An Act to amend 20.455 (2) (em) (title), 20.455 (2) (kn) (title), 20.455 (2) (kv) (title), 165.95 (title), 165.95 (2), 165.95 (3) (a), 165.95 (3) (d), 165.95 (3) (e), 165.95 (3) (g), 165.95 (3) (h), 165.95 (3) (j), 165.95 (5) (a), 302.43, 961.472 (5) (b), 967.11 (1), 967.11 (2) and 973.155 (1m); to create 165.95 (1) (ae) of the statutes; Relating to: expanding the treatment alternatives and diversion programs. (FE)
AB178 would expand Wisconsin’s treatment alternatives and diversion (TAD) grant program so that counties and tribes could operate programs for criminal offenders with either substance use disorders or mental illness. Current law focuses on alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for people who abuse alcohol or other drugs; this bill would revise that framework throughout the statutes to include mental illness as an eligible basis for treatment, diversion, and related services. It also adds a statutory definition of “mental illness” by cross-reference to existing mental health law.
The bill updates multiple provisions governing how these programs are designed and administered. It would allow DOJ grants to support programs offering mental health treatment, require evidence-based mental health services and certified providers, and expand collaboration requirements to include mental health and social service agencies. It also revises related criminal justice provisions so that participation in qualifying programs can affect jail good time, pretrial release conditions, and sentence credit, just as substance use treatment programs do now. In effect, the bill integrates mental health diversion more fully into Wisconsin’s existing treatment-court and diversion structure.
AB178 would amend Wisconsin statutes governing DOJ-administered alternatives-to-prosecution and incarceration grants, especially s. 165.95, to make mental illness an express qualifying condition alongside substance use disorder. It would also conform related statutes on county jail good time, pretrial detention and monitoring, and sentence credit to recognize participation in qualifying mental health treatment programs. Counties, tribes, courts, prosecutors, public defenders, corrections, and health and social service agencies would be affected by the expanded eligibility and coordination requirements.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge directly. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and treatment-oriented expansion of an existing diversion model rather than a major policy overhaul. Its failure to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 indicates it did not complete the legislative process, but the provided materials do not show the reasons for that outcome.
The main policy issue is the expansion from substance use treatment programs to programs serving people with mental illness. Supporters would likely view this as a practical extension of diversion and treatment-based justice, while potential critics may question whether the existing TAD framework is the right vehicle for mental health cases, whether counties and tribes have sufficient treatment capacity, and how eligibility, supervision, and public-safety safeguards would work in practice. Another possible point of concern is the bill’s broad coordination requirements across courts, corrections, DHS, and local agencies, which could raise implementation and funding questions.