committee, 2004; Reuland, 2004; The Florida CIT Coalition, 2005; Council of State Governments, 2007) despite its absence in seminal articles regarding CIT. Call-takers triage calls and represent a crucial juncture at which a CIT officer will or will not be dispatched. Future research Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl Crisis Intervention Team model of jail diversion 91 will need to clarify training content for call takers and develop screening tools to triage calls appropriately. Mental health services Mental health service elements dealt mostly with the SCRS. Elements dealt with making services available, expedient, and easy to use for CIT officers. Few items dealt with mental health services beyond the immediate crisis point. A similar result is found in the Consensus Project list of essential elements (Council of State Governments, 2007). Although follow-up mental health services may be viewed as outside the scope of CIT, quality outpatient services may aid in decreasing criminal justice involvement and allay mental health service costs associated with CIT (Cowell, Broner, & Dupont, 2004). Future research should ask: ‘‘To what services do CIT officers refer and what happens to these consumers after the immediate crisis?’’ Limitations In Study 1, only a few select experts were included, although these experts did provide valuable feedback. Also, we limited the literature review to published sources. A wealth of relevant literature likely exists in procedural manuals, training manuals, guidebooks, and other documents developed and maintained by specific CIT programs. None- theless, published literature represents the collective knowledge of experts in the field and is widely accessible to all stakeholders.

Criminal justice experts were over-represented in Study 2, which likely contributed to the over-representation of criminal justice elements meeting criticality. The emphasis on criminal justice may be a natural outgrowth of CIT criminal justice origins, though.

Nonetheless, this bias limits the conclusions one can draw regarding the mental health components of an effective CIT program. Finally, this study’s inclusion criteria eliminated a large proportion of respondents from analyses. The criteria, however, provided a more focused examination of CIT as originally formulated. Although adaptation of a model is natural and necessary, this study sought to clarify the initial explication.

Finally, although the importance and implementation ratings of non-distracter items was higher than distracter items, the ratings for distracter items were still in the ‘‘important’’ and ‘‘partially implemented’’ range. This may be reflective of an acquiesce bias and/or an actual tendency for experts to endorse elements of other models instead of exclusively focusing on CIT. Summary and Conclusions The 36 elements identified in the current study are common in the literature and agreed upon by experts as both important and implemented by their programs. We grouped these items into three categories: philosophy and collaboration, law enforcement, and mental health services.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl 92 A. B. McGuire and G. R. Bond The identification of the critical elements of a model is a process inextricably embedded within a larger model development process (Bond et al., 2000; Mowbray et al., 2003). Experts suggest that an element should only be considered critical if it has ‘‘obtained a significant correlation with a criterion measure’’ (Bond et al., 2000, p. 11) and thus can ‘‘account for positive changes in the lives of consumers’’ (Greenhalgh et al., 2004, p. 597). Given this context, when interpreting the results of the current study, one should be mindful of the equivocal state of the empirical evidence regarding jail diversion in general and CIT more specifically (Hartford et al., 2006). Furthermore, the inadequate empirical research, as well as the rapid spread of jail diversion without clear measures of fidelity to circumscribed, well-defined models, confuses efforts to disentangle the ‘‘hard core’’ (i.e., critical elements) of a particular model from the ‘‘soft periphery’’ of practices that are recommendable for any jail diversion program (Greenhalgh et al., 2004, p. 597).

The current study should be considered a first effort at enumerating the elements of CIT. They should not, however, be considered the last word on the critical elements of the model, as a good deal of further research is necessary to: (a) develop true consensus (e.g., through the use of an expert panel); (b) examine the association between these elements and outcomes; and (c) differentiate these elements from elements common to all quality jail diversion efforts. REFERENCES Abramson, M. F. (1972). The criminalization of mentally disordered behavior.Hospital & Community Psychiatry,23, 101–107.

Bond, G. R., Williams, J., Evans, L., Salyers, M. S., Kim, H., & Sharpe, H., et al. (2000).Psychiatric Rehabilitation Fidelity Toolkit. Cambridge, MA: Human Services Research Institute.

Borum, R. (2000). Improving high risk encounters between people with mental illness and the police.Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law,28(3), 332–337.

Borum, R., Deane, M. W., Steadman, H. J., & Morrissey, J. (1998). Police perspective on responding to mentally ill people in crisis: Perceptions of program effectiveness.Behavioral Sciences & the Law,16(4), 393– 405.

Broner, N., Lattimore, P. K., Cowell, A. J., & Schlenger, W. E. (2004). Effects of diversion on adults with co- occurring mental illness and substance use: outcomes from a national multi-site study.Behavioral Sciences & the Law,22(4), 519–541.

Cochran, S., Deane, M. W., & Borum, R. (2000). Improving police response to mentally ill people.Psychiatric Services,51(10), 1315–1316.

Cotton, D. (2004). The attitudes of Canadian police officers toward the mentally ill.International Journal of Law & Psychiatry,27(2), 135–146.

Council of State Governments. (2002).Criminal Justice / Mental Health Consensus Project. Lexington, KY:

Council of State Governments.

Council of State Governments. (2007). The essential elements of a specialized police-based program Retrieved 5/8/2007, 2007, from consensusproject.org/lawenforcement/ee/index Cowell, A. J., Broner, N., & Dupont, R. (2004). The cost-effectiveness of criminal justice diversion programs for people with serious mental illness co-occurring with substance abuse: Four case studies.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,20(3), 292–315.

