PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 8, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1392 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1392 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1392 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1392 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-14 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would create competitive grants for state and local governments to screen people in prisons and jails for severe mental illness and connect those needing referrals with nearby mental healthcare providers around release. It would require a similar federal prison program, outreach to people needing referrals, and independent evaluations. It would authorize funding for fiscal years 2026–2030; that authorization would not itself provide the money.
the Attorney General shall establish a grant program (hereinafter referred to as the Program) to implement and administer mental health screenings to individuals at intake into an eligible detention center and refer such individuals to mental healthcare providers before or immediately after exit from an eligible detention center, as applicable.
the Attorney General may award a grant on a competitive basis to an eligible recipient in accordance with this section.
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall establish a program that is substantially similar to the Program established under section 2
Such impact evaluation shall be conducted by an independent research organization
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this Act— (1) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; (2) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; (3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2028; (4) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2029; and (5) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2030.
The proposed law would be called the Improving Mental Healthcare in the Re-Entry System Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Improving Mental Healthcare in the Re-Entry System Act of 2025.
Within 90 days after enactment, the Attorney General would have to establish the screening and referral grant program. Competitive grants to eligible state and local governments would be permitted, rather than guaranteed.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a grant program
In carrying out the Program, the Attorney General may award a grant on a competitive basis to an eligible recipient in accordance with this section.
The Attorney General may award a grant under the Program to a State or locality, determined by the Attorney General to carry out a project described in subsection (d).
Eligible facilities would include prisons and jails administered by the federal Bureau of Prisons or a state, and locally administered jails. The bill's definition of a state includes the District of Columbia and the listed U.S. territories; localities include cities, counties and other general-purpose local governments.
The term eligible detention center means any prison or jail administered by the Bureau of Prisons or a State or any jail administered by a State or locality.
The term State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The term locality means any city, county, township, town, borough, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
To qualify for a grant, a state or locality would have to hire a mental health liaison for each eligible detention center under its jurisdiction. With Advisory Board approval, one liaison could serve multiple facilities when a facility's population is sufficiently small. Liaisons would coordinate with healthcare providers and the Board and oversee outreach teams.
To be eligible for a grant under the Program, a State or locality shall hire a mental health liaison staff member for each eligible detention center under its jurisdiction. If an eligible detention center has a small enough population, subject to approval by the Advisory Board, one mental health liaison staff member may cover multiple detention centers.
The mental health liaison staff member shall be responsible for— (A) coordinating efforts between the prison or jail and mental health providers in the local region to help individuals currently or formerly in prison or jail access mental healthcare; (B) coordinating with the Advisory Board to ensure that the Program is operating in accordance with this section; and (C) overseeing and coordinating activities of the outreach team (as described in subsection (g)).
Grant applicants would have to submit a plan to the Advisory Board explaining how their program would meet the eligible-project criteria. Receiving a grant would also require cooperation with the Board and an independent research organization on evaluation, including sharing relevant participation, arrest, arraignment and incarceration data.
To be eligible for a grant under the Program, a State or locality shall submit a plan to the Advisory Board explaining how the Program established shall meet the criteria under subsection (e).
To be eligible for a grant under the Program, a State or locality shall partner with the Advisory Board and an independent research organization to evaluate the impact of their program as a condition of receiving a grant, and are also required to share relevant data with the Advisory Board and the research organization contracted with by the Attorney General as specified by section 5(a) regarding individuals’ participation in the mental health screen and referral program and their arrest, arraignment, and incarceration rates.
Grant money could be used only for the screening survey, technology and staff needed to provide it, and referral outreach teams. Permitted outreach costs would include salaries or overtime, including direct payments to prisons, jails or mental health centers to compensate staff.
Grant funds awarded under the Program may only be used to: (1) Develop and administer a brief mental health screening survey as required under subsection (f). (2) Develop any technology necessary for a prison or jail to provide the survey under paragraph (1). (3) Hire any staff necessary for a prison or jail to provide the survey under paragraph (1). (4) Establish an outreach team pursuant to subsection (g) to refer an individual, if their responses to the survey indicate severe mental illness, to a local mental healthcare provider for further assessment and outreach, admission (when necessary), and support for that individual in re-establishing ties with a mental health provider. (5) Pay the salary or overtime pay of an outreach team as established pursuant to subsection (g), including providing direct funding to a prison, jail, or mental health center to compensate staff members.
The screening survey would contain 5–10 questions based on the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen. It would seek to identify severe mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression, ask about symptoms and previous mental health medication or inpatient care, and identify the person's residence.
The mental health screening survey developed and administered under subsection (e) shall: (1) Be composed of 5 to 10 questions. (2) Be based on the questions and content of the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen (BJMHS). (3) Seek to identify severe mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression. (4) Ask individuals about the symptoms of severe mental illness they may be experiencing or have experienced and any prior use of mental health-related medications or inpatient care. (5) Identify the individual’s place of residence.
Under the program, trained prison or jail staff would administer the survey to everyone entering incarceration at the facility and to people already incarcerated when the survey begins.
Be administered by a trained staff member at the jail or prison to all entering individuals who are incarcerated in the jail or prison and to all incarcerated individuals who entered the jail or prison before the survey was implemented.
The bill defines severe mental illness as one or more mental, behavioral or emotional disorders that seriously impair functioning and substantially interfere with or limit major life activities. For referral screening, a person's answers would indicate severe mental illness if they answer yes to multiple symptom questions or any question about past mental health medication or mental illness-related inpatient care. Referrals would be for further assessment, outreach and support, including admission when necessary.
The term severe mental illness means one or more mental, behavioral, or emotional disorders that results in serious functional impairment and substantially interferes with or limits major life activities.
The term responses to the survey indicate severe mental illness means an individual answer’s yes to multiple questions with respect to the symptoms of a severe mental illness or to any question relating to prior use of a mental health-related medication or inpatient care related to a mental illness.
refer an individual, if their responses to the survey indicate severe mental illness, to a local mental healthcare provider for further assessment and outreach, admission (when necessary), and support for that individual in re-establishing ties with a mental health provider.
Referral providers would have to be fully licensed professionals who diagnose and treat mental health conditions and operate near the prison or jail. They could work in hospitals or private clinics.
The term mental healthcare provider means a fully-licensed professional or group of professionals who diagnose mental health conditions and provide mental health treatment, and who operate near to the relevant jail or prison. Mental healthcare providers may provide services at hospitals or at private clinics.
Outreach teams would include local mental healthcare professionals and clinicians, prison or jail staff when applicable, and a supervising mental health liaison. Facility staff would have to notify the team immediately when someone needs a referral and provide release and trial dates when applicable.
a mental health outreach team that is composed of— (A) mental healthcare professionals and clinicians from mental healthcare centers local to the prison or jail; (B) staff from the jail or prison, when applicable; and (C) a mental health liaison staff member who shall oversee the outreach team.
If an individual has been determined to need a referral to a mental healthcare provider, the mental health outreach team shall be notified immediately by jail or prison staff and informed, when applicable, of the individual’s release date from such jail or prison and the individual’s trial date.
An outreach team member would first have to try to meet the person at the facility before release. If that contact did not happen, the member would have to attempt telephone contact within 24 hours after release, with 48 hours as the latest deadline. At least three telephone attempts would be required if in-person contact before release was not made; unsuccessful telephone outreach would trigger an attempt at the residence listed on the survey. Telephone contact after release would not be required if contact had already occurred in person.
A mental health outreach team member shall first attempt to contact an individual that has been determined to need a referral to a mental healthcare provider in person at the jail or prison, before such individual is released. If in person contact was not made before such individual was released from prison or jail, the outreach team member shall attempt to contact via telephone such individual within 24 hours, and at the latest within 48 hours, of their release from jail or prison for the purpose of making the mental health referral. The mental health outreach team member shall not need to contact the individual via telephone after release if such contact was made in person.
