Edward Markey (D-MA)
Community Mental Wellness and Resilience Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Community Mental Wellness and Resilience Act of 2025 aims to prevent and heal mental health and psychosocial conditions through community-based programs. It establishes two types of grants: planning grants of up to $250,000 and program grants of up to $500,000 annually for up to four years. These grants are awarded to resilience coordinating networks that use a public health approach to strengthen community wellness. The bill requires a 20 percent funding set-aside for rural areas. It authorizes $36 million in appropriations for fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
Yes· 3 of 38
- Scored +8
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Mandates a 20 percent funding set-aside specifically for rural areas.
- Scored +8
Does this make mental health care easier to get?
Establishes grants specifically to expand community-based mental wellness and resilience programs.
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Focuses on social, economic, and environmental factors and high-needs schools.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Increases federal spending through the creation of new grant programs.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Appropriates $36 million in new spending over five years.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Support for Rural Communities: Section 2(a)(2)(C)(i) reserves 20 percent of funds for programs in rural areas, ensuring people outside urban or suburban areas have access to these resources.
-
Diverse Community Inclusion: Section 2(c)(2) allows a wide range of groups to participate in resilience networks, including faith organizations, schools, senior care organizations, and individuals who have experienced mental health conditions.
-
Holistic Health Approach: Section 2(f)(1)(B) focuses on a systems perspective that addresses the personal, family, social, economic, and environmental factors that contribute to mental health conditions.
-
Culturally Appropriate Care: Section 2(b)(4) requires programs to use practices that are developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate to engage residents.
-
Accessible Assistance: Section 2(d) provides technical assistance to help eligible organizations and networks develop their grant applications.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Competitive Funding Limits: Section 2(a)(2)(A) states that program grants are awarded on a competitive basis, meaning many communities seeking help may not receive funding.
-
Strict Grant Caps: Section 2(a)(1)(B) and 2(a)(2)(B) limit planning grants to $250,000 and program grants to $500,000 per year, which may restrict the scale of available services.
-
Limited Duration of Support: Section 2(a)(2)(B) limits the period of program grants to no more than 4 years, which could create instability for long-term community programs.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Mandates a 20 percent funding set-aside specifically for rural areas. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Focuses on social, economic, and environmental factors and high-needs schools. Would students be better off under this? — Integrates schools and higher education into wellness and resilience networks. Would children be better off under this? — Includes youth-serving organizations and school-based programs in resilience networks. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically allows for the use of indigenous practices in wellness programs. Would retired people be better off under this? — Includes senior care organizations as core members of the resilience networks. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Explicitly includes senior care organizations in the resilience coordinating networks. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides mental wellness supports for youth and young adults through community programs. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on culturally appropriate practices and social justice organizations. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Requires linguistically and culturally appropriate engagement strategies. Would farmers be better off under this? — Dedicated 20 percent funding set-aside for rural areas. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Requires linguistically and culturally appropriate engagement strategies. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Requires linguistically and culturally appropriate practices for community engagement. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Offers broad community-based psychosocial support for all adults. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Addresses psychosocial conditions and holistic health needs. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Includes social and environmental justice groups in the coordinating networks. Would men be better off under this? — Broad improvement in community mental health services. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases general availability of community mental wellness resources. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Provides grants for community-based wellness programs in urban locales. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increases availability of community-based mental health resources. Would women be better off under this? — Broad improvement in community mental health services. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides general community benefits, though primarily targeted at high-need areas. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Community trauma and behavioral health supports can benefit veterans. Would business owners be better off under this? — Allows business associations to participate in resilience networks.
- Healthcare
- Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Establishes grants specifically to expand community-based mental wellness and resilience programs. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increases availability of non-clinical behavioral health and psychosocial supports. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Broad focus on behavioral health and psychosocial conditions likely covers substance use recovery. Does this put more money into medical research? — Requires programs to use and evaluate evidence-based and promising practices. Does this lower what a hospital stay costs? — Preventative community-based care may reduce the need for expensive emergency hospital visits.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Mandates the use of culturally and linguistically appropriate practices to engage residents. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Addresses economic factors contributing to mental health conditions as part of a holistic approach. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Psychosocial support networks can provide stability for at-risk individuals.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Reserves 20 percent of funding specifically for programs in rural areas. Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Includes disaster preparedness groups in resilience networks to address community trauma.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Creates a new federal grant program and regulatory framework for community resilience. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires a report to Congress on the results and best practices of the grants.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Grant funding for program expansion may create new roles in community health and social services. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improving community mental wellness can lead to better workforce productivity over time. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Increases federal spending through the creation of new grant programs. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Appropriates $36 million in new spending over five years.
- 7/24/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon