Campus Accountability and Safety Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 8, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase transparency, improve victim support, and strengthen institutional accountability in responding to campus sexual assault and related violence through new federal mandates and oversight.
What it actually does
This bill significantly amends the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) and the Higher Education Act of 1965 to enhance campus safety measures related to sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual harassment, and stalking. It mandates new detailed reporting requirements for institutions, establishes a new role for 'sexual and interpersonal violence specialists' to support complainants, requires comprehensive training for campus personnel, and creates a public federal website for campus safety data and enforcement actions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will create a safer campus environment by ensuring greater transparency in how institutions handle sexual assault cases, providing crucial confidential support for survivors, and standardizing trauma-informed responses. They contend that the new reporting requirements will hold institutions more accountable and that clearer definitions and training will lead to more consistent and fair processes for all parties involved.
Opponents contend
Opponents, or those with concerns, might argue that the bill imposes significant unfunded mandates and administrative burdens on institutions, particularly smaller colleges with limited resources. They may also raise concerns about the potential for misinterpretation of detailed disciplinary statistics, the complexity of implementing uniform processes across diverse institutions, or the balance between victim support and due process rights for respondents in campus proceedings.
The bill is relatively concise, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe, though the implications of some amendments to existing law require familiarity with those acts.
Section 2(1)(A)
Enhanced Annual Security Report Publication
This provision requires institutions of higher education to publish their annual security reports in an easily accessible manner, available in different languages, and prominently displayed on the institution's website. This aims to ensure that critical campus safety information is readily available to all students and the wider community.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that making campus security reports more accessible and available in multiple languages is essential for transparency and ensuring that all members of the campus community, including those with language barriers, can access vital safety information.
Critics contend
Some institutions may contend that while the goal is laudable, the requirement for multiple languages adds an administrative and resource burden, especially for smaller institutions, without necessarily reaching a significantly larger audience.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of universal accessibility and transparency with the administrative and financial resources required for institutions to comply with multi-language publication and prominent website display.
Section 2(1)(C) and Section 2(3)
Modernized Definitions for Sexual Offenses
This provision updates the definitions for certain sexual offenses, specifically rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape, to align with current federal crime reporting standards. It provides a specific, consent-based definition for rape ('penetration, no matter how slight... without the consent of the victim') and directs the use of National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) definitions for fondling, incest, and statutory rape.
Section 2(1)(D)
New Reporting on Disciplinary Proceedings for Sexual Assault/Fondling
Institutions are now required to report detailed annual statistics on incidents of rape and fondling where the respondent is a student. This includes the number of incidents reported to Title IX, how many victims sought disciplinary action, cases processed, findings of responsibility (responsible/not responsible), and a description of final sanctions (without personally identifiable information). It also requires reporting cases closed due to a respondent's withdrawal.
Section 3, new 485(f)(20)
Department of Education Public Campus Safety Website
This provision mandates the Secretary of Education to create a publicly available, searchable, and user-friendly website. This website must include information on Title IX coordinator roles, contact information for sexual and interpersonal violence specialists, details on the Department's pending investigations and enforcement actions related to sexual harassment, and downloadable campus safety data reported by institutions.
Section 4, new 485(f)(21)(B)(i)
Mandate for Sexual and Interpersonal Violence Specialists
Institutions must designate one or more 'sexual and interpersonal violence specialists' who are distinct from Title IX coordinators or campus security authorities. These specialists provide victim-centered, trauma-informed support, inform complainants of their rights and options (including confidential reporting), and can arrange reasonable accommodations. They are generally confidential and not obligated to identify complainants unless required by state or local law.
Section 4, new 485(f)(21)(B)(v)
Mandatory Training for Grievance and Interview Personnel
The Secretary of Education, in coordination with the Attorney General and victim services organizations, must develop an evidence-informed training program for all individuals involved in student grievance procedures and interviewing complainants of sexual violence. This training must cover victim-centered techniques, consent, trauma effects, cultural responsiveness, and perpetrator behavior. Institutions are then required to ensure their relevant employees complete this training.
