U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–043 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–590

CAMPUS CRIME: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

UNDER THE CLERY ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 19, 2006

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Serial No. J–109–79

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER 

Page

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1

WITNESSES 

Adamany, David, President, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .. 14

Adler, Madeleine Wing, President, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 15

Baker, Robert, Region III Representative for Secretary of Education Margaret 

Spellings, Department of Education, Washington, D.C. ................................... 4

Carter, S. Daniel, Senior Vice President, Security on Campus, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ............................................................................................... 12

Mattioli, Bill, Director of Public Safety, St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 25

Meehan, Patrick, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. .......................................................... 6

Papadakis, Constantine, President, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 17

Rush, Maureen S., Vice President, Division of Public Safety, University of 

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ........................................................ 19

Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ............... 2

Stack, Reverend John, Vice President, Student Life, Villanova University, 

Villanova, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 21

Turzanski, Edward A., Esq., Counsel to the President of La Salle University, 

Assistant Vice President for Government and Community Relations, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 24

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Adamany, David, President, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 35

Adler, Madeleine Wing, President, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ................................................................................................... 38

Baker, Robert, Region III Representative for Secretary of Education Margaret 

Spellings, Department of Education, Washington, D.C., statement ................ 40

Carter, S. Daniel, Senior Vice President, Security on Campus, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ............................................................................ 54

Mattioli, Bill, Director of Public Safety, St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, statement ..................................................................................... 56

Papadakis, Constantine, President, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ................................................................................................... 58

Rush, Maureen S., Vice President, Division of Public Safety, University of 

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ..................................... 61

Turzanski, Edward A., Esq., Counsel to the President of La Salle University, 

Assistant Vice President for Government and Community Relations, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ....................................................................... 64

(1)

CAMPUS CRIME: COMPLIANCE AND 

ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE CLERY ACT 

FRIDAY, MAY 19, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., at the National Constitution Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen 

Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Specter, Santorum. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We 

will now proceed with an oversight hearing under the auspices of 

the Senate Judiciary Committee and under the auspices of the Senate Appropriation Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education. 

We are going to be examining today the enforcement of the Clery 

Act, an act named for Jeanne Clery, who was a 19-year-old freshman at Lehigh University back in 1986 when she was the victim 

of a brutal rape and murder. Her parents came to me at that time, 

and the Clery family has, in the intervening years, become crusaders for campus safety. As a result of their initiative, we enacted 

legislation which requires universities and colleges to report what 

is happening on the campuses with respect to violence and criminal 

activity. 

The enforcement has been under the Department of Education, 

and it appears, and this is subject to our oversight inquiry, that the 

Department of Education has not done an adequate job of enforcing 

the statute. 

I’m advised that since the statute was enacted, which was 20 

years ago, there have only been three enforcement proceedings at 

which fines were levied. We’ll be asking Mr. Baker, who’s the representative of the Department of Education, about that here later 

this afternoon. 

There was an extensive story in the Philadelphia Inquirer back 

in January which particularized what’s happening on local campuses, and the picture was not good. The picture was very bad. The 

local universities had been reporting very little in the way of crime 

statistics, and then once the Inquirer started to investigate, stir it 

up, suddenly reports were modified and amended. 

This is a very, very important statute, because if you do not 

know what is happening on the campus, parents cannot make an 

2

evaluation as to where they want to send their children to school. 

And if you don’t report what is happening on the campus, students 

and parents are not able to protect themselves. And if you don’t report what is happening on the campus, then the campus officials 

are not alerted to the need to provide some local policing, and the 

local law enforcement officials and the local police are not on notice. So we’re not kidding when we say this reporting is important. 

And it’s not been done. 

Senator Santorum and I have been discussing this situation and 

we want to find out what the facts are. But based on what we see 

on the record, we would have to move from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is 

in the business of enforcing the law, but so is the Department of 

Education. We may have to move away from just fines to criminal 

jail sanctions. 

There’s a rising debate as to the extent to which tougher statutes 

should deter street crime, but there’s no debate about criminal penalties and jail deterring white collar crime. I’ll be looking for confirmation of that by U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan in a few minutes, 

but I was a district attorney for quite a while and I know the impact of jail sentences on white collar crime. 

We have some of the leading professionals in this audience today 

from the universities, and the universities in this community and 

America at large do a great job. They do the impossible job. They’ve 

educated Rick and me. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. We’re a big university town and I’m very 

proud of what goes on in this city and what goes on in this State 

and what goes on in the country. And the university administrators 

want to do the right thing, but there’s going to have to be a different degree of vigilance if we’re to see that this Act is enforced. 

Let me yield now to my distinguished colleague, Senator 

Santorum. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SANTORUM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Senator Specter. I just want to 

thank you first for the work that you’ve done in the past on this 

legislation. As the author of the Clery Act, you should take great 

pride in the amount of comfort that you’ve given to many parents 

and children as they search for the college they want to attend and 

get the relevant information that they need to be able to make that 

decision. Through your work, through your continued diligence in 

making sure that the Act is complied with, you have provided a lot 

of help to a lot of parents and a lot of kids. 

As the father of two teenagers, one of whom will be a sophomore 

in high school this year, we’re just beginning to take a look at what 

colleges and universities that may be on her agenda. I will tell you, 

as a parent, I certainly want to know that information, and I want 

to know that that information is accurate. I think that’s the least 

that we can provide, that if we have a statute on the books that 

is there to inform parents and kids as to what the crime statistics 

are, that the statute is being enforced and the information that 

they are being given can be relied upon. Otherwise, ill-informed deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:54 Sep 27, 2006 Jkt 030043 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30043.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
3

cisions are made, and sometimes that can lead to bad consequences. 

I congratulate you, Senator, for the work you’re doing, I congratulate you for this hearing. I want to say that I do also have 

concerns about whether the Department, given its record of enforcement, is, No. 1, committed to enforcement; and, No. 2, is capable of adequate enforcement. 

Hopefully, this hearing today will shed some light on both of 

those things, their level of commitment and their ability to be able 

to do this job and do it effectively, and whether there are alternatives, as Senator Specter suggested we could look at, whether 

this needs to migrate over to an agency that is more in line with 

uncovering criminal activity, and that would be the Justice Department. 

Second, I think, Senator, you mentioned the other issue here, 

which is the fact that the Department has not fined any of these 

colleges and universities. We see from ample evidence on the record 

that many colleges and universities have failed to comply with the 

Act, yet very few have been fined. 

I’m not a big guy going around that we need departments in government running around fining everybody at the drop of the hat. 

I very much believe in a regulatory environment that encourages 

compliance and that is not driven by penalties. 

But when we see that there is not compliance and that problem 

seems to be a persistent problem, and then we see no penalties on 

top of it, then I’m wondering whether you have neither a compliance or a criminal approach to the problem, and that is just candidly not acceptable. 

Final point Senator Specter made, which is the nature of the enforcement, whether fines are sufficient. I certainly would hesitate 

to increase those penalties to include prison time, but I’m hopeful 

that we can stop short of that and that we can see a better record 

of compliance. 

Let me just suggest that if that is not forthcoming, that those are 

options that certainly have to be discussed and laid on the table. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, you’ve been a busy man this last week or 

two. In fact, you’ve been a busy man this year on a whole lot of 

issues. For you to take the time to focus on this I think just shows 

your commitment to this issue, and you’re to be congratulated for 

your determination in making sure that this law is adequately enforced. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Santorum. 

Thank you for your participation and thank you for the outstanding job you’re doing in the U.S. Senate for the 12 million people in Pennsylvania. 

I want to acknowledge the presence today of Mrs. Connie Clery, 

Jeanne Clery’s mother, who has been a real crusader on this issue, 

and also Mr. Benjamin Clery, brother of Jeanne Clery, who is 

president of Security On Campus. 

We turn now to our first witness, who is Mr. Robert Baker, the 

Region III representative for the U.S. Secretary of Education. I’d 

hoped the Secretary could have been here, but she’s in Europe at 

the present time. We have a little bit of sway on her scheduling 

4

since we appropriate $52 billion a year for her department in the 

Subcommittee which I chair. 

Mr. Baker has his BA degree from University of Pennsylvania, 

1973; he has served as deputy secretary of the Department of 

Labor and Industry of Pennsylvania; deputy secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce. He will put a more expansive 

statement in the record. 

We have 5 minutes for each witness, and the floor is yours, Mr. 

Baker. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BAKER, REGION III REPRESENTATIVE FOR SECRETARY OF EDUCATION MARGARET 

SPELLINGS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Santorum, thank 

you for providing me the opportunity to appear before you today to 

talk about the U.S. Department of Education’s implementation of 

the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. 

Crime on college campuses is a priority on parents’ minds as 

their children leave home to attend college. As a parent of a son 

who is attending West Chester University and will be transferring 

to the School of Engineering at Temple this fall, I am deeply concerned about campus security. 

When we send our children off to college, we expect the college 

or university to ensure that they’re learning in a safe environment, 

free of concern from crime. Practically, we realize that no school, 

just like no community, is crime free, and as parents we must 

make an informed decision whether or not a certain school might 

expose our child to undue risk. The reporting requirements of the 

Clery Act provide important resources to parents and students to 

help them make that determination. 

The Department’s committed to assisting institutions of higher 

education in providing the students nationwide a safe environment 

in which to learn and to keep students, parents, and employees 

well informed about campus security. 

To help institutions comply with the requirements of the Clery 

Act, the Department, at the direction and urging of Congress, published The Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting in June 2005. 

The handbook was developed in response to the needs expressed by 

the community for more detailed and complete guidance on Clery 

Act implementation. 

The Department has provided training for institutions, campus 

security administrators, law enforcement, law enforcement associations, and Department staff. Since 2002, approximately 1,000 individuals have participated in our training activities. The Department also plans to provide additional training to Department staff 

in all aspects of the Clery Act in October of this year. 

We have achieved great success in our data collection. With the 

exception of institutions that were affected by Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita last year, we have had a 100 percent response rate in 

each of the past 6 years. We are proud of this response rate and 

believe that it demonstrates a commitment by institutions to comply with the spirit of the Clery Act. It also demonstrates the 

5

strength of the Department’s determination to ensure compliance 

with the Act. 

