Bill in Congress May Reform Crime Reporting, Disciplinary Proceedings

On a chilly Saturday night late last September, Adam G. Prentice, a bright young honors students at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, fell through the roof of a greenhouse near the campus Morill Science Center.

He bled to death as a result of deep cuts he sustained from the fall. Police quickly ruled Prentice's death as an alcohol-related accident.

The 21-year-old junior had been drinking at a campus party that night and left near midnight. Witnesses said he staggered along campus roads for about a mile.

After a brief investigation, police concluded that Prentice climbed over a six foot wall onto the greenhouse and fell through its glass ceiling.

But Prentice's mother is not so sure that her son was entirely accidental and suspects foul play.

For one thing, Barbara Prentice discovered that her son had at most three beers the evening of his death and his blood-alcohol level was .12, not high enough to impair him, she said. And Adam had always been afraid of heights and was not a risk taker.

But what troubled Barbara Prentice the most was the possibility that UMass-Amherst police missed important evidence because they were more concerned about the university's image than about her son's tragic death.

Prentice emotionally recounted Adam's story at a March 5 Senate Education Committee hearing on the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act (ACCRA), a bill that could substantially change the way college and universities handle crimes committed on their watch.

But after yielding to pressure from lobbyists--including those representing Harvard's interests--the bill's authors gutted many of ACCRA's most controversial provisions from both the House and Senate.

In late March, the Senate Education Committee released a significantly watered-down version of ACCRA. A similar version was overwhelmingly passed by the House last Wednesday as a part of this year's Higher Education Act. After a conference committee irons out details, the bill is expected to pass Congress with a veto-proof majority.

What remains in the bill--a requirement that all college campus police departments provide a public and updated log of their activities--is already a law in many U.S. states including Massachusetts.

But the major thrust of ACCRA--fundamental reform of campus disciplinary procedures, like Harvard's Administrative Board--will not likely be debated in Congress until next spring.

ACCRA would also require all college administrators to report every crime they learn of, closing a loophole that now allows crimes reported to some officials to go unreported to law enforcement--and thus avoid inclusion in a college's annual crime statistics.

ACCRA would also give the Department of Education (DOE) sharper teeth to clamp down on colleges and universities that do not meet these tougher new standards.

Proponents say they will reintroduce key portions of the bill the next time Congress decides to scrutinize the regulations governing the 1965 Higher Education Act, under which campus crime provisions are enforced.

But university administrators, lobbyists, mental health counselors and police representatives contend that the full version of ACCRA could, if passed, make, victims more reluctant to report crimes on campus.

As the case of Adam Prentice and As the case of Adam Prentice and dozens ofothers nationwide illustrate, many students andparents think colleges and universities go togreat lengths to cover up major crimes committedon their campuses with a variety of differenttechniques--from using campus judiciary boards toprosecute students, to blatantly ignoring federallaw.

To Protect and Serve

The current campus crime reporting system is agnarled motley of rewritten federal regulationsspanning more than three decades of complexcongressional legislation.

Critics charge that loopholes in the currentlaw allow institutions to mask certain types ofviolent crimes and to drastically underreportso-called quality of life crimes, such as drug andalcohol policy violations.

But most colleges and universities say thesystem in place to monitor campus crime is astough as it needs to be, and that ACCRA's passagewould paradoxically have a dangerous and stiflingeffect on the reporting of certain types ofcrimes.

If it becomes law, experts say ACCRA would havetwo primary effects. First, it would increase thenumber of drug and alcohol offenses that collegesreport in their crime statistics. Colleges are notcurrently required to report violations of drugand alcohol policies, only arrests.

ACCRA would make, for example the late-nightHUPD bust of a first-year booze subject toDepartment of Education scrutiny.

Second, and of more concern to the law'sopponents, it could substantially change the waymost colleges and universities handle internaldisciplinary procedures.

The proceedings of the Board, long known forits exemplary and secretive tribunals, would findits proceedings open to public scrutiny whenstudents are called to answer allegations thatwould constitute criminal charges in the outsideworld.

Several states, most of them in the South, haverequired that schools open their administrativetribunals.

