EMERGENCY CO-RESPONSE GRANTS
SB1851 creates the Emergency Co-Response Grant Act, a new grant program administered by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) to help law enforcement departments establish or maintain co-response units. These units are defined as specially trained teams that include at least one law enforcement officer and at least one clinician or trained civilian, and are dispatched to emergency calls where a behavioral health crisis is likely involved. The bill is designed to support de-escalation and community-based alternatives to traditional police-only response, especially in communities facing racial profiling, law enforcement violence, service gaps, and among vulnerable populations such as people experiencing mental illness, substance use, homelessness, disability, immigration-related issues, intimate partner violence, and youth at risk.
The bill sets out a detailed grant application process and specifies the kinds of activities grant money may support, including planning, staffing, facilities, training, consulting, evaluation, and up to 50% of salaries for social workers or behavioral and mental health staff. It also requires the ICJIA to consult with the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board when developing forms and rules, and it creates the Emergency Co-Response Grant Fund in the State treasury. The program is temporary: it requires recipient departments to report on outcomes and savings in 2031, and the Act is repealed on January 1, 2033.
The bill would affect state law by adding a new grant authority and a new special fund under the State Finance Act, while also creating new reporting and rulemaking obligations for participating law enforcement agencies and the ICJIA. It does not mandate co-response units statewide, but it authorizes state funding for local departments that choose to create or expand them, with limits tied to appropriation and compliance with licensing and scope-of-practice rules. It also excludes police departments already operating a co-responder program under Division 1.5 of Article 11 of the Illinois Municipal Code.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears oriented toward reform and service integration, with an emphasis on behavioral health response, crisis intervention, and data-driven evaluation. Any contention would likely center on the role of law enforcement in behavioral health crises, the use of state funds for police-linked response models, and whether the program should prioritize civilian-led alternatives instead of co-response structures involving police.
SB1851 would add a new temporary grant program to Illinois law, administered by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, to fund local law enforcement co-response units and related planning, staffing, training, facilities, and evaluation costs. It also amends the State Finance Act to create the Emergency Co-Response Grant Fund, establishes reporting requirements for grant recipients, and requires rulemaking by the Agency in consultation with state licensing and training bodies. The bill would primarily affect county police departments, municipal police departments, and sheriffs' offices, while excluding departments already operating certain existing co-responder programs.
No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from hearings or roll calls. From the bill text, the measure is framed positively as a public-safety and behavioral-health reform intended to strengthen de-escalation and community-based crisis response. The overall tone is supportive of expanding co-response models, with an emphasis on evaluation, accountability, and eventual scaling if the program proves effective.
The main policy tension likely concerns whether emergency behavioral-health response should be built around law enforcement partnerships or more fully civilian-led alternatives. Supporters would likely emphasize de-escalation, crisis intervention, and better service linkage for vulnerable populations, while critics may question police involvement in mental health response, the use of state grant dollars for law-enforcement-based models, and whether the program could duplicate or overlap with existing local co-responder efforts. Another possible point of contention is the bill’s broad target population language and the extent to which grant funds may be used for staffing and operational costs, including partial salary support for behavioral health personnel.