Campus Crime: Difficulties Meeting Federal Reporting Requirements (Letter
Report, 03/11/97, GAO/HEHS-97-52).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the progress made
under the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act, focusing on: (1) how
the Department of Education has implemented and monitored compliance
with the act; (2) the kinds of problems, if any, colleges are having in
complying with the act; and (3) the requirements of state laws related
to public access to police records on reported crimes on campuses.

GAO noted that: (1) although colleges are having difficulty complying
with the act, the Department only recently began a systematic effort to
monitor compliance; (2) starting in 1991, the Department of Education
issued policy guidance to colleges for implementing the law's crime
reporting requirements; (3) since that time, the Department has also
provided technical assistance to individual colleges upon request; (4)
although the Department began issuing implementing guidance to colleges
less than 1 year after the law was passed, the Department has only
recently begun to develop procedures for its program reviewers and
auditors that systematically address monitoring compliance with these
requirements; (5) moreover, citing resource limitations, the Department
delayed preparing a report on campus crime statistics for which the law
prescribed a September 1995 issuance date; (6) the Department issued the
report in February 1997; (7) at the campus level, colleges are finding
it difficult to consistently interpret and apply some of the law's
reporting requirements; (8) for example, GAO's analysis showed
considerable variation in colleges' practices for deciding which
incidents to include in their reports and what categories to use in
classifying certain crimes; (9) areas of difficulty included deciding
how to include incidents reported to campus officials other than law
enforcement officers, interpreting federal requirements for reporting
sexual offenses, and reporting data on hate crimes; (10) federal
legislation proposed in the 104th Congress would have augmented
available information on campus crime by requiring that campus police
records be open to the campus community; (11) similar laws exist in
eight states; (12) three laws contain a specific requirement that
colleges maintain daily logs; (13) most laws protect the identity of
victims and informants from disclosure and ensure that any information
that might jeopardize an ongoing investigation also remains
confidential; (14) the state laws vary in many details, such as whether
identification of juvenile offenders is required and whether
noncompliance by the college can result in penalties; and (15) these
laws differ from the 1990 act in requiring year-round access to campus
police reports rather than annual summary statistics.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-97-52
     TITLE:  Campus Crime: Difficulties Meeting Federal Reporting 
             Requirements
      DATE:  03/11/97
   SUBJECT:  Reporting requirements
             Colleges/universities
             Crimes or offenses
             Noncompliance
             Statistical data
             Arrests
             Technical assistance
             Sex crimes
             Records (documents)
             State law
IDENTIFIER:  FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program
             California
             Massachusetts
             Minnesota
             Oklahoma
             Pennsylvania
             Tennessee
             Virginia
             West Virginia
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1997

CAMPUS CRIME - DIFFICULTIES
MEETING FEDERAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS

GAO/HEHS-97-52

College Campus Security

(104860)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  FERPA - Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
  IACLEA - International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
     Administrators

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-276054

March 11, 1997

The Honorable James M.  Jeffords
Chairman, Committee on Labor and
 Human Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Frist
United States Senate

The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act was enacted in 1990
partly in response to a steady rise in violent crime reported on some
college campuses.  Recent slayings of professors and students and
incidents of rape are among criminal occurrences that have caused
growing concern in the college community.  At the time of the law's
enactment, less than 5 percent of postsecondary schools\1
participated in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) voluntary
crime reporting system. 

The law and its implementing regulations encourage the development of
security policies and procedures on all college campuses
participating in federal student aid programs--including policies and
procedures to address sexual assaults and to bring about uniformity
and consistency in reporting campus crime statistics to students,
parents, and employees.  Advocates for this legislation hoped more
complete reports would prompt actions that would reduce the incidence
of crime, as well as allow individuals to better protect themselves. 

During the past year, however, concern surfaced that colleges were
not fully complying with campus security requirements and that the
Department of Education was not doing enough to monitor and enforce
compliance.  Bills were introduced in the 104th Congress that would
have required colleges to maintain an easily understood daily log of
all crimes reported to campus police or security departments--a
requirement that goes beyond the current law's requirements and is
similar to those of laws enacted by several states.  These state laws
are referred to as "open campus crime log laws." In support of what
they saw as the need for additional federal legislation, proponents
of these bills pointed out that the statistics that colleges publish
to conform with existing law do not provide enough information and
that they are only required to be published once a year. 

You asked that we provide you information that would help the
Congress assess the progress made under the Crime Awareness and
Campus Security Act and a description of the contents of states' open
campus crime log laws.  In response, we developed information on

  -- how the Department of Education has implemented and monitored
     compliance with the act;

  -- the kinds of problems, if any, colleges are having in complying
     with the act; and

  -- the requirements of state laws related to public access to
     police records on reported crimes on campuses. 

To develop our information, we reviewed Department of Education
regulations and other policy guidance and interviewed Department
officials at headquarters and regional offices.  We also analyzed
campus security reports of 25 colleges and interviewed campus
officials of these and other colleges.  We also analyzed state
statutes and spoke with representatives of campus safety and related
interest groups.  (See app.  I for details of our scope and
methodology.)


