Overview
Title
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent certain alcohol and substance misuse.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to help students and workers in colleges with programs to stop drinking too much and using bad drugs, like having classes and counselors to talk to. It plans to spend some money each year to make sure these programs are helping, but it needs to be clear on how to check if they really work.
Summary AI
The bill H.R. 9214 aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to enhance programs that prevent alcohol and substance misuse among students and employees in higher education institutions. It proposes several changes, such as developing evidence-based prevention programs, providing support services like counseling and recovery, and promoting collaboration between institutions and state agencies. The bill also mandates reporting on the effectiveness and best practices of these programs and allocates $15 million annually for implementation over six years starting in fiscal year 2025. Additionally, it sets compliance standards for institutions and outlines requirements for certification and accountability.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
H.R. 9214 aims to make amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, specifically targeting the prevention of alcohol and substance misuse in higher education institutions. The bill proposes alterations to existing policies by emphasizing evidence-based initiatives rather than a primary focus on drug abuse alone. It encourages partnerships with community-based health organizations and allocates substantial appropriations to support these updated programs. The intention is to enhance the safety, health, and wellness of both students and employees across college campuses.
Significant Issues
Several critical issues have been identified within the text of the bill. First, there is a broad allocation of $15,000,000 annually without detailed metrics or criteria for measuring the success of the funded programs, which raises concerns about the efficient use of taxpayer money. Moreover, the timeline for creating interagency agreements and issuing guidance is not clearly defined, which might delay the implementation of these critical components.
The bill also introduces the notion of 're-entry assistance' without clear definitions or guidelines, creating potential for misallocation of resources. Furthermore, the compliance clause might allow institutions to superficially meet the program requirements without ensuring effective preventive measures against substance misuse. Moreover, terms such as 'community-based organizations' and 'collegiate recovery program' lack specificity, which could lead to an uneven distribution of funds and partnerships, potentially favoring certain groups over others.
Lastly, the reporting requirements lack penalties for non-compliance, reducing the accountability of institutions and government bodies involved.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The proposed amendments hold significant implications for the general public, particularly students, educational institutions, and healthcare organizations. On a broad scale, enhancing alcohol and substance misuse prevention programs in higher education can positively impact student health and safety, reducing risky behaviors and improving mental health outcomes. This focus could foster an environment more conducive to learning and personal development.
However, the vagueness of certain provisions could lead to complications. For educational institutions, particularly smaller ones with limited resources, the lack of precise guidelines might result in varied interpretations and implementations of the programs. Such variability could undermine the effectiveness of the prevention strategies across different campuses.
Healthcare organizations and community partners might benefit from increased collaboration opportunities, potentially leading to improved outreach and services. Nonetheless, without clear criteria for partnerships, there is a risk of inequitable distribution of resources, which could marginalize some organizations that are equally qualified to contribute.
In conclusion, while the bill presents an opportunity to address a critical issue on college campuses, its effectiveness hinges on achieving clarity and specificity in its provisions. Properly addressing these areas could lead to meaningful improvements in student well-being and institutional responsibility in managing substance-related issues.
Financial Assessment
The bill H.R. 9214 outlines several financial references and appropriations aimed at enhancing alcohol and substance misuse prevention programs in higher education institutions. The key financial aspects and how they relate to the issues identified are summarized below.
Summary of Financial Allocations
The primary financial commitment made in the bill is the allocation of $15 million annually for the fiscal year 2025 and for each of the following five years. This appropriation is designated to support the implementation of the revised alcohol and substance misuse prevention programs under the bill. The funds are intended to assist educational institutions in developing evidence-based or evidence-informed programs aimed at preventing misuse among students and employees.
Financial Allocations and Issues
Broad Authorization without Metrics: One main concern with the financial allocations is the broad authorization of $15 million annually for prevention programs without specifying detailed metrics for success. The funds are meant to support programs and services like counseling, recovery, and re-entry assistance, but without clear definitions or success metrics, there is a risk of inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. Establishing precise criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of funded programs could improve accountability and ensure that money is effectively utilized.
