NYC's Non-Police Mental Health Pilot Increasing Rate of Those Getting Aid, Data Show

[ZiprHead]

NYC's B-HEARD program aims to dispatch social workers with paramedics, instead of cops, for nonviolent mental health calls

A New York City pilot program to respond to 911 calls for mental health crises with social workers instead of cops appears to be reducing unnecessary hospitalizations, while increasing the percentage of people who accept help when offered.

The Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division, or "B-HEARD" program, which started in a portion of Harlem a month ago, has already responded to about 110 calls where there was no weapon or imminent risk of violence, according to summary data provided by the city on Thursday.

Instead of cops and paramedics responding to 911 mental health calls, three-person teams of social workers and paramedics respond instead. In 95 percent of those cases, the city said, the subject of the call accepted the team's offer of assistance.

In the old cop-EMS model, that rate was 82 percent.

That assistance, in whatever form it takes, is also increasingly being provided by other means than just going to a hospital. Whereas all assistance cases went to a hospital in the old model, now just 50 percent do. The rest were either aided at home or taken to a non-emergency community center.

One of the major concerns going into the program was the safety of the first responders, but so far the program has only called for NYPD backup seven times. On the other hand, the city said, the NYPD has called in B-HEARD teams 14 times after finding police services weren't needed.

 

[TomC]

NYC's B-HEARD program aims to dispatch social workers with paramedics, instead of cops, for nonviolent mental health calls

A New York City pilot program to respond to 911 calls for mental health crises with social workers instead of cops appears to be reducing unnecessary hospitalizations, while increasing the percentage of people who accept help when offered.

The Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division, or "B-HEARD" program, which started in a portion of Harlem a month ago, has already responded to about 110 calls where there was no weapon or imminent risk of violence, according to summary data provided by the city on Thursday.

Instead of cops and paramedics responding to 911 mental health calls, three-person teams of social workers and paramedics respond instead. In 95 percent of those cases, the city said, the subject of the call accepted the team's offer of assistance.

In the old cop-EMS model, that rate was 82 percent.

That assistance, in whatever form it takes, is also increasingly being provided by other means than just going to a hospital. Whereas all assistance cases went to a hospital in the old model, now just 50 percent do. The rest were either aided at home or taken to a non-emergency community center.

One of the major concerns going into the program was the safety of the first responders, but so far the program has only called for NYPD backup seven times. On the other hand, the city said, the NYPD has called in B-HEARD teams 14 times after finding police services weren't needed.

I so wish the catch phrase "Defund the Police" hadn't been invented.

This is what re-allocation of resources can do. It'll probably mean a big increase in taxpayer dollars spent on law enforcement, in the short-term. But in the long-term it will mean better results from the money spent, and probably less money spent.
Tom

 

[Toni]

NYC's B-HEARD program aims to dispatch social workers with paramedics, instead of cops, for nonviolent mental health calls

A New York City pilot program to respond to 911 calls for mental health crises with social workers instead of cops appears to be reducing unnecessary hospitalizations, while increasing the percentage of people who accept help when offered.

The Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division, or "B-HEARD" program, which started in a portion of Harlem a month ago, has already responded to about 110 calls where there was no weapon or imminent risk of violence, according to summary data provided by the city on Thursday.

Instead of cops and paramedics responding to 911 mental health calls, three-person teams of social workers and paramedics respond instead. In 95 percent of those cases, the city said, the subject of the call accepted the team's offer of assistance.

In the old cop-EMS model, that rate was 82 percent.

That assistance, in whatever form it takes, is also increasingly being provided by other means than just going to a hospital. Whereas all assistance cases went to a hospital in the old model, now just 50 percent do. The rest were either aided at home or taken to a non-emergency community center.

One of the major concerns going into the program was the safety of the first responders, but so far the program has only called for NYPD backup seven times. On the other hand, the city said, the NYPD has called in B-HEARD teams 14 times after finding police services weren't needed.

I so wish the catch phrase "Defund the Police" hadn't been invented.

Agree 100%

This is a much better use of public funds. I doubt that there are many communities which have not suffered fatalities at the hands of the police in an otherwise non-violent mental health crisis situation. I know that mine has.

 

[bleubird]

My city has had something like this for a while, And, we are getting a new $14 million mental health wing at the hospital.

 

[Harry Bosch]

NYC's B-HEARD program aims to dispatch social workers with paramedics, instead of cops, for nonviolent mental health calls

A New York City pilot program to respond to 911 calls for mental health crises with social workers instead of cops appears to be reducing unnecessary hospitalizations, while increasing the percentage of people who accept help when offered.

The Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division, or "B-HEARD" program, which started in a portion of Harlem a month ago, has already responded to about 110 calls where there was no weapon or imminent risk of violence, according to summary data provided by the city on Thursday.

Instead of cops and paramedics responding to 911 mental health calls, three-person teams of social workers and paramedics respond instead. In 95 percent of those cases, the city said, the subject of the call accepted the team's offer of assistance.

In the old cop-EMS model, that rate was 82 percent.

