Thanks, @Appleblossom 🙂
I've never had to engage with emergency services in this way myself, so I can't speak as to what their doing right, what their doing wrong, and what needs to change.
Reading through that article, I can't help but notice that it seems to completely dodge the predictable questions about what effects these initiatives will have on the general public. And IMHO, that's what's gonna really stymie these initiatives from gaining any traction. Anyone who wants to sell an alternative approach to police intervention will need to be able to convince the masses that the general public will be no less safe, and no more burdened under this new system then the old one. To do that, the first need to acknowledge and address the concerns that the general public have. Like so many other advocacy pieces for this sort of change, this article simply ignores the concerns of the average citizen.
Unpalatable as it may be, I believe that the vast majority of citizens believe that the safety of the general public should be the paramount priority of any mental health incident response system. They aren't willing to gamble with it, not even on a low-risk venture; they would argue that any risk is too much risk. They don't care about the discomfort or distress of "mentally ill people", they are more interested in insuring that "normal" people are spared any potential discomfort or distress. The everyday rational citizens are the ones they can sympathize with.
So any systematic change that has any hope of actually being enacted will need to be designed to insure that it will impose no consequences upon the general public; and it's advocates will need to be able to convincingly demonstrate that this is true.
Not sure whether I'm being a realist or just a pessimist about this, but those are my concerns.