The Association of Co-Response Clinicians (ACRC)
Built by Clinicians. Guided by Ethics. Focused on Trust.
We need your Help!
Help Shape the Future of Co-Response in Colorado
The Association of Colorado Co-Responders (ACRC) has been presented with an opportunity to work alongside Colorado legislators to help define and strengthen the future of the Co-Response Model of Service. This is a pivotal moment for our profession, and we need your voice at the table.
We Need Your Help
The ACRC is collecting feedback from professionals and community members across Colorado to help inform future legislative recommendations.
We want to hear from:
-
Co-Response Clinicians
-
Co-Response Partners (Law Enforcement, Fire, EMS, and other first responder partners)
-
Program Leaders, Supervisors, and Administrators
-
Mobile Crisis Clinicians
-
Crisis Evaluators
-
Licensed Mental Health Professionals
-
Individuals who have received Co-Response Services or supported a loved one who has
-
Behavioral Health and Public Safety Stakeholders
Every perspective helps us better understand what is working, what challenges remain, and how we can build legislation that protects clinicians while strengthening services for Colorado communities.
Why Is This Important?
Colorado has made significant investments in behavioral health crisis response through co-response and mobile crisis programs. However, while these programs are recognized in state law, the licensed clinicians who provide these services are not.
Currently, there are no statutory definitions that clearly establish:
-
What a Co-Response Clinician is.
-
What qualifications are required.
-
What the professional scope of practice includes.
-
What responsibilities fall outside the clinician's role.
-
What legal and ethical protections should exist for clinicians practicing in these environments.
This legislative gap leaves licensed mental health professionals vulnerable.
If we don't define our profession, someone else will.
Together, we can create a stronger, safer, and more sustainable future for Co-Response.
Who should fill out the
survey?
Anyone with an interest in crisis response and improving how behavioral health crises are safely, ethically, and effectively addressed.
Complete the Survey
We invite you to take a few minutes to complete our survey and share your experience.
Your feedback will help shape recommendations regarding:
-
Professional definitions and qualifications
-
Scope of practice
-
Ethical and legal considerations
-
Role clarification
-
Best practices for the future of Co-Response in Colorado
Together, we can create a stronger, safer, and more sustainable future for Co-Response.
If we don't define our profession, someone else will.
Thank you for lending your voice to this important work.
Please fill out our survey!!!
Many Co-Response Clinicians are expected to navigate the intersection of behavioral health, public safety, and healthcare while maintaining compliance with HIPAA, 42 CFR Part 2, Colorado law, and their professional codes of ethics. Without clear legislative guidance, expectations can vary widely between agencies and communities, creating uncertainty for clinicians and the individuals they serve.
Why Now?
Colorado's behavioral health system continues to face increasing demand. As communities experience higher rates of behavioral health crises, limited resources, and growing reliance on crisis intervention services, Co-Response Clinicians play a critical role in helping individuals access care while reducing unnecessary involvement with the criminal justice system.
As the Co-Response Model continues to expand across Colorado, it is essential that the clinicians providing these services have clearly defined roles, professional standards, and appropriate protections.
This is an opportunity to proactively shape the future of our profession rather than allowing others to define it for us.
About Us
Welcome to the Association of Co-Response Clinicians (ACRC)- Here to Protect the Future of Crisis Response
The ACRC was founded in response to emerging threats to client confidentiality, clinical ethics, and public trust within crisis response systems.
Across Colorado and throughout the nation, co-response clinicians serve on the front lines of behavioral health crises, working alongside first responders to connect individuals with care, reduce unnecessary criminal justice involvement, and support community safety.
These services are effective because they are built on one essential foundation: trust.
WHY ACRC WAS CREATED
ACRC was established after clinicians raised concerns about policies that could blur the line between behavioral healthcare and criminal investigation.
These concerns highlighted a significant gap in legal protections for individuals receiving behavioral health services through co-response programs.
While federal and state confidentiality laws provide important protections, there are currently limited statutes specifically addressing the unique role of clinicians embedded within crisis response teams.
ACRC believes Colorado must lead the nation in developing clear protections that preserve:
• Client confidentiality
• Clinical independence
• Ethical practice
• Public trust
• Effective crisis intervention
Pro Co-Response = Pro Law Enforcement
The ACRC is unequivocally Pro-Law enforcement- to suggest the contrary is to diminish the integrity of this association and the efforts to gain equitable participation for Co-Response Clinicians.
One of the most persistent misconceptions surrounding efforts to establish standards, ethical safeguards, and statutory protections for co-response clinicians is the assertion that these efforts are somehow “anti-law enforcement.” This characterization fundamentally misrepresents the mission of the Association of Co-Response Clinicians (ACRC) and distracts from the legitimate policy questions that deserve thoughtful discussion.
The ACRC exists to strengthen co-response—not weaken it.