That assistance, in whatever form it takes, is also increasingly being provided by other means than just going to a hospital. Whereas all assistance cases went to a hospital in the old model, now just 50 percent do. The rest were either aided at home or taken to a non-emergency community center.

One of the major concerns going into the program was the safety of the first responders, but so far the program has only called for NYPD backup seven times. On the other hand, the city said, the NYPD has called in B-HEARD teams 14 times after finding police services weren't needed.

I so wish the catch phrase "Defund the Police" hadn't been invented.

This is what re-allocation of resources can do. It'll probably mean a big increase in taxpayer dollars spent on law enforcement, in the short-term. But in the long-term it will mean better results from the money spent, and probably less money spent.
Tom

Totally agree about the stupid phrase defund the police! How would it be cheaper in the long run? In Oregon and Washington, there is an incredible shortage of mental health care workers. It's very difficult finding someone willing to just meet with you in their office, when you have great insurance and resources. Let alone convince them to go on calls that could be dangerous. You'd have to train more. Give them combat bonus (they're already paid far more than police). I do agree that the state of mental health care in the US is a major reason why crime and homelessness is so high. But it would take a major investment to reverse this course that I just don't see the American people as willing to do. I'm sad to say...

 

[Derec]

How are these social workers going to respond to a nutjob with a gun for example?

As to the "defund police", yes it is a stupid slogan, but the far left is committing to the stupid and also to its cousin - abolishing prisons.
AOC says she wants 'to abolish our carceral system'

I want to abolish our carceral system that's designed to trap Black and Brown men

In other words, to AOC it is fine to lock up white men, just not those with the politically correct skin color.

 

[zorq]

How are these social workers


As to the "defund police", the far left is committing to the stupid and also want to abolish prisons.
AOC says she wants 'to abolish our carceral system'

I want to abolish our carceral system that's designed to trap Black and Brown men

In other words, to AOC it is find to lock up white men, just not those with the politically correct skin color.

Is it truly necessary to put words in other people's mouths? Abolishing a system of healthcare doesn't mean "Let's bulldoze all the hospitals." Do you ever actually take a moment to think about the bullshit the rightwing media spins at you?

 

[Derec]

Is it truly necessary to put words in other people's mouths? Abolishing a system of healthcare doesn't mean "Let's bulldoze all the hospitals." Do you ever actually take a moment to think about the bullshit the rightwing media spins at you?

Hospitals are an integral part of our system of healthcare. And prison are the integral part of our "carceral system" that AOC wants to abolish, at least for "brown and black men". Note that prison and police abolition are en vogue on the far left. Example:
Abolition for the People

If you don't think AOC wants to actually abolish prisons, could you translate this AOCese gibberish English please.

 

[Toni]

Is it truly necessary to put words in other people's mouths? Abolishing a system of healthcare doesn't mean "Let's bulldoze all the hospitals." Do you ever actually take a moment to think about the bullshit the rightwing media spins at you?

Hospitals are an integral part of our system of healthcare. And prison are the integral part of our "carceral system" that AOC wants to abolish, at least for "brown and black men". Note that prison and police abolition are en vogue on the far left. Example:
Abolition for the People

If you don't think AOC wants to actually abolish prisons, could you translate this AOCese gibberish English please.

She's not wrong that the current system is designed to trap men of color. I'm particularly thinking of for profit prisons which are a terrible stain on our nation and are far removed from justice for all.

 

[Patooka]

Is it truly necessary to put words in other people's mouths? Abolishing a system of healthcare doesn't mean "Let's bulldoze all the hospitals." Do you ever actually take a moment to think about the bullshit the rightwing media spins at you?

Hospitals are an integral part of our system of healthcare. And prison are the integral part of our "carceral system" that AOC wants to abolish, at least for "brown and black men". Note that prison and police abolition are en vogue on the far left. Example:
Abolition for the People

If you don't think AOC wants to actually abolish prisons, could you translate this AOCese gibberish English please.

Easy, AOC didn't write any of that. Nice to see you've moved on from whataboutism to gish galloping. Variety is good.

 

[Derec]

Easy, AOC didn't write any of that. Nice to see you've moved on from whataboutism to gish galloping. Variety is good.

She wrote about 'abolishing the carceral system' though. So, nice try.

 

[Derec]

She's not wrong that the current system is designed to trap men of color. I'm particularly thinking of for profit prisons which are a terrible stain on our nation and are far removed from justice for all.

Private prisons are a bad idea for many reasons, but they have nothing to do with so-called "men of color".
Also, you keep ignoring that people of different races commit crime at different rates. For example, blacks commit murder at a 5-6x higher rate than whites. Should they not be incarcerated because they are "of color"?

 

[zorq]

Is it truly necessary to put words in other people's mouths? Abolishing a system of healthcare doesn't mean "Let's bulldoze all the hospitals." Do you ever actually take a moment to think about the bullshit the rightwing media spins at you?

Hospitals are an integral part of our system of healthcare. And prison are the integral part of our "carceral system" that AOC wants to abolish, at least for "brown and black men". Note that prison and police abolition are en vogue on the far left. Example:
Abolition for the People

If you don't think AOC wants to actually abolish prisons, could you translate this AOCese gibberish English please.

