PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 5, 2015
Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015
This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Department of Justice (DOJ) to award grants for: (1) mental health programs and related law enforcement and corrections programs, (2) state compliance with federal mental health records requirements, (3) court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment, (4) pretrial screening and supervision, (5) behavioral health assessments and intervention, (6) forensic assertive community treatment, and (7) the establishment of a National Criminal Justice and Mental Health Training and Technical Assistance Center.
In addition, the bill expands the purposes for which grant funds may be used under existing programs related to: (1) public safety and community policing, (2) staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, (3) school security, and (4) residential substance abuse treatment for inmates.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DOJ must establish a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of diverting eligible offenders to drug or mental health courts.
Each of the federal uniformed services must be provided specialized mental health training.
With respect to an existing grant program for drug treatment alternatives to incarceration, the bill revises program requirements and expands the program to also cover mental health treatment alternatives.
Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act of 2015
DOJ is further authorized to award grants: (1) for sequential intercept mapping, which is aimed at minimizing criminal justice involvement for individuals with mental illness; (2) for various programs related to the behavioral health of veterans; (3) to assist correctional facilities in addressing the needs of inmates with mental illness; and (4) to train law enforcement in responding to situations involving individuals with mental illness.
The bill revises the definition of "preliminarily qualified offenders" who must be targeted by certain grant-funded collaboration programs between mental health and justice agencies.
The bill reauthorizes through FY2020 and revises the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.
Current law prohibits the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. The bill instead prohibits such a sale or disposition to any person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital, as defined by the bill.
The bill also establishes: (1) procedures for administrative review of a determination that a person has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital, and (2) conditions for removal of records from NICS.
The bill reauthorizes through FY2020 the following: (1) adult and juvenile collaboration programs, and (2) mental health courts and qualified drug treatment programs.
People & committees
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6392-6401)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.2002 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 S.2002 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 S.2002 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 S.2002 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.