Our mission is to advance evidence-based, ethically sound, and sustainable co-response models that improve outcomes for individuals experiencing behavioral health crises while supporting the professionals who serve them. Effective co-response depends upon strong interdisciplinary partnerships built on mutual respect, clearly defined roles, and public confidence. Those goals benefit clinicians, first responders, community partners, and, most importantly, the people seeking help.
ACRC is unequivocally pro–law enforcement. Law enforcement officers are a vital part of the co-response dynamic and play an essential role in maintaining public safety and supporting crisis response efforts. At the same time, there is an undeniable imbalance of power when policies and procedures are developed in ways that can leave clinicians exposed to independent grievance processes and personal liability with clients. Co-responders do not have the same legal protections, institutional backing, or statutory clarity that law enforcement officers are afforded. Recognizing and addressing this imbalance is not a critique of law enforcement—it is a necessary step toward building a fair, sustainable, and effective co-response system.
Calls for ethical standards, legislative clarification, and professional protections should never be interpreted as opposition to law enforcement. Rather, they reflect an understanding that every profession participating in crisis response has distinct legal responsibilities, ethical obligations, and scopes of practice.
Law enforcement officers have sworn duties to protect public safety and enforce the law.
Clinicians have independent legal and ethical duties to provide healthcare, protect confidentiality within the limits of the law, exercise independent clinical judgment, and maintain therapeutic relationships.
These roles are different by design.
Recognizing and protecting those distinctions strengthens collaboration rather than undermining it.
When concerns about clinician independence are dismissed simply because they involve law enforcement partnerships, the conversation shifts away from the actual issues. The question is no longer whether a policy is ethical, legally sound, or supported by evidence. Instead, the discussion becomes centered on perceived loyalties or institutional identities.
This creates a false choice.
Supporting ethical protections for clinicians is not the same as opposing law enforcement. Advocating for clearly defined professional boundaries does not diminish the work of deputies, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, or emergency medical personnel. In fact, clearly defined roles reduce confusion, improve accountability, and strengthen interdisciplinary teamwork.
Importantly, co-response is not synonymous with law enforcement.
Across Colorado and the United States, co-response programs operate under many different models. Behavioral health clinicians partner with sheriff’s offices, municipal police departments, fire departments, emergency medical services, paramedics, community-based crisis teams, hospitals, mobile crisis units, and multidisciplinary response teams. The common denominator is not the agency involved—it is the integration of behavioral health expertise into crisis response.
If advocating for ethical clinical independence were inherently “anti-law enforcement,” one would also have to conclude that the same principles are anti-fire, anti-paramedic, anti-EMS, or anti-public health whenever clinicians are embedded alongside those professionals. That conclusion is plainly illogical.
The issue has never been which agency clinicians work beside.
The issue is preserving the independence of clinical decision-making regardless of the partner agency.
The ACRC recognizes that every discipline contributes unique expertise during crisis response. Collaboration is most effective when each profession is empowered to fulfill its own responsibilities without pressure to assume the legal or ethical obligations of another discipline.
This is precisely why statutory guidance and professional safeguards are needed.
Without consistent statewide standards, clinicians may encounter widely varying expectations regarding documentation, confidentiality, informed consent, testimony, evidence collection, and investigative participation. These inconsistencies create uncertainty for clinicians, partner agencies, employers, and the public.
Legislative clarity would not restrict collaboration. It would strengthen it by ensuring that all participants understand the appropriate scope and responsibilities of each professional role.
The ACRC therefore advocates for legislation and statewide standards that:
-
Clearly define the role and professional independence of co-response clinicians.
-
Protect clinicians’ ability to exercise independent clinical judgment consistent with their professional licensure and ethical obligations.
-
Establish uniform guidance regarding documentation, confidentiality, information sharing, and participation in criminal investigations.
-
Preserve public trust by ensuring individuals experiencing behavioral health crises understand the clinician’s role within the response.
-
Promote transparency, accountability, and consistency across all co-response models operating in Colorado.
-
Support sustainable partnerships between behavioral health professionals and first responder agencies through clearly defined interdisciplinary responsibilities.
Ultimately, this work is not about choosing between behavioral health and public safety.
It is about recognizing that effective public safety increasingly depends upon effective behavioral healthcare.
The strongest co-response systems are those in which every profession is respected for its unique expertise, every participant understands their responsibilities, and every individual in crisis can trust that the professionals responding are acting within clearly defined, ethically grounded roles.
Protecting clinicians does not weaken law enforcement.
Protecting clinicians strengthens co-response.
And stronger co-response strengthens communities.
Addressing the gap
Colorado has established statutory protections for many traditional first responders, including law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMS providers, rescue specialists, and certain volunteers. These protections recognize that first responders enter unpredictable, high-risk environments while serving the public.
However, co-response clinicians are being asked to enter those same environments alongside law enforcement, fire, EMS, and rescue teams without comparable statutory protections, first responder recognition, or compensation structures.
