Overview
Title
To provide funding to the Bureau of Prisons, States, and localities to carry out mental health screenings and provide referrals to mental healthcare providers for certain corrections officers.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to give money to help jail guards get mental health check-ups and talk to doctors if they feel sad or stressed. It makes sure everyone's doing their job by making an advice group that watches over how the money is spent and what's working well.
Summary AI
H. R. 9929, known as the "Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2024," aims to fund mental health programs for corrections officers in the U.S. It directs the Attorney General to create a grant program that helps prisons and local detention centers provide mental health screenings and referrals for officers. The bill outlines the creation of outreach teams to assist officers showing signs of severe mental illness and establishes an advisory board to oversee the program. It includes allocated funding for the Bureau of Prisons, states, and localities from 2025 to 2029.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Bill 9929, titled the "Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2024," proposes the establishment of a funding program to aid the Bureau of Prisons, states, and local governments in conducting mental health screenings and making referrals for mental healthcare for corrections officers. The Attorney General would lead a grant program to facilitate these mental health initiatives, requiring states and localities to meet certain conditions to qualify for grants. The bill also contains provisions for the setting up of advisory boards and the allocation of funding for potential program operations over several fiscal years.
Summary of Significant Issues
While the bill's intent to address mental health needs is commendable, several issues arise that could hinder its effective implementation:
Ambiguity in Program Details: The bill lacks specificity in detailing the qualifications and responsibilities of the mental health liaison staff and the definition of 'local' mental healthcare providers, possibly leading to inconsistent support for corrections officers across different regions.
Unclear Financial Guidelines: There is a potential for unrestricted spending on technology to administer surveys, which calls for clearly defined guidelines or limits to prevent excessive costs.
Lack of Defined Evaluation Metrics: The absence of evaluation metrics and funding sources could impair the program's financial sustainability and make it challenging to assess its success.
Ambiguous Definitions: Terms such as 'law enforcement official' and 'near to the relevant jail or prison' are not sufficiently clarified, which may lead to varied interpretations and inconsistent program implementation.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
The bill strives to address a critical issue by improving the mental well-being of corrections officers, a workforce that faces high levels of stress and mental health challenges. Enhancing mental health support might reduce the occurrence of tragic events such as suicides, thereby promoting safer and more human-centric correctional environments. However, the bill's success depends significantly on how clearly and effectively it is implemented across various jurisdictions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Corrections Officers: They stand to gain significantly from enhanced mental health support, potentially leading to improved job satisfaction, mental health outcomes, and overall well-being. With proper implementation, this could translate to reduced stress and workplace incidents.
State and Local Governments: They may receive federal funding to improve mental health services but will need to comply with necessary program requirements. Any ambiguity or financial mismanagement can, however, burden these entities with challenges in executing the program's objectives.
Mental Health Professionals: Increased referrals may lead to more opportunities for mental health service providers. However, ambiguity regarding what 'local' entails could result in uneven distribution of opportunities based on the proximity to detention centers.
Conclusion
House Bill 9929 is a critical legislative effort aimed at addressing the mental health needs of corrections officers. Still, its potential effectiveness is hindered by various ambiguities and financial oversight issues. Clear definitions, spending limits, and robust evaluation metrics are essential for ensuring that the programs operate efficiently and that the intended benefits reach the target audience. With these improvements, the bill could serve as an important tool in supporting the mental health of corrections officers, ultimately contributing to safer and healthier correctional environments.
Financial Assessment
The "Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2024" includes several financial aspects aimed at supporting mental health initiatives for corrections officers. This commentary will explore the appropriations detailed in the bill, addressing potential issues related to financial allocations and spending.
The bill authorizes $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2025, $55,000,000 for 2026, $60,000,000 for 2027, $65,000,000 for 2028, and $70,000,000 for 2029. These funds are intended to support mental health programs for corrections officers across various detention centers, administered by the Bureau of Prisons and localities.
Allocations and Potential Issues
Section 5 of the bill delineates how the funds will be distributed:
90% of the total funds will go towards the grant program. This includes 20% to the Bureau of Prisons, 20% to States through competitive grants, and 50% to localities for similar purposes.
An additional 5% is allocated for evaluation activities, although Section 5 does not clearly define these activities or how they will measure the effectiveness of the mental health programs.
The final 5% is reserved for the Advisory Board, to be used in providing technical assistance and supporting its operations.
