PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 20, 2017
Partnership Grants to Strengthen Families Affected by Parental Substance Abuse Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends part B (Child and Family Services) of title IV of the Social Security Act to modify the grant program that provides funding to state and regional partnerships to prevent child abuse and neglect related to substance abuse. The bill redefines "regional partnership" to specify mandatory partners and optional partners engaged in the grant process.
The bill sets the level of grant funding at between $250,000 (currently $500,000) and $1 million per grant per fiscal year.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Grants shall be disbursed in two phases: (1) a planning phase (not to exceed two years), and (2) an implementation phase. The total disbursement to a grantee for the planning phase may not exceed $250,000, and may not exceed the total anticipated funding for the implementation phase.
No payment shall be made for a fiscal year until the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines that the eligible partnership has made sufficient progress in meeting the goals of the grant program, and that the members of the eligible partnership are coordinating to a reasonable degree with the other partnership members.
The bill expands the grant program to include parents and families in the grant application process.
HHS shall:
review (instead of establish) indicators that are used to assess periodically the performance of grant recipients;
establish a set of core indicators related to child safety, parental recovery, parenting capacity, and family well-being;
Grant recipients must report semiannually (currently, annually) to HHS on services provided and activities carried out under the grant program, progress made in achieving the goals of the program, and the number of children, adults, and families receiving services.
(Sec. 3) The amendments made by this bill are effective on October 1, 2017. The bill allows states and Indian tribes additional time for compliance with requirements imposed by this bill.
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4966-4967)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4966-4967)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2834.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4966-4968)
Mrs. Noem moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2834 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2834 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2834 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2834 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.