Existing Colorado Protections for First Responders
Colorado law provides enhanced protections for several first responder roles, including:
Law Enforcement
Colorado statutes provide enhanced protections and penalties when a peace officer is assaulted, obstructed, resisted, disarmed, or targeted while performing official duties. Relevant statutes include:
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-202 — First-degree assault
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-203 — Second-degree assault
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-204 — Third-degree assault
-
C.R.S. § 18-8-103 — Resisting arrest
-
C.R.S. § 18-8-104 — Obstructing a peace officer
-
C.R.S. § 18-8-111.5 — False reporting of identifying information
-
C.R.S. § 18-1.3-406 — Crime of violence sentencing enhancements
-
Additional protections related to disarming an officer, menacing, harassment, and other offenses
Firefighters
Colorado law specifically recognizes firefighters in several criminal statutes when they are performing lawful duties, including:
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-203 — Second-degree assault involving bodily injury or bodily fluids
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-204 — Third-degree assault involving hazardous bodily fluids
-
C.R.S. § 18-8-104 — Obstructing a firefighter
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-201 — Definitions related to assault protections
EMS and Rescue Personnel
EMS providers, rescue specialists, and certain volunteers are also protected under overlapping first responder statutes, including:
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-203 — Second-degree assault
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-204 — Third-degree assault
-
C.R.S. § 18-8-104 — Obstructing EMS providers, rescue specialists, or volunteers
-
C.R.S. § 18-3-201 — Definitions related to protected emergency personnel
Protect the Team. Protect the Mission. Protect Our Communities.
Overlapping First Responder Protections
Some Colorado statutes protect multiple first responder roles at the same time. These include protections for peace officers, firefighters, EMS providers, rescue specialists, and volunteers when they are performing official duties.
Examples include:
-
Assault protections
-
Obstruction protections
-
Protections involving exposure to bodily fluids
-
Traffic safety protections such as Colorado’s “Slow Down, Move Over” law
-
Benefit-related protections such as workers’ compensation, death benefits, PTSD-related coverage, and other first responder supports
The Gap: Co-Response Clinicians
Co-response clinicians work side-by-side with law enforcement, fire, EMS, and rescue teams. They respond to behavioral health crises, suicide calls, substance use-related incidents, domestic violence situations, welfare checks, psychosis, trauma, homelessness, and other high-risk community calls.
Yet, under Colorado law, co-response clinicians are not specifically recognized as protected first responders.
This means co-response clinicians may be asked to:
-
Enter volatile and unpredictable scenes
-
Respond alongside armed first responders
-
De-escalate individuals in crisis
-
Enter homes, camps, hospitals, jails, schools, and public spaces
-
Provide clinical intervention in the middle of public safety incidents
-
Face many of the same environmental risks as law enforcement, fire, EMS, and rescue personnel
But they do so without:
-
Specific statutory protection
-
First responder recognition
-
Comparable compensation
-
Clear legal classification
-
Enhanced protections when assaulted, threatened, or obstructed while performing co-response duties
The Ask
ACRC is advocating for Colorado to formally recognize co-response clinicians as essential members of the first responder system.
The ask is simple:
If co-response clinicians are being asked to enter the same high-risk environments as law enforcement, fire, EMS, and rescue personnel, they should receive comparable statutory protections, recognition, and compensation.
Co-response clinicians are not bystanders. They are frontline behavioral health responders. They are part of the crisis response team. Colorado law should reflect that reality.
ACRC Position
ACRC supports legislation that would:
-
Add co-response clinicians to relevant Colorado first responder protection statutes
-
Recognize co-response clinicians as frontline crisis response professionals
-
Provide enhanced protections when clinicians are assaulted, threatened, obstructed, or exposed to bodily fluids while performing official co-response duties
-
Support comparable compensation for clinicians working in high-risk field-based crisis response roles
-
Establish clear first responder recognition for co-response clinicians working alongside law enforcement, fire, EMS, and rescue teams
Strengthening the Co-Response Clinician
As co-response continues to expand across the United States, there remains no nationally recognized competency framework or professional standard specific to the role of the co-response clinician. The behavioral health professionals serving communities in these roles are highly skilled, adaptable, and accomplished—typically holding master's degrees and post-graduate licensure in social work, counseling, psychology, marriage and family therapy, or addiction counseling. Yet despite their clinical expertise, most receive little to no formal education designed specifically for the unique demands of field-based crisis response. Consequently, agencies are left to develop their own training models, policies, and expectations, resulting in wide variation in clinician preparation, role definition, and practice. While this flexibility has fostered innovation, it has also limited the professional recognition of co-response clinicians, leaving gaps in standardized competencies, legislative representation, liability protections, and, at times, equal standing within multidisciplinary public safety partnerships.
To advance the profession and establish a foundation for consistent, high-quality practice, the Association of Co-Response Clinicians created the FieldWise™ Institute—a competency-based educational institute dedicated to enhancing the field readiness of co-response clinicians through specialized training, professional development, and evidence-informed standards that strengthen both the profession and the communities it serves.