UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

September 11, 1997

Dr. James Garland, President
Miami University
Roudebush Hall
Oxford, Ohio 45056
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RECEIPT #P 611 892 145
REF: PRCN 199740814014

Dear Dr. Garland:

On July 1-3, 1997 and August 11-14, 1997, Fran Susman of the Denver Case Management Team and Gerald Sikora of the Chicago Case management Team visited your institution to conduct a review of Miami University's administration of the Campus Security Act of 1990 (the Act).

Our review disclosed several areas where the institution needs to improve its compliance with the requirements of the Act. These are described in detail in the enclosed report. Findings of non-compliance are referenced to the applicable Federal laws and regulations. The corrective actions required are designed to assist the institution in complying with the law and regulations. Please review and respond to this report, indicating the corrective actions taken by Miami University. Your response should be sent to Fran Susman, Denver Case Management Team, U.S. Department of Education, 1391 N. Speer Boulevard, Suite 800, Denver, Colorado 80204, within 30 days of the date of this letter. Please refer to the above Program Review Control Number (PRCN) in all correspondence relating to this report.

This report contains required actions that necessitate the development and implementation of various policies and procedures. Although this report contains guidance relative to the areas of non-compliance, please feel free to contact Gerald Sikora at (312) 886-8728 or Fran Susman at (303) 844-3677, ext. 105 for additional assistance. We look forward to your cooperation throughout this process.

Sincerely,
Fran Susman
Institutional Review Specialist
Denver Case Management TeamGerald Sikora
Institutional Review Specialist
Chicago Case Management Team

Chicago Case Management Team
111 N. Canal St., Room 830
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 886-8767

Denver Case Management Team
1391 Speer Blvd., Suite 800
Denver, CO 80204
(303) 844-3677

Seattle Case Management Team
1000 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 287-1770

cc:

Diane L. Stemper, Director, Office of Student Financial Aid
Cathryn H. House, Director, Department of Public Safety
Hazel Mingo, Division Director, Northwest Quadrant
B. Ann Hageman, Area Case Director, Chicago Case Team

PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT

MIAMI UNIVERSITY
OXFORD, OHIO 45056

DATES OF REVIEW:

July 1-July 3, 1997 and
August 11-August 14, 1997

PRCN:199740814014

YEARS REVIEWED:1994, 1995, 1996

OPE ID #:00307700

EIN #:1316402089A1

TYPE AND CONTROL: University/Public

ACCREDITATION:

Commission on Institutions of Higher
Education of the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools

METHOD OF FUNDING: Advance Payment

ED REVIEWERS:

Fran Susman, Institutional Review Specialist,
Denver Case Management Team

Gerald Sikora, Institutional Review Specialist,
Chicago Case Management Team

INSTITUTIONAL OFFICIALS CONTACTED:

Cathryn H. House, Director of Department of Public Safety
Diane L. Stemper, Director of Financial Aid
Rick Keppler, Department of Public Safety
Kip Alishio, Student Counseling Service
Richard Nault, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs
Susan Vaughn, Coordinator of Judicial Services
Julie Roberts, Admin. Assistant, Women's Center
Jane Goettsch, Assistant Director, Office of Student Leadership

PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT

MIAMI UNIVERSITY
OXFORD, OHIO

A. INTRODUCTION

Miami University is located in Oxford, Ohio, with branch campuses located in Hamilton, Ohio and Middletown, Ohio. Miami University is accredited by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to offer baccalaureate, master's and doctoral degrees. The university enrolls approximately 16,000 to 20,000 students. The University participates in the following Title IV Programs: Federal Pell Grant Program, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Work-Study, and Federal Family Education Loan Program.

B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On or about January 24, 1997, the Chicago Case management Team received a formal complaint of non-compliance against Miami University which alleged that the institution was not in compliance with the requirements of the Campus Security Act of 1990. As a result of that complaint, a focused program review was scheduled for the week of July 1, 1997.

C. SCOPE OF REVIEW

A focused program review was conducted during the week of July 1-3, 1997 and continued on August 11-14, 1997, to examine the administration of the Campus Security Act of 1990. The review consisted of an examination of Miami University's policies and procedures relative to the annual campus security report required under the law and regulations. The reviewers examined the pertinent forms, policies, and procedures at the institution and conducted interviews with appropriate institutional personnel and students. Additionally, interviews were conducted with off-campus counseling centers, the Oxford Police Department, the Hamilton Police Department, and the Middletown Police Department.

During the review, areas of non-compliance with the provisions of the Campus Security Act of 1990 were noted. Findings of non-compliance are referenced to the applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and specify the actions to be taken by Miami University to bring the administration of the Campus Security Act into compliance with Federal statutes and regulations, and to identify any harm caused to the Title IV, HEA programs due to non-compliance.

Although the review of the institution's administration of the Campus Security was thorough, it cannot be assumed to be all-inclusive. The absence of statements in the report concerning Miami University's specific practices and procedures must not be construed as acceptance, approval, or endorsement of those specific practices and procedures. Furthermore, it does not relieve Miami University of its obligation to comply with all of the statutory or regulatory provisions governing the Campus Security Act or the Title IV, HEA programs.

D. FINDINGS REQUIRING INSTITUTIONAL ACTION

1. CRIME STATISTICS NOT ACCURATELY DISCLOSED—ANNUAL CAMPUS SECURITY REPORTS

FINDING: The institution's annual campus security reports for each of the years 1994, 1995, and 1996 were reviewed to determine: 1) whether all of the disclosures had been made, and 2) whether the disclosed information was accurate. Because there had been complaints alleging that the information reported was inaccurate, the reviewers examined the source documents used to prepare the crime statistics and interviewed individuals involved in the gathering of these statistics and in the preparation of the reports. While the institution did meet the requirement to publish an annual report for each of these years, detailed examination revealed areas where the institution failed to properly report required information.

(a) Crime incidents from all sources not reported. The institution failed to properly gather the required crime statistics from all pertinent sources. All campus officials with significant responsibility for student and campus activities are not surveyed for data for possible inclusion in the report, as required by 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6).

Officials at the Miami University Department of Public Safety gather statistics and prepare the annual campus security reports. These statistics include, for the most part, only those statistics derived from the Miami University Department of Public Safety police records, and more recently in the 1996 from the Oxford Police Department. The institution does not include statistics from (1) the institution counseling center, (2) the office of judicial affairs, and (3) the office of student affairs which compiles statistics from the McCullough-Hyde Hospital, Office of Residence Life, Office of Student Affairs, Oxford Crisis and Referral Center, Planned Parenthood, Psychology Clinic, and other agencies.

According to institution officials, the institution counseling center reports statistics to the Office of Student Affairs, but does not report statistics to the Department of Public Safety for inclusion in the annual campus security reports. The information is reported to the Office of Student Affairs on a form that requests the following information:

•Type of offense •Date and time of occurrence •University affiliation of victim and perpetrator •Location (whether on or off campus; residential or non-residential or outside) •Whether victim and offender are acquainted •Whether the incident has been reported to any other reporting agency •Whether alcohol or drugs were involved in the assault

According to an official at the institution counseling center, the above information is completed when possible; however, many times the date and time of occurrence are omitted because the counseling center believes this information is confidential and if reported, will identify the victim.

According to the institution officials, the office of judicial affairs, as a general policy, does not report crimes to the Department of Public Safety for inclusion in the annual campus security reports.

The office of student affairs publishes a Project TIPP (Treatment, Information, Prevention and Prosecution) Report which contains statistics derived from various reporting agencies mentioned above. However, no attempt is made to reconcile these statistics with the annual campus security reports. For example, according to the Project TIPP report for the period August 1995 through May 1996, there were 30 rapes reported. Of the 30 rapes, eight of the rapes occurred on-campus. In comparison, the annual campus security reports for the entire year of 1995 and the entire year of 1996 report only a total of four rapes on campus.

(b) Crime statistics not calculated correctly from Miami University police records. The crime statistics included in the institution's annual campus security reports do not reflect the number of actual crimes reported to the Miami University Department of Public Safety for 1994, 1995, and 1996. Discrepancies are noted below.

Reported on 1995 campus security report17 - Verified from Miami University police records19

Reported on 1996 campus security report17 - Verified from Miami University police records24

Reported on 1997 campus security report17 - Verified from Miami University police records18

Reported on 1995 campus security report78 - Verified from Miami University police records73

Reported on 1996 campus security report32 - Verified from Miami University police records33

Reported on 1997 campus security report42 - Verified from Miami University police records51

Reported on 1997 campus security report3 - Verified from Miami University police records4

Reported on 1997 campus security report2 - Verified from Miami University police records3

Reported on 1995 campus security report2 - Verified from Miami University police records3

(c) All university properties not included. The definition of campus, as set forth in 34 CFR 668.47(f), includes 1) any building or property owned or controlled by an institution within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area and used by the institution in direct support of, or in a manner related to, the institution's educational purpose; 2) any building or property owned or controlled by the institution, but owned by a third party. The reviewers interviewed the director of the Department of Public Safety who indicated that prior to approximately October of 1995, the university's annual campus security reports included data only from properties located on the campus proper. The campus security reports, for the most part, did not include the occurrence of crimes at university-recognized fraternity housing facilities. The campus police department generally responds to and maintains records of crimes occurring on-campus, while the Oxford police department responds to and maintains records of crimes occurring at the off-campus fraternity housing facilities.

The reviewers obtained from the City of Oxford Police Department a print-out of crimes for 1994, 1995, and 1996 for all off-campus fraternity houses. An analysis of that documentation indicated the following:

Crimes at off-campus fraternity houses according to Oxford Police records

(Table omitted by author.)

According to institution records, it appears that Miami University did not include these statistics for 1994 and 1995 in their annual campus security reports. For 1996, it appears that Miami University did include some, but not all, of the reported crimes. The crimes delineated in the chart, especially for the years 1994 and 1995, are in addition to those set forth in paragraph (b) above.

(d) Inconsistent data. The reviewers found that the institution had apparently failed to consistently report carryover data. Specifically, in the category "Forcible Fondling", one is reported for the year 1994 in the 1995 annual campus security report; zero are reported for the year 1994 in the 1996 and 1997 annual campus security reports. The reviewers found evidence in the institution's records of one incident of forcible fondling in 1994 (Miami University Department of Public Safety Report No. 94-2134).

In the category "Liquor Law Violations", 83 are reported for the year 1994 in the 1995 annual campus security report; 78 are reported for the year 1994 in the 1996 and 1997 annual campus security reports. The reviewers determined 73 actual liquor law violations on-campus as set forth in paragraph (a) above and 8 off-campus as set forth in paragraph (c) above.

In the category "Drug Law Violations", 13 are reported for the year 1994 in the 1995 annual campus security report; 17 are reported for the year 1994 in the 1996 and 1997 annual campus security reports. The reviewers documented 19 actual drug law violations on-campus as set forth in paragraph (a) above and 1 off-campus as set forth in paragraph (c) above.

In the category "Robbery", one is reported for the year 1994 in the 1995 annual campus security report; zero is reported for the year 1994 in the 1996 and 1997 annual campus security reports.

Although the 1997 annual campus security report contains the disclaimer that the statistics may differ slightly from previously published lists due to reclassification, the carryover statistics still appear to be incorrect.

(e) Crime statistics from branch campuses misreported. The institution failed to report crime statistics from the local police departments of Hamilton and Middletown for their branch campuses located in those jurisdictions. Specifically, the institution reported zero crime at both the Hamilton and Middletown campuses for the years 1994, 1995, and 1996. The reviewers interviewed officials at the City of Hamilton police department and the City of Middletown police department. An analysis of the documentation received from the police departments indicated the following:

Crimes at Hamilton branch campus according to City of Hamilton Police records

(Table omitted by author).

Failure to accurately report occurrences of crimes results in the underreporting of occurrence of crimes and denies students and employees the opportunity to make informed judgments about the relative security of the campus environment and to make personal security decisions.

REFERENCE:34 CFR 668.14(C)(2), General Provisions, redesignated from 668.12 to 668.14 and amended 4/29/94; 34 CFR 668.16, General Provisions, redesignated from 668.14 to 668.16 and amended 4/29/94; 34 CFR 668.47, General Provisions, 4/29/94, amended 6/30/95; Section 485(f) of the HEA, as amended, 7/23/92

REQUIRED ACTIONS: The institution is required to review the requirements of 34 CFR 668.47, develop a system for collecting information about all occurrences (reports/arrests) of those crimes covered in 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6) and (a)(8), for inclusion in its annual campus security report.

In its response to this report, the institution is required to describe how it will bring its campus security statistical disclosures into compliance with the law and regulations, including detailed procedures it will implement to collect crime statistics and inform relevant staff of their reporting responsibilities and a listing of relevant staff who will be surveyed for required statistics. The institution's response should address each of the deficiencies noted above and explain how it will take corrective action to ensure complete reporting in the next annual campus security report. In addition, the institution must review previously disclosed statistics and report corrected statistics in light of the noted deficiencies.

2. FAILURE TO FOLLOW CAMPUS SECURITY ACT REGULATIONS REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION

FINDING: The institution failed to initiate and enforce appropriate procedures for notifying both parties of the outcome of any institutional disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sex offense, as required by 34 CFR 668.47(a)(12)(vi). The institution's current disciplinary procedures, as set forth in the 1997-98 "Code of Student Conduct", page 22, state:

"Miami University, upon request (emphasis added) discloses to alleged victims of crimes of violence the results of disciplinary proceedings by the University."

In addition, page 18 of the handbook, states:

"The Office of Judicial Affairs will notify the student or student organization of the decision in writing of the outcome of the hearing and will also notify the student, if responsible, of the sanction(s) imposed."

The reviewers interviewed an institution official with the Office of Judicial Affairs to determine the actual procedure, if any, for notifying both parties of the outcome of any disciplinary hearing. According to that official, the complainant has the right to attend the punishment or sanction portion of the hearing. If the complainant does not attend the hearing, according to institution officials, the complainant "is usually notified" either by telephone, in person, or occasionally by letter.

Federal regulations state that both parties "shall be informed of the outcome of any institutional disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sex offense." The institution's current policies, both written and actual, do not provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that complainants are always notified of the outcome of disciplinary hearings.

The institution's failure to properly develop a notification policy pursuant to the Campus Security Act of 1990 constitutes an inability by the institution to properly administer the Title IV programs.

REFERENCE:34 CFR 668.14(C)(2), General Provisions, redesignated from 668.12 to 668.14 and amended 4/29/94; 34 CFR 668.16, General Provisions, redesignated from 668.14 to 668.16 and amended 4/29/94&; 34 CFR 668.47(a)(12)(vi), General Provisions, 4/29/94; Section 485(f) of the HEA, as amended, 7/23/92

REQUIREMENT: The institution is required to review its disciplinary notification procedures to ensure that all policy statements, as well as actual enforcement, are in compliance with 34 CFR 668.47(a)(12)(vi). In its current response, the institution must indicate additions/modifications to its current policy, as well as how it will implement the required policies and procedures.

1. Although there were three aggravated assault incidents, the incidents involved four victims and should have been reported as four crimes (Miami University Department of Public Safety police report nos. 96-2695, 96-3642, and 96-052).
2. Although there were two forcible fondling incidents, the incident involved three victims and should have been reported as three crimes (Miami University Department of Public Safety police report nos. 96-7809 and 96-183).
3. Miami University Department of Public Safety police report no. 94-179 not reported on 1995 campus security report, although institution was aware of crime as of February, 1994.
4. Hamilton police records-1601 Peck, 9/10/94
5. Hamilton police records-1601 Peck, 11/11/95
6. Hamilton police records-1601 Peck, 6/26/96, 8/19/96
7. Middletown police records-#95020480
8. Middletown police records-#95014160
9. Middletown police records-#96034811

BACK TO HIGHER-EDUCATION LEGAL INFORMATION

BACK TO TOP