Summary#
The Campus Accountability and Safety Act is an introduced bill, not a law. It would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, including the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, and the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. Its stated goal is to combat campus sexual assault; passage is uncertain.
- Colleges receiving federal funds under the Higher Education Act would have to appoint sexual and interpersonal violence specialists, provide specified support and information, and follow new rules for student disciplinary proceedings.
- Colleges would have to publish more campus safety information and report additional statistics about certain incidents and disciplinary outcomes.
- The Education Secretary would have to create a searchable public campus safety website and develop training materials. The Secretary could impose civil penalties for certain failures.
- The bill would add sexual harassment to the campus activities covered by an existing federal grant program and require a Government Accountability Office study of that program.
What it means for you#
- Students who report violence or harassment: Colleges would have to designate specialists who can receive reports, including anonymous reports, and explain reporting options, processes, rights, and available support. Specialists could help arrange reasonable accommodations, such as changes to living or academic arrangements. A college could not make law-enforcement reporting a condition of those accommodations.
- Students and employees involved in a disciplinary case: Colleges would have to use a uniform campus-wide process for covered claims, without changing the process based on a student’s status or characteristics. They could not require a student to cooperate with law enforcement as a condition of taking part in the campus process. Both parties would have to receive written notice within 24 hours after the college decides to proceed, with information about the process and their rights.
- Students considering an anonymous report: Colleges could offer an online anonymous reporting system, but the bill would not require one. If a college uses one, the system must explain how to contact the specialist and report to college officials or law enforcement. The college would only be required to investigate a specific crime if someone reports it to a responsible employee or law enforcement.
- Colleges: They would have to train specified staff, publish information about reporting and support, and submit specialist and Title IX coordinator information and training records to federal agencies. The bill does not require a college to have an online reporting system or an amnesty policy; it says a college may provide an amnesty policy when practicable.
- People using federal campus-safety information: The Education Department would have to publish institutional data and information about certain sexual-harassment investigations and enforcement matters, subject to privacy protections.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- Colleges would have to provide specialists and carry out new staffing, training, reporting, and publication duties, but the bill gives no cost estimate or staffing amount.
- The Education Department would have to build and maintain a public website and develop training materials. The bill gives no cost estimate.
- The bill does not specify new grant funding or an appropriation amount. It would add sexual harassment to the activities covered by an existing grant program.
- The Education Secretary could impose a civil penalty of up to 1% of a college’s operating budget for each year of certain noncompliance. The Secretary could reduce a penalty or agree to a voluntary resolution.
What is unclear#
- The bill leaves “adequate number” of specialists to federal rulemaking. It also leaves details of how colleges with fewer than 1,000 students could partner with another institution to that process.
- The bill does not set the total costs of compliance or say how colleges or federal agencies would pay them.
- It is unclear how the new requirements would interact with other applicable college policies and legal duties. The parent Acts were not supplied, so the current-law baseline and overlap could not be checked against them.
- The bill does not set out detailed rules for how specialists’ services would be confidential. It says confidentiality applies to the extent state law authorizes it and recognizes other legal limits.
- The bill leaves important implementation details, including how penalties would be assessed and how colleges would meet some training and reporting duties, to federal rules.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that students would have a designated support contact separate from the people investigating or deciding a complaint.
- Requiring clearer information about reporting choices, accommodations, and campus and criminal processes could help students understand what may happen before they decide how to report.
- More consistent disciplinary procedures and additional public data could make college practices easier to compare and federal oversight more visible.
- Adding sexual harassment to the existing grant program’s covered activities could allow grant-funded work to address a wider range of campus harms.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill creates substantial staffing, training, and reporting duties without estimating the cost or providing a stated funding amount.
- The number of specialists required and some important operating details depend on later rulemaking, so colleges would not know the full requirements from the bill alone.
- More public reporting could create privacy risks if information is not properly protected, although the bill requires de-identification and other privacy safeguards.
- The bill gives the Education Secretary discretion over penalties of up to 1% of an institution’s operating budget, while leaving the operating-budget definition and implementation details to the Secretary.