Overview
Title
To provide funding to the Bureau of Prisons, States, and localities to carry out mental health screenings and provide referrals to mental health care providers for certain corrections officers.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 2305 is a plan to give money to help check on and help the mental health of people who work in jails, like cops, to make sure they're feeling okay.
Summary AI
H. R. 2305, titled the "Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2025," aims to provide funding for mental health screenings and referrals for corrections officers. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to establish a grant program for states and local governments to screen corrections officers for mental illness and connect those in need with mental health care providers. It also requires the Bureau of Prisons to implement a similar program and sets up an Advisory Board to oversee the grants and provide support. Funding allocations are laid out for the fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to support these initiatives.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill, H.R. 2305, aims to enhance mental health support for corrections officers by providing federal funding to the Bureau of Prisons, states, and local governments. Its central objective is to implement mental health screenings and facilitate connections to mental health professionals for officers at eligible detention centers. Introduced in the House of Representatives by Mrs. Miller-Meeks and Mr. Bacon, the bill reflects growing awareness of the importance of mental health care in high-stress professions such as corrections.
General Summary of the Bill
This legislation, formally titled the "Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2025," seeks to establish a grant program administered by the Attorney General. Within 90 days of enactment, it authorizes the creation of mental health screening programs and outlines specific procedures for referring officers with severe mental illnesses to local mental health care providers. An Advisory Board will oversee and manage the grant program, ensuring compliance and assisting various facilities in effectively implementing the programs. The funding provisions authorize substantial federal investment ranging from $50 million in 2026 to $70 million by 2030.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the primary concerns with the bill is the lack of detailed accountability measures for the allocated funds. The absence of clear criteria for grant application evaluation and oversight mechanisms could lead to financial mismanagement or favoritism. The broad timeline of 90 days for enacting some components of the program presents challenges regarding the feasibility of implementing comprehensive mental health services within such a brief period.
Definitions within the bill, particularly concerning "locality," "mental health care provider," and "severe mental illness," are vague. This ambiguity could hinder effective application and interpretation in various jurisdictions, potentially leading to inconsistencies in service delivery and legal challenges. Additionally, while the grant program's criteria and application processes are designed to empower local administrations, they also risk excluding or inadequately supporting areas with less administrative capacity.
Impact on the Public
If implemented effectively, the bill could significantly enhance mental health support for corrections officers, a group experiencing unique stress and mental health challenges. By providing targeted screenings and facilitating access to mental health care, the proposed programs can reduce the stigma around mental health issues and potentially lower incidences of mental health crises among officers.
Impact on Stakeholders
Corrections officers stand to benefit most directly through improved mental health outcomes and an enhanced work environment, making the profession more sustainable in the long term. The Bureau of Prisons and local detention centers may face initial challenges in setting up the new programs but ultimately could see improvements in workforce stability and safety.
On the downside, without clear accountability measures, taxpayer money may not be spent effectively, potentially leading to public skepticism and criticism. Mental health professionals tasked with the screenings must ensure adherence to confidentiality, which could conflict with existing state laws regarding mental health documentation.
In conclusion, while H.R. 2305 presents a proactive approach to addressing mental health issues within the corrections system, its success depends largely on clearly defining terms, establishing accountability measures, and creating a practical timeline for implementation. These changes are critical to ensuring that the bill effectively serves its intended purpose and positively impacts both corrections officers and the broader public.
Financial Assessment
The proposed legislation, H. R. 2305, focuses on providing financial resources for mental health screenings and referrals for corrections officers. Below is an analysis of how the funding is structured and potential issues related to these allocations.
Summary of Financial Allocations
The bill authorizes a total of $300 million over five years to be appropriated by the Attorney General. The breakdown is as follows:
- $50 million for fiscal year 2026,
- $55 million for fiscal year 2027,
- $60 million for fiscal year 2028,
- $65 million for fiscal year 2029,
- $70 million for fiscal year 2030.
These funds are intended to support a grant program and related activities to address mental health concerns among corrections officers.
Distribution of Funds
According to the bill, the allocated funds are divided with specific percentages and purposes:
- 90 percent of the total funds are designated for the grant program and related activities under sections 2 and 3:
- 20 percent is allocated to the Bureau of Prisons,
- 20 percent is reserved for state grants,
50 percent is allocated for local government grants.
