PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 1, 2026
Beyond the Box for Higher Education Act of 2026
This bill requires the Department of Education to issue guidance and recommendations for institutions of higher education to remove criminal and juvenile justice questions from their admission applications.
People & committees
Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10661 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10661 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10661 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10661 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-01 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Beyond the Box for Higher Education Act of 2026 would require the Department of Education to guide colleges and universities on removing criminal and juvenile justice questions from admissions applications. It would recommend safeguards for schools that continue asking these questions, rather than require schools to remove them. The Department would also provide staff training and create a resource center to support institutions serving applicants and students with these histories.
This Act may be cited as the Beyond the Box for Higher Education Act of 2026.
shall issue guidance and recommendations for institutions of higher education to remove criminal and juvenile justice questions from their application for admissions process.
If an institution of higher education determines that it is necessary to inquire about the criminal or juvenile justice history of applicants for admission, it is recommended that the institution comply with the following:
shall use funds available to the Department to provide institutions of higher education with training and technical assistance
The Secretary shall develop a resource center
Section 2 presents Congress's stated rationale: criminal justice involvement can create barriers to returning to community life, and increased educational opportunities may help. These are legislative findings, not demonstrated effects of this proposal.
Congress finds the following:
(10) Upon reentry, lower educational attainment, a lack of work skills or history, and the stigma of a criminal record can hinder a formerly incarcerated person’s ability to return to their communities successfully. (11) One way to improve reentry outcomes is to increase educational opportunities for people with a criminal or juvenile justice history.
Section 3 would add a new section 124 to the Higher Education Act of 1965. The Secretary would have to issue the guidance through the Department of Education's specified policy office, consulting the Department of Justice and relevant community stakeholders.
Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 124. Beyond the box for higher education
The Secretary, acting through the Office of Policy, Planning, and Innovation of the Office of Postsecondary Education of the Department and with consultation from the Department of Justice and relevant community stakeholders, shall issue guidance and recommendations
The guidance would recommend that schools collecting applicants' criminal or juvenile justice information assess whether it is needed for an informed admissions decision and whether the questions should be removed.
(A) If an institution of higher education collects criminal or juvenile justice information on applicants for admission, it is recommended that the institution determine whether this information is necessary to make an informed admission decision and whether it would be appropriate to remove these questions from the application.
For schools choosing to remove admissions questions, the guidance would recommend identifying any other interactions where these questions are necessary and appropriate. Outside admissions, schools would be advised to ask clear, narrowly focused questions, explain early how to respond, clarify that answering may not hurt enrollment chances, and let applicants explain their history and readiness for study.
(B) If an institution of higher education determines that it is appropriate to remove criminal or juvenile justice questions from the institution's application for admissions process, it is recommended that the institution comply with the following:
(i) If criminal or juvenile justice questions are necessary for the other aspects of the institution's interactions with applicants, identify those specific interactions in which it is appropriate to ask such questions. (ii) In non-admissions interactions, inquire about criminal or juvenile justice history transparently and clearly inform applicants as early as possible how to respond to the inquiry. (iii) In non-admissions inquiries about criminal or juvenile justice history, ensure the questions are specific and narrowly focused, and make it clear that answering the questions may not negatively impact applicants’ chances of enrollment. (iv) In non-admissions inquiries about criminal or juvenile justice history, give applicants the opportunity to explain criminal or juvenile justice involvement and preparedness for postsecondary study.
For schools retaining admissions questions, the guidance would recommend waiting until after an admissions decision to request or consider the information. It would also recommend notice and justification within 30 days when admission is denied or withdrawn solely because of the applicant's criminal or juvenile justice involvement.
(C) If an institution of higher education determines that it is necessary to inquire about the criminal or juvenile justice history of applicants for admission, it is recommended that the institution comply with the following: (i) Delay the request for, or consideration of, such information until after an admission decision has been made to avoid a chilling effect on applicants whose criminal or juvenile justice involvement may ultimately be determined irrelevant by the institution. (ii) Provide notice and justification for applicants within 30 days if, upon receiving information regarding applicants’ criminal or juvenile justice involvement, the admission to the institution is denied or rescinded based solely on the applicant's criminal or juvenile justice involvement.