Georgia's supreme Court ruled in 1993 thatcampus judiciary records are public informationand not fully protected by student privacy laws.

But this prospect alarms Harvard administratorsto such a degree that the university's toplobbyist, Kevin A. Casey, has followed theday-to-day progress of ACCRA as it meanderedthrough congressional subcommittees and plans todo the same next year.

"It would have a overall chilling effect intimes when [victims and witnesses] would want tocome forward," Casey said from his Washingtonoffice.

What troubles Casey the most about ACCRA areits provisions making more college officialsresponsible for acting on crime reports that cometheir way.

"In some analyses, it could rope in literallythousands of people on campus who are required topass along information," he said. "That is toobroad a reporting regime," he said.

As it currently stands, only designated"reporters" are required to tell police in theevent that they discover that a crime hasoccurred.

Nadja B. Gould, a licensed clinical socialworker at the UHS, along with all senior tutorsand some other member of the Ad Board, aredesignated as "reporters" under state law.

But many administrators, including AssistantDean of Students Karen E. Avery '87--whom theCollege advises students, in handbooks andpamphlets, to consult if they have been raped--arenot required to report alleged incidents of rapeto HUPD or the Commonwealth.

Gould said she sees less than a half dozen rapecases per year, in keeping with published HUPDstatistics.

Massachusetts law requires Gould to report anyincident of sexual assault she learns about.

Gould said the form she files with policeleaves the victim anonymous and does not requireeither the victim or the alleged perpetrator to beidentified.

A copy of the form she fills out is sent to theCommonwealth--and to HUPD, which must include thereport of the rape in their crime statistics.

In an interview, Avery said that ACCRA's goalof opening up administrative disciplinaryprocedures to public scrutiny would make victimsof sexual assault less likely to come forward.

"[It] would close the mouths of those victimsand survivors out there who have a story to telland who want to come forth to get some assistancein some way," she said.

Avery, who said she was not able to give anestimate as to how many students per yearconsulted her office about rape, said the Collegedoes keep internal records about the incidents.

"We do keep track of statistics like that," shesaid. "We aren't keeping names or numbers toreport."

But Avery is aware of the legal distinctionthat keeps her from disclosing what she knowsabout alleged sexual crimes on campus.

"Maybe I get away with that because of my roleas administration," she said.

What to Report

At the end of each school year, the HarvardUniversity Police Department files its statisticswith the U.S. Department of Education.

Under current law, Harvard administrators saidthey are not sure whether non-forcible or forciblecrimes need to be reported.

According to the Campus Security Act (CSA)signed into law in 1990, only forcible crimes mustbe included on crime statistics.

However, HUPD spokesperson Peggy A. McNamarasaid the department routinely lists all forcibleand non-forcible crimes in their statistics, "justto be safe."

The exclusion of crimes reported toadministrators from statistics troubles someUniversity officials, who say student ought to bemade aware of any violent crimes on campus.

But the campus' top law enforcement officer,Francis D. "Bud" Riley, said HUPD's primaryresponsibility is to the victims of crimes, andtheir privacy when necessary.

"The whole system is geared towards support ofthe victim," he says.

James H. Rowe III '73, Harvard's vice presidentfor government and community affairs, said theUniversity does not intend to block anylegislation, but said he hopes that any provisiongoverning crime reporting will be carefully"thought through."

Discretion

After a wild night at the Spee final club, astudent, who wishes to remain anonymous, collapsedin a drunken heap on the sidewalk bordering Mt.Auburn Street in front of Schoenhoff's ForeignBookstore.

"I kind of got screwed up a little bit," thepopular first-year recalls.

Friends say HUPD officers discovered thestudent and fished through his pocket, seeking toidentify him.

They found a fake identification card alongwith the student's Harvard ID. Officers thengingerly carried him across the street toUniversity Health Services.

He was treated and released the next morning.

HUPD officers filed a report about thestudent's exploits, a report which was forwardedto the Freshman Dean's Office (FDO).

The student was brought before the Ad Board forhis late-night revelry, but he says the HUPD didnot charge him with any crime.

The first-year lauds HUPD for treating himcourteously.

"They helped me out a lot," he said, "[but theFDO was] just looking for a way to punish me fromthe start."