Campus safety is a collaborative effort among various components of institutions of higher education and local law enforcement. 

On occasion collaboration also extends to the Federal level to the 

Department of Education, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In addition, it would be difficult to accomplish our implementation and enforcement efforts without the 

assistance of groups such as Security On Campus and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. 

The Department suggests ongoing monitoring of institutions of 

post secondary education that participate in the Federal student 

aid programs. We look at compliance with Clery Act requirements 

as a part of each and every program review we conduct. 

The Department also conducts focused campus security program 

reviews to determine whether an institution is in compliance with 

the Clery Act. 

Between 1994 and 2006, the Department conducted 4,623 program reviews, 17 of which were focused on campus security and 

compliance. Of the remaining 4,606 reviews, 252 of those identified 

violations of the Clery Act. 

From time to time, through those targeted program reviews, we 

have found significant instances of non-compliance. In these cases 

we have imposed fines. In 2000 we imposed a $15,000 fine on 

Mount St. Clare College. In April of 2005, a fine of $200,000 was 

imposed on Salem International University. Most recently, in October 2005 the Department fined Miami University of Ohio $27,500. 

We impose fines only when absolutely necessary to ensure continuing compliance with the requirements of the Clery Act and 

when evidence points to substantial misrepresentation. 

Presently we have pending 26 program reviews that became violations of Clery Act requirements. Additional fines are possible in 

these cases when final determinations are issued. 

Earlier I mentioned the cooperation of the FBI. I believe we need 

to expand that relationship to explore asking the Bureau to conduct audits of crime statistics at a sampling of schools across the 

country. The FBI already conducts audits of local law enforcement 

agencies and is skilled at identifying proper crime reporting. Working together, we could gain an even better understanding of compliance of the Clery Act, and reinforce the schools the importance of 

providing full and accurate information. 

The fundamental premise of the Clery Act is having timely and 

accurate information about the frequency of crimes on college campuses that will enable parents, students, and prospective students 

to make good decisions about where to enroll in college and where 

to live at school. Having complete, accurate, and timely information 

regarding campus security is critical as students make these important choices and pay attention to their surroundings and their decisions regarding personal safety. 

As a parent, I applaud the Clery family, Congress, and especially 

you, Mr. Chairman, for requiring post secondary schools to report 

this information that has proven invaluable to parents and students across the country. 

6

I also want to thank you for holding this hearing today on this 

critical issue, and look forward to answering any questions you 

might have for the Department. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker. 

We now turn to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Patrick Meehan. Mr. Meehan has a bachelor’s degree from Bowdoin College, 1978; law degree from Temple; 

served as district attorney of Delaware County; he was an associate 

with the law firm of Dilworth Paxon; senior counsel and executive 

director of the Office of Arlen Specter, Philadelphia; also campaign 

manager for Arlen Specter, 1992, successful; campaign manager for 

Senator Santorum in 1994, successful. 

Mr. Meehan, you’re way ahead of the game so far. The next 5 

minutes are yours. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK MEEHAN, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Santorum, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify about a matter that’s of such concern to all of us. I know 

I’ve given substantial written comments, so let me take my limited 

opportunity to focus on an issue of significant importance to me. 

I want to emphasize that the Clery Act asks for more than just 

reporting crimes and statistics. It requires schools to take steps to 

help prevent crime, but it also, of greatest importance, it requires 

schools to inform students about programs and services to protect 

and heal those students who, unfortunately, are victimized by 

crime, particularly sexual assault on campuses, which we find are 

often acquaintance assaults. 

There have been recent reports in the press about problems of 

schools, particularly with regards to sexual assault. For example, 

at the University of Virginia, at Georgetown, at William and Mary, 

and Ohio State, five female students, one from each of these 

schools, reported to Dateline they were raped or forcibly assaulted 

sexually by fellow students. 

The female students reported the alleged assaults to school officials, who allegedly either discouraged the victims from moving forward with their cases, or failed to take effective actions against the 

perpetrator. Student-on-student date rape have recurring themes 

on campuses across the country. 

Congress, in fact, asked the National Institute of Justice to study 

school compliance with Federal laws regarding safety on campus, 

and particularly look at the issue of sexual assault on campus and 

what colleges and universities are doing about it. 

In December of 2005, the NIJ published its findings, and the results of that study are sobering. The report itself states that sexual 

assault is widely considered to be the most underreported crime in 

America. It concluded that just under 3 percent of all college 

women become victims of rape during the 9 months of a typical 

school year. That’s 35 crimes for every 1,000 women students on 

a campus. 

7

Despite these troubling statistics, what they found is less than 

5 percent of completed and attempted rapes are brought to the attention of campus authorities or law enforcement. So it’s the students that are not bringing it to the attention of the university. 

Therefore, the logical question becomes, what are schools doing 

and what can be done to encourage victims to come forward? What 

can be done to expand the victim’s ability to proceed from being a 

victim to being a survivor, if one believes she’s been sexually assaulted? 

Under the Clery Act schools must develop and distribute a statement of policy and procedures students should follow if a sex offense occurs. Only about four in ten offer sexual assault training, 

and often that training is not for the general student population. 

Schools must also inform students of their option to notify proper 

law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, 

and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying 

such authorities if a student so chooses. Fewer than half the 

schools studied inform students how to file criminal charges. 

There are good stories. Lafayette College, for example, University 

of Pennsylvania here in Philadelphia have created model programs 

that allow a victim to participate in decisionmaking, have some 

control over the pace of the process and are in charge of making 

decisions. Some practices include identifying the specific person or 

office to contact when sexual assault has occurred; the option to 

confidential or maybe even anonymous reporting. The policies fully 

inform students of each of the separate actions available to the victim. 

There are barriers, such as a failure of many people who are victims to recognize that that assault is a crime; there are concerns 

about confidentiality if they bring a report forward; and campus 

drug and alcohol policies, which may bring the victim into some 

kind of issue with the school itself, that works as a detriment to 

reporting. 

So working with our client agency, the Department of Education, 

my office wants to encourage noncompliant schools to create effective compliance programs consistent with these model NIJ programs. We hope by working with the many universities with the 

Department of Education continuing to marshal our resources and 

expertise that we will be able to increase schools’ compliance efforts 

and decrease the criminal conduct on campus, particularly crimes 

involving sexual assault. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Meehan. 

We now go to the round of questioning, 5 minutes for Senator 

Santorum and me. 

I begin with you, Mr. Baker. Is it true that there have only been 

three fines imposed by the Department of Education since the 

Clery Act was passed in 1986? 

Mr. BAKER. That’s correct. I should point out that the way we determine fines is based on the severity of the violation. 

Chairman SPECTER. Three fines imposed. 

Mr. BAKER. That’s correct. 

Chairman SPECTER. Isn’t that an incredibly small number, given 

the number of colleges and the amount of crime and the significant 

underreporting? 

8

Mr. BAKER. Well, our goal is to try to get schools, obviously, to 

report correctly. And, of course, annually they’re required to have 

an accounting firm or auditing firm look at all the information they 

provide us. 

Chairman SPECTER. Let’s deal with the three fines imposed in 20 

years. How can there conceivably, possibly be a justification for 

such lax enforcement? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, we believe that—what we’re trying to work 

with the schools to get the reporting requirements correct. So we’re 

looking really for— 

Chairman SPECTER. You’re trying to get the schools to comply. 

Congress passed a law to impose fines. Do you think we’re kidding? 

Mr. BAKER. Oh, no, not at all, sir. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, our mandate has been ignored, absolutely ignored with that kind of an enforcement record. You don’t 

have to go behind that to make an analysis and see that there simply is no enforcement. 

Mr. Meehan, the Department of Justice conducted a study in December 2005, entitled ‘‘Sexual Assault on Campuses: What the Colleges and Universities are Doing About It’’, and found that only a 

third of the institutions report their crime statistics in a way that 

is fully consistent with the Federal laws. 

What can be done about it, in your opinion, to get compliance? 

Should we shift this to the Department of Justice? 

I know you don’t have enough cases to handle, so you have people sitting around. You’re a very overburdened office, beyond any 

question. 

But should Congress look to the Department of Justice, which 

has experience in law enforcement, to do this job? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, Senator, I can say, to be sure, we look forward to working with our partners and— 

Chairman SPECTER. Who’s your partner, Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. The Department of Education is a client agency of 

mine. 

Chairman SPECTER. Would you claim them as a partner when 

they’ve only imposed three fines in 20 years? 

Mr. MEEHAN. We handle appellate issues. 

Senator, I believe, in response to your question, that we can do 

more, and I want to be a participant in doing more. 

The Department of Education has laid out a handbook that creates the reporting mechanisms that leave all doubt about ambiguity in the reporting requirements. This is available online. I 

know that this is only a 2005 report, but this should give any institution that wants to do it all of the information that they need to 

be compliant. When an institution is not compliant, armed with the 

facts, we would look forward to the opportunity to work with our 

partner. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Meehan, it isn’t sufficient to say the report should give them notice, it isn’t sufficient to say we should 

work with a partner. 

In the context of noncompliance with fines, what would you think 

about imposing some stiffer penalties, some jail sentences for those 

who maliciously and willfully, on a repetitive basis, fail to report 

crimes? 

9

There are plenty of statutes which you enforce which impose 

those kinds of jail sanctions for failure to report. What is your evaluation of the deterrent effect of those kinds of statutes on the 

books? How much more effective are those penalties and simple 

fines in getting people to comply without investigations and rigorous enforcement? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, Senator, there’s no doubt criminal sanction 

in any particular case gets the attention of somebody that may be 

on the receiving end of that sanction. 

I will tell you by analogy we would also have very tremendous 

success in acquiring compliance with regulations and, in fact, performance. I will use an example, the tremendous work that we do 

in the healthcare field. For instance, nursing homes that do not 

meet their obligations to provide the quality— 

Chairman SPECTER. Jail terms are possible? 

Mr. MEEHAN. There can be jail terms. 

Chairman SPECTER. And there’s compliance with those statutes? 

