Dr. R. Barbara Gitenstein
President
The College of New Jersey
PO Box 7718
Ewing, New Jersey 08628

PRCN: 200040217754

Dear Dr. Gitenstein:

From August 29 to 31, 2000, Institutional Review Specialists Betty Coughlin and Thomas Whiting conducted a focused program review of the Campus Security Act of 1990 administered by The College of New Jersey. The findings of that review are presented in the enclosed report.

This report contains findings regarding the school's implementation of the Title IV Student Financial Assistance regulations as they apply to the Campus Security Act of 1990. Findings of noncompliance are referenced to the applicable regulations. Please review and respond to the report, indicating the corrective actions taken by the institution. Your response should be sent directly to this office, to the attention of Mr. Whiting, within 30 days of your receipt of the report.

I would like to express my appreciation for the courtesy and cooperation extended during the review. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call Mr. Whiting at (212) 637-0519.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Robert J. McKiernan, Area Case Director
Case Management Division-Northeast
New York Team

Cc:Kathy Leverton, Director of Environmental Services
The College of New Jersey

Enclosure

OUR MISSION IS TO ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE THROUGHOUT THE NATION

PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT

INSTITUTION:

The College of New Jersey

DATES OF REVIEW:

August 29 through 31, 2000

FOCUSED REVIEW:

Campus Security Act of 1990

CALENDAR YEARS REVIEWED:

1996, 1997 and 1998

TYPE AND CONTROL:

Public Institution

ACCREDITATION:

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools – Higher Education

SFA PROGRAM FUNDING:

Program FY 99/00
Pell Grant
$1,727,123

FSEOG
$206,026

FWS
$249,532

FFEL
$14,831,248

Total $ 17,013,929

Source: GAPS and National Student Loan Data System

DEFAULT RATES:

1998 – 5.3%	1997 – 6.2%	1996 – 6.0%

Source: PEPS

REVIEWING ED OFFICIALS:

Betty Coughlin
Thomas Whiting

INSTITUTIONAL OFFICIALS CONTACTED:

Kathy Leverton, Director of Environmental Services
Sherry Tarantula, Assistant Director for Administrative Services, Campus Police
Julius Quinn, Assistant Director for Operations, Campus Police
Patrice Coleman-Boatwright, Executive Assistant Dean of Student Life and College Disciplinary Officer
Magda Manetas, Director Office of Residence Life
Kathy Jackson, Director of Health Services
Larry Gage, Assistant Director Psychological Counseling Services

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND:

The College of New Jersey (formerly Trenton State College) is a public institution of higher education, operating as an autonomous college under New Jersey Public Law Chapter 42 since July 1, 1987. The college is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools and authorized by the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education. The college is located in Ewing, New Jersey and is composed of five schools (Arts and Science, Business, Education, Nursing and Engineering).

The institution participates in the Federal Pell Grant, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, Federal Work Study, Federal Perkins Loan, and Federal Family Education Loan programs. The college is also a participant in the Direct Loan program; however, the college did not draw down any Direct Loan funds in the 1999/00 fiscal year. The fall 1999 enrollment totaled 5,541 full time equivalent undergraduate students and 408 full time equivalent graduate students.

The College of New Jersey was selected for review as a result of a complaint regarding the institution’s compliance with the Campus Security Act requirements. Essentially, the complaint alleged that the college did not report three (3) sexual assault cases that occurred on campus in the 1996/97 academic year in the annual Campus Security Report.

SCOPE OF REVIEW:

Members of the New York Case Management Team conducted a program review from August 29 to 31 on campus and contacted several counseling services and hospitals. The review examined the school’s compliance with administration of the Campus Security Act of 1990. The review team interviewed school officials and reviewed relevant documents, including Campus Security Act brochures from 1996 to 1998, investigation reports prepared by the Campus Police Department, and incident reports prepared by the Office of Residence Life and the Office of Student Life’s Disciplinary Officer. The review also included interviews with the Ewing Police Department’s College liaison officer and the review of crime statistics maintained by the Ewing Police Department. Subsequent to our on campus review, we also contacted several counseling services and hospitals that serviced the College’s population and were referred to by either the Campus Security Act brochures prepared by the College of during our interviews with College personnel.

