In desperate times 15 years ago, I yearned for help, for a peer, for someone who understood the maze of my mind. Instead, my pleas led to my arrest and traumas that delayed my recovery far beyond the point of effective intervention.

Fast forward to today, and it’s heartening to witness how far mental health advocacy has come. I’ve had the privilege of participating in the evolution, being on the front lines of needed reforms. In my role as a professional social worker, I’ve collaborated with local mental health teams to educate them on successful interventions. Yet, even as we teeter on the brink of potentially groundbreaking reforms in emergency mental health and crisis interventions, I can’t help but fear that we might take a wrong turn.

At stake is the direction of future case law, with the potential to either revolutionize or regress mental health care. Take Kendra’s Law in New York or Baker Act in Florida as examples: we’re at a crossroads, and the decisions we make will have far-reaching implications.

The conversation on emergency mental health protocols is heated, to say the least. There are debates about the role of peers, social workers, and police in crisis situations. However, consensus is elusive, and I worry that our hard-won progress will be jeopardized if we aren’t extremely careful. The role of advocacy groups, academics, and the legal system in shaping these interventions cannot be understated. But we need more research, more education, and more time to arrive at a model that genuinely works for everyone.

A case in point is the Cahoots program in Oregon, which has yet to respond to my requests for interviews or transparency. Their silence fuels my reservations about how effective their model could be on a broader scale. New York City is considering involving peers like me in crisis interventions, but I wonder if we’re ready. Peer support is valuable, but it isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s not backed by the kind of evidence-based protocols that should underpin crisis interventions.

As someone who teaches social work and holds an evidence-based certificate, I can attest that generic de-escalation tactics are often inadequate for addressing the myriad challenges in mental health crises. To endorse such a practice without robust evidence is not just academically flawed but downright irresponsible. Lives are on the line, and uninformed choices could lead to tragic outcomes.

Until we have thoroughly tested and clearly defined solutions that can be uniformly applied across all states, we should tread carefully with any so-called ‘reforms.’ Let’s take the time to get it right, lest we find ourselves stepping backward into a past best left behind.