Keeping Drugs Out of Schools Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 31, 2025
Bottom line
The bill establishes a federal grant program to fund collaborations between existing community anti-drug coalitions and local schools to prevent substance use and misuse among youth, leveraging established community prevention models.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to award grants to eligible entities, specifically Drug-Free Communities funded coalitions, for establishing school-community partnerships. These partnerships are tasked with implementing effective drug prevention programs tailored to local youth, with an authorization of $7 million annually for six fiscal years.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill strengthens existing, successful community-based drug prevention efforts by providing direct federal funding to integrate them more formally into school environments. They contend that by focusing on tailored, local solutions and leveraging established coalitions, the bill will effectively reduce youth substance use and misuse.
Opponents contend
While generally seen as a positive initiative, some might express concerns about the administrative burden of federal grants on local entities or question the specific metrics for program effectiveness. Others might argue that drug prevention is primarily a local or state responsibility, and federal involvement, even through grants, represents an expansion of federal influence.
The bill is concise and easily digestible, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(b)
Establishment of School-Community Partnership Grant Program
This section authorizes the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to award grants to eligible entities. These entities are Drug-Free Communities funded coalitions that have partnered with at least one local school through a memorandum of understanding. The grants are intended to fund the implementation of effective drug prevention programs tailored to the specific needs of the student population and community.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this direct funding mechanism strengthens existing community-based prevention efforts by integrating them more formally and effectively into school environments, where youth are most accessible. It leverages established, successful coalitions to deliver targeted interventions.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the core concept of funding drug prevention programs, especially when leveraging existing successful models. However, some might raise general concerns about the administrative complexity of federal grants for local entities or the potential for federal funding to influence local educational priorities.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need for federal support with local control, allowing communities to tailor programs while adhering to federal grant guidelines. It also prioritizes leveraging existing infrastructure (DFC coalitions) versus creating entirely new programs.
Section 2(g), 2(e), 2(c)
Funding Authorization and Program Administration
This section authorizes $7,000,000 to be appropriated annually from fiscal years 2026 through 2031 to fund the grant program. It also allows the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to delegate grant execution authority to another National Drug Control Program agency. Funds must be used to implement the detailed prevention plans and can cover specialized training, explicitly stating that these grants must supplement, not supplant, existing funds.
Allows grant recipients to use funds to obtain specialized training and assistance from the organization receiving the grant under section 4(a) of Public Law 107-82 (21 U.S.C. 1521 note).
Section 2(e)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to refer to existing statutory authorities and entities without explicitly naming them in new legislation. It ensures continuity with established programs and leverages existing expertise.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that new partnerships benefit from proven training methodologies and resources provided by an experienced national organization, maximizing the effectiveness of the grants and promoting best practices.
Case against: Critics might argue that tying funds to a specific, pre-existing organization could limit flexibility or innovation in training approaches, or that it implicitly favors one provider over others, potentially reducing competition for services.
Estimated impact: Ensures a consistent quality of training and support for grant recipients, potentially enhancing program effectiveness nationwide by leveraging an established national resource (likely Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America - CADCA).