Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8166

Bill Overview

Title: Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Reauthorization Act of 2022

Description: This bill modifies and reauthorizes through FY2026 the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program. The program provides state, local, and tribal grants to improve the criminal justice system's response to people with mental health disorders. Among the modifications, the bill allows funds for diversion and alternative prosecution and sentencing programs to be used for training for state and local prosecutors related to diversion programs; allows funds for multidisciplinary teams to be used to support police officers and mental health crisis workers responding together to mental health calls; and allows grants to be awarded for additional purposes such as suicide prevention programs and services, case management services, and state and local implementation of the 988 suicide hotline. Additionally, the bill reauthorizes through FY2026 the requirement for the Department of Justice to examine and report on the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in prisons and jails.

Sponsors: Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]

Target Audience

Population: People with mental health disorders involved in the criminal justice system

Estimated Size: 11000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Mental Health Crisis Worker (Chicago, IL)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might provide much-needed resources for us to operate more effectively alongside the police during crisis calls.
  • I see potential for a significant positive impact on our ability to de-escalate situations and possibly reduce arrests.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Police Officer (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Integration with mental health professionals can help in effectively managing crisis calls.
  • The additional training could help reduce our reliance on arrests as a solution.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Public Defender (New York, NY)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could provide better alternatives for my clients than incarceration.
  • It’s important that prosecutors are trained to recognize when diversion is appropriate.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Prosecutor (Houston, TX)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy's training elements can enhance our understanding of diversion programs.
  • It may lead to more humane and effective approaches for mentally ill offenders.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Social Worker (Seattle, WA)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • New grants can help provide necessary post-release support services.
  • I hope this begins addressing the systemic issues leading to repeat incarcerations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 6

Individual undergoing alternative prosecution (Rural Kentucky)

Age: 25 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It’s reassuring to know that I might receive support that's not punitive.
  • This could help me stay on track rather than back into the system.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 4

Mental Health Advocate (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy can partially bridge critical gaps in mental health support within the criminal justice system.
  • Sustainability and reaching underfunded areas remain concerns.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Individual in suicide prevention volunteer program (Detroit, MI)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 25.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The focus on suicide prevention and the hotline will save lives like mine.
  • Increased awareness and resources are vital to prevention efforts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Retired Police Chief (Boston, MA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Long-term impacts of this policy hinge on effective, sustained funding and implementation.
  • I've seen the difference collaboration can make, the policy is encouraging.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

College Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Greater accessibility to mental health resources can prevent issues escalating to legal problems.
  • The 988 hotline looks like a promising resource for people in challenging situations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)

Year 2: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)

Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)

Year 5: $45000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $50000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations