Publicly available data provide a statewide snapshot of the ARRIVE Together program in New Jersey, but they say little about how the program operates at the municipal level. Some information about how the program is implemented locally can be found in the press releases published when a county or a municipality joins the program. To better understand implementation of the program, we examined press releases from across the state to identify additional information about how the program works locally and how it is described by the local agencies. Here we summarize what we found.
Statewide, the program is led and funded by the Attorney General’s Office, but it is locally adapted and implemented by municipal police departments, prosecutors’ offices, and sheriffs’ offices. They partner with healthcare providers, such as hospitals and behavioral health organizations. In terms of governance structure, the program thus operates as a hybrid model: a centralized framework with decentralized implementation. The programs are often described as operating in conjunction with existing crisis intervention infrastructures such as hotlines and mobile outreach. In many places, the program operates during specific days and hours. Typically, these are timeframes when there is a higher volume of mental and behavioral health-related calls and when staff is available.
The framing is overwhelmingly positive. Joining the program is expressed with enthusiasm and as a promising way to make encounters with police safer for both officers and citizens, connect citizens in crisis with mental health services, and increase public trust in law enforcement. The common terms include “safer outcomes,” “reduced use of force,” “improved trust,” “compassionate response,” and “connecting people to care.” The releases often note efficiency and systems improvement including “better use of resources,” “avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations,” and “reducing wait times.” But while the program is described as effective and promising, occasionally noting no arrests, no use of force, and no serious injuries in ARRIVE interactions, the press releases lack adequate local data and analysis to support these claims.
The press releases are largely silent on details about how the programs work in practice, how decisions are made about which models are used and when they are used, and the firsthand experiences of police officers, health workers, and citizens with the program. When it comes to the models used, for example, there is some indication that these choices may be driven by budgetary constraints as departments may only be able to make healthcare staff available on certain days. Other elements impacting decisions around which models are used and in what way are not provided. There is also little discussion of potential or actual negative outcomes, such as failed interventions or community complaints.
Involving specialists in responding to 911 calls that require mental health expertise is a valuable evidence-based tool to protect vulnerable citizens and police officers, while improving police-community relations. It is remarkable that the state has recognized this and launched ARRIVE Together—and that local governments have embraced its expansion statewide. Although the program has not been in place for long, both the public and the agencies in charge can benefit from continually and appropriately examining the data to understand what works and what needs adjustment while exercising caution in describing program effectiveness. This is the most reliable way to ensure the program is adapted to the needs and capacities of local communities, and that it works well for law enforcement and for the public.