Mr. MEEHAN. More significantly, Senator, we have the opportunity to dramatically influence the funding that comes to those institutions. When we get the attention of those people, because we 

can use the full gamut of Federal resources to interrupt the funding, they begin to pay attention. But most significantly, it gives us 

the leverage then to work with the Department of Health and 

Human Services in that context. And we get relationships with 

them where they begin to put in the compliance programs that address the issues that we’re looking for. That’s why I spent time on 

my testimony talking about some of these best practices that can 

be aspired to, would make a significant difference if institutions aspire to them. If we could help get them to do some aspiration by 

virtue of some of our prosecution, I know speaking for myself as a 

U.S. attorney, I would be anxious to do that. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Meehan. My time 

has expired so I yield now to my colleague, Senator Santorum. 

Senator SANTORUM. I just want to continue on that line of questioning. 

That handbook was issued in 2005? 

Mr. BAKER. That’s correct. 

Senator SANTORUM. What was the guidance for the colleges and 

universities prior to the handbook being issued? 

Mr. BAKER. The Federal student handbook was the guidance. As 

U.S. Attorney Meehan pointed out, it’s not nearly as encompassing 

as the guidance we have now which, if you read it provides examples, illustrates—you can tell about how the law should be implemented. 

So it’s our goal to develop a guide which includes everything for 

folks from all the different communities we deal with, that we 

should have even greater compliance. 

Senator SANTORUM. That handbook was issued when in 2005? 

Mr. BAKER. I believe it was June of 2005, and we held training 

with our folks in November of 2005. 

You should know that we also appear before various associations 

and various functions to provide instruction on how the program 

works, but in addition to that, Security On Campus is going to be 

holding its own training sessions using that handbook. We provided 

10

2,000 of them to Security On Campus, and $25,000 to help them 

perform that training. 

Senator SANTORUM. You said in your statement that you impose 

fines only when absolutely necessary. It seems to be a rather—obviously a high standard since only three fines have been imposed 

and I guess I have to give credit—in recent times there’s been a 

great acceleration. 

For the first 14 years there were no fines, so three in the last 

6 years, at least there are some fines. So I maybe give credit for 

at least some fines being issued, but why such a standard as absolutely necessary for violations of this Act when the statute calls for 

fines when the Act is violated? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, you brought up yourself, Senator, the fact that 

there was limited guidance, perhaps, before. The Federal student 

handbook was not as comprehensive as what we have. There were 

misunderstandings— 

Senator SANTORUM. Let me ask you this. So you had an Act that 

the universities didn’t understand, that the Department didn’t provide clear guidance, and for close to 20 years that situation was 

maintained until—then you decide to issue a handbook? 

Mr. BAKER. I think the guidance was clear enough. I’d like to say 

that we’ve made it much clearer. 

Senator SANTORUM. If it was clear enough, then why wasn’t 

there better enforcement? It’s one or the other: It wasn’t clear and 

it should have been enforced or it was clear and it wasn’t enforced. 

Mr. BAKER. I think there was adequate enforcement. We’ve had 

252 violations that we identified through our program reviews. 

We’ve had another 17— 

Senator SANTORUM. Stop right there. 252 program violations over 

the 20 years of the Act, is that it? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, since 1994. 

Senator SANTORUM. Since 1994. And of those, three have been 

fines. Any other actions taken other than fines? 

Mr. BAKER. We’ve had—we worked with, obviously, each school 

to try to make sure that they take corrective action. 

We talked earlier about the University of Pennsylvania, they 

were concerned whether they were meeting all the tenets of the 

Clery Act. We worked with them, and as a result they do provide 

an example of how it should be done to others across the country. 

So it came as a positive result. We had no findings necessary in 

order to obtain that result. And that’s what we generally find with 

schools we work with. They’re willing to work with us and we help 

them identify or anything they’ve misidentified. 

We also have a toll-free hotline they can call to help interpret the 

Act. It existed before, it exists today even under the new guidelines 

so they can make sure they get the classification correct. 

Senator SANTORUM. Do you periodically go out and charge someone like the U.S. Attorney or the FBI to do an assessment as to 

whether the reporting is accurate? Is that something that you 

would do to determine whether there is compliance here? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, Senator, it’s not something that we would 

customarily do, although I can tell you as the United States Attorney I was very interested in issues within my own jurisdiction, parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:54 Sep 27, 2006 Jkt 030043 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30043.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
11

ticularly since this is an Act that relates to it. And when I assumed 

the position of U.S. Attorney I began to look at that. 

I will tell you, we had very good cooperation. The Department of 

Education actually cooperated on investigations during my tenure, 

which raised my desire to work even more progressively with the 

Department of Education. 

Senator SANTORUM. My question is: Does either you or your client do, routinely, check or hire someone or routinely check to see 

whether the reporting matches what someone believes? I mean, we 

have the article in the paper here recently that shows that there 

was a great discrepancy. Was that article incorrect? If it was incorrect, why? If it wasn’t incorrect, why wasn’t that caught by someone else before the newspaper caught it? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, every year every school’s Federal student aid 

program is monitored. It’s independently audited by the independent firm. In that audit, included are the Clery statistics. So we 

have had 400 and some violations uncovered as a result of those 

independent audits. 

In addition, we go out and do our own audits and we’ve done, as 

I said, some 4,623 program audits which have uncovered violations. 

We also have what we call campus security reviews where we think 

there may be a major issue and we will go in and do a very, very 

thorough investigation. 

I should mention too again, as I mentioned in my testimony, we 

would welcome a discussion with the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding— 

Senator SANTORUM. I know I’m over time, I apologize, but you 

did audits, you have the schools that were listed in the paper. Do 

your audits support what was reported in the press or not? And if 

not, why not? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, the activities that were reported in the press 

actually have not been—will not be included in the Clery report 

until at least 2005, which we won’t receive until the beginning—

we ask for those reports at the beginning of August, and they must 

appear publicly by October 1, that’s a requirement. There’s no way 

you can get past that date. And they’ll be on our website, for example, they’ll be on the schools’ websites by October 1. 

So many of the actions that were talked about had not yet been 

reported simply because they weren’t due to be reported. You do 

your reporting on a calendar year. 

Senator SANTORUM. Again, I apologize. Those schools that were 

cited as having discrepancies, they didn’t have those problems a 

year before? 

Mr. BAKER. Again, I’m not sure exactly what specifics you’re 

talking about in the article, but I can tell you what we’ve done is 

that—basically, I think the activities you’re talking about were for 

2005. That will be included in the report they’ll file this summer, 

and our folks will take a look at those reports, in light of what’s 

been written, to see if they comply. 

Senator SANTORUM. I understand that. My question is, if they 

were not properly reported in 2005, based on the system they had 

in place, it would lead one to believe that this is not a new problem, that this is a problem that existed prior to 2005. My question 

is: Were there problems prior to 2005 that you were aware of? 

12

Mr. BAKER. No. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Santorum. 

Thank you, Mr. Baker. 

Thank you, Mr. Meehan. 

We now move to our next panel, the president of Temple University, president of West Chester, president of Drexel, vice president 

of University of Pennsylvania, vice president of Villanova, counsel 

to the president of LaSalle, director of Public Safety from St. Joseph’s University, and Daniel Carter, senior vice president, Security On Campus. 

Senator SANTORUM. Mr. Chairman, while these distinguished 

people are coming to the dais I just want to apologize, I’m going 

to have to leave probably before all of them have testified to go to 

another appointment, but I want to thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Santorum, we understand your 

schedule and we thank you for coming and we understand full well 

you have a collateral undertaking at the moment. Good luck. 

Thank you all for coming. 

I want to begin with Mr. Daniel Carter, senior vice president, Security On Campus; Master’s degree from the University of Tennessee; has worked on the Clery Act modifications since 1992; 

member of the United States Department of Education, Negotiated 

Rulemaking. 

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Carter, we look forward to your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF S. DANIEL CARTER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

SECURITY ON CAMPUS, INC., KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. CARTER. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

here today. I have to correct you, but I don’t have a Master’s degree. Thank you for the promotion, though. 

I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the students and campus crime victims to discuss the current state of compliance with 

and enforcement of the Federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus 

Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. 

There have been significant problems with the implementation of 

this Act. The U.S. Department of Justice found only about a third 

of all colleges report their crime statistics in a manner fully consistent with the actual requirements. The lack of clear guidance 

and the lack of strong enforcement have been two major factors 

contributing to these ongoing Clery Act violations. 

Despite these widespread compliance problems, however, there 

have been major improvements in recent years. More schools are 

embracing the Act, and the new Clery Act handbook consolidating 

more than a dozen sources of guidance has been released by the 

U.S. Department of Education, giving colleges a clear road map to 

compliance. 

Security On Campus, Inc., offers the following recommendations 

to help this critical process continue: A single campus security policy compliance office should be established within ED that consolidates all Clery Act and post secondary campus security-related 

13

functions; implementation and enforcement of the Clery Act should 

be conducted jointly by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice; institutions should be required to notify students and employees in their Clery Act annual security reports 

about how to file a complaint. Currently, unless a student locates 

SOC from our website, securityoncampus.org, or other materials, 

they are never informed of what to do if their school is violating 

the law. 

The Clery Act technical assistance authorized by Congress at 

DOJ for campus violence prevention grant recipients ought to be 

fully funded $200,000 per fiscal year, and expanded to cover all 

schools that have Clery obligations. Although SOC is here to serve 

as a free clearinghouse for Clery Act information, there have been 

no resources for widespread technical assistance at institutions preserved. 

There are also several key compliance problems we would like to 

bring to your attention. Many colleges continue to improperly report their sexual assault statistics. As noted by the DOJ, only 

about a third do so. Additionally, not all collect the data from every 

non-law-enforcement official on campus that they are required to. 

The public crime log does not always contain all the information 

that they are supposed to. Over the years we’ve seen many schools 

classify rapes as agency assists or miscellaneous incidents. And the 

date and time is often omitted from these reports. 

Timely warnings are not issued in reporting sexual assault cases. 

