FACT Pilot Program Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
The FACT Pilot Program Act aims to improve mental health outcomes and reduce criminal justice involvement for individuals with serious mental illness through expanded community-based treatment and a comprehensive study.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a 5-year pilot program under the Department of Health and Human Services to award grants to states and local governments. These grants are intended to expand existing forensic assertive community treatment (FACT) team programs, which provide intensive, field-based mental health care, addiction treatment, vocational training, and housing assistance to individuals with serious mental illness who are involved with the criminal justice system. Additionally, the bill mandates a study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to evaluate FACT programs, recommend effectiveness metrics, and propose policy for scaling them up.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that FACT programs are a proven model for reducing recidivism, psychiatric hospitalizations, and emergency department use among a vulnerable population. They contend that expanding these programs will lead to better health outcomes, increased community reintegration, and improved public safety, while potentially generating cost savings for health care and justice systems.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about the cost of establishing and maintaining such intensive programs, especially without a clear, immediate funding source beyond 'such sums as may be necessary.' They might also question the federal government's role in local mental health and criminal justice initiatives, or suggest that resources could be better allocated to broader mental health infrastructure rather than a specialized pilot.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick but thorough understanding.
Section 2(a)(1)
Forensic Assertive Community Treatment Team Pilot Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a 5-year pilot program. Under this program, grants will be awarded to states and local governments to expand their existing forensic assertive community treatment (FACT) team programs. The goal is to allow these programs to serve more community members who have serious mental illness and are involved with the criminal justice system.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that expanding FACT programs is a highly effective, evidence-based approach to address the complex needs of individuals with serious mental illness who frequently cycle through the criminal justice system. They believe this will reduce recidivism, improve health outcomes, and enhance public safety.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while beneficial, a pilot program might not be the most efficient way to scale up these services, suggesting that direct funding to states for broader mental health infrastructure might be more impactful or flexible.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between targeting resources to a highly effective but specialized intervention versus broader, more generalized mental health funding.
Section 2(a)(2)(B)
Defining FACT Programs and Eligible Individuals
This section precisely defines what constitutes a 'forensic assertive community treatment team program' for the purposes of the grants. It specifies that these programs must offer around-the-clock, intensive, field-based services (mental health, addiction, vocational, housing) to individuals with serious mental illness who also have criminal justice involvement. It also mandates adherence to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model with adaptations for criminogenic risks and requires a multidisciplinary team including criminal justice partners and forensic peer specialists.
Section 2(b)
Evaluation and Scaling Study of FACT Programs
This provision directs the Secretary of HHS to contract with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a comprehensive study. The study will recommend measurable metrics for evaluating FACT programs, identify key elements for model fidelity, develop policy proposals for scaling up existing programs (including rural adaptations), estimate costs and benefits, and provide recommendations for program improvement. A report is due within 18 months and must be publicly published.
Defines 'involved with the criminal justice system' broadly to include contact with law enforcement, courts, or correctional systems at any stage, including arrest, pre-trial, incarceration, imminent release, recent release, probation, parole, or other community supervision.
Section 2(a)(2)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity in who the program is intended to serve.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this broad definition is crucial for reaching the full spectrum of individuals who could benefit from FACT programs, ensuring that interventions can occur at various critical points in their interaction with the justice system.
Case against: No strong case against, but some might argue that such a broad definition could dilute the program's focus if not carefully managed, or lead to resource strain if too many individuals qualify.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the potential beneficiary pool for FACT programs beyond just those currently incarcerated or on parole.
Authorizes 'such sums as may be necessary' for fiscal years 2027 through 2032 to carry out the pilot program.
Section 2(a)(3)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice when the exact cost is unknown or when Congress intends to appropriate funds later through the annual appropriations process, rather than setting a specific cap in the authorizing legislation. It avoids locking in a number that might become outdated.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides flexibility for appropriators to fund the program at an appropriate level based on need and available resources, without being constrained by an arbitrary cap set years in advance.
Case against: Critics might argue that this lack of a specific funding ceiling makes it difficult to assess the true fiscal impact and commitment to the program, potentially leading to underfunding or unpredictable funding levels in future appropriations cycles.
Estimated impact: The actual financial scale of the pilot program is left entirely to future appropriations decisions, making its ultimate reach uncertain.