During the review, some areas of noncompliance were noted. Findings of noncompliance are referenced to the applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and specify the actions to be taken by The College of New Jersey to bring the operation of the Institution into compliance with regulations and statutes.

Although the review was thorough, it was focused on the institution’s compliance with the requirements of the Campus Security Act and, therefore, cannot be assumed to be all-inclusive. The absence of any statements in the report concerning The College of New Jersey’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 The College of New Jersey of its obligation to comply with all of the statutes or regulatory provisions governing Title IV programs.

The College of New Jersey’s response is due within 30 days of receipt of this report. As discussed at the exit interview, the findings resulting from this program review could be referred to the Department’s Administrative Action and Appeals Division for possible administrative action. Administrative action includes the imposition of fines, or limitation, suspension or termination of the institution’s eligibility to participate in the Title IV programs.

FINDINGS

FINDING NO. 1 – Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed in Annual Campus

Security Reports

The Campus Security Reports prepared by The College of New Jersey for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 were inaccurate. The reports failed to include all reportable incidents of forced sex offenses and contained other information that was not reconcilable to the investigation reports prepared by The College of New Jersey’s Campus Police Department.

Missing Reportable Sex Offenses

As alleged in the complaint received by our office, The College of New Jersey’s Campus Security Report for 1996 and 1997 failed to include three (3) forcible sex offenses reported to and investigated by the Campus Police Department. The College’s Director of Environmental Services, who is responsible for the Campus Police Department, and the Campus Police’s Assistant Director for Administration identified the pertinent investigation reports and acknowledged that the Campus Security Reports underreported forcible sex offenses for 1996 and 1997. The College officials indicated that the Campus Security Reports in question were prepared by the former Chief of the Campus Police Department, who retired in May 1999, and they could not explain why the investigation reports identifying the forcible sex offenses were not included in the Campus Security Reports. For the 1996 and 1997 calendar years the following discrepancies were identified:

1996 Calendar Year Report – The Campus Security Report only listed only two (2) forcible sexual offenses, while the campus police investigative reports included three (3) cases for the calendar year (Case Reports 96-1620, 96-1925 and 96-7271).

1997 Calendar Year Report – The Campus Security Report failed to list any forcible sexual offenses, while the campus police investigative reports included two (2) cases for the calendar year (Case Reports 97-001177 and 97-011758).

Reconciliation Problems with Reported Data

It appears that the Campus Police Department has the primary responsibility for preparing the Campus Security Report from information contained in its investigation reports. Additional information is provided through informal contacts between the Campus Police Department and various College officials in the College’s Student Life Office, e.g., the College’s Disciplinary Officer and the Director of the Office of Residence Life. However, there appear to be a number of problems with this process.

Inconsistency in Investigation Reports – classification of crimes on the investigation reports is left to the discretion of the reporting officer. A review of the investigation reports led to a number of inconsistencies in reporting, both on individual investigation reports and in the information reported on Campus Security and UCR reports.

Example 1 – break-ins into vehicles and subsequent removal of property were sometimes classified as theft (Case Report 98-9140) and sometimes classified as burglary (Case Report 97-013514). Since burglary is reportable on the Campus Security Report and theft is not, the distinction is important.

Example 2 – the Campus Police Department identified as simple assault, a case of a student hitting a police officer in the head with a club (Case Report 98-3020) and classified a student’s threat to use a knife to kill another student as ‘terroristic threats’ (Case Report 98-3438). Under the UCR Handbook definitions both of these cases should have been identified as aggravated assaults which are reportable offenses under the Campus Security Report.

