OUR CONSULTANTS
CONSULTING SERVICES
STUDENT PROGRAMS
PUBLICATIONS
EVENTS
SCHEDULE
STRATEGIC PARTNERS
THE CUBIT MODEL
MODEL POLICIES
MEDIA
OUR CLIENTS
TESTIMONIALS
LEGAL RESOURCES
CONTACT US
PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT—MOORHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 BY THE REGION V OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MOORHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY
1104 7TH AVE.SO.
MOORHEAD, MN 56563
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION
B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
C. SCOPE OF REVIEW
D. FINDINGS REQUIRING INSTITUTIONAL ACTION
1.Crime Statistics No Accurately Disclosed-Annual Security Reports 2.Timely Warning Provision 3.Campus Security Report Information Not Made Available to Students and Employees 4.Deficiencies in Information Contained in the Annual Campus Security Reports
E. OTHER INFORMATION
MOORHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY
1104 7TH AVE. SO.
MOORHEAD, MN 56563
A. INTRODUCTION
Moorhead State University (MSU) is located in Moorhead, Minnesota. MSU is accredited by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to offer Associate, Baccalaureate, Master's and Specialist degrees. The University enrolls approximately 6,000 students. The University participates in the Federal Pell Grant Program, FSEOG, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Work-Study Program, and the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On October 5, 1995, Mr. Gregory McInnis of the Chicago Regional Office received a complaint that indicated Moorhead State University was not in compliance with the requirements of the Campus Security Act of 1990. The University (Mr. Mike Pehler) was contacted by Mr. McInnis on October 20, 1995. Mr. Pehler gave assurances that the institution would review its statistical data and publish and distribute through appropriate publications any corrections. Mr. Pehler indicated that he expected the review would be completed by November 20, 1995 and the information would be forwarded to the Department at that time.
On November 16, 1995, Dr. Steven Butler, Vice President for Student Affairs, wrote to Mr. McInnis relative to the complaint and indicated that "Moorhead State University has been, and is, in compliance with the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act." He stated that prior errors had been corrected and the 1995 annual campus security report was correct.
On November 20, 1995, Dr. Butler wrote to Mr. McInnis stating that the University had reviewed the Campus Security Act and that the University would meet or exceed all requirements.
Following the two Federal furloughs that occurred in late 1995 and in early 1996, the Chicago Regional Office was contacted once again by the complainant who alleged that the university had not published any revisions to its earlier data. The Regional Office had not received the revised information promised in Mr. Pehler's October 20, 1995 letter. A program review was scheduled for the week of April 1, 1996.
Upon arrival at the institution the reviewers found that, contrary to the assurances provided in the University's letters, the corrections to the statistical data had not been made. In addition, the promised publication of corrected data had not occurred.
Instead, during the review, University officials informed the reviewers that they had decided to wait until receiving the program review report to compile and publish revised statistical data.
C. SCOPE OF REVIEW
A program review was conducted during the week of April 1-5, 1996, to examine the administration of the Campus Security Act of 1990. The review consisted of an examination of Moorhead State 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 and a review of pertinent documents was conducted at the Moorhead 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 Moorhead State 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 Act was thorough, it cannot be assumed to be all-inclusive. The absence of statements in the report concerning Moorhead State 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 Moorhead State 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 1992 through 1995 were reviewed to determine:1) whether all of the required disclosures had been made, and 2) whether the disclosed information was accurate. University officials indicated that all incidents handled by the Housing and Security Office were communicated to the Moorhead Police Department for inclusion in the statistics complied by the Moorhead Police Department. 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 in the preparation of the reports. While the institution did meet the requirement to publish an annual report for each of those years, detailed examination revealed areas where the institution failed to properly report required information.
a) Crime Statistics are estimated. The crime statistics included in the institution's annual security reports do not reflect the number of actual crimes reported to campus officials or local police agencies (as required by 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6)), or arrests for drug, liquor or weapons violations (as required by 34 CFR 668.47(a)(8)). Instead, the statistics for both categories are estimates, provided by the Moorhead Police Department, of the institution's share of crimes reported for the area of the city in which the institution is located. The police department, as part of the state crime reporting responsibilities, compiled statistics for crimes reported for various "grids" within the City of Moorhead utilizing state crime definitions. The State of Minnesota recompiled the Moorhead police data using the FBI UCR definitions. This recompiled data was then utilized for the institution's statistical disclosure.
Although the police department created an unofficial "sub-grid" representing the campus, this sub-grid is not reflected in the state compilation. Also, the Moorhead Police "sub-grid" system did not track arrests for drug, liquor or weapons violations. The Moorhead Police Department then estimated the institution's share of the arrests reported for the grid.
