Written Statement Of
S. Daniel Carter, Vice President
Security On Campus, Inc.

Concerning A.B. No. 703, A.B. No. 4, and the federal
“Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act”
(Section 1601 of Public Law 106-386)

April 3, 2001; 9 a.m.
Hearing Before The
California Assembly Public Safety Committee
Sacramento, CA

Good morning Chairman Washington, Vice Chair LaSuer, and committee members.

I am Daniel Carter the vice-president of Security On Campus, Inc. a national non-profit campus security advocacy and victim assistance organization. Your colleague Patricia Bates, and Detective Sally Miller of the Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department have asked me to appear before you today concerning A.B. No. 703 and A.B. No. 4.

I would like to begin by thanking the committee as well as Assemblymember Bates and Detective Miller for this opportunity to address you concerning the registration of sexual offenders on college and university campuses.

Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act

Each of these bills would expand California’s sex offender registration requirements to include additional information about enrollment in or employment at institutions of higher education. Last year Congress enacted the “Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act” a law that requires states to collect this type of information in order to retain complete eligibility for the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant program which funds criminal justice programs.

Our organization became involved in this issue when Detective Miller approached Howard and Connie Clery, the co-founders of SOC, about it during a conference last year. She explained that it was impossible for campus police agencies, especially at community colleges, to get the type of sex offender information they needed to protect their communities in the way that other law enforcement agencies could.

Problems with sex offender lists and campus law enforcement were not unique to California, and we soon discovered that an Arizona Congressman had introduced federal legislation requiring institutions of higher education to disclose information about sex offenders on campus. I personally worked closely with several federal legislators, their staffs, and other representatives of the higher education community to develop that bill into what became law as the “Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act” (section 1601 of Public Law 106-386).

The federal law contains three main provisions: 1.) Registered sex offenders must disclose enrollment or employment at an institution of higher education to their state government; 2.) Institutions of higher education must disclose to students and employees where sex offender registry information may be obtained; and 3.) Schools can release sex offender information without violating federal student privacy requirements.

The second and third provisions do not involve changes to state law, therefore I will focus on the specifics of the first requirement, that states collect information from registered sex offenders about enrollment in or employment at institutions of higher education. I am hopeful that my observations will help you to develop a law that will fully comply with these new federal provisions and retain complete Byrne grant eligibility.

The federal law requires all registered sex offenders to “provide notice” to their state of all institutions of higher education where the offender “is employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student.” It also requires the offender to “provide notice” of any changes in their status and requires that state procedures make sure a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction for the campus is “promptly” notified of any such registrations and changes. The information must also be entered into the state’s central sex offender registry.

As introduced neither A.B. 703 nor A.B. 4 would amend Section 290 of the Penal Code to comply with all of the requirements of the “Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act.” Failure to comply results in a mandatory 10% reduction in the amount of Byrne grant funding which based on fiscal year 2001 budget information would be about $5.1 million annually for California.

A.B. 4

As introduced the provisions of A.B. 4, which I understand were developed prior to the adoption of the new federal law, 1.) do not apply to all institutions of higher education, instead applying only to a specific list of state schools; 2.) do not have a sufficiently broad definition of “employment”; and 3.) do not specifically require the registrant to disclose their status on a campus.

The federal provisions cover all institutions of higher education, including private and technical or trade schools. As introduced A.B. 4 applies only to state schools. In order to help ensure compliance any state provisions will need to apply to all institutions of higher education not just state schools, or institutions with a police agency on campus. For institutions without a police agency the registrant should provide notice to either the local police or sheriff’s office with jurisdiction for the campus.

The new federal law draws heavily on the preexisting language dealing with registrants who cross state lines to attend school, and the exact same employment standards apply. As introduced A.B. 4 makes no specific reference to employment at an institution of higher education, relying instead upon the general employment registration requirement. In order to help ensure compliance the employment definition ought to match the out of state registration definition, which for California is found in section 290(a)(1)(G) of the Penal Code. This definition includes unpaid volunteers. It would also make sense for the campus police, if any, to be the contact point for any out of state registrants required to report their affiliation with a campus.

The new federal law clearly requires that a distinct “notice” of enrollment or employment be provided by the registrant that will identify the institution. As introduced A.B. 4 leaves the specific list of items, such as the offender’s vehicle license plate number, of which notice must be provided unamended. In order to help ensure compliance a specific notice requirement naming the institution and the nature of their affiliation should be required as well as a provision allowing this information to be public when appropriate.

A.B. 703

As introduced the provisions of A.B. 703 1.) do not apply to all institutions of higher education, instead applying to only those schools with a campus police agency; 2.) do not have a sufficiently broad definition of “employment”; and 3.) do not specifically require the registrant to disclose their status on a campus.

The federal provisions cover all institutions of higher education, including private and technical or trade schools. As introduced A.B. 703 applies only to schools with a campus police agency. In order to help ensure compliance any state provisions will need to apply to all institutions of higher education not just state schools, or institutions with a police agency on campus. For institutions without a police agency the registrant should provide notice to either the local police or sheriff’s office with jurisdiction for the campus.

The new federal law draws heavily on the preexisting language dealing with registrants who cross state lines to attend school, and the exact same employment standards apply. As introduced A.B. 703 only makes general reference to registrants who are “an employee” of an institution of higher education. In order to help ensure compliance the employment definition ought to match the out of state registration definition, which for California is found in section 290(a)(1)(G) of the Penal Code. This definition includes unpaid volunteers. It would also make sense for the campus police, if any, to be the contact point for any out of state registrants required to report their affiliation with a campus.

The new federal law clearly requires that a distinct “notice” of enrollment or employment be provided by the registrant that will identify the institution. As introduced A.B. 703 leaves the specific list of items, such as the offender’s vehicle license plate number, of which notice must be provided unamended. In order to help ensure compliance a specific notice requirement naming the institution and the nature of their affiliation should be required as well as a provision allowing this information to be public when appropriate.

Conclusion

One very important element of the Congressional intent behind the “Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act” is the involvement of campus police agencies at those schools that have one. Both A.B. 4 and A.B. 703 directly involve these agencies and that is very important because as one of the federal legislation’s sponsors observed an “institution’s law enforcement unit will have the most direct responsibility for protecting that school’s community and daily contact with those that should be informed about the presence of the convicted offender.”

Both A.B. 4 and A.B. 703, however, need several key amendments before they will be able to help bring California into compliance with the “Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act.” Each bill should be made to apply to offenders at all institutions of higher education, not just state schools or those with campus police agencies. They should also be amended to incorporate the out of state registration definition of employment and require specific notice of a registrant’s affiliation with an institution of higher education.

A draft amendment to A.B. 4, which could also be easily adapted for A.B. 703, is included at the conclusion of my written statement. For your reference I’ve also included the text of the federal law, copies of Congressional Record statements, and other related background information.

Students, employees, and others such as the children of employees or students in campus day care facilities, should be afforded the same degree of protection that members of any other community would have from registered sex offenders. I applaud California’s leadership in being among the first to consider adding this information to the program and hope that you will adopt A.B. 4, or A.B. 703, as soon as possible.

Again thank you for this opportunity to offer my comments on this legislation. Should you have any questions I would be happy to answer them at this time.

__________________________________________

S. Daniel Carter, Vice President
Security On Campus, Inc.

Proposed Amendments To Assembly Bill No. 4

Amendment 1