Cited by 24Policing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and PenologyCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis

A Meta-Analysis of Police Response Models for Handling People With Mental Illnesses: Cross-Country Evidence on the Effectiveness

Seo, Chunghyeon, Kim, Bitna, Kruis, Nathan E.·2021·International Criminal Justice Review

Abstract

Recent global statistics on mental health showed that the number of people with mental illnesses has dramatically increased in many countries. A gatekeeper to the criminal justice system, police have begun to develop their own police response programs or have adopted renowned models from other countries for handling people with mental illnesses. Although there is a growing body of empirical research that has investigated the effectiveness of police response models for handling the mentally ill (PRMHMI) in various countries, existing systematic reviews or meta-analytic studies have disproportionately focused on findings from studies testing the effects of the crisis intervention team in the United States. Thus, it is still not clear whether PRMHMI can be considered as “evidence-based” models on the international level. To help fill this gap in the literature, the current systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of PRMHMI operating in the United States to those operating in other countries including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Liberia. Results revealed that the effect sizes of PRMHMI were substantially different across countries. This study’s results demonstrate the importance of a national context for designing, implementing, and evaluating PRMHMI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1057567720979184

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The empirical literature suggests that CIT and co-response program innovations have beneficial effects by reducing arrests and detention rates, but evidence is mixed on whether these programs are cost-effective.

    “In general, this empirical literature suggests that these program innovations have beneficial effects by reducing arrests and detention rates, but evidence is mixed on whether these programs are cost-effective.”
  • There is not currently credible, causal evidence on the effects of initiatives to improve police training and cooperation with health professionals or community response models.

    “Although each of these programmatic models is grounded in a sensible theory of change, there is not currently credible, causal evidence on their effects (5, 7, 20, 24–26, 28).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 65 · Cited by 24

Authors
Seo, C., Kim, B., & Kruis, N. E.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Bitna
Venue
International Criminal Justice Review
Published
2020-12-11
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
182-202
ISSN
  • 1057-5677 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3855
OpenAlex
W3110664512
Cited by
24
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Criminal Justice Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Keywords
crisis intervention teams, people with mental disorders, criminal justice system, cross-national comparison, program effectiveness, evidence-based policing, mental health policy, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Liberia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review