--------------------
\1 In this report, we refer to all postsecondary institutions as
"colleges."


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Although colleges are having difficulty complying with the act, the
Department only recently began a systematic effort to monitor
compliance.  Starting in 1991, the Department of Education issued
policy guidance to colleges for implementing the law's crime
reporting requirements.  Since that time, the Department has also
provided technical assistance to individual colleges upon request. 
This assistance has taken the form, for example, of responding to
telephone inquiries to the Customer Support Branch of the
Department's Office of Postsecondary Education. 

Although the Department began issuing implementing guidance to
colleges less than a year after the law was passed, the Department
has only recently begun to develop procedures for its program
reviewers and auditors that systematically address monitoring
compliance with these requirements.  Moreover, citing resource
limitations, the Department delayed preparing a report on campus
crime statistics for which the law prescribed a September 1995
issuance date.  The Department issued the report in February 1997. 

At the campus level, colleges are finding it difficult to
consistently interpret and apply some of the law's reporting
requirements.  For example, our analysis showed considerable
variation in colleges' practices for deciding which incidents to
include in their reports and what categories to use in classifying
certain crimes.  Areas of difficulty included deciding how to include
incidents reported to campus officials other than law enforcement
officers, interpreting federal requirements for reporting sexual
offenses, and reporting data on hate crimes. 

Federal legislation proposed in the 104th Congress would have
augmented available information on campus crime by requiring that
campus police records be open to the campus community.  Similar laws
exist in eight states.  Three laws contain a specific requirement
that colleges maintain daily logs.  Most laws protect the identity of
victims and informants from disclosure and ensure that any
information that might jeopardize an ongoing investigation also
remains confidential.  The state laws vary in many details, such as
whether identification of juvenile offenders is required and whether
noncompliance by the college can result in penalties.  These laws
differ from the 1990 act in requiring year-round access to campus
police reports rather than annual summary statistics. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990 and its
implementing regulations require colleges, as a condition for
participating in federal financial aid programs authorized under
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,\2 to
publish and distribute an annual security report that includes
statements about campus\3 law enforcement policies, security
education and crime prevention programs, alcohol and drug policies,
sexual assault education and prevention programs, procedures for
reporting sexual assaults, procedures explaining how reports of
sexual assaults will be dealt with, and annual statistics on crime
incidents.  The law also requires colleges to provide timely warning
to the campus community about crimes that are considered to represent
a threat to other students and employees. 

The law requires the collection of data on campus crime, distinct
from state or local data, and that information on the incidence of
campus crime and of colleges' security policies and procedures be
available.  The statistical reporting provision requires colleges to
annually compile and report to the campus community statistics on
reported crimes, such as murder and robbery, and on arrests for such
crimes as liquor law violations. 

As the agency administering title IV programs, the Department of
Education is responsible for issuing guidance to implement the law,
monitoring colleges' compliance with its requirements, and issuing
two reports:  a compilation of exemplary campus security practices
and a report to the Congress on campus crime statistics.  Procedures
for monitoring compliance with title IV requirements include program
reviews of selected colleges, annual independent audits of all
colleges participating in title IV, and compliance reviews in
response to complaints received.  According to a 1996 publication of
the Student Press Law Center,\4 11 states have laws requiring schools
to compile and release statistics on campus crime. 

Two bills--H.R.  2416 and S.  2065--introduced in the 104th Congress
would have required more detailed and current campus security records
to be made accessible to the public.  Although a hearing was held in
the House, no further action was taken before the session's end.  Had
the bills been enacted, they would have applied to colleges with
police or security departments and required the colleges, in addition
to reporting annual crime statistics, to maintain open-to-the-public,
easily understood daily logs that chronologically recorded all crimes
against persons or property reported to college campus or security
departments.  The bills were modeled after a law that has been in
effect in Tennessee since 1994. 


--------------------
\2 Title IV authorizes the major federal student loan and grant aid
programs.  All colleges participating in title IV programs must sign
a Program Participation Agreement certifying that they are in
compliance with various requirements, including disclosure of campus
security policy and crime statistics. 

\3 Department regulations define "campus" as (1) any building or
property owned or controlled by the college within a reasonably
contiguous area and used by the college in direct support of, or in a
manner related to, the college's educational purposes; (2) any
building or property owned or controlled by a student organization
recognized by the college; or (3) any building or property controlled
by the college but owned by a third party. 

\4 The Student Press Law Center, Covering Campus Crime:  A Handbook
for Journalists (Arlington, Va.:  The Student Press Law Center, Inc.,
1996). 


   THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN SLOW TO
   MONITOR COMPLIANCE AND REPORT
   TO THE CONGRESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Department implementation of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security
Act's reporting requirements has included issuing regulations;
disseminating policy guidance to colleges; providing technical
assistance to colleges and outreach to campus law enforcement
organizations; and, to a limited extent, checking whether colleges
have prepared crime statistics reports and what procedures they have
used for disseminating the reports.  However, because of resource
constraints, the Department has only recently expanded its monitoring
efforts by initiating program reviews that specifically address
compliance with the act's reporting requirements.  Moreover, the
Department was late in issuing a required report to the Congress. 


