How Are Leaders Talking About This?

Curated from program launches, press coverage, legislative testimony, and original polling

Overview

Mobile crisis response teams have responded successfully to hundreds of thousands of calls across the country—the vast majority of them resolved without needing law enforcement. That means officers spent more time on serious crime, and people in crisis got the care they actually needed.

Across cities of every size, the leaders who have launched and expanded these programs describe the logic the same way: send the right first responder to solve the right problem.

When it’s a robbery in progress, or a shooting, then obviously we need to send an armed sheriff’s deputy. But if we are talking about a person sleeping on a sidewalk, or a teenager who is suicidal and swallowed pills, then we need a behavioral health expert to respond… We are sending the right experts to solve the right problems.

Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis¹²

For years, 911 had only one play in a mental health crisis: send law enforcement to every call—even when the issue was solely mental health-related, not a crime. That often meant officers were put in impossible situations they weren’t trained to handle, instead of focusing on more serious threats to public safety. Meanwhile, the person who needed medical care didn’t get it—making it more likely officers would be back at the same scene later.

Mobile crisis teams reflect a different philosophy. When a person is struggling with a mental health crisis, send a mental health response. You don’t send a police officer to treat a heart attack just like you don’t send a police officer to treat a panic attack. Communities are safer when we match the response to the crisis.

If I’m having a heart attack, 911 isn’t going to send the police. Why do we do that when someone is having a behavioral health crisis?

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo¹³

Mobile crisis response works—now it needs to work for everyone, all across the country, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Three Themes That Appear Across Successful Programs

The leaders who champion mobile crisis response consistently organize their public communications around three themes.

1. Public Safety and Role Clarity

The most common frame emphasizes that the job is simple: send the right responder to the right call. That’s how communities stay safe. Leaders across the political spectrum describe mobile crisis response teams as freeing up police officers to focus on the important work they’re trained to do—stop and solve shootings and violent crime. As multiple officials put it: safety isn’t one-size-fits-all. A home invasion needs an armed police officer. A person struggling with mental illness needs a clinician—not sirens, not a badge, not a gun.

This innovative new department is already helping to free up our officers so they can respond to high-priority calls. This third branch of public safety bridges a gap, and provides residents with the response they deserve.

Former Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina⁴

The frame is pro-police on its face. The language positions mobile crisis response as something that helps officers, not something that replaces them. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper³ used the most direct version:

Being mentally ill is not a crime and we can’t be the answer. Law enforcement officers are not trained mental health professionals. We’re not psychiatrists and psychologists. We don’t deal with it. We’ve had minimal training at de-escalation… We wear the badge, we carry the gun, we deal with crime, not mental health crises.

Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper

When a sheriff says it this bluntly, it neutralizes the “anti-police” attack entirely. The messenger changes the political calculus in ways that advocacy organizations and polling data cannot, a law enforcement voice endorsing civilian crisis response preempts the most common opposition frame before it can take hold.

2. Care That Prevents the Next Crisis

Leaders consistently emphasize that when someone is having a mental health crisis, they need a mental health professional—someone trained to listen, de-escalate, and connect them to ongoing treatment. The frame that resonates is that sending a mobile crisis team with the right tools and experience stops the same crisis from happening next week, reduces repeat 911 calls, and keeps neighborhoods safer. Officials describe mobile crisis teams not as just resolving the immediate crisis, but as connecting people to the care that prevents the next one—breaking the cycle of repeated 911 calls.

By addressing the underlying mental health and substance use needs that led to the 911 call in the first place, HART can resolve the immediate situation, get the person the help they need to stabilize their life, and make it much less likely the person requires an emergency response in the future.

Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis¹²

The power of this frame is that it redefines what “effective” means. It shifts the conversation from “did someone show up” to “did the cycle stop.” That’s a much stronger position for advocates and a much harder one for skeptics to argue with.

3. Efficiency and Resource Alignment

Fiscal and operational leaders frame mobile crisis response as protecting the most vital work law enforcement does—by taking the calls that were never police work to begin with. The analogy used most often: you wouldn’t send a police officer to treat a heart attack; you shouldn’t send one to treat a panic attack either. The underlying message is that mental health professionals know how to de-escalate a mental health crisis because that’s what they’re trained to do.

It’s time that we work towards getting law enforcement out of mental health. We have never claimed to be the experts, but yet we have been charged with the responsibility.

Austin Police Association President Michael Bullock², testimony before Austin City Council

When a police union president uses this language before a city council, it demonstrates the frame’s political range. This isn’t reform rhetoric—it’s operational common sense delivered by the people most affected.

