Skip Repetitive Navigation Links
California State Auditor Report Number : 2015-032

California’s Postsecondary Educational Institutions
More Guidance Is Needed to Increase Compliance With Federal Crime Reporting Requirements

Responses to the Audit

Use the links below to jump to a specific section

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

California State University Office of the Chancellor

San Francisco State University

Shasta College

Stanford University

California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From Stanford University

State Center Community College District, on Behalf of Fresno City College

University of California, Office of the President

University of California, San Diego

University of Redlands




Response From the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

June 30, 2015

Ms. Elaine Howle, State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Clery Act Reporting Draft Audit Report

Dear Ms. Howle:

1

The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on your report California’s Postsecondary Education Institutions: More Guidance Is Needed to Increase Compliance with Federal Crime Reporting Requirements. In general, we find the report to be a thorough and accurate description of Clery Act reporting in California public higher education. The report effectively draws attention to an issue of great significance to Californians, with implications for both public safety and a government transparency. We agree with the report’s conclusion that the state can and should do more to support public colleges and universities to ensure full compliance with federal reporting requirements.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this report. We look forward to working with you and your staff and other agencies as the report’s recommendations are considered by state leaders and the public.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 323-7007.

Sincerely,

Erik Skinner

Deputy Chancellor



CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENT ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office) to our audit. The number below corresponds to the number we have placed in the margin of the Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office’s response.

1

The Community College Chancellor’s Office does not explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendation in its response. Instead, it states that it agrees that the State can and should do more to support public colleges and universities to ensure full compliance with federal reporting requirements. We look forward to the Community College Chancellor’s Office’s 60‑day, six‑month, and one‑year updates on its progress in implementing our recommendation.



Back to top



Response From the California State University Office of the Chancellor

June 30, 2015

Ms. Elaine M. Howle
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

The California State University (CSU) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the draft audit report of California’s Postsecondary Education Institutions: More Guidance Is Needed to Increase Compliance with Federal Crime Reporting Requirements. We appreciate the time and effort dedicated by the California State Auditor in conducting this important audit.

The CSU fully recognizes the critical importance of campus safety information and making accurate disclosures to students and other stakeholders so that they can make informed decisions. In fact, in March 2013, the Office of the Chancellor (CO) identified a need to increase the guidance and training it provides to campuses regarding compliance with the Clery Act’s requirements. As a result, the CO initiated a task force, including a subcommittee dedicated to the Clery Act. The subcommittee is working to identify any need for additional systemwide policies that provide substantive guidance in complying with the Clery Act. It is expected that the subcommittee will make some substantive policy recommendations and suggest the possible establishment of a systemwide framework for compliance, as well as identify possible training opportunities on Clery Act issues. Since April 2014, CSU has hosted three Clery Act trainings, including training by Clery Act experts, with plans for a fourth training later this year. In June 2014, the CO allotted additional resources to contract with Clery Act consultants; all CSU campuses have direct access to these consultants for any questions regarding compliance, reporting, or campus safety. Moreover, in January 2015, the CSU Office of Audit and Advisory Services identified the Clery Act as a high-risk area and subsequently began performing audits at six CSU campuses.

Recommendation: To ensure its respective institutions comply with the Clery Act, the CSU Office of the Chancellor should develop written policies and procedures to provide guidance to its institutions on how to report accurate Clery Act crime statistics and ensure that all required disclosures are included in their respective institutions’ annual security reports. The CSU Office of the Chancellor should annually revisit the written policies and procedures to ensure they are up to date.

Response: We concur. We will develop written policies and procedures to provide guidance to the campuses on how to report accurate Clery Act crime statistics and ensure that all required disclosures are included in their annual security reports. In addition, we will annually review the policies and procedures to ensure they are up to date.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Timothy P. White
Chancellor

TPW/cs



Back to top



Response From San Francisco State University

June 30, 2015

California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: San Francisco Redacted Agency Draft—Report No. 2015-032

Dear State Auditor,

This letter is in response to Report No. 2015-032 on California’s postsecondary educational institution’s compliance with federal crime reporting requirements from the California State Auditor. I have read and reviewed the report and agree with the following recomendations presented by the State Auditor.

Recommendations:

  1. San Francisco should review and adhere to applicable guidance related to the Clery Act, including the OPE handbook and the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook to ensure that they are accurately reporting their crime statistics.
  2. San Francisco should create written procedures that clearly describe the review process they will undertake to ensure that they are reporting crime statistics consistently and accurately in their annual security reports.
  3. San Francisco should review and adhere to applicable guidance related to the Clery Act, including the OPE handbook and the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook to ensure that they are including all required disclosures in their annual security reports.

Sincerely,

Leslie E. Wong
President



Back to top



Response From Shasta College

June 30, 2015

California State Auditor
Elaine Howle
621 Capital Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Elaine,

Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District strives to provide a safe learning environment. The Audit conducted by the California State Auditors has brought attention to areas we can improve our compliance with the Jeanne Clery Act. Shasta College has and will continue to take whatever steps necessary to maintain full compliance with the act.

We acknowledge the findings with respect to the over reporting of one Burglary, Missing or Incomplete Policies and Crime Log.

We have reviewed and will adhere to applicable guidelines in the OPE and FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbooks. Shasta College has corrected the statistical data with respect to the over-reporting of the Burglary. We have taken corrective action by creating or adding policies to ensure that all required policies and disclosures are included in the Annual Security Report. We have created a review team to ensure that crimes are captured accurately on the daily crime log.

We appreciate the professionalism and courteous demeanor shown to our staff during this review.

Sincerely,

Lonnie Seay,
Director of Campus Safety
(530) 242-7912
Fax (530) 225-3905
Shasta College, 11555 Old Oregon Trial, Building 5000, Redding, CA 96003



Back to top



Response From Stanford University

June 30, 2015

Ms. Elaine Howle, State Auditor
California State Auditor's Office
621 Capitol Mall
SUITE 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ms. Howle,

At President Hennessy’s request, I write in response to the draft audit report on university compliance with federal crime reporting requirements, and specifically the findings relating to Stanford University.

1

We are pleased that the State found and acknowledged that Stanford is in compliance with all of the required Clery Act disclosures (Table 3, p. 5) and Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA) disclosures. (Table 4, p. 7/ p. 9.*) Stanford expended significant effort to ensure that we would be in compliance with these laws.

Stanford does not disagree with the conclusion that of the 55 crimes audited at Stanford, there were two reporting errors (one crime was inadvertently counted twice, and one crime was erroneously reported as having taken place in a student residence when that was not the case). Stanford Department of Public Safety staff engage in extensive quality control review of all statistics before submitting any report to the Department of Education. We have and will continue to examine our processes and seek ways to improve our compliance. Our Clery Compliance Coordinator has plans to conduct additional training with our staff, including the ten employees who have already attended D Stafford's Advanced Clery Training classes, to ensure crimes are properly categorized according to State and federal laws.

The following paragraph contains the second reference of the State Auditor's comment number 1.

2
3

I would like to call your attention to page 10 of the report in which this audit notes that Stanford “inaccurately reported crimes as domestic violence crimes.” As is described earlier in the State’s report at pages three through five, the VAWA regulations that define domestic violence and dating violence crimes for reporting purposes do not become effective until July 1, 2015. It is therefore not possible for Stanford to have “inaccurately” reported crimes when the regulations requiring us to accurately report the crimes are not yet in effect.

The following paragraph contains the second reference of the State Auditor's comment number 3.

Schools were asked to make good faith efforts to report dating and domestic violence crimes before the regulations became effective, as the State’s report provides on page four. To this end, Stanford relied upon the definitions of domestic violence and dating violence available through the Federal Register as well as training provided by a national expert as to the likely definitions of these categories. Stanford included the anticipated definitions for domestic and dating violence on page 61 of our 2014 Annual Safety Report.

The following paragraph contains the second reference of the State Auditor's comment number 2.

