Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The bill creates the "Mental Health Excellence in Schools Program" at the Department of Education to expand the school-based mental health workforce. Eligible graduate institutions enter agreements to contribute to participating students' cost of attendance, with the Secretary matching up to 50 percent if institutions match.
Liberals want larger funding and service commitments; conservatives oppose more federal spending
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a new federal funding program with clear purpose, defined eligible participants and institutions, specified funding authorizations, and explicit reporting and evaluation requirements, but it leaves several implementation and safeguard details unspecified.
The bill creates the "Mental Health Excellence in Schools Program" at the Department of Education to expand the school-based mental health workforce.
Eligible graduate institutions enter agreements to contribute to participating students' cost of attendance, with the Secretary matching up to 50 percent if institutions match.
The program prioritizes students with Pell grants or from certain institutions, requires annual reporting and independent evaluation, and authorizes funding from FY2026–2030.
Narrow, technical, and bipartisan-friendly content improves prospects, but success depends on appropriations and legislative calendar/priorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a new federal funding program with clear purpose, defined eligible participants and institutions, specified funding authorizations, and explicit reporting and evaluation requirements, but it leaves several implementation and safeguard details unspecified.
Liberals want larger funding and service commitments; conservatives oppose more federal spending
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals want larger funding and service commitments; conservatives oppose more federal spending
Overall supportive because it aims to expand access to school mental health professionals and targets low-income students.
Supports public-private matching as a leverage mechanism but would prefer stronger equity and service provisions.
Views evaluation and reporting as useful but likely insufficient without larger investments.
Generally favorable as a targeted, time-limited federal effort to address school mental health shortages.
Appreciates the matching model and mandated evaluation, but wants clearer cost controls and measurable outcomes.
Sees room for pragmatic adjustments to maximize effectiveness.
Skeptical of new federal spending and involvement in higher education financing.
May accept limited matching if it meaningfully leverages private commitments, but concerned about federal prioritization and lack of local control.
Would press for stronger accountability and service ties to public schools.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, technical, and bipartisan-friendly content improves prospects, but success depends on appropriations and legislative calendar/priorities.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals want larger funding and service commitments; conservatives oppose more federal spending
Narrow, technical, and bipartisan-friendly content improves prospects, but success depends on appropriations and legislative calendar/prior…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a new federal funding program with clear purpose, defined eligible participants and institutions, specified funding authorizations, and explicit reporting…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.