Colleges and universities must publish their inaugural Campus Hazing Transparency Report (CHTR) no later than December 23, one year after the Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA) was signed into law. This marks the first entirely new type of public reporting requirement added to the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act in 17 years.
Unlike traditional Clery crime statistics, the hazing report has distinct rules, demands close collaboration between student conduct professionals, campus public safety/Clery coordinators, and legal counsel, and must be updated at least twice annually in a highly visible location on the institution’s website. This is one of the most prominent campus safety disclosures students and families will see.
Related Article: Hazing Prevention on College Campuses: Relationships Are Key to Reporting Incidents
Efforts to require public disclosure of hazing violations — specifically naming the involved student organizations — began roughly 20 years ago through non-financial terms in fraternity litigation settlements.
“One of those [terms] was publishing incidents of hazing and sexual assaults on their websites for a period of 5 years,” attorney Doug Fierberg explained,
These private agreements, however, were inconsistent, limited to specific cases, and difficult to enforce. That early experience fueled broader advocacy: first through voluntary transparency initiatives like the 32 National Campus Safety Initiative, and ultimately through federal legislation that now mandates uniform, ongoing public reporting nationwide.
Key Differences Between Campus Hazing Transparency Reporting and Traditional Clery Reporting
The Campus Hazing Transparency Report (CHTR) differs significantly from traditional Clery Act reporting in both scope and requirements:
- Narrower: It requires a formal institutional finding that a policy violation constituting hazing actually occurred — mere reports or allegations are not enough, unlike other Clery crime statistics or disclosures.
- Broader: It mandates public naming of the involved student organization (any recognized or established student group, not just Greek-letter organizations), marking the first time Clery-related reporting requires identification of specific groups. Additionally, there is no geographic limitation: hazing incidents must be reported regardless of whether they occurred on campus, off campus, or even outside the United States (e.g., during study-abroad programs or organization retreats), provided the institution’s policies apply. Student privacy protections, including FERPA, must still be carefully observed throughout the process.
Further, the SCHA takes a deliberate dual-track approach to hazing definitions:
- For Clery crime statistics (the Annual Security Report), institutions must use the uniform federal definition of hazing provided in the law.
- For the CHTR, however, institutions retain flexibility: they may continue using their existing institutional definition, adopt a state-mandated definition (where required for disciplinary proceedings), incorporate the new federal definition, or create a compliant hybrid.
Related Article: How Should Colleges Report Pre-2025 Hazing Incidents?
As a result, the definition of “hazing” applied in an institution’s CHTR may legitimately differ from the one used for its Clery crime statistics. This flexibility acknowledges longstanding institutional policies and state-law requirements while still ensuring meaningful, consistent transparency.
Mandatory Data for the CHTR
The CHTR functions like a public log of substantiated hazing violations, but with precise, mandatory details for each entry:
- The name of the involved student organization
- A general description of the hazing violation (without identifying individual students)
- Whether alcohol or other drugs were involved
- Key dates: when the hazing occurred, when the investigation began and concluded with a finding of violation, and when the organization was notified
- The sanctions imposed
- Any additional information an institution deems necessary or is required by state law
The inaugural report, due no later than December 23, 2025, must include every violation with a final finding on or after July 1, 2025 (the date institutions were required to begin tracking this information). In addition, the posted report must contain the institution’s full hazing policy, relevant state laws, and information on how hazing incidents are reported and adjudicated. This combination of historical entries and explanatory content makes the CHTR far more detailed and informative than a traditional crime log.
Related On-Demand Webinar: The Stop Campus Hazing Act: Key Implementation Trends That Could Impact Clery Act Compliance
Recommended Practices for Reporting Zero Hazing Violations
Institutions are not required to publish a Campus Hazing Transparency Report until they have a substantiated hazing violation. However, posting a simple placeholder stating “No violations have been found since July 1, 2025,” along with the full policy and reporting instructions, is strongly recommended. It reassures the community and media of compliance, eliminates any perception of concealment, and turns the page into a valuable year-round prevention resource. A visible “zero report” is smart transparency, not just safe compliance.
Operational Shifts for Campus Safety Teams
For many campus public safety departments and Clery Act coordinators, the Campus Hazing Transparency Report (CHTR) will require a significant shift in roles and mindset:
- The definition of hazing used for the CHTR may differ from the uniform federal definition they began applying to Clery crime statistics this year.
- The determination of whether a reportable hazing violation occurred will typically rest with student conduct professionals, not campus public safety or Clery staff.
- Decisions about where and how prominently the report appears on the website will involve communications, public relations, and IT teams, not just compliance offices.
Successful implementation of the Campus Hazing Transparency Report requires Clery and public safety professionals to relinquish sole control and embrace genuine cross-functional collaboration with student conduct, legal counsel, communications, and IT teams. Stepping back from the wheel is not a diminishment of influence. It is the only path to full compliance and, far more importantly, to the cultural change needed to end hazing.
Related Article: HazingInfo.org Releases Nationwide College Campus Hazing Database
A “Dear Colleague Letter” from the U.S. Department of Education about the Stop Campus Hazing Act is expected by the end of the year, but it is essential to go ahead and be prepared to publish now.
This is exactly what those pioneering settlement terms envisioned two decades ago: placing life-saving information in the public’s hands so that students and families can make informed decisions and hold organizations accountable. Twenty years later, that private vision is now federal law, and its success depends on all of us working together.
Daniel Carter, President of SAFE Campuses, LLC since 2017, is an internationally recognized campus safety expert with over 30 years of experience, including key roles in developing the Clery Act, Campus SaVE Act (VAWA), and Stop Campus Hazing Act, as well as leading the 32 National Campus Safety Initiative post-Virginia Tech; he has trained thousands, conducted safety audits, and been featured in major media like The New York Times, NPR, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Note: The views expressed by guest bloggers and contributors are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Campus Safety.
