Figure 1 is a flowchart showing the informal process for addressing Title IX complaints at university campuses. The process begins with a campus Title IX office receiving a complaint. From there, the Title IX office determines whether the complaint alleges prohibited conduct; university policy defines sexual harassment as prohibited conduct. If the complaint does not allege prohibited conduct, the campus Title IX office will refer the complaint to another campus office or it will administratively close the case. A campus Title IX office can also close a complaint when it has insufficient information to proceed or when the complainant does not respond to communications. If the campus Title IX office determines that the complaint does allege prohibited conduct, it will consider the following issues: whether the source of the complaint is a third party or an anonymous party; whether the formal process is unlikely to lead to a resolution; whether the parties prefer an informal process; and finally, whether the complaint involves less serious prohibited conduct. After considering those issues, the campus Title IX office will either decide to use the formal process, which we show in Figure 2, or it will use the informal process. The informal process may include counseling, targeted preventive educational and training programs, mediation (except in cases of sexual violence), separating the parties, providing for safety, a settlement agreement, and a follow-up review to ensure it effectively implemented the resolution. From there, the campus Title IX office will close the case.
Figure 2 is a flowchart showing the formal process for addressing Title IX complaints at university campuses. The process begins with a campus Title IX office initiating an investigation in response to a complaint. If the investigation’s results do not substantiate the complaint, the campus Title IX office closes the case. If the investigation substantiates the complaint, the campus Title IX office proceeds in one of three ways depending on the respondent’s position as staff, Senate faculty, or non-Senate faculty.
If the respondent is staff, the campus Title IX office provides human resources with the investigation report first, then the respondent’s immediate supervisor decides discipline. Effective July 2017, the chancellor’s designee approves the proposed discipline. Lastly, the respondent’s immediate supervisor imposes discipline, and the case is closed. Staff represented by a union can file a grievance. Staff includes non-faculty academic personnel for purposes of this report. A respondent that is both a student and a staff member may be subject to procedures applicable to both students and staff. These steps are on the left-hand side of the flow chart and are colored green.
If the respondent is Senate faculty, the campus Title IX office provides the chancellor or designee with the investigation report to decide discipline. Effective July 2017, the next step is for the chancellor or designee to consult with a Peer Review Committee, which makes a discipline recommendation. At this point, the chancellor or designee can negotiate discipline with the respondent, which can result in an agreement or mediation, leading to case closure. If the chancellor instead recommends discipline and files charges with the Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Committee, or if the respondent refuses to negotiate discipline, there is a Privilege and Tenure Committee hearing. The Privilege and Tenure Committee forwards findings, conclusions, and a discipline recommendation resulting from that hearing to the chancellor who decides and imposes discipline, leading to case closure. Authority to dismiss a tenured faculty member rests with the Regents. These steps are in the middle of the flow chart and are colored dark blue.
If the respondent is non-Senate faculty, the campus Title IX office provided the academic personnel office with the investigation report to decide discipline. Effective July 2017, the next step is the chancellor or designee consults with the Peer Review Committee or academic personnel office and determines discipline. At this point, the academic personnel office can negotiate discipline, which can result in an agreement or mediation and case closure. If the academic personnel office does not negotiate discipline, or if the respondent refuses to negotiate discipline, the academic personnel office imposes discipline and closes the case. In cases of recommended faculty dismissal, non-Senate faculty members are entitled to a hearing before an Academic Senate advisory committee. These steps are on the right-hand side of the flow chart and are colored light blue.
Figure 3 is a line graph showing the annual number of sexual harassment complaints by students against faculty and staff from 2007 through 2016. Each year is marked with a red dot with a line linking each dot or year. The line shows an increasing trend, with the number of complaints in 2007 at a little over 50 and the number for 2016 at a little over 200. The first three years are relatively flat, but there is a significant increase in 2011, with the number of complaints nearing 100 for both 2011 and 2012. There is a slight decrease from 2012 to 2013 down to about 90, but the final three years show increasing numbers of complaints. The largest increases over the entire time period were the two most recent years. From 2014 to 2015 there was an increase of over 50, and from 2015 to 2016 there was an increase of just under 50. Because the number of complaints each year increases notably, in the year 2014 there is a dark grey bar and a footnote stating: The increase in recorded complaints appears to be linked to a January 2014 White House task Force and a July 2014 university task force, both focused on improving response to sexual harassment.
Figure 4 is a graphical depiction of reviews of the university’s responses to sexual harassment complaints. The graphic shows the Office of the President as a blue ring on the right with lines connecting it to each of five boxes listed vertically on the left. The first box represents the California State Auditor’s report Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence: California Universities Must Better Protect Students by Doing More to Prevent, Respond to, and Resolve Incidents, [Report 2013-124, dated June 2014]. The second box represents the University of California’s Initial Report to the President, dated September 2014 and the Report to the President: Phase II, dated January 2015. The third box represents the University of California Report of the Joint Committee of the Administration and Academic Senate , dated April 2016. The fourth box represents the University of California President’s Committee on Sexual Violence Sexual Harassment Disciplinary Process for UC Personnel Other Than Faculty, dated August 2016. The fifth box represents the Office of Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services within the Office of the President and the reviews it performed of campus Title IX offices, dated March 2016 through September 2017. The sixth and last box represents the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ letter report of its investigation of compliance with Title IX requirements at the University of California, Berkeley, dated February 2018.
Figure 5 is a graphical representation of the number of days from the conclusion of an investigation to the effective date of related discipline for staff, Senate faculty, and non-Senate faculty respondents. The figure contains three columns, one for each type of respondent. Each column contains dots on a line representing each of the 21 respondents for the 23 complaints the auditor reviewed. There is a count of calendar days beginning at the top of the Figure at zero and stretching down to 390 days. Each column also includes a circle at the end of each line to represent the average number of days from conclusion of the investigation to the date that discipline was effective for each type of respondent.
The first column on the left-had side represents staff respondents and is green in color. This column has the most number of dots: there are 12. Between the zero and 30-day marks there are four dots. Between the 30 and 60-day marks there are five dots. Between the 60 and 90-day marks there are two dots, and the last dot in this column is just past the 120-day mark. The column indicates an average of 43 days.
The Senate faculty column is in the middle of the figure and it is represented by a dark blue color. This column has the longest range of dots: there are seven total dots in this column. There is one dot midway between the zero and 30-day marks, one dot between the 90 and 120-days marks, and two dots between the 210 and 240-day marks, with the second dot, at approximately 230 days, representing a case that involved multiple complaints. A note states that the time shown for this case reflects the days between completion of the last investigation to the discipline date. The column continues with one dot between the 240 and 270-day marks, one dot between the 300 and 330-day marks, and a final dot just before the 390-day mark. The column indicates an average of 220 days.
The non-Senate faculty column is on the right-hand side and is light blue in color. This column includes two dots. One just past the 30-day mark, and one before the 120-day mark. The column indicates an average of 74 days.
The figure includes a box providing an example disciplinary case timeline for one of the Senate faculty cases from the middle column. The box starts with day 0 when the investigator issued the final report substantiating misconduct. Then, it has day 43 when the chancellor notified the respondent of the proposed disciplinary sanction. Next, it shows day 61 when the chancellor’s designee filed charges with the Privilege and Tenure Committee. Following that, it says that on day 117 the Privilege and Tenure Committee held a pre-hearing conference. Next, it says that on day 176 the respondent requested to negotiate discipline. Then, it says that on day 181, the Chancellor’s designee and the respondent made a separation agreement. Finally, it says on day 223 the respondent’s resignation took effect. At the bottom of the box, it says that the total calendar days was 223.
Figure 6 is a graphical representation of steps in the faculty discipline process showing that most of the steps do not have required time frames. It is a vertical line on the left-had side showing whether time limits are associated with process steps, and graphical representations of the steps on the right-hand side. The time limits are amounts of time from one step to another, and the process flows from the top to the bottom. There are seven steps indicated between the eight processes on the figure, and four of the seven steps include an indicator that there is no time limit associated with the process step. The first step is the chancellor or designee files charges with the Privilege and Tenure Committee and the tenure committee sends a notice of charges to the accused faculty member. There is no time limit associated with this step. The second step is the respondent faculty member files an answer to the charges. There is a required 21-day time limit for this step. The third step is the Privilege and Tenure Committee appoints a hearing subcommittee. There is a required 21-day time limit for this step. The fourth step is the hearing subcommittee schedules a prehearing conference. There is an ideal 30-day limit for this step; this is not a time requirement. The last three steps have no associated time limits. The fifth step is the hearing is scheduled, and a note indicates that a hearing can also be scheduled, but not necessarily held, within 90 days of the hearing subcommittee’s appointment. The note says that we show the shortest time frame on the figure, which is the period from when the accused received a notice of charges to the hearing being scheduled. The sixth step is the hearing subcommittee issuing discipline recommendations to the chancellor, and the sixth step leads to the chancellor deciding discipline. A note indicates that the Regents have final authority to dismiss a tenured faculty member. On the right side of the figure, gray shading groups together process steps two through five with an indicator saying that the ideal timeframe for those four steps is 90 days.
