This bill authorizes a new grant program within the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act that lets the Attorney General reserve up to $10 million annually to fund behavioral‑health crisis response training for sworn law enforcement and corrections officers. Grants may pay tuition for qualifying programs and associated transportation and lodging; the Attorney General must publish qualification standards for training providers.
The measure sets application requirements (including agency size, prior officer deaths or serious injuries during behavioral‑health incidents over the prior five years, and whether agencies already provide training), a 3 percent cap on administrative spending, annual reporting and auditing obligations for recipients, and definitions that require training be developed with healthcare professionals and people with lived experience. Practically, the bill channels modest federal dollars toward de‑escalation and clinical‑informed response training while leaving design and selection of programs largely to the Attorney General and applicants.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to law enforcement and corrections agencies to fund officers’ attendance at behavioral‑health crisis response training, including travel and lodging, and allows the AG to reserve up to $10 million per year from existing subpart funds to run the program. The AG must publish qualification standards for training providers and recipients must submit annual reports and make records available for audit.
Who It Affects
State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies and corrections agencies that apply for federal training grants, training providers that must meet DOJ standards, and the Office of Justice Programs which will administer awards and audits. Smaller, rural agencies that send officers off‑site for training are likely to be disproportionally affected by travel logistics and coverage needs.
Why It Matters
It represents a targeted federal investment in officer crisis response skills—covering both instruction and travel—while imposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements that create new compliance tasks. With a modest funding reservation and broad discretion to the Attorney General, the program may change incentives for agencies deciding whether to prioritize externally provided behavioral‑health training.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a standalone grant program (added as Section 510) under the Safe Streets Act that lets the Attorney General fund qualified crisis‑response training for sworn officers in policing and corrections. Grant money can pay for program tuition and for travel and lodging tied to attending qualified programs.
The Attorney General can reserve up to $10 million from existing subpart funds each fiscal year to run this program.
Applicants must submit a short application describing the training program officers will attend, total agency size, and a count of officers killed or seriously injured while responding to behavioral‑health crises in the prior five years; applicants may optionally include incident narratives and estimated per‑officer costs. The AG will publish qualification standards for providers; the statute defines eligible programs as those that teach de‑escalation, communications, community resource navigation, and include development input from healthcare professionals and people with lived mental‑health experience.Grant recipients must use funds to supplement rather than replace existing agency funds and may spend no more than 3 percent of an award on administrative costs.
Recipients must submit annual reports detailing use of funds and number of officers trained, keep records for potential DOJ audit, and make those records available on request. The statute vests program oversight in the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General may reserve up to $10,000,000 per fiscal year from Subpart 1 funds to operate this grant program.
Grants may cover training tuition and transportation and lodging costs for officers attending qualifying programs, but not broader operational backfill or overtime explicitly.
Applicants must report the number of agency officers killed or seriously injured responding to behavioral‑health crises during the five years before the application.
No more than 3 percent of each grant may be used for administrative costs; recipients must file annual reports and retain records for DOJ audit.
The law requires training programs to be developed with healthcare professionals and people with lived mental‑health experience and to include de‑escalation, communications, and community‑resource navigation content.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill its public name, 'Law Enforcement Training for Mental Health Crisis Response Act of 2025.' This is purely declarative but signals the statute’s focus so agencies and appropriators can reference it in budgets and program descriptions.
Findings and purpose
Lists statistics and policy rationales—frequency of police encounters with people in crisis, deaths and injuries, and the opioid epidemic—and sets congressional purpose: to reduce injuries and deaths and improve officers’ ability to resolve behavioral‑health crises. These findings don’t create new obligations but frame the program’s goals, which may shape how the Attorney General prioritizes awards.
Funding reservation for the program
Amends Sec. 506 to let the Attorney General reserve up to $10 million annually from the amounts made available to carry out the subpart for Section 509 to run the new Section 510 program. Practically, this is a cap on federal support rather than a dedicated appropriation; actual dollars depend on future appropriations and how OJP allocates subpart funds.