A mental health outreach team member shall make at least three attempts at telephone contact for each individual that has been determined to need a referral to a mental healthcare provider if in person contact before release was not made. If phone contact is unsuccessful, a mental health outreach team member shall attempt to contact the individual in person at their place of residence, as provided on the mental health survey.
Within 90 days after enactment, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons would have to establish a substantially similar program for screening at intake and referrals before or immediately after release, as applicable.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall establish a program that is substantially similar to the Program established under section 2 to implement and administer mental health screenings to individuals at intake into an eligible detention center and refer such individuals to mental healthcare providers before or immediately after exit from an eligible detention center, as applicable.
Within 60 days after enactment, the Attorney General would have to establish an Advisory Board to administer the grant program. The Board would approve state and local plans, check permitted uses of grant money, and monitor federal prison plans and advise on compliance. It would have to determine whether grants meet program requirements. If a grant failed to meet those requirements, the Board would have to mandate necessary changes and reduce funding if those changes were not made.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish an Advisory Board to manage and administer the Program under section 2
(1) Evaluate and approve the plans submitted by a State or locality as required under section 2 and to ensure that grant funding is used as specified under section 2. (2) Monitor plans submitted by the Bureau of Prisons and advise the Attorney General on compliance to ensure that funding to the Bureau of Prisons is used as specified under section 2.
Determine if a grant awarded by the Program is not meeting the requirements of the Program and mandate necessary changes and reduce funding if such changes are not made.
The Advisory Board would provide implementation assistance, identify evidence-backed program models and organize a working group to share practices. Reducing crime and improving employment and wages are stated aims of this work, rather than established results of the proposed program.
The Advisory Board shall provide technical assistance to the Bureau of Prisons, States, and localities in setting up and administering the Program and shall identify evidence-backed models for the administration of mental health screening and referral programs that the Bureau of Prisons, States, and localities can look to when designing their own programs.
Create a working group of mental healthcare providers, jail and prison administrators, law enforcement officials, and operators of existing mental health screening and referral programs, as of the creation of the working group, to share best practices on how to create and implement mental health screening and referral programs that have the largest impact on reducing crime rates and improving employment and wage rates for individuals released from prison or jail.
The Attorney General would choose the Board's size and appoint members with expertise in correctional mental health screening and referrals, mental healthcare in prisons or jails, or rigorous program evaluation.
The Attorney General shall appoint members to serve on the Advisory Board established under subsection (a) who have expertise with respect to— (A) designing and administering mental health screenings and providing referrals for those incarcerated in prisons or jails, or for those who have recently left such facilities; (B) mental healthcare within prisons or jails; or (C) program evaluation using rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental statistical methods.
The Attorney General shall appoint as many members to the Advisory Board established under subsection (a) as deemed necessary by the Attorney General.
Within one year after the program begins, the Board would have to conduct an implementation review for a grant, checking whether each prison or jail administers surveys and referrals according to the plan submitted to the Board.
Not later than one year after the Program begins, the Advisory Board shall conduct a process evaluation for a grant awarded under the Program, in which the implementation of the surveys and referrals in each prison or jail is monitored and evaluated to ensure that they are being carried out as specified in the plan submitted to the Advisory Board.
The Attorney General would fund the Board directly to contract with independent research organizations to evaluate each grant's implementation and effects. These organizations would have to be outside government operation or control and conduct rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations.
The Attorney General shall provide funding directly to the Advisory Board for the purpose of contracting with one or more independent research organizations, in partnership with the Bureau of Prisons, States, and localities, to carry out an evaluation to determine whether each grant awarded under the Program is being implemented effectively and to measure the impact of such programs.
The term independent research organization means an entity that is not operated or controlled by a governmental body that conducts high-quality and rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations.
Grant recipients would have to conduct an impact evaluation within one year after receiving an award, using independent researchers under Board oversight. Required analyses would cover arrest, arraignment and incarceration rates, employment and wages, and use of mental healthcare at one, three, five and ten years after participants complete the screening and referral program.