Although HUPD officers collected the studentfrom a sidewalk in Cambridge proper, ACCRA wouldrequire them to collect statistics on these typesof nebulous incidents--situations where HUPD has,in practice, wide discretion about how to classifythe incidents.

Riley said his officers are aware of thejurisdiction they are allowed to police and saidthat Cambridge police officers routinely allowHUPD to handle matters involving Harvard studentseven off University property.

Originally, it was a Harvard police officer whostumbled upon the three varsity rowers recentlydisciplined for throwing rocks off a roofadjoining the AD final club on Mass. Ave.

When Cambridge police arrived, they quicklytransferred matters over to HUPD, including theauthority to make an arrest.

The three students were not arrested, althoughHUPD filed a report with county prosecutors aboutthe incident.

Riley says he gives his officers wide latitudewhen dealing with students.

"If our officer decides that he's not going toprosecute for that particular [incident] and hedecides that the administrative action done by theAd Board is proper, fine by me," Riley said.

Safe Harvard

Although it has increased in the nationalconsciousness in recent years, partly as a resultof alcohol-related crimes, FBI statistics showthat colleges are as safe now as they ever were.

As more and more U.S. teenagers prepare to goto college, campus crime has followed the nationaltrend, dropping significantly in all federallyrecorded categories.

DOE studies show that only one student out of1,000 is a victim of a violent crime during theirfour years at school.

Harvard follows the national trend, with pettycrimes such as stolen wallets and bicycles toppingthe published statistics.

Violent crimes are rarer still, with thecollege reporting six or fewer sexual assaultseach year.

But that doesn't prevent Riley from seeking tomake the campus safer, he says.

HUPD is located within the "tub" of theUniversity's Office of the General Counsel, whichaccording to Riley functions in the same way a"city solicitor's" office would in relation to amunicipal police department.

Riley stresses that the University itself haslittle say in deciding whether crimes ought to beprosecuted.

Just like the Cambridge police Department,Riley said the HUPD acts through the MiddlesexCounty District Attorney's office when they feelthey have enough evidence to warrant an arrest.

Crimson Tide

Although not by choice, Harvard played anintegral role in passing Massachusetts' strictcrime reporting laws.

Noticing that HUPD crime logs were frequentlyincomplete, then-Crimson editor Joshua A. Gerstein'91 wrote legislation which forced HUPD to reportcrimes in the same timely manner that municipalpolice agencies are required to.

The Massachusetts State legislatureoverwhelmingly passed Gerstein's law.

Now an ABC News producer, Gerstein said thatalthough Harvard was receptive to the new law in1991, the University might fight tooth-and-nailagainst further reforms.

"I think when you're dealing with seriousallegations like this, the track record show it'smuch more often the case that the secrecy is usedto conceal an improper situation," Gerstein said."The knee-jerk reaction is always to handle thisprivately."

As the DOE has tightened its enforcement ofcampus crime laws, institutions are facing renewedpressure to open their police departments tofurther scrutiny.

At least seven major colleges and universitieshave been cited for crime reporting violation thisyear, DOE documents show.

They range from deficiencies in Morehead StateUniversity's annual security reports to theUniversity of Pennsylvania's outright failure toreport certain crimes, including a rape.

Enforcers Who Don't

As the current federal laws are structured,schools are required to send complete crimestatistics as well as information on securityresources to their admitted students.

Schools must also encourage students to reportto their colleges any concerns they have aboutcrime and any crime they may themselves see.

Overall compliance with the law, reflected inthe number of institutions that explicitly reportand compile the crime statistics as Congressintended--varies substantially, several nationalstudies have concluded.

In 1996, Chunmeng Lu, a political scientist atthe University of Cincinnati, sent out requestsfor the federally-required security statistics tomore than 780 colleges and universities.

Lu and his colleagues found that only 37percent of the colleges sent them the legallyrequired information. 15 percent did not evenrespond to his request.

Of the nearly 85 percent of schools that Lusome of the literature he requested, the mix ofbrochures and pamphlets from more than 50 percentof the colleges did not constitute fullcompliance.

