The Treatment Court, Rehabilitation, and Recovery Act of 2025 creates a discretionary grant program to fund the creation and enhancement of treatment courts across federal, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions. It targets a range of court-based interventions—juvenile drug treatment courts, family treatment courts, tribal healing-to-wellness courts, impaired driving courts, adult drug treatment courts, and any other court programs that meet national best-practice standards.
The bill also codifies governance and funding rules to ensure programs are implemented with evidence-based care and appropriate safeguards.
Key design features include eligibility criteria enforced by a treatment court team, protections to ensure participants receive competent counsel, access to medication-assisted treatment when appropriate, and a non-discriminatory, cost-conscious approach to participation. Grants must supplement, not supplant, existing funding, with the Attorney General overseeing administration, evaluation, and compliance.
The measure mandates robust reporting and a national evaluation to measure outcomes such as recidivism, treatment engagement, and program effectiveness, while tying implementation to NADCP-proven standards.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Attorney General may award grants to states, local governments, courts, and tribal authorities to establish or enhance treatment courts. It enumerates specific court types and requires adherence to national best-practice standards. Administration includes a defined cost-sharing model, application requirements, and data-driven oversight.
Who It Affects
States, state courts, local courts, tribal governments, and treatment providers; participants in treatment courts (adults, juveniles, and families); victims and affected agencies involved in coordination with treatment programs.
Why It Matters
Creates a federally funded, standardized framework for treatment courts, emphasizes evidence-based care (including MAT), and builds in data and equity safeguards to improve access, outcomes, and accountability across jurisdictions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to create a new PART EE—Treatment Court Discretionary Grant Program. The core idea is to give the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to make grants to States, counties, local governments, and Native American tribes to start or strengthen treatment courts.
These courts are specialized pathways that channel eligible participants—adults, juveniles, and families—into treatment and close supervision instead of traditional incarceration when appropriate. The program also recognizes tribal healing-to-wellness courts and impaired driving courts as part of its scope, and it requires that these courts follow a set of national best-practice standards endorsed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP).
Eligibility for participation is defined by a treatment court team and includes a diagnosis of substance use disorder (or co-occurring mental illness), a determination that the participant does not pose a substantial risk of violence, and compliance with minimum eligibility criteria that cover non-sex offenses and non-murder-related offenses. The team must also consider the participant’s benefit from the program and potential cost savings to the community.
In addition to clinical criteria, applicants must ensure access, non-discrimination, competent counsel, licensed providers, and proper coordination with relevant agencies. Applicants must appoint designated judges to oversee the program and show that federal aid will supplement rather than replace state or local funding.Grants under the program may cover costs to establish or enhance the listed court types and must adhere to evidence-based assessments and medications for addiction treatment when appropriate.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, can issue regulations and oversee program administration, including limiting administrative costs to 10% of a grant and requiring detailed applications that map out long-term strategies, implementation plans, and sustainability after federal funding ends. Federal shares are capped at 75% of total costs, with in-kind contributions allowed to satisfy the non-federal share.
The bill also places strong emphasis on equity, requiring ongoing monitoring of access and outcomes across demographics to ensure minorities and women receive comparable services and success rates.The program includes a rigorous structure for distribution of funds, prioritizing adherence to NADCP practice standards, ensuring broad geographic opportunity to apply, and providing training and technical assistance to applicants, including those who did not win grants. Grantees must report on effectiveness, and the Department of Justice will conduct a national multi-site evaluation focusing on target populations, evidence-based treatment (including medications), recidivism, and overall program outcomes within three years of enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a discretionary grant program (PART EE) to fund treatment courts nationwide.
Eligible recipients include States, local governments, state and local courts, and tribal governments, with specific court models identified.
The program requires evidence-based assessments, medication for addiction treatment when appropriate, and non-discrimination protections.
The federal funding share is limited to 75% of total costs and must supplement, not supplant, other funding.
A national evaluation and ongoing reporting will measure program effectiveness and equity across demographics.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Grant authority for treatment courts
The Attorney General may award grants to States, state courts, local courts, local government units, and Indian tribal governments to establish or enhance a range of treatment courts (including juvenile drug treatment, family treatment, tribal healing-to-wellness, impaired driving, and adult drug treatment courts). Programs must align with NADCP best-practice standards. The grants cannot permit economic sanctions that would interfere with treatment and must allow participants to present financial information to challenge payment requirements.