Not later than one year after a recipient of a grant awarded under the Program receives an award they shall conduct an impact evaluation for its program, in which the surveys and referrals in each prison or jail will be evaluated for their effect on the criminal justice and economic outcomes of individuals who receive the survey.
Such impact evaluation shall be conducted by an independent research organization, with oversight from the Advisory Board and include an analysis of the impact of the survey and referral on participant crime rates, including arrest, arraignment, and incarceration rates, participant employment and wage rates, and participant mental healthcare utilization rates for one year, three years, five years, and ten years after the participant has completed the survey and referral program.
States would have to give researchers public safety data for criminal justice outcomes and labor department data for employment and wages. Researchers would use provider data, supplemented when necessary by contacting participants, to measure use of mental healthcare.
These analyses will use administrative data collected by each State’s department of public safety, for the crime rate data, and each State’s Department of Labor, for the employment and wage rate data. States shall provide this data to the independent research organization. For the mental health utilization data, data from mental health providers and, if necessary, from outreach to the individuals who participated in the survey and referral program shall be utilized.
Evaluations would have to compare people receiving screening and referral with a comparison group that did not receive them. The bill permits either random assignment or a nonrandom comparison group constructed to be statistically identical. It prefers random assignment and would require the Board to provide additional resources for that approach.
Program impact evaluations under paragraph (1) shall use randomized control experimental or quasi-experimental research designs. Randomized control experimental designs are preferred and the Advisory Board will provide the independent research organization, in partnership with the Bureau of Prisons, State, or Locality, additional resources to carry out a randomized control experimental evaluation.
by comparing program outcomes between a randomly assigned sample population that has received the survey and referral and a randomly assigned control population that has not received the survey and referral.
by comparing program outcomes between a non-randomly assigned sample population that has received the survey and referral and a non-randomly assigned control population that is constructed to be statistically identical to the sample population but without having received the survey and referral.
The Board would have to publish a database of completed evaluations and keep it updated as results become available, including information about program effects and how programs were implemented and administered.
Publish a database of completed evaluations of the impact of a Program, as specified under section 5.
Once evaluations become available, the Advisory Board will be required to keep an updated database of the impact of programs funded under the grant program and how those programs were implemented and administered
The bill would authorize appropriations to the Attorney General of $100 million for fiscal year 2026, $110 million for 2027, $120 million for 2028, $130 million for 2029 and $140 million for 2030. These are authorizations for appropriations, rather than appropriations that themselves make money available.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this Act— (1) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; (2) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; (3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2028; (4) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2029; and (5) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2030.
Of available funding, 90% would be assigned to the screening and referral programs, 5% to evaluations and 5% to Board assistance and operations. Following the 90% program allocation, the text says “of which” 20% would go to the Bureau of Prisons for federal prison implementation, 20% to competitive state grants for state prisons and 50% to competitive local grants for locally administered jails. The basis for these three percentages is unclear.
Of the amounts made available under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall use— (1) 90 percent of such amount for a grant program under sections 2 and 3, as applicable, of which— (A) 20 percent shall go to the Bureau of Prisons for screening and referral implementation activities at Federal prisons; (B) 20 percent shall go to States as competitive grants to carry out screening and referral implementation activities at State prisons; and (C) 50 percent shall go to localities as competitive grants to carry out screening and referral implementation activities at locally-administered jails; (2) 5 percent of such amount to carry out evaluation activities under section 5; and (3) 5 percent of such amount for the Advisory Board to provide technical assistance to the Bureau of Prisons, States, and localities and for general operations as described in section 4.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated July 8, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 14, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-08T13:02:21Z. 2025-02-14: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-14: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-14. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places qualifying as an earmark was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; absent disclosures and accompanying materials limit assessment of formal earmark status and do not establish absence elsewhere.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit beyond ordinary program coverage and routine administration was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 8, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI