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)
SB153 expands Wisconsin’s treatment alternatives and diversion (TAD) grant program beyond alcohol and other drug treatment to include treatment for mental illness. Under current law, the Department of Justice awards grants to counties and tribes to create programs that offer alternatives to prosecution or incarceration for people with substance use issues. This bill would revise the statutory framework so those programs may also serve criminal offenders with mental illness, while retaining the same overall goals of reducing recidivism, improving public safety, and lowering jail and prison populations.
The bill makes a series of conforming changes throughout the statutes to reflect the broader scope of the program. It updates the title and operative language of the TAD grant statute, defines “mental illness” by reference to existing law, and requires that eligible programs provide evidence-based mental health treatment, intensive case management, graduated sanctions and incentives, and coordinated services among courts, corrections, health services, and social service providers. It also amends related sentencing and jail-credit provisions so participation in a qualifying program can affect good-time eligibility, pre-sentence custody credit, and sentence credit in the same way as current substance abuse treatment programs.
In practical terms, the bill would affect counties, tribes, the Department of Justice, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health Services, courts, prosecutors, public defenders, treatment providers, and people charged with or convicted of crimes who have mental illness. It would broaden the pool of participants eligible for diversion-style treatment programming and align several criminal justice statutes with that expanded eligibility. The bill also preserves the existing grant structure and oversight model, including local oversight committees and DOJ approval of qualifying programs.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s structure is supportive of treatment-oriented criminal justice responses and diversion from incarceration. Although no committee transcript or recorded votes are provided, the bill’s detailed expansion of an existing grant program suggests an intent to build on a previously established bipartisan or cross-system framework rather than replace it. The measure ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, so despite its policy direction, it did not become law.
The main point of contention likely concerns whether TAD programs should remain limited to substance use disorders or be expanded to include mental illness, and whether the criminal justice system should use treatment-based diversion for a broader set of offenders. Related concerns may include program capacity, certification and oversight requirements, fiscal impact, and how mental health treatment would be integrated with court supervision and correctional conditions.
SB153 would amend Wisconsin’s treatment alternatives and diversion statutes to authorize DOJ grants for county and tribal programs serving people with substance use disorders or mental illness, rather than substance use disorders alone. It would also update related statutes governing jail good time, pre-sentence and sentence credit, approved treatment programs, and conditions of participation so that mental health treatment programs meeting the same statutory requirements are treated similarly to existing substance abuse treatment programs. The bill would therefore expand eligibility for diversion and treatment-based alternatives within the criminal justice system and require corresponding administrative and statutory adjustments by state and local agencies.
The bill appears generally favorable toward treatment-based diversion and rehabilitation, with its text emphasizing evidence-based treatment, coordination among justice and health agencies, and alternatives to incarceration. Because no committee transcripts or vote records are included, there is no direct record of debate in the provided materials. The bill’s introduction by bipartisan cosponsors and its use of an existing grant framework suggest at least some cross-party interest in the policy, but the measure ultimately failed to pass.
The likely central debate is whether the state should expand a program originally focused on alcohol and other drug treatment to include mental illness as an eligible basis for diversion. Supporters would likely emphasize access to treatment, reduced recidivism, and reduced jail and prison populations, while skeptics may question program scope, implementation costs, local capacity, and whether mental health cases are best handled through criminal justice diversion programs. Additional points of concern include the need for certified providers, coordination among multiple agencies, and the effect of expanded eligibility on sentencing and jail-credit rules.