Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
The bill authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to eligible non-law-enforcement entities for youth gun violence prevention programs. Grants must fund evidence‑informed, culturally competent, trauma‑informed activities like mental health connections, mentoring, community engagement, and firearm safety education.
Funding size and whether $25M per year is adequate
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a substantive federal grant program with clear high-level elements (authority, eligible entities, activities, funding amounts, and statutory cross‑references) but omits significant implementation and accountability detail.
The bill authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to eligible non-law-enforcement entities for youth gun violence prevention programs.
Grants must fund evidence‑informed, culturally competent, trauma‑informed activities like mental health connections, mentoring, community engagement, and firearm safety education.
It directs that, of juvenile justice program appropriations for fiscal years 2026–2030, $100,000,000 be made available for Title V grants and $25,000,000 of that be used for this youth gun violence prevention program.
Low fiscal cost, narrow technical grant program with bipartisan potential; gun issue sensitivity and appropriations follow‑on create uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a substantive federal grant program with clear high-level elements (authority, eligible entities, activities, funding amounts, and statutory cross‑references) but omits significant implementation and accountability detail.
Funding size and whether $25M per year is adequate
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Funding size and whether $25M per year is adequate
Likely generally supportive because the bill prioritizes community‑based, trauma‑informed prevention over policing.
Views it as aligning with investments in mental health, youth development, and non‑punitive violence reduction.
May want larger funding, stronger equity requirements, and explicit outreach to high‑need communities.
Cautiously favorable to targeted, evidence‑informed prevention that avoids additional policing.
Appreciates focus on measurable, community‑based interventions but wants clear funding sources, evaluation, and accountability.
Support depends on clear implementation guidance and performance measurement.
Skeptical of new federal grant programs funding social interventions over enforcement.
Concerned about federal spending, possible inefficiency, and exclusion of law enforcement from eligibility.
May prefer local control, audits, and restrictions on anti‑gun advocacy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low fiscal cost, narrow technical grant program with bipartisan potential; gun issue sensitivity and appropriations follow‑on create uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Funding size and whether $25M per year is adequate
Low fiscal cost, narrow technical grant program with bipartisan potential; gun issue sensitivity and appropriations follow‑on create uncert…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a substantive federal grant program with clear high-level elements (authority, eligible entities, activities, funding amounts, and statutory cross‑referen…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.