Language That Resonates, and Why

Across polling, public testimony, and press coverage, certain frames consistently generate broad support while others create unnecessary political friction.

Theme Language Leaders Use Why It Resonates

---

Right Responder, Right Problem “A home invasion needs a police officer. A mental health crisis needs a clinician.” Anchors the concept in plain logic. Avoids ideology. Hard to argue with.

Frees Up Law Enforcement “Mobile crisis response teams have handled hundreds of thousands of calls—most without needing a single officer. That lets police focus on gun violence and serious crime.” Positions mobile crisis as protecting, not replacing, law enforcement. Frames it as a force multiplier.

Broad Public Support “Across the country, 4 out of 5 voters—Democrats and Republicans—say mobile crisis response makes their community safer.” Establishes democratic legitimacy. Signals cross-partisan support without partisan language.

Proven Track Record “Mobile crisis teams have resolved hundreds of thousands of calls, connected people in crisis to the services they need, and saved officers countless hours. This isn’t promising. It’s proven.” Frames the program as a success already underway—not a pilot or idea. High credibility.

Permanence and Scale “Mobile crisis response is now a vital part of our public safety system. Next, we need to integrate it into 911 and make sure there are enough teams to provide 24/7 care.” Treats mobile crisis as established policy, not experiment. Pushes toward completeness, not concept.

Here’s what these themes sound like in practice:

It’s really about meeting the needs of the community and making sure we are sending the right experts, so we can actually solve the problem.

Carleigh Sailon, former STAR Program Manager, Denver¹⁴

[Our crisis teams] are responding to the mental health crisis with solutions that are long-term and sustainable… [while] at the same time, freeing up our officers to fight crime.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass¹⁵

We realized our community was experiencing increased mental health and substance use crises… and we didn’t believe people were getting the care they needed.

Baton Rouge Police Chief Murphy Paul¹⁶

Polling confirms why these frames work. The “right responder” frame tested as the second most persuasive argument in a national survey of 2,503 registered voters:

+64%

Net effective (82% to 18%), “Community safety departments are about sending the right responder to address every problem. When the call is for a robbery in progress, we should send the police. When the call is for a mental health crisis, we should send trained mental health professionals.”

The single most persuasive argument went further—it explained why the current approach fails:

+72%

Net effective (86% to 14%), “Police officers often show up with sirens blaring, bright lights, and firearms. They also are trained to use their authority to control a situation. These work in a home invasion, for example, but can backfire when dealing with people in acute mental crises because they further escalate the situation.”

And in a randomized controlled trial testing different message frames, “police… can’t do it alone” was the best-performing message across every sub-group—a frame that centers law enforcement and positions mobile crisis as support, not replacement. “Fully fund public safety”¹ and “treatment, not trauma” also tested well, while sloganeering and anti-police language consistently underperformed.

Common Objections and How Officials Respond

A predictable set of objections arises in every city. Here is how officials who have successfully addressed them respond.

Objection How Officials Typically Respond Why This Response Works

---

“This takes resources away from law enforcement.” Mobile crisis response frees up law enforcement. Hundreds of thousands of calls—handled by healthcare professionals—so officers can stay focused on violent crime. Reframes mobile crisis as a support tool, not a tradeoff. Aligns with polling showing broad voter support.

“These aren’t public safety professionals—they’re social workers.” They’re trained crisis responders. They know how to stabilize the situation, calm someone in crisis, and connect them to real care. That’s how you stop the same crisis from happening again next week. Focuses on outcomes, not titles. Highlights professionalism and real-world effectiveness.

“This kind of response isn’t proven.” Mobile crisis teams have already resolved hundreds of thousands of calls. Four out of five voters say it makes their communities safer. Positions the objection as out of touch with both facts and public opinion.

“Mental health calls should still involve police for safety.” Officers are always available when needed. But the vast majority of mobile crisis calls are resolved without them. That’s safer for everyone involved. Reinforces that this isn’t a gamble—it’s a system with built-in safety checks.

“We should be investing in more officers, not new programs.” We are doing both. But when someone’s having a mental health crisis, it’s more effective—and more efficient—to send a clinician. Asserts shared priorities while reinforcing role clarity. Avoids sounding anti-police.

“We can’t afford to do this everywhere.” We can’t afford not to. Untreated mental health crises strain families, disrupt businesses, and drain public safety resources. Mobile crisis teams resolve the crisis moment—and then connect people to the care that prevents the next call. The real cost is sending the wrong response again and again. Ties personal impact to community consequence. Flips the fiscal frame with practical, local logic.

The “isn’t proven” and “not safe” objections collapse when you cite the numbers:

80%

of voters—including 89% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans⁵—say mobile crisis response units are “effective” at making their community safer. (National survey of 2,503 registered voters, 2024. Consistent with a 2025 NAMI⁶/Ipsos national poll finding that 85% of Americans believe crisis situations should receive a mental health response, not a police response.)

58%

of voters prefer spending additional public safety dollars on mobile crisis units, versus just 34% who prefer hiring more police officers—when forced to choose.

Officials who have faced the “resources” objection have countered with voices from inside law enforcement:

This should have been done a long time ago… police are very needed, it’s just these types of calls weren’t meant for us.

Philadelphia Police Officer Kenneth Harper¹⁷

Officials who face the “we can’t afford it” objection have flipped the fiscal frame:

Expecting law enforcement to answer every call on every issue from homelessness to mental health and addiction is too much to ask.

Columbus City Council President Shannon Hardin¹⁸

Hardin’s language is pro-police (it’s unfair to ask this of officers) and practical (these calls need different expertise). A Michigan state survey of law enforcement professionals found that “the vast majority of local police chiefs support having some type of specialized emergency response” for some 911 calls.¹¹

Language That Tests Well vs. Language That Tests Poorly

Leaders who have successfully built coalitions avoid language that triggers partisan frames or alienates potential allies.

Language That Tests Poorly Language Leaders Use Instead Why the Shift Matters

---

“Care, not cuffs.” “This frees up police officers to focus on serious crime—and sends the right first responders to handle mental health calls.” Drops the slogan. Centers on safety, role clarity, and practical public benefit.

“Police shouldn’t respond to mental health calls.” “Officers are trained to stop violent crime. Mobile crisis teams are trained to stabilize mental health crises. All of us are safer when the right first responder does their job.” Clarifies roles without diminishing either. Emphasizes public safety and professionalism.

“This is a new approach.” “This is a proven approach. Mobile crisis teams have already handled hundreds of thousands of calls—most without needing backup.” Frames mobile crisis response as established and effective. Builds trust by leading with results, not innovation.

“This program helps the most vulnerable.” “This helps people in crisis—and protects families, businesses, and public safety resources.” Expands the frame. Shows broader public benefit beyond a single population.

“This saves money.” “This prevents the same crisis from happening again—and keeps officers where they’re needed most.” Ties efficiency to public safety. Avoids sounding budget-driven.

“We need fewer cops.” Leaders across the political spectrum avoid this framing entirely. It’s politically toxic, unnecessary, and undermines coalition-building. Mobile crisis response stands on its own merits without requiring this frame.

How Supporters and Skeptics Frame the Issue

Understanding how each side frames its position reveals the pressure points in any local debate.

Supporters, On Their Position

Mobile crisis response teams have handled hundreds of thousands of calls—most resolved without needing law enforcement. That means officers spent more time on serious crime, and people in crisis got the care they actually needed.

Supporters, On The Opposition

For years, 911 had only one play: send law enforcement to every mental health crisis—even when it was clearly a mental health issue, not a crime. That approach left officers stretched thin, distracted law enforcement from the most serious threats, and left people in crisis without the help they needed.

Skeptics, Channeling Supporters

Mobile crisis response is the most pro–law enforcement public safety program we’ve got. Officers shouldn’t be tied up with welfare checks when there are shootings to solve.

Skeptics, On Their Position

“We know what works. More police officers on the streets keep us safe. Officers are trained to handle a wide range of crisis scenarios. Give them the resources, and trust them to do the job.”

The Political Landscape

What’s notable is how far the consensus has shifted. The strongest skeptical argument—“officers shouldn’t be tied up with welfare checks when there are shootings to solve”—is itself an argument for mobile crisis response. When police chiefs, sheriffs, police union presidents, Republican governors, and 72% of Republican voters all describe these programs as effective, the political debate is less about whether to implement mobile crisis response and more about how fast to scale it.

“You wouldn’t call your plumber to fix your teeth. You want the expertise to match with what the issue is.”, Sarah Henrickson, co-founder, CARES mobile crisis team, Madison, Wisconsin¹⁹

What Different Stakeholders Want To Know

Different people in the conversation around mobile crisis response are asking different questions, not because they disagree on the goal, but because they carry different responsibilities and face different risks. Understanding what each group actually needs to hear isn’t about tailoring a pitch. It’s about taking their concerns seriously enough to answer them.