Schools retaining admissions questions would also be advised to explain early how applicants should respond, keep questions specific and narrowly focused, and allow applicants to explain their justice involvement and readiness for study.
(C) If an institution of higher education determines that it is necessary to inquire about the criminal or juvenile justice history of applicants for admission, it is recommended that the institution comply with the following:
(iii) Inquire about criminal or juvenile justice history transparently and clearly inform applicants as early as possible in the application process how to respond to the inquiry. (iv) Ensure the questions are specific and narrowly focused. (v) Give applicants the opportunity to explain criminal or juvenile justice involvement and preparedness for postsecondary study.
Both sets of recommendations would call for training staff who handle applicants' or students' justice histories. Training would cover appropriate use of the information, its problems or limitations, supporting documents, and privacy protections.
(v) Provide staff of the institution who have access to a prospective or current student’s criminal or juvenile justice history, the necessary and proper training on the effective use of criminal or juvenile justice history data, including the problems associated with this information, the types of supporting documents that may need to be obtained, and the appropriate privacy protections that must be put in place.
(vi) Provide admissions personnel, registrars, and any other relevant staff of the institution, as well as any other staff that should have access to a prospective or current student’s criminal or juvenile justice history, the necessary and proper training on the effective use of criminal or juvenile justice history data, including the biases or limitations associated with this information, the types of supporting documents that may need to be obtained, and the appropriate privacy protections that must be put in place.
The Secretary would have to use funds already available to the Department to provide training and practical assistance for schools developing policies consistent with the recommendations. This provision specifies no funding amount.
(3) Training and technical assistance (A) In general The Secretary, acting through the Office of Postsecondary Education of the Department, shall use funds available to the Department to provide institutions of higher education with training and technical assistance on developing policies and procedures aligned with the recommendations described in paragraph (2).
Department-provided training would cover admissions, financial aid, and enrollment staff at schools asking justice-history questions either during admissions or elsewhere. It would also address avoiding indirect substitute questions or factors when a school does not ask about justice history.
(B) Training The training described in subparagraph (A) shall include— (i) training for admissions and financial aid personnel and enrollment management staff of an institution of higher education to understand and evaluate an applicant if— (I) the institution makes a determination under paragraph (2)(A) to continue asking criminal or juvenile justice history questions in the admissions process; or (II) the institution makes a determination under paragraph (2)(A) to remove criminal or juvenile justice history questions in the admissions process, but continues to make criminal or juvenile justice history inquiries in non-admissions settings; (ii) training to ensure that if an institution does not ask criminal or juvenile justice history questions, that proxy questions or factors are not used in lieu of criminal or juvenile justice history information;
Training would help financial aid and campus employment staff advise formerly incarcerated people and people whose cases were decided in juvenile court about available work-study and campus jobs. It would also cover staff who can access enrolled students' justice information, including academic counseling, housing, and student life staff.
(iii) training for financial aid personnel and any other staff of an institution of higher education involved with campus employment to provide guidance related to work study programs or on campus employment available to formerly incarcerated or juvenile adjudicated individuals; (iv) training for registrars, academic counselors, student housing staff, student life staff, and any other staff of an institution of higher education who would have access to a student’s criminal or juvenile justice information when the student is an enrolled student;
Career counselors would receive training to give students with justice-system involvement tailored career guidance, explain potential barriers to jobs or professional licenses, and help students respond to those barriers.
(v) training for career counselors to ensure that students with involvement in the criminal or juvenile justice system are provided with targeted career guidance, made aware of potential barriers to employment or licensure, and provided assistance to respond to these barriers.
The Secretary would have to create a resource center collecting recommended institutional practices and additional research about higher education and people with criminal or juvenile justice histories.
(b) Resource center The Secretary shall develop a resource center that will serve as the repository for— (1) best practices as institutions of higher education develop and implement practices aligned with the recommendations described in subsection (a)(2) to ensure the successful educational outcomes of students with criminal or juvenile justice histories; and (2) supplemental research on criminal and juvenile justice-involved individuals and postsecondary education.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on October 1, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T20:45:22Z. 2026-10-01: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-10-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the bill's main subject was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of riders in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status cannot be established for materials outside the bundle.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. Support for the program's intended population does not by itself constitute a targeted-benefit finding. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI