Co-Response Programs.  A co-response program is a program in which non-law enforcement personnel, such as a mental health worker, responds alongside a police officer, fire fighter, or EMS worker, to the scene of an emergency or other situation that would traditionally be responded to solely by law enforcement.  The state of Washington has created grants to fund co-response programs, including $10 million for the 2021-2023 biennium for a Mental Health Field Response Team program administered by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

Co-Responder Outreach Alliance.  The Co-Responder Outreach Alliance (CROA) is a statewide organization of first responders, behavioral health professionals, and project managers working in co-response programs.  CROA was formed in 2018 by co-response teams in Bellevue and Everett.  Its governing board was created in 2021.

Subject to funding, the University of Washington must consult and collaborate with CROA and other stakeholders to:

• establish regular opportunities for police, fire, EMS, peers counselors, and behavioral health personnel working in co-response to convene for activities such as training and exchanging best practice information;
• administer a small budget to help defray costs for training and professional development, subject to funding;
• develop an assessment to be provided to the Governor and Legislature by June 30, 2023, describing current capacities, shortfalls, alignments, data systems, training practices, and funding strategies for statewide co-response teams and recommendations for the future state crisis response system;
• develop model training curricula for individuals participating in co-response teams, beginning in calendar year 2023; and
• host an annual statewide conference that draws state and national co-responders, beginning in 2023.

Stakeholders in the field of co-response are specified to include but not be limited to the Washington Association of Designated Crisis Responders, state associations representing police, fire, and EMS personnel, the Washington Council on Behavioral Health, the state enhanced 911 system, 988 crisis call centers, and the Peer Workforce Alliance.

The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard.  PRO:  A bright spot for law enforcement over the last few years has been working with embedded social workers or counselors.  By and large this has proved a successful model, although it hasn't been particularly standardized.  The genesis of this idea came from proponents of a curriculum at Shoreline College, who pointed out there can be a culture clash when different professions approach problems differently.  There isn't a mechanism to standardize education for a co-responder.  I prefer a framework that is not too prescriptive and will work across the state.  Thank you for recognizing that fire-based co-response programs are working well and should be supported.  Most of the clients we see are experiencing some form of a behavioral health disorder.  Our personnel have little to no behavioral health training.  This bill provides an opportunity to standardize training and provide better care and service for our community.  Sending social workers out with law enforcement officers reduces use of force, is cost effective, and reduces the use of jail.  I support building capacity for training.  Society is asking for alternative approaches.  Co-response programs have grown dramatically in the past several years.  We are aware of over 30 co-response organizations.  Things are changing from a police-centric model to a fire or emergency medical services-centric model.  Washington is a leader in co-response, but we are becoming a victim of our own success, without state standards.  Job openings appear without qualified people to fill them.  This bill addresses these issues.  The learning sites will create peer-to-peer learning with standard expectations from the visit.

CON:  We support the concept, but it's a matter of how it's going to be done.  The system is full of treatment without consent, use of seclusion and restraint, and use of psychiatric drugs.  Coercive practices create the risk of negative consequences.  Using nonconsensual measures is a sign of systemic failure.

OTHER:  We love what this bill is trying to do, but we, WASPC, do not have the level of competence to do what the bill requires.  Please choose someone else.  We should think in terms of standards instead of certification, which can get tricky.  We like the concept but oppose certification.  There should be more people at the table to figure out where to put this and how to accomplish the goals.  Designated crisis responders see the need on the ground every day for collaboration between behavioral health professionals and law enforcement.  We want to work with you on amendments to improve the bill.

PRO:  Co-response programs have proliferated around the state.  I want to build a training framework to help the people who come together in these programs from different backgrounds with different focuses to learn how best to interact with each other to lead to positive outcomes for the people they are trying to help.

CON:  The training provided should address the trauma associated with coerced psychiatric treatment, and how to create a rights-based approach to repair the damage caused to our citizens.  Coercive practices are pervasive, but there is no evidence they offer any benefit, only harm.  Please amend the bill.