Dupont, R., & Cochran, S. (2000). Police response to mental health emergencies–Barriers to change.Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,28(3), 338–344.

Dupont, R., & Cochran, S. (2002). The Memphis CIT model. In G. Landsberg, M. Rock, L. K. W. Berg, & A. Smiley (Eds.),Serving Mentally Ill Offenders(pp. 59–69). New York: Springer.

el-Mallakh, R. S., Wulfman, G., Smock, W., & Blaser, E. (2003). Implementation of a crisis intervention program for police response to mental health emergencies in Louisville.Journal of the Kentucky Medical Association,101(6), 241–243.

Evans, L. (2002).Obtaining expert consensus on the critical ingredients of supported employment programs for people with severe mental illness. Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl Crisis Intervention Team model of jail diversion 93 Frese, F. J III, Stanley, J., Kress, K., & Vogel-Scibilia, S. (2001). Integrating evidence-based practices and the recovery model.Psychiatric Services,52(11), 1462–1468.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.The Milbank Quarterly,82, 581–629.

Hails, J., & Borum, R. (2003). Police training and specialized approaches to respond to people with mental illnesses.Crime & Delinquency,49(1), 52–61.

Hartford, K., Carey, R., & Mendonca, J. (2006). Pre-arrest diversion of people with mental illness: Literature review and international survey.Behavioral Sciences & the Law,24, 845–856.

Lattimore, P. K., Broner, N., Sherman, R., Frisman, L., & Shafer, M. S. (2003). A Comparison of Prebooking and Postbooking Diversion Programs for Mentally Ill Substance-Using Individuals With Justice Involve- ment.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,19(1), 30–64.

Lieberman, D. A., & Schwartz, J. (1973). Police programs in domestic crisis intervention: A review. In J. R.

Snibbe (Ed.),The Urban Policeman in Transition(pp. 421–472). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Marty, D., Rapp, C. A., & Carlson, L. (2001). The experts speak: the critical ingredients of strengths model case management.Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal,24(3), 214–221.

McGrew, J. H., & Bond, G. R. (1995). Critical ingredients of assertive community treatment: Judgments of the experts.Journal of Mental Health Administrators,22, 113–125.

Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation.American Journal of Evaluation,24, 315–340.

Mulvey, E. P., & Reppucci, N. D. (1981). Police crisis intervention training: An empirical investigation.

American Journal of Community Psychology,9(5), 527–546.

Naples, M., & Steadman, H. J. (2003). Can persons with co-occurring disorders and violent charges be successfully diverted?International Journal of Forensic Mental Health,2(2), 137–143.

Ohio CIT Committee. (2004). Expert consensus document: Core elements for effective crisis intervention team (CIT) programs Retrieved 2/23/06, 2006, from http://www.neoucom.edu/CJCCOE/support/CIT- coreElements9_2_04.pdf Perez, A., Leifman, S., & Estrada, A. (2003). Reversing the criminalization of mental illness.Crime & Delinquency,49(1), 62–78.

Reuland, M. (2004).A Guide to Implementing Police-Based Diversion Programs for People with Mental Illness.

Delmar, NY: Technical Assistance and Policy Analysis Center for Jail. Diversion.

Schaedle, R., McGrew, J. H., Bond, G. R., & Epstein, I. (2002). A comparison of experts’ perspectives on assertive community treatment and intensive case management.Psychiatric Services,53(2), 207–210.

Steadman, H. J., Deane, M. W., Borum, R., & Morrissey, J. P. (2000). Comparing outcomes of major models of police responses to mental health emergencies.Psychiatric Services,51(5), 645–649.

Steadman, H. J., Morris, S. M., & Dennis, D. L. (1995). The diversion of mentally ill persons from jails to community-based services: A profile of programs.American Journal of Public Health,85(12), 1630–1635.

Steadman, H. J., Stainbrook, K. A., Griffin, P., Draine, J., Dupont, R., & Horey, C. (2001). A specialized crisis response site as a core element of police-based diversion programs.Psychiatric Services,52, 219–222.

Strauss, G., Glenn, M., Reddi, P., Afaq, I., Podolskaya, A., Rybakova, T., et al. (2005). Psychiatric Disposition of Patients Brought in by Crisis Intervention Team Police Officers.Community Mental Health Journal,41(2), 223–228.

Teller, J. L. S., Munetz, M. R., & Gil, K. M., & Ritter, C. (2006). Crisis intervention team training for police officers responding to mental disturbance calls.Psychiatric Services,57, 232–237.

Teplin, L. A. (1984). Criminalizing mental disorder: The comparative arrest rate of the mentally ill.American Psychologist,39(7), 794–803.

Teplin, L. A. (1990). The prevalence of severe mental disorder among male urban jail detainees: Comparison with the Epidemiologic Catchment Area program.American Journal of Public Health,80, 663–669.

The Florida CIT Coalition. (2005). The Florida crisis intervention team (CIT) program model Retrieved 06/ 07/06, 2006, from http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Policy/CIT/Florida_CIT_program_mo- del.pdf Torrey, W. C., Finnerty, M., Evans, A., & Wyzik, P. F. (2003). Strategies for leading the implementation of evidence-based practice.Psychiatric Clinics of North America,26, 883–897.

Copyright#2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law29: 81–94 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bsl 94 A. B. McGuire and G. R. Bond Copyright of Behavioral Sciences & the Law is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.