Lu's conclusion to the study, published in1997, found that compliance nationwide was highlyvariable.

The national studies have postulated variousreasons as to why the laws have not beeneffective.

At first glance, many institutions,particularly those located in high-crime areas,may be afraid of the adverse publicity that theircrime statistics may invite.

But Lu and his colleagues reach anotherconclusion, blaming non-compliance on the DOE'sfailure to ask the schools to open their books.

"It could be the case that [DOE] programreviewers of the institution are not requestingthe security reports on a regular basis, so thereare few benefits for schools to take the time andmoney (especially since the Security Act is anunfunded mandate) to develop a security report,"he wrote.

Indeed, Secretary of Education Richard J.Reilly has complained to Congress that successiveHigher Education Acts have become increasinglymore complex, which makes it more difficult forthe DOE to fully enforce the letter of the crimestatistics laws.

But bloated bureaucracy may be only partiallyto blame.

A 1997 General Accounting Office study notedthat the DOE did not even write the regulations to1990's Campus Security Act until 1995 and onlyissued them in 1996.

"Until this recent incorporation of campussecurity in program review guidance, [the DOE's]program reviewers had not emphasized themonitoring of campus crime reports...in their[reviews of compliance with the Higher EducationAct of 1965,]" the GAO report noted.

Lobbying Push

In recent years, several major nationallobbying organizations have arisen to combat thealleged improprieties in6CRIMECrimson File PhotoFRANCIS D. "BUD" RILEY

To Protect and Serve

The current campus crime reporting system is agnarled motley of rewritten federal regulationsspanning more than three decades of complexcongressional legislation.

Critics charge that loopholes in the currentlaw allow institutions to mask certain types ofviolent crimes and to drastically underreportso-called quality of life crimes, such as drug andalcohol policy violations.

But most colleges and universities say thesystem in place to monitor campus crime is astough as it needs to be, and that ACCRA's passagewould paradoxically have a dangerous and stiflingeffect on the reporting of certain types ofcrimes.

If it becomes law, experts say ACCRA would havetwo primary effects. First, it would increase thenumber of drug and alcohol offenses that collegesreport in their crime statistics. Colleges are notcurrently required to report violations of drugand alcohol policies, only arrests.

ACCRA would make, for example the late-nightHUPD bust of a first-year booze subject toDepartment of Education scrutiny.

Second, and of more concern to the law'sopponents, it could substantially change the waymost colleges and universities handle internaldisciplinary procedures.

The proceedings of the Board, long known forits exemplary and secretive tribunals, would findits proceedings open to public scrutiny whenstudents are called to answer allegations thatwould constitute criminal charges in the outsideworld.

Several states, most of them in the South, haverequired that schools open their administrativetribunals.

Georgia's supreme Court ruled in 1993 thatcampus judiciary records are public informationand not fully protected by student privacy laws.

But this prospect alarms Harvard administratorsto such a degree that the university's toplobbyist, Kevin A. Casey, has followed theday-to-day progress of ACCRA as it meanderedthrough congressional subcommittees and plans todo the same next year.

"It would have a overall chilling effect intimes when [victims and witnesses] would want tocome forward," Casey said from his Washingtonoffice.

What troubles Casey the most about ACCRA areits provisions making more college officialsresponsible for acting on crime reports that cometheir way.

"In some analyses, it could rope in literallythousands of people on campus who are required topass along information," he said. "That is toobroad a reporting regime," he said.

As it currently stands, only designated"reporters" are required to tell police in theevent that they discover that a crime hasoccurred.

Nadja B. Gould, a licensed clinical socialworker at the UHS, along with all senior tutorsand some other member of the Ad Board, aredesignated as "reporters" under state law.

But many administrators, including AssistantDean of Students Karen E. Avery '87--whom theCollege advises students, in handbooks andpamphlets, to consult if they have been raped--arenot required to report alleged incidents of rapeto HUPD or the Commonwealth.

Gould said she sees less than a half dozen rapecases per year, in keeping with published HUPDstatistics.

Massachusetts law requires Gould to report anyincident of sexual assault she learns about.

Gould said the form she files with policeleaves the victim anonymous and does not requireeither the victim or the alleged perpetrator to beidentified.