Figure 7 is a chart showing varied disciplinary responses to sexual harassment at the campuses the auditors visited. The chart shows four types of prohibited behavior down the left side, and five disciplinary responses along the bottom. The chart is populated with color-coded dots, with each one representing one of three types of respondents: Staff, Senate faculty, or Non-Senate faculty. The types of prohibited behavior, listed from top to bottom on the left side of the chart are sexual assault, physical contact of a sexual nature, physical contact of a nonsexual nature, and verbal or nonverbal harassment. A note explains each of these behaviors as follows: verbal or nonverbal harassment involves behavior such as inappropriate comments or emails; physical contact of a nonsexual nature involves behavior such as touching a person’s knee or an inappropriate hug; physical contact of a sexual nature involves touching intimate body parts; and sexual assault involves nonconsensual intercourse. There is a note stating that respondents are categorized based on the most severe type of behavior the campus Title IX office substantiated. For example, a respondent categorized as engaging in physical contact of a non-sexual nature may also have committed verbal harassment.
The first type of discipline listed is a negotiated agreement to abide by policy. There is one Senate faculty respondent indicated with a dark blue dot for this type of discipline in the row for physical contact of a nonsexual nature. This respondent also includes a red ring around the blue dot as an indicator that the respondent was the subject of two or more complaints, and includes the letter A, which corresponds to Tables 2 and 3. This respondent agreed to abide by university policy. If he violated the policy within the subsequent five years, he would retroactively receive discipline no more severe than a one-semester leave without pay.
The second type of discipline indicated in the figure is a letter of warning. The row for verbal or nonverbal harassment has one indicator for a staff respondent represented by a green dot, and the row for physical contact of a nonsexual nature has another indicator for a staff respondent, also represented by a green dot. This second respondent has a red ring around the green dot as an indicator that the respondent was the subject of two or more complaints.
The third type of discipline listed is restrictions on promotion or employment. The chart includes three dots for Senate faculty respondents each represented with a dark blue dot, and one for a staff respondent represented with a green dot, all four dots are in the verbal and nonverbal harassment row. For the faculty respondents, the campuses negotiated the discipline with them. Provisions of these negotiated agreements included restrictions on promotions, employment, and contact with students. For the staff respondent represented by a green dot, the restriction was a three-day suspension without pay. One of the dark blue dots for a Senate faculty respondent includes a red ring around it as an indicator that the respondent is the subject of two or more complaints, and has the letter D, which corresponds to Tables 2 and 3. The other two dark blue dots for Senate Faculty respondents have the letters F and G, corresponding to Table 3.
The fourth type of discipline listed is for negotiated separation, and the chart indicates two Senate Faculty respondents represented with dark blue dots in the row for verbal and nonverbal harassment. One of those respondents has a red ring around the dark blue dot as an indicator the respondent is the subject of two or more complaints, with the letter E corresponding to Tables 2 and 3. The second Senate faculty respondent represented by a dark blue dot is marked with the letter H corresponding to Table 3 only. The negotiated separation column also includes one staff respondent represented by a green dot and one non-Senate faculty respondent represented by a light blue dot in the row for physical contact of a nonsexual nature. The non-Senate faculty respondent has a red ring around the light blue dot, indicating the respondent is the subject of two or more complaints, with the letter B corresponding to Tables 2 and 3.
