Codify — Article

Mental Health Crisis Response Act creates 911 crisis-response grants

Authorizes a federal grant program to fund health-centered crisis responses, embedding mental health professionals in dispatch and routing certain calls to health services.

The Brief

HB5725 would authorize the Attorney General, in partnership with the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, to establish a competitive grant program to support communities shifting to health-centered responses to behavioral health emergencies. Jurisdictions could apply to use funds to embed mental health professionals in 911 dispatch centers, reroute certain incidents to 988 or other crisis lines, and create streamlined handoffs between emergency services and crisis resources.

The bill also requires reporting on response times, use of force, and diversion rates, and it authorizes $25 million in annual appropriations (FY2027–FY2031).

At a Glance

What It Does

Establishes a grant program to fund health-centered crisis response strategies, including embedding mental health professionals in 911 dispatch and routing certain calls to 988. It also establishes reporting requirements and timelines for implementation.

Who It Affects

Jurisdictions that manage emergency services (state, tribal, and local governments) and their 911 dispatch centers, EMS agencies, and crisis-service partners.

Why It Matters

Presents a path to reduce law-enforcement-dominated responses to behavioral health crises, improve triage, and standardize performance reporting across jurisdictions.

More articles like this one.

A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.

Unsubscribe anytime.

What This Bill Actually Does

The bill creates a federal grant program designed to help communities transition emergency responses from a primarily law-enforcement model to health-centered approaches for behavioral health crises. Eligible jurisdictions—states, tribes, and local governments that run emergency services—would apply to receive funds to implement or expand crisis-response strategies.

The grants would be awarded on a competitive basis and directed to activities that integrate mental health professionals into 911 dispatch and triage, reroute certain calls to crisis lines such as 988, and formalize partnerships that improve the handoff from dispatch and responders to mental health resources.

The act specifies that the program should operate without forcing jurisdictions to remove law enforcement from all emergency responses and preserves state laws about involuntary holds or other emergency authorities. Recipients would report annually on metrics such as response times, use-of-force incidents, and diversion rates, with additional information the Attorney General or Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use may request.

The bill also authorizes $25 million for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031 to carry out these activities.

The Five Things You Need to Know

1

A grant program will be established within 270 days of enactment to fund health-centered crisis response initiatives.

2

Eligible jurisdictions include states, tribes, and local governments that manage emergency services.

3

Grant funds may be used to embed mental health professionals in 911 dispatch and to reroute calls to 988 or other crisis lines.

4

Annual appropriations of $25 million are authorized for FY2027–2031.

5

Jurisdictions must submit annual reports on response times, use of force, diversion rates, and other information requested.

Section-by-Section Breakdown

Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections. Expand all ↓

Section 2(a)

Establishment of the grant program

Not later than 270 days after enactment, the Attorney General must establish a grant program to fund health-centered crisis response strategies for individuals experiencing behavioral health emergencies. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to eligible jurisdictions that can implement or expand such approaches.

Section 2(b)

Eligible jurisdictions

Eligible jurisdictions are those where the State, Tribe, or local government manages emergency services, including law enforcement and emergency medical services. These jurisdictions may apply to receive funding to develop or expand health-centered crisis response options.

Section 2(c)

Application process

Jurisdictions seeking grants must submit an application to the Attorney General in a manner and with information reasonably required. The statute envisions standard federal grant application requirements and transparency in selection.

4 more sections
Section 2(d)

Use of funds

Funds may be used to embed mental health professionals in 911 dispatch and triage, develop alternative routing to 988 or other crisis lines, and form partnerships to ensure streamlined handoffs between emergency services and crisis resources. These uses are intended to shift parts of the response away from traditional police-only models when appropriate.

Section 2(e)

Rule of construction

The act does not mandate removing law enforcement from all emergency responses, nor does it preempt state laws governing involuntary psychiatric holds or other emergency authorities that affect public safety. Jurisdictions retain discretion and must operate within existing legal frameworks.

Section 2(f)

Reporting requirements

Recipients must submit annual reports detailing response times, use-of-force incidents, diversion rates, and any other information requested by the Attorney General or the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use. This builds accountability and enables performance comparisons.

Section 2(g)

Authorizations of appropriations

The bill authorizes $25,000,000 in appropriations for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out the grant program.

At scale

This bill is one of many.

Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.

Explore Healthcare 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

  • State, tribal, and local governments that manage emergency services and would receive grant funding to implement health-centered crisis responses.
  • 911 dispatch centers and EMS agencies that embed mental health professionals and alter routing pathways, improving triage and outcomes.
  • Public health departments and community mental health providers expanding crisis services and referral networks.
  • First responders and police departments benefiting from clearer protocols and potentially reduced confrontations in certain crisis scenarios.
  • Individuals experiencing behavioral health crises and their families who gain access to more timely, appropriate care and fewer arrests.

Who Bears the Cost

  • State, tribal, and local governments may incur staffing, training, and IT costs to implement health-centered responses beyond grant funds.
  • Law enforcement agencies may face training, protocol adaptation, and coordination costs to align with new crisis-response models.
  • Grant administration and compliance costs for federal agencies overseeing the program and for jurisdictions demonstrating required reporting.

Key Issues

The Core Tension

The central tension is balancing the expansion of health-centered crisis response with the continued role of law enforcement and the need to protect public safety. Shifting resources toward mental health professionals and new routing mechanisms could improve outcomes for many individuals but risks delays or fragmentation if coordination fails or funding is insufficient.

The bill creates an important gateway for health-centered crisis response pilots, but it also raises policy questions. While it allows jurisdictions to embed mental health professionals in dispatch and route some calls to crisis hotlines, it does not require a wholesale shift away from traditional law enforcement models.

The success of the program hinges on adequate staffing, training, and interoperability between health providers, dispatch, and first responders. Additionally, the reliance on annual reporting introduces administrative burdens that could be more onerous for smaller jurisdictions unless cost-sharing and streamlined reporting mechanisms are provided.

The interplay with state involuntary hospitalization laws and local emergency powers will vary by jurisdiction and could limit how broadly new models can be deployed. Data sharing, privacy, and participant safety considerations will also need careful implementation to protect individuals in crisis.

Try it yourself.

Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.