When there is an acquaintance sexual assault on campus, many, 

if not most, schools feel that a timely warning is not warranted, 

even if the accused student remains on campus. Research, however, 

has shown that acquaintance rapists are often just as predatory as 

their stranger rapist counterparts. 

Sexual assault victims don’t receive proper notice of disciplinary 

action taken against their alleged assailants. A recent example 

comes from Temple University, where a young woman contacted us 

telling us that her alleged rapist had been allowed back on campus. 

She didn’t know this until she saw him in one of her classes. 

The Clery Act requires them to tell her. They didn’t, because 

they sent the notice to her old dorm address after she had withdrawn the prior semester. And when they did give it to her, based 

on our request, it didn’t explain why. This is the kind of thing that 

revictimizes victims over and over again on our college campuses. 

Although not directly a Clery Act issue, there’s one additional 

problem we’d like to draw your attention to. Private colleges and 

universities which employ sworn police often do not disclose their 

crime reporting information to the public like their counterparts at 

public colleges and universities do. 

I would like to conclude my comments on a positive note, one 

that gives me hope that our two decades of hard work in memory 

of Jeanne Clery are truly beginning to show dividends. In partnership with the DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators 

and other organizations, we are putting together, for the first time, 

a truly multidisciplinary Clery Act training program, and the first 

seminar will be here in Philadelphia later this year. And we would 

like for every school on the panel—this is a collaborative multiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:54 Sep 27, 2006 Jkt 030043 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30043.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
14

disciplinary team—to this training session when we host it later 

this year. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address these critical issues 

and for your decades of work to keep the students safe on campus. 

Senator Specter, you are truly one of my heroes, and it’s an 

honor to be here and I’d be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Carter. 

We turn now to Dr. David Adamany, president of Temple University, an extraordinary academic record: Harvard, magna cum 

laude; Harvard Law; Master’s from the University of Wisconsin; 

Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin; previously had served as 

the Dean of Wesleyan; and president of Wayne State University; 

chief executive officer and administrator at a major gigantic educational institution in this city, takes up most of North Philadelphia now. Soon you’ll be meeting Drexel at somewhere around 29th 

Street and Girard. 

Dr. Adamany, the floor is yours for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ADAMANY, PRESIDENT, TEMPLE 

UNIVERSITY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. ADAMANY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear. 

As you know, we’re in one of the most restricted and difficult 

areas of Philadelphia, and we think we’ve made good progress. We 

believe the Clery Act is helpful to us. It tells us to gather statistics, 

it requires us to look at those statistics, to distribute them, which 

we do not only by circulating our report but by providing information on our website that’s available to every parent and student. 

We believe that our efforts to comply with the Clery Act provide 

us with good internal information. 

I think improving the safety environment on campus—and that 

starts at the top—every single morning I turn on my computer and 

the very first thing I see is the police report from the previous day, 

which allows me to ask some questions if I notice patterns developing, or to inquire about a particularly sensitive piece, as those 

arise. 

We do offer extensive training programs for both parents and the 

students, and we think we reach a great many of them. Whenever 

there is a condition on the campus that we believe poses a danger 

for students, we circulate information to more than 60 locations, including the student newspaper, and we put it on the website so the 

campus community can be informed. 

Crime rates in our area are very low. We are helped by Pennsylvania law which authorized our police to take jurisdiction off the 

edges of the campus for several blocks. We patrol those areas and 

we not only report crime on the campus, but crime in the neighborhood where we have police jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, we are tied into the police network for the city of 

Philadelphia, and we report crimes that they report that are also 

in our neighborhood. So we have very effective reporting. 

15

We have an extensive, as I said, programs for students to alert 

them how to avoid crime and how to be assisted if they are victims 

of crime. 

We are proud of our record, realize we can always do more. Our 

efforts are extraordinary. We have a police department of 110 

sworn police officers, all of whom have been to the Academy, all of 

whom have arrest powers and are armed. We have an additional 

74 security guards in our employ, and 314 contract security guards 

in dormitories and other locations. 

Our area is scanned by 285 closed-circuit security cameras which 

give us constant oversight of the areas in my protection. We occasionally have a slip-up, one was mentioned a moment ago. Quite 

frankly, if the worst slip-up we ever have is that we send a notice 

of rape to a student at her stated address, and it does not catch 

up with her because she withdraws from school and we have to redeliver it the next semester because she then re-enrolls, we’re not 

in bad shape. But we do make every effort. 

Rape victims and students who assert that they are the victims 

of rape are immediately offered transport to Temple University’s 

health facilities, where we assist them and provide counseling and 

their complaint is properly processed. 

Let me, however, give this warning. In a rape assertion, as in 

any other case, the student is entitled to due process under the 

Constitution. Because we are a public institution, until our judicial 

body has acted, no student can be found to have committed a rape. 

We move very rigorously on these cases. We do balance the Constitutional rights of the accused with the urgency and the violation 

of the victim. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Adamany appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Dr. Adamany. 

Our next witness is Dr. Madeleine Wing Adler, president of West 

Chester University. Another distinguished academic record. Bachelor’s from Northwestern; Master’s from the University of Wisconsin; Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin; very extensive activities in Chester County; and named Chester County’s 1998 Citizen of the Year. 

Thank you for coming in today, Dr. Adler. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MADELEINE WING ADLER, PRESIDENT, WEST 

CHESTER UNIVERSITY, WEST CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. ADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your 

interest in enhancing the success of the Clery Act and Campus 

Crime Reporting Act. 

We at West Chester University really welcome the opportunity to 

offer our perspective on how we might work together to improve reporting and enforcement of the Clery Act. 

In crime reporting, the fundamental current challenge is that colleges and universities are not using a consistent format to present 

their data. As a result, accurate comparisons among the institutions are difficult to obtain and crime reports can often be confusing to the reader, be it parent or student or anyone in the community. 

16

This situation is especially true in cases of State law such as 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania S73 which require classifications, 

definitions and formats that are different from those in the Clery 

Act. 

We offer five recommendations that we feel can address this situation and further advance the value of campus crime reporting. 

Our first recommendation is to establish a single format for reporting crime statistics. This format, perhaps similar to the one used 

on the Department of Education website, would be used by all colleges and universities in their published annual crime reports. The 

standard format would print out easy and accurate comparisons 

among institutions. 

Second, we urge the adding of larceny, generally the most common crime on college campuses, to the reportable crimes under the 

Clery Act. 

Third, it is important to ensure that the Department of Education investigators are thoroughly trained in the intricacies of 

campus security, so that their advice and decisions are consistent 

and appropriate to the setting situations. We have been informed 

by a consultant that this is not always the case. 

Fourth, we suggest development of a mechanism for ongoing Department of Education assistance and mutual exchange of ideas. 

You heard about the handbook for campus crime reporting, and it 

is a valuable document in clarifying numerous points, but no handbook can anticipate every possible situation. We think it would be 

useful to have a means of sharing Department of Education responses to the points of confusion or new questions otherwise to 

them. These responses could, perhaps, be made available to all institutions through an annual newsletter or on their website. 

Finally, we suggest periodic required meetings between campus 

police representatives and Department of Education officials to review legislation and compliance issues, update the handbook on 

campus crime reporting, and provide training. 

We talked in the earlier panel about the training that we do, and 

we do it on campus, and I think it would be more effective if we 

could work with the Department of Education and have them more 

intimately involved in our campuses in these training acts. 

So I thank you again for this opportunity to help ensure that 

campus crime reporting is as useful as possible for everyone concerned, and I welcome questions at the end of this presentation. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Adler appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Dr. Adler. 

Our next witness is Dr. Constantine Papadakis, president of 

Drexel University from 1995 to the present. There has been enormous expansion of Drexel during Dr. Papadakis’ tenure, taking 

over the hospital, a great community service, now has a law school 

and is expanding tremendously. He has a background in education 

and civil engineering, a Master of Science from the University of 

Cincinnati; Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. 

He has a distinguished academic record administratively. He was 

Dean of the University of Cincinnati College of Engineering for a 

decade, and he was awarded the Knight Cavalier D’Official of the 

17

Order of Merit of the Italian Republic. Not too bad for somebody 

who comes from Greece. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Dr. Papadakis, thank you for coming in 

today, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CONSTANTINE PAPADAKIS, PRESIDENT, 

DREXEL UNIVERSITY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to concentrate my comments today on a recent news 

media article of how colleges and universities in Philadelphia complied with the Clery Act. I know my colleagues at all of greater 

Philadelphia’s colleges and universities join me in saying the safety 

of our students is of paramount importance to all of us. We want 

students who choose to enroll in our universities based on informed 

decisions. My own daughter, Maria, attends Drexel University, and 

lives on campus, and I do care about her safety. 

At Drexel we freely share our campus crimes statistics. In addition to publishing this data in our student newspaper, The Triangle, and on our website, we update the website every 24 hours 

with Clery data. We also publish an online map that indicates the 

boundaries of reportable Clery infractions. 

One of the challenges, though, of complying with the Clery Act 

is its lack of specificity in defining the reporting boundaries. It was 

only in 2005 that the handbook on campus crime reporting was 

published. This handbook goes a long way with its 200 pages to 

clarify many of the questions regarding the reporting of criminal 

incidents. However, the reporting boundaries ‘‘within the same regionally contiguous geographic area’’ as stated in the Clery Act are 

not well defined. 

In addition to the Clery Act, our Commonwealth’s colleges and 

universities are required to comply with the Pennsylvania College 

and University Security Information Act. The Pennsylvania Act 

and the Clery Act have different reporting requirements, adding to 

the complexity and the resources needed to collect and report crime 

statistics. 

For example, under the Pennsylvania Act, all crimes involving 

the students or university are reported in the university’s jurisdiction, which, in our case, we interpret to be the greater Philadelphia 

area. Any crime involving a Drexel student is reported to the Pennsylvania Act if the crime occurs in greater Philadelphia. 

Those differences in reporting requirements help to explain why, 

for example, in 2004 Drexel University reported four robberies 

under the Clery Act, and 14 robberies under the Pennsylvania Act, 

in the same amount of time. Additionally, theft and vandalisms are 

not reportable offenses under the Clery Act, as you heard from Dr. 

