Beyond the Box for Higher Education Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill encourages colleges to remove criminal and juvenile justice questions from admissions applications and provides federal support for institutions to adopt more inclusive admissions and support practices for justice-involved individuals.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Education to issue guidance and recommendations for institutions of higher education on removing criminal and juvenile justice questions from their application for admissions process. It also mandates the provision of training and technical assistance to colleges for implementing these recommendations and requires the establishment of a resource center for best practices and research related to justice-involved individuals in postsecondary education. The goal is to reduce barriers to higher education for individuals with past criminal or juvenile justice involvement.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that removing criminal and juvenile justice questions from college applications will significantly increase educational opportunities for the estimated 70 million Americans with such records, thereby improving their successful reentry into society, reducing recidivism, and fostering stable employment. They emphasize that this change is crucial for addressing the disproportionate impact of collateral consequences on people of color and low-income individuals, ultimately strengthening communities.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that encouraging institutions to remove criminal and juvenile justice questions from applications could potentially compromise campus safety by limiting an institution's ability to fully assess an applicant's background, especially concerning offenses that could pose a risk to the student body or staff. They may also express concerns about the administrative burden on institutions to implement new policies and training, even with federal guidance.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy to understand its core provisions and intent.
Section 3, adding Section 124(a)(1) and (2) to the HEA
Secretary to Issue 'Beyond the Box' Guidance and Recommendations
This provision directs the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice and community stakeholders, to develop and issue guidance and recommendations for colleges on how to remove criminal and juvenile justice questions from their admissions applications. It outlines specific recommendations for institutions, including determining the necessity of such information, how to ask questions in non-admissions contexts (ensuring specificity, transparency, and opportunity for explanation), and how to handle information if it is deemed necessary for admissions (delaying inquiry, providing notice for denial, specific questions, opportunity to explain, and staff training).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this guidance will standardize best practices across institutions, effectively reduce the 'chilling effect' of criminal history questions on applicants, and help colleges create more equitable admissions processes without compromising safety. This, in turn, is expected to significantly increase educational attainment for a vulnerable population.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that federal guidance, even if non-binding, could exert undue pressure on institutions to adopt policies they believe are not in their best interest for campus safety, or that it represents an overreach of federal involvement into institutional admissions autonomy.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between the federal goal of increasing educational access for justice-involved individuals and respecting the autonomy of higher education institutions to set their own admissions policies and address campus safety concerns.
Section 3, adding Section 124(a)(3) to the HEA
Training and Technical Assistance for Institutions
This section requires the Secretary of Education to use existing departmental funds to provide comprehensive training and technical assistance to colleges. This training is designed to help institutions develop and implement policies and procedures aligned with the 'Beyond the Box' recommendations. It includes specialized training for admissions, financial aid, enrollment management, registrars, student housing, student life, and career counseling staff, covering topics like avoiding proxy questions, supporting formerly incarcerated students in work-study and campus employment, and providing targeted career guidance.
Section 3, adding Section 124(b) to the HEA
Establishment of a Resource Center
This provision directs the Secretary of Education to establish a resource center. This center will serve as a central repository for best practices developed by institutions as they implement the 'Beyond the Box' recommendations. Additionally, it will house supplemental research related to the educational outcomes and experiences of individuals with criminal and juvenile justice histories in postsecondary education.
The Secretary shall use funds available to the Department to provide institutions of higher education with training and technical assistance.
Section 3, adding Section 124(a)(3)(A) to the HEA
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid requiring new appropriations, which can be a significant hurdle for bill passage. It allows the Department of Education flexibility to implement the initiative within its current budget, rather than demanding new taxpayer money.
Case for: Supporters argue that this approach makes the bill fiscally responsible by not demanding new taxpayer money, allowing the Department to prioritize this initiative within its current resources. It demonstrates a commitment to efficiency and prudent use of existing funds.
Case against: Critics might argue that without a dedicated new appropriation, the initiative might be underfunded or deprioritized, as the Department would have to divert funds from other existing programs. This could potentially weaken the effectiveness of both the new initiative and the programs from which funds are reallocated.
Estimated impact: This provision means the financial impact on the federal budget is intended to be neutral, as it relies on existing appropriations. The actual impact depends on how the Department of Education reallocates funds internally.