This practice of utilizing an estimate cannot satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirement that actual arrests and crimes specifically reported to campus officials and local police agencies be statistically disclosed. The statistics on which the institution relied are incomplete and could not lead to an accurate accounting. The police department's sub-grid did not include other facilities controlled by recognized student organizations. In addition, the sub-grid did not include "reasonably contiguous" university properties located near the main campus that must be included in the statistics according to 34 CFR 668.47(f). More importantly, contrary to statements by the university, all crimes known to university officials are not reported to the police. In reviewing records of the Housing & Security Office, the reviewers determined that some incidents are reported and some are not. There was no indication that the institution took any steps to ensure that the estimated data reflected or corresponded to crimes known to university officials.
b) All university properties not included. The definition of campus 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 a student organization recognized by the institution; 3) any building or property controlled by the institution, but owned by a third party. The reviewers interviewed the Director of Housing and Security and a representative of the Moorhead Police Department who indicated that the figures reported in the university's annual campus security reports included data only from properties located on the campus proper. The campus security reports do not include, as required, all reasonably contiguous building or properties owned or controlled by the institution, owned or controlled by recognized student organizations, or controlled by the institution, but owned by a third party. For example, the annual campus security report statistics do not include the occurrence of crimes at university-recognized fraternity housing facilities.
c) Coordination of information from all sources. As noted in paragraph (a), the institution relies solely on statistics provided by the Moorhead Police Department for its statistical report. All campus officials with significant responsibility for student and campus activities are not surveyed for data for possible inclusion in the report. For example, occurrences of covered crimes reported to the "MSU Counseling Center" were not collected and included in the annual campus security reports' statistics. Officials of the institution involved in student counseling are not excluded from the institution's statistical reporting obligations (counselors are excluded only from the timely warning requirements of 34 CFR 668.47(e)). The reviewers interviewed the Director of Counseling who indicated that this type of data is collected and quantified by the counseling center.
d) Statistics for non-contiguous university properties. The Regional Science Center is a non-contiguous property owned and controlled by the institution. Our review of the annual campus security reports revealed that not separate statistics for the Regional Science Center were reported, and there were not references to the center in the various police statements. Interviews with University officials revealed that the University does not collect statistics or prepare a separate report for the Regional Science Center, either.
e) Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program Categories and Definitions. The institution failed to report occurrences of crimes consistent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program (FBI UCR) definitions contained in 34 CFR 668, Appendix E, and failed to report the crime statistics under the appropriate categories as contained in 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6) and (a)(8). For example, in the 1994 annual campus security report the institution reported "Sexual assaults" by degree, and did not report "Sex offenses, forcible and nonforcible." It is unclear what definition was used to categorize the reports under this category. Detailed review of the annual campus security reports revealed differing reporting categories from year to year. Interviews with university officials and a representative of the Moorhead Police Department revealed that the FBI UCR definitions are not used to categorize crimes. The Moorhead Police Department categorized incidents according the State's crime reporting system which uses definitions that are not consistent with the FBI UCR definitions. Although the state of Minnesota recompiled the Moorhead police data using the FBI UCR definitions, use of the state definitions exclusively for initial reporting, may lead to underreporting of, or no reporting for, some required categories. For example, use of the state definitions may result in omitting reports of forcible fondling, which is one of the four sub-categories of sex offenses-forcible as defined by the FBI. Detailed backup information for the annual campus security reports was not available for review, therefore the reviewers were not able to determine the effect or extent of the inaccuracies resulting from not categorizing and reporting crimes according to the FBI UCR definitions.
f) Hate crimes. The institution's publications did not address the presence or absence of crimes as listed in 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6)(i) that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, as prescribed by the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534) and required under 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6)(ii).
g) Timeframe for data collection. For the institution's 1992 and 1994 reports, statistics were reported for 13 month periods from August 1 to the following August 31. The 1993 report did not state the time frame for that year's statistics. For reports due on or after September 1, 1995, data must be reported on a calendar year basis. 34 CFR 668.47(d).
h) Inconsistent Data. In addition, the reviewers found that the institution had apparently failed to consistently report carryover data. For example, in the category "Aggravated Assault" zero are reported for the year 1992 in the 1992 annual campus security report; seven are reported for the year 1992 in the 1993 annual campus security report; seven are reported for each of the years 1992 and 1993 in the 1994 annual campus security report; and four are reported for the year 192 and zero are reported for the year 1993 in the 1995 annual campus security report. The inconsistencies are evident in the chart contained in Attachment A. The annual campus security reports provided no explanations for the changes in data from year to year.
