When Seconds Matter: Lessons from a Coordinated Crisis Response

6 min read

I still remember the call that came in shortly after midnight. A high school guidance counselor had flagged a concerning social media post from a student. The school resource officer contacted our crisis line, and within minutes, our mobile crisis intervention team was dispatched. At the same time, we coordinated with local police to ensure a welfare check could be conducted safely and without escalating the situation. The student was found at home, in distress but physically safe. Because of the rapid coordination between school personnel, law enforcement, and our crisis team, the student was voluntarily transported to a hospital with a behavioral health unit that had been alerted in advance to expect the intake.

The real success came in the days and weeks that followed. Our case management staff maintained contact with the student and their family, ensuring continuity of care. The hospital shared discharge information through a secure, HIPAA-compliant platform, which allowed our team to coordinate outpatient services and school reintegration. This case illustrated why collaboration isn't just helpful in crisis response—it is essential. Without it, the student might have fallen through the cracks, as often happens when agencies work in silos.

Barriers to Real-Time Information Sharing

One of the most persistent challenges in suicide prevention work is the lack of real-time information sharing across agencies. While privacy laws like HIPAA and FERPA are in place to protect individuals, they can also make it difficult for schools, hospitals, and law enforcement to exchange urgent information during a crisis. As a supervisor, I've had to navigate these legal constraints while advocating for data-sharing agreements and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) that allow timely, responsible communication between partners.

For example, it can take hours to confirm whether a person we’ve encountered in crisis has a current safety plan on file or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. This delay can be the difference between de-escalating a situation or having it spiral into an involuntary hold. Municipalities that have invested in cross-sector data integration platforms, such as shared electronic health records or coordinated response dashboards, are seeing better outcomes and fewer repeat crises. However, these systems require funding, staff training, and legal support to implement effectively (SAMHSA 2022)¹.

Maintaining Continuity of Care Post-Crisis

The work doesn’t end once a person has been stabilized or discharged from an emergency department. In fact, that’s often when the most critical phase of suicide prevention begins. Follow-up care is where many systems falter. From my experience, the transition from acute care to community-based support is riddled with gaps—missed appointments, lack of transportation, stigma, and insurance issues all contribute to a cycle of recidivism. Without consistent, personalized follow-up, people often return to crisis within weeks.

Our team has implemented a 72-hour follow-up protocol for all suicidal callers or individuals transported through our service. We also assign a single point of contact within our team to ensure the individual doesn’t have to retell their story multiple times. Regular check-ins, coordination with primary care providers, and school support services are key elements of this model. Studies have shown that assertive follow-up after a suicide attempt can significantly reduce the risk of reattempt (Luxton et al. 2013)². For municipal leaders, investing in this level of post-crisis care should be a priority, not an afterthought.

Trauma-Informed Practice in High-Stakes Situations

Crisis work demands more than clinical expertise—it requires an unwavering commitment to trauma-informed practice. Every interaction, from the first phone call to the final handoff to long-term care, must be grounded in safety, trust, and empowerment. We train our team to recognize the signs of trauma and to respond in ways that avoid retraumatization. This includes using non-coercive language, offering choices whenever possible, and involving individuals in decisions about their care.

Working with law enforcement partners has required mutual learning. Officers are now trained in Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) protocols, which emphasize de-escalation and trauma-sensitive approaches for individuals in emotional distress (Watson and Compton 2019)³. In one case, an officer who had recently completed CIT training was able to de-escalate a suicidal individual's attempt by using open-ended questions and avoiding physical restraint. That individual later told us that the respect shown during that interaction was the reason they agreed to seek help.

Building Skill and Resilience Through Ongoing Training

Crisis work is emotionally taxing, and the stakes are often life and death. Maintaining composure under pressure is not just a skill—it’s a necessity. We train regularly in suicide risk assessment, cultural competency, and emergency protocols. But just as important is the cultivation of empathy and resilience. We offer staff debriefing sessions, peer support, and access to mental health services to mitigate secondary trauma and burnout.

Municipal governments that want to sustain effective crisis response systems must prioritize workforce development. This means funding ongoing training, supporting certification for crisis workers, and creating career pathways that acknowledge the complexity of this work. When crisis counselors are well-trained and emotionally supported, they are better equipped to make sound decisions in chaotic moments. The result is not only improved outcomes for the individuals we serve, but also a more stable and effective crisis response infrastructure.

Practical Strategies for Municipal Collaboration

From my perspective as a helpline supervisor, there are several practical steps municipalities can take to strengthen suicide prevention efforts. First, formalize partnerships through interagency agreements that outline roles, protocols, and data-sharing practices. Second, invest in co-responder models that pair mental health professionals with law enforcement during crisis calls. These teams help reduce arrests and emergency department visits, according to data from several pilot programs (Abate et al. 2021)⁴.

Third, involve schools and community organizations in prevention planning. We’ve had success with youth advisory boards and parent engagement nights that center mental wellness. Lastly, use data to drive decisions. Track calls, follow-ups, and outcomes to identify gaps and allocate resources where they’re most needed. Municipal collaboration isn’t just about coordinating during a crisis—it’s about building a system that prevents crises from occurring in the first place.

Bibliography

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2022. 988 and Crisis Services: A Toolkit for States and Localities. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Luxton, David D., Jessica D. June, and Gregory M. Comtois. 2013. “Can Post-Discharge Follow-Up Contacts Prevent Suicide and Suicidal Behavior? A Review of the Evidence.” Crisis 34 (1): 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000158.
Watson, Amy C., and Michael T. Compton. 2019. “What Research on Crisis Intervention Teams Tells Us and What We Need to Ask.” The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 47 (4): 422–426. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.003863-19.
Abate, A., C. van den Berk-Clark, S. Roelandt, et al. 2021. “Co-Responder Models: A Review of Evidence and Implementation Considerations.” Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 48 (4): 574–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-021-09737-5.