As noted in our report, the federal definition of domestic violence under VAWA includes a felony or misdemeanor act of violence . . . “committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim...committed by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of [California], or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of [California].” California Penal Code section 13700(b) defines domestic violence as "abuse committed against an adult or a minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship." California Penal Code section 243(e)(10)(f) defines a dating relationship to be “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations”. The incident in question was categorized as misdemeanor domestic violence pursuant to 243(e)(1) of the California Penal Code, which is defined as "battery committed against a spouse...or a person with whom the defendant currently has, or has previously had, a dating or engagement relationship". The parties in the matter in question were engaged in a dating relationship as defined by California law, so this incident meets the state definition of domestic violence. The suspect was an "intimate partner of the victim" and the victim "protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of California". Given the California definition of domestic violence and the current VAWA definition of domestic violence, it is not clear to Stanford why the state contends that the crime in question was mis-categorized.

The following paragraph contains the third reference of the State Auditor's comment number 3.

Even accepting the State’s conclusion that the act should have been categorized as dating violence rather than domestic violence, there is no question that Stanford acted in good faith under circumstances in which the regulations were not in effect. Our obligation was to make a good faith effort to comply, which we did. It seems unreasonable for the State to fault our good faith efforts, especially considering the regulations and crime definitions were finalized after the due date of submission of statistical data to the Department of Education and after the finalization of our annual safety report. Given these facts, Stanford requests that the paragraph on page 10 be removed from the final report.

Sincerely,

Laura Wilson

Cc: John Hennessy, President
Debra L. Zumwalt, Vice President and General Counsel

* There may be a typo in the page numbering of the draft report we received. The bottom of page 7 indicates the table is continued on the next page. The next page in our draft report is marked page 9 and appears to continue the same table.


California State Auditor's Comments on the Response From Stanford University

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on Stanford University’s (Stanford) response to our audit. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of Stanford’s response.

1

We provided Stanford a shorter version of the draft audit report containing only those sections pertaining to it during the review period. Therefore, the page numbers Stanford cites in its response do not correspond to the page numbers in our final report.

2

On several occasions we discussed with Stanford the categorization of this particular crime as domestic violence instead of dating violence. During our fieldwork, Stanford confirmed that it had misunderstood the legal definitions and erroneously classified the crime. During and after the exit conference, we conferred with Stanford’s legal counsel to gain an understanding of Stanford’s discomfort with our conclusions. At no time did Stanford’s legal counsel discuss the facts of the case or explain that Stanford believed the crime was domestic violence under state law. Instead, Stanford’s legal counsel took issue with the language we used to describe the error and presented what was, in our view, an incorrect legal argument. However, at the end of its five‑day review period of our draft report, Stanford finally provided a legitimate legal basis for classifying the crime as it did and the legal analysis upon which it based its decision. Based on our review of this new information, we deemed Stanford’s conclusions reasonable and revised the text accordingly.

3

As we indicate here and here in our report, we are aware that the federal government instructed campuses to make a good faith effort to comply with the law during the period of time between the effective dates of the provisions of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which amended the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) and its implementing regulations. For this reason, we did not include any inaccurate reporting of dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking during our audit period as an error in Table 2. We also acknowledge here that any inaccuracies we identified for institutions in this area occurred during the good faith grace period; however, as of July 1, 2015, postsecondary educational institutions are required to report accurate Clery Act statistics for these crimes, and thus should ensure that they clearly understand domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking crimes as legally defined.



Back to top



Response From the State Center Community College District, on Behalf of Fresno City College

Lieutenant Richard Gaines
District Police Department-SCCCD
1940 N. Calaveras
Fresno, CA 93704

July 10, 2015

Elaine Howle
State Auditor
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Elaine Howle:

On behalf of Fresno City College and the District Police Department at State Center Community College District, we would like to thank the office of the California State Auditor for their professionalism during the recent audit of our Annual Security Report. Your team was extremely thorough and kept us advised of the status of the audit as it progressed.

On June 24, 2015, President Cynthia Azari of Fresno City College received two copies of the “Redacted Agency Draft” of the audit performed by your agency. The instructions accompanying the “redacted agency draft” advised we had (5) five business days to respond in writing to the recommendations made by the audit team with a due date of 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2015. The recommendations were contained within the “Redacted Agency Draft” and are as follows:

We are committed to providing our prospective students, their families as well as our existing campus community with an accurate and complete Annual Security Report each year. We understand the importance of accurate crime statistics as well as the policies and processes institutions must describe in their reports that are required under the Clery Act and described in the OPE handbook.

The District Police Department has reviewed the results of the audit and will be taking the following steps to ensure our Annual Security Report contains all of the necessary information:

I hope this has addressed the recommendations outlined in the audit report. If for any reason you have questions or comments, please feel free to call us at 559-244-5911.

Sincerely,
Lieutenant Richard Gaines
District Police Department-SCCCD




Back to top



Response From the University of California, Office of the President

June 26, 2015


Ms. Elaine M. Howle
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

Thank you for your letter of June 24 and for the opportunity to review and respond to the audit report, “California’s Postsecondary Educational Institutions: More Guidance Is Needed To Increase Compliance With Federal Crime Reporting Requirements. Below is the University’s response to the recommendation in the report directed to the University of California Office of the President:

Recommendation:

To ensure its respective institutions comply with the Clery Act, UCOP should ensure that it finalizes and implements its draft policy that will provide additional guidance and oversight to its institutions.

Response:

We agree with this recommendation and will finalize the draft Crime Awareness and Campus Security Policy as planned.

Thank you and your staff for your professional and collaborative efforts in conducting this audit.

Yours very truly,

Janet Napolitano
President

cc: Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance & Audit Officer Vacca




Back to top



Response From the University of California, San Diego

June 29, 2015


Elaine M. Howle, CPA
State Auditor
California State Auditor’s Office
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 120
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Response to recommendations of Audit Report Number 2015-032, “California’s postsecondary educational institutions’ compliance with federal crime reporting requirements.”

Dear Ms. Howle:

We have reviewed the report, concur with the findings and will be implementing corrections and procedures as described in the report, as noted below.

For additional questions or further information, please contact David Meier, UC San Diego Audit & Management Advisory Services, at (858) 534-1334.

It was a pleasure working with your staff. We appreciate their helpfulness and professionalism. Thank you for your guidance and assistance in our efforts to be in compliance with the requirements of the Clery Act.

Sincerely,

Pradeep Khosla
Chancellor

Cc:
J. Bruner, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
D. Meier, Director, Audit & Management Advisory Services
D. Rose, Police Chief
S. Vacca, SVP and Chief Compliance and Audit Officer

State of California Audit Report Number 2015-032

Response to Findings

UC San Diego acknowledges a few inaccurate statistics in reporting Clery crimes, as noted in the California State Auditor’s Report 2015-032. Specifically, we acknowledge errors in reporting the number of crimes (over-reporting), and the locations of certain crimes.

Response to Recommendations

CSA recommends that UCSD should review and adhere to applicable guidance related to the Clery Act, including the OPE handbook and the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook to ensure that they are accurately reporting their crime statistics

CSA recommends that UCSD should create written procedures that clearly describe the review process they will undertake to ensure that they are reporting crime statistics consistently and accurately in their annual security reports.

CSA recommends that UCSD should review and adhere to applicable guidance related to the Clery Act, including the OPE handbook and the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook to ensure that they are including all required disclosures in their annual security reports.

UCSD concurs with all of the CSA’s recommendations. We will be developing written procedures for the review of statistical data prior to submission to local, state, and federal institutions, and publication of the ASR. The procedures will include specific steps to be taken, including an ongoing review of the Uniform Crime Reporting and OPE handbooks, and the Clery Act, to ensure that reported data is accurate and consistent, and meets established reporting guidelines.

Errors noted by the CSA will be corrected in the 2015 ASR. Information omitted from last year’s ASR regarding notification of disciplinary procedures and the appeal process will be included in the 2015 ASR. Prior to publication, the ASR will be thoroughly reviewed to ensure full disclosure of all applicable policies and policy statements.




