Abstract
This study examined whether law-enforcement officers mentally prepare differently when responding to mental-health crisis calls compared to violent-crime calls. Guided by the hypothesis that officers would demonstrate different levels of mental readiness across call types, and the null hypothesis that no such difference exists, this quantitative study surveyed 40 officers across the United States. Perceived dangerousness ratings for mental-health crisis calls and violent-crime calls were analyzed using a paired-samples t-test. After data cleaning, 15 valid paired responses were retained for analysis. Results indicated no statistically significant difference in perceived dangerousness between the two call types, t (14) = −0.46, p = .66, with a very small effect size (d = 0.12). Applied case analyses of the Elijah McClain and Melissa Perez incidents were used to contextualize the findings. While officers perceived both call types as similarly hazardous, a national review revealed substantial variability in crisis-intervention training requirements across states. These findings suggest a disconnect between perceived operational risk and training standardization. Limitations include a reduced sample size, reliance on self-report data, and lack of linked demographic variables. Future research should examine state-level mandates, training depth, and experiential preparedness to support evidence-based improvements in crisis-response training.
