Campus Prevention and Recovery Services for Students Act of 2026
HB7019, titled the Campus Prevention and Recovery Services for Students Act of 2026, would amend Section 120 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to broaden and modernize federal campus substance-misuse prevention requirements. It replaces older references to “drug and alcohol abuse” with “alcohol and substance misuse,” and requires institutions to use evidence-based or evidence-informed prevention programs. Schools would also need to describe available counseling, treatment, rehabilitation, recovery, reentry, and recovery-support services, including services offered with community-based partners.
The bill also expands the types of activities that can be supported with federal grants under the Higher Education Act. Eligible uses would include peer recovery support, integrated campus health services, screening and treatment coordination for mental health and substance use disorders, re-entry assistance for students on academic probation due to substance use disorder, overdose prevention, crisis intervention, and education for students and staff on recognizing and responding to substance-use crises. It authorizes $15 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 and directs the Department of Education to work with the Department of Health and Human Services on best practices and guidance.
In addition, the bill revises the Higher Education Act’s program participation agreement requirements so institutions must certify that they have an accessible alcohol and substance misuse prevention program in place. Institutions would generally be treated as compliant unless there is a showing that they knowingly and willfully failed to implement the required program. The bill also requires the Secretary of Education to report to Congress on implementation efforts and best practices one year and three years after enactment, and most compliance changes would take effect two years after enactment.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is supportive of a public-health-oriented, recovery-focused approach to campus substance use. Although there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the sponsors’ framing suggests an emphasis on prevention, treatment access, and coordination with health agencies rather than punishment. The bill appears designed to help colleges respond to overdose risk, substance use disorder, and related mental health needs with more structured federal guidance and funding.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials, but likely areas of debate could include federal requirements imposed on colleges, the scope of compliance obligations, and whether the authorized funding level is sufficient. Another possible issue is the shift from a narrower drug/alcohol abuse framework to a broader substance-misuse and recovery-services model, which may raise questions about implementation standards and institutional capacity.
The bill would amend multiple provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965, especially Section 120 and the program participation agreement rules in Section 487(a)(10). It would change federal statutory language from drug-and-alcohol-abuse prevention to alcohol-and-substance-misuse prevention, expand the required content of campus prevention programs, authorize new grant uses, require interagency coordination with HHS, and create reporting obligations for the Department of Education. Colleges and universities receiving federal student aid would face updated compliance expectations, though the bill provides a two-year applicability period before the new certification requirements take effect.
The bill’s apparent sentiment is broadly positive and reform-oriented, with a focus on prevention, recovery, and public health rather than discipline or enforcement. The sponsors’ approach suggests bipartisan or cross-party interest in addressing campus substance use through evidence-based services, recovery supports, and coordination with health agencies. Because no committee discussion or votes are provided, there is no recorded opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and sponsorship.
No explicit contention is documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of disagreement could include whether the bill creates new federal mandates for higher education institutions, how much discretion schools would retain in designing prevention programs, and whether the $15 million annual authorization is adequate for the expanded scope of services. Stakeholders that might favor the bill include student recovery advocates, public health groups, and institutions seeking clearer federal guidance; those most likely to scrutinize it would be colleges concerned about compliance burdens and policymakers wary of new federal program requirements.