      REGULATORY GUIDANCE WAS
      ISSUED, AND TECHNICAL
      ASSISTANCE WAS EMPHASIZED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Following enactment of the law in 1990, the Department issued various
policy guidance documents on campus security to help colleges meet
the law's requirements, as summarized in table 1.  Most of the
guidance was issued as Department letters.  Final implementing
regulations took effect in July 1994. 



                                Table 1
                
                Department of Education Policy Guidance
                  to Implement the Campus Security Act

Date                    Type of guidance provided
----------------------  ----------------------------------------------
March 1991              Department letter notifying colleges to
                        prepare, publish, and disseminate campus crime
                        statistics (required by original statute)

August 1991             Department letter revising effective date for
                        colleges to begin compiling statistics and
                        changing colleges' reporting period (required
                        by statutory amendment)

July 1992               Department letter expanding definition of
                        sexual offenses category and permitting
                        disclosure of law enforcement-related student
                        records (required by statutory amendment)

July 1994               Regulations (34 C.F.R. part 668) specifying
                        statistical reporting requirements, deadlines,
                        and definitions of crimes and including--for
                        three of the categories--a requirement to
                        report statistics on crimes evidencing
                        prejudice (required by statutory amendment)

May 1996                Department letter further clarifying reporting
                        requirements and providing information on
                        obtaining technical assistance and filing a
                        complaint of noncompliance (Department
                        initiative)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department supplemented its policy guidance with technical
assistance provided upon request by its Customer Support Branch.  To
help colleges achieve compliance, the Department emphasizes providing
such assistance, rather than imposing sanctions.  Under Department
policy, the Secretary imposes sanctions only if a college flagrantly
or intentionally violates the regulations or fails to take corrective
action when required to do so.  Available sanctions include fines or
limitation, suspension, or termination of participation in federal
financial aid programs.  Department officials told us that although
the Department and independent auditors had identified violations at
63 colleges since the law's enactment, as of January 1997, the
Department had not imposed sanctions against any college found in
noncompliance with campus security requirements. 


      MONITORING COMPLIANCE HAS
      BEEN SLOW, AND SOME PROBLEMS
      REMAIN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Although the Department began issuing guidance to colleges on
complying with the law in 1991, guidance for monitoring program
compliance came much more slowly.  The Department did not issue its
first program review guidance specifically addressing campus security
until September 1996.  Until this recent incorporation of campus
security in program review guidance, the Department's program
reviewers had not emphasized monitoring campus security reports in
their title IV reviews, focusing instead on compliance with other
provisions of title IV.  Although most of the nearly 2,800 title IV
program reviews conducted between September 1992 and May 1996 found
noncompliance with some title IV program requirements, only 24 of
these reviews identified campus security violations.\5 Department
officials told us that monitoring had generally been limited to
checking whether colleges published a campus security report and had
procedures for its distribution.  Since no review guidance for
monitoring campus security was available until September 1996, it is
unlikely that the reviewers checked whether the reports contained all
the required information or whether information was accurate. 

Under the new monitoring guidance, program reviewers must check a
college's crime report for all required information and should
attempt to evaluate the procedures used to collect crime data.  The
accuracy of crime statistics need not be verified unless it becomes
apparent from a complaint or some other source that the security
report may be incomplete or inaccurate.  In such cases, the
Department is to take appropriate action to ensure compliance,
including more thoroughly examining the statistics and, if warranted,
taking formal administrative action.  As of January 1997, the
Department had received five complaints of noncompliance:  one
precipitated an in-depth campus security compliance review; the other
four complaints are still being investigated. 

Even with the new guidance, however, program review officials told us
that staff are still having some difficulty monitoring compliance. 
Reasons for the difficulty include reviewers' limited experience in
dealing with law enforcement matters, uncertainties about how to
interpret certain definitions of reportable crimes, and differences
among campuses that make evaluation difficult under a single set of
program review guidelines.  In the case of urban campuses, for
example, reviewers may have difficulty in determining which
facilities are campus related.  The difficulties involving
definitions and differences among colleges are discussed in more
detail later in this report. 

The Department has yet to issue guidance for independent auditors who
conduct federally required annual audits of all colleges
participating in title IV programs.  The Department's June 1995
independent audit guide does not provide guidance to auditors on
checking for campus security compliance.  As of August 1996, only six
audits had documented noncompliance on security matters since the act
took effect, and a Department official said that most auditors
participating in training sessions held in regional Inspector General
offices were unaware of campus security reporting requirements,
further suggesting that auditors may not be routinely scrutinizing
campus security reports.\6 The Department plans to issue an updated
audit guide that will explicitly refer to campus security compliance
and instruct auditors to ensure that campus security reports are
prepared and distributed according to federal requirements.  A
Department official responsible for writing the audit guide expects
it to be issued some time in 1997. 


--------------------
\5 Department officials said that, between May 1996 and January 1997,
an additional 27 program reviews identified violations. 

\6 In addition, Department officials said that campus security is not
generally included in the Department's quality control reviews of
independent audits. 


      REQUIRED REPORT TO THE
      CONGRESS WAS LATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Although the Department issued a required report on exemplary campus
security practices in September 1994, the Department was more than 1
year late in issuing a report on campus crime statistics to the
Congress.  The law required the Department to review campus crime
statistics and issue a report to the Congress by September 1, 1995. 
Citing limited resources to perform such a review, the Department
postponed issuing the report until February 1997. 

As the basis for the report, the Department conducted a national
survey on campus crime and security.  A representative sample of
1,500 colleges was surveyed to establish baseline information on
crime statistics by such attributes as type of school (such as 4-year
public or 2-year private), nature of the campus (such as urban or
rural and residential or commuter), and types of public safety
employees providing campus security.  Having compiled and reported
the survey results, the Department plans to evaluate whether
additional actions are needed at the federal level. 


   COLLEGES ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY
   APPLYING REGULATORY CRITERIA
   AND ARE NOT REPORTING UNIFORMLY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Our review of selected colleges' campus security reports and our
interviews with selected campus officials indicate that colleges are
having difficulty applying some of the law's reporting requirements. 
As a result, colleges are not reporting data uniformly.  Of the 25
reports we reviewed, only 2 provided information in all the
prescribed categories.  Table 2 summarizes the principal problems
colleges are having.



                                Table 2
                
                    Colleges' Principal Problems in
                       Reporting Crime Statistics

Problem                             Reason
----------------------------------  ----------------------------------
Excluding crimes reported to        Details of crimes reported to
campus officials other than campus  academic officials, such as
security officials                  counselors, are protected from
                                    disclosure, and some campus safety
                                    officials are reluctant to report
                                    numbers they cannot verify.

Using incorrect categories to       Crimes to be reported in this
report sex-related offenses         category were amended in 1992 to
                                    provide different reporting
                                    systems for sex offenses.

Using an incorrect category to      Some colleges are reporting deaths
report murder                       as homicides, which can include
                                    deaths from negligence, rather
                                    than just murders.

Omitting information on hate        Some colleges reported that they
crimes                              were unaware of this requirement,
                                    which is not mentioned in the
                                    Department's letters to colleges.

Excluding information on crimes     Local police records do not always
reported to local police            lend themselves to identification
                                    and categorization of incidents at
                                    college-related facilities (such
                                    as fraternities or sororities).

Using arrest data to reflect        Such factors as whether the campus
reported liquor, drug, and weapons  police department has arrest power
possession violations               can affect the number of arrests
                                    reported by the school.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

      EXCLUDING CRIMES REPORTED TO
      CAMPUS OFFICIALS OTHER THAN
      LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Campus law enforcement officials differ as to whether their reported
statistics must include crimes reported to them by other campus
authorities without information identifying the persons involved in
the reported incidents.  For example, according to comments the
Department received during rulemaking, students are sometimes more
comfortable reporting incidents--particularly sex-related
offenses--through academic rather than law enforcement channels. 

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) generally
prohibits the disclosure of education records or information from
education records, which originally included personally identifiable
details on crime incidents.  As a result of a 1992 amendment to
FERPA, however, reports of incidents maintained by campus law
enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes are not now
classified as education information and, therefore, may be disclosed. 
Even incidents reported to campus authorities other than law
enforcement officials may be included in the campus crime statistics
as long as information identifying the persons involved is not
disclosed.  But reporting such incidents in the statistics is not
required under a Department interpretation of the Crime Awareness and
Campus Security Act.  According to that interpretation, colleges may
exclude from their statistics those incidents that campus law
enforcement officials cannot validate because, for example, the
parties' names were not disclosed.\7

The fact that the incidents need not be reported is reflected by
variations in campus security reports, as some reports excluded
information from non-law-enforcement sources for which no personally
identifiable information was provided.  Our review of 25 reports
prepared by colleges showed that some of the data may have been
incomplete or incompatible because of differences in safety
officials' access to information, insistence on verifiable data, or
both.  Six reports showed direct and varied attempts to address these
differences--for example, by supplementing required crime categories
with explanatory subcategories, adding a column showing incidents
reported to other officials, or adding footnotes.  When we asked
campus law enforcement officials at the 25 colleges how they treated
such cases, we found an even greater variation in their responses
than in the reports.  For example, nine said their numbers included
incidents reported to campus officials who were not law enforcement
officials without any notation to that effect, and four said their
numbers excluded incidents they could not verify.  Some were
concerned about reporting incidents for which no details were
provided because, without details on specific cases, they were unable
to verify that a crime had occurred, had been properly classified, or
had been counted only once--if, for example, a crime had been
reported to more than one office.  At some colleges, security
officials do not receive even unverifiable statistics from
counselors:  Officials at five colleges said counselors are not
required to or generally do not report incidents to them, and the
general counsel of one state's higher education organization
concurred in that interpretation. 