Adler. However, they are reportable offenses under the Pennsylvania Act. 

As a result of the multiplicity of those reporting requirements, 

Drexel has had to hire additional staff members to track all crime 

statistics, and we have instituted a three-person panel to determine how each incident needs to be classified under the guidance 

of each of the Acts. 

18

The disparities in reporting crime statistics to the Clery and the 

Pennsylvania Act may have led to the media misrepresentation of 

information regarding Philadelphia universities reporting, including Drexel. Specifically, I’m referring to the January 15, 2006, 

Philadelphia Inquirer article. 

The article fails to address the complexity that the nation’s colleges and universities face in complying with the Clery Act. In its 

January 17, 2006 editorial, ‘‘Don’t Fudge the Numbers,’’ the Inquirer stated that ‘‘Drexel University in its 2004 Clery report noted 

only two robberies while next-door neighbor, University of Pennsylvania, listed 65,’’ implying that this is unexplainable since Penn 

has 23,000 students and Drexel has 18,000 students, as listed in 

a table published by the Inquirer within the January 15 article. 

However, the Inquirer failed to note that the size of Drexel’s 

campus in West Philadelphia is 40 acres, compared to Penn’s 270 

acres. Because of communication problems and other complications, 

the Inquirer also failed to note that of our 18,000 students, Drexel 

has only 8,000 students on campus in west Philadelphia. 

The Inquirer article also tries to cast doubt regarding the boundaries. The Inquirer found eight robberies of Penn students within 

two blocks of the Drexel campus. None turned up in the Clery filing, said the Inquirer, ‘‘about Drexel.’’ Of course they didn’t, because they happened two blocks away from our campus boundary, 

which is our multiple reporting boundary for the Clery Act. However, Drexel properly reported those incidents in our Pennsylvania 

Act report. 

May I continue? 

Chairman SPECTER. You may continue, Dr. Papadakis. 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. The Inquirer article further states that, ‘‘a 

Drexel student was accosted by an assailant at 30th and Market 

Streets, just outside the school’s mandatory reporting area of the 

Clery Act. He was chased a block into the Clery zone, beaten and 

robbed for $5.00,’’ implying that Drexel wrongly failed to include 

this incident in its Clery report. 

How far do we have to go in reporting each incident to make 

such a differentiation between where the crime started and where 

the crime ended if it crosses the Clery boundaries, especially if police crime reports are not readily available to a nonlaw enforcement 

agency like Drexel University? By the way, this incident was also 

included in our Pennsylvania Act report. 

We want to make certain that there is a clear understanding of 

the difference between the Clery Act and Pennsylvania Act. We 

also want to make clear the fact that the Inquirer, in its article and 

in its editorial, confused the two Acts and the reporting requirements. The universities have not reported yet, as Senator 

Santorum asked, the 2005 statistics of the Clery Act, which will be 

reported this coming October. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Papadakis appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Dr. Papadakis. 

Our next witness is Maureen Rush, vice president of the division 

of public safety of the University of Pennsylvania; Master’s degree 

from the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences; 

19

has been chief of the University of Pennsylvania Police Department, 1996 to 2000; was a police officer in the city of Philadelphia 

from 1976 to 1994. One of the first 100 women police officers hired 

by the City to work street patrol. 

You came to the department just a little late, Ms. Rush, to be 

a district attorney detective in my office. You have quite a record. 

We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN S. RUSH, VICE PRESIDENT, DIVISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. RUSH. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Specter. I was 

also one of your neighbors, but we won’t go there. 

On behalf of President Gutmann, she’s unable to be here today 

due to some travel, but she sends her regards. It’s my pleasure, on 

behalf of President Gutmann and the University of Pennsylvania, 

to speak to you about our standards of crime reporting as they relate to the Clery Act, and to share some of our lessons learned for 

enhanced Clery compliance. 

At Penn we believe that safety and security is a shared responsibility, and that the best protection against crime is an aware and 

informed and alert community, along with a strong law enforcement presence. As such, we are constantly improving our systems 

to provide students, faculty and staff with the information they 

need to make wise decisions for their personal safety. 

Safety and security are the highest priorities of this administration at the university, as evidenced by the ample resources that 

President Gutmann has allocated to my division. 

I’d like to give you a brief overview of our operations. We have 

175 members within the Division of Public Safety. We deliver a 

comprehensive public safety program that includes 116-member 

internationally accredited sworn police department that has full 

powers of arrest and carries weapons. We have a best-in-class security technology network of 76 Pantec zoom cameras, CCPB cameras, and more than 200 moonlight emergency phones on and off 

campus. We also contract a security force through Allied Barton 

Security of over 410 security officers, who supplement the police 

department on patrol. They also staff our academic and residential 

buildings. 

We also offer an array of educational safety presentations and 

victim support services, as well as having a fully staffed, 24-houra-day emergency communication center that we call our Intercom 

Center. 

It is for these efforts, and particularly our community policing 

and security technology initiatives, that Penn was awarded the 

Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Award in 2003 from Security On 

Campus. We thank you for that. 

It is also the solid infrastructure of technology and resources that 

helps us comply with and at times exceed the Clery requirements. 

Communications is the key to our success. Communications with 

our partners in the Philadelphia Police Department, our students, 

faculty and staff, and with the broader West Philadelphia community. We believe that the more we know about what is happening 

on campus and in the community, the more effective we will be in 

20

pooling our resources and making the community safer, through 

giving the timely warnings when a crime occurs. 

That’s why in addition to collecting crimes reported through our 

emergency 911 system at Penn, we also collect security information 

from our security departments at both HUP and Presbyterian Hospitals, as well as entering into a memorandum of understanding 

with the Philadelphia Police Department, and we actually have 

their 911 CAD dispatch center comes into our center—as does Temple University—so we know what is going on around the campus 

area. 

To facilitate reporting and establish communication networks 

that aid us is relaying timely notification, we have assigned our 

Penn police officers as liaisons to all the college houses and resource centers on campus, as well as several citizen organizations 

in the community such as Town Watch and other community 

groups. 

We go above and beyond Clery’s requirements by making available a crime log capturing all reported crimes within our Penn patrol zone which, Senator, is 38th to 43rd Street, Market to Baltimore. It includes Presbyterian Hospital as well, and all in all it’s 

a two and a half square mile radius of patrol. 

We also issue a daily e-mail to senior administrators informing 

them of any incidents that may have occurred in the last 24 hours. 

When there’s an immediate emergency we notify the community 

via our campus print and electronic media, our public safety 

website and an emergency list serve that goes through e-mail. 

In recent years we’ve enlisted the help of a core group of student 

leaders who assist us in disseminating our messages and establishing a campus safety and security compliance committee with 

members from the Division of Public Safety, Office of Institutional 

Compliance, and the Office of General Counsel. This Committee 

helps to distribute and ensure the accuracy of all reporting under 

the Clery Act. 

Some suggestions from Penn, we’re fortunate that we have the 

resources that we do, the relationship that we’ve built with the 

Philadelphia Police Department. We think it would benefit all universities to establish similar relationships and systems, especially 

with regards to accessing data through municipal police departments. 

But it would also be helpful if the government enacted legislation 

mandating municipal police departments to report relevant crime 

statistics to universities. As the president of Drexel University just 

alluded to, sometimes that doesn’t always happen. 

For universities residing in states such as Pennsylvania with the 

two different requirements, state and Federal, it is confusing, as 

was noted by the president of West Chester. 

Adequate software could also ease the burden, and at Penn we’re 

lucky to have a record management system that we finally were 

able to enact, that’s comprised of a dual reporting system. But all 

to often, vendors will approach universities with products that they 

say will comply with the Clery Act when, in fact, they cannot. To 

rectify this, a standard RFP should be made available to all universities to supply vendors that can really, absolutely build a contract 

and software that will sufficiently comply with the Clery Act. 

21

The creation of discretionary funds to fund these ventures would 

also be helpful, in that all universities don’t have those resources. 

Also, better guidance from the Department of Education regarding interpretational issues such as definition of contiguous property, which is a constant concern for all of us in trying to figure 

out where we should report and not report. 

For universities to take advantage, especially of the new collaborative multidisciplinary Clery Act training that is now being sponsored by the Department of Justice’s Office of Victims of Crime, 

OVC, and the Clerys. The first seminar will be held here in Philadelphia in October, and the University of Pennsylvania looks very 

forward to joining you on that. 

In closing, one of the goals with this legislation is to provide an 

accurate representation of campus safety to all who try to use universities. In order to better facilitate this, you might consider qualifying statistics by adding such things as the size of the area included in the reporting of the population of the community where 

the school resides. 

There is no doubt that as universities have been held increasingly accountable— 

Chairman SPECTER. Ms. Rush, how much longer would you like? 

Ms. RUSH. This is the last line, sir. 

There is no doubt that as universities have been held increasingly accountable by the various iterations of the Clery Act, that 

the crime prevention programs have benefited from this. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to present this information today. Thank you for your interest. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rush appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Rush. 

We turn now to Reverend John Stack, vice president for Student 

Life at Villanova University; a graduate of Villanova; and has been 

Dean of Students at Villanova. 

Thank you very much for coming in today, Reverend Stack, and 

we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND JOHN STACK, VICE PRESIDENT, 

STUDENT LIFE, VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, VILLANOVA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Reverend STACK. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of Villanova about the critical importance 

of campus safety. 

Villanova’s interest in campus safety is not limited to the physical safety of members of our community, although physical safety 

is paramount. As a Catholic and Augustinian institution of higher 

learning, Villanova seeks to reflect the spirit of St. Augustine by 

the cultivation of knowledge, by respect for individual differences, 

and by adherence to the principle of mutual love and respect to 

animate every aspect of university life. We’re always required to 

say that little bit about St. Augustine whenever testifying. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Sounds good. 

Reverend STACK. In honoring our mission, Villanova hopes to 

render the spirit of the Clery Act. Villanova annually discloses inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:54 Sep 27, 2006 Jkt 030043 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30043.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
22

formation about campus crime and emergency reporting procedures, our policy for responding to these reports, and the policies 

designed by the university to encourage the proper reporting of 

crimes to the appropriate authorities. We include information 

about the Public Safety Office on campus, such as the degree of 

this enforcement authority and its relationship with local police. 

