S-5660-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Tim Kaine (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would direct the Education Secretary to award competitive 5-year grants to colleges and universities to provide trauma-informed ("patient-centered") academic counseling and other services for student survivors of sexual assault and other violence. Grant funds would have to be used for one or more listed purposes, such as re-entry help, staff training, confidential tutoring, mental health services, or a survivor assistance fund. The Secretary would have to give priority to schools with a history of Title IX violations, community colleges, and minority-serving institutions. It would authorize "such sums as may be necessary" for fiscal years 2027 through 2031, and the grants would depend on future appropriations.
Who benefits
Student survivors of sexual assault and other violence at participating colleges, including those who took leave or withdrew and may seek re-entry help. Community colleges and minority-serving institutions (including HBCUs and Tribal Colleges) that receive priority and may have fewer resources. Faculty, advisors, tutors, and counselors who would receive trauma-informed training. Colleges that receive grants and gain funding for services they might not otherwise afford.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, since the bill authorizes an open-ended amount of spending, subject to later appropriations. Colleges that do not receive grants, including those not in a priority category, which may compete for limited funds. Institutions with a history of Title IX violations, which receive priority but may face added reporting and administrative work. Grantee schools would bear reporting and application costs and may need to fund services after the 5-year term ends. Other education programs may compete for the same appropriations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that student survivors face documented academic harms, including lower grades and higher dropout rates, and that mental health care alone does not address them. They contend that a competitive grant program with priority for community colleges, minority-serving institutions, and schools with Title IX violations, plus required reporting on graduation and re-enrollment rates, targets scarce funds to areas of need and allows the program's results to be measured.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill authorizes unspecified "such sums as may be necessary" with no spending cap, and that it adds to federal spending without proof that this model improves retention. They contend that campus support services are better left to states and schools, and that giving priority to schools with Title IX violation histories and to certain institution types could leave other campuses with survivors unserved.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) by offering voluntary, competitive grants, which South Dakota v. Dole (1987) permits if conditions are clearly stated and related to the federal interest. Because schools choose whether to apply and no penalty attaches to declining, coercion concerns are minimal.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Education Department) gains discretion to run the competitive grants and set application terms, while Congress keeps control through annual appropriations and the required reports to the authorizing committees.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously funded campus-based programs addressing sexual violence, such as the Grants to Reduce Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking on Campus program under the Violence Against Women Act.