Senate hearing spotlights Treatment Court Expansion Act amid Rikers, capacity and plea debates

State Sen. Natalia Fernandez opened a hearing of the Senate Committee on Alcoholism and Substance Use Disorder on the Treatment Court Expansion Act, calling the bill “a critical step forward in the ongoing effort to ensure that mental illness and substance use disorders are treated not as criminal justice issues, but as public health challenges they truly are.”

The hearing brought court leaders, including Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson and Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas, service providers, defense and prosecutor representatives, and multiple people who described entering diversion programs and later rebuilding their lives. Officials and witnesses agreed on the goal of diverting people with behavioral-health needs away from jails and prisons, but they sharply disagreed on details: whether judges should generally require guilty pleas before enrollment, how to protect victims and public safety, and how to fund and staff the expanded system statewide.

Why it matters: advocates and clinicians told the committee that the status quo funnels people with serious mental illness and substance use disorders into jails and prisons where, they said, treatment is inconsistent or absent and outcomes are poor. “If we could effectively address the issues that triggered criminal behavior, we could make our streets safer, reduce recidivism, and improve people's lives,” Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas said in his testimony supporting expansion, while also urging careful, phased implementation tied to available treatment capacity.

What the bill would do: the Treatment Court Expansion Act would broaden eligibility for court‑supervised diversion to people with a range of qualifying mental-health and substance-use diagnoses; it would create mechanisms for judges to admit people pre‑plea in some cases and permit post‑plea diversion in others; it enshrines clinical decision‑making for treatment plans and adds reporting and certification responsibilities for courts before programs start in any county.

Points of dispute - Plea requirement: one of the central disagreements focused on whether diversion should generally require an upfront guilty plea. Supporters of requiring a plea — including representatives of a statewide association of treatment‑court professionals — argued that the plea provides accountability and motivation to complete an often‑demanding program. Opponents — including many treatment providers, advocates and people with lived experience — said pre‑plea access is essential because the prospect of a criminal conviction or collateral consequences (immigration, housing, employment) can deter participation. Several witnesses urged that judges keep discretion and that the statute remove categorical exclusions that prevent judges from making individualized decisions.

- Capacity and funding: unified court witnesses and providers repeatedly warned that diversion can only expand if community treatment capacity (outpatient services, residential beds, ACT teams), peer workers and supportive housing are funded and staffed. Chief Judge Wilson and Judge Zayas described a phased rollout tied to certification by the administrative judge so programs only start where services are available. Providers and advocates pressed for explicit budget commitments to build that infrastructure, saying empty promises would only lengthen jail stays while people waited for program slots.

Voices from the hearing - “My path is not the norm, but it should be,” said Selwyn Bernardes, who described graduating from an Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) program and rebuilding his life after time on Rikers Island. Testimony from other graduates, including peer specialists and program alumni, illustrated how court‑supervised treatment had led to housing, employment and fewer re‑arrests.

- “Nobody is receiving meaningful mental health treatment on Rikers. People are being warehoused in cages, left to deteriorate, and then sent back into our communities more traumatized,” testified social worker Justina Rosinski, describing conditions she witnessed while working in Rikers Island mental‑health units.

- Formerly incarcerated advocates described systemic barriers to care, the need for peers and culturally and linguistically accessible services, and the high prevalence of mental-health needs among people in local jails.

Process and safeguards discussed Committee members and witnesses discussed several ways to mitigate the tradeoffs: (1) a presumption in favor of pre‑plea diversion for non‑violent cases while preserving judicial discretion for complex circumstances; (2) explicit statutory protection for clinical independence so treatment plans and medication decisions are made by licensed providers; (3) a phased certification process led by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) and the chief administrative judge to avoid admitting participants where services do not exist; (4) data collection and uniform metrics so the state can monitor regional disparities and program outcomes.

Other policy and equity concerns Multiple witnesses and legislators raised racial and geographic equity concerns: some model diversion courts (for example, some opioid‑intervention programs) enroll disproportionately more white participants than other local courts, and many upstate and rural counties lack any treatment‑court capacity. Immigration consequences were a frequently cited reason why some people cannot safely accept a plea; advocates urged statutory language to protect people whose convictions would cause deportation or other life‑altering collateral consequences.

What didn’t happen No formal vote or final action on the bill occurred at the hearing. OCA and the judiciary repeatedly asked for the legislature to pair statutory changes with clear budgetary commitments to build treatment capacity, staffing and data systems.

Looking ahead Lawmakers on the panels said they plan to carry the debate into the next legislative session: sponsors described the bill as revised repeatedly after consultation with judges, prosecutors, defenders and clinicians, and both sides signaled they wanted a workable compromise that expands access while preserving public‑safety and clinical safeguards. Several witnesses urged swift attention to funding streams already discussed at the state level for mental‑health services so that statutory expansion can translate into real slots for diversion in communities across New York State.

Ending note The hearing made clear broad agreement on the goal — reduce incarceration and connect more people to treatment — but marked disagreement on how to reach it, especially over pleas, capacity and how to ensure fair access statewide. The committee received personal testimony from people who credited courts and diversion programs with saving their lives, and the emotional testimony about conditions at Rikers underscored advocates' urgency to expand community‑based treatment options and to fund them sufficiently so diversion is meaningful, not just aspirational.