Conflicts in Reported Data – The investigation reports are used as the source data for the Campus Security report and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. However, there is no procedure in place to clearly identify which investigation reports are included under the various Campus Security Report and UCR Report categories. Therefore, any attempt to reconcile the differences between the source data (the investigation reports) and required reports is extremely difficult. We identified the following difference between the investigation reports, the Campus Security Reports and the UCR Reports, but were unable to determine the reasons for the discrepancies.

1996

1997

1998

Improvements Needed in Coordination – Based on our interviews with the College Disciplinary Officer and the Director of Residence Life, there does not appear to be any formal guidelines for providing information to the Campus Police’s Director of Administration for inclusion of reportable incidents in the Campus Security Report. Based on our interviews, it does not appear that other College officials responsible for disciplinary actions are aware of the exact reporting requirements of the Campus Security Report. It also appears that there is no formal reporting system between Student Life and the Campus Police Department. Under the current system, the Campus Police Assistant Director for Administration gathers the needed information through ad hoc meetings with other College officials.

Failure to accurately report all of the criminal occurrences required to be included in the Campus Security Report denies students and employees the opportunity to make informed decisions about the relative security of the campus environment and to make personal security decisions.

REFERENCE:

Section 485(f) of the HEA, as amended
34 CFR 668.14(c)(2) – Program Participation Agreement (1995)
34 CFR 668.47 – Institutional Security Policies and Crime Statistics (1995)
34 CFR 668 Appendix E – Crime Definitions (1995)

REQUIREMENT: The College should review the requirements of 34 CFR 668.46 (formerly 34 CFR 668.47) and develop a comprehensive system for collecting information from all pertinent sources to ensure the accuracy of data reported in the College’s Campus Security Report and otherwise complying with the requirements of 34 CFR 668.46. Any proposed system must include the following:

1. A review of all investigation reports prepared by the Campus Police Department officers by a person familiar with the definitions included in the UCR Reporting Handbook, the UCR Reporting Handbook, NIBRS Edition, the UCR Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines, and UCR Training Guide for Hate Crimes Data Collection, to ensure that all crimes in the investigation reports are properly classified and reported.
2. Summary records should be maintained to trace crimes reported on the Campus Security Report to the appropriate investigation reports.
3. Reconciliations should be performed between the UCR Reports and the Campus Security Report to ensure consistency in reporting and to ensure that all required criminal activity is included in the Campus Security Report.
4. Pertinent campus officials should be made aware of the reporting requirements of the College’s Campus Security Report by providing them with copies of the regulations, including definitions of all crimes and other disciplinary actions required to be included in the report.
5. Formal reporting systems should be established to ensure that the responsible College offices inform the Campus Police Department of all reportable campus disciplinary actions that should be included in the Campus Security Report.

Additionally, the College must ensure that the necessary corrections are made to any erroneous prior year’s statistics that are included in the current campus Security Report.

Finding No. 2 – Additional Information Omitted From Campus Security Report

A review of the College’s Campus Security Report for 1999-2000 indicated that several areas of the report require clarification or additional information.

Campus Security Information Programs – The College offers a number of programs meant to inform students and employees of crime awareness and prevention as well as personal security. However, these programs are not clearly identified in the Campus Security Report regarding identification of the specific programs offered or the frequency of the programs.

Timely Warning – The College has adopted a policy of issuing campus wide email alerts to all students an employees when a reportable crime occurs that represents a threat to the students and employees of the College. However, the early warning policy is not identified in the Campus Security Report.

REFERENCE: 34 CFR 668.74(a)(4) (1995)
34 CFR 668.47(e) (1995)

REQUIREMENT: The College is required to review the Campus Security report to ensure that all policy statements required by regulation are included. The College must revise its Campus Security Report to include the information regarding the availability and frequency of campus security training programs and the College’s policy regarding timely warning.