--------------------
\7 The preamble to the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
regulations states that reported crimes need not be disclosed unless
appropriate law enforcement officials are able to conclude, with the
same degree of certainty they would require under the FBI's Uniform
Crime Reporting System, that a crime has occurred. 


      USING THE WRONG CATEGORIES
      IN REPORTING SEX-RELATED
      OFFENSES AND MURDER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Although colleges' statistical reports included most of the
prescribed criminal reporting categories, reporting officials
appeared to have difficulty principally with two categories:  sex
offenses and murder. 

In 60 percent of the reports we reviewed, colleges had difficulty
complying with the reporting requirement for sex-related offenses. 
Colleges are required to report statistics on sexual offenses; they
are not required to distinguish between forcible and nonforcible
offenses.\8 Of the reports we reviewed, 15 incorrectly categorized
offenses.  For example, several colleges listed incidents as "rape"
or "attempted rape," both of which are less inclusive than the term
"forcible sexual offense."

We also noted a discrepancy in how colleges reported the number of
murders.  Seven of the reports we reviewed labeled incidents
resulting in death as homicides, but the law requires the term
"murders." According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook,
homicide can also include killings that result from negligence,
whereas murder refers to willful killings.  Because homicide is not
as specific a term, the use of this broader category could obscure
the actual number of murders. 


--------------------
\8 Forcible sex offenses include forcible rape, forcible sodomy,
sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling.  Nonforcible
sex offenses comprise incest and statutory rape. 


      OMITTING HATE CRIMES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

The Department's regulations for the Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act require colleges to report statistics on murders,
forcible rapes, and aggravated assaults that manifest evidence of
prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity,
as defined in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.  However, of the
reports we reviewed, only five included this information.  Eleven of
the 16 officials we asked about the omission told us they were
unaware of the requirement, which was not mentioned in the
Department's letters explaining the statistical reporting
requirements.  Another two said they lacked direction on how to
report these crimes. 


      EXCLUDING INFORMATION ON
      CRIMES REPORTED TO LOCAL
      POLICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

Although the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act requires that
crime statistics include on-campus occurrences reported to local
police, our interviews with college officials and review of their
statistical reports suggest that colleges vary in their inclusion of
incidents reported to local police.  Of the 25 reports we reviewed, 1
specifically stated that it did not include incidents reported to
local police, and a second stated that it included such incidents
when available.  In contrast, six reports indicated that incidents
reported to local police were included.  According to a law
enforcement official we contacted and our analysis of a Department
program review, reporting such incidents can be difficult.  For
example, record systems of some local police departments do not lend
themselves to converting the incidents to the categories required for
campus security reports.  Moreover, identifying incidents at
college-related facilities can be a problem when a campus is
dispersed throughout a large urban area. 


      USING ARREST DATA FOR THREE
      REPORTING CATEGORIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

For three crime categories--liquor, drug, and weapons possession
violations--the law requires statistics on the number of arrests,
rather than on the number of reported crimes.  For these categories,
uniformity of statistics can be affected to some degree by school
policies and type of authority of the campus security department. 
For example, one campus security report we reviewed contained a
footnote to the effect that liquor-law violations were frequently
adjudicated through campus judicial procedures and, therefore, would
not be included in the arrest statistics.  Three law enforcement
officials told us that offenses are less likely to result in arrests
on campuses that do not have security departments with the power to
make arrests. 


   STATES' OPEN CAMPUS CRIME
   RECORD LAWS' PROVISIONS VARY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We identified eight states that require public access to campus
police or security department records on reported crimes: 
California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.  In all but Minnesota, the
laws in general apply to all institutions of higher education, public
and private.  Minnesota's law applies only to public colleges. 

Three of the eight states (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and
Tennessee) have laws specifically requiring campus safety authorities
to maintain daily logs open to public inspection.  The remaining
five, while not prescribing the log format, require disclosure of
information similar to that required to be kept in the logs. 

Certain provisions are common to a number of these state laws.  For
example, they generally contain a provision exempting disclosure that
is otherwise prohibited by law.  Many prohibit publication of the
names of victims or of victims of sex-related crimes.  Many also
include some type of provision protecting witnesses, informants, or
information that might jeopardize an ongoing investigation.  Several
law enforcement officials emphasized to us the importance of
including such a provision. 

The laws also differ in a number of other respects, such as the
following: 

  -- California, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma specifically provide for
     penalties for noncompliance; the other states do not specify
     penalties. 

  -- Only California includes a specific reference to occurrences
     involving hate; in fact, California's law requires inclusion of
     noncriminal hate-related incidents. 

For more information on the eight laws, see appendix II. 

We also agreed to determine whether any legal challenges had been
raised to state open campus crime log laws and whether the
effectiveness of such laws had been studied.  We did not find any
reported cases challenging these laws or any studies of their
positive or negative effects. 