A copy of the form she fills out is sent to theCommonwealth--and to HUPD, which must include thereport of the rape in their crime statistics.

In an interview, Avery said that ACCRA's goalof opening up administrative disciplinaryprocedures to public scrutiny would make victimsof sexual assault less likely to come forward.

"[It] would close the mouths of those victimsand survivors out there who have a story to telland who want to come forth to get some assistancein some way," she said.

Avery, who said she was not able to give anestimate as to how many students per yearconsulted her office about rape, said the Collegedoes keep internal records about the incidents.

"We do keep track of statistics like that," shesaid. "We aren't keeping names or numbers toreport."

But Avery is aware of the legal distinctionthat keeps her from disclosing what she knowsabout alleged sexual crimes on campus.

"Maybe I get away with that because of my roleas administration," she said.

What to Report

At the end of each school year, the HarvardUniversity Police Department files its statisticswith the U.S. Department of Education.

Under current law, Harvard administrators saidthey are not sure whether non-forcible or forciblecrimes need to be reported.

According to the Campus Security Act (CSA)signed into law in 1990, only forcible crimes mustbe included on crime statistics.

However, HUPD spokesperson Peggy A. McNamarasaid the department routinely lists all forcibleand non-forcible crimes in their statistics, "justto be safe."

The exclusion of crimes reported toadministrators from statistics troubles someUniversity officials, who say student ought to bemade aware of any violent crimes on campus.

But the campus' top law enforcement officer,Francis D. "Bud" Riley, said HUPD's primaryresponsibility is to the victims of crimes, andtheir privacy when necessary.

"The whole system is geared towards support ofthe victim," he says.

James H. Rowe III '73, Harvard's vice presidentfor government and community affairs, said theUniversity does not intend to block anylegislation, but said he hopes that any provisiongoverning crime reporting will be carefully"thought through."

Discretion

After a wild night at the Spee final club, astudent, who wishes to remain anonymous, collapsedin a drunken heap on the sidewalk bordering Mt.Auburn Street in front of Schoenhoff's ForeignBookstore.

"I kind of got screwed up a little bit," thepopular first-year recalls.

Friends say HUPD officers discovered thestudent and fished through his pocket, seeking toidentify him.

They found a fake identification card alongwith the student's Harvard ID. Officers thengingerly carried him across the street toUniversity Health Services.

He was treated and released the next morning.

HUPD officers filed a report about thestudent's exploits, a report which was forwardedto the Freshman Dean's Office (FDO).

The student was brought before the Ad Board forhis late-night revelry, but he says the HUPD didnot charge him with any crime.

The first-year lauds HUPD for treating himcourteously.

"They helped me out a lot," he said, "[but theFDO was] just looking for a way to punish me fromthe start."

Although HUPD officers collected the studentfrom a sidewalk in Cambridge proper, ACCRA wouldrequire them to collect statistics on these typesof nebulous incidents--situations where HUPD has,in practice, wide discretion about how to classifythe incidents.

Riley said his officers are aware of thejurisdiction they are allowed to police and saidthat Cambridge police officers routinely allowHUPD to handle matters involving Harvard studentseven off University property.

Originally, it was a Harvard police officer whostumbled upon the three varsity rowers recentlydisciplined for throwing rocks off a roofadjoining the AD final club on Mass. Ave.

When Cambridge police arrived, they quicklytransferred matters over to HUPD, including theauthority to make an arrest.

The three students were not arrested, althoughHUPD filed a report with county prosecutors aboutthe incident.

Riley says he gives his officers wide latitudewhen dealing with students.

"If our officer decides that he's not going toprosecute for that particular [incident] and hedecides that the administrative action done by theAd Board is proper, fine by me," Riley said.

Safe Harvard

Although it has increased in the nationalconsciousness in recent years, partly as a resultof alcohol-related crimes, FBI statistics showthat colleges are as safe now as they ever were.

As more and more U.S. teenagers prepare to goto college, campus crime has followed the nationaltrend, dropping significantly in all federallyrecorded categories.

DOE studies show that only one student out of1,000 is a victim of a violent crime during theirfour years at school.

