HR-4253-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
What it does
The bill would direct the Education Secretary to award competitive grants, for up to 5 years and renewable for up to 2 more, to high-need school districts, educational service agencies acting for them, or state education agencies. Funds would be used to hire, recruit, and retain school-based mental health providers, including through stipends, relocation benefits, and loan repayment. Grantees would have to provide at least a 25 percent non-federal match, use funds to supplement rather than replace existing funds, and report annually on staffing and student-to-provider ratios. It would authorize "such sums as may be necessary" for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
Students in high-need districts, which are among the highest 15 percent in their state by poverty counts and fall short on counselor, psychologist, or social worker ratios. Counselors, school psychologists, and social workers who could receive stipends, relocation help, or loan repayment. Bureau of Indian Education schools and outlying areas, which receive 1 percent set-asides each. Teachers and school staff who may see lighter demands from student mental health needs.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, since the bill would authorize unspecified amounts for five years. Districts that must raise a 25 percent non-federal match, which could strain poorer budgets. Districts that do not meet the high-need definition, such as those outside the top 15 percent in their state or that meet two of the staffing ratios, and so could not apply. Applicants that lose competitive awards, and grantees that must bear reporting and data costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that many schools fall far short of recommended ratios of one counselor per 250 students and one psychologist per 500 students, and that targeting the highest-poverty districts directs scarce dollars where shortages are most acute. They contend the matching requirement, supplement-not-supplant rule, and annual public reporting on ratios and attrition create accountability, and that retention incentives address staff turnover.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the open-ended "such sums as may be necessary" authorization lacks a spending cap and adds to federal costs without a defined offset. They contend that school staffing is traditionally a state and local responsibility, that the 25 percent match may burden poorer districts, and that temporary grants of five to seven years could leave districts unable to sustain new positions afterward.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), and the grant conditions here, such as the match and reporting rules, would be tested under South Dakota v. Dole (1987), which allows conditions that are clearly stated and related to the program's purpose. Because the grants are voluntary and competitive, the Tenth Amendment concern about federal intrusion into traditionally state-run education is limited.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (the Education Department) gains discretion to select grantees and set application and reporting requirements, while Congress retains control through appropriations and reporting data; courts review any conditions under the Spending Clause.
Historical precedent
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 funded school-based mental health professional grants through the Education Department, and a similar earlier grant program existed under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.