We also include information about access to and security for the facilities on campus, including residence halls, as well as our procedures for monitoring instances of criminal activity at recognized 

off-campus student organizations and residences. We also advise 

community members of our policy for enforcing Federal and state 

drug and alcohol laws. 

Villanova’s information dissemination is closely tied with Clery 

Act’s primary goal of providing students and their families with accurate campus crime information. Villanova annually compiles statistics of reporting incidences and makes prompt reports of crimes 

to the university community when there remains an immediate 

and substantial threat to the safety of students or staff. 

All crimes reported to the university’s Public Safety Department 

are also compiled in a log made available on a daily basis to the 

public. We also provide a description of the many crime prevention 

programs Villanova makes available to students and staff, and the 

frequency of our programs. 

Although the Clery Act has been effective to some degree in informing students and families about safety, we choose to do more. 

We have found that many surveys support our experience that students are more and especially responsive to particular safety precautions that tell a story or bring the realities of a failure to use 

caution home in specific ways. 

In a random sampling of students at three different post secondary schools, the number of students reported having read flyers 

or articles on campus relating to crime and safety equaled 52 percent. And 40 percent of female respondents reportedly made 

changes to their personal safety plans as a result of this information. 

Student response to these more informal and timely approaches 

to educating members of the campus community were higher than 

the reported response in the annual crime disclosure information. 

Students unmoved by a page of statistics with dry, official campus 

policies might be more motivated to read crime safety tips or attend a self-defense workshop. If the information is provided in a 

way that encourages students or relates to their daily lives, they 

may well see the advantage and change their own habits. 

For these reasons, Villanova uses many other means to communicate safety issues to our community. Just by way of a few examples, some of the measures we employ include safety tips for academic break period safety; car safety; sign-up witness; crime reporting capability; information sheets on stalking on campus; use 

of a sexual assault interventionist; crime awareness games with 

prizes; published interviews with public safety professionals; selfdefense training on campus; and crime awareness sessions with 

coaches and student athletes. 

At Villanova, the safety and welfare of every student is of paramount importance. The organization Security On Campus recently 

23

honored Villanova with an award for our accomplishments in the 

area of campus safety. While it respects the efforts of the Clery 

family, Security On Campus and other organizations have encouraged college officials nationwide to be vigilant regarding the protection and safety of students. 

That being said, there is a challenge that awaits all college administrators, a challenge that lies much deeper than reporting 

crime statistics. Whether a college or university is located in Center City Philadelphia, the Main Line or the more rural part of the 

Commonwealth, each campus community is challenged to convince 

traditional college-aged students that they must take responsibility 

for at least their own personal safety, and ideally for the safety of 

their fellow students. 

Most traditional college-aged students do not believe that they 

themselves will be a victim of crime, let alone a violent crime. For 

example, their willingness to allow a ‘‘innocent looking stranger’’ 

into a residence hall without asking questions or asking for identification invites a crime to occur. 

The Clerys are to be commended for their dedicated efforts that 

have brought campus safety to the forefront for parents and college 

administrators. However, crime reporting is not enough. There’s a 

duty of each institution to make concerted efforts to educate its 

community members about the importance of personal safety. 

It’s my opinion that no Federal or state legislation can be enacted that will protect students from their own mistakes or the decisions of others to harm another person. The fact that Villanova 

or any other school is in a safe neighborhood and reports low crime 

statistics is no guarantee that a serious crime will not occur. By 

its nature, criminal activity is often random. 

Through the efforts of the Clery family, higher educational institutions have become more aware of the role of helping students 

minimize the chance of poor decisionmaking that might place 

themselves in danger. 

Villanova strives to maintain and improve its record of campus 

safety in furtherance of its Augustinian mission to live as a community of friends learning together. Students and institutions 

working together can make the difference in keeping a campus 

safe. 

Thank you for the opportunity today. 

[The prepared statement of Rev. Stack appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Reverend Stack. 

Our next witness is Mr. Edward Turzanski, counsel to the president and assistant vice president for Government and Community 

Relations at LaSalle. He’s a senior fellow for the Center for Terrorism and Counterterrorism; member of the Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security; Bachelor’s degree from LaSalle; Master’s from Villanova; national security seminar, U.S. War College. 

Thank you very much for coming in today, Mr. Turzanski, and 

we look forward to your testimony. 

24

STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. TURZANSKI, ESQ., COUNSEL TO 

THE PRESIDENT OF LASALLE UNIVERSITY, ASSISTANT VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. TURZANSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the interest of putting our time to the best productive use, I’ve 

entered into the record a statement. I’d like to emphasize one portion of that which may not have been treated in the same measure 

by my colleagues. 

First of all, by means of our educational mission, our religious 

beliefs, our moral considerations, LaSalle has always placed a high 

premium on the safety and security of its students and employees. 

For that reason, we have long had pure education programs for 

drug and alcohol issues. In fact, we’re among a group of about 20 

percent of all colleges and universities recognized by the Department of Justice as having these kinds of programs. 

We have long had a very good relationship, working relationship 

with the 14th and 35th Philadelphia Police Departments, very high 

number of former police officers are in our security force, as well 

as soon-to-be Philadelphia police officers. So we have a good operational relationship with Philadelphia police. 

We’ve had very effective sexual awareness, victim awareness, 

drug and alcohol education and awareness programs. And despite 

this, we welcome the arrival of the Clery Act, because, as has been 

said by my colleagues and by Mr. Meehan in the panel before us, 

it gives us an opportunity to use common language for the purposes 

of sharing best practices. 

If there’s a lesson to be drawn from LaSalle’s experience, it 

speaks to that article that was in the Philadelphia Inquirer where 

we were very briefly mentioned, but also by way of criticism, and 

it had to do with an incident that was—an alleged incident that 

was brought to our attention in the summer of 2004 concerning alleged sexual assault. That, in turn, brought another individual forward who had alleged a sexual assault from the year 2003. 

Immediately we cooperated with the Philadelphia police when we 

learned of these allegations. They launched their investigations 

and we launched our own internal investigation. 

Faculty, university legal counsel, a nationally known Clery compliance consultant were all brought together for the purposes of 

looking at what we were doing to see how well we had complied 

with Clery, specifically to find out what happened in these two particular incidents, and then to see what lessons had to be drawn so 

that we could make our compliance with Clery better, but also 

serve the very specific purpose, not just living with the letter of 

Clery, but specifically with its spirit. 

What we found is that we had some very sound procedures in 

place. In some cases we were even stronger than Clery called for. 

But we also found room for improvement. I think that’s the thrust 

of what we would like to get across. Despite the fact that we had 

very good policies and procedures in place for the reporting of 

crimes, and that we had very effective measures for helping students know what resources were available and we were disseminating information on a realtime and a timely basis, we had an opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:54 Sep 27, 2006 Jkt 030043 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30043.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
25

portunity to look into our procedures and find that we could further 

enhance dissemination of timely warnings. 

We took measures to enhance specialized training on crime classification and report writing so that our student life and our security people were talking about the same things. We also reached 

out to our counselors and to our religious clergy who, under Clery, 

were not required to report allegations of sexual assault, and said 

to them, without violating confidentiality, please let us know, at 

least let us know that something happened so that we can report 

this. 

We also enhanced programs that we had had in the past in 

terms of letting students know what was available for victim counseling, as well as enhancing our security perimeter. Our security 

perimeter, through use of a higher bike patrol, goes well beyond 

what is required in Clery. 

And again, Senator, what we tried to do was to look at what we 

had in place, and recognizing that we could build on that, to live 

within the spirit of what Clery called for. We have very high confidence that we did that. And it’s our belief that hearings like this 

work with watchdog groups like Campus Crime, Incorporated. And 

through collaborative efforts that are warehoused through the Department of Education, we have an opportunity to inform what is 

the best practice. 

Clery is better today than it was at the time of its introduction. 

So is our compliance. It’s our belief that 5 years from now it will 

be better than it is today, 10 years from now... We have to keep 

pace with that, and it’s our interest to do so. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turzanski appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Turzanski. 

Our final witness is Mr. Bill Mattioli, Director of Public Safety 

of St. Joseph’s University. Like Ms. Rush, Mr. Mattioli has extensive experience on the Philadelphia Police Department, from 1970 

to 1996; and as a public safety officer at St. Joseph’s University. 

Thank you for coming in, Mr. Mattioli, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BILL MATTIOLI, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ST. JOSEPH’S UNIVERSITY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MATTIOLI. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to address this hearing. 

I’m here on behalf of Father Timothy Lannon, president of St. Joseph’s, who apologizes, but he had a previous engagement. 

The safety and well-being of our students is of the utmost importance, and I’m happy for the opportunity to discuss our compliance 

with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and 

Campus Crimes Statistics Act, the Clery Act. 

I want to assure all the members of the panel, as well as our students and parents, that St. Joseph’s University is committed to and 

takes very seriously its responsibility to comply with the Clery Act. 

Further, we at St. Joseph’s strongly believe that providing our camVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:54 Sep 27, 2006 Jkt 030043 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30043.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
26

pus community and prospective students with as much information 

as possible will empower them to make better decisions where matters of safety are concerned. I’d like to take a minute to address 

these issues with you. 

The Clery Act requires the publication of an annual report disclosing campus security policies in 3 years or other selected crime 

statistics. St. Joseph’s collects this data from all incidents reported 

to the Office of Public Safety and Security, the Office of Residence 

Life, other campus security authorities and local police departments. 

We publish this report and post it on a publicly accessible 

website, notify all students and employees individually by electronic mail of the availability of the report on the website or its location in print form. We submit our crime statistics to the Department of Education through its web-based data collection system 

and notify all prospective students and employees of the content 

and the availability of the report. 

The Act also requires schools to make timely warnings to the 

campus community when there are crimes that pose an ongoing 

threat to students and employees. When such crimes occur, St. Joseph’s security personnel distribute printed flyers containing as 

much detail as possible to all on-campus residents. These warnings 

are also posted on a security website and e-mailed to all employees. 

