The Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act would bar federal funds from being used to hire, maintain, or train covered law enforcement officers in elementary and secondary schools. Instead, it directs federal resources toward a continuum of care—trusted mental health supports, trauma-informed services, and positive school-wide systems designed to keep students safe and engaged.
The bill also creates a grant program to help local educational agencies replace school policing with counselors, nurses, psychologists, and other qualified staff, and it sets reporting requirements to monitor how funding changes school safety and student discipline. Finally, it emphasizes evidence-based, racially and gender-responsive approaches and includes guardrails to prevent the re-emergence of punitive policing in schools.
At a Glance
What It Does
Notwithstanding current law, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds to hire, maintain, or train covered law enforcement officers in any school setting. It also establishes a grant program to replace police presence with trauma-informed services and staff.
Who It Affects
Local educational agencies and the schools they serve, particularly districts with significant populations of students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQI+ students; affected staff includes counselors, social workers, nurses, psychologists, and credible messengers.
Why It Matters
Sets a federal policy to curb policing in schools and channel resources into mental health and classroom climate improvements, potentially reshaping student safety, discipline practices, and long-run educational outcomes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act targets the presence of police in schools and redirects federal dollars toward supportive services. It defines “covered law enforcement officer” and “covered program” to determine what is funded and what isn’t, and it prohibits funding for officers in schools under federal grant programs.
The bill also authorizes a grant program to help local districts remove police presence and replace it with a range of trauma-informed personnel, including counselors, social workers, and credible messengers, along with training in de-escalation and anti-bias practices. It emphasizes school climate, positive behavioral interventions, and trauma-informed care as core strategies for safety and learning.
The administration of these funds includes reporting requirements to track arrests, disciplinary outcomes, and the use of surveillance or social media monitoring tools, with privacy protections where possible. In short, it seeks to shrink the role of policing in schools and expand access to mental health and supportive services, while maintaining guardrails against backsliding into punitive discipline or surveillance-heavy approaches.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bans federal funding for hiring or maintaining covered law enforcement officers in schools.
It creates a grant program to replace police presence with counselors, nurses, social workers, and trauma-informed staff.
Grants require districts to terminate or not create school police departments during the grant period.
Grants may fund schoolwide positive behavioral supports, trauma-informed care, and anti-bias professional development.
Grants include reporting requirements on arrests, demographics, and use of surveillance/face recognition tech.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This act may be cited as the Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act. It establishes the formal name under which the law would be implemented and referenced in policy discussions and appropriations.
Findings
The findings recount longstanding concerns about policing in schools, disproportionate impact on students of color and marginalized groups, and evidence linking policing to disciplinary disparities and criminalization. The section situates the bill within broader debates about school safety, student welfare, and the role of public funding in education.
Purpose
The purpose is twofold: to eliminate federal funding supporting police in schools and to channel resources toward an evidence-based continuum of care that is trauma-informed, racially and gender-responsive, and supportive of marginalized students. It also aims to empower local districts to terminate or avoid school policing contracts and to invest in staff and services that promote safe and inclusive learning environments.
Definitions
Key terms are defined to set scope: what constitutes a covered program, a covered law enforcement officer, a credible messenger, and trauma-informed services. The section ties certain definitions to relevant federal education statutes and outlines the operational meaning of these terms for grant eligibility and compliance.
Prohibition on federal funds for police in schools
This section bars federal funds from being used for hiring or maintaining covered law enforcement officers in any school context. It also revises certain grant programs to prohibit funds that would support policing in schools or data-sharing partnerships with federal agencies that would enable policing in educational settings.
Supporting LEAs in transitioning away from police in schools
Section 6 creates a grant program administered by the Department of Education to help local educational agencies replace police with mental health and trauma-informed personnel, and to reform school safety and disciplinary policies. The grant process includes application requirements, priority criteria for districts with higher needs, and a broad list of allowable uses—such as counselors, psychologists, trauma-informed staff, and professional development. It also imposes prohibitions, reporting requirements, and an explicit authorization of appropriations to fund the program.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Disadvantaged students in districts that currently rely on police presence, who experience fewer policing interactions and greater access to supportive services
- Students with disabilities who face disproportionate referrals and disciplinary actions, who would gain access to trauma-informed supports and behavior planning
- Educators and school leaders seeking safer, more inclusive learning environments and evidence-based discipline policies
- Credible messengers and community health workers brought into schools, expanding trusted sources of guidance and support
- Parents and families in districts implementing trauma-informed approaches, who gain transparency and stakeholder involvement in safety policies
Who Bears the Cost
- Local educational agencies may incur short-term transition costs to hire new staff and phase out school policing contracts
- Law enforcement agencies that previously provided contracted policing services in schools may lose revenue and funding opportunities
- The Department of Education and other federal agencies could face increased administrative and monitoring responsibilities to administer grants and evaluate outcomes
- Vendors supplying surveillance technology or data-sharing arrangements could see reduced demand as districts disinvest from policing and surveillance in schools
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the immediate need for school safety and predictable outcomes with the longer-term goal of reducing criminalization and racial disparities—by removing police from schools and investing in trauma-informed supports. The question is whether funding shifts can maintain or improve safety and learning without police in schools, and how to measure success given complex, context-specific environments.
The bill’s design entails policy tensions around school safety versus criminalization, and between immediate security concerns and longer-term student welfare. While trauma-informed services, counseling, and restorative practices are evidence-based approaches to school climate, districts may worry about transitional disruptions, funding gaps, and measurable safety outcomes.
A key analytic question is whether the replacement of policing with supports reduces incidents of violence or wrongdoing enough to justify any short-term staffing costs and program administration. There is also potential tension around privacy, given reporting requirements that involve demographic breakouts and the use (and potential monitoring) of surveillance or social media tools; the bill explicitly restricts certain uses but leaves room for interpretation in implementation.
Finally, the policy opts for federal withdrawal from policing in schools but relies on state and local capacity to sustain safe environments, making implementation contingent on local leadership and community engagement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.