Reconstructing Crisis Response In Higher Education: A Phenomenological Study of Tiered Models and Institutional Decision-Making

Background and Purpose:

Behavioral health crises among college students have become more severe and complex, while institutional response systems remain heavily reliant on law enforcement. These approaches can escalate distress and produce inequitable outcomes, particularly for Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) students. In response, universities have begun developing Alternative Crisis Response Models that integrate multidisciplinary teams with existing campus safety systems. Despite their promise, little is known about how these models are developed within institutional contexts shaped by competing priorities of care, safety, and liability. This study examines how mental health professionals experience and navigate the development of Tiered Crisis Response Models within the University of California system. The guiding research question is: What barriers and facilitators do UC mental health professionals encounter when developing a college-based Tiered Crisis Response Model?

Methods:

This qualitative study used a phenomenological design to explore the lived experiences of mental health professionals involved in developing crisis response systems. Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling within the University of California professional networks. Eligibility required direct involvement in planning or implementing a campus-based crisis response model led by a mental health professional. Seven participants completed semi-structured interviews focused on institutional processes, interprofessional collaboration, and system-level constraints. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using applied thematic analysis, with an iterative coding process to identify patterns related to barriers, facilitators, and institutional dynamics that shape model development.

Results:

Findings indicate that the development of Tiered Crisis Response Models is shaped by three central themes: misalignment between institutional vision and operational practices, systemic fragmentation that undermines coordinated response, and role ambiguity among campus stakeholders. Participants described persistent tensions between behavioral health–centered approaches and liability-driven decision-making, often leading to continued reliance on law enforcement despite efforts to expand clinician-led responses. Barriers included bureaucratic inertia, limited resource allocation, and challenges with cross-departmental collaboration. Facilitators included strong leadership support, interdisciplinary partnerships, and internal champions advocating for non-carceral crisis-response approaches.

Conclusions and Implications:

This study highlights the complex institutional conditions that shape the development of campus-based crisis response systems. Findings suggest that without structural alignment, Tiered Crisis Response Models risk being constrained by governance frameworks that prioritize risk mitigation over care. Advancing behavioral health–centered crisis response in higher education requires addressing organizational fragmentation, clarifying roles across systems, and investing in sustainable infrastructure to support alternative clinical interventions. These findings have implications for policy and practice, identifying key leverage points to reduce reliance on law enforcement and to strengthen equitable crisis response systems in higher education.