HR-2305-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would authorize up to $300 million over five years (FY2026–FY2030) in federal grants to the Bureau of Prisons, states, and local governments to fund mental health screening programs for corrections officers. Participating facilities would administer a short, anonymous survey to identify severe mental illness and refer officers showing signs of distress to local mental health care providers. The bill would also establish an Advisory Board under the Attorney General to oversee grant distribution, evaluate program effectiveness, and develop best practices.
Who benefits
Corrections officers at federal, state, and local detention facilities who may be experiencing undiagnosed or untreated mental illness, including depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia. Families of corrections officers who may benefit from improved officer mental health and reduced suicide risk. Mental health care providers and clinicians near detention facilities who would receive referrals and potentially new patients. State and local governments that would receive federal funding to offset program costs. Incarcerated individuals who may benefit indirectly from a mentally healthier corrections workforce. Mental health liaison staff and outreach team members who would be hired under the program.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would fund the $300 million authorization. Corrections officers who may face privacy concerns despite the bill's anonymity provisions, particularly regarding job security if screening results are disclosed. Competing federal grant programs that may face reduced appropriations if Congress prioritizes this funding. Corrections officers at facilities not covered by the program — such as privately operated facilities not under contract to a government agency — who would not be eligible. Uninsured or underinsured officers who are referred to providers but face cost barriers to follow-through care not addressed by the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that corrections officers face exceptionally high rates of occupational stress, trauma, and suicide — studies, including research published by the Ruderman Family Foundation, have found that corrections officers die by suicide at rates higher than in the line of duty. They contend that the bill's anonymous screening model directly addresses the documented stigma barrier to self-reporting, and that early identification and referral is a proven, cost-effective intervention. Supporters also argue that a mentally healthier corrections workforce improves facility safety for both staff and incarcerated individuals, producing broad public benefits beyond the officers themselves.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill authorizes $300 million without requiring evidence that the specific screening-and-referral model it mandates is more effective than existing Employee Assistance Programs already available to most corrections officers. They contend that the bill does not address the structural workplace conditions — mandatory overtime, chronic understaffing, and shift work — that research identifies as primary drivers of corrections officer mental health crises, meaning the program may treat symptoms rather than causes. Critics may also argue that the Advisory Board structure concentrates significant discretionary authority in the Attorney General with limited congressional oversight mechanisms built into the bill.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to fund this program rests on the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8), which permits conditional grants to states and localities. No active constitutional tension is implicated; the bill does not compel states to participate, consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, and the grant program is voluntary.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons Director — gains new administrative authority and discretion over grant distribution; checks include the Advisory Board's oversight role, the requirement that grant recipients submit plans for approval, and Congress's power of the purse through annual appropriations.
Historical precedent
The Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act of 2017 similarly authorized federal grants and peer support programs for law enforcement officer mental health, providing a direct legislative analogue for this type of occupational mental health funding.