Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case fo…
The Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act would bar federal funds from being used to hire, maintain, or train law enforcement officers assigned to K–12 schools, and would amend COPS grant rules to prohibit such uses.
It creates a competitive U.S. Department of Education grant program to help local educational agencies (LEAs) terminate school policing contracts and replace officers with counselors, psychologists, social workers, credible messengers, trauma-informed personnel, and evidence-based behavioral supports.
Grant funds cannot be used for punitive discipline, surveillance technology, arming staff, or data-sharing agreements with certain federal agencies, require public reporting, and prioritize high-need LEAs.
Contentious national policy shift with substantial ideological opposition and legal/political pushback; grant incentives reduce but do not erase barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly framed substantive policy change that contains many of the expected statutory components: problem findings, definitions, a prohibition on certain federal fund uses, an affirmative grant program with defined permissible and prohibited activities, reporting requirements, and an authorization of funds.
Whether school police enhance safety or drive criminalization
Whether school police enhance safety or drive criminalization
Strongly supportive; sees the bill as redirecting resources from criminalization to mental health and supportive services.
Views the grant program and prohibitions as steps to reduce racial and disability-based discipline disparities and improve school climate.
Generally favorable toward goals of reducing punitive discipline and expanding mental health supports, but cautious about implementation details, safety during transition, and administrative feasibility.
Wants evidence, phased rollouts, and safeguards for high-risk schools.
Opposed; views the bill as federal overreach that removes a local safety tool and restricts school security options.
Concerned about reduced deterrence, limits on surveillance and law-enforcement cooperation, and infringing on local decisionmaking.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Contentious national policy shift with substantial ideological opposition and legal/political pushback; grant incentives reduce but do not erase barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether school police enhance safety or drive criminalization
Contentious national policy shift with substantial ideological opposition and legal/political pushback; grant incentives reduce but do not…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly framed substantive policy change that contains many of the expected statutory components: problem findings, definitions, a prohibition on certain federal…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.