Improving Mental Healthcare in the Re-Entry System Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1392
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-14: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-07-08T13:02:21Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "Improving Mental Healthcare in the Re-Entry System Act of 2025" aims to improve mental health support for people entering or leaving prisons and jails by funding screenings for severe mental illnesses (like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression) and connecting those identified to local mental health providers. This focuses on reducing barriers to care during incarceration and re-entry to lower crime rates and boost employment after release.
Key Provisions
- Grant Program (Section 2): The Attorney General must create a competitive grant program within 90 days of enactment. Grants go to states and localities to:
- Hire mental health liaison staff to coordinate between prisons/jails and local mental health providers.
- Develop and administer a short screening survey (5-10 questions, based on the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen) at intake for all inmates, including those already incarcerated.
- Build technology and hire staff to support the survey.
- Form outreach teams (including mental health professionals, jail/prison staff, and a liaison) to refer individuals showing signs of severe mental illness to providers for assessment, treatment, and follow-up.
- Ensure outreach teams attempt in-person contact before release, followed by phone calls (within 48 hours) or home visits if needed, with at least three follow-up attempts.
- Require grantees to submit plans, share data on program participation and outcomes (like arrests or employment), and partner with researchers for evaluations.
- Bureau of Prisons Program (Section 3): Within 90 days, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons must set up a similar screening and referral program for federal prisons.
- Advisory Board (Section 4): Established within 60 days by the Attorney General to oversee the program. Responsibilities include:
- Approving state/local plans, monitoring compliance, and reducing funding if needed.
- Providing technical assistance and best practices to maximize reductions in crime and improvements in employment/wages.
- Forming a working group with mental health providers, jail/prison admins, law enforcement, and program operators.
- Conducting process evaluations (within one year) to check implementation.
- Appointing experts in mental health screenings, prison care, and program evaluation (number determined by the Attorney General).
- Evaluations (Section 5):
- Funds independent research organizations (non-governmental entities using rigorous methods) to assess program effectiveness.
- Impact evaluations (starting one year after grants) measure effects on crime (arrests, arraignment, incarceration), employment/wages, and mental health use over 1-10 years, using randomized controlled trials (preferred) or quasi-experimental designs (comparing treated vs. control groups).
- States must share data from public safety and labor departments; mental health data comes from providers or participant outreach.
- The Advisory Board maintains a public database of evaluation results to guide future policies.
- Funding (Section 6): Authorizes $100-140 million annually from FY2026-2030, distributed as:
- 90% for grants (20% to Bureau of Prisons for federal prisons; 20% to states for state prisons; 50% to localities for jails).
- 5% for evaluations.
- 5% for Advisory Board operations and technical assistance.
- Definitions (Section 7): Clarifies terms like "state" (includes territories), "locality" (cities/counties), "severe mental illness" (disorders severely limiting daily life), and research designs.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill introduces a new federal grant program and mandates a parallel initiative for federal prisons, which did not previously exist at this scale. It requires standardized mental health screenings and referrals nationwide, hires dedicated staff (like liaisons and outreach teams), and enforces data-sharing and rigorous evaluations—elements not centrally mandated before. It builds on existing tools like the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen but expands their use with funding and oversight.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: The Attorney General, Bureau of Prisons, states, and localities gain resources for implementation but face new administrative burdens (e.g., hiring, data sharing, evaluations). The Advisory Board adds oversight layers, potentially standardizing practices across federal, state, and local facilities.
- Citizens: Incarcerated individuals with mental health needs (estimated high in prisons/jails) could access faster screenings and referrals, improving re-entry success, mental health treatment, and long-term outcomes like lower recidivism and better jobs. Broader society may see reduced crime and incarceration costs.
- International Relations: No direct impact, as this is a domestic criminal justice and health initiative.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Incarcerated Individuals: Primary beneficiaries through screenings and referrals for severe mental illnesses.
- Bureau of Prisons, States, and Localities: Responsible for program rollout, staffing, and compliance; receive targeted funding.
- Mental Health Providers and Centers: Partner for referrals, assessments, and treatment; involved in outreach teams.
- Advisory Board and Researchers: Oversee, evaluate, and provide technical support; independent organizations conduct studies.
- Jail/Prison Administrators and Law Enforcement: Coordinate screenings, data, and best practices via working groups.
- Taxpayers: Fund the program through authorized appropriations.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Mandates data sharing from state agencies, which could raise privacy concerns under laws like HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, protecting health information), though the bill focuses on aggregated outcomes. Competitive grants ensure accountability but allow flexibility in implementation.
- Constitutional: Aligns with the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment by addressing untreated mental illness in prisons, potentially reducing litigation over inadequate care. No apparent conflicts with federalism, as states/localities opt in via grants.
- Political: Promotes evidence-based policy through evaluations and a public database, encouraging bipartisan support for re-entry reforms. It emphasizes reducing recidivism and economic costs, appealing to fiscal conservatives and social justice advocates, but funding levels may spark debates over federal spending priorities.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-14: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-02-14: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-14: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Improving Mental Healthcare in the Re-Entry System Act of 2025 — issued 2025-02-14 — PDF (18 pages)