Complaint Of
Non-Compliance With The
Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act
November 28, 2001
|
Complaint Filed Against |
Complaint Brought By |
|
Complaint Filed With |
|
34 CFR 668.46(b)(1), 34 CFR 668.46(c)(1)-(4)
Campus crime statistics released by Morgan State University (MSU) for calendar years 1997, 1998, and 1999 (attachment A, “Jeanne Clery Disclosure Of Campus Security Policy & Campus Crime Statistics Act: 2000-A Guide To Police And Public Safety Services At Morgan State University”) do not conform to the required categories. Additionally, for calendar year 1999 MSU omits both a required geographic breakdown for all statistics and disciplinary statistics for liquor, drug, and weapons violations. Also, there is no indication whether or not there were any hate crimes on campus.
For calendar
year 1999 MSU uses improper crime categories in their statistical disclosures.
Specifically, they use “Homicide Total” instead of the “Murder & Nonnegligent manslaughter” and
“Negligent manslaughter” as subsets of a larger
“Homicide” category. Instead of using a “Sex Offenses”
category with “Forcible” and “Non-Forcible” subsets,
MSU uses a “Rape Total” category with subsets
“Stranger”, “Acquaintance”, and “Attempts”
instead of the required categories which are in fact much broader in definition
than rape alone.
MSU also improperly reports their sex offense crimes for
1997 and 1998 as detailed for 1999. The “Homicide” reporting
breakdown was not required for calendar years 1997 and 1998.
Crime statistics disclosed in the annual report (attachment
A) do not match those provided to the U.S. Department of Education. For
example, the 2000 annual report indicates that there were 11 on-campus
robberies in 1999, yet statistics submitted to the DOE indicate there were 16.
The campus report indicates 78 burglaries for 1999, yet MSU only reported 49 to
the DOE.
MSU completely omits 17 liquor, drug and weapon related
disciplinary referrals from their calendar year 1999 statistics made available
on-campus to students and others. These incidents were, however, reported to
the U.S. Department of Education. There is no information at all about
disciplinary referral statistics in their 2000 campus report, despite a
requirement that this information be disclosed in the annual report.
Additionally, liquor, drug, and weapons arrests disclosed in their 2000 annual report do not match those reported to the Department of Education. For example, MSU disclosed 7 liquor law violations for 1999 in their 2000 annual report, but disclosed only 2 arrests to the DOE for that year. Even if the 3 disciplinary referrals disclosed to the DOE were included, their statistics would still be 2 short in accounting for the 7 disclosed in their annual report.
It seems evident that incorrect information is being provided to those who view MSU’s statistics either in their own annual report, or on-line, or possibly both. Please investigate MSU’s record keeping practices, and crime reporting standards to determine why inconsistent crime statistics have been disclosed under the Clery Act.
34 CFR 668.46(b)(2)
MSU’s 2000 annual campus security report lacks a complete “Timely Warning” policy statement. Their stated policy consists of a one-sentence statement that does not explain how the institution decides how to issue such warnings or what means may be used. Their complete statement indicates only that campus community members “are alerted to recurring or significant crime problems experienced on the campus, and are provided with useful information that may reduce their vulnerability to criminal acts.”
There is no specific information about how the annual report and statistics are compiled. Information relating to MSU’s participation in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program and the Criminal Justice Information System is included among the policy statements, but these programs are unrelated to the Clery Act and the annual report.
34 CFR 668.46(b)(11)
MSU’s “Procedures for Reporting Sexual Offenses” statement in their 2000 annual report omits several key required policy statements. Specifically there is no notification that an institution will change the victim’s academic and living situations or what steps the institution will take in the event of a disciplinary proceeding- such as that the victim will be notified of the outcome.
34 CFR 668.41(e), 34 CFR 668.41(c)(2)
According to information provided to Security On Campus, Inc. by the family of a student assaulted on campus in September of this year, the institution’s annual security report was not automatically made available to students and employees on-campus by October 1st of this year, the deadline to distribute the annual report on-campus. Additionally, no information about the availability of the 2000 annual report was provided to the student victim, a freshman this year, when he applied to MSU. According to the family no information about any web posted campus security information is made available either.
34 CFR 668.46(f)(5)
According to information provided to Security On Campus, Inc. by the family of a student assaulted on campus in September of this year and detailed in attachments, the institution has not properly maintained a public crime log. When the mother of the victim asked campus police to produce the crime log, they were initially unable to do so and the material eventually produced was a “Police Blotter” prepared for distribution to campus administrators. Some of the “blotter” material even indicated that it was a “confidential document” and that officials should “exercise extreme care to prevent the unauthorized release of information” in the log.
Additionally, the log entry for the assault of their son on September 10th contained incorrect information about the disposition of the report. The school did not transport the victim for medical treatment, his parents did, and not all arrests of suspects were recorded in updates.
__________________________________________
S. Daniel Carter, Senior Vice President
Security On Campus, Inc.