Institutions of higher education face new requirements under the Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA), which amended the Clery Act in December 2024. For campus leaders, the legal requirements will result in:
new compliance responsibilities for campus safety professionals, and
new information for the broader campus community to digest, interpret, and act on.
With more hazing information becoming publicly available, institutions will need to provide context for how that information is reported and interpreted. Understanding the difference between the new Campus Hazing Transparency Report (CHTR) and the Annual Security Report (ASR) will be integral to accurately communicating what the data shows—and what it doesn't—so that transparency doesn't come at the cost of confusion or misinterpretation.
How It All Began
The Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act, known as the Clery Act, requires colleges and universities to disclose campus crime statistics and security policies and procedures.
Congress passed the Clery Act in 1990 following advocacy from Connie and Howard Clery for stronger campus safety after the rape and murder of their daughter, Jeanne, in her college residence hall.
The SCHA amendment was passed after years of advocacy by families and organizations that were deeply impacted by hazing and its continued occurrence on campuses across the country. The result is legislation that meaningfully strengthens the Clery Act by requiring institutions to:
establish hazing policies,
provide research-informed prevention programs, and
disclose incidents of hazing involving student organizations.
The amendment also establishes a new method for reporting hazing incidents.
Why it matters: Hazing remains widespread. With 55% of students involved in clubs, teams, and organizations experiencing hazing, this law aims to close a long-standing transparency gap (Allan & Madden, 2008).1
The Campus Hazing Transparency Report
To increase transparency around hazing violations, SCHA requires institutions to publish a Campus Hazing Transparency Report twice per year. The CHTR:
informs the campus community about official groups, clubs, or teams found responsible for hazing, and
helps students and their families make informed decisions about which organizations to join.
Each CHTR must disclose:
Important: The CHTR cannot disclose any personally identifiable information about individual students.
Report Publication Requirements
Institutions were required to publish their first CHTR by December 23, 2025. However, if an institution has no findings to report, it is not required to publish a report or make updates.
If there are no findings, Clery Center recommends making it a practice to publish a statement that indicates as such, to reinforce transparency and accountability.
The CHTR must be published in a prominent location on an institution’s public website, making it reasonably easy for students and families to find.
How the Transparency Report Helps
Students interested in joining clubs, athletics, fraternities or sororities, performing arts groups, or any other type of student group on campus should review their institution’s CHTR.
What to look for:
In addition to the CHTR, the institution’s website should provide clear information about:
their hazing policy
how to report hazing
The Annual Security Report
The annual security report serves as another key resource for campus safety information.
The ASR includes details about:
ASRs include three calendar years’ worth of statistics for Clery Act crimes that:
occur in designated geographic locations, including
on-campus and on-campus student housing,
adjacent public property,
locations owned by recognized student organizations, and
additional noncampus properties,
and are reported to Campus Security Authorities (CSAs).
Reports may include hazing involving:
As of January 1, 2025, all reports of hazing that meet the Clery Act’s definition must be counted in the annual statistics, which will first appear in the 2026 ASR.
The Data Gap: Why Information Won’t Match
Readers comparing an institution’s ASR and CHTR might initially think there are discrepancies, but these differences are expected. Institutions should get ahead of this common misconception through community education.
Institutions should get ahead of this common misconception through community education.
The ASR discloses reports of (a) Clery-defined hazing, (b) occurring in Clery geography, (c) regardless of the investigative outcome or the recognition status of the organization. Whereas, the CHTR discloses findings of (a) institutional hazing policy violations, (b) by recognized student organizations, (c) regardless of Clery geography.
Because these two reports measure different things, the data will simply not align.
Institutions should explain this expected discrepancy clearly on the webpage hosting their CHTR, in their ASR, and even in their hazing prevention programs. This step can help prevent confusion and build trust in the reporting process.
The Takeaway
Understanding the difference between these reports and the requirements of the Stop Campus Hazing Act not only enhances compliance; it also drives accountability.
Together, these two reports provide a broader picture of hazing on campus. They show:
reports of hazing incidents, regardless of outcome, and
how student organizations are being held accountable.
Understanding the difference between these reports and the requirements of the Stop Campus Hazing Act not only enhances compliance; it also drives accountability. That's the Clery Act's mission—and it’s your institution's responsibility to fulfill it.
1 https://stophazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/hazing_in_view_study.pdf