Higher educational institutions, public and private; confidential resource advisors.
HB1917 would require every public and private institution of higher education in Virginia to designate at least one confidential resource advisor for students and employees by July 1, 2028. The bill creates a new statutory framework for these advisors, defining who may serve in the role, requiring training in sexual misconduct awareness, trauma-informed practices, Title IX, and institutional policies, and allowing institutions to partner with victim advocacy organizations or other institutions to provide the service. It also requires advisors to provide information about reporting options, counseling, medical care, academic and housing accommodations, legal processes, and other support resources.
The bill also expands and reorganizes institutional response procedures for alleged sexual violence and sexual misconduct. It amends the reporting statute to require responsible employees to report alleged sexual violence to the Title IX coordinator, establishes a review committee at each institution to assess reported incidents, and sets timelines and procedures for possible disclosure to law enforcement or prosecutors when health, safety, or felony concerns are present. The bill further creates a privilege for communications with confidential resource advisors in civil actions, limits when those advisors must report information, and provides immunity for employees who make required reports in good faith.
If enacted, the bill would add new sections to the Virginia Code and substantially change the duties of colleges and universities regarding sexual misconduct response, confidentiality, and victim services. Institutions would need to create or contract for confidential resource advisor services, update Title IX and campus response policies, train personnel, and establish or use review committees to evaluate reported incidents. The bill would also create a statutory privilege for advisor-student or advisor-employee communications in civil proceedings, while preserving limited exceptions for court-ordered disclosure and situations involving the physical or mental condition of the person at issue.
The available vote history suggests the bill was not advancing at the subcommittee stage, as it was recommended to be struck from the docket by a 10-0 vote. No committee transcript is provided, so there is no recorded debate to show support or opposition arguments in detail. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears aimed at strengthening survivor support and institutional accountability, but the lack of recorded discussion and the unanimous subcommittee action indicate it did not generate enough support to move forward at that stage.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s expanded reporting and disclosure obligations versus its confidentiality protections. Supporters would likely view the measure as improving access to confidential support, trauma-informed services, and clearer pathways for reporting and accommodations, while critics may be concerned about administrative burden, overlap with existing Title IX processes, privacy issues, and the creation of new institutional duties and committees. Another likely area of concern is the balance between preserving confidentiality for victims and requiring disclosure to institutional officials, law enforcement, or prosecutors in certain cases.