Finally, they are posted on the campus internet, which students 

must use to access their university e-mail accounts, ensuring that 

off-campus residents and commuter students also receive notification. 

The Clery Act requires each institution with a police or security 

department to maintain a public crime log. At St. Joseph’s, not only 

is this log maintained and publicly available, it is shared with the 

student newspaper each week so that the items may be published 

there. 

In order to ensure that the information in the log and in our 

crime statistics reporting is as complete as possible, we work closely with the two police departments that have jurisdiction over our 

campus. The Philadelphia Police Department shares its crime log 

with us each day. Lower Merion Township does so on a weekly 

basis. This allows incidents that happen off campus to be brought 

to our attention. 

In compiling crime data, St. Joseph’s policy is to take a broad 

view of how we define our campus so that we’re reporting more 

data, not less. This allows our students to have as much information as possible to create greater student awareness. 

Also, in addition to the open and public log mandated by Clery, 

we also maintain an open and public log of off-campus offenses that 

come to our attention, for the same reason. 

Crime is a serious issue for every campus in this country. Last 

fall, St. Joseph’s increased its annual security budget by $145,000 

to hire off-duty Philadelphia police officers for extra patrol seven 

nights a week as opposed to the two that we did before. 

We also budgeted an additional $140,000 annually to hire additional university officers for residence hall security. This fall we’re 

going to spend an additional $350,000 to enhance campus lighting 

27

and our emergency phone system and increase the number of shuttle buses. 

We continue to seek new ways to make St. Joseph’s even safer 

than it is now. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to address you. And by 

sharing this information with each other and discussing how we 

can improve, we can all work together toward making our campuses more secure. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mattioli appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Mattioli. 

I’ll begin with you, Dr. Adler, to start. The Philadelphia Inquirer 

led with comments about West Chester University. I’m sure you’re 

familiar with them. They had commented that a single sexual assault in 2003 and 2004 was changed into 14, including 10 in residence halls, and burglaries in those years moved from 2 to 45, once 

publicity was focused. 

Do you think you were unfairly treated by the Inquirer? 

Ms. ADLER. No. First of all, the university takes full responsibility for the errors that were made. The university reports, as I 

indicated in my remarks, statistics, both in accordance with the 

Pennsylvania Act and the Federal Clery Act, and those definitions 

are different. 

The university used the wrong definitions for those crimes. And 

when those errors surfaced, the university immediately reviewed 

everything we had reported for the last 5 years. We brought in a 

consultant, Clery consultant, to help us go through that data to 

make sure that we were doing it correctly, and we have corrected 

all those in a very, very timely fashion. 

And now we’re undergoing more training for all of our folks that 

are charged with making those reports. And as I also said in my 

remarks, I think it would be helpful to all of us to work with the 

Department of Education to have better training for all of our people to make sure we’re doing it. 

We regretted that. That was horrifying to me, and we immediately took action to address that. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, you were very direct about it, commendably so. It was a horrifying experience, a pretty substantial 

wake-up call for your university. 

Ms. ADLER. Absolutely. 

Chairman SPECTER. Do you think you benefited from that wakeup call in your corrective measures? 

Ms. ADLER. No doubt about it. I think we’re better than we’ve 

ever been. We’re committed. I’ve taken great pride in our Public 

Safety Department, and particularly on the side—as many have 

mentioned, on this panel—of our training, work in the residence 

halls, our work at new student orientation, our work in our weeks 

of welcome, our work with the community. Our Public Safety Department has been a model for the community. We have— well, the 

Crisis Response Center for Chester County is located on our campus. Our police officers train, the bike brigades and other police departments and other challenges and communities. So I know that 

our Public Safety Department works very, very seriously and was 

28

as horrified as I was. We jumped immediately to address that. This 

is not the way we do business. 

Chairman SPECTER. Dr. Papadakis, your testimony was a very 

comprehensive analysis of the Philadelphia Inquirer article. 

Do you think Drexel was fairly treated by the article? 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. Was not fairly treated, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Did the impact of the article motivate Drexel 

to change any of its practices? 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. No, Mr. Chairman, we’ve not. 

Actually, if you recognized that the Pennsylvania Act is much 

more stringent than the Clery Act. If you also appreciate the fact 

that for the Clery Act of 2004, Drexel reported 66 crime incidents, 

but for the Pennsylvania Act, Drexel reported 377. We’re not afraid 

to report what happens on our campus or our other campus. We 

actually had volunteered to consider greater Philadelphia as the 

place where any of our students—if any of our students has a crime 

incident, we will report it to the Pennsylvania report. 

The fact is that for those 377 incidents reported, theft accounted 

for 158. And the Clery Act does not provide for theft reports. 100 

in the Pennsylvania report were for vandalism, and vandalism is 

not required to be reported for the Clery Act. 

So when the Philadelphia Inquirer says ‘‘the best strategy for 

schools worrying about the competitive world of student improvement is not to hide crime,’’ we think that this implies the university’s conceal crimes in order to not lose potential students. That 

is absolutely untrue for any of us. All of us report about four times 

or five times more crime incident statistics to Pennsylvania than 

to the Clery Act. 

Chairman SPECTER. Your testimony dealt with, to some significant extent, the question of boundaries. Have you modified the reporting as to the boundaries issue? 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. No. We take the boundaries of the university as 

the boundaries of reporting. The issue here is that if you go away 

from those boundaries, where do you stop. Is it two blocks away? 

Is it four blocks away? Is it the whole Powelton Village? Then we 

take away the responsibility from the police department. 

See, when we—you heard all of us say how many cameras do we 

have. Forty acres of Drexel are covered by 225 cameras. There are 

95 emergency phone boxes on campus. The more we do, the less the 

police department does. So it becomes an unfunded mandate that 

our universities have to again work with—not that important. I’m 

talking about the police—right now the Drexel University patrols 

north of Powelton Street, south of Spring Garden, between 32nd 

and 36th Street. We patrol 15 city blocks that don’t belong to the 

college. 

Chairman SPECTER. Does the Philadelphia Police Department 

not patrol that area? 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. No. We patrol. And we patrol it because otherwise nobody would. 

Chairman SPECTER. Do you think the Clery Act is a good act, Dr. 

Papadakis? 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SPECTER. Do you think the Clery Act is a useful Act, 

a good Act? 

29

Mr. PAPADAKIS. Absolutely. We want the people to be informed. 

As I said earlier on, my recommendation would be to try to consolidate the Federal requirements and state requirements, then you 

have one report instead our people working with two reports. 

And because our individual school would interpret those crime 

statistics are not necessarily school or highly paid nor highly educated, the structure should be very distinct and we should be able 

to tell them exactly what qualifies and what does not qualify, as 

the example I brought out about the crime that started outside the 

Clery boundary and ended up inside the Clery boundary. How do 

you expect our monitor who is interpreting this information to decide? They made a decision. 

Now, you may say well, this person or maybe the president 

should go to prison because this was misinterpreted. But the fact 

is that the individual made a judgment call, and the judgment call 

was that this was not reportable because it happened in the train 

station, outside Drexel. 

So, that is the issue with the boundaries and consolidation of 

state and Federal would made our life much easier, Mr. Chairman, 

and I think also would take away the question marks that have 

been raised by the press and also by you and the committee. 

Chairman SPECTER. Dr. Papadakis, I don’t think anybody wants 

to send the president to prison. I don’t think so. Certainly none of 

those present here today. Maybe some of those who are absent. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. You don’t sign the report, do you, Dr. 

Papadakis, for the Clery Act? 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. No, I don’t. Because nobody asked me to. Like 

the Sarbanes-Oxley, chief executives sign the report and take responsibility for it, like financial statements and the surveys. As you 

probably know, Drexel has volunteered to implement Sarbanes and 

we’re very happy to certify whatever is required of us. But as I 

said, nobody has asked me to sign a report. 

Chairman SPECTER. Dr. Adamany, do you think it would be helpful or appropriate to have the president of the university sign? Dr. 

Papadakis accurately refers to Sarbanes-Oxley, which is widely 

criticized by corporate executives as being unduly burdensome. You 

do administer a big university, in a big part of the city of Philadelphia, so do you think it would be appropriate to ask, or would there 

be better enforcement if, the president were required to sign it? 

Mr. ADAMANY. Quite frankly, Senator, I don’t. We’re already required to sign certain audit reports, reports to the NCAA. 

Anybody who believes that a university president with broad responsibilities is reading through hundreds or thousands of pages of 

reports that are being filed is really misled. And while I know they 

all attest that they do it, if you’ll forgive me for being just a bit 

skeptical that the CEOs of large corporations are reading and 

verifying all of the data. 

Chairman SPECTER. You don’t think that the CEO would have 

any more incentives to dig in? 

I’ll take a 1-minute leave from questioning you to tell you a short 

story of the autobiography of Charles Evans Hughes, who became 

Justice of the Supreme Court, later Chief Justice, and ran for 

President. 

30

He was an insurance investigator for the State of New York 

shortly after the turn of the 20th century, and he would interview 

CEOs of insurance companies. And one day he walked into the office of the chief executive officer and the secretary brought a big 

stack of papers, and one after another the CEO signed them without reading them. Charles Evans Hughes said to the corporate officer, Do you always sign vouchers without reading them? The man 

said, Hell, I thought those were affidavits. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Ms. Rush and Mr. Mattioli, law enforcement 

officers, police officers, do you think it would make any difference 

in compliance if there was, as Dr. Papadakis put it, a jail sentence 

for the president at the end of the trail as opposed to a fine? Would 

that improve motivation and deterrence? You two have been experienced in this field. 

Ms. RUSH. I would think that that would not be any more a deterrent, but I do think Federal funds to universities being withheld 

would certainly be a wake-up call for people. 

Chairman SPECTER. Tougher to withhold your money than send 

you to jail? 

Ms. RUSH. I think jail would be time off, or a vacation. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. In Philadelphia hardly anyone goes to jail 

anyway, except in the Federal court. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. What do you think, Mr. Mattioli? 

Mr. MATTIOLI. No, I don’t think jail would be necessary either. 

