Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 8, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to eliminate the presence of police in schools by redirecting federal funds towards comprehensive mental health and supportive services, particularly for marginalized student populations.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits federal funding for hiring, maintaining, or training police officers in schools and amends the 'Cops on the Beat' grant program to exclude such uses. It establishes a new competitive grant program, administered by the Secretary of Education, to help local educational agencies (LEAs) replace school police with mental health professionals, social workers, nurses, and other trauma-informed personnel. The bill also supports LEAs in reforming disciplinary policies to rely on evidence-based practices rather than the criminal justice system.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the presence of police in schools disproportionately criminalizes Black, Native American, Latino, LGBTQI+, and disabled students, contributing to the 'school-to-prison pipeline' without improving safety. They contend that investing in counselors, social workers, and trauma-informed services creates more inclusive, safe, and effective learning environments, addressing the root causes of behavioral issues rather than relying on punitive measures.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that removing police officers from schools could compromise safety, especially in the face of serious threats or violence, and remove a visible deterrent to crime. They might contend that school resource officers (SROs) are trained to de-escalate situations, build positive relationships with students, and are essential for emergency response, and that a complete removal could leave schools vulnerable.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 5(a)
Prohibition of Federal Funds for Police in Schools
This provision explicitly prohibits the use of any federal funds for the hiring, maintenance, or training of 'covered law enforcement officers' in any capacity within elementary or secondary schools or programs serving children. This means that federal dollars currently supporting school police programs would no longer be available.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this prohibition is essential to dismantle the 'school-to-prison pipeline' by removing federal incentives for school policing, which disproportionately affects marginalized students. They believe it will encourage schools to adopt more supportive, less punitive approaches to student behavior.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that this provision removes a critical funding source for school safety initiatives, potentially leaving schools without adequate security personnel to respond to emergencies or deter crime. They might contend it undermines local control over school safety decisions.
Tradeoffs
This provision trades off direct law enforcement presence, which some view as a safety measure, against the goal of reducing student criminalization and fostering a more supportive school environment. It creates a tension between traditional security models and alternative, holistic approaches.
Section 5(b)
Amendment to COPS Grant Program
This section amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, specifically the 'Cops on the Beat' grant program (part Q of title I), by striking the paragraph that allowed grants for school resource officers and explicitly adding a new subsection. The new subsection prohibits recipients of COPS grants from using these funds for 'covered law enforcement officers' in schools. This ensures that even existing federal law enforcement grant programs cannot be used to fund police in schools.
Section 6(a)
Establishment of Grant Program for Transition
This section establishes a new competitive and rolling grant program, to be administered by the Secretary of Education. The purpose of these grants is to enable local educational agencies (LEAs) to replace covered law enforcement officers in schools with personnel and services that support mental health and trauma-informed care. Additionally, the grants aim to help LEAs reform their school safety and disciplinary policies to align with evidence-based practices that do not rely on the criminal justice system.
Section 6(b) and 6(c)
Grant Application Requirements and Priority
To receive a grant, LEAs must assure they will not have covered law enforcement officers on school campuses at least 30 days prior to receiving funds and will not establish new contracts or police departments for the grant's duration. Priority is given to LEAs that have already terminated police contracts, those with a higher proportion of economically disadvantaged students, and those demonstrating meaningful community engagement in identifying uses for the funds and establishing stakeholder oversight.
Section 6(d)
Required and Permitted Uses of Grant Funds
LEAs receiving grants are required to use funds to hire, maintain, or train school counselors, psychologists, nurses, social workers, credible messengers, community health workers, trauma-informed personnel, and staff trained in de-escalation, violence interruption, and anti-bias practices. Permitted uses include implementing schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), restorative justice programs, social and emotional learning (SEL), and providing professional development to staff on fostering safe environments, identifying trauma, and reducing punitive discipline for marginalized students.
Section 6(e)
Prohibited Uses of Grant Funds
This section explicitly prohibits grant funds from being used for punitive school discipline policies, including contracts or agreements with law enforcement that support police presence, or data/information sharing with the Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security (including ICE/CBP). Funds also cannot be used for surveillance equipment (metal detectors, cameras, facial recognition, social media monitoring software) or for arming school personnel.
Section 6(g)
Annual Reporting Requirements
Each LEA receiving a grant must submit an annual public report to the Secretary of Education. This report must detail how funds were used, the number and percentage of students arrested or referred to law enforcement (compared to the previous year), reasons for arrests, and demographic data (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, gender, disability status, and free/reduced lunch eligibility). It also requires reporting on the use of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology, and social media monitoring software, along with governing policies.
The definition of 'covered law enforcement officer' is broad, including any State, Tribal, or local law enforcement officer assigned by their agency, contracting with, or employed by a covered program (elementary school, secondary school, or LEA), and explicitly includes 'school resource officer'.
Section 4(5)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions, but its breadth is key to understanding the full scope of the bill's prohibitions.
Case for: Supporters argue this broad definition is necessary to prevent loopholes where schools might rebrand police officers to circumvent the federal funding prohibition, ensuring the intent of the bill is fully realized.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could inadvertently capture individuals who perform security functions but are not traditional police, potentially limiting flexibility for schools to maintain safety personnel.
Estimated impact: This definition ensures that the federal funding prohibition applies to virtually all forms of armed law enforcement presence in schools, regardless of specific title or employment arrangement.
Grant funds are explicitly prohibited from being used for 'formal or informal partnerships or data and information sharing agreements with the Department of Justice or Secretary of Homeland Security, including U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U. S. Customs and Border Protection'.
Section 6(e)(1)
Why it matters:While part of a list, this specific prohibition addresses a highly sensitive and politically charged issue, which could be easily overlooked if not read carefully.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a crucial protection for immigrant students and their families, preventing schools from becoming conduits for immigration enforcement and fostering trust within immigrant communities, which is essential for student success.
Case against: Critics might argue that this prohibition could hinder legitimate information sharing that might be necessary for national security or criminal investigations, potentially creating silos that could compromise broader public safety efforts.
Estimated impact: This provision aims to create a 'safe haven' for immigrant students in schools receiving these grants, reducing fear of deportation and encouraging engagement with school services.