Section 4, new 485(f)(21)(B)(vi)
Uniform Campus-Wide Disciplinary Process
This provision requires each institution to establish and maintain a uniform disciplinary process for claims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or stalking across all its campuses. This process cannot be altered based on a student's characteristics (e.g., athletic team, academic major). Additionally, institutions cannot automatically notify law enforcement or require cooperation with law enforcement as a condition of student participation in a disciplinary proceeding.
Section 4, new 485(f)(21)(C)
Civil Penalties for Non-Compliance
This provision authorizes the Secretary of Education to impose civil penalties of up to 1% of an institution's operating budget for each year it fails to comply with the requirements related to sexual and interpersonal violence specialists and other provisions of this section. It also allows for voluntary resolution agreements and for the Secretary to reduce penalties based on factors like institution size, gravity of the violation, and intent.
Section 5
Expansion of Campus Violent Crimes Grant Eligibility
This section amends Section 304 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 to explicitly include 'sexual harassment' as a crime eligible for grants to combat violent crimes on campus. This expands the scope of activities that can be funded through these federal grants.
Defines 'higher education responsible employee' as an employee with authority to take action to redress domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or stalking; or has the duty to report such misconduct to appropriate school officials.
Section 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms used throughout the bill, rather than an attempt to obscure its meaning.
Case for: Supporters argue that a clear definition of 'responsible employee' is essential for institutions to understand who has reporting obligations, ensuring that incidents are properly escalated and addressed.
Case against: Some critics might argue that a broad definition could inadvertently create reporting obligations for employees who are not adequately trained or equipped to handle such sensitive information, potentially leading to inconsistent responses.
Estimated impact: Clarifies reporting obligations for a wide range of university employees, potentially increasing the number of individuals with a duty to report.
States that sexual and interpersonal violence specialists are not obligated to identify a complainant or respondent, 'unless otherwise required to do so by State or local law,' and shall provide confidential services 'to the extent authorized under State law.'
Section 4, new 485(f)(21)(B)(i)(VIII)
Why it matters:This phrasing is common in federal legislation to acknowledge the supremacy of state and local laws where they exist, rather than an attempt to obscure.
Case for: Proponents argue this language ensures specialists can provide confidential support while respecting existing legal frameworks, preventing conflicts with state-specific victim advocate privileges.
Case against: Critics might argue that the 'to the extent authorized under State law' clause could lead to inconsistent levels of confidentiality across different states, potentially confusing complainants and undermining the goal of universal confidential support.
Estimated impact: Creates potential for variation in the level of confidentiality provided by specialists depending on state law, impacting complainant trust and reporting decisions.
The bill defers the determination of an 'adequate number' of sexual and interpersonal violence specialists for institutions based on size, and a process for small institutions to partner, to a future negotiated rulemaking process by the Secretary of Education.
Section 4, new 485(f)(21)(B)(i)(XI)-(XII)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to allow for expert input and flexibility in implementing complex mandates, rather than an attempt to hide the provision.
Case for: Supporters argue that negotiated rulemaking ensures that the implementation details are practical, fair, and responsive to the diverse needs and resources of different types and sizes of institutions.
Case against: Critics might contend that deferring such a critical detail creates uncertainty for institutions and could delay the full implementation of the specialist program, potentially leaving survivors without adequate support for an extended period.
Estimated impact: The ultimate cost and staffing burden on institutions will be heavily influenced by the outcome of this future rulemaking, which will determine the scale of the specialist mandate.
States that institutions 'may, to the extent practicable,' provide an amnesty policy for students who report domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or stalking in good faith, exempting them from sanctions for related physical violence (self-defense) or alcohol/drug use at the time of the incident.
Section 4, new 485(f)(21)(B)(iv)(I)
Why it matters:This phrasing reflects a compromise to encourage reporting while acknowledging institutional discretion and the need for a 'good faith' determination, rather than an attempt to hide the provision.
Case for: Proponents argue that this flexibility allows institutions to implement amnesty policies that best fit their specific campus culture and resources, while still encouraging reporting by reducing fear of self-incrimination.
Case against: Critics might argue that the permissive language weakens the intent of the provision, potentially leading to inconsistent application of amnesty policies across institutions or making it less effective in encouraging reporting if not universally adopted.
Estimated impact: The actual impact on reporting rates will depend on how widely and robustly institutions choose to implement this discretionary amnesty policy.