THE
COLLEGE
OF NEW JERSEY

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT * PO BOX 7718 * EWING, NJ 08628-0718

December 28, 2000

Mr. Robert J. McKiernan, Area Case Director
Case Management Division – Northeast
United States Department of Education
Region II
75 Park Place
New York, NY 10007

Dear Mr. McKiernan:

The College of New Jersey takes its responsibilities quite seriously when it comes to the safety and security of the campus community. With that responsibility always in mind, The College knows it is also held accountable by the greater community for keeping its statistics on campus crime available to anyone who might have a vested interest. It is with this long-term understanding of our obligations in mind that I write to you today.

As you know, two institutional review specialists from the United States Department of Education, Betty Coughlin and Thomas Whiting, visited The College of New Jersey from August 29 through 31, 2000 to conduct a review of our compliance with The Campus Security Act of 1990. This review was to commence on the basis of an anonymous source who submitted a complaint charging that The College failed to report three sexual assaults in the 1996-7 academic year.

In order to best accommodate the reviewers, The College conducted its own review prior to their arrival. In the opening conference before the review commenced, Kathryn Leverton, Director of Environmental Services, and Sherry Tarantula, Assistant Director for Campus Police Administrative Services, willingly disclosed that The College had misreported forcible sex offenses in two of the calendar years under review, 1996 and 1997. Reports were set aside and given to the reviewers with the further explanation that there had been several transitions in the administrative leadership of the Campus Police Department over the past several years. These leadership transitions negatively affected record keeping, especially in cases where employees had departed on less than amicable terms.

However, we are convinced that those shortcomings in record keeping have been addressed over the past year, and that several items outlined in the DOE report have already been voluntarily remediated. These items will be detailed later in this response.

The following items are respectfully submitted in response to the Program Review Report:

Finding Number 1 – Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed In Annual Campus Security Report

Missing Reportable Sex Offenses

The report lists the finding of three cases of Forcible Sex Offenses in calendar year 1996: Reports Numbered 96-1620, 96-1925, and 96-7271, and then states that only two such sex offenses were included on the Campus Security Report. However, one of the cases mentioned (96-1620) was ultimately found to be a fictitious report, and was subsequently resolved. Hence, the reporting of only two incidents during that calendar year was correct.

In calendar year 1997, however, the Department is correct in stating there were two reported sexual assaults that year, which were not reflected in our Campus Security Report. The College agrees with this, and reiterates that it was not an intentional misrepresentation, but rather, as stated above, a record-keeping error.

Reconciliation Problems with Reported Data

The Department of Education alleges that much of the data as reported is in conflict with other reported data, specifically citing numbers included in the Campus Security Report, Uniform Crime Report (UCR) numbers, and actual crimes as noted on initial investigation reports. There are two examples, according to DOE, of reconciliation problems with reported data.

The first example referred to on page 6 of the report is two vehicle break-ins during which property was stolen. The allegation is that one case was categorized as a theft, while the other was categorized as a burglary. While these two cases (Reports 98-9140 and 97-13514) may appear at first glance to be similar, they are indeed different. As was explained to both reviewers while they were examining reports, different circumstances warrant the use of different criminal charges. The first incident, Report 97-13514, was a situation where a locked vehicle was forcibly broken into, and items stolen from within. Under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, Section 2C:18-1 makes clear that the definition for burglary, which references "structures," includes cars. Therefore, if it is clear the car was secure and broken into, the crime may be classified as a burglary. In this case, a car window was broken to gain access to the car, clearly making for a forcible entry.

The second case referenced, 98-9140, represents much different facts. In this case, there were no signs of forcible entry to the car. The item stolen was taken from a locked compartment within the car itself. Thus, the taking of items from a locked compartment does not constitute forcible entry into a structure as defined in 2C:18-1, as referenced above. Theft was therefore a correct classification in this case.

Lastly, it was explained to the reviewers that while officers may record one crime on the investigation report, it is often reported on the UCR as another. This is done to conform with UCR standards, as mandated by the UCR reporting handbook. Specifically, this handbook makes reference to the fact that some states may consider breaking into an automobile a burglary, but that for UCR purposes these acts shall be considered thefts. The College of New Jersey followed this standard in the above mentioned case (97-13514), having reported it as a theft in the October 1997 UCR report. The College believes it correctly classified both of these incidents for UCR and Campus Security purposes.

In the second example under this category, the DOE attributes very serious errors made in crime classifications. The statement is made that the two cases referenced in this example should have been aggravated assaults. While indeed one should have been classified as an aggravated assault, The College disagrees with the assertion that the first case was incorrectly classified.

The first case referred to in this example is Report number 98-3020. The Department incorrectly refers to this as a "…case of a student hitting a police officer in the head with a club…" Instead, this report refers to a security officer who was employed by The College at the time, but was working off-campus at a college-owned residence hall located on the property of the Marie Katzenbach School for the Deaf. On the evening in question, this security officer was asked to assist the Katzenbach security officer in responding to a suicide attempt of one of the Katzenbach School’s students. He did so, and in the process, was hit with a tree branch. This particular incident happened outside of the TCNJ Police jurisdiction, and thus was not even eligible to be reported in our UCR, nor on the Campus Security Report. This was simply a case of our department offering assistance to another department, and unfortunately an officer got hurt in the process. Finally, even if this report were within the TCNJ police jurisdiction, a mentally ill student hitting a security officer with a tree branch could hardly be considered an aggravated assault, by UCR or NJ Criminal Code standards. The College again maintains that its classification was correct in this case.

The second crime in question, Report No. 98-3438, which was classified as "terroristic threats," should have instead been classified as aggravated assault since the perpetrator threatened to use a weapon. The College again readily accepts this finding, and is aware of the error.

Conflicts in Reported Data

This section of the report indicates that there are varying numbers for all offenses noted during all three years reviewed. However, the reviewers again neglect to point out that the three sources they note all follow different reporting standards. For example, in 1996, the DOE report (Page 6) shows there were three investigation reports on sex offenses, while the Campus Security Report only reports two, and there was only one reported in the UCR. As explained earlier, there were three initial investigation reports of forcible sex offenses during that calendar year. However, one was later found to be a false report, thus showing why there were only two reported in the Campus Security Report. Secondly, as explained to the reviewers while they were on campus, the UCR has a very strict definition in terms of sex offenses. Only forcible rapes and attempts at forcible rapes are to be reported. One of the two remaining sexual assaults met this definition, and was therefore reported as such. However, the third assault in question (97-11758) did not meet the definition of rape, as the victim was digitally penetrated. Therefore, The College would have been incorrect to report this on its UCR, but was however mandated by the Campus Security Act of 1990 to disclose it in its security brochure, which it did.

While this is only one category in one of the three years noted, it is easy to extrapolate that to the rest of the classifications and years noted. There is a method in place to distinguish which crimes get reported to which agency and how, contrary to the assertions in the report. It was explained to the reviewers that a ranking officer extremely familiar with NJ Criminal Code, as well as UCR definitions, reviews the reports on a regular basis and prepares the UCRs as well.

REQUIREMENTS

The Department of Education outlined several requirements under Finding 1 in its report that The College will meet in the near future, or has already voluntarily remediated since the review in August.

First, the Department requires "…review of all investigation reports prepared by the Campus Police Department officers by a person familiar with the definitions included in the UCR Reporting Handbook, the UCR Reporting Handbook, NIBRS Edition, the UCR Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines, and UCR Training Guide for Hate Crimes Data Collection to ensure that all crimes in the investigation reports are properly classified and reported." As explained earlier, this is already standard practice within the department. A senior officer, Lt. Julius Quinn, reviews all police reports and prepares the UCR reports. On a daily basis, he makes certain that crimes are classified correctly for prosecution purposes and that they are properly reported to the New Jersey State Police for UCR purposes.

Second, the DOE requires that summary records should be maintained to trace crimes reported on the Campus Security Report to the appropriate investigation reports. This adjustment to procedure has already been made, and is in effect from the 2000 version of the report forward.

Third, the DOE calls for reconciliations between the UCRs and the Campus Security Reports. Again, this is currently in place. On a monthly basis, investigation reports are reviewed before the preparation of UCR reports. Crimes are then reported on the UCR by the standard handbook definitions. UCR reports are used to prepare the Campus Security Report and reported crimes are compared.

Fourth, the DOE states that pertinent campus officials should be made aware of the reporting requirements and their responsibilities to the Campus Security Report. This effort has already begun with the site visit by the Department, and is ongoing. Even since the visit by the DOE reviewers, there has been significant reorganization within the areas necessary to keep this effort going. Health and Counseling Services lost its director, the Student Life Office has been completely reorganized, and there is a new College Disciplinary Officer. Sherry Tarantula, Assistant Director for Campus Police Administrative Services, will meet with these new personnel and discuss the ways in which they can better collaborate to provide security for our community and to make sure our crime reporting continues to improve.

Fifth, the DOE requires a formal reporting system be put in place to ensure that offices responsible for informing Campus Police of events pertinent to the Security Report are consistently doing so. Again, as stated above, this education and reporting system has already begun, and will be continued as an ongoing project between the Health and Counseling Services Department, the Student Life Office, and the Residence Life staff.

Finding Number 2 – Additional Information Omitted From Campus Security Report

The report indicates two areas in which information needs to be clarified or added. The two examples provided are the Campus Security Information Programs, and the Timely Warning Provision. Both areas have been clarified, and information added as discussed with the reviewers during the visit. A copy of the most recent version of the Campus Security Report is included, with the appropriate areas highlighted for emphasis.

The College of New Jersey has already made efforts to correct its acknowledged deficiencies noted in August. Upon the arrival of the two Department of Education reviewers, college officials readily disclosed that there were some discrepancies in the sex offense numbers discovered prior to the opening conference, and that it likely underreported such cases due to administrative error. It was made clear to the reviewers that these underreports were in no way efforts to deceive the public, but probably a result of high turnover within the department, and a lack of consistent bookkeeping from one administration to another.

I feel it necessary, however, to note that the DOE review seemed to deviate from its original purpose, which was to examine the under-reporting of sexual assaults in the calendar years 1996, 1997 and 1998. In addition to examining facts relevant to this stated purpose, the reviewers seemed also to be making judgments in the area of The College’s compliance with UCR reporting guidelines. As evidenced by the details in our response, particularly our repeated need to explain the way crimes are classified to the reviewers, it seems that this deviation was well informed. In fact, at the closing conference, Mr. Whiting stated that neither he nor Ms. Coughlin was knowledgeable on the topic of UCR classifications and campus crime in general until the previous week when they had obtained a handbook on the subject. To state such a fact and then call into question classifications by officers with years of experience seemed unusual.

The College of New Jersey would like to reiterate that it takes seriously its responsibilities to provide a safe and secure campus environment. The errors made in our attempt to comply with the Campus Security Act were not intentional attempts to hide crimes, but rather honest mistakes that resulted from inconsistent record-keeping and high staff turnover. With this fact in mind, The College respectfully requests that the Department of Education accept this response as evidence that it was taken immediate corrective action in this important compliance matter. Further, please be advised that The College will continue to comply with the law to the fullest extent.

Thank you for your consideration of this response.

Sincerely,

[signed]

R. Barbara Gitenstein
President

attachment

xc: Barbara Kleva, Deputy Attorney General
Kathryn Leverton, Director of Environmental Services

BACK TO HIGHER-EDUCATION LEGAL INFORMATION

BACK TO TOP