Guardrails bill would make AOC lead regional planning, set performance measures; sponsors and advocates debate role

Senate Bill 3 would establish a behavioral‑health reform and investment framework intended to provide accountability and regional decisionmaking for the larger funding package. The bill designates behavioral‑health regions (roughly aligned to judicial districts), directs the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to coordinate regional meetings and complete sequential intercept mapping, and requires each region to develop a four‑phase plan with no more than five state‑funded priorities per phase.

Guardrails in SB 3 require the AOC to convene behavioral‑health stakeholders — as defined in the bill to include the AOC, behavioral‑health patients, service providers, HCA, Department of Health, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Indian nations, tribes and pueblos, local governments and other appropriate entities — to produce regional plans. The bill requires sequential intercept mapping as a baseline strategic tool to identify local assets and gaps and asks regions to provide timelines, continuity‑of‑care plans and strategies to leverage federal, local and private funds.

SB 3 also sets reporting and accountability milestones. Beginning no later than June 30, 2027, the AOC must designate an entity in each region to provide written reports to the legislature that document adoption of generally recognized standards of care, performance metrics and whether the regions met the region‑specific priorities required to receive state grants. Sponsors and supporters described the AOC role as a neutral convener with on‑the‑ground knowledge (AOC conducts SIM mapping and sees justice‑system touchpoints), while several providers, advocates and disability‑rights groups urged adding explicit representatives — for example, disability advocates, public defenders, schools and culturally specific providers — to ensure plans reflect local needs.

Testimony reflected broad support for regional planning and performance measurement but divided views on AOC as lead coordinator. Supporters cited the court’s role in diversion and assisted outpatient treatment pilots and said courts already perform SIM mapping. Critics said behavioral‑health planning is principally a health‑care function, not a judicial function, and urged either clearer language about AOC’s convening role (not program administration) or naming a health‑sector co‑lead. Sponsors said SB 3’s accountability and reporting framework can be amended to clarify stakeholder inclusion and to ensure AOC receives funding and staff for the added duties. The committee agreed to carry SB 3 forward with additional stakeholder work and to coordinate amendments with SB 2 before the next hearing.