Harvard follows the national trend, with pettycrimes such as stolen wallets and bicycles toppingthe published statistics.

Violent crimes are rarer still, with thecollege reporting six or fewer sexual assaultseach year.

But that doesn't prevent Riley from seeking tomake the campus safer, he says.

HUPD is located within the "tub" of theUniversity's Office of the General Counsel, whichaccording to Riley functions in the same way a"city solicitor's" office would in relation to amunicipal police department.

Riley stresses that the University itself haslittle say in deciding whether crimes ought to beprosecuted.

Just like the Cambridge police Department,Riley said the HUPD acts through the MiddlesexCounty District Attorney's office when they feelthey have enough evidence to warrant an arrest.

Crimson Tide

Although not by choice, Harvard played anintegral role in passing Massachusetts' strictcrime reporting laws.

Noticing that HUPD crime logs were frequentlyincomplete, then-Crimson editor Joshua A. Gerstein'91 wrote legislation which forced HUPD to reportcrimes in the same timely manner that municipalpolice agencies are required to.

The Massachusetts State legislatureoverwhelmingly passed Gerstein's law.

Now an ABC News producer, Gerstein said thatalthough Harvard was receptive to the new law in1991, the University might fight tooth-and-nailagainst further reforms.

"I think when you're dealing with seriousallegations like this, the track record show it'smuch more often the case that the secrecy is usedto conceal an improper situation," Gerstein said."The knee-jerk reaction is always to handle thisprivately."

As the DOE has tightened its enforcement ofcampus crime laws, institutions are facing renewedpressure to open their police departments tofurther scrutiny.

At least seven major colleges and universitieshave been cited for crime reporting violation thisyear, DOE documents show.

They range from deficiencies in Morehead StateUniversity's annual security reports to theUniversity of Pennsylvania's outright failure toreport certain crimes, including a rape.

Enforcers Who Don't

As the current federal laws are structured,schools are required to send complete crimestatistics as well as information on securityresources to their admitted students.

Schools must also encourage students to reportto their colleges any concerns they have aboutcrime and any crime they may themselves see.

Overall compliance with the law, reflected inthe number of institutions that explicitly reportand compile the crime statistics as Congressintended--varies substantially, several nationalstudies have concluded.

In 1996, Chunmeng Lu, a political scientist atthe University of Cincinnati, sent out requestsfor the federally-required security statistics tomore than 780 colleges and universities.

Lu and his colleagues found that only 37percent of the colleges sent them the legallyrequired information. 15 percent did not evenrespond to his request.

Of the nearly 85 percent of schools that Lusome of the literature he requested, the mix ofbrochures and pamphlets from more than 50 percentof the colleges did not constitute fullcompliance.

Lu's conclusion to the study, published in1997, found that compliance nationwide was highlyvariable.

The national studies have postulated variousreasons as to why the laws have not beeneffective.

At first glance, many institutions,particularly those located in high-crime areas,may be afraid of the adverse publicity that theircrime statistics may invite.

But Lu and his colleagues reach anotherconclusion, blaming non-compliance on the DOE'sfailure to ask the schools to open their books.

"It could be the case that [DOE] programreviewers of the institution are not requestingthe security reports on a regular basis, so thereare few benefits for schools to take the time andmoney (especially since the Security Act is anunfunded mandate) to develop a security report,"he wrote.

Indeed, Secretary of Education Richard J.Reilly has complained to Congress that successiveHigher Education Acts have become increasinglymore complex, which makes it more difficult forthe DOE to fully enforce the letter of the crimestatistics laws.

But bloated bureaucracy may be only partiallyto blame.

A 1997 General Accounting Office study notedthat the DOE did not even write the regulations to1990's Campus Security Act until 1995 and onlyissued them in 1996.

"Until this recent incorporation of campussecurity in program review guidance, [the DOE's]program reviewers had not emphasized themonitoring of campus crime reports...in their[reviews of compliance with the Higher EducationAct of 1965,]" the GAO report noted.

Lobbying Push

In recent years, several major nationallobbying organizations have arisen to combat thealleged improprieties in6CRIMECrimson File PhotoFRANCIS D. "BUD" RILEY