United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1997 CAMPUS CRIME

Difficulties Meeting

Federal Reporting

Requirements

GAO/HEHS-97-52

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-276054 

March 11, 1997

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

Chairman, Committee on Labor and

 Human Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Frist

United States Senate

The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act was enacted in 1990 partly

in response to a steady rise in violent crime reported on some college

campuses. Recent slayings of professors and students and incidents of

rape are among criminal occurrences that have caused growing concern in

the college community. At the time of the law’s enactment, less than

5 percent of postsecondary schools1

 participated in the Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s (FBI) voluntary crime reporting system.

The law and its implementing regulations encourage the development of

security policies and procedures on all college campuses participating in

federal student aid programs—including policies and procedures to

address sexual assaults and to bring about uniformity and consistency in

reporting campus crime statistics to students, parents, and employees.

Advocates for this legislation hoped more complete reports would prompt

actions that would reduce the incidence of crime, as well as allow

individuals to better protect themselves.

During the past year, however, concern surfaced that colleges were not

fully complying with campus security requirements and that the

Department of Education was not doing enough to monitor and enforce

compliance. Bills were introduced in the 104th Congress that would have

required colleges to maintain an easily understood daily log of all crimes

reported to campus police or security departments—a