Mental health dilemma: What to do about Jim

I’m frustrated.

One of the main talking points in our society is the lack of resources for mental illness. What happens, though, when those resources are apparently provided but continually fail?

There is a person in Gig Harbor I will call “Jim.” The Gig Harbor Police Department first encountered Jim about a dozen years ago when he was acting strangely in the parking lot of a local school late at night. Jim was in his 20s then. His family had tried to get him some help for his emerging mental health conditions. Jim would act erratically and sometimes threateningly toward them, but they had no means or authority to get him into treatment.

Eventually, he was banned from the family home and began a life of homelessness.

In the years that followed, Jim lived on the streets, parks, and wooded areas of Gig Harbor. Our department had regular contact with him. He was ordinarily cooperative. There were occasional outbursts. Many retailers banned him from their stores due to his bizarre conduct. Our officers had compassion for Jim, but we had to maintain order.

Our officers easily recognized Jim’s behavior as schizophrenic and repeatedly took him for mental health evaluations— sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not. He was almost always released immediately.

When his conduct rose to more egregious acts, including running naked through the streets and threatening others, Jim started getting arrested. We knew that jail was not the place for Jim, but the mental-health providers kept telling us that Jim did not meet the state standard for involuntary committal.

That standard is “Danger to self or others.”

Several years ago, there was a breakthrough. Jim was ordered to take medications. He functioned quite normally during that period. He had a job and an apartment. He even wrote letters of apology to the police for his past actions. There is certainly a discussion that can be had regarding Constitutional rights versus a court-ordered medication plan, but in this instance, the outcome was positive.

That is, until a judge ruled that Jim did not have to continue taking his medications.

Back on the streets

Jim moved back to Gig Harbor and a life of homelessness. His disruptions continued to escalate. He became a notable drain on our resources, including upwards of five or more police calls each day. Jail was sometimes a last resort, but it was clear that he would not be prosecuted. Occasional 14-day mental health evaluations proved fruitless and Jim ended right back on the streets.

Recently, Jim caused a disturbance in a local shopping center, but on this day, his actions seemed a bit different. Jim was threatening random people and he began exposing himself to those in a coffee shop. When our officers took custody of Jim, they attempted to activate the county Mobile Outreach Crisis Team. The answer we received was disheartening: “Nobody was available.”

Through persistence and a three-hour wait, we were able to finally get a crisis responder to come and visit with Jim. It was decided that he would again be taken for a 14-day observation.

It was within that 14-day hold that Jim had an outburst, assaulted a mental health worker, and caused notable damage to their facility.

The response? The mental health facility sent Jim to jail.

To recap, Jim was essentially immune from prosecution. All parties agree that Jim does not belong in jail. The mental health providers in the county intervened, but when they couldn’t control him at their facility, the answer was to deposit him back into the criminal justice system.

Jim was released from jail within days and was back in our town causing disturbances. Without recourse, he was again arrested and put into jail.

Following up, I received word that the mental health team “won’t be able to get involved with this case at this time as (Jim) is incarcerated for assault of a health care worker.”

System failure

Perhaps the culprit is not a person or an agency. Perhaps it is the legal standard by which we can intervene. The “danger to self or others” standard is not always appropriate.

D.J. Jaffe is the Executive Director of an organization critical of our present-day mental health system called Mental Illness Policy Org. Jaffe opines that the “dangerousness” standard fails because it requires danger, rather than looking to prevent it. The current system virtually requires that a person decline into an untreatable state before involuntary intervention is an option.

Further, Court-ordered outpatient treatment should be considered as a less restrictive, more beneficial, and less costly treatment alternative to involuntary inpatient treatment.

It is time for this state to revisit the standards for involuntary treatment and open the door to a person who:

(A) Is gravely disabled, which means that the person is substantially unable, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for any of his or her basic needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, health or safety, or

(B) Is likely to substantially deteriorate if not provided with timely treatment, or

(C) Lacks capacity, which means that as a result of the brain disorder the person is unable to fully understand or lacks judgment to make an informed decision regarding his or her need for treatment, care or supervision.

As a law enforcement agency, it our duty to protect Jim and those around him. People like Jim need this type of intervention, not the frustrating cycle of an ineffective mental health carousel.

Kelly Busey is the Chief of the Gig Harbor Police Department. Read more about mental health policy at: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/involuntary-commitment-reforms.html

This story was originally published September 25, 2019 at 12:00 AM.