Dr. James J. Ross
President
Mount St. Clare College
400 North Bluff Boulevard
Clinton, Iowa 52732

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RECEIPT #Z445703876
PRCN: 199940716575
OPE ID: 00188100

Dear Dr. Ross:

Thank you for your institution’s responses dated September 30, 1999, and January 14, 2000, in response to the August 31, 1999 program review report. That report covered Mount St. Clare College’s (MSC) administration of the Campus Security Act of 1990 from June 1996 to the present.

The Kansas City Case Management Team has made final determinations for all of the findings in the program review report. The purpose of this Final Program Review Determination (FPRD) is to close the review. However, please note that, as part of the final determination for Findings 1, 2, and 3, our Case Management Team is referring this FPRD to the Administrative Actions and Appeals Division (AAAD) for its consideration of possible adverse administrative action. Such action may include a fine, or the limitation, suspension or termination of the eligibility of the institution pursuant to 34 CFR, Part 668, Subpart G of the Student Financial Assistance General Provisions. If AAAD initiates any action, its notification will include information on institutional appeal rights and procedures on how to file an appeal.

Mount St. Clare College has taken corrective actions to resolve Findings 1 through 4, and these findings may be considered closed. However, MSC should heed the guidance, instructions, and consequences of Findings 1, 2 and 3 discussed below. A copy of the program review report is attached to this FPRD as Attachment A.

1. Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed — Annual Campus Security Reports

The original program review report included the following finding, reference, and requirement for this item:

"FINDING:The review team examined MSC’s annual campus security reports for each of the years 1994 through 1998 to determine whether the College made all of the required disclosures and whether the disclosed information was accurate. The reviewers also reviewed a 1999 report of crime statistics provided to the State of Iowa and a draft of a campus security report being prepared for distribution to students for the Fall 1999 semester. Because the Department received a complaint about the accuracy of the reported statistics, the reviewers examined the source documents used to prepare the crime statistics. Additionally, the individuals responsible for gathering the statistics and preparing the reports were interviewed. The reviewers also requested statistics from the Clinton Police Department concerning incidents of the specified crimes in the Campus Security Act, for calendar years 1993 to present, which were reported to the police and occurred on the MSC campus. While the institution did publish an annual report for each of the years examined, detailed examination revealed areas where the institution failed to properly report required information.

• Weapons incident on September 2, 1994 (#940006364)
• Burglary in the residence hall on December 17, 1994 (#95000298)
• Burglary in the MSC business office on February 22, 1995 (#95001165)

• An incident on September 1, 1994 that appears to be the same incident involving the same parties as those included in September 2, 1994 Clinton police weapons incident report.
• A report of a sexual assault on September 18, 1994

• A forcible sexual offense on September 9, 1995 (#95007900)
• A weapons incident on November 1, 1995. This incident also included a threat of harm to other individuals, so it may also be an aggravated assault (#95008834)
• A burglary in the residence hall on February 8, 1996 (#96000981)

• "Other" incident occurred on October 19, 1996. This appears to be the motor vehicle theft reported on the campus security report. (#960008247)
• An aggravated assault on April 17, 1997 (#97002838)
• A theft on May 22, 1997 (#97003901) Unless the incident can be classified as a burglary, it would not be required to be reported on the campus security report.

• A sexual assault on September 13, 1998. (#98006647)
• A theft on September 28, 1998. It may be classified as a burglary. This incident was likely included among the burglary incidents reported in the campus security report (#98007170)
• A report of a sexual assault on October 10, 1998. However, it appears this incident took place in Davenport, Iowa. As a result, it is not required to be listed in the statistics in the campus security report. (#98007372)
• A report of a nonforcible sexual offense on November 7, 1998. (#98008127)
• A report of an aggravated assault on November 12, 1998 (#98008148)
• A report of a burglary on February 1, 1999. It appears this was included among the burglary incidents reported in the campus security report. (#99002397)

REFERENCE:34 CFR 668.14 (c)(2) (1995)
34 CFR 668.16 (1995)
34 CFR 668.47 (1995)

Section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act, as amended

REQUIRED ACTIONS: Failure to accurately report occurrences of the Act’s specified 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. The College must review the requirements of 34 CFR 668.47. It should develop a system for collecting information from all pertinent sources (including the Clinton Police Department) about all occurrences (reports/arrests) of those crimes covered in 34 CFR 668.47(a)(6) and (a)(8). The College must use the proper reporting periods and standard for reporting. Further, the College must also ensure that any reportable crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice as prescribed by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S. C. 534) are properly reported.

In its response to this report, the College 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 particular, the institution should review each omitted incident discussed above and state its position as to whether the incident should have been reported. Finally, the institution must review previously disclosed statistics and report corrected statistics in light of the noted deficiencies. The Department will review the response to determine the institution’s commitment to take corrective action and ensure future compliance."

FINAL DETERMINATION

The institution failed to accurately disclose the crime statistics it is required to report under the Campus Security Act of 1990. This inaccurate disclosure included: (1) the failure to report all crime incidents; (2) the use of the wrong standard and wrong reporting period in determining which crimes were to have been reported; and (3) the failure to include a determination as to whether any of the reported crimes manifested evidence of prejudice, as prescribed by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534). The failure to accurately disclose the crime statistics denies students and employees the opportunity to make informed judgments about the relative security of the campus environment and to make personal security decisions.

1. All crime incidents not reported

The institution’s September 30, 1999 response indicated that MSC officials had "omitted" ten incidents from previous campus security reports, but that MSC would include them in its revised statistics. These "omitted" incidents included four burglaries (12-25-93, 12-17-94, 2-22-95, and 2-8-96), three aggravated assaults (11-1-95, 10-16-96 (the judicial board summary date was 10-25-96), and 4-17-97), two forcible sex offenses (9-18-94 and 8-28-97), and one arrest for liquor law violations (2-24-98). The Department concurs that these ten incidents are required to be included in MSC’s revised crime statistics.

The Department’s correspondence of December 14, 1999, indicated that it accepted MSC’s explanation for three other incidents outlined in the program review report. Those incidents were: (1) the possible weapons arrest on November 1, 1995; (2) the possible second aggravated assault on October 16, 1996 (the judicial board summary listed as 10-25-96); and (3) the possible aggravated assault on November 12, 1998. However, in the December 14, 1999 letter, the department informed MSC that it needed to clarify the circumstances surrounding seven incidents discussed in the program review report; the Department outlined the specific information MSC needed to provide regarding these seven incidents.

The institution discussed the seven incidents requiring clarification in its response of January 14, 2000. School officials indicated MSC would include three of these seven incidents (1-20-95, 9-9-95, and 6-13-97) in its revised crime statistics, in addition to the ten "omitted" incidents previously mentioned. The institution claimed it did not have to report four of these seven incidents. However, the Department finds inconsistency in MSC’s discussion of two of these incidents (7-26-96 and 9-12-97). As a result, these incidents must be included in MSC’s revised crime statistics. The Department agrees with MSC that the remaining two incidents (1996-97 "Girlfriend Incident" and 11-7-98) do not have to be reported. In the future, though, MSC must keep better records to ensure the institution will be able to accurately disclose crime statistics. Each of these seven incidents is discussed below.

1. Domestic Violence Incident on January 20, 1995

The institution’s July 31, 1995 campus security report listed two aggravated assaults for the 1994-95 academic year. The program review report speculated that these two incidents occurred on September 2, 1994 and January 20, 1995. Reviewers could not determine which incidents were included on the campus security report and asked the institution for clarification.

In its response of September 30, 1999, MSC confirmed the September 2, 1994 incident was listed on the campus security report as an aggravated assault. MSC determined that the January 20, 1995 incident was an aggravated assault and indicated the institution would revise its statistics to include this incident.

The institution’s response was unclear as to whether the January 20, 1995 was included in the two aggravated assaults reported for the 1994-95 academic year. The school’s response seemed to indicate that the January 20, 1995 incident had not previously been reported and would be added to the report as a result of the program review finding. However, MSC did not explain what incident was represented by the second reported aggravated assault in 1994-95.

The Department’s correspondence of December 14, 1999 asked MSC to clarify the situation. In its January 14, 2000 correspondence, MSC indicated that three aggravated assaults would be reported in its revised statistics. However, the school never clearly explained what comprised the third aggravated assault.

The Department accepts MSC’s revised statistics of three aggravated assaults in 1994-95, but notes that the institution never explained what incident represented the third aggravated assault. Thus, in future years, MSC must keep a more accurate accounting of incidents and keep track of which incidents comprise the reported statistics.

