Mental health emergencies are crucial situations that often prompt immediate police response. However, recent changes have significantly altered how law enforcement engages with these calls, leading to a notable decline in police attendance—by approximately 7,370 fewer mental health-related incidents over the past year. But here's where it gets controversial: is reducing police involvement in mental health crises beneficial, or could it risk leaving some individuals without the help they need?
As of June, police departments have intentionally scaled back their responses, a strategic move that also aims to free up resources and focus on more urgent matters. Looking ahead, the department expects this trend to continue, with even fewer mental health calls attended this year as they progress into phase three of their withdrawal plan.
So, what exactly does phase three entail? Beginning on Monday, police starting applying stricter guidelines when determining whether their assistance is necessary for non-emergency mental health situations. This means that if someone requests help—whether through legislation, from in-patient mental health facilities, or other mental health services—the police now evaluate each case carefully to decide if their direct intervention is warranted.
Additionally, reports of missing persons with mental health concerns, such as individuals who have left mental health facilities or emergency departments, are now subject to assessment based on new criteria to better determine the appropriate police response.
This approach, which has been gradually introduced over the past year, includes measures like reducing police time spent with individuals in emergency rooms, raising the threshold for transporting people with mental health issues, and imposing stricter rules on where mental health assessments can occur.
However, police emphasize that their presence is still crucial in situations involving criminal activity or imminent safety risks. They maintain they will respond in cases where laws have been broken or if someone's safety is genuinely threatened.
Police Assistant Commissioner Mike Johnson explained that they are confident with the current phased implementation of these policies and are now prepared to advance to the next level. Meanwhile, health officials, including Karla Bergquist from Health NZ, have highlighted that mental health practitioners are receiving clearer guidance on when police assistance is appropriate. This clarity helps ensure better communication between mental health professionals and law enforcement, ultimately supporting informed decision-making.
And this is the part most people miss: the entire process is about finding a balance—reducing unnecessary police involvement while still providing safety and support where truly needed. For example, on the first day of phase three, police responded to a non-urgent request for transport from a mental health service in Gore, acting after a careful assessment. Moreover, processes for dealing with missing persons with mental health concerns have been streamlined, with updated training for both police and health staff to ensure clear coordination.
Looking ahead, the final phase scheduled for early next year will further refine these protocols. It will introduce 15-minute handovers at emergency departments and widen the criteria for welfare checks—particularly in cases where there's no apparent risk of crime or safety issues.
Despite these changes, both the public and health workers are still advised to call emergency services at 111 in true emergencies. The debate remains: Is this shift towards reduced police intervention in mental health crises a step forward or a potential risk? Do you agree with minimizing law enforcement involvement, or do you believe police should maintain a more active role? Share your perspectives and join the conversation—a healthy debate is key to understanding the best path forward.