The last type of discipline on the chart is dismissal, with the most respondents indicated: a total of 10. There are two staff respondents represented by green dots and one non-Senate faculty respondent represented by a light blue dot in the row for verbal and nonverbal harassment, with the non-Senate faculty respondent’s light blue dot containing the letter I, which corresponds to Table 3. There is one staff respondent represented by a green dot and one Senate faculty respondent represented by a dark blue dot in the row for physical contact of a nonsexual nature. The Senate faculty respondent has a red ring around the dark blue dot indicating the respondent is the subject of two or more complaints with a letter C corresponding to Tables 2 and 3. Also in the dismissal column are two staff respondents represented with green dots under physical contact of a sexual nature, and three staff respondents, also represented with green dots, in the sexual assault row.
Figure 8 is a graphical representation of the duration of the 29 investigations performed from 2014 through 2016 that we reviewed, and it shows that two of three campuses did not obtain approval to extend investigation time frames. On the upper left side, the figure shows a pie chart that indicates that 48 percent, or 14, of the investigations lasted 60 business days or less, and 52 percent of the investigations, or 15, lasted longer than 60 business days. The graphic shows a second pie chart on the middle right side, connected to the first, that describes the extension approval status of the 15 investigations that lasted more than 60 business days. It indicates that 33 percent of these investigations, or 5, had approved extensions and the reminding 67 percent, or 10, did not have approved extensions. The figure indicates that all of the investigations at Davis were performed within the 60 business day time frame or had an approved extension.The bottom half of the figure contains a bar chart to illustrate the duration of investigations from Berkeley and Los Angeles that did not have approved extensions. At the top of the bar chart is an investigation from Los Angeles that the campus never finalized, and in descending order of days, it lists nine additional investigations from either the Berkeley or Los Angeles campus that lasted 303, 264, 184, 126, 92, 91, 90, 88, and 76 business days, four from Berkeley and five from Los Angeles.
Figure 9 is a timeline that it shows an example of an investigation that the Berkeley campus undertook that did not have all necessary extensions and indicates various points in time between the start and the conclusion of the investigation. On the left, on day zero, it indicates the start date of the investigation. Between day zero and day 60, the timeline shows a yellow line; on day 60, it indicates the expected completion date. Between day 60 and day 109 the timeline shows a dark red line indicating a time period for which the investigation went on, but during which Berkeley did not have an approved time extension. On day 109 the timeline indicates the request for an extension approval and between day 109 and day 115, the timeline is yellow indicating a 6 business day period for which Berkeley had an approved time extension; on day 115 it indicates the investigation due date per the extension request. However, because the investigation was not finished and no additional extension was requested, from day 115 to day 264 the timeline shows a dark red color. Finally, on day 264 it indicates the investigation completion. A legend explains that the dark red timeline includes 49 and 149 business days, 198 total, for which the campus office did not have an approved extension. It also explains that the yellow timeline includes 60 and 6 business days, 66 total, within the initial time frame or for which the campus office had an approved extension.
Figure 10 is a graphical depiction of a model for the systemwide Title IX office’s mission and authority. The graphic shows the systemwide Title IX office in a central position at the top, surrounded by a large dark blue circle. Beneath the blue circle, the three key areas—policy, data, and oversight—are circled in yellow. These key areas are connected to the systemwide office by dark gray lines. Each key area is connected by a lighter gray line to a text box below it. These text boxes contain descriptions of current roles the systemwide office is performing in each respective area, as well as additional roles we identified for the systemwide office to perform. In the policy text box, the systemwide office’s current role is to maintain university policy and guidance. The additional role is for the systemwide office to approve local procedures for compliance with university policy. In the data section, the office currently performs the following roles: Collect campus sexual harassment complaints data and regularly share summary data with other stakeholders. The additional roles for the systemwide office to perform in the data area are: analyze data for patterns and outliers including complaints received, response practices, repeat respondents, and discipline outcomes; and disseminate detailed data reports to campuses that provide insight into specific trends such as repeat respondents. In the oversight section, the systemwide office’s current role is to perform active monitoring and periodic on-site review to ensure consistent response to complaints. The additional role is for the systemwide office to perform regular, targeted campus Title IX reviews focused on resolving long-standing issues with the university’s response to sexual harassment. A footnote indicates that the Office of Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services located in the Office of the President currently plans to conduct campus Title IX reviews every three years that are similar to its 2016 and 2017 reviews. Beneath the policy, data, and oversight text boxes are bi-directional arrows connecting to the 10 campuses below.