PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 29, 2011
Saving Money and Reducing Tragedies through Prevention Act of 2011 or the SMART Prevention Act of 2011 - Amends the Violence against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to replace provisions regarding grants to assist children and youth exposed to violence with a Saving Money and Reducing Tragedies through Prevention (SMART Prevention) grant program.
Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants for the purpose of preventing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking (such violence) by taking a comprehensive approach that focuses on youth, children exposed to violence, and men as leaders and influencers of social norms.
Permits the use of grant funds to develop, maintain, or enhance programs that: (1) change attitudes and behaviors around the acceptability of such violence and provide education and skills training to young individuals and those who influence them; (2) are designed to prevent future incidents of such violence by preventing, reducing, and responding to children's exposure to violence in the home; and (3) work with men to prevent such violence by helping men to serve as role models and social influencers of other men and youth at the individual, school, community, or statewide levels.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) eligible entities to receive grants; (2) grantee requirements; and (3) fund allotments, including for Indian tribes or tribal organizations. Repeals provisions of: (1) VAWA regarding development of curricula and pilot programs for home visitation projects and regarding engaging men and youth in preventing such violence, and (2) the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 regarding a public awareness campaign regarding domestic violence against pregnant women.
People & committees
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.1920 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 S.1920 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 S.1920 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 S.1920 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.