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)(1995)
34 CFR 668.16(1995)
34 CFR 668.47(1995), [April 29, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 22314-22321) and June 30, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34428-34433)]
Sect. 485(f) of the HEA, as amended
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), use the FBI UCR definitions found under 34 CFR part 668 Appendix E, and indicate whether or not any crimes under 34 CFR 668.47 (a)(6)(i) manifest evidence of prejudice as prescribed by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534) for inclusion in its annual campus security report. The report must also include separate statistics and other appropriate references for the Regional Science Center since it is a non-contiguous property owned and controlled by the institution; the institution may wish to issue an entirely separate report for the Regional Science Center.
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. The institution's response should address each of the deficiencies noted above and explain how it will take corrective actions 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.
Due to the fact that the institution has disclosed only estimated and not actual statistics of crimes on campus, the institution's response must demonstrate that it has taken corrective action to ensure accurate reporting and disclosure. The response should include:
a) A copy of the detailed procedures it will implement to collect crime statistics and inform relevant staff of their reporting responsibilities.
b) A listing of relevant staff who will be surveyed for required statistics.
c) A copy of the data collection instrument(s) to be used indicating all relevant collection timeframes.
d) A description of how it will incorporate information gathered from the local police into the annual security report.
The Department will review the response to determine the institution's commitment to take corrective action and ensure future compliance.
2. Timely Warning Provision
FINDING: A review of the institution's annual campus security report revealed that the monthly campus security report entitled "Campus Crime Profile" was intended to be one of the means used to meet the timely warning provision in 34 CFR 668.47. At the time of the site visit, institutional officials indicated they had discontinued publishing the report since it is not a required report.
REFERENCE:
34 CFR 668.47(1995), [April 29, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 22314-22321) and June 30, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34428-34433)]
Sect. 485(f) of the HEA, as amended
REQUIRED ACTION: The institution is required to, in a manner that is timely and will aid in the prevention of similar crimes, report to the campus community on crimes that are 1) described in 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6); 2) reported to campus security authorities as identified under the institution's statement of current campus policies pursuant to 34 CFR 668.47(a)(1) or local police agencies; and 3) considered by the institution to represent a threat to students and employees.
The institution must review, and develop as necessary, its procedures for determining whether to issue a warning to the community when crimes are reported to campus officials, and review possible effective methods of issuing a required warning to the campus community.
In response to this report, the institution must describe its procedures for determining whether to issue a timely warning, the criteria for such a warning and methods for issuing timely warnings.
3. Campus Security Report Information Not Made Available to Students and Employees
FINDING: Institutional publications were examined and staff were interviewed to determine how the University makes campus security report information available to current and prospective students and employees. It appears that the institution is not in compliance with the Campus Security Act dissemination requirements. Specifically, prospective students and employees are not informed of the campus security report's availability. The only mention in the institutional literature of the report's availability for prospective students and employees is in the report itself. Further, they are advised that a request for the report must be in writing. Of the mandatory consumer information disclosures, the campus security report is the only item for which the University requires a written request.
REFERENCE:
34 CFR 668.14(c)(2)(1995)
34 CFR 668.18(1995)
34 CFR 668.47(1995), [April 29, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 22314-22321) and June 30, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34428-34433)]
Sect. 485(f) of the HEA, as amended
REQUIRED ACTIONS:
Prospective Students and Employees:
a) The campus security report must be distributed to prospective students and employees upon request. Prospective students and employees must be informed of the campus security report's availability, given a summary of its contents, and given the opportunity to request a copy of the report.
In its response, the institution must provide a copy of the notification it will provide to prospective students and employees and must indicate how the notification will be made.
Currents Students and Employees:
b) The campus security report is to be distributed to all current students and employees by September 1 of each year through appropriate publications and mailings. Distribution can be by direct mailing (U.S. Postal Service, Campus Mail), through computer network, or hand delivered to each individual. These individuals must not be required to request the report in order to receive it.
The institution must indicate how and when it will distribute the campus security report to current students (on- and off-campus) and employees.
4. Deficiencies in Information Contained in the Annual Campus Security Reports
The reviewers performed a detailed analysis of the institution's annual campus security reports to determine if they contained the required disclosures. This analysis included a comparison of information contained in the annual campus security reports, with information received from the Moorhead Police Department and University officials, and with the regulations. This analysis revealed two types of deficiencies: (a) omitted/incomplete information, or (b) inaccurate information.
