Justice and Mental Health Collaboration
Program: Fact Sheet
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
May 20, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43556
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program: Fact Sheet
eople with mental illness comprise a significant proportion of the population involved with
the criminal justice system. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that at midyear 2005,
P over half of state prison and local jail inmates had a mental health problem.1 Mental health
courts were developed to respond to the large number of people in the criminal justice systems
with mental illness.2
The federal government provides funding to support mental health courts across the country
through the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration program. The purpose of the program is to
increase public safety by facilitating collaboration among the criminal justice, juvenile justice,
mental health treatment, and substance abuse systems to increase access to treatment for
offenders with mental illness.3 Authorized funding for this program is set to expire at the end of
FY2014. Congress is considering legislation that would both expand the scope of the program
and reauthorize appropriations through FY2019.
What are Mental Health Courts?
Despite the expansion of mental health court
A working definition of
programs across the country, there is not yet
“mental health court”
an accepted criteria for what constitutes a
A mental health court is a specialized court docket for
“mental health court.”5 The Council of State
certain defendants with mental il nesses. This court
Governments (Council) reports that the degree
substitutes a problem-solving model for traditional
of diversity among programs has made
criminal court processing. Participants are identified
through mental health screening and assessments and
agreement on a core definition difficult.6
voluntarily participate in a judicially supervised treatment
Mental health courts vary widely on several
plan developed jointly by a team of court staff and mental
aspects including target population, charge
health professionals. Incentives reward adherence to the
accepted (e.g., misdemeanor versus felony),
treatment plan or other court conditions. Non-
plea arrangement, intensity of supervision,
adherence may be sanctioned, and success or graduation
is defined according to predetermined criteria.4
program duration, and type of treatment
available. The Council worked with leaders in
the field to distill the common characteristics of mental health courts into a working definition.
The Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program
Grants under the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration program have been awarded since
FY2006. They can be used by state, local, and tribal governments to provide mental health and
other treatment services for mentally ill adults or juvenile offenders that are overseen
1 Lauren E. Glaze and Doris J. James, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, September 6, 2006, p. 3, http://www.bjs.gov/
content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf. These are the most recent data available.
2 The Council of State Governments Justice Center, Mental Health Courts: A Primer for Policymakers and
Practitioners, p. 2, https://www.bja.gov/publications/mhc_primer.pdf.
3 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Justice and Mental Health
Collaboration Program (JMHCP), https://www.bja.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_ID=66.
4 The Council of State Governments Justice Center, Mental Health Courts: A Primer for Policymakers and
Practitioners, p. 4, https://www.bja.gov/publications/mhc_primer.pdf.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
1
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program: Fact Sheet
collaboratively by a criminal or juvenile justice agency or a mental health court and a mental
health agency. Specifically, grants under the program can be used to create or expand
• mental health courts or other court-based programs for preliminarily qualified
offenders;7
• programs that offer specialized training to criminal and juvenile justice and
mental health professionals on how to identify the symptoms of people who
might benefit from participating in a mental health courts program;
• programs that support cooperative efforts between criminal and juvenile justice
agencies and mental health agencies to provide mental health services and, where
appropriate, substance abuse treatment, to individuals with a need for such
treatment when they are involved with the criminal justice system; and
• programs that support state and local cooperation with respect to mentally ill
offenders.8
The Attorney General can also award grants under the program to state, local, and tribal
governments for
• programs that offer law enforcement or campus security personnel training in
procedures to identify and respond to incidents in which individuals with mental
illnesses are involved;
• development of specialized receiving centers to assess individuals in the custody
of law enforcement personnel for suicide risk and mental health and substance
abuse treatment needs;
• computerized information systems to improve the response to mentally ill
offenders; and
• establishment and expansion of cooperative efforts to promote public safety
through the use of effective intervention with mentally ill offenders.9
Authorizations and Appropriations
The Justice and Mental Health Collaboration program was first authorized by the Mentally Ill
Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-414).10 The act authorized $50.0
million for FY2005 and such sums as necessary each fiscal year for FY2006-FY2009. The
program was reauthorized by the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction
7 “Preliminarily qualified offenders” means an adult or a juvenile accused of a non-violent offense who (1) previously
or currently has been diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional as having a mental illness or co-occurring
mental illness and substance abuse disorder or manifests obvious signs of mental illness or co-occurring mental illness
and substance abuse disorders during arrest, confinement, or before any court, and (2) has faced, is facing, or could face
criminal charges for a misdemeanor or non-violent offense and is deemed eligible by a diversion process, designated
pretrial screening process, or by a magistrate or judge, on the ground that the commission of the offense is the product
of the person’s mental illness. 42 U.S.C. §3797aa(a)(9).