In addition, according to the Student Press Law Center's Covering
Campus Crime:  A Handbook for Journalists, all 50 states have open
records or "sunshine" laws, most of which require public
institutions' records to be open to the public unless they are
specifically exempted.  Generally, public colleges are covered by
those laws.  For example, Colorado's open records law declares that
it is public policy that all state records be open for inspection,
including all writings made, maintained, or kept by the state or any
agency or institution-- which would include state colleges.\9 These
laws generally provide that if records are kept, they must be open;
the laws are not intended to impose a new recordkeeping requirement. 


--------------------
\9 Colo.  Rev.  Stat.  secs.  24-72-201 to 24-72-309. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The consistency and completeness of campus crime reporting envisioned
under the act have been difficult to attain for two primary reasons. 
First, the differing characteristics of colleges--such as their
location in an urban or other setting or the extent to which
complaints may be handled through campus governance rather than
through police channels--affect the colleges' ability to provide a
complete and consistent picture of incidents that occur on their
campuses.  Second, some confusion exists about reporting
requirements, particularly about how certain categories of crimes are
to be classified. 

The Department originally relied mostly on its regulations, letters
to colleges, and technical assistance to implement the Crime
Awareness and Campus Security Act.  Its continued efforts in
providing technical assistance to school officials, as well as its
recent issuance of monitoring guidance to Department officials and
its current work to update audit guidelines for independent auditors,
may achieve more consistent reporting and compliance with the law by
colleges.  For example, these efforts may improve consistency in
categories used and type of crimes reported.  However, inherent
differences among colleges will be a long-term obstacle to achieving
comparable, comprehensive campus crime statistics.  Although a
federal open crime log law could offer more timely access to
information on campus crime and a means of verifying the accuracy of
schools' statistical reports, such logs would continue to reflect the
inherent differences among colleges apparent in the summary
statistics currently required by the act.  For example, such logs
might not include off-campus incidents or, without an amendment to
FERPA, incidents that students report through non-law-enforcement
channels. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

On February 12, 1997, the Department of Education provided comments
on a draft of this report (see app.  III).  The Department generally
agreed with our basic conclusions and provided us a number of
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. 
Please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Joseph J.  Eglin, Jr., Assistant
Director, at (202) 512-7009 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report.  Other staff who contributed to this report are
listed in appendix IV. 

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

To determine the actions the Department of Education has taken to
implement and monitor compliance with the Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act, we interviewed officials at the Department's
headquarters and regional offices and analyzed pertinent regulations,
policy guidance, and other documents.  To identify difficulties
colleges were having in complying with the act, we interviewed
officials at 27 colleges selected from a judgmental sample of
colleges from the following four groups. 

Members of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators (IACLEA)--Ten Colleges.  Our initial college law
enforcement contact was the Director of Police at the University of
Delaware, also a past president of IACLEA and a recognized authority
on the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act.  He provided us with
the names of chief law enforcement officials at eight IACLEA member
colleges, one in each of the eight states with open campus police log
laws.  These officials, in turn, referred us to two additional member
colleges. 

Non-IACLEA Members in States With Open Log Laws--Eight Colleges. 
Using a list of non-IACLEA colleges provided by IACLEA, we selected
six 4-year and two 2-year colleges representing all eight states with
open log laws and spoke to their heads of campus security.  All eight
colleges had an enrollment exceeding 1,000 students. 

Colleges in States Without Open Log Laws--Seven Colleges.  From a
universe of colleges representing all states, we randomly selected
colleges, with enrollments exceeding 1,000 students, that
participated in title IV programs from the Department's Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System, stratified by type of college
(such as 4-year private or 2-year public) and geographic region.  The
chiefs of campus security at these seven colleges composed the third
group of officials interviewed. 

Colleges Involved in Complaints About Crime Statistics--Two Colleges. 
We included two other colleges for information on complaints
regarding crime statistics.  We included the first of these because a
complaint had been lodged against that college.  We included the
second college because it was subject to the same state crime
reporting system as another college--the only one that has undergone
an in-depth Department review as a result of a crime statistic
complaint. 

In addition, we asked the campus security officials interviewed to
send us a copy of their most recent campus security statistics.  We
received statistical reports from 25 colleges and evaluated them to
determine the extent to which the reports conformed to crime
reporting requirements prescribed in the act.  We did not trace the
numbers to source documents to check their accuracy or completeness. 
We also searched the literature and reported case law to determine
whether any studies had been done on the effects of or legal
challenges to state open log laws.  We analyzed state statutes and
spoke with representatives of campus safety and other interest groups
as well as faculty specializing in criminal justice. 

