Campus Safety Act for Colleges

Summary#

The Campus Accountability and Safety Act of 2026 is a bill that would amend the Higher Education Act’s Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act and a campus-grant law, and require a Government Accountability Office study. Its stated goal is to combat campus sexual assault. It was introduced in the House and is not law.

  • Colleges receiving funds under the Higher Education Act would have to designate sexual and interpersonal violence specialists, provide training, publish support and reporting information, and establish a uniform campus disciplinary process for the listed forms of violence and harassment.
  • Colleges would have to report additional information about rape and fondling incidents involving student respondents, including how many were reported to college officials, led to disciplinary cases, and resulted in findings or sanctions. The reports could not identify complainants or respondents.
  • The Education Department would have to provide a public, searchable campus-safety website with college contact information, required data, complaint information, and details about the department’s investigations and enforcement actions, subject to privacy protections.
  • The bill would add sexual harassment to the campus-grant law’s listed areas and require the Government Accountability Office to study those grants and report to Congress.
  • The Education Secretary could impose civil penalties of up to 1% of a college’s operating budget for failures to meet the new requirements.

What it means for you#

  • Students reporting violence or harassment: Colleges would have to designate a specialist students could contact, including anonymously. The specialist would have to explain reporting choices, rights, possible processes, confidentiality limits, and available support. The college could not require a police report to provide listed accommodations, such as changes to living or academic arrangements.
  • Students in a campus disciplinary process: If the college decides to proceed, it would have to notify both the complainant and respondent in writing within 24 hours. The notice would include the allegation, process, estimated timeline, rights, and applicable policies. A college could not automatically notify police or require cooperation with police as a condition of taking part in the campus process.
  • Students making reports: Colleges could offer anonymous online reporting, but the bill would not require them to investigate a specific incident unless someone reports it to a designated responsible employee or law enforcement. Specialists generally would not have to identify people, subject to state or local law. The bill says colleges may provide an amnesty policy for certain related conduct; it does not require one.
  • Colleges and their employees: Colleges would have to meet new staffing, training, reporting, website, and process requirements. Employees who receive a report would have to tell the reporting person about the specialist and the services available.
  • Grant applicants and taxpayers: The bill adds sexual harassment to the campus-grant law’s listed scope, but does not set a grant amount. It also requires a federal study of the grants.

Money#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill gives no estimate of federal or college costs. It would require federal training materials, a public website, a GAO study, and additional college staffing and compliance work.
  • The Education Secretary could impose penalties of up to 1% of a college’s operating budget. The Secretary could reduce a penalty or agree to a voluntary resolution instead.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not set the costs of the new duties or say how colleges would fund them.
  • The Education Secretary would define an “adequate number” of specialists by college size through rulemaking. Colleges with fewer than 1,000 students could be allowed to partner with another college, but the details are not set in the bill.
  • Confidentiality and whether a specialist must identify someone can depend on state or local law. The bill does not ensure the same level of confidentiality in every state.
  • The bill refers to existing laws and programs but does not include those laws’ full text. Without them, it is not possible to verify exactly what reporting, grant, or campus-process requirements already exist or how the new rules would interact with them.
  • The bill does not set a deadline for the campus-safety website or specify all the rules for displaying investigations and enforcement actions.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to make support easier to find and give students a contact outside the offices that investigate or decide complaints.
  • A possible argument for the reporting rules is that counts on reports, proceedings, outcomes, and sanctions could help the public understand how colleges handle cases.
  • The bill would require colleges to explain options and confidentiality limits, while not making a police report a condition for accommodations.
  • A uniform process and training requirements could make college procedures more consistent, while allowing students to report without automatically involving police.

Case against#

  • One concern is that colleges would have to add staff or contract for services, train employees, collect data, and meet detailed process requirements, without a funding plan in the bill.
  • Public information about department investigations could affect how colleges and complainants are viewed before an investigation is resolved, even though the bill requires privacy protections.
  • The bill leaves important details to later rules, including how many specialists are enough and how “good faith” reports are assessed for amnesty.
  • A penalty of up to 1% of an operating budget is a substantial possible consequence, while the bill leaves the budget definition and penalty decisions to the Education Secretary.