While these allocations are specific, there is an identified issue regarding the clarity of what constitutes "implementation activities." The lack of clarity could risk potential misuse of funds, affecting the integrity and effectiveness of the programs. Defining what activities qualify and establishing clear criteria would help mitigate misuse.
Issues with Undefined Financial Details
The bill is also criticized for a lack of specificity in financial guidelines elsewhere:
The development of technology necessary for implementing surveys, as mentioned in Section 2(e)(2), lacks a spending cap or guidelines to prevent overspending. Clear guidelines or limits would ensure funds are used efficiently and do not impose excessive costs.
The sourcing of funds and the evaluation metrics in Section 3 are not clearly outlined. Without defined sources, there might be uncertainties about future financial sustainability, potentially compromising the program's long-term viability.
Broad Definitions and Financial Implications
The bill's definitions also present challenges due to vague language:
The term "local" used in relation to mental healthcare centers could lead to inconsistent service access, impacting the financial planning and distribution of funds.
Undefined terms such as "technical assistance" provided by the Advisory Board may lead to varying levels of support, which risks financial oversight in various jurisdictions.
Clearer definitions would help standardize services and ensure equitable financial distribution, avoiding discrepancies that could affect program success across different regions.
Overall, while the bill effectively sets out financial directives to support mental health initiatives for corrections officers, several aspects require further clarification and definition to optimize resource allocation and enhance program effectiveness.
Issues
The grant program's lack of specificity in subsection (d)(1) regarding the qualifications and responsibilities of the mental health liaison staff member could affect the program's effectiveness and lead to inconsistent mental health support for corrections officers. (Section 2)
The potential for unrestricted spending in subsection (e)(2) related to developing technology for survey administration calls for clear guidelines or spending limits to prevent excessive costs. (Section 2)
The ambiguity in defining 'local' mental healthcare centers in subsection (g)(1)(A) could lead to inconsistent service access and complicate provider selection for referrals. (Section 2)
The program lacks clear funding sources and evaluation metrics in Section 3, which could undermine its financial sustainability and ability to assess the mental health program's effectiveness.
The allocation percentages in Section 5 for distributing funds among the Bureau of Prisons, States, and localities lack clarity on 'implementation activities,' risking potential misuse of funds and impacting program integrity.
Subsection (f)(1) does not justify the specified range of 5 to 10 questions in the mental health screening survey, diminishing the legitimacy and adequacy of the assessment. (Section 2)
The Advisory Board's undefined size and absence of representation criteria in Section 4 could lead to operational inefficiencies and lack of diverse perspectives, potentially biasing program outcomes.
Section 4's lack of a defined scope or criteria for 'technical assistance' may lead to inconsistent support for implementing mental health screening and referral programs, affecting program efficacy across different jurisdictions.
The ambiguous definitions of 'law enforcement official' and 'near to the relevant jail or prison' in Section 6 could result in varied interpretations and inconsistencies in implementing the Act across different regions.
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 Act is officially titled the "Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2024."
2. Grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill establishes a grant program led by the Attorney General to support mental health screenings and referrals for corrections officers at eligible detention centers. States or localities can receive grants if they hire a mental health liaison and submit a plan to improve mental health support, including creating a survey and forming an outreach team to connect officers with local mental health services.
3. Bureau of Prisons Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is required to create a program similar to one mentioned in section 2 within 90 days after the law is passed. This program will provide mental health screenings for corrections officers at certain detention centers and make referrals to mental healthcare providers as needed.
4. Advisory board on program implementation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill mandates the establishment of an Advisory Board by the Attorney General to manage a program focused on mental health screenings and referrals, particularly in prisons and local government areas. This board will oversee the implementation of mental health programs, provide guidance and assistance, create a working group to share best practices, and ensure grant compliance, while its members will have expertise in relevant mental health and evaluation areas.
5. Funding Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes the authorized funding for the Attorney General to implement a particular Act, specifying different amounts for each fiscal year from 2025 to 2029. It also details how the funds will be distributed, with 90% allocated for a grant program, and the remaining 10% divided equally between evaluation activities and providing technical assistance.
Money References
- SEC. 5. Funding. (a) Authorization.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this Act— (1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; (2) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; (3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; (4) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2028; and (5) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2029.
6. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section provides definitions for terms used in the bill, such as “State,” which refers to any U.S. state or territory, and “mental healthcare provider,” which describes licensed professionals offering mental health services near jails or prisons. It also clarifies what is meant by a “locality,” “corrections officers,” and “severe mental illness,” among other terms.