We performed our work between June 1996 and January 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


PROVISIONS OF STATE OPEN CAMPUS
CRIME RECORD LAWS
========================================================== Appendix II

                                         Officials                         Identification
                                         involved/                         to be
                                         required                          provided/
                         Institutions    actions/          Information to  individuals
State          Date      covered         penalties         be covered      exempted
-------------  --------  --------------  ----------------  --------------  --------------
California     1992      Community       Police or campus  Financial aid   Financial aid
                         colleges, the   security or       colleges:       colleges:
Calif. Ed.               U. of Calif.,   safety            occurrences     identity and
Code secs.               Calif. State    authorities:      reported to     description of
67380 and                U., the         compile records   campus police,  persons
94380                    Hastings        and make          security, or    arrested and
                         School of Law,  information       safety          of victims,
                         and all         available,        authorities;    except name
                         colleges        within 2          arrests for     and address of
                         receiving       business days     campus crimes   victims of
                         public funds    after the         involving       sex-related
                         for student     request, to the   violence, hate  crimes unless
                         financial aid   college's         violence,       with consent
                                         students,         theft,          and not if it
                         Excludes        employees,        property        would endanger
                         public and      applicants for    destruction,    the person or
                         private         admission, or     illegal drugs,  the successful
                         colleges with   the media         or alcohol      completion of
                         <1,000 full-                      intoxication;   the
                         time students   For private       and acts of     investigation
                         and community   colleges other    hate violence   or a related
                         colleges        than those        for which a     investigation
                         unless          listed,           written record
                         legislature     appropriate       is prepared     Other private
                         provides the    officials shall   even if not     colleges:
                         funding to      make information  criminal        records of all
                         implement       available on                      reported
                                         request of        Other private   occurrences
                                         students,         colleges:       and arrests
                                         employees, or     same, except    for crimes
                                         applicants for    no mention of   involving
                                         admission         hate violence   violence,
                                                                           theft,
                                         Penalty: civil                    destruction of
                                         damages not to                    property,
                                         exceed $1,000 if                  illegal drugs,
                                         information is                    or alcohol
                                         not made                          intoxication
                                         available                         that happen on
                                                                           campus

               1991      Each college    Campus            Easily          Names and
Massachusetts            or university   enforcement       understood      addresses of
                         with            officers          chronological,  arrested
Mass. Gen.               enforcement     deputized by the  daily log,      persons and
Laws Ann.                officers        state: make log   including       charges
sec. 41:98F              deputized by    available to the  responses to    against them
                         the state       public without    valid
                                         charge during     complaints;     Exempts from
                                         business hours    reported        disclosure
                                         and at other      crimes; and     incidents
                                         reasonable times  names,          involving
                                                           addresses, and  certain types
                                                           charges filed   of handicapped
                                                           against         persons, which
                                                           arrested        are to be
                                                           persons         separately
                                                                           maintained


Minnesota      1993      Public          Providers of      Date; time;     Name, age,
                         educational     security          place; events   sex, and
Minn. Stat.              agencies and    services at       in brief,       address of
Ann. secs.               institutions    public campuses   including       adults
13.32, 13.82,                            and U. of Minn.   resistance      arrested and
and 13.861                               police: make      encountered     names and
                                         available as      and weapons     addresses of
                                         public records    involvement;    victims,
                                         law enforcement   names and       witnesses, and
                                         records that are  addresses of    casualties
                                         kept separate     witnesses,      unless
                                         from education    victims, and
                                         records and       casualties,     --incident
                                         maintained        except for      involved
                                         solely for law    protected       sexual
                                         enforcement       categories;     misconduct,
                                         purposes,         and names and
                                         including         locations of    --need to
                                         response or       any health      protect
                                         incident data     facilities to   informant or
                                         and arrest        which injured   undercover
                                         information       parties were    agent, or
                                                           taken
                                                                           --need to
                                                                           protect victim
                                                                           or witness
                                                                           when victim or
                                                                           witness
                                                                           requests
                                                                           privacy and
                                                                           convinces
                                                                           police
                                                                           disclosure
                                                                           poses a threat

Oklahoma       1991      Public and      Commissioned      Chronological   Persons
               (under    private         campus police     list of         arrested or
Okla. Stat.    the       campuses        officers:         incidents       convicted
1051 secs.     state     (under the      specified law     including
24A.2, 24A.3,  Open      state's Campus  enforcement       offense, date,  Identification
24A.8, and     Record    Security Act,   records must be   time, general   of other than
24A.17;        Law,      private         open to any       location,       the person
Okla. Stat.    rather    colleges'       person for        officer, brief  arrested is
74 sec.        than an   police          inspection and    summary of      required only
360.17         open log  departments     copying during    what happened,  as required by
               law)      are public      regular business  and             another law,
                         agencies for    hours             circumstances   if the court
                         the limited                       of the          finds it in
                         purpose of      Public body or    arrest;         the public
                         crime           public official   arrestee        interest, or
                         enforcement)    shall not be      description,    if another
                                         civilly liable    including       individual's
                                         for damages for   demographics,   interest
                                         providing the     and conviction  outweighs the
                                         required access   information     reason for
                                         to public                         denying
                                         records                           access

                                         Penalty:                          Records of the
                                         violation                         Office of
                                         punishable by                     Juvenile
                                         fine not over                     Systems
                                         $500,                             Oversight are
                                         imprisonment not                  exempt unless
                                         over 1 year, or                   disclosure is
                                         both, and                         court ordered
                                         reasonable
                                         attorney fees