Grant authorization, covered costs, and application requirements
Authorizes grants to pay for officers to attend a program and associated transportation and lodging. Applications must state which program officers will attend, agency size, prior five‑year count of officers killed or seriously injured in behavioral‑health responses, and whether the agency already provides such training; applicants may optionally submit incident summaries and per‑officer cost estimates. This structure prioritizes agencies demonstrating need or past harms but leaves applicant self‑selection in place.
Use restrictions, reporting, and auditing
Requires grant funds to supplement (not supplant) existing State, local, or Tribal funds and caps administrative expenses at 3 percent. Recipients must submit yearly reports summarizing funded activities and numbers trained, keep records relevant to audits, and make those records available to DOJ upon request. Those requirements create a compliance framework but stop short of prescribing performance measures or outcomes.
Definitions and provider standards
Defines applicant/recipient terms, clarifies the Attorney General acts through OJP, and defines 'program' to require instruction on de‑escalation, communications, community‑resource navigation, and training content developed with healthcare professionals and people with lived experience; also expressly covers training for officers encountering persons under substance influence or suicide risk. The statute also directs the AG to publish provider qualification standards, giving OJP gatekeeping authority over which curricula qualify for funding.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Law enforcement agencies with documented behavioral‑health incident histories — they can access federal funds to send officers to outside training and cover travel and lodging that might otherwise be a local cost, lowering a barrier to external curricula.
- Corrections agencies — the bill explicitly includes corrections officers and facilities, enabling funding for training tailored to incarcerated populations and interactions in secure settings.
- Community members with mental‑health conditions — by funding de‑escalation and clinical‑informed response training, the program aims to reduce use of force and improve referrals to appropriate services during crises.
- Behavioral‑health training providers and healthcare professionals — providers that meet DOJ qualification standards gain a new federal revenue stream and incentive to adapt curricula to OJP requirements; clinicians and people with lived experience who contribute to program development may gain consulting or instructor roles.
Who Bears the Cost
- State, local, and Tribal governments — although funds must supplement not supplant local spending, agencies will still need to manage logistics, officer backfill, and any unmatched costs not covered by the grant, and some local budgets may need to cover ongoing training beyond what grants fund.
- Small and rural agencies — operational strain from sending officers off‑site (coverage, overtime, travel coordination) can create hidden costs not fully addressed by tuition/travel payments; limited grant awards and competitive processes may leave many agencies without support.
- Office of Justice Programs/DOJ — OJP will bear administrative burdens to establish provider standards, review applications, conduct audits, and manage reporting, potentially stretching existing resources if Congress does not appropriate additional administrative funding.
- Training providers seeking qualification — providers must meet standards set by the Attorney General, which may require curriculum changes, formal partnerships with clinicians or people with lived experience, or documentation that raises compliance costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between targeted federal support for evidence‑based behavioral‑health training (which advances officer and public safety) and the program’s limited, discretionary, administratively intensive design (which may produce uneven access and weak accountability). The bill helps agencies obtain outside curricula but stops short of funding systemic changes—measurement, long‑term program evaluation, or operational relief for agencies—so it solves access to training without guaranteeing improved outcomes or equitable distribution.
Three practical implementation ambiguities will shape program impact. First, the statute gives the Attorney General broad discretion to publish qualification standards but does not define evaluation metrics or required instructor credentials, leaving substantial design choices to OJP.
That discretion helps tailor standards to evidence, but it also risks uneven eligibility rules or slow rollout if OJP lacks resources.
Second, the program’s $10 million reservation is modest relative to nationwide training needs. The statute ties the reservation to existing subpart funds rather than a stand‑alone appropriation, so actual funding depends on broader budget choices; the cap may produce competitive awards concentrated in larger jurisdictions or those with grant‑writing capacity.
Third, the bill requires applicants to report prior deaths or serious injuries and invites incident narratives, but it offers no guidance on privacy, incident verification, or whether such information will affect award prioritization—raising questions about consistent application review and potential liabilities for agencies sharing sensitive case details.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.