The bill amends Section 520E–2 of the Public Health Service Act to replace the term “institution of higher education” with a new, broader category called “covered institution,” and then defines covered institutions to include both institutions of higher education and area career and technical education (CTE) schools (as defined in the Perkins Act). Practically, that change makes area CTE schools eligible to apply for or receive federal grants designated for mental health and substance use disorder services under that authority.
This matters because many CTE programs serve high-school–age students, dual-enrolled learners, and adult vocational students who previously lacked a direct pathway to this specific federal grant funding stream tied to higher education. The change could shift where grant dollars flow, expand service delivery models into secondary and vocational settings, and require HHS grant administrators and local education agencies to adjust eligibility rules and outreach.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill edits 42 U.S.C. 290bb–36b by substituting “covered institution” for “institution of higher education” across subsections (a)–(f), modifies language in subsection (c), and adds a definition that explicitly lists area career and technical education schools alongside institutions of higher education.
Who It Affects
Area CTE schools (per the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act), institutions of higher education, HHS/HRSA grant programs that run Section 520E–2 awards, and behavioral health providers who partner with these institutions to deliver services.
Why It Matters
The bill opens a federal mental‑health grant stream long focused on colleges to secondary and vocational providers, potentially expanding services where students pursue technical education but historically lacked access to campus‑based mental health funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB5553 makes a surgical but consequential change to the statute that governs a specific set of federal grants for campus mental health and substance use services. Instead of limiting eligibility language to “institutions of higher education,” the bill swaps in the neutral term “covered institution” throughout the provision and then defines that term to include two categories: (1) area career and technical education schools (using the Perkins Act definition), and (2) institutions of higher education (using the Higher Education Act definition).
The text does not create a new grant program or add funding; it simply expands the pool of entities eligible under the existing grant authority.
For school districts, standalone career centers, regional CTE consortia, and the community colleges or universities that sometimes partner with them, the change means they can now be direct applicants or designated recipients under Section 520E–2 awards, where previously eligibility language tied strictly to higher education may have excluded them. That will likely prompt HHS (and its subagencies that administer these grants) to revise application materials, eligibility checklists, and outreach so that Perkins‑defined area CTE programs can demonstrate status and capacity when applying.The bill relies on two cross‑statutory definitions rather than creating a bespoke definition of CTE provider.
That reduces ambiguity about what counts as an “area career and technical education school” but imports the administrative realities of Perkins and the Higher Education Act: some CTE providers are standalone secondary institutions or are administratively part of public school districts, not colleges. Grant officers will need to reconcile those organizational forms with existing reporting, matching, and subaward rules in the mental‑health grant program.Finally, because the bill does not specify new reporting, set aside funds, or require different service models, implementation will be driven by HHS guidance and grant competitions.
Practically, employers of mental‑health clinicians, community behavioral health partners, and state education agencies should expect new demand for technical assistance and potentially more competition for the same pot of federal grant dollars.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 290bb–36b (Section 520E–2 of the Public Health Service Act) to replace references to “institution of higher education” with “covered institution.”, It adds a new statutory definition of “covered institution” that explicitly includes (1) an area career and technical education school (per section 3 of the Perkins Act) and (2) an institution of higher education (per section 101 of the Higher Education Act).
The measure does not authorize additional funding or create a new grant program; it only expands eligibility under the existing mental health and substance use disorder service grant authority.
Because the bill references the Perkins Act definition, secondary and district‑operated CTE centers — not only postsecondary vocational programs — may now qualify, subject to administrative verification.
The language change is across subsections (a)–(f) and an amendment to subsection (c), meaning eligibility, application references, and any programmatic terms tied to “institution of higher education” are now captured by the broader term.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the “CTE Student Mental Health and Wellness Act.” This is purely nominal but signals the policy focus on student mental health in career and technical education settings.
Terminology swap in subsections (a)–(f)
Replaces every occurrence of “institution of higher education” (and plural forms) in subsections (a) through (f) with the new term “covered institution.” Practically, this alters the statutory subject of grant eligibility and program references without changing any other statutory requirements in those subsections; it imports all existing program mechanics (allowable activities, priorities, etc.) to any entity that qualifies as a covered institution.
Targeted edits to subsection (c)
Makes two narrow textual edits in subsection (c) — replacing an opening phrase to reference any “covered institution” and changing a descriptive phrase that modifies supported entities to read “covered institution–supported.” The edits ensure that program authorities and enumerated powers in subsection (c) apply to covered institutions rather than being limited to traditional colleges and universities.
Definition of covered institution
Adds a new subsection (g) defining “covered institution” to include (1) area career and technical education schools (as defined by section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006) and (2) institutions of higher education (as defined by section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965). By anchoring the CTE category to the Perkins definition, the statute avoids drafting a new, standalone definition but also ties eligibility to Perkins administrative realities (e.g., which entities receive Perkins funding or fit its statutory categories).
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
- Students enrolled in area CTE programs: Students in secondary and postsecondary vocational programs gain eligibility for services delivered or funded through Section 520E–2 grants, improving access where campus counseling centers are not present.
- Area career and technical education schools and consortia: CTE centers and regional career‑tech partners can now apply directly for federal mental‑health grant dollars for programmatic supports, workforce development, or partnerships.
- Community behavioral‑health providers and university counseling collaborations: Providers that partner with CTE sites may access new contracting or subaward opportunities to place clinicians or build school‑based services.
- State and local education agencies that run Perkins programs: These agencies gain another federal funding pathway to support student mental‑health services within CTE delivery systems.
Who Bears the Cost
- HHS/HRSA (grant administrators): Agencies will need to update eligibility guidance, forms, and outreach, and to adjudicate applications from nontraditional applicants — an administrative burden without new appropriations in the text.
- Institutions of higher education and current grantees: Existing applicants may face increased competition for the same grant pool as CTE entities enter the field.
- Area CTE schools and school districts: While newly eligible, many CTE providers lack grant application capacity and will incur administrative costs to prepare competitive applications or build required program infrastructure.
- State education agencies and local school districts: These entities may need to coordinate Perkins and PHSA program rules, reconcile reporting requirements, and provide technical assistance, stretching existing staff resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances expanding access to a grant program (helping students in non‑traditional education settings) against the risk of diluting a limited funding pool and imposing administrative complexity on grantmakers and new applicants; it favors inclusion without providing new funds or clear procedural guidance, leaving implementers to resolve competing goals.
The bill is deliberately narrow: it alters eligibility language but does not appropriate funds, create new reporting requirements, or prescribe program priorities tailored to CTE settings. That limits immediate fiscal impact but shifts the implementation workload to HHS and potential applicants.
Administratively, HHS must decide how strictly to require documentation that an applicant qualifies as an “area career and technical education school” under Perkins, and whether certain organizational forms (district‑operated centers, regional consortia) meet the intent of the amendment.
A second practical tension is program overlap. Many K–12 mental health initiatives exist at the state and district level, and SAMHSA/CDC and Department of Education programs already fund school‑based behavioral health; this amendment puts CTE sites into a grant stream historically targeted at higher education.
Without guidance or earmarked funds, increased eligibility could simply reallocate scarce grant dollars rather than increase the total resources for student mental health. Finally, by importing Perkins and HEA definitions, the statute avoids bespoke rulemaking but creates cross‑agency dependency: eligibility questions may require coordination among HHS, ED, and the administrators of Perkins funding, slowing roll‑out and creating potential inconsistencies in who can practically apply.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.