2. Forcible Sex Offense on September 9, 1995

The Clinton Police had a report of a forcible sex offense on September 9, 1995, but the July 31, 1996 campus security report listed no crimes for the 1995-96 academic year. In its September 30, 1999 response, MSC claimed that the information available was insufficient to determine whether this was a reportable offense. Thus, the school did not report the incident.

The Department’s December 14, 1999 correspondence found that the incident was described in the police incident report as "SEX OFF F." Given that designation, MSC was asked to provide an explanation as to why the incident should not be reported. In its January 14, 2000 response, MSC indicated that the police incident case summary provided no facts regarding this incident other than the name of the alleged victim. Also, an investigation by the Clinton Police supposedly did not reveal any further information or facts regarding this report. MSC stated this incident was listed as a non-forcible sexual offense in its revised statistics.

The Department is unable to determine the correct classification of this incident due to the lack of details surrounding the circumstances of this case. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) defines non-forcible sexual offenses as incest or statutory rape. The institution has presented no evidence that this incident involved either incest or statutory rape. The institution has not denied that this incident occurred on MSC’s campus. Furthermore, school officials did not provide an explanation as to why the incident should be classified as a non-forcible sexual offense when Clinton Police did not classify that way.

The Department accepts MSC’s inclusion of this incident in the revised crime statistics, but, lacking evidence to the contrary, the incident should be listed as a forcible sex offense.

3. Aggravated Assault on June 13, 1997

An aggravated assault on June 13, 1997 was included in a summary of MSC’s administrative action cases but was not listed on the campus security report. In its September 30, 1999 response, MSC indicated that this incident was reported on the 1996-97 campus security report.

The Department’s December 14, 1999 correspondence instructed the school to explain where this incident was reported or, if unable, to revise its statistics. The July 31, 1997 and June 1, 1998 campus security reports listed NO aggravated assaults for 1996-97. The June 1, 1999 campus security report listed two aggravated assaults for 1996-97, but MSC had previously accounted for these two aggravated assaults (October 16, 1996 and April 17, 1997).

In its January 14, 2000 response, MSC indicated this aggravated assault is now included in the revised statistics. The Department concurs that MSC should include this incident in its report of crime statistics.

4. Aggravated Assault on July 26, 1996

The school listed an aggravated assault, occurring on July 26, 1996, in its judicial board/administrative action summary. In its September 30, 1999 response, MSC stated that institutional officials determined this incident to be a simple assault. However, the September 30, 1999 response did indicate that the Judicial Board listed one incident of aggravated assault in 1996-97. In the September 30^th letter, MSC officials claimed this incident was included in the revised crime statistics. However, no date or information concerning this incident was provided.

The Department’s December 14, 1999 correspondence asked MSC to explain why the July 26, 1996 incident would be a simple assault when school officials originally classified the incident as an aggravated assault. MSC explained in its January 14, 2000 correspondence that the institution used an incorrect designation in its summary of administrative action cases. MSC officials contend that this incident did not involve injury, threat of injury or attempted injury; rather, it was simply an argument and disagreement between two MSC students. As a result, MSC classified this incident as a simple assault.

The summary of corrections to the crime statistics submitted with MSC’s January 14, 2000 response indicated that the school should have reported two aggravated assaults for the period of August 1, 1995 and July 31, 1996. The summary indicates these two assaults occurred on November 1, 1995 and on July 2, 1996. The source of the July 2, 1996 incident is listed as the A-board. The program review report did not discuss any incidents occurring on July 2, 1996 and neither the judicial nor administrative board summaries listed an incident occurring on July 2, 1996. Thus, the Department assumes that MSC meant to report the aggravated assault that occurred on July 26, 1996.

The revised crime statistics submitted with the institution’s January 14, 2000 response show two aggravated assaults should be reported in the 1995-96 academic year. The Department concurs with MSC’s addition of one aggravated assault to the 1995-96 statistics. Although MSC lists this incident as July 2, 1996, the Department presumes the incident occurred on July 26, 1996.

