New Act Mandates Federal Data Collection on Police Interactions with Mental Health Crises, Starting 2026

The newly proposed Public Safety and Mental Health Reporting Act is straightforward: it mandates the federal government to start tracking every time a police officer interacts with someone experiencing mental illness. Specifically, Section 2 requires the Attorney General, in partnership with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), to collect this data annually, kicking off the funding authorization period from fiscal year 2026 through 2036. The goal is simple—to gain a clear, national picture of these often-sensitive encounters, with the collected information strictly limited to research and statistical analysis. Crucially, the bill ensures privacy by explicitly forbidding the inclusion of any identifying information about victims of crime involved in these interactions.

The Need for Hard Data: What Gets Measured Gets Managed

If you’ve ever followed the news, you know that interactions between law enforcement and people in a mental health crisis can be volatile and sometimes tragic. Right now, we lack consistent, nationwide data on how often these encounters happen, what triggers them, and how they end. This Act aims to fix that gap. By requiring the Attorney General to develop clear guidelines (in consultation with HHS and SAMHSA) for data collection, the bill creates a foundation for evidence-based policy. Think of it this way: if a city finds 80% of its mental health crisis calls involve repeat locations or specific times of day, they can adjust resources—like dispatching mental health professionals instead of just police—to those areas. The law defines “mental illness” by referencing an existing federal statute (Section 2991(a)(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968), ensuring a standard definition is used across the board.

The Transparency Clause and the Trade-Off

One of the biggest wins for the public is the transparency requirement. Section 2 mandates that the Attorney General send an annual summary of all this aggregated data to Congress and, importantly, make that same summary available to the general public. For the average person, this means we get to see the actual scope of the problem, moving beyond anecdotal evidence or local reports. This provides a powerful tool for community advocates and local governments to push for better training or alternative response models. However, this level of detail comes with a trade-off: law enforcement agencies and the DOJ/HHS are going to face an increased administrative burden. Collecting and standardizing this data across thousands of jurisdictions is a massive undertaking, and while the bill authorizes necessary funding, the actual implementation will require local agencies to change their reporting habits.

Where the Devil Might Be in the Details

While the intent is excellent, the bill has a medium level of vagueness regarding the guidelines themselves. The Attorney General must create "clear guidelines," but the bill doesn't specify what metrics must be collected or how an “interaction” is defined. For example, does a brief welfare check count the same as an arrest? If the guidelines aren't robust, data collection could become inconsistent across states, which would make the final public report less useful. Additionally, the funding authorization has an expiration date, running through 2036. This means that while the data collection effort is mandated for a decade, Congress would need to actively renew the funding and the requirement to keep the national picture clear after that point. Overall, this is a positive step toward better understanding a critical public safety issue, providing the hard facts needed to move from reaction to prevention.