Interagency Agreement and Guidance Delays: Although financial resources are allocated to support interagency collaboration and guidance issuance, the lack of specific deadlines could lead to implementation delays. No explicit timeline for when the expenditure on the development and dissemination of best practices should be completed is mentioned. Ensuring timely and efficient execution of these financial resources is critical for the success of the initiative.
Re-entry Assistance Clarification: There are provisions for using these financial resources for 're-entry assistance' for students, which remain vaguely defined. Without detailed criteria on how these funds should be specifically allocated, there is a concern that these resources may be subject to misuse or inefficient allocation.
Compliance Challenges: The financial implication of allowing institutions to be deemed compliant unless they "knowingly and willfully" fail to implement a prevention program might lead to superficial adherence without tangible outcomes. From a financial oversight perspective, it becomes imperative to ensure funds are not simply expended without meeting objectives and effectively reducing substance misuse rates.
Conclusion
The financial allocations in the bill offer a substantial commitment towards tackling alcohol and substance misuse in higher education settings. However, to optimize the utilization of the allocated $15 million annually, it would be beneficial for the bill to establish clearer criteria and accountability measures for the success of funded programs. Ensuring transparency and effective use of financial resources could significantly enhance the impact of these prevention and recovery efforts.
Issues
The broad authorization of appropriations ($15,000,000 annually) for alcohol and substance misuse prevention without specific metrics for success (Section 2) may lead to inefficient use of funds. There needs to be more clarity on how efficacy will be measured, which is critical for taxpayer accountability.
The language regarding 'interagency agreement' and 'guidance' in Section 2 lacks specific deadlines for completion, potentially leading to delays in implementation and coordination between the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. Clarity on these timelines is crucial for effective execution.
The amendment allows for grants or contracts for undefined 're-entry assistance' in Section 2, which may require clarification. Without detailed criteria on how these funds are to be used, there might be potential for misuse or inefficient allocation of resources.
The clause in Section 3 allowing institutions to be considered in compliance unless it is shown they 'knowingly and willfully did not implement' the program could be difficult to enforce. Proving intent can be challenging, which might result in superficial compliance without substantial effect on substance misuse prevention.
The description of 'community-based organizations' and 'collegiate recovery program' in Section 2 is vague and could unintentionally favor certain groups. Clear criteria for partnerships and funding need to be established to ensure fair distribution and effective collaboration.
There is no mention of consequences in Section 4 if reporting deadlines are not met, which might reduce accountability for institutions and the governmental bodies involved. Establishing penalties or incentives for timely compliance would strengthen accountability mechanisms.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act states that its official name is the "Campus Prevention and Recovery Services for Students Act of 2024".
2. Alcohol and substance misuse prevention Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Higher Education Act to focus on preventing alcohol and substance misuse in colleges, replacing prior emphasis on drug abuse. It allows for collaboration with health and community organizations, supports recovery and prevention programs, and outlines new funding and guidelines to enhance the safety and health of students and employees.
Money References
- “(E) Preventing fatal and nonfatal overdoses, including restoring existing mental health and substance use disorder services after a natural disaster or public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d). “(F) Providing education to students, faculty, or other personnel on— “(i) recognizing the signs and symptoms of substance use disorder and how to engage and support a person in a crisis; “(ii) resources available in the community, within the institution of higher education, and other relevant resources for individuals with a substance use disorder; and “(iii) safely de-escalating crises involving individuals with a substance use disorder.”; (E) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by subparagraph (C), by striking “and contracts”; (F) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by subparagraph (C), by striking “or contract”; (G) in paragraph (5), as redesignated by subparagraph (C), by striking “and contracts” each place it appears; and (H) by amending paragraph (6), as redesignated by subparagraph (C), to read as follows: “(6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2025 and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.”. ---
3. Program participation agreements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 requires institutions to have an alcohol and substance misuse prevention program available to all staff and students. An institution is compliant unless it is proven that it intentionally failed to implement such a program.
4. Report Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Education must create a report for Congress about their efforts and successful practices from certain colleges receiving grants, as required by changes in this law. This report needs to be presented within one year and again in three years after the law is enacted.
5. Applicability Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The changes mentioned in section 2, paragraph (2), and section 3 of this act will start applying to colleges and universities starting two years after the act is passed.