PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 13, 2017
Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2017
This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to:
revise and reauthorize grant programs for offender reentry demonstration projects; family-based substance abuse treatment; and evaluating and improving educational methods at prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities; and
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
repeal grant programs for offender reentry courts and drug treatment alternatives to incarceration.
Additionally, the legislation amends the Second Chance Act of 2007 to:
rename, revise, and reauthorize grant programs for technology career training demonstration projects and reentry mentoring services,
reauthorize offender reentry research and the grant program for offender reentry substance abuse and criminal justice collaboration,
reauthorize and modify eligibility for an elderly offender early release pilot program, and
repeal grant programs for the responsible reintegration of offenders and the study of Depot Naltrexone to treat heroin addiction.
It amends the federal criminal code to establish partnerships between prisons and faith- or community-based nonprofit organizations to conduct activities to reduce recidivism.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Inspector General must conduct annual audits of selected grant recipients to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds. The bill prohibits grants to nonprofit organizations that hold money in an offshore account to avoid tax liability. It also prohibits a grantee from using grant funds to lobby DOJ or a state, local, or tribal government regarding the award of grant funding.
DOJ, in collaboration with interested persons, providers, and organizations, and state, local, and tribal governments, must coordinate and report to Congress on federal reentry programs, policies, and practices.
The bill limits the use of grants for conferences that use more than $20,000 in DOJ funds.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 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.2899 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.2899 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.2899 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.2899 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.