Bill Overview
Title: Campus Accountability and Safety Act
Description: This bill addresses sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other violence and harassment on the campuses of institutions of higher education (IHEs). Among other provisions, the bill (1) requires additional information to be included in the annual campus security report provided to current and prospective students and employees, (2) requires each IHE to establish a campus security policy that meets certain requirements, and (3) authorizes grants to address these issues.
Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12]
Target Audience
Population: Students and employees of institutions of higher education
Estimated Size: 27000000
- The bill impacts students and employees of institutions of higher education because it focuses on campus sexual harassment and assault.
- The provisions of the bill make it necessary for all institutions of higher education to comply, affecting how campuses manage and report security issues.
- Grants authorized by the bill could lead to varied levels of implementation across campuses, affecting the extent of impact on each population involved.
Reasoning
- The policy targets both students and employees at institutions of higher education (IHEs). This encompasses a broad range of individuals, including undergraduate, graduate students, faculty, and staff.
- By introducing new requirements and establishing grant opportunities, financial and logistical impacts are varied across IHEs ranging from large state universities to smaller private colleges.
- The budget limitations mean that while some improvements, such as increased resources for campus safety, can be implemented broadly, deeper systemic changes will be more incremental in nature.
- Given the distinction of impact levels from low to high, certain individuals like those already involved in campus safety programs might see a medium impact, whereas those with direct experiences of harassment or assault might experience the policy's impact more deeply as systems improve.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel that improved reporting and safety measures are crucial for creating a better learning environment.
- I hope this policy leads to tangible changes on campus to support survivors of assault.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm encouraged by the policy's focus on transparency and accountability.
- Efficient implementation is key to prevent added bureaucracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's critical we address sexual violence on campuses and this is a step in the right direction.
- The policy can be a tool for advocacy if implemented alongside other resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Campus Security Officer (Columbus, OH)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides a framework that can help streamline our safety procedures.
- Additional training and resources would be a great help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not very affected personally, but I think it's good for the overall campus environment.
- I do worry about potential impacts on student organizations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Administrative Head (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is essential in keeping our university accountable and safe.
- We must be careful with how grants and funds are distributed to maximize impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time these issues are prioritized and handled appropriately on campuses.
- I hope this leads to real changes in campus culture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Researcher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides necessary data and structures to analyze the effectiveness of interventions.
- Attention must be paid to how this data is collected and used.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Assistant Professor (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who researches these issues, I think the policy codifies much-needed reforms.
- Implementation will need careful monitoring to ensure it benefits those it should.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Freshman Student (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think safer campuses are better for all students, especially those new to college life.
- Haven’t experienced any issues myself, so I'm not sure how much I'll notice these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Grant allocation efficiency and the real impact of additional security measures on campus safety.
- The cost variability across different institutions based on size, existing infrastructure, and student population.
- Long-term benefits regarding student retention, satisfaction, and societal impact through reduced campus violence.