Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Authorizes the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to award grants to Drug‑Free Communities coalitions that have memoranda of understanding with local elementary, middle, or high schools. Grants (up to $75,000 per year per recipient) fund school‑community partnerships to implement tailored drug prevention programs, renewable for up to three additional fiscal years.
Progressives worry about program content and equitable access.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a narrowly scoped substantive grant program with clear purpose, well-integrated references to existing law, and concrete funding parameters, while appropriately delegating routine procedural and administrative details to the administering agency.
Authorizes the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to award grants to Drug‑Free Communities coalitions that have memoranda of understanding with local elementary, middle, or high schools.
Grants (up to $75,000 per year per recipient) fund school‑community partnerships to implement tailored drug prevention programs, renewable for up to three additional fiscal years.
Total authorization is $7,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2026–2031, with up to 8% for administrative costs, and grants must supplement, not supplant, existing funds.
Narrow, low-controversy program with modest budget increases prospects; final outcome hinges on appropriations and any policy content disputes.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a narrowly scoped substantive grant program with clear purpose, well-integrated references to existing law, and concrete funding parameters, while appropriately delegating routine procedural and administrative details to the administering agency.
Progressives worry about program content and equitable access.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives worry about program content and equitable access.
Generally supportive of community‑based prevention and school partnerships, but cautious about program content and equity of access.
Would seek assurances programs are evidence‑based, non‑punitive, and reach underserved students.
May be concerned that restricting grants to existing Drug‑Free Communities coalitions limits access for communities without those grantees.
Favorable to a modest, targeted federal support program that leverages existing community coalitions and includes evaluation.
Values the fiscal restraint and supplement‑not‑supplant rule but would push for clear evidence standards and measurable outcomes.
Sees the bill as practical, incremental, and administratively limited.
Mixed view: supportive of school drug‑prevention in principle but skeptical of new federal grants and federal involvement in local schools.
Prefers state and local solutions and worries about federal mandates, ideological content, or curricular influence.
May accept the bill's limited scale if programs remain locally controlled.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-controversy program with modest budget increases prospects; final outcome hinges on appropriations and any policy content disputes.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives worry about program content and equitable access.
Narrow, low-controversy program with modest budget increases prospects; final outcome hinges on appropriations and any policy content dispu…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a narrowly scoped substantive grant program with clear purpose, well-integrated references to existing law, and concrete funding parameters, while appropr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.