An Act to amend and reenact § 37.2-311.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to comprehensive crisis system; Marcus alert system; powers and duties of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services related to comprehensive mental health, substance abuse, and developmental disability crisis services; written plan.
HB453 amends Virginia’s comprehensive crisis system law, specifically § 37.2-311.1, which governs the Marcus alert system and the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services’ responsibilities for crisis services. The bill updates and clarifies key definitions used in the statutory framework, including community care teams, mobile crisis response, crisis call centers, crisis stabilization centers, and the Marcus alert system itself. It also ties the crisis system more explicitly to national suicide prevention standards and federal behavioral health terminology, reflecting the state’s effort to align crisis response services with current practice and federal infrastructure.
The bill’s broader purpose is to support a coordinated continuum of behavioral health crisis care for people experiencing mental health, substance use, developmental or intellectual disability, or brain injury-related crises. It preserves the role of localities in structuring mobile crisis and community care teams, while emphasizing that law enforcement may provide backup support rather than serving as the lead in mobile crisis teams. The measure also reinforces the Department’s duties in overseeing crisis services and support, including diversion to behavioral health or developmental services whenever feasible and specialized response when diversion is not possible.
HB453 changes state law by amending the statutory framework for Virginia’s comprehensive crisis system under Title 37.2. The bill affects the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, local crisis response providers, community care teams, mobile crisis teams, crisis call centers, and crisis stabilization centers by refining definitions and operational roles within the Marcus alert system. It also reinforces the legal structure for crisis diversion, co-response, and backup law-enforcement support, which may influence how localities design and fund crisis response services and how individuals in behavioral health crisis are routed to care.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote data, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the enacted chapter text, the bill appears to have been treated as a technical and policy update to an existing crisis-response framework rather than a controversial overhaul. Its approval suggests general legislative support for strengthening and clarifying Virginia’s behavioral health crisis system.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. In similar legislation, the most likely areas of concern would be the role of law enforcement in crisis response, the extent of state versus local control over mobile crisis and community care teams, and the operational or funding implications of expanding crisis services. However, the record here does not show any stated objections, amendments, or divided votes, so any such issues remain speculative.