                                         Records must be
                                         open, if kept;
                                         the intent is
                                         not to impose a
                                         new
                                         recordkeeping
                                         requirement

Pennsylvania   1994,     All higher      Campus police or  Chronological,  Names and
               effectiv  education       security          daily log of    addresses of
Penn.          e 1/11/   institutions    officers:         valid           arrested
Consolidated   95                        chronological     complaints,     persons and
Stat. Ann.                               logs to be        reported        charges
2502-3 and                               public record,    crimes and      against them
2502-5                                   available for     responses,
                                         inspection        charges filed,  Identification
                                         without charge    and             specifically
                                         to the public     disposition of  not required:
                                         during business   charges, if     any names or
                                         hours and at      reasonably      addresses
                                         other reasonable  available       other than
                                         times; may                        those of
                                         charge a                          persons
                                         reasonable fee                    arrested
                                         for copies
                                                                           Juveniles must
                                         Local and state                   be identified
                                         police must                       only if
                                         provide arrest                    adjudicated as
                                         information for                   adults
                                         the college to
                                         include in the
                                         log

                                         Penalty:
                                         attorney general
                                         may bring action
                                         to compel
                                         compliance for
                                         willful
                                         violation or
                                         failure to
                                         comply promptly
                                         with a court
                                         order to comply;
                                         civil penalty of
                                         not over $10,000

Tennessee      Effectiv  All higher      Each higher       Chronological   Names and
               e 1/1/    education       education         daily log of    addresses of
49 Tenn. Code  94        institutions    institution with  all reported    persons
Ann. 7-2206              with a police   a police or       crimes against  arrested
                         or security     security          persons or
                         department      department        property,       Information
                                         composed of       date, time,     specifically
                                         state, private,   general         not required
                                         or contract       location,       unless
                                         employees: keep   charges filed,  otherwise
                                         and maintain an   and names of    provided by
                                         easily            arrested        law: names of
                                         understood,       persons         persons
                                         chronological                     reporting,
                                         daily log;                        victims,
                                         entries are                       witnesses, or
                                         public records                    uncharged
                                         and are to be                     suspects or
                                         available free                    other
                                         during business                   information
                                         hours and at                      related to
                                         other reasonable                  investigation
                                         times for
                                         inspection by
                                         the public

Virginia       Private   Public and      Campus police     Criminal        Names and
               colleges  private higher  (who must meet    incident        addresses of
Private        : 1994;   education       training and      information     persons
colleges: 23-  public    institutions    other             containing      arrested for
232.2 Code of  colleges                  requirements for  date, time,     felonies or
Va; public     : 1992                    state law         and general     misdemeanors
colleges:                                enforcement       location of     involving
under Va.                                officers and, in  alleged crime;  assault,
Freedom of                               the case of       charges filed   battery, or
Information                              public colleges,  against         moral
Act [COV 2.1-                            may exercise      arrested        turpitude
342]                                     police power      persons; and
                                         over any          injuries,       Identification
                                         property owned    damages, or     not
                                         or controlled by  property loss   specifically
                                         the institution   suffered        required when
                                         and adjacent                      disclosure is
                                         rights of way):                   prohibited by
                                         maintain                          law or when
                                         adequate arrest,                  the
                                         investigative,                    information is
                                         reportable                        likely to
                                         incident, and                     jeopardize an
                                         noncriminal                       ongoing
                                         incident                          criminal
                                         records; records                  investigation
                                         to be open,                       or an
                                         during regular                    individual's
                                         business hours,                   safety or
                                         to state                          result in
                                         citizens,                         destruction of
                                         students of the                   evidence or
                                         college,                          flight of a
                                         students'                         suspect
                                         parents, and the
                                         media

West           1992      All             Security officer  Nature, date,   Identification
Virginia                 institutions    or any other      time, and       required is
                         of higher       officer of the    general         not
W. Va. Code              education       institution:      location of     specified.
18B-4-5a                                 provide           the criminal
                                         information to    offense         Information
                                         the public                        may be
                                         within 10 days                    withheld upon
                                         on any properly                   certification
                                         reported,                         of need to
                                         credible,                         protect the
                                         alleged crimes                    investigation,
                                         (as defined in                    but in no
                                         the federal                       event after
                                         Crime Awareness                   the arrest.
                                         and Campus
                                         Security Act),                    Identification
                                         or crimes                         specifically
                                         reported by the                   not required:
                                         local police as                   name of victim
                                         having occurred
                                         on the college's
                                         property
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

GAO CONTACTS

Charles M.  Novak, Evaluator-in-Charge, (206) 287-4794
Susie Anschell, Evaluator, (206) 287-4828

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following staff made significant contributions to this report: 
Meeta Sharma, Senior Evaluator; Stanley G.  Stenersen, Senior
Evaluator; and Roger J.  Thomas, Senior Attorney. 


*** End of document. ***