“We can’t thank CIT Utah enough for being a big part of saving our son! He was in crisis and after several unsuccessful attempts to get the help he needed, we finally had success with a CIT Utah-trained officer. One of the prior situations could have ended badly, as non-CIT officers chased him through our neighborhood, threw him to the ground and then brought him back in handcuffs.

The CIT Utah officer handled the situation in a very calm manner and was able to help our son overcome the panic he was feeling. After months of darkness, this interaction with CIT Utah was the first time that we saw the light at the end of the tunnel. He was then hospitalized, given the care and medications he needed, and is now living a happy, full, and productive life. Thank you CIT Utah!”
— Mother, Mental Health Advocate

Since the founding of CIT program in Utah, family and peer advocates (individuals with lived experience) have played a central role in advocating for CIT programs in many communities. This powerful advocacy force has arguably been the driving force behind the national expansion of CIT.

The involvement of people living with mental illness, sometimes called peers or consumer advocates, and their families, should be involved at every level in the administration of CIT: oversight, training, and ongoing service support.

​Peers, family members and have an important perspective to bring to understanding a mental health crisis situation. They are the only people who can explain the experience of mental health symptoms, and they can explain why they have responded positively to mental health providers and law enforcement—or why they have responded with anger or fear.

​People living with mental illness can educate other partners about what kinds of support promote recovery, even among people in crisis for whom recovery seems out of reach. On the other hand, people living with mental illness may notice barriers to engagement in services that others do not—such as how certain language is stigmatizing, how the location of a treatment center is inaccessible, or how some services do not feel safe for someone in crisis.

​Including people living with mental illness in particular, is important to building broader community trust in CIT. Others in the peer community pay attention to whether peer advocates are included in a CIT program and how they are treated. When peer representatives are included, they spread the word that CIT is a program that people can trust.

Finally, it’s important for other partners to interact with a wide variety of people living with mental illness—including those who are in long-term recovery. There are many challenges to helping people engage in recovery—and those systemic challenges can contribute to mental health providers, law enforcement, and even families feeling frustrated and hopeless. Working alongside people in long-term recovery is an excellent reminder that supporting people in recovery is an important goal of CIT.

Questions and Answers

How does having people with lived experience support CIT and produce better outcomes?

Peers, family members and others have an important perspective to bring to understanding a mental health crisis situation. They are the only people who can explain the experience of mental health symptoms, and they can explain why they have responded positively to mental health providers and law enforcement—or why they have responded with anger or fear.

People living with mental illness can educate other partners about what kinds of support promote recovery, even among people in crisis for whom recovery seems out of reach. On the other hand, people living with mental illness may notice barriers to engagement in services that others do not—such as how certain language is stigmatizing, how the location of a treatment center is inaccessible, or how some services do not feel safe for someone in crisis.

How does including people with lived experiences build community trust in CIT?​

Including people living with mental illness in particular, is important to building broader community trust in CIT. Others in the peer community pay attention to whether peer advocates are included in a CIT program and how they are treated. When peer representatives are included, they spread the word that CIT is a program that people can trust.

Finally, it’s important for other partners to interact with a wide variety of people living with mental illness—including those who are in long-term recovery. There are many challenges to helping people engage in recovery—and those systemic challenges can contribute to mental health providers, law enforcement, and even families feeling frustrated and hopeless. Working alongside people in long-term recovery is an excellent reminder that supporting people in recovery is an important goal of CIT.

How do I bring this program to my community? 

Peer and family advocates can be the champions and allies in building best practice CIT programs in their areas. Many CIT programs statewide have been built because of the interest and passion of advocates. Advocates can meet with their local law enforcement agencies, mental health leadership, elected officials, and other advocates to encourage and support the creation of best practice CIT programs.

Does this program exist in my area? 

There are successful, best practice programs throughout the State. There are also some programs that use the “CIT” label, but do not use best practices. Check out the Advisory Council and Coordinators section of our website for more information regarding the areas around the state and coordinators that use the best practice model. 

Why is best practice CIT not available statewide?

Up until 2015, CIT in Utah was a unified program statewide. After that time it was determined the best way for CIT to maintain its independence and ability to represent the needs of all communities — urban, suburban, rural and frontier — it needed to form its own independent non-profit entity. Some law enforcement departments decided to do their own program, even though their officers could not receive state certification from the Utah Department of Health and Human Services.

What are the advantages to CIT best practices being implemented statewide? 

It is important that CIT mean the same thing to the public across the state. When an individual calls a CIT officer to respond to a mental health crisis, they should have the confidence that the officers have received the best practice training. We also believe that officers should always have the best training and tools to help keep them safe.

What are the barriers keeping CIT best practices from being implemented statewide?

In addition to different law enforcement agencies choosing to use their own in-house programs, funding is the greatest barrier to having CIT available statewide. Taking officers “offline” and sending them to a 40-hour training can be a staffing and financial challenge. Having funding to support law enforcement agencies can make a real difference in having the right number of appropriately trained officers available statewide.

Why should mental health advocates want CIT in their community?

CIT is more than just training officers. When done correctly, it is about building effective crisis response systems that involve law enforcement, mental health professionals, and individuals with lived experience (peers and family members) and advocates.

CIT does not mean the same thing throughout the State of Utah. The benefits of a best practice CIT program should be available statewide.

Advocates can serve as effective champions for best practice CIT and can advocate that CIT is properly funded.

Who takes the lead on crisis response in communities that have implemented best practice CIT?

In a well-functioning crisis response system, the mental health system is primarily responsible for educating the public about the availability of mental health services, reaching out to people who may need ongoing support, and responding to crisis events.​

Law enforcement should play a supportive role in situations where there is a safety or criminal concern, but generally should not be the lead agency simply because a mental health crisis has occurred.

This ideal is far from the reality for many communities, where crisis services are inadequate and police play a significant role in crisis response. Changing those systems is a slow and gradual process. Historically, law enforcement, who are often very task-oriented, have tried to address the issue on their own, or have been reluctant to relinquish primary crisis response responsibilities to an evolving system of care. Unfortunately, it’s simply impossible for law enforcement to create a safe and humane crisis response system on their own or to take on permanent responsibility for managing every crisis call for service. Instead, law enforcement must work with their partners, look for strengths in the community, and support mental health system partners in shouldering primary responsibility of crisis response services.

How can CIT help individuals living with mental health issues, their families and the larger community?

When a program follows best practice CIT, the response to mental health crises has better outcomes for the person in crisis, the family, the officers, and whole communities. Because mental health professionals are involved in the response, the focus is on de-escalation and the person in crisis is more likely to be diverted to the appropriate mental health services, whenever possible. In addition, having an effective crisis response system in place, provides a better use of resources and is more cost-effective.

How can I know if my local law enforcement is following CIT best practices, claiming to follow CIT best practices or are not CIT trained at all?