Sheriffs could refer more inmates for local mental health services

When screening indicates a county jail inmate may have a high degree of mental illness, the sheriff can make a referral to the local social services agency.

HF1331, sponsored by Rep. Nick Zerwas (R-Elk River), would let local corrections officials share the names of inmates who may have lesser degrees of mental illness with county human services personnel.

Rep. Nick Zerwas

The bill closely tracks existing law on inmates who have a “serious and persistent mental illness,” Zerwas said. “The added language will provide for early access to coordinated care for individuals that may need services, but their mental illness doesn’t yet rise to the definition of ‘serious and persistent.’”

The House Civil Law and Data Practices Policy Committee approved the bill Tuesday and sent it to the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee. The companion, SF986, sponsored by Sen. Jerry Relph (R-St. Cloud), awaits action by the Senate Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Committee.

Stephanie Radtke, Dakota County deputy director for community services, said the change could help halt the “cycling” of people with mental illness through county jails.

“Instead of waiting for someone to have that serious and severe and persistent mental illness before we’re making some of those more targeted referrals, as soon as we have an indication that mental illness may be an issue, and this person is in need of access to health care in connection to that system, we’re allowing for those referrals,” Radtke said.

The bill provides for the release of inmates’ names for several purposes:

• helping them apply for Medical Assistance or Minnesota Care;
• referring them for case management by the county;
• helping them get a state photo ID;
• getting an appointment with a mental health care provider;
• providing needed prescriptions; or
• coordinating behavioral health services.

One testifier is concerned about stigmatizing inmates.

“If you’re going to refer someone into a system where there’s wide dissemination of information, particularly with a name [attached] and you’re not sure that it’s accurate or complete, and it may be a hunch, a possibility … What are the standards on a statewide basis?” asked privacy and open government advocate Rich Neumeister.