Stop Campus Hazing Act Two months have passed since the inaugural Campus Hazing Transparency Report (CHTR) deadline of December 23, 2025. Across the country, colleges and universities published their first reports—some with detailed entries, others with clear statements indicating no violations were found, and some still working through final adjustments.

Having spent the last several weeks reviewing reports, fielding questions from Clery Coordinators and General Counsel, and reflecting on the training and consulting work we delivered leading up to the deadline, I want to share five practical lessons that stood out. My goal is to help you strengthen your next update and turn the CHTR from a compliance exercise into a meaningful tool for campus safety.

Plain-Language Descriptions Matter More Than You Think

The statute requires a “general description of the violation.” Many institutions correctly avoided legalese, but some still defaulted to internal code citations alone (e.g., “Violation of Policy 10(a)”). Those reports feel opaque and inaccessible to students and families.

Lesson: Write a short, clear narrative in everyday language. You don’t need to include every detail—just enough context so the public understands what type of hazing occurred and the nature of the misconduct.

Get the Four Required Dates Right

The law specifically asks for four dates: when the incident allegedly occurred, when the investigation began, when the investigation ended with a finding of responsibility, and when the institution provided notice to the organization.

Lesson: The strongest reports consistently used the final dates after any appeals were exhausted. Using final, post-appeal dates avoids confusion and ensures the report reflects completed due process.

“Zero-Violation” Placeholders Are Smart and Compliant

While the Stop Campus Hazing Act does not require an institution to publish a CHTR until it has a substantiated hazing violation, many institutions chose to publish a clear statement regarding the absence of violations during the reporting period. These pages often included helpful links to the full hazing policy, anonymous reporting forms, and the Annual Security Report (ASR).

Lesson: This approach meets the law’s requirements while demonstrating transparency. It reassures the community, eliminates any perception of concealment, and turns the page into a valuable, year-round prevention resource.

The Distinction Between Clery Statistics and CHTR Is Critical

This nuance trips up even experienced professionals.

Clery Act Statistics: You must count hazing involving any group with two or more enrolled students, whether the group is recognized by the institution or not.
CHTR Requirement: The scope is narrower; it only applies to substantiated hazing violations by officially recognized or established student organizations.
Lesson: Keeping these definitions distinct prevents over- or under-reporting and ensures your statistics remain defensible during federal audits.

Treat the CHTR as a Prevention Tool

The most effective reports don’t stop at compliance. They use the public nature of the CHTR to reinforce campus values and deter high-risk behavior. When the report is easy to find, clearly written, and updated on schedule, it sends a strong message that the institution takes student safety seriously.

Looking Ahead to Your Next Update

The next CHTR update is coming soon. Use the lessons from this first round to refine your templates, double-check your dates, strengthen your plain-language descriptions, and ensure your dedicated webpage remains prominent and user-friendly.

If you’d like a fresh set of eyes on your next update, or help preparing for the 2026 Annual Security Report (which will include your first full year of SCHA-defined hazing statistics), we’re here to help. My team and I continue to support institutions as they move from initial compliance to sustained excellence.

What lessons did you learn from your first CHTR?

Find this content useful? Share it with your friends!