The Government has the power to regulate and empower how colleges can respond to the college mental health crisis through funding for mental health resources, conducting surveys on mental health, and creating a national commission to study mental health on college campuses.
The college mental health crisis is happening for numerous reasons, but the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated existing issues. Since the pandemic, college mental health resources have been stretched thin, resulting in longer wait times and less availability to meet with mental health professionals. This has resulted in increased deaths by suicide on college campuses.
Some argue that the government must hold these colleges and universities accountable for the college mental health crisis. One main reason in favor of this position is that untreated mental health issues at college-age can affect people throughout their entire lifetimes. Given the significance of the 18-23 age range in intellectual development, it might make sense for the government to become involved in this college mental health crisis. In addition, students with mental health disabilities are protected by national civil rights laws, so the government has a responsibility to advocate for these students. One option would be for the government to create a commission to study this issue, as little research has been done on mental health in higher education.
Four main pieces of legislation tackle the college mental health crisis, ranging from the state to the federal level, including from the White House.
- Higher Education Mental Health Act of 2021: This legislation would require the Department of Education to create an Advisory Commission for supporting college students with mental health disabilities. The commission would report on the quality and efficacy of mental health resources for college students with mental health disabilities, the impact of policies (reasonable accommodation and disciplinary policies) that either help or hurt the goal of equal opportunity for these college students, the use of protected health information of college students by their institutions of higher education, the impact of providing these resources on a student’s level of success in college (academic, well-being, and completion status), conclusions on the major challenges facing these students, and recommendations to fix this issue/improve the outcomes for these students.
Strengths: This piece of legislation is comprehensive and tackles many aspects of the college mental health crisis. Even less-talked-about parts of a college student’s mental health, such as accommodation and discipline, are taken into account in this legislation, which can impact a student’s chance of success in college. For example, if a college student is in a class where the professor penalizes absences, a student going through documented mental health issues that require them to miss class won’t be able to succeed. Similarly, if a college student is disciplined for a mental health crisis, such as for showing up to a class intoxicated continually, that student won’t receive the help they need for a possible alcohol abuse disorder diagnosis.
Weaknesses: By focusing on students with documented mental health disabilities, this piece of legislation doesn’t account for someone going through their first mental health issue or crisis that may not be documented by a mental health professional. Those without a documented mental health condition are left out of this piece of legislation.
- Enhancing Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Through Campus Planning Act: Representative Susan Wild introduced this bipartisan legislation with Representative Fred Keller. This legislation would amend the Higher Education Act to promote positive mental health among college students and encourage comprehensive planning on college campuses to prevent mental health crises. The legislation provides for more coordination between federal agencies and colleges to develop and implement mental health and suicide prevention plans, increasing student access to mental health resources. The Act would require the Department of Education to work alongside the Department of Health and Human Services to incentivize colleges and universities to tackle the college mental health crisis.
Strengths: This piece of legislation improves on the weakness of the Higher Education Mental Health Act of 2021 by promoting positive mental health among all students, not just those with documented mental health conditions. Additionally, this Act would increase coordination between the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, both integral departments when talking about college student mental health.
Weaknesses: While this act deals with the prevention of mental health crises, it does not discuss how to manage mental health crises that aren’t prevented. For example, a college student who does not receive the mental health care that they need may have a mental health crisis, and may require hospitalization. This example wouldn’t deal with the prevention of mental health crises but would deal with the management of active mental health crises.
- NY Senate Bill S7659A: This statewide bill would require SUNY (The State University of New York) and CUNY (City University of New York) to adopt specific provisions concerning college student mental health such as administering mental health climate surveys, establishing a mental health committee, providing mental health training to faculty and staff, and improving college policies in general regarding mental health.
Strengths: Something unique to this bill is that it would provide mental health training to faculty and staff, while other pieces of legislation focus on the hiring of mental health professionals. This is effective because faculty and staff are at the forefront of the fight against mental health crises on college campuses, and they can refer students to mental health resources before a crisis occurs. When other bills focus on mental health professionals but do not take into account faculty and staff, such as Professors and Resident Assistants (RA’s), the focus goes to the management of mental health crises rather than preventing them, and both are important.
Weaknesses: At the same time, this bill does not discuss the funding of mental health professionals. On the opposite side of the strength of training faculty and staff for the prevention of mental health crises, by not putting that same amount of resources into mental health professionals, this bill ignores the management of active mental health crises.
- Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds (HEERF): HEERF can be used to invest in evidence-based mental health supports for students and connect the campus community to providers and care (White House/Executive Branch Legislation).
Strengths: Not all mental health supports are created equal, and by focusing on evidence-based mental health supports, this piece of legislation is strong.
Weaknesses: This piece of legislation is vague and does not define what these evidence-based mental health supports are nor does it explain how it would connect the campus community to providers and care. Additionally, many college students complain that they are always referred to community mental health professionals by the campus mental health services, which aren’t always accessible to low-income students. It might be more effective to fund and train more mental health professionals on-campus rather than refer students off-campus.
There are arguments against the government regulating colleges’ responses to the mental health crisis, including that this would be expensive in a time with high inflation and an at-risk economy. Additionally, it would be time-intensive, and there is a chance that it might not work. Some might argue that it’s not the government’s job, and either to leave it up to the colleges to decide how best to serve their students or leave it up to the students, as they will be on their own to seek mental health resources once they graduate from college. From the colleges’ perspectives, a federal commission could also hurt the colleges’ public perception, possibly dissuading parents from letting their children attend a college where so many students suffer from mental health conditions and don’t receive adequate support. Or, in other words, it would open up the colleges to talk about an issue that would put them in a negative light and hurt their business model.
Future developments in this issue include a federal commission to study mental health concerns on college campuses and periodic campus climate surveys on the mental health of college students.
The key question here is should the federal and state governments get involved in the regulation of colleges’ responses to the college mental health crisis, a crisis that is worsened by the Covid-19 pandemic and comes at a pivotal age of development (young adulthood)? Or, do the colleges know best how to serve their students and an investment by the government would be a waste of federal and/or state resources?