S. 1897 (119th)Bill Overview

A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to establish the Adverse Childhood Experiences Response Team grant program, and for other purposes.

Crime and Law Enforcement|Crime and Law Enforcement
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
May 22, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Creates an Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Response Team grant program added to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. The Attorney General, coordinating with HHS, may award grants to States, localities, Indian Tribes, and community organizations to establish trauma-response teams, protocols, referrals, training, cross-system coordination, and technical assistance.

Why people may split

Role of law enforcement: support for integrated response versus fear of criminalization

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions primarily as an authorization to establish a grant program addressing adverse childhood experiences.

Creates an Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Response Team grant program added to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.

The Attorney General, coordinating with HHS, may award grants to States, localities, Indian Tribes, and community organizations to establish trauma-response teams, protocols, referrals, training, cross-system coordination, and technical assistance.

Authorizes $10 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2029 to carry out the program.

Passage65/100

Modest, administratively focused grant program with limited cost and broad eligibility increases viability, but needs committee action and appropriation placement.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions primarily as an authorization to establish a grant program addressing adverse childhood experiences. It specifies eligible recipients, permissible uses of funds, responsible federal actors, and a multiyear appropriation amount, but leaves substantial implementation detail to the administering agency.

Contention65/100

Role of law enforcement: support for integrated response versus fear of criminalization

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governmentsCommunities

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Local governmentsSupports development of local trauma-informed response capacity across law enforcement, health, and community providers.
  • Potential benefitFunds training for emergency responders and service providers on trauma-informed care, improving service quality.
  • Potential benefitFacilitates cross-system coordination that could reduce service gaps and referral delays for children exposed to trauma.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenAuthorized funding of $10 million annually may be viewed as modest relative to nationwide ACEs needs.
  • CommunitiesGrant application and reporting requirements could increase administrative burden for small community organizations.
  • Potential burdenIntegrating law enforcement into trauma responses could raise concerns about criminalization of child welfare issues.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Role of law enforcement: support for integrated response versus fear of criminalization
Progressive80%

Generally supportive because the bill funds trauma-informed responses and community supports for children exposed to violence and trauma.

Would seek stronger community leadership, equity requirements, and higher funding to scale evidence-based services while limiting harmful policing responses.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Moderately supportive as a targeted, modest federal grant program that encourages coordination between justice and health systems.

Views it as a useful pilot but wants clear metrics, evaluation, and safeguards against duplication or mission creep.

Leans supportive
Conservative30%

Skeptical of federal expansion into social service delivery though the program is modest.

Concerned about added bureaucracy, potential federal encroachment on state/local priorities, and vague standards that could politicize services.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood65/100

Modest, administratively focused grant program with limited cost and broad eligibility increases viability, but needs committee action and appropriation placement.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No CBO cost or offset estimate included
  • How committees prioritize this bill among other legislative items
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Role of law enforcement: support for integrated response versus fear of criminalization

Modest, administratively focused grant program with limited cost and broad eligibility increases viability, but needs committee action and…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions primarily as an authorization to establish a grant program addressing adverse childhood experiences. It specifies eligible recipients, permissible uses of f…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis