Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Co Responder Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Roeland Park approves co‑responder MOU with Johnson County after program update
Summary
Council approved an intergovernmental MOU to continue Johnson County’s co‑responder coverage, after a presentation that described rising demand, grant uncertainty and follow‑up services including suicide‑fatality outreach.
The Roeland Park City Council on June 16 approved an intergovernmental memorandum of understanding to continue co‑responder services with Johnson County Mental Health following a program update from county staff.
Co‑responder Supervisor Jessica Murphy and an evening co‑responder described the program’s regional origins, grant support and the services the clinicians provide alongside police. Murphy told the council the grant that funded a second co‑responder runs through October and staff have budgeted to continue service if the grant is not extended.
An evening co‑responder said recent reporting practices and a change in how calls are recorded mean the city has already logged 75 calls for service this year and, on the current pace, could reach about 150—roughly 60 more than the 2023–24 average. The presenter said the program performs follow‑up outreaches after crisis calls, provides suicide and overdose fatality follow‑up in partnership with SAS MOCAN, and works to divert individuals toward treatment rather than arrest: “Of the roughly 140 9‑1‑1 responses we reviewed, there was one that ended in an arrest,” the co‑responder said.
Council members pressed staff on local budget implications. A council member noted a line‑item near $23,000; staff said the currently executed MOU and 2026 estimate put Roeland Park’s share closer to $59,000, reflecting higher co‑responder compensation in recent years. Following that discussion, Council member Hague moved to approve the MOU, Council member Dickens seconded, and the council approved the agreement by voice vote.
The council did not record a roll‑call tally in the spoken record. Staff indicated they will follow up with more detailed line‑item information at a later meeting if council members request it.
