Period PROUD (Providing Resources for Our Underserved and Disadvantaged) Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 4, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to address period poverty by providing dedicated federal funding through the SSBG program to increase access to menstrual products for low-income individuals across the United States.
What it actually does
This bill increases funding for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program by $200 million annually for fiscal years 2026-2029. These additional funds are specifically earmarked for States and eligible entities to distribute free menstrual products, conduct community outreach for existing programs, and improve access for low-income individuals. It also mandates an evaluation of the program's effectiveness by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a crucial step to address period poverty, a public health issue affecting millions of low-income individuals who struggle to afford essential menstrual products. They contend that lack of access can lead to health risks, missed school or work, and perpetuate cycles of poverty, and that integrating this funding into an existing block grant program like SSBG ensures efficient distribution through established networks.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the goal is laudable, expanding the SSBG program with earmarked funds could create administrative burdens for states and eligible entities, potentially diverting resources from other critical social services. Some may also question the federal government's role in directly funding menstrual product distribution, suggesting it might be better handled at state or local levels, or through private charities.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)
Social Services Block Grant Program Funding Increase
This provision increases the annual appropriation for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program by $200,000,000 for fiscal years 2026 through 2029. This additional funding is specifically designated for states to obligate towards increasing the availability of menstrual products for low-income individuals.
Supporters argue
This direct appropriation provides a stable and significant funding stream to tackle period poverty nationwide, leveraging the existing SSBG framework for efficient distribution.
Critics contend
Some might argue that increasing federal spending for this purpose adds to the national debt or that the SSBG is not the most appropriate vehicle for this specific type of funding, preferring more targeted or localized programs.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for dedicated funding with the flexibility of a block grant program, potentially creating administrative overhead for states to manage the earmarked funds.
Section 2(a)(2)
Annual Appropriation and Set-Asides
This section formally appropriates $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2029. It also reserves a portion of these funds (up to 2%) for technical assistance and training for grantees and subgrantees, and up to $2,000,000 in FY2026 for an evaluation of the program's effectiveness. States are not entitled to these reserved funds.
Section 2(b)(1)
State Obligation and Program Goals
States must use the additional funds, in consultation with stakeholders, to decrease the unmet need for menstrual products among low-income menstruating individuals. This includes distributing free products, conducting community outreach, and improving overall access. Funds must supplement, not supplant, existing efforts and adhere to SSBG limitations.
Section 2(b)(2)
Permitted Activities for Grantees
Eligible entities receiving funds can use them to purchase and distribute menstrual products, integrate these activities with other basic needs assistance programs (like TANF, Medicaid, WIC, home visiting), provide training or technical assistance, and cover administrative costs (limited to 9%). The Secretary cannot limit distribution locations.
Section 2(b)(4)
No Impact on Other Federal Needs-Based Programs
Any assistance or benefits (i.e., menstrual products) received by a family through this program will not count against their eligibility for, or the amount of, benefits they receive from other federal needs-based programs (like SNAP, housing assistance, etc.).
Section 2(c) and 2(d)
Annual Reports and Program Effectiveness Evaluation
States are required to submit annual reports on how they use the funds, similar to existing SSBG reporting. The Secretary of Health and Human Services must complete an evaluation of the program's effectiveness by December 30, 2031, focusing on mitigating health risks, and report findings to Congress by March 31, 2032, and publish them online by April 30, 2032.
Section 2(f)
Key Definitions
Defines "menstrual products" broadly to include cups, discs, underwear, sanitary napkins, and tampons, conforming to industry standards. "Eligible entity" is defined as state/local government, Indian tribes, or 501(c)(3) nonprofits with experience in basic need distributions, demonstrating competency, and willingness to share information.
Funds made available to carry out this section shall be exempt from reduction under any order issued under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Section 2(h)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for protecting specific funding streams from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts (sequestration), often included in bills where consistent funding is deemed critical. It's a technical but important fiscal protection.
Case for: Supporters argue that this exemption ensures the dedicated funding for menstrual products remains stable and predictable, preventing unforeseen cuts that could undermine the program's ability to address a critical public health need.
Case against: Critics of such exemptions generally argue that they reduce fiscal discipline and make it harder to control overall federal spending, as more programs become insulated from budget balancing mechanisms.
Estimated impact: Protects $200,000,000 annually for four fiscal years (FY2026-2029) from potential cuts.
Explicitly states that the State entitlement under section 2002(a) of the Social Security Act (which governs SSBG allocations) shall not apply to the amounts reserved for technical assistance, training, and evaluation.
Section 2(a)(2)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:This is a technical clarification to ensure that the set-aside funds for program support and evaluation are managed centrally by the Secretary of HHS or designated entities, rather than being distributed to states as part of their regular SSBG allocation. It's standard for specific program support funds.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that critical technical assistance, training, and program evaluation functions are adequately funded and managed at a national level, benefiting all states and grantees by promoting best practices and accountability.
Case against: Some states might prefer that all funds appropriated under the SSBG umbrella be subject to the state entitlement formula, giving them more control over how all resources are allocated, including for administrative support.
Estimated impact: Affects up to 2% of the $200 million annual appropriation (up to $4 million) plus the $2 million evaluation fund, ensuring these specific amounts are centrally managed.