Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to improve mental health support for corrections officers by funding mandatory, confidential screenings and referrals to care providers, while protecting officers from adverse employment actions.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a grant program for States and localities and a direct program for the Bureau of Prisons to provide mandatory, confidential mental health screenings and referrals to care providers for corrections officers. It creates an Advisory Board to oversee these programs and includes a "safe harbor" provision to protect officers from adverse employment actions when seeking treatment. The bill authorizes $300 million over five fiscal years for these initiatives.
Proponents argue
Supporters would argue this bill addresses a critical, often overlooked, mental health crisis among corrections officers, reducing suicide rates and improving officer well-being and retention. The confidentiality and employment protections are crucial for encouraging officers to seek necessary help without fear of professional repercussions.
Opponents contend
Potential concerns might include the overall cost to federal taxpayers, the administrative burden placed on states and localities to comply with grant requirements, or the practicality of implementing mandatory screenings across diverse correctional systems while ensuring genuine anonymity and confidentiality.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a quick but thorough review by an informed reader.
Section 3
Establishment of Grant Program for State and Local Corrections Officer Mental Health Screenings
This section establishes a grant program, to be administered by the Attorney General, for States and localities. The grants are intended to fund the implementation and administration of mental health screenings for corrections officers in eligible detention centers, and to facilitate referrals to mental health care providers when needed. Grant applicants must describe their plan for using funds and assure they will hire a mental health liaison staff member.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this grant program provides essential financial resources to state and local jurisdictions, enabling them to address the critical mental health needs of their corrections officers who often face high-stress, traumatic work environments.
Critics contend
Critics might raise concerns about potential federal overreach into state and local correctional operations, or the administrative burden associated with applying for and managing federal grants, which could deter some jurisdictions from participating.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for federal support to address a national issue with the desire for state and local autonomy in program design and implementation.
Section 3(d)
Mandatory, Confidential Mental Health Screening Survey
Grant recipients must develop or adopt a mental health screening survey for all corrections officers, which may be based on existing Bureau of Prisons standards. The survey must identify mental illnesses, inquire about symptoms and prior treatment, and be administered by trained staff. Crucially, it must be anonymous and confidential. If a survey indicates mental illness, the officer is immediately referred to a mental health outreach team for further assessment and support.
Section 3(e)
Establishment of Mental Health Outreach Teams
States and localities receiving grants are required to establish mental health outreach teams. These teams must consist of mental health care providers, potentially staff from eligible detention centers, and a mental health liaison who oversees the team. The primary role of these teams is to provide further assessment, outreach, and support to corrections officers referred after their initial mental health screening, including facilitating admission to mental health care centers if necessary.
Section 4
Bureau of Prisons Mental Health Program
Within 90 days of enactment, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) must establish a program to develop and administer mental health surveys to federal corrections officers, mirroring the requirements for state and local programs. The BOP must also establish and maintain an outreach team to refer officers to mental health care providers as appropriate, and submit an implementation plan for this program to the Advisory Board.
Section 5
Establishment and Duties of Advisory Board
An Advisory Board is to be established by the Attorney General within 60 days to manage and administer the grant program. Its duties include evaluating and approving state/local plans, monitoring compliance for both grant recipients and the BOP, providing technical assistance, and sharing best practices. The Board has the authority to mandate changes and reduce grant funding for states and localities that do not comply with the program's requirements.
Section 6
Employment Protection for Officers Seeking Mental Health Treatment
This section establishes a "safe harbor" provision, ensuring that corrections officers experiencing a mental health issue do not suffer adverse employment outcomes, such as a fitness for duty evaluation, while they are actively seeking and receiving treatment. Furthermore, it affirms the officer's right to determine their proper course of treatment in conjunction with their mental health care provider.
Section 7
Authorization of Appropriations and Fund Distribution
The bill authorizes appropriations to the Attorney General for carrying out the Act, starting at $50 million for fiscal year 2026 and increasing annually to $70 million by fiscal year 2030, totaling $300 million over five years. It specifies that 90% of these funds are for program implementation (20% for BOP, 20% for State grants, 50% for Locality grants), and 10% is allocated to the Advisory Board (5% for duties, 5% for technical assistance).
The definition of "corrections officer" includes officers or employees of detention facilities operated by, or under contract with, a Federal agency.
Section 2(2)(A)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms at the beginning of a bill to ensure clarity and avoid repetition throughout the text.
Case for: Proponents would argue that including contract employees ensures comprehensive coverage for all individuals performing correctional duties for federal operations, regardless of their direct employment status, thereby broadening the bill's protective scope.
Case against: Critics might suggest that extending federal program requirements to contractors could introduce complexities in oversight, accountability, and implementation, potentially creating administrative burdens for federal agencies managing these contracts.
Estimated impact: Expands the universe of covered corrections officers to include those employed by federal contractors, potentially increasing the number of individuals eligible for mental health screenings and referrals.
States and localities developing mental health screening surveys may base them on the standard mental health screening of the Employee Assistance Program of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the initial mental health screening standard of the Bureau of Prisons.
Section 3(d)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This provision offers practical guidance and flexibility, allowing states and localities to leverage existing, proven federal models rather than developing new ones from scratch.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this option promotes consistency and allows states and localities to adopt established, evidence-based screening tools, thereby reducing development costs and accelerating implementation.
Case against: Critics might suggest that relying heavily on federal models could limit innovation or the ability of states and localities to tailor screenings to their specific demographic needs or unique correctional environments.
Estimated impact: Facilitates quicker and potentially more standardized implementation of mental health screening programs across various jurisdictions by providing readily available templates.
The Advisory Board is tasked with creating a working group of mental health care providers, jail or prison administrators, law enforcement officers, and operators of existing mental health screening and referral programs to share best practices on how to create and implement programs that have the largest impact on reducing crime rates and improving employment and wage rates for individuals released from prison or jail.
Section 5(a)(2)(E)
Why it matters:This provision subtly broadens the perceived societal benefits of the bill, linking officer mental health to broader criminal justice outcomes and community well-being.
Case for: Proponents would argue that healthy corrections officers contribute to a more humane and effective correctional environment, which can positively influence incarcerated individuals and their successful reintegration into society, ultimately reducing crime and improving economic outcomes. This highlights a broader societal benefit of the bill.
Case against: Critics might argue that this link is indirect and potentially speculative, suggesting that the primary focus should remain on officer well-being without stretching the bill's scope to include outcomes for released individuals, which may be influenced by many other factors.
Estimated impact: Potentially broadens the scope of the Advisory Board's influence and research, connecting officer welfare to broader public safety and economic goals, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration.