SMART Community Policing

Full Title:
SMART Community Policing Act

Summary#

This bill (SMART Community Policing Act) changes a federal law that governs the COPS grant program so those grant funds can pay for mobile crisis teams, co-responder teams, and case management/outreach teams. The written purpose is to reduce harm in police interactions, connect people in crisis with mental health care, and improve outcomes for communities and officers. The bill adds three new authorized uses for COPS funds focused on mental-health–informed responses.

  • New allowed uses: COPS grants may fund mobile crisis team programs that hire mental health professionals and paramedics to respond to some 911 calls or requests from community members or police.
  • Co-responder programs: Grants may fund pairing trained police officers with behavioral health clinicians or paramedics to de-escalate crises and connect people to services.
  • Case management/outreach teams: Grants may fund follow-up teams to help people in crisis access care, keep up with treatment plans, and reduce repeated emergency contacts.
  • Training and mobile units: The bill explicitly allows paying for training of partnering officers, use of mobile units, and hiring other personnel.
  • Status: Introduced in the Senate on May 19, 2026, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

What it means for you#

  • Law enforcement agencies and police departments: Can apply for COPS grant money to create or expand mobile crisis teams, co-responder programs, training, and follow-up case management. This may change how some crisis calls are handled locally.
  • People experiencing mental health, substance use, homelessness, or poverty-related crises: Could see more responses that include mental health professionals or paramedics instead of, or alongside, police officers.
  • Mental health professionals and paramedics: Could be hired into mobile crisis teams or co-responder teams funded by COPS grants.
  • 911 dispatch centers: May be able to route certain calls to mobile crisis teams when those programs exist and are requested by law enforcement or community members.
  • Local governments and service providers: Might partner with police to run these programs and could seek federal grant funds to pay staff, mobile units, and training.
  • Taxpayers: The bill authorizes uses of federal grants but does not specify new spending levels in the text provided.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill itself does not set a dollar amount or annual funding level.
  • Likely costs that local agencies might face include hiring staff (clinicians, paramedics, case managers), training, buying or retrofitting mobile units, and ongoing program operations.
  • Administrative costs could include grant application work, program monitoring, and data collection.
  • It is unclear whether the Department of Justice would require local matching funds, limits on grant size, or specific reporting requirements.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce harmful or avoidable use-of-force interactions by providing mental-health–focused responses to certain crises.
  • Supporters may argue this improves connections between people in crisis and treatment or community resources.
  • It could be seen as improving public safety and officer safety by stabilizing encounters and offering specialized care.
  • The bill authorizes a range of practical tools (mobile units, training, follow-up teams) that could make crisis response more effective and reduce repeated emergency contacts.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is the bill does not set funding levels or explain how much federal money would be available, making program scale uncertain.
  • The law does not clearly state eligibility rules, matching requirements, or oversight and reporting standards, which could create administrative or accountability gaps.
  • The bill allows law enforcement to be part of co-responder teams; a possible concern is that some responses will still involve police rather than purely clinical teams.
  • It is unclear how civil rights, privacy, liability, and clinical standards will be protected or enforced in these programs.
  • Localities may face ongoing costs beyond initial grants (salaries, vehicles, benefits) that are not guaranteed by this statute.