Eligibility for participants
A participant is defined as an individual with a diagnosed substance use disorder (or co-occurring mental illness) who meets team-approved criteria, does not pose a violence risk, and has not been charged with or convicted of certain sex offenses or murder. Eligibility decisions hinge on risk, criminal history, victim input, potential benefit, and anticipated community cost savings.
Administration and definitions
Key terms include medications for addiction treatment and the State substance abuse authority. The Attorney General must consult with HHS and may use components of the DOJ. Regulations may be issued, and administrative costs are capped at 10% of a grant. Applications must describe long-term strategy, adherence to NADCP standards, and arrangements for sustaining the program beyond federal support.
Applications process
Applicants must submit a grant application that lays out implementation plans to serve the specified treatment courts, demonstrate non-discrimination, ensure access to evidence-based care (including MAT when appropriate), and show coordination with relevant agencies and stakeholders. The plan must identify judges responsible for the program and justify federal funding sufficiency.
Federal share and in-kind contributions
Grants may cover up to 75% of total costs, with the possibility of waivers. In-kind contributions can count toward the non-Federal share. The arrangement ensures federal funds meaningfully complement state and local investments.
Distribution and allocation of funding
DOJ must ensure equal access and retention, monitor disparities by race/ethnicity and gender, maintain admission criteria that serve high-need individuals, and require licensed providers. Priority goes to applicants following NADCP standards, and efforts are made to achieve geographic balance and offer training to applicants who did not receive grant awards.
Reporting requirements
Recipients must submit annual descriptions and evaluations of program effectiveness. The DOJ’s BJA will conduct a national multi-site evaluation focusing on populations served, evidence-based treatment, recidivism, and outcomes within three years of enactment.
TA, training, and evaluation; funding
The AG may provide technical assistance and training aligned with NADCP standards, coordinate evaluations, and, if needed, administer funding through DOJ, HHS, or external partners. An authorization of appropriations specifies funding to administer these activities for fiscal years 2024–2028.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal 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
- States, state courts, local courts, and tribal governments gain access to grant funds to launch or expand treatment courts, enabling more participants to receive treatment and supervision.
- Juvenile, family, and tribal court participants benefit from access to specialized programs designed to address substance use disorders and related behaviors in a court setting.
- Treatment providers licensed or accredited by state authorities stand to benefit from established funding streams and clearer standards of care.
- Victims and communities may gain from program evaluation and improved outcomes, including potential reductions in recidivism and related costs.
- National organizations and practitioners focused on drug courts (e.g., NADCP-aligned entities) gain a utilization framework and accountability for best practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- States and local governments must contribute non-Federal shares and may incur administrative costs up to 10% of grant funds.
- Courts and prosecutors’ offices must allocate staff and resources to treatment court teams, including judges, defense counsel, and treatment providers.
- Participants may face cost-sharing or restitution obligations to the extent practicable, tied to ability to pay, which could affect participation if not carefully implemented.
- Treatment providers must meet licensing and credentialing requirements, which can entail ongoing compliance costs.
- Other agencies (child welfare, probation, law enforcement, and community services) must coordinate across jurisdictions, potentially increasing administrative workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Expanding treatment courts quickly and widely while maintaining rigorous, equity-focused standards and sustainable funding creates a tension between scale and quality; the policy must balance broad access with the practical capacity of jurisdictions to implement NADCP-aligned practices and sustain them after federal funds end.
The bill’s structure aims to scale treatment courts quickly while maintaining rigorous standards and safeguards. By tying funding to NADCP practice standards and requiring ongoing data collection and evaluation, the measure seeks to ensure that expansion translates into tangible benefits like lower recidivism and better treatment engagement.
However, the emphasis on equity and access raises questions about how to balance uniform standards with local capacity, and how to sustain programs once federal support ends. The requirement for non-federal matching funds, though intended to ensure local buy-in, could constrain rollout in lower-resource jurisdictions if not waived.
In practice, the law hinges on effective governance (designated judges, treatment teams, and coordination with multiple agencies) and robust treatment components (including medication for addiction treatment when appropriate). The success of this approach will depend on consistent data collection, timely independent evaluations, and the ability of jurisdictions to recruit and retain qualified providers and participants.
It also assumes that state substance abuse authorities and local treatment networks can scale up to NADCP-aligned standards across diverse settings. The central policy question is whether the benefits of expanded access will outweigh the costs and administrative demands placed on state and local actors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.