When talking with a mental health provider or suicide hotline about thoughts of suicide, self-injury, or other experiences that could be called a mental health crisis, many people hope to find social connection. They want someone to hear their pain and distress, to help ease the burden of bottling it up, and to help them feel less alone in their struggle.

But instead, they often get the opposite. Frequently, when people report having thoughts of suicide or a mental health crisis, they are met with police at their doors, and in many cases are taken to a hospital against their will. 

When there, they lose the right to their cell phone or other personal items that might comfort them in times of distress. They are placed in a locked psychiatric ward, and denied the freedom to leave — regularly resulting in the loss of employment, then housing, etc., while also being stuck with lofty hospital bills.

They are often disconnected from their family and friends outside of limited visiting hours, leading to greater social isolation — all for trying to take care of their mental health. For these reasons, people often describe inpatient psychiatric stays as traumatizing. We should not be surprised, then, that people being discharged from these inpatient psychiatric settings are nearly 100 times more likely to die by suicide than the global average. 

And with the greater availability of crisis phone services, this problem is getting worse. Since the rollout of 988, for example, psychiatric detentions have increased 120% nationwide. For those who are aware of these risks, this often results in avoiding seeking help entirely.

There’s a fundamental problem in this approach. In all other fields of medicine, people have the right to a second opinion. In other words, you can’t be compelled to receive treatment and treatment is only given with informed consent. So why is this not the case for people experiencing suicidal ideation or self-injury? The tragic irony of this system is that in trying to control for perceived risk, the mental health system is harming the people it is trying to help.

Over the past three years, Connecticut’s lawmakers have noted the growing crisis in our state’s mental health. But many of the calls for change to address this problem aren’t really asking for change at all — they’re asking for more of the same. More hospital beds, more locked psych wards, and so on. But the good news is, other ways are possible.

Just under 50 miles north of our state capitol, Afiya Peer Respite in Northampton, Massachusetts, provides support to people experiencing mental health crises, emotional distress, and other extreme states. Importantly, it is a completely voluntary program located within the community. Instead of being met with locked doors and hospital wards, guests at peer respites have access to private bedrooms in a home-like environment, with 24/7 peer support services and an array of supports to help them navigate their crises. Respite staff are trained and equipped to connect guests to resources in the community when they leave.

Peer respites are also cost effective: free for all guests, and only costing the state $3,000 to $4,000 for a typical week-long stay. For comparison, a week-long stay in Connecticut’s inpatient psychiatric units costs a whopping $40,611 according to the Department of Public Health.

Afiya is just one of over 40 peer respites which exist in 15 states across the country, including four in Massachusetts. This approach has been so successful that the World Health Organization Quality Rights Initiative has recognized the program for preserving human rights in the mental health system, and our neighboring state legislature in Massachusetts is considering establishing 14 total peer respites throughout the state.

Key to the success of peer respites is that staff do not call the police or crisis services, or otherwise use force if someone is feeling suicidal. For this reason, the model is considered a harm reduction approach, as the peer support specialists on staff meet people where they’re at rather than trying to “fix” them or forcing change. Instead, peers use their own experiences of crisis and recovery to validate and relate to a person’s distressing life experiences, and help change their relationship to crisis, thoughts of suicide, and recovery. The result? People who stay at peer respites are 70% less likely to return to the hospital and report greater satisfaction with coping skills, social connectedness, and more.

Connecticut residents don’t currently have the option to go to a peer respite when experiencing mental health crises. The legislature has the power to change that. To best support people in mental health crises around the state, Connecticut should fund and establish eight peer respite centers, including three focused on addressing disparities in mental health services for transgender and gender expansive individuals, Black and brown individuals, and Spanish speakers, respectively.

Connecticut residents deserve support which is compassionate, mutual, and consensual when experiencing hardships, crises, and other life-interrupting challenges. It is time to finally bring peer respites to our state, and give us autonomy and self-determination over our own recovery.

Jordan Fairchild is the Executive Director of Keep The Promise Coalition