The remaining 10 percent is divided equally for use by the Advisory Board to carry out evaluation and technical assistance activities as outlined in section 4.
Relating Financial Allocations to Identified Issues
The provision for $300 million over five years indicates a substantial commitment to improving mental health resources for corrections officers. However, some concerns arise related to this financial allocation:
Lack of Detailed Accountability Measures: The bill allocates large sums without detailing accountability measures for expenditure, which may lead to financial mismanagement or inefficient use of funds. This concern is linked to issues identified in sections 5 and 4 regarding financial oversight of the Advisory Board.
Potential for Favoritism in Allocation Process: The grant program allows the Attorney General to establish evaluation criteria, potentially leading to favoritism in fund distribution as noted in section 2.
Budget Oversight of Advisory Board Activities: Without specified limitations on the budget or members of the Advisory Board, there is a risk of unnecessary bureaucratic expansion, which might translate into increased costs. This aligns with concerns about possible wasteful spending.
Unclear Terminology Impacting Financial Application: Vague definitions relating to terms like "locality" and "severe mental illness" could cause confusion and affect how funds are effectively used across different jurisdictions, as stated in section 6.
Overall, while the bill endeavors to address important mental health needs, it would benefit from more specific accountability structures and clearer definitions to ensure the effective and efficient use of allocated funds.
Issues
The allocation of large sums of money in Section 5 without detailed accountability measures presents a risk of financial mismanagement and ineffective use of taxpayer dollars.
In Section 2, the grant program allows the Attorney General to establish criteria for evaluation of applications which could lead to favoritism or lack transparency in the allocation process.
The bill lacks specific budget limits or oversight mechanisms in Section 4, potentially leading to wasteful spending, particularly concerning the costs associated with the Advisory Board and its activities.
The timeline of 'not later than 90 days' for the Director of the Bureau of Prisons in Section 3 to establish mental health programs may not be feasible given the complexities involved, risking rushed or inadequate program implementation.
Issues in Section 6 regarding the vague definition of terms such as 'locality', 'mental health care provider', and 'severe mental illness' could lead to misinterpretation and confusion in the implementation of the legislation.
The establishment of the Advisory Board in Section 4 without a specified number of members or restrictions can result in unnecessary bureaucratic expansion and increased costs.
The requirement for surveys to be anonymous and confidential in Section 2 might conflict with state laws regarding mental health documentation, potentially leading to legal challenges.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the short title for the Act, stating it may be referred to as the "Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2025".
2. Grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill authorizes the Attorney General to create a grant program that helps states and local governments conduct mental health screenings for corrections officers at certain detention centers. It requires these centers to develop screening surveys, hire necessary staff, and form outreach teams to refer officers with severe mental illnesses to appropriate mental health care providers.
3. Bureau of prisons Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that, within 90 days of the law's enactment, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons must create a program to conduct mental health surveys with corrections officers and have a team ready to connect them with mental health care providers. Additionally, they must present a plan for the program's implementation to the Advisory Board.
4. Advisory board on program implementation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the establishment of an Advisory Board by the Attorney General within 60 days of the Act's enactment. This board will oversee a grant program aimed at mental health initiatives in prisons, which includes evaluating plans, ensuring proper use of funds, providing technical assistance, and fostering best practices through collaboration with mental health professionals and officials. Additionally, the board will assist in the self-reporting process for officers' mental health and make necessary adjustments to grants not meeting program requirements. Members of this board will be appointed based on expertise in specific relevant areas.
5. Funding Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines funding provisions, authorizing specific amounts for fiscal years 2026-2030 to be appropriated to the Attorney General. It specifies that 90% of these funds are for a grant program and related purposes, while the remaining 10% supports the Advisory Board's evaluation and other activities.
Money References
- (a) Authorization.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this Act— (1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; (2) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; (3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2028; (4) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2029; and (5) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2030.
6. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The definitions in the text clarify terms related to various governmental and mental health roles and facilities, such as what qualifies as a state, locality, mental health provider, and a detention center. It also explains the roles of jail or prison administrators, law enforcement officials, corrections officers, and what constitutes a severe mental illness.