Relates to establishing a crisis intervention demonstration program.
This bill establishes a crisis intervention demonstration program focused on helping law enforcement respond to people experiencing mental health and substance use crises, particularly in New York City and other agencies that choose to participate. It directs the commissioner of the Office of Mental Health to create a crisis intervention team training program coordinator, support partnerships among mental health, addiction, disability, and law enforcement stakeholders, and provide training, coordination, and funding support. The coordinator would also be required to submit annual reports on training participation, program implementation, recommendations for improvement, and funding sources.
The bill also creates a crisis intervention advisory committee made up of representatives from mental health consumers and families, advocacy organizations, addiction services, developmental disability services, and law enforcement. The committee would review annual reports and make recommendations to state agencies and legislative leaders. In addition, the bill establishes a crisis intervention team training fund grant program and a new crisis intervention team training fund, with money coming from state general fund appropriations, federal funds, private grants, gifts, and contributions. The bill requires quarterly reporting from contractors receiving funds.
The measure amends the General Municipal Law to require the Division of Criminal Justice Services, in consultation with mental health and addiction agencies, to set criteria for crisis intervention teams and implement ongoing training for current and new officers in participating agencies. The training curriculum must include at least 40 hours of mandatory mental health instruction. The stated goals include reducing arrests and detention in crisis situations, lowering the risk of physical confrontation and injury, improving access to treatment, and creating therapeutic alternatives to jail or police facilities.
The bill would also update Mental Hygiene Law definitions to reflect the current name of the Office of Addiction Services and Supports, replacing references to the former Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. The demonstration program is temporary, with the core program set to expire five years after enactment. Overall, the bill would expand state oversight and funding for crisis response training while creating new reporting and coordination duties for mental health and public safety agencies.
The bill would amend the Mental Hygiene Law, State Finance Law, and General Municipal Law to create a new state-supported crisis intervention framework, including a dedicated fund, advisory committee, reporting requirements, and mandatory training standards for participating law enforcement agencies. It would primarily affect the Office of Mental Health, the Office of Addiction Services and Supports, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the NYPD, and other local law enforcement agencies in cities of one million or more or agencies that opt in. It also updates statutory terminology to reflect the renamed addiction services agency and authorizes use of public and private funding for program implementation.
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive of expanding crisis intervention training and improving police response to mental health and substance use emergencies. The bill is framed as a public safety and treatment-oriented measure, emphasizing collaboration, de-escalation, and alternatives to incarceration. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented opposition or recorded legislative debate in the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope and cost of the program, the mandatory 40-hour training requirement, and the bill’s focus on law enforcement-led crisis response rather than a fully civilian model. The bill also concentrates the demonstration program in cities with populations of one million or more, which may raise questions about geographic equity and whether the model should be statewide. Another possible issue is the temporary nature of the program, since the core demonstration section expires after five years, which could prompt debate over whether the initiative is intended as a pilot or a long-term policy shift.