FINDING:
a) Statements of policy omitted or incomplete
A review of the University's annual campus security reports revealed several instances where required statements of policy were either omitted, simply state the policy topic without elaborating a policy, or did not adequately address all required policy components. For example:
1.Informational Programs. The campus security reports omit the description required under 34 CFR 668.47(a)(4) of the type and frequency of programs designed to inform students and employees about campus security procedures and practices and to encourage students and employees to be responsible for their own security and the security of others. 2.Drug or Alcohol Abuse Programs. The campus security reports omit a description of , or a cross-reference to (as required by 34 CFR 668.47(a)(11)), drug or alcohol-abuse education programs offered pursuant to section 1213 of the HEA. 3.Officials to Whom Reports of Criminal Offenses Should Be Made. The campus security reports do not identify to whom on campus (by title or office) students and employees should report the criminal offenses described in paragraph (a)(6) as required by 34 CFR 668.47(a)(1). 4.Security of Campus Facilities. The campus security reports do not address the security of campus facilities, including campus residences, and security considerations used in the maintenance of campus facilities as required by 34 CFR 668.47(a)(2). 5.Programs and Procedures for Sex Offenses. The campus security reports, as required by 34 CFR 668.47(a)(12), do not include:
A) A description of educational programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, and other forcible and nonforcible sex offenses;
B)The importance of preserving evidence for the proof of a criminal offense;
C) Procedures for campus disciplinary action in cases of an alleged sex offense including a clear statement that—
i) The accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during a disciplinary proceeding; and
ii) Both the accuser and the accused shall be informed of the outcome of any institutional disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sex offense;
D) Sanctions the institution may impose following a final determination of an institutional disciplinary proceeding regarding rape, acquaintance rape, or other forcible or nonforcible sex offenses.
b) Statements of Policy Inaccurate
Statements of policy do not accurately represent the actual practices of the institution. For example:
1.Regional Science Center Reporting The "Crime Reports" section of the 1992 and 1994 campus security reports states that the Regional Science Center will be included in the statistics under 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6). The reviewers found that statistics for the Regional Science Center are not collected or reported. 2.Coordination With Local Police Agencies The "Crime Reports" section of the 1992, 1994, and 1995 campus security reports states that all statements and/or reports made to any member of the Campus Security Office will be shared with the Moorhead Police Department, City Attorney's Office, the Clay County Attorney and/or if appropriate, the Campus Conduct Officer. The reviewers found that some incidents were reported and others were not. 3.Alcohol Violations The "Criminal Reports-Specific Guidelines-Alcohol Violations" section of the campus security reports states that:
A) In most cases students are referred through the campus disciplinary system.
B) If it is determined that the person is underage, the Moorhead Police will be called to assist.
A sample of the Campus Security Office's incident reports was reviewed to determine if the University was following the above state policies. It was found that a number of incidents that involved alcohol violations were not acted upon either through the campus disciplinary system or by calling the Moorhead Police Department for Assistance. This was corroborated by the Moorhead Police Department. 4.Complainant's Bill of Rights The campus security reports "Crime Reporting Procedures" section states that Faculty, staff, and student employees who are not members of the Campus Security Office, are instructed to provide a copy of a Complainant's Bill of Rights, a separate section in the campus security reports, to those indicating a campus criminal activity. Employees interviewed stated that they are not aware of a Complainant's Bill of Rights. 5.Monitoring Recognized Organizations The campus security reports' "Policy on Monitoring Recognized Organization's [sic] Off-Campus Facilities" section states that the Campus Security Office has made arrangements with the local police agencies to receive reports affecting any identified recognized student organization's facility, and that on a quarterly basis a summary of all law enforcement and Campus Security Office reports are compiled by the Campus Security Office.
The reviewers could not determine if the Campus Security Office actually received these reports from the police department or prepared the quarterly compilation. Officials of the Moorhead Police Department stated that they are unable to identify occurrences of criminal actions by specific location. In addition, they have no procedure for compiling such information. The Moorhead Police Department indicated that they were contacted recently by a University official and they were trying to resolve the problem.
The institution's failure to inform students and employees of its polices, completely and accurately, denies them 1) the opportunity to make informed decisions and, 2) the ability to act appropriately when personal or campus safety is threatened.
REFERENCE:
34 CFR 668.14(c)(2)(1995)
34 CFR 668.16(1995)
34 CFR 668.47(1995), [April 29, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 22314-22321) and June 30, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34428-344333)]
Sect. 485(f) of the HEA, as amended
REQUIRED ACTIONS: The institution is required to review the campus security reports to ensure that all policy statements as required under 34 CFR 668.47 are included. In addition, it must ensure that all other institutional policies and procedures such as, but not limited to, student, staff, and faculty disciplinary procedures incorporate these policies.
In its response the institution must indicate where additions and modifications are made. This information should be presented in a comparison format or other format that clearly identifies the changes. Also, in its response the institution must explain how it will implement the required policies and procedures.
E. OTHER INFORMATION
The reviewers conducted interviews with students and staff at the institution.
During the course of those interviews, certain information relative to
the handling of sexual harassment complaints was presented to the reviewers,
as was discussed in the exit interview with President Barden, which is
not within the jurisdiction of the Office of Postsecondary Education,
and information from these interviews is being forwarded to the Region
V Office of Civil Rights.
Copyright © 2008 NCHERM. All rights reserved. Website created by ruby
slipper designs llc.