5. Aggravated Assault on September 12, 1997

The administrative action case summary indicated that a physical assault occurred on September 12, 1997, but reviewers could not locate supporting/explanatory information for this incident. In its September 30, 1999 response, MSC indicated that institutional officials were not provided with sufficient information to determine whether the incident was an aggravated assault. In its January 14, 2000 response, MSC stated that this incident was classified as a simple assault. The perpetrator allegedly grabbed the arm of the victim, but there were no visible marks of injury, bruises or indications of an assault on the alleged victim. The limited information available indicated to MSC officials that this incident was primarily a verbal altercation with possible slight physical contact. Thus, MSC considered the incident to be a simple assault.

However, the summary of corrections to the crime statistics that MSC submitted with its January 14, 2000 response indicated one aggravated assault should have been reported for the period of August 1, 1997 and July 31, 1998. The summary indicates this assault occurred on September 12, 1997. The revised crime statistics submitted with the institution’s January 14, 2000 list one aggravated assault for 1997-98. Reviewers did not obtain any information nor did MSC provide any explanation of any other aggravated assault occurring during this time period. As a result, the Department believes this incident should be included in MSC’s revised crime statistics.

6. 1996-97 "Girlfriend" Incident

A 1996-97 "Girlfriend" incident was discovered in an interview during the program review. There was no incident report or other documentation of the incident. The Dean of Students indicated that the student involved in an incident on October 16, 1996, was also involved in an incident where he "beat up his girlfriend" or may have "only twisted her arm." The Dean of Students indicated no incident report was filed because the victim did not want to press charges with the police. In its response of September 30, 1999, MSC indicated that no information was presented to the Dean of Students in this case to determine if the incident should be classified as an aggravated assault.

The Department’s December 14, 1999 correspondence requested that MSC explain the lack of an incident report in this case and the basis for not including the incident in campus security reports. MSC indicated, in its January 14, 2000, response that the Dean of Student’s description of the incident was a "figure of speech." MSC conceded that an incident report should have been filed, but claimed the incident was not reported because there were no witnesses to the incident and neither party would talk about the incident. In this case, according to MSC officials, there were no visible marks of injury, bruises or indications of an assault on the alleged victim and no evidence that a physical assault had taken place. Thus, MSC considered the incident to be a simple assault.

Because reviewers do not have any information to contradict the institution’s classification of these events, the Department will accept MSC’s explanation of the incident as a simple assault. As a result, the regulations do not require this incident to be reported in the crime statistics.

7. Sex offense, Non Forcible on 11-7-98

A non-forcible, sex offense was reported to the Clinton Police Department, but there was no documentation concerning the incident in the MSC documentation. The police incident summary listed the incident type as "SEX OFF NONF." The incident summary comments stated that the "complainant reported sexual abuse to subject." In its response of January 14, 2000, MSC stated that the police incident summary did not provide facts regarding this incident or details about the victim or alleged perpetrator. Clinton Police told MSC that the father of the alleged victim filed this complaint. The daughter (victim) never spoke to the police, so the police were unable to obtain further information to substantiate the allegations. Because of these limited facts, MSC was unable to determine if a reportable sexual offense occurred. As a result, the incident was not included in the security report.

Because of the limited facts of this case and the fact that reviewers do not have any information to contradict the institution’s classification of these events, the Department will accept MSC’s explanation of the incident. The institution does not have to report this incident in the revised crime statistics.

To summarize, over the review period, the institution failed to timely report 15 incidents of crime. These include:

Ten of these omitted incidents involved bodily injury (or at least the threat of bodily injury). MSC’s failure to report these incidents resulted in an inaccurate portrayal of the situation at the institution. Students and employees who relied upon this information in making decisions about where to work or attend school did not receive a true and complete picture.

In its most recent campus security report, MSC stated that the statistics disclosed in the report are released with the intent to comply with Federal law. MSC officials should be aware that, with the Amendments to the Higher Education Act in 1998, the disclosure requirements have changed. These changes are outlined in the final regulations published November 1, 1999 (effective date of regulations is July 1, 2000). A copy of these regulations is attached. MSC should review these regulations to ensure that it is in compliance.

One of the regulatory changes is the addition of new crime categories that are to be included in the crime statistics disclosure (34 CFR 668.46(c)). The institution’s October 1, 2000 campus security report should include statistics for the 1997, 1998, and 1999 calendar years. The statistics for calendar year 1999 must include the new categories. MSC should also note that the institution must now provide a geographic breakdown of crime statistics.

The crime categories that must be reported are the following:

BACK TO HIGHER-EDUCATION LEGAL INFORMATION

BACK TO TOP