I can't speak for AOC because I'm not her, but for speakers of English the meanings of sentences that don't employ metaphors or euphemisms are exactly what is written. So to help you out with some plain English here we go.

"I want to abolish our carceral system that's designed to trap Black and Brown men"

"I want to abolish" She want's to get rid of something... "our carceral system" A carceral system is a jail or prison system. She uses the word "our" so presumably this would be the jail or prison system that she and the people she is addressing uses. We can tell from the tense of the verb in the next modifying phrase "that's" that she isn't referring to a past incarnation of jail or prison systems, but rather the current one that is presently in use.

So far, we now know that she want's to get rid of the current jail or prison system that she and her audience use. We can use some external information that is publicly available regarding AOC to help inform us about exactly which people she is likely addressing and which particular jail or prison system she wants to get rid of but that's unnecessary. (Hint: it's probably the US jail/prison system which has vast similarities among all 50 states and which AOC as a citizen and politician in the US is likely most familiar with and subject to)

"that's designed to trap Black and Brown men." Here she goes on with this subordinate clause that modifies a non-personal noun in the preceding clause. The only non-personal noun in the preceding phrase is "our carceral system" so this must tell us something about that. "that's designed to trap" She thinks that the carceral system she is referring to has a design and that the design has a purpose which is to trap. "to trap Black and Brown men" It doesn't trap just anyone, She thinks the design of the carceral system includes trapping Black and Brown men.​

Gee, I sure hope that helped you out there Derec. The next time you need me to translate English to English for you, please let me know.

But I have to wonder if you know what "a system" is, because you seem quite confused. In this context, "a system" is a form of organization or practice. So when a person refers to a change in an institutional system they are referring to changing the way it is organized or the way it operates. I would also like to remind you that every organizational change necessarily eliminates the previous system and replaces it with the new one effectively "abolishing" what came before.

 

[Patooka]

Easy, AOC didn't write any of that. Nice to see you've moved on from whataboutism to gish galloping. Variety is good.

She wrote about 'abolishing the carceral system' though. So, nice try.

You chopped one of her quotes (which I'm guessing was already out of context) in half and then deflected to a website that has zero relationship with her at all. What the fuck do you call that?

 

[Toni]

She's not wrong that the current system is designed to trap men of color. I'm particularly thinking of for profit prisons which are a terrible stain on our nation and are far removed from justice for all.

Private prisons are a bad idea for many reasons, but they have nothing to do with so-called "men of color".
Also, you keep ignoring that people of different races commit crime at different rates. For example, blacks commit murder at a 5-6x higher rate than whites. Should they not be incarcerated because they are "of color"?

I'm not ignoring anything.

I live in a place that is just right in size so that I get to see a lot of humanity on a scale that's easy to relate to and to put into context. It doesn't take much to notice who gets arrested, tried, convicted and for what and who gets released, despite plenty of evidence. Yup. Sometimes they're people I've known for years and years.

I wish that color didn't matter in the world but it does.

 

[laughing dog]

Also, you keep ignoring that people of different races commit crime at different rates. For example, blacks commit murder at a 5-6x higher rate than whites. Should they not be incarcerated because they are "of color"?

Please provide a link to support your claim of fact.

AOC wrote about "abolishing our carceral system that's designed to trap Black and Brown men". Regardless of one's view of the accuracy of her description of our current carceral system, abolishing it does not necessarily mean that AOC's goal is to eliminate all vestiges of a carceral system without some sort of replacement.

 

[laughing dog]

How are these social workers going to respond to a nutjob with a gun for example?

If you had bothered to read the OP, you'd have seen that they are not being sent to situations where there are guns:

The Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division, or "B-HEARD" program, which started in a portion of Harlem a month ago, has already responded to about 110 calls where there was no weapon or imminent risk of violence,

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is it truly necessary to put words in other people's mouths? Abolishing a system of healthcare doesn't mean "Let's bulldoze all the hospitals." Do you ever actually take a moment to think about the bullshit the rightwing media spins at you?

Hospitals are an integral part of our system of healthcare. And prison are the integral part of our "carceral system" that AOC wants to abolish, at least for "brown and black men". Note that prison and police abolition are en vogue on the far left. Example:
Abolition for the People

If you don't think AOC wants to actually abolish prisons, could you translate this AOCese gibberish English please.

She's not wrong that the current system is designed to trap men of color. I'm particularly thinking of for profit prisons which are a terrible stain on our nation and are far removed from justice for all.

It's not designed to trap anyone. It's the inner city communities that trap them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How are these social workers going to respond to a nutjob with a gun for example?

If you had bothered to read the OP, you'd have seen that they are not being sent to situations where there are guns:

The Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division, or "B-HEARD" program, which started in a portion of Harlem a month ago, has already responded to about 110 calls where there was no weapon or imminent risk of violence,

Sure, it works until someone lies about the nature of the problem because they don't want their dangerous relative shot.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure, it works until someone lies about the nature of the problem because they don't want their dangerous relative shot.

This is a prediction on your part.