8 42 U.S.C. §3797aa(b)(2).
9 42 U.S.C. §3797aa(h).
10 The authorizing legislation for the program is codified at 42 U.S.C. §3797aa.
Congressional Research Service
2
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program: Fact Sheet
Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-416). The act reauthorized
appropriations for the program at $50.0 million each fiscal year for FY2009-FY2014.
Congress has appropriated funding for the program since FY2006. Since FY2006, Congress has
appropriated an average of $8 million per fiscal year for the program.
Table 1. Authorizations and Appropriations for the Justice and
Mental Health Collaboration Program
Authorizations and appropriations in thousands of dollars
Fiscal Year
Authorization
Appropriation
2005 $50,000 —
2006 SSAN
4,936
2007 SSAN
4,936
2008 SSAN
6,500
2009 50,000
10,000
2010 50,000
12,000
2011 50,000
9,940
2012 50,000
9,000
2013 50,000
8,369
2014 50,000
8,250
Source: The FY2005-FY2011 appropriations were taken from the congressional budget submissions for the
Office of Justice Programs for FY2006-FY2012. The FY2012 appropriation was taken from H.Rept. 112-284. The
FY2013 appropriation was provided by the Department of Justice. The FY2014 appropriations were taken from
the explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-76, printed in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record (pp.
H507-H532). Authorized amounts were taken from P.L. 108-414 and P.L. 110-416.
Notes: “SSAN” means “such sums as necessary.” Appropriations acts have cited two authorizations for the
appropriation amounts presented in Table 1. The first is the mental health courts program authorized by the
America’s Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project (P.L. 106-515), the second is the program authorized by
the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-414)
Current Legislation
The Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Act of 2013 (S. 162) would expand the scope of the
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration program and reauthorize the program at $40 million per
fiscal year for FY2015-FY2019. The bill was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on
June 20, 2013.11
The bill would expand the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration program to allow grants to be
used to establish or expand, among other things, veterans treatment court programs and peer-to-
peer services or programs for qualified veterans.12
11 A companion bill, H.R. 401, would make many of the same changes to the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration
Grant program.
12 “Peer-to-peer services or programs” would be defined as “services or programs that connect qualified veterans with
other veterans for the purpose of providing support and mentorship to assist qualified veterans in obtaining treatment,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program: Fact Sheet
The bill would allow grants to be made to state, local, and tribal governments to screen inmates
held in correctional facilities for mental illness; provide mental health and substance abuse
treatment for inmates with an identified need; develop, implement, and enhance post-release
plans for eligible inmates that coordinate health, housing, medical, employment, and other
appropriate services; increase the availability of mental health and substance abuse treatment; and
develop alternatives to solitary confinement and segregated housing and provide mental health
treatment to inmates who are placed in solitary confinement or segregated housing.
The bill would authorize a demonstration grant program that would allow the Attorney General to
award up to six grants per fiscal year for the purpose of reducing the use of public services by
“high utilizers.”13 Grants under the proposed demonstration program could be used for
• developing or supporting multidisciplinary teams that coordinate, implement, and
administer community-based crisis responses and long-term plans for high
utilizers;
• providing training on how to respond appropriately to the unique issues involving
high utilizers;
• developing or supporting treatment alternatives to hospital and jail admissions for
high utilizers; or
• developing protocols and systems to provide coordinated assistance to high
utilizers.
The bill would also put in place a series of accountability requirements for grant recipients under
the program, including requiring the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General to
conduct audits of grant recipients, preventing grant recipients from receiving grants under the
program for two fiscal years after having an unresolved audit finding,14 giving preference to grant
applicants who do not have an unresolved audit finding during the three fiscal years before
submitting an application, and prohibiting grants from being awarded to nonprofit organizations
that hold money in offshore accounts for the purposes of avoiding certain taxes.
Author Contact Information
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264
(...continued)
recovery, stabilization, or rehabilitation.”
13 A “high utilizer” would be defined as an individual who “manifests obvious signs of mental illness or has been
diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional as having a mental illness” and “consumes a significantly
disproportionate quantity of public resources, such as emergency, housing, judicial, corrections, and law enforcement
services.”
14 An “unresolved audit finding” would be defined as “a finding in the final audit report of the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice that the audited grantee has utilized grant funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise
unallowable cost that is not closed or resolved within 12 months from the date when the final audit report is issued.”
The two year prohibition on receiving grants would begin on the fiscal year after the 12-month period in which
grantees have to close or resolve issues with unallowable costs identified in an Inspector General audit.
Congressional Research Service
4