By Michael Phillips | WIBayNews
Cleveland’s debate over “Tanisha’s Law” — a proposal to send behavioral-health clinicians instead of police to certain 911 calls — is now turning into an internal political fight. According to reporting from Cleveland.com (Dec. 5, 2025), members of the Cleveland City Council are openly accusing Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration of dragging its feet on implementing the program, despite overwhelming support from the public and unanimous council passage earlier this year.
For Wisconsin residents watching similar debates unfold in Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Racine, Cleveland’s experience offers a preview of where these “alternative response” proposals can go wrong — and why elected officials must be transparent about the risks, costs, and consequences.
What Is “Tanisha’s Law”?
Named after 37-year-old Tanisha Anderson, who died during a mental-health crisis in 2014 while police attempted to restrain her, the measure was supposed to reshape how Cleveland responds to non-violent 911 calls involving mental illness or substance abuse.
Under the law:
- Licensed clinicians would respond to certain calls instead of police.
- The goal is to reduce use-of-force incidents and unnecessary arrests.
- A new “Care Response” division would operate citywide, paired with EMS.
- The city was expected to fully roll out the model in 2025–2026.
But nearly one year after passage, council members say they’re seeing more excuses than action.
Council’s Accusations: Delays, Half-Measures, and Lack of Answers
City Council members say the Bibb administration is offering shifting explanations for why the rollout is incomplete. At a recent committee meeting, officials admitted the response teams are still not operational citywide — and might not be for months.
Several councilors argued:
- The mayor’s team is slow-walking implementation despite clear legislative timelines.
- Budget priorities do not match the mayor’s public statements.
- Residents calling for help during a crisis still aren’t receiving the alternatives the city promised.
At least one council member said plainly that Cleveland “cannot wait another year” for a response program the administration claims is already funded.
The Public Safety Questions Being Raised
While many support adding mental-health professionals to crisis response, critics — in Cleveland and across the country — warn of unintended consequences when replacing trained law-enforcement officers with civilian clinicians.
Key concerns include:
1. Are Clinicians Equipped for Volatile Situations?
Mental-health crises can escalate rapidly. Even calls described as “non-violent” often turn violent without warning. Police officers receive specialized training to handle such unpredictable scenarios — clinicians do not.
2. Are Taxpayers Being Misled About Capabilities?
If leaders promise that teams will respond to crisis calls, but then underfund or understaff them, both the public and first responders are put at risk.
3. Are Politicians Prioritizing Optics Over Safety?
Mayor Bibb has promoted progressive criminal-justice reforms nationwide. Critics now argue that the push for “alternative responders” was more about messaging than actual readiness.
4. Will This Reduce Police Capacity?
Many cities adopting similar models reduce police staffing or shift resources away from traditional patrol. If the alternative system isn’t fully functional, the result can be slower response times overall.
Wisconsin municipalities exploring similar policies should pay close attention to these lessons.
Why This Matters in Wisconsin
The debate playing out in Cleveland mirrors conversations happening in Milwaukee, Madison, and Dane County, where activists and some policymakers are pushing for clinician-first or “non-police mobile crisis units.”
Wisconsin residents deserve clear answers before politicians repeat Cleveland’s mistakes:
- What happens when a clinician-only team arrives and the situation turns violent?
- Who is liable if a clinician or citizen is harmed during one of these calls?
- Are taxpayers funding parallel systems that duplicate services?
- Will police staffing be cut to finance these programs?
Accountability matters. If leaders promise an alternative model, they must demonstrate it works — and is safe.
The Bottom Line: Reform Requires Competence, Not Just Rhetoric
Cleveland’s struggle is a cautionary tale for Wisconsin: ambitious public-safety reforms fail when political leaders over-promise, under-plan, and prioritize headlines over implementation.
Residents deserve transparency, measurable results, and assurances that public safety will not be compromised in the name of experimentation.
Until Mayor Bibb provides those answers, Cleveland’s alternative-response initiative will continue to be viewed with skepticism — including by Wisconsinites watching from afar.
Wisconsin Bay News 
Leave a comment