week 8

1

Goals and Objectives-MHCRT Program

Travis Mccalman

Columbia College

Professor Ziegle

MSCJ 524 – CJ Policy Development and Evaluation

3/26/26

2

Stage 2: Goals and Objectives-MHCRT Program

Goals

The overall vision of the Mental Health Crisis Response Team (MHCRT) program is to

better how the criminal justice system addresses mental health crises by utilizing a collaborative,

treatment-based response that focuses on de-escalation, diversion and access to care indicators

(Theuer et al., 2026). Criminal justice wise, the aim portrays significant normative values of

justice, fairness, rehabilitation and the safety of the population. Conventional solutions to

emergencies of mental health have been characterized by control and punishment by way of

arrest or incarceration. Nevertheless, these methods do not solve the problem of making the

underlies of behavior and often lead to repetitive involvement of the system. The MHCRT model

does not just relegate the focus to rehabilitation and prevention of such cases by making sure that

such individuals get the right mental care instead of spending time in jail.

Objectives

In order to attain the above stated goal, there are a number of specific and measurable

objectives that have been set. All goals have time and population specifications, desired

outcome, and measurable standard to hold themselves accountable and consistent with evidence-

based policy practices (Jr., 2019).

Objective 1: In 12 months, 80% of the frontline police officers within the target

jurisdiction will accomplish MHCRT training, which will lead to enhancement of crisis response

competency using training completion records as the independent variable and post-training

assessment scores greater than 75 as the dependent variable. This would provide the officers with

knowledge and skills they require to effectively address the mental health crises.

3

Objective 2: By 18 months, the number of persons who have mental health crises will

have seen a decline in arrest rates by 25 percent through comparative analysis of the rates of

arrests, which will compared to his/her arrests prior to the implementation of MHCRT. This goal

will directly solve the issue of criminalization of the unnecessary.

Objective 3: In 18 months, the change in the goal will be that MHCRT response teams

will decrease use-of-force instances by 30-percent within mental health-related calls, using

departmental use-of-force reports as a measure. The aim of this objective is ensuring better

safety results to officers and people in crisis.

Objective 4: Within 12 months, the people receiving care through MHCRT teams will

show that they have significantly increased their referral to mental health services by 40 percent

based on referral tracking systems and records of the service providers. By achieving this, people

are guaranteed to be linked to the relevant care instead of going through the cycle of the justice

system.

Objective 5: In 24 months, the communities in the jurisdiction will record a 20 percent

increment in the confidence of law enforcement during mental health crises, according to data of

community surveys. This goal covers the issue of a public perception and legitimacy.

These objectives were formulated by determining the most important areas of action

required to reach the general goal such as in the better training of officers, punitive responses,

facilitating access to treatment and the enhanced community relationships (Theuer et al., 2026).

Participation

The MHCRT program requires the interaction of various stakeholders working together

under the different systems to be effectively developed and implemented (Theuer et al., 2026).

The organizations that are at the center of the program are the law enforcement agencies because

4

they will receive the MHCRT model, deploy the officers to specific tasks, and make sure that the

individuals will obtain the necessary training. Mental practitioners, including licensed clinicians

and social workers, will collaborate with officers to offer on-site assessments, de-escalation as

well as crisis interventions. Their knowledge is very necessary in the provision of the proper

course of treatment.

Mental clinics and hospitals will be among the most important partners as they will get

referrals and offer both short and long-term care. The program will be facilitated by community

organizations and advocacy groups providing more resources, increasing awareness, and

lobbying on behalf of the victims of mental illness. Policymakers will handle funding, setting of

policies and accountability.

These will be these participants will be incorporated by way of formal partnerships,

interagency agreements, joint training and coordinated communication systems. Franchise

meetings, common information systems and well-defined roles will facilitate cooperation and

minimize fragmentation (Liu & Patrick, 2025). The transparency and trust will be established

also through community participation programs, like public forums and outreach programs.

Compatible/Incompatible Goals

The program helps to eliminate repeat experience with police and leads to safer

neighborhoods by preventing cases of future mental health crisis and treating these cases.

Besides, the MHCRT program bolsters the aim of enhancing system efficiency. The diversion of

people outside of the criminal justice system saves people the heartache of queuing to courts,

jails, and prisons and makes their resources to be utilized more beneficially. This follows general

policy objectives of cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the system.

5

Nevertheless, the provision of treatment and its unlike criminal justice objectives that

have focused on punishment, deterrence and hard enforcement may be seen to be incompatible

with treatment-based approach (Welsh & Harris, 2016). A diversion program can be seen by

some stakeholders as disregard to accountability or being lenient. Such attitudes may result in an

opposition to change, especially in agencies that are not used to the new methods of enforcing

laws.

The police might be focused on preventing and power, whereas mental workers are

focused on treatment and recovery (Welsh & Harris, 2016). The community members tend to

appreciate the safety and even equity whereas policymakers need to consider more effectiveness,

cost and opinion of the people. In the light of these differences, however, there is much overlap

in the common purpose of enhancing outcomes and harm reduction.

Collaboration

Each of the MHCRT program mandates close coordination between the major agencies in

order to realize its objectives. The initial partners include law enforcement and mental

professions who collaborate each other to offer immediate crisis response, de-escalation, and

clinical assessment. It has to be supported by police departments (training and implementation)

and informed by clinicians. Also, policymakers and the local government are required to raise

funds and coming up with policies, and advocacy groups help increase the trust and

accountability of the people. Formal agreements, joint trainings, and shared communication

systems will be used to create collaboration that will ensure the proper coordination of activities

of the program.

Impact Model

6

MHCRT program will help fill the gap in coordination of mental health services by

bringing a unified response of the police and clinicians to the crisis point (Oblath et al., 2025).

Through this intervention, the results of arrest and imprisonment are redirected to de-escalation

and referral to treatment. This model is suitable as it works at the initial level of the problem,

which is the initial police contact, and the decision has a significant impact on it. The program

misses needless arrests and force usage and enhances access to care by incorporating mental

health proficiency. It has a long-term and immediate effect, such as the ability to solve crises

more effectively, the lack of strain caused by these issues in the system, and better attitude to the

community.

7

References

Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media,

Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.

https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376

Liu, T., & Patrick. (2025). Towards an Enhanced Business Case Development for Public–

Private Partnership (PPP) Projects: A Comparative Study of China and New

Zealand. Buildings, 15(7), 1154–1154. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071154

Oblath, R., Beaugard, C. A., Herrera, C.-N., Xu, C., Syed, S., Sadatis, C., Duncan, A.,

Gann, G., Plange, E., Ferguson, T., Khan, S., Katkhuda, F., Henderson, D. C.,

Savage, J., & Morabito, M. S. (2025). Bridging crisis and care: exploring the role of

behavioral health professionals in a police co-response model. Health & Justice,

13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00381-1

Theuer, A., Wilson, M. G., Abelson, J., & Eisler, L. (2026). Responding to people in crisis:

a policy analysis of the Hamilton Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT)

model. Advances in Mental Health, 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2025.2606892

Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning (5th ed.).

Taylor & Francis. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781317271550