What Police Leadership Wants To Know

A police chief or sheriff considering mobile crisis response is asking operational questions: Will this make my officers safer? Will it free them for the work they’re trained to do? Will the crisis team actually show up and handle calls competently, or will my officers end up cleaning up after them? And will this program make my department look like it failed?

The evidence that speaks to these concerns: Durham’s 10,000+ officer hours returned to patrol⁷. Oklahoma City’s 57% reduction in mental health dispatches⁸. Albuquerque’s 100,000 diverted calls⁹. The safety record, zero or near-zero responder injuries across every documented program. The fallback protocol — police are always available as backup, and the bright line (weapons, violence, active crime) always routes to officers. Chiefs who have championed these programs describe them as making their departments stronger, not weaker. Sacramento Sheriff Cooper: “Being mentally ill is not a crime and we can’t be the answer.”

What The Police Union Wants To Know

A union leader is evaluating this through a different lens than a chief. The questions are institutional: Does this threaten headcount? Does it shift budget away from the department? Does it create civilian classifications that erode police jurisdiction? And, critically — was the union consulted, or is this being imposed?

Cities where unions became partners share a pattern: explicit language protecting officer staffing, joint design of fallback protocols, and genuine inclusion before the public announcement. Austin’s Police Association President Bullock testified in support: “It’s time that we work towards getting law enforcement out of mental health. We have never claimed to be the experts.” That endorsement didn’t come from being told about the program, it came from being asked to help shape it.

What Fiscal Conservatives and Business Leaders Want To Know

The question here is straightforward: Does it pencil out? Is this a responsible use of public money, or another program that sounds good but adds cost without accountability?

The evidence that speaks to this: The Durham NBER¹⁰ evaluation found the average response costs $1,191 but generates $2,093 in fiscal savings, a net gain of $902 per call. The researchers concluded the program “pays for itself through fiscal externalities.” SAMHSA data shows 23% lower costs per case. Thirteen states now receive 85% Medicaid reimbursement for these services, with 21 total opted in as of September 2024. And 72% of Republican voters say mobile crisis response is effective — this isn’t a policy that splits along partisan lines in practice, even when it does in cable news framing.

What The Budget Committee Wants To Know

Budget directors and finance committee members aren’t asking whether the program works. They’re asking: What does it cost to start? What does it cost to run? Where does the money come from? What happens when the grant expires? What’s the Medicaid pathway in our state? What are the HR classifications?

These are governance questions, not opposition questions. Programs that answer them clearly, with startup costs separated from operating costs, a layered funding model (Medicaid + state grants + general fund), a sustainability plan beyond year one, and clean HR infrastructure — get funded. Programs that arrive at the budget hearing with a vision but not a fiscal note get deferred. The Durham data is particularly useful here: 95% of residents expressed willingness to pay for the program, valuing it at $102.91 per year — more than eight times its per-resident cost.

What Communities With Negative Police Experiences Want To Know

In neighborhoods where police encounters have gone badly, where families have lost trust in 911, where calling for help has sometimes made things worse — the question isn’t about budgets or officer hours. It’s about safety and dignity. Will this actually be different? Will the person who shows up treat my family member like a human being? Will they come without a weapon? Will they follow up, or just leave?

The evidence that speaks to this concern comes from the people who’ve experienced the alternative. In Portland, clients of Portland Street Response described feeling “treated with compassion and dignity,” saying responders “treated us like humans.” The share of unhoused residents who felt “unsafe calling 911” dropped from 57.9% to 44.9% after two years of the program. One person’s summary: “I don’t worry anymore. I can say I need Portland Street Response.” In Durham, a resident told crisis responders: “I was really hoping it was going to be you who showed up.” Mobile crisis teams arrive without sirens, without weapons, without the authority to arrest. They provide care and they follow up. That difference matters most to the people who’ve experienced what the old system felt like.

What Journalists and Editorial Boards Want To Know

A reporter or editorial board evaluating mobile crisis response is asking: Is the evidence real or is this hype? What are the limits? What could go wrong? Are you being honest about the risks, or are you selling?

The evidence base now includes four independent peer-reviewed or working-paper findings: Stanford (Denver, 34% petty crime reduction), NBER (Durham, 50% crime report decline, program pays for itself), Michigan (45.2% arrest reduction), and BMC Health Services Research (mobile crisis as the only model with significant arrest reduction across multiple studies).²⁰ The safety record spans tens of thousands of calls with zero or near-zero serious injuries. Honest limits remain: longitudinal data is thin, the research base covers a handful of cities, and scaling to full demand is unproven.