Counseling Grants for Student Survivors

Summary#

The SUCCESS Act of 2026 would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to create competitive grants for colleges and universities. Its stated goal is to support student survivors of sexual assault and other violence with patient-centered academic counseling and related services. It is an introduced bill, not law.

  • The Secretary would award five-year grants to eligible institutions, if Congress makes money available.
  • Grant applicants would describe how they will inform students, train faculty and staff, and coordinate counseling and tutoring.
  • Grant recipients could use funds for one or more listed purposes, including re-entry help, training, academic accommodations, mental health services, or a fund for wrap-around services.
  • The Secretary must give priority to institutions with a history of Title IX violations, community colleges, and minority-serving institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities.
  • Grant recipients must report on accommodations requested and given, and on survivors’ graduation and re-enrollment rates. The Secretary must report on graduation and re-enrollment rates after the program ends.

What it means for you#

  • Colleges and universities: An eligible institution would have to apply and win a competitive grant to receive funds. If it does, it must use them for at least one listed purpose and report on its program. The bill does not guarantee funding to any institution.
  • Student survivors: A funded institution could use grant money for services such as tutoring, academic accommodations, mental health services, or help returning after a leave or withdrawal. The bill does not give individual students a right to receive these services.
  • Faculty and staff: A funded institution could use grant money for training. Applicants must describe how they will train faculty and staff to support and connect survivors with patient-centered care.
  • Taxpayers: The bill authorizes federal funding but does not set a dollar amount.

Money#

The bill authorizes “such sums as may be necessary” for fiscal years 2027 through 2031, but gives no cost estimate.

  • Grants would come from amounts made available to carry out the program; the bill does not itself appropriate a specific amount.
  • The bill does not say how many grants would be awarded, how large they would be, or what it would cost to run the program.

What is unclear#

  • “Other violence” is not defined. The bill defines “patient-centered,” but does not set detailed rules for how services must be delivered.
  • The bill does not set award amounts, application deadlines, or detailed selection criteria beyond the required priorities.
  • It does not say how student access to services will be decided, or set timelines, appeals, or minimum service levels.
  • It does not specify how reports should protect students’ privacy when describing accommodations requested and given, or reporting graduation and re-enrollment rates.
  • The Higher Education Act is not included in the supplied material, so how this new program would interact with existing law or programs could not be verified.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address the academic effects of trauma, not only students’ mental health needs.
  • Grants could let institutions combine academic support, training, and mental health services around survivors’ needs.
  • The required priority for community colleges, minority-serving institutions, and institutions with Title IX violation histories directs attention to those named groups.
  • Five-year grants could give institutions time to build services and report on student outcomes.

Case against#

  • A competitive grant program would not ensure that every eligible institution—or every survivor—gets support.
  • The bill does not set minimum services or explain how institutions should decide which students receive them, so support could vary.
  • The bill requires sensitive reporting but does not specify privacy safeguards in the text.
  • “Other violence,” “history of violations,” and “wrap-around services” could lead to different interpretations because the bill does not define them.