The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has released reviews finding the University of Vermont (UVM), the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) and Washington State University (WSU) in violation of the Clery Act with recommendations that they face civil penalties. The actions may include fines and/or the limitation, suspension or termination of the eligibility of the institution.

UVM was found to have five violations:

1. Inaccurate reporting of campus crime statistics, specifically anonymously reported sex offenses
2. Crime log deficiencies, specifically the current disposition of some incidents
3. Insufficient information regarding timely warning, specifically the modes of communication in which those warnings would be made in the case of an imminent threat
4. Sexual assault policy insufficient, specifically with regard to the fact that both the accused and accuser may have someone else present during disciplinary proceedings
5. Failure to distribute the campus security report (CSR) in accordance with federal regulations, specifically the exact URL where the report was located.

UNI was found to have four violations:

1. Inaccurate reporting of campus crime statistics, specifically liquor law violations
2. Failure to distribute the campus security report (CSR) in accordance with federal regulations
3. Insufficient information regarding timely warning, specifically the modes of communication in which those warnings would be made in the case of an imminent threat
4. Sexual assault policy insufficient, specifically with regard to the fact that both the accused and accuser may have someone else present during disciplinary proceedings.

WSU was found to have two violations:

1. Failure to properly disclose forcible sex crime statistics and accurately classify offenses
2. Failure to include required statements in the annual security report (ASR).

WSU’s review found that the school failed to properly report two forcible sex offenses for 2007, and omitted statements about preparing the annual statistics and information about accused and accuser rights in sexual assault cases as well as possible punishments the institution may impose from the ASR.

The reviews were initiated in 2008 as part of the ED’s partnership with the FBI to review sample institutions for accuracy in campus crime reporting. They were not as a result of any complaint or alleged non-compliance.

In a statement to Campus Safety magazine, Security On Campus (SOC) Director of Public Policy S. Daniel Carter indicated that the reviews revealed issues commonly experienced at institutions, which have relatively easy solutions.

Related Article: Additional Clery Compliance Guidance

“One especially common issue we’ve seen in recent years is the reporting of inconsistent information in the Clery reports made available on campus and the data submitted to the ED,” he says. “UVM omitted 20 sex offenses from data reported, while UNI omitted 451 liquor law disciplinary referrals. This data should always match. Institutions with concerns about how to submit their data should contact the ED’s help desk.”

“Both institutions omitted from either both their policy and Clery report (UNI) or their Clery report (UVM) the mandatory sexual assault policy statement that both the accused and accuser are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present at any disciplinary proceeding. This is a significantly important right for victims, and omitting it from policies and statements can lead to it being denied them, or at a minimum them not knowing they have it, which can be a barrier to reporting. Institutions can easily correct this by checking off each required element of the policy from the regulations, the Handbook, or SOC’s Web site.

“Much like Virginia Tech, each institution omitted key details from their timely warning policy statement disclosure. As discussed in the Tech case, transparency of these details so the campus community can have oversight and know what to expect is critical. Institutions can easily address this issue by making sure their disclosure summarizes all key elements of their timely warning procedures – as detailed in the Clery reporting Handbook – including who will issue the warning and what channels they’ll use.

“[UVM and UNI] also failed to fully disclose information about the availability of the annual Clery report (UNI failed to issue any notice whatsoever in 2007). Institutions must provide direct notice to each current student and employee by Oct. 1 that contains the exact URL of the Clery report, not merely the institution’s Web site or campus police Web site.

“UVM also failed to properly update the status of incidents in their public crime log, and used unclear terminology (“suspicious events”) to describe incidents that were disclosed as burglaries in the annual statistics. All crime log entries must be kept updated for 60 days, and use terminology which will be easily understood by members of the general public.”

Since 2008, ED and theFBI have randomly reviewed 32 institutions of higher education.

The complete findings relating to UVM, UNI and WSU can be found at:

• http://federalstudentaid.ed.gov/datacenter/cleryact.html#uvm
• http://federalstudentaid.ed.gov/datacenter/cleryact.html#uni

• http://federalstudentaid.ed.gov/datacenter/cleryact.html#washington

Related Articles:

• Clery Reporting: Whose Job Is It Anyway?
• Dept. of Ed Releases Updated Campus Safety Guide
• Who Is and Isn’t a Campus Security Authority?
• Campus Sexual Assualts: How Community Policing Can Make a Difference
• Additional Clery Compliance Guidance
• Specific guidelines on emergency notification, emergency response policies and testing
• Specific guidelines on missing students
• Specific guidelines on the new fire incident reporting requirements
• Sexual Assault Prevention Education: Getting the Message Through to Students

If you appreciated this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!

Related Content