Madeleine Dean (D-PA)
Beyond the Box for Higher Education Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to direct the Secretary of Education to issue guidance and recommendations for colleges and universities regarding the removal of criminal and juvenile justice questions from their admissions applications. It requires the Department of Education to consult with the Department of Justice and community stakeholders when developing this guidance. The legislation encourages schools to determine if collecting this background information is truly necessary for admissions. If schools keep these questions, the bill recommends delaying when they ask for the information until after an admission decision has been made. Additionally, the bill provides training, technical assistance, and a resource center to help institutions implement policies that support students with criminal or juvenile justice histories.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +4
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults and juveniles with justice system involvement benefit from reduced application barriers for college admissions.
- Scored +4
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Black Americans, who are disproportionately impacted by criminal justice involvement, benefit from policies that remove admissions barriers.
- Scored +4
Would students be better off under this?
Prospective students with criminal or juvenile justice histories gain clearer pathways and targeted support services to pursue higher education.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduction of admissions barriers for individuals with records: Under Section 3 (adding Section 124(a)(2)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965), colleges are recommended to remove criminal and juvenile justice questions from their admissions applications, which can help people with a record successfully reenter society and pursue higher education.
-
Delaying background checks until after admission: Under Section 3 (adding Section 124(a)(2)(C)(i)), if a school decides it must ask about criminal history for admissions, it is recommended to delay the request or consideration of that information until after an admission decision has been made, preventing a chilling effect on qualified applicants.
-
Transparency and justification for denials: Under Section 3 (adding Section 124(a)(2)(C)(ii)), if admission is denied or rescinded based solely on criminal or juvenile justice involvement, schools are recommended to provide notice and justification to the applicant within 30 days.
-
Targeted support and training for staff: Under Section 3 (adding Section 124(a)(3)(B)), the bill provides training for financial aid personnel, career counselors, and campus staff to help formerly incarcerated or juvenile-adjudicated individuals navigate work study programs, campus employment, and potential career barriers.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Retention of background inquiries by schools: Under Section 3 (adding Section 124(a)(2)(C)), the bill only recommends—rather than mandates—that institutions remove criminal and juvenile justice questions from admissions, meaning schools can still choose to ask these questions and potentially penalize applicants.
-
Continued data collection in non-admissions settings: Under Section 3 (adding Section 124(a)(2)(B)), even if schools remove questions from admissions, they may still inquire about criminal or juvenile justice history in non-admissions interactions, which could still subject individuals to stigma and questioning.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Black Americans, who are disproportionately impacted by criminal justice involvement, benefit from policies that remove admissions barriers. Would students be better off under this? — Prospective students with criminal or juvenile justice histories gain clearer pathways and targeted support services to pursue higher education. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults and juveniles with justice system involvement benefit from reduced application barriers for college admissions. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic Americans affected by the justice system benefit from guidance aimed at reducing higher education admissions barriers. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals, who are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system, benefit from improved pathways to higher education.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — By encouraging colleges to remove criminal history questions from admissions, the bill helps reduce racial disparities in higher education access. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Expanding educational access for individuals with criminal records helps improve their employment and earning potential over time.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — The bill provides resources and technical assistance to help higher education institutions implement supportive admissions policies.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill encourages clear notices and justifications when admissions decisions are affected by criminal history records.
- 10/1/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Troy CarterDemocrat · Louisiana