The Public Safety and Mental Health Reporting Act would require the Attorney General, in consultation with key health agencies, to collect annual data about interactions between law enforcement officers and people with mental illness. The data would be used only for research or statistical purposes and must be de-identified.
An annual public summary of the data would be published, and the bill authorizes funding for 2026 through 2036 to support these activities. The definition of mental illness used aligns with existing federal statute to ensure a consistent standard across data collection.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Attorney General must acquire annual data on officer interactions with people with mental illness, establish collection guidelines in consultation with health agencies, restrict data use to research or statistics, publish an annual summary, and authorize funding through 2036.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies and law enforcement data custodians will implement collection under new guidelines; researchers will access de-identified data; policymakers will use findings to inform oversight and policy decisions.
Why It Matters
A standardized, de-identified data stream can illuminate disparities and outcomes in policing of individuals with mental illness, supporting evidence-based policy while protecting privacy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The act mandates yearly data collection on how law enforcement interacts with people who have mental illness, using the Attorney General as the data steward. In partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services, it requires guidelines to ensure consistent data collection and privacy protections.
Data collected under this act may only be used for research or statistical purposes and must be de-identified so individual victims cannot be identified. Each year, the Attorney General must publish a public summary of the data and report to Congress.
The act also authorizes funding for these activities for fiscal years 2026 through 2036 and defines mental illness using a standard federal definition, ensuring alignment with existing statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Attorney General to acquire annual data on interactions between officers and people with mental illness.
Guidelines for data collection must be established by the AG in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services or SAMHSA.
Data may be used only for research or statistical purposes and must be de-identified, with no victim identity.
An annual public summary of the data must be published and submitted to Congress.
Appropriations are authorized for 2026 through 2036 to carry out these provisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act as the Public Safety and Mental Health Reporting Act, establishing its identity and scope for referencing in future amendments and oversight.
Acquisition of Data
Section 2 requires the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to acquire annual data on interactions between law enforcement officers and people with mental illness, using authorities under 28 U.S.C. 534. It also directs the AG to establish, with health-agency input, guidelines for data collection, restrict data uses to research or statistics, prohibit identifying information about crime victims, and publish an annual summary to Congress and the public.
Authorization of Appropriations
This subsection authorizes the necessary appropriations to implement the data-collection program for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2036, signaling a long-term funding obligation to maintain the data stream and publication outputs.
Definition of Mental Illness
The act adopts the definition of ‘mental illness’ as set forth in section 2991(a)(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10651(a)(7)), ensuring a consistent, federal standard for what is being measured.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy 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
- Academic researchers and public policy analysts gain access to de-identified, standardized data for evaluating policing practices and mental health outcomes.
- Federal and state policymakers obtain a unified data framework to inform oversight, funding decisions, and policy design.
- Civil rights and mental health advocacy organizations can monitor disparities and advocate for targeted improvements.
- Law enforcement data custodians receive clear guidelines and a consistent data collection framework, reducing ad hoc reporting burdens.
Who Bears the Cost
- Law enforcement agencies incur costs to collect, store, and transmit the additional data elements under the new guidelines.
- The Department of Justice and its data-analytics infrastructure require ongoing funding to process, secure, and publish annual summaries.
- State and local agencies may face varying implementation costs to align with federal standards and reporting timelines.
- Data management and privacy compliance professionals bear responsibilities for de-identification and data governance to prevent re-identification risks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the value of comprehensive, comparable data for public accountability and policy improvement against the practical and privacy challenges of collecting, de-identifying, and publishing sensitive policing data across multiple jurisdictions.
The bill seeks to improve transparency and research into police interactions with people who have mental illness by creating a centralized, federally coordinated data collection effort. However, achieving uniform data quality across diverse jurisdictions will be challenging.
The de-identification requirement helps protect privacy, but the richness of event-level data could raise re-identification concerns if not carefully limited. Implementation hinges on the quality of guidelines and the capacity of agencies to report consistently.
Long-term funding signals commitment, but it also concentrates data stewardship responsibilities in the Attorney General’s office, which will need robust governance to prevent misuse and ensure methodological rigor.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.