Alyssa’s Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 18, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to enhance school safety nationwide by expanding federal resources, developing new technologies, and standardizing data collection and emergency response mapping through the Department of Homeland Security.
What it actually does
This bill expands the Federal Clearinghouse on School Safety Evidence-based Practices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to include public education, training, technical assistance, and a panic alarm technology development program. It also establishes a National School Safety Data Center for comprehensive data collection and analysis, and mandates specific requirements for emergency response maps, prohibiting federal funds for non-compliant maps starting in fiscal year 2026.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill will save lives by providing schools with better tools, training, and data to prevent and respond to emergencies, particularly school shootings. They emphasize the importance of evidence-based practices, rapid response technology like panic alarms, and standardized emergency maps to improve coordination among first responders and school personnel.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill centralizes too much authority within DHS, potentially over-federalizing school safety which is traditionally a local responsibility. Concerns could also be raised about the cost of implementing new technologies and mapping requirements, especially for under-resourced local educational agencies, and potential privacy implications of data collection.
The bill is moderately complex but manageable for an informed reader within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), amending Section 2220D of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
Public Education Efforts on School Emergencies
This provision directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, as part of the Federal Clearinghouse on School Safety Evidence-based Practices, to conduct public education efforts regarding tools and processes necessary to avoid and address school emergencies, including prevention and response. These efforts will include specialized programs for states and school administrators to help identify, address, and prevent school shootings, and will sponsor research into the most effective means of implementation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that widespread public education and targeted information for school leaders are crucial for proactive prevention and effective response, ultimately saving lives by equipping communities with necessary knowledge and tools.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against public education efforts, though some might question the scope or federal role in disseminating such information, preferring local control.
Tradeoffs
Balancing the need for broad public awareness with targeted, actionable information for specific stakeholders, while ensuring the information is culturally and contextually appropriate for diverse communities.
Section 2(a), amending Section 2220D(g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
Training and Technical Assistance for School Safety
This provision requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide training and technical assistance to individuals and entities, including schools, on the evidence-based practices and recommendations of the Clearinghouse. This assistance will also include individualized consulting with schools to help them determine the best way to implement these practices and recommendations tailored to their specific needs.
Section 2(a), amending Section 2220D(i) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
Panic Alarm Technology Development Program
This provision establishes a program for the development, testing, and evaluation of panic alarm technology for utilization by first responders and local educational agencies. The goal is to improve response times, recovery, and loss mitigation during school emergencies. The program will focus on auxiliary equipment, high-sensitivity and reliable equipment, testing methods, and specifications. The Secretary is prohibited from manufacturing or selling the equipment, except for development purposes, and may conduct management studies and research on the technology.
Section 2(a), amending Section 2220D(m) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
Establishment of a National School Safety Data Center
This provision mandates the establishment of an integrated, comprehensive National School Safety Data Center within one year of enactment, accessible via SchoolSafety.gov. The Data Center will collect, analyze, publish, and disseminate information related to the prevention, occurrence, and control of school emergencies, including data on frequency, causes, injuries, deaths, property losses, behavioral hazards, types of safety plans, and other school safety issues. It also requires developing standardized data reporting methods and encouraging state and local data reporting.
Section 2(a), amending Section 2220D(n) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
Annual Report on Clearinghouse Activities
This provision requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an annual report to relevant congressional committees on any activity relating to the Clearinghouse. The report must include statistical analyses, estimates, and long-term projections of human and economic losses due to school shootings, a summary of research and technology efforts, a comparative analysis of school safety plans, an assessment of the Clearinghouse's effectiveness, and policy recommendations for improved school safety.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on Federal Funding for Non-Compliant Emergency Response Maps
This provision prohibits the use of any federal funds, starting in fiscal year 2026, to procure emergency response maps that do not meet a specific set of requirements. These requirements include being in a digital geospatial format, accessible on mobile platforms, capable of real-time updates, interoperable with emergency response systems, having data owned by the site owner, shared securely, stored in the United States, oriented true north, capable of displaying overlaid aerial imagery, and annually verified for accuracy by the local educational agency.
Section 4
Report on School Safety Master Plans
This provision requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an annual report, beginning four years after the date of enactment, on the establishment and effectiveness of school safety master plans throughout the United States. The report must summarize the extent and quality of planning activities, evaluate plans from states and political subdivisions (considering factors like population density, geographic location, and shooting rates), assess the best approaches to planning, and analyze the costs and benefits of master plans.
Mandates the designation of a Director for the Federal Clearinghouse on School Safety Evidence-based Practices within 120 days of enactment, through whom the Secretary of Homeland Security must act in carrying out the Clearinghouse's functions.
Section 2(b)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing statutory bodies. It's a technical amendment to improve governance and centralize accountability for the expanded functions of the Clearinghouse.
Case for: Proponents would argue that designating a specific Director provides clear leadership, accountability, and focus for the expanded responsibilities of the Clearinghouse, ensuring efficient execution of its new mandates.
Case against: No specific case against, as it is an administrative change aimed at improving organizational clarity and effectiveness.
Estimated impact: Streamlines the management and operations of a key federal school safety resource, potentially improving its effectiveness and responsiveness to new mandates.
Requires the Federal Clearinghouse on School Safety Evidence-based Practices to consult with the Director of the United States Secret Service to ensure its practices and recommendations are aligned with the evidence-based support of the National Threat Assessment Center.
Section 2(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing statutory bodies and ensuring inter-agency coordination. It leverages existing expertise from another federal agency.
Case for: Proponents would argue that integrating the expertise of the Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center, which has extensive experience in preventing targeted violence, is crucial for developing the most effective and evidence-based school safety practices.
Case against: No specific case against, as it enhances inter-agency coordination and strengthens the evidence base for school safety recommendations.
Estimated impact: Enhances the quality and consistency of federal school safety guidance by incorporating specialized expertise in threat assessment and targeted violence prevention.
Clarifies that nothing in this Act may be construed to grant any rulemaking or other regulatory authority to the Federal Clearinghouse on School Safety Evidence-based Practices.
Section 5
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic to preempt concerns about federal overreach or the creation of new regulatory burdens, particularly when expanding the scope of a federal entity. It assures stakeholders that the Clearinghouse will remain an advisory and resource-providing body, not a regulatory one.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision is essential to reassure states and local educational agencies that the expanded federal role is about providing resources and best practices, not imposing mandates or regulations, thereby preserving local control over school safety policy.
Case against: Critics might argue that without some regulatory teeth, the Clearinghouse's recommendations might not be widely adopted, limiting the bill's overall impact on improving school safety standards nationwide, especially if compliance is purely voluntary.
Estimated impact: Limits the federal government's ability to enforce the adoption of the Clearinghouse's recommendations, relying instead on voluntary adoption and incentives rather than direct mandates.