S-4575-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Michael Bennet (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand the allowable uses of federal COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) grant funding. Specifically, it would allow grantees to use COPS funds to establish or expand three new program types: (1) mobile crisis teams pairing mental health professionals and paramedics with law enforcement to respond to 911 calls and direct community requests; (2) co-responder programs pairing trained officers with behavioral health clinicians or paramedics; and (3) case management and outreach teams that follow up with individuals after a crisis to connect them with services and reduce repeat emergency contacts.
Who benefits
Individuals experiencing mental or behavioral health crises, including those with mental illness, substance use disorders, or housing instability, who may receive more appropriate responses than a standard law enforcement contact. Law enforcement officers who would have trained mental health partners in high-risk, complex situations. Mental health professionals and paramedics who would gain new employment opportunities through grant-funded positions. Local governments and police departments seeking to reduce repeat 911 calls and emergency service costs. Communities with high rates of mental health-related police encounters. Case managers and social workers hired under the outreach team provisions.
Who is hurt
Local governments and police departments that lack the administrative capacity to apply for or manage expanded grant programs may be unable to access funds, potentially widening resource gaps between well-resourced and under-resourced jurisdictions. Mental health service providers outside the law enforcement partnership model may face competitive disadvantage for funding or referrals. Taxpayers bear the cost of any new appropriations drawn from COPS grant funding. Traditional law enforcement staffing vendors or contractors may see reduced grant dollars directed toward non-officer personnel. Individuals in jurisdictions that do not adopt these programs would see no direct benefit.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that law enforcement officers are frequently the default first responders to mental health crises despite lacking specialized clinical training, and that this mismatch produces worse outcomes for individuals in crisis and officers alike. They point to programs like Denver's STAR (Support Team Assisted Response) model, which handled over 2,000 calls in its first six months with no police backup needed, as evidence that co-responder and mobile crisis models can reduce arrests, use of force, and emergency room visits. They contend that expanding COPS grant eligibility is a targeted, locally-driven approach that lets communities choose the model that fits their needs without imposing a federal mandate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that redirecting COPS grant funds toward mental health personnel and case managers may dilute resources originally intended for core law enforcement hiring and training, potentially reducing officer staffing in communities that need it most. They contend that mental health co-responder models, while promising in some pilot programs, have limited large-scale evidence of effectiveness and that expanding grant eligibility before rigorous evaluation could fund programs that fail to reduce crime or improve safety. They further argue that mental health service delivery is primarily a state and local responsibility, and that federal grant incentives may push jurisdictions toward a one-size-fits-all model that does not reflect local conditions.
Constitutional context
This bill exercises Congress's spending power under Article I, Section 8 to attach new conditions to existing federal grants to state and local governments. No significant constitutional tension is present — the bill expands permissible uses of existing grants rather than mandating state action, consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine affirmed in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), which prohibits Congress from directing state legislatures but permits conditional federal spending.
Checks and balances
Congress expands the executive branch's (DOJ/COPS Office) grant-making authority; the COPS Office retains discretion over grant awards, and recipient jurisdictions remain accountable through existing federal grant oversight and audit requirements.
Historical precedent
The COPS Office was established under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and has been amended multiple times to expand allowable grant uses; this bill follows that same incremental amendment pattern.