Back to top



Resposne From the University of Redlands

June 30, 2015

Elaine M. Howle, CPA, State Auditor
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, Ca 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the observations and recommendations from your Agency’s recent audit of the University of Redlands’ Jeanne Clery Act reporting of calendar year 2013 crime statistics to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, (OPE) as well as our 2014 Annual Security Report (ASR). President Kuncl is unavailable due to a major surgical procedure, so I am providing you with the University of Redlands’ response on his behalf. The University of Redlands regards Clery compliance as a critical responsibility and recognizes that the accuracy of that reporting is a crucial element that is used by current and prospective students and employees in their quest to make informed decisions about the environment they entrust with their educational and employment prospects.

The University of Redlands concurs with each of the three recommendations noted in the audit report. Below you will find our statements of concurrence and completed methods of correction following each recommendation noted in the audit report:

Recommendation #1:

The University of Redlands should review and adhere to applicable guidance related to the Clery Act, including the OPE handbook and the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook to ensure that they are accurately reporting their crime statistics.

University Response:

The University of Redlands concurs with this recommendation. During the reporting of calendar year 2013 crime statistics to the OPE, as well as in our ASR, we over-reported by one, the instance of an aggravated assault occurring during the commission of a robbery of a cellular telephone on public property adjacent to the campus. The University of Redlands erred in overreporting this incident to the OPE and in the ASR as both a robbery and an aggravated assault. While both of those crimes occurred, the Clery guidelines clearly specify that only the greatest hierarchy crime in accordance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook are to be reported. In this instance, only the criminal act of robbery should have been reported. The University of Redlands will amend the data on the OPE website and in the ASR during the next reporting period in August of 2015.

Recommendation #2:

The University of Redlands should review and adhere to applicable guidance related to the Clery Act, including the OPE handbook and the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook to ensure that they are including all required disclosures in their annual security reports.

University Response:

The University of Redlands concurs with this recommendation. Prior to the audit, the Department of Public Safety followed internal procedures in accordance with guidelines contained in the OPE Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting. However, during the audit process it was noted that the University of Redland’s summary descriptions of specified policy statements or procedures should be described in their entirety. Specifically, statements which completely address all educational programs to promote the awareness and prevention of occurrences of sexual misconduct for all incoming students and new employees; the rights of victims regarding protective orders; a description of all emergency response and evacuation procedures; and a complete description of the University’s Missing Student Policy pertaining to designated confidential contact information. Following discussion with the auditors regarding this recommendation, the University of Redlands documented formal procedures in written format to address this issue prior to publication of the final audit report. In addition, the University of Redlands’ ASR was revised to include each of the identified statements or procedures that had previously been described in summary as opposed to in entirety. The revised ASR will be posted on the University of Redlands website and available in print format at the Department of Public Safety during the next reporting period beginning in August 2015.

Recommendation #3:

The University of Redlands should ensure that they include all crimes on their daily crime log as required under the Clery Act.

University Response:

The University of Redlands concurs with this recommendation. During the audit, three crimes that had occurred on or adjacent to the campus were not contained in the University of Redlands’ Daily Crime Log. Specifically, two instances of stalking and one instance of a weapon possession on University of Redlands property had been reported to the Department of Public Safety, but those crimes were not incorporated in the Daily Crime Log available for public inspection. The University of Redlands discovered that the investigating personnel manually entered the crime descriptions in the reporting database, as opposed to utilizing the automated dropdown menu function of the reporting system. While the manual entries were sufficient for completing the investigation format, unbeknownst to the entering personnel, they subverted the automated population function of the Daily Crime Log. Amended internal procedures have subsequently been instituted to preclude a recurrence of this situation. It should be noted, however, that while the three identified crimes were not contained in the Daily Crime Log, they were all accurately reported to OPE and contained in the ASR as required by the Clery Act.

As illustrated above, the University of Redlands concurs with each of the recommendations discussed during the California State Auditors field examination and listed in the audit report. In accordance with those recommendations, the University of Redlands has completed all revisions addressing the identified issues in the ASR which will be published in August of 2015.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide these clarifying comments to your audit observations and recommendations. I believe this collaborative process serves to ensure full disclosure and compliance with the Jeanne Clery Act and provides a model for informed decision making by our current and prospective University Community members.

Sincerely,

Cory Nomura
Vice President of Finance and Administration




Back to top