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: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: People affiliated with institutions of higher education (students, faculty, staff globally)
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill is focused on institutions of higher education (IHEs), meaning it targets colleges, universities, and other postsecondary institutions.
- The primary groups impacted will be students attending these institutions, as they are the direct beneficiaries of enhanced safety and accountability measures.
- Faculty and staff at IHEs will also be affected as they receive training and are part of the campus community that benefits from increased security and reporting policies.
- Approximately 220 million students globally are involved in higher education, and they will be impacted by general awareness and policy changes, even if not all countries implement similar laws.
- Efforts to improve safety on campus can indirectly affect families of students and communities surrounding these IHEs.
- Public perception and policies towards campus security and accountability might be influenced, affecting broader legislative engagement globally.
Reasoning
- The policy targets institutions of higher education, impacting college and university environments in the US, with direct effects on students, faculty, and staff who are part of these ecosystems.
- Given the budget and scope, a focus on improving safety through enhanced reporting and proactive measures affects the perceived and actual safety of campus life.
- The emphasis on enhanced security and accountability may result in improved wellbeing scores among students and staff who feel safer and more supported.
- Not everyone in the higher education ecosystem will be equally affected; those who have experienced or are at higher risk of harassment might see greater changes.
- The broad impact across campuses means some individuals, like non-attending community members or distant family, may see minimal direct effects.
- Economic and cultural factors, as well as campus size and location, will influence the level of impact across different types of institutions.
Simulated Interviews
College Student (California)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel like campus safety is a big concern, especially with stories I've heard.
- Policies that make campuses more accountable seem like a step in the right direction.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (New York)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved reporting could make campus safer; it's something our student group has been pushing for.
- I'm optimistic about how this will affect our community's culture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Texas)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My research focuses on campus safety, and these policies align with best practices we've identified.
- I'm hopeful it will positively impact how safe students feel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
College Professor (Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for faculty to be involved in shaping and implementing these policies.
- I'm hopeful this leads to real change in safety culture on campuses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Campus Safety Officer (Massachusetts)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More resources and training can help us do our jobs better and build trust on campus.
- I'm in support of the grants allowing for better safety measures.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Staff (Florida)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The enhanced security and thorough reporting are vital for survivor support services.
- This could be a turning point in how campuses handle these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Ohio)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen improvements on campus already just by talking more about safety.
- Hopefully, the policy encourages continued improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University Administrator (Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy implementation is crucial for meeting our institutional goals on safety.
- I believe it will strengthen our community's trust in the university.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
IT Support Staff (Pennsylvania)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New reporting systems will improve transparency and data management.
- It's necessary for us to have the technology behind enhanced security efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Georgia)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The added accountability measures are essential for a safer campus.
- I think the policy will improve student trust in reporting and action.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $470000000, High: $570000000)
Year 3: $540000000 (Low: $490000000, High: $590000000)
Year 5: $580000000 (Low: $530000000, High: $630000000)
Year 10: $600000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $650000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's effectiveness will heavily depend on the implementation and enforcement levels across various IHEs.
- Alignment and collaboration with state and local regulations on campus safety and security.
- Potentially overlapping federal and state policies might influence cost-effectiveness.