Funding for Suicide Prevention and Crisis Services in US State Budgets - Summary - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Investment in Suicide Prevention and Crisis Intervention within State Budgets in the United States

  • By

  • Jonathan Purtle

  • Michal Weiss

  • Ryan K. McBain

  • Jonathan H. Cantor

  • Jennifer L. Pomeranz

  • Sachini Bandara

  • Fernanda Montoya

  • Elizabeth A. Stuart

  • September 11, 2026

Share

Objective:

To quantify funding designated in enacted state budgets for suicide prevention and mental health crisis services and evaluate variations in these allocations.

Approach:
  • Study Design: A repeated cross-sectional state-year panel study examining enacted state budgets from fiscal years 2021 to 2026.
  • Data Collection: Enacted budgets were identified using the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) and state websites, resulting in 306 state-year budget observations.
  • Funding Identification: Funding line items were systematically searched for terms related to suicide prevention and crisis services, with a focus on explicit designations.
  • Exclusion Criteria: Crisis-intervention funding without explicit mental health connections and general mental health service funding without specific mentions of suicide prevention were excluded.
Key Findings:
  • 12 states passed legislation establishing 988 telecommunications fees to support crisis services by July 2026.
  • 21 states enacted laws for a dedicated suicide prevention office or coordinator by January 2025.
  • Funding amounts analyzed likely underestimate state-level investments in suicide prevention and crisis services.
Interpretation:

The study highlights the need for comprehensive documentation of state-level investments in suicide prevention and crisis services, particularly in the context of the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

Limitations:
  • The analysis may underestimate actual state-level investments due to exclusion criteria.
  • Funding entries without clear allocation amounts were omitted.
Conclusion:

Understanding state-level funding is essential for evaluating behavioral health policy and the effects of initiatives like the 988 system.

Sources:

Original Source(s)

Related Content