Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to fundamentally shift the approach to school safety from law enforcement and punitive measures to comprehensive mental health support and trauma-informed services, particularly for marginalized students.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the use of federal funds for hiring, maintaining, or training law enforcement officers in schools, including amending the COPS Grant Program to reflect this prohibition. It establishes a new competitive grant program, administered by the Secretary of Education, to help local educational agencies (LEAs) transition away from school police by funding mental health professionals, trauma-informed services, and evidence-based disciplinary reforms. The bill also prohibits grant funds from being used for punitive discipline policies, surveillance equipment, or arming school personnel.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the presence of police in schools does not make them safer and instead contributes to the criminalization of students, especially Black, Native American, Latino, LGBTQI+, and students with disabilities, perpetuating the school-to-prison pipeline. They contend that investing in counselors, social workers, nurses, and trauma-informed services creates more inclusive, supportive, and effective learning environments that address the root causes of behavioral issues and improve academic outcomes.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that school resource officers (SROs) are essential for maintaining order, deterring crime, and responding to serious threats, including active shooter situations, thereby ensuring the physical safety of students and staff. They may contend that removing SROs without adequate alternative security measures could leave schools vulnerable and that the bill's approach undermines the role of law enforcement in protecting communities.
The bill is relatively concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act.' This title clearly communicates the bill's central policy objective: to prioritize counseling and support services over law enforcement presence in educational settings.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the short title accurately reflects the bill's transformative goal of shifting resources from policing to supportive services, making its purpose clear to the public and policymakers.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that the title is misleading, suggesting that the bill eliminates all forms of safety or implies that counseling is a sufficient replacement for law enforcement in all school safety scenarios.
Tradeoffs
The title highlights a clear policy direction, which can be seen as either a strength in communicating intent or a point of contention for those who believe in a different approach to school safety.
Section 3
Purpose of the Act
This section outlines the dual purpose of the bill: first, to address the needs of marginalized students and improve academic outcomes by eliminating federal funding for police in schools and establishing evidence-based, trauma-informed services; and second, to support local educational agencies (LEAs) that choose to remove police and invest in personnel and services that create safe and inclusive schools.
Section 5(a)
Prohibition of Federal Funds for Police in Schools
This provision broadly prohibits the use of any federal funds for hiring, maintaining, or training 'covered law enforcement officers' in any capacity within schools. This includes funds from programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program and the 'Cops on the Beat' grant program, effectively cutting off federal financial support for school policing.
Section 5(b)
Amendment to COPS Grant Program
This section specifically amends Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which governs the 'Cops on the Beat' (COPS) grant program. It strikes a paragraph (likely related to school resource officers) and adds a new subsection (n) to explicitly prohibit recipients of COPS grants from using funds for 'covered law enforcement officers' in schools.
Section 6(a)
Establishment of Grant Program for Transitioning Away from Police
This section directs the Secretary of Education to establish a competitive, rolling grant program for local educational agencies (LEAs). The grants are intended to help LEAs replace covered law enforcement officers with mental health and trauma-informed services and to reform school safety and disciplinary policies to be evidence-based and not reliant on the criminal justice system.
Section 6(d)
Required and Permitted Uses of Grant Funds
LEAs receiving grants must use funds to hire or train school counselors, psychologists, nurses, social workers, credible messengers, community health workers, trauma-informed personnel, de-escalation staff, anti-bias staff, and behavior specialists. Permitted uses include implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), restorative justice, social-emotional learning, and providing professional development on trauma-informed care and reducing discipline disparities.
Section 6(e)
Prohibited Uses of Grant Funds
This section explicitly prohibits grant funds from being used for punitive school discipline policies, contracts or agreements with law enforcement that support police presence (including data sharing with DOJ, DHS, ICE, or CBP), the purchase or installation of surveillance equipment (metal detectors, cameras, facial recognition, social media monitoring software), or arming school personnel.
Section 6(g)
Reporting Requirements for Grantees
Local educational agencies receiving grants must submit annual public reports to the Secretary of Education. These reports must detail how funds were used, the number and percentage of students arrested or referred to law enforcement (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, gender, disability status, and free/reduced lunch eligibility), reasons for arrests, and information on the use of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology, and social media monitoring software. Personally identifiable information is protected.
Section 6(i)
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $5,000,000,000 (five billion dollars) to carry out the grant program established in Section 6. This authorization provides the potential funding level for the federal government's investment in supporting local educational agencies in their transition away from school policing.
Defines 'covered law enforcement officer' as any State, Tribal, or local law enforcement officer assigned to, contracting with, or employed by a covered program (elementary/secondary school, LEA, or Head Start program), explicitly including 'school resource officer'.
Section 4(5)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions, but its comprehensive nature is essential for interpreting the bill's reach.
Case for: Supporters argue that a clear and broad definition is necessary to ensure the federal funding prohibition applies consistently to all forms of police presence in schools, preventing loopholes.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against the clarity of a definition itself, but opponents of the bill's overall intent would object to the scope of this definition as it applies to their preferred school safety personnel.
Estimated impact: This definition determines which personnel are affected by the federal funding prohibition and the grant program, impacting potentially tens of thousands of school police officers nationwide.
Prohibits grant funds from being used for agreements with law enforcement that support police in schools, specifically including '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, the specific mention of immigration enforcement agencies reflects a particular concern that might not be immediately apparent from the bill's overall title.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a crucial protection for immigrant students and their families, ensuring that schools remain safe spaces and are not used as conduits for immigration enforcement, which can deter students from attending school.
Case against: Critics might argue that prohibiting data sharing, even with immigration enforcement, could impede legitimate law enforcement efforts or prevent schools from accessing information that could be relevant to student safety or welfare in certain circumstances.
Estimated impact: This provision aims to protect immigrant students and families from potential deportation risks stemming from school interactions, potentially increasing trust between these communities and schools.