But with fines, I was surprised to find out there were only three. 

I’ve been afraid of the Clery audits for the last 10 years. 

Chairman SPECTER. You think now that you know there were 

only three you won’t be so diligent? I think that was a bad statistic 

to disclose. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Reverend Stack, has the Department of Education ever contacted your university? 

Reverend STACK. Not that I’m aware of, with regard to Clery reporting. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Turzanski, has the Department of Education, to your knowledge, ever contacted LaSalle? 

Mr. TURZANSKI. We’re in discussion with the Department over 

those events that I referenced from 2003–2004. 

Chairman SPECTER. Over your reporting of the Clery Act? 

Mr. TURZANSKI. It was not reporting with Clery Act, it was sharing information with staff concerning their obligations under Clery. 

What we had were two coaches who, it was alleged, did not tell 

an alleged victim where she could go to report a problem she had. 

Chairman SPECTER. OK. So that’s information. But nobody has 

ever contacted LaSalle and said ‘‘We’ve taken a look at your report 

and we think it’s insufficient? ’’ 

Mr. TURZANSKI. No, sir. 

Chairman SPECTER. Has anyone, of any of the educational institutions here, been contacted by the U.S. Department of Education 

to raise a question about the reporting under the Clery Act? 

31

Mr. PAPADAKIS. No. We have actually been contacting them asking questions. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Carter, you have something to say, but 

first I’ll ask you a question. 

Do you think that it is conceivable that there is adequate enforcement of the Clery Act with only three fines in 20 years? 

Mr. CARTER. Three fines are not adequate. Certainly not every 

school that is found in violation should be fined, but for those 17 

where serious violations have warranted a thorough review, fines 

should have been seriously considered in every single one of those 

cases and I know they were not. 

And I would also recommend that for those serious cases, that’s 

when the Department of Justice should be involved. 

Chairman SPECTER. Do you think, Dr. Adamany, that if there 

was scrutiny, not necessarily at Temple but just broadly, generically, it would doubtless lead to some infractions, you can’t run all 

the universities and colleges in America for 20 years and have only 

three infractions, that can’t be done, and that if tougher enforcement or some enforcement was present and some fines were imposed that there’d be better reporting, more accurate reporting? 

Mr. ADAMANY. I think regular review of the reports by the Department, perhaps on a random basis, a rotating basis, and where 

there is a preliminary finding if the reports are inadequate, a more 

thorough audit would be very good. 

It would be good not only for the institution that was under scrutiny, but because our higher education associations provide us information relatively quickly, that there is a level of scrutiny and 

I think everybody would pay more attention to this. 

I actually favor outside review and auditing of the university, not 

only in this respect but in many others. It does help us, and even 

if done only randomly it alerts all of the institutions. 

Senator, if I may make one other point about the dysfunction between the two statutes, the Pennsylvania statute— 

Chairman SPECTER. Sure. And then I’ll come to you, Reverend 

Stack. 

Mr. ADAMANY. In addition to the difference in the reporting requirements, there is a difference in filing dates, and that seems to 

be totally nonfunctional. 

Chairman SPECTER. A difference in what? 

Mr. ADAMANY. Filing dates. Because one report may report certain statistics, the other report reports not only different matters 

but reports a different time period, and it’s inevitable that there’s 

going to be public confusion or confusion in the press, because 

these numbers don’t jibe. 

So, to any extent that Federal and state regulations can be 

brought into conformance, that is helpful to all of us. 

Chairman SPECTER. Reverend Stack. 

Reverend STACK. Senator, I think it might be a mistake to conclude that because there’s so few fines that that’s a problem. I 

think that from the time the Clery Act was enacted that initially 

schools were on their own to try to figure out how to report it accurately, and then as they got feedback over time, those that did, 

they clarified that. I think that, as Dr. Papadakis said, there were 

32

differences of opinion in terms of the judgment about how to interpret certain things in the Clery Act. 

I believe that the information that was published in 2005 that 

really more clearly does identify, maybe takes away some of the 

gray areas in interpreting the Act, will lead to a more uniform reporting over time. 

It’s a shame it took as long as it did to get to that point. I think 

that’s going to make a difference. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, I think that there’s no doubt that 

there’s a lot of confusion, a lot of areas of misunderstanding, and 

nobody wants to fine anybody for that. But there have to be, in this 

magnitude, this universe of reporting, some serious violations, and 

enforcement is designed to help the universities do their job and to 

keep people on their toes, and people respond. 

Dr. Adler, do you think the Inquirer article—and I’ll ask you, Dr. 

Papadakis, and I expect two different answers—do you think the 

Inquirer article was useful in alerting people and putting people a 

little more on their toes? 

Ms. ADLER. I think that it is and I think it alerted us even 

though, generally speaking, our crime statistics are very, very low, 

it alerted us to be more conscious of what we needed to do, and I 

agree that there needs to be more—that I would welcome further 

study of us on that, but at the same time, I think it has to come 

with help from the Department of Education to help clarify definitions and to help train our people, as Dr. Papadakis said, in responding to that. Couple that with greater enforcement I think 

would make the Clery Act a much more powerful tool for us. 

Chairman SPECTER. Let me ask for a show of hands of those of 

you who thought the Inquirer article was helpful. 

[All panel members raised hands.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, that’s a fairly good consensus. I’m sure 

that will lead the Philadelphia Inquirer article tomorrow. If there 

is a Philadelphia Inquirer article. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PAPADAKIS. It’s doubtful that the journalist should delve into 

this subject in more depth so they understood better the communications and differences between the two Acts and—despite the 

fact that all of us agreed that the article was helpful in bringing 

out a subject that some of our citizens in Philadelphia don’t probably know about this. Not everybody in the United States knows 

what the Clery Act is. So bringing awareness, I’ll agree that the 

article was worthwhile. But trying to be sensational, it was not. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, I know what you mean, Dr. Papadakis. 

There was once a newspaper article about me that could have been 

more carefully researched. But it wasn’t by the Philadelphia Inquirer or any Pennsylvania newspaper. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Anybody else want to make a concluding 

comment? 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to go back to the educational component. Steve Heeley is in the audience, and he is the 

incoming president of the IACLEA, International Association of 

Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, Daniel Carter, Security 

On Campus, all come to our conferences, and I’ve been with camVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:54 Sep 27, 2006 Jkt 030043 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30043.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
33

pus law enforcement for 11 years, and that whole time every conference this issue has been—the room is standing room only. These 

people are thirsty for information on how to interpret the DOE regulations. 

We’ve gotten, over the years, the Dear Colleague letters but, 

again, it wasn’t until 2005 that we had the extensive booklet. So, 

again, was it a mistake at hand or a mistake at heart? I think 

there are some outliers out there who maybe are purposely trying 

to withhold information, but I think they’re few and far between. 

I think the real issue is we all strive to get it right and it’s difficult 

sometimes to—you know, contiguous, noncontiguous, the public 

property, there’s so many categories and it changes every year. 

So I think having a lot more education, having the Clerys put 

this program on in October is a great start and more and more continuing education would be really helpful. 

Chairman SPECTER. Concluding statement, Dr. Adamany. 

Mr. ADAMANY. Yes. Thank you. Senator, I want to thank you for 

holding the hearings. I think all of us want to do better. My day 

starts on a high note when I turn on that computer and there is 

no crime reported on my campus. Every one of us wishes for the 

welfare and safety of every one of the young people entrusted to us. 

By holding these hearings raises public information, raises 

awareness and raises awareness on the campuses and gives us a 

chance to suggest ways for this process to improve. 

I’d like to thank you on behalf of all the members, thank you for 

holding the hearings and keeping this issue alive. 

Chairman SPECTER. I appreciate your comment. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. CARTER. Sir, if I could just make a few brief concluding comments. 

Unfortunately, for 15 years in many respects the Clery Act has 

been a toothless tiger. There’s been not enough adequate enforcement, and that has got to change. On the other side, we’ve also got 

to do a better job of educating schools, as with your help we’ve been 

able to do, and we’re going to continue to do that. 

I’ve seen two things I take away from the panel today. We need 

to do a better job of involving more people in this campus policing 

and security issue. I heard several references to conferences for 

campus police, references to how the police are handing this. Campus crime in the Clery Act is not just a campus police or security 

matter. Everyone from the president on down, especially people at 

the level of vice president of Student Affairs, need to be actively involved in the Clery Act. 

We need to enhance understanding of how victims of crime 

should be treated. The comment that I heard earlier today about 

we’re doing well if we just misplaced a piece of paper, that doesn’t 

cut it. And that victim is in the audience today and I could tell she 

was upset by that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you all for coming today and thank 

you, more fundamentally, for the jobs you are doing in your colleges and universities. You’re doing a great educational service. 

And I want to thank the Constitution Center and President Rich 

Stengel and Joan Specter for opening their facilities to us today. 

34

And I want to thank Connie Clery and Benjamin Clery and the 

Clery family for what they have done, and the tragedy from Jeanne 

Clery’s brutal rape and murder, I think, has produced awareness 

on a very critical issue. 

And there are some good suggestions, we’re going to take a look, 

maybe we ought to include theft or maybe vandalism as well. 

Maybe we ought to see if there could be some standardization. 

That’s kind of hard to do with the Federal Government, all 50 

states in conformity, but it would certainly ease the administrative 

burden, which you have plenty of, beyond any question. 

But I think this is constructive and I think the Inquirer article 

was helpful, it’s a wake-up call. Not perfect, but the U.S. Senate 

certainly isn’t. 

That concludes our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

35


30043.001
36


30043.002
37


30043.003
38


30043.004
39


30043.005
40


30043.006
41


30043.007
42


30043.008
43


30043.009
44


30043.010
45


30043.011
46


30043.012
47


30043.013
48


30043.014
49


30043.015
50


30043.016
51


30043.017
52


30043.018
53


30043.019
54


30043.020
55


30043.021
56


30043.022
57


30043.023
58


30043.024
59


30043.025
60


30043.026
61


30043.027
62


30043.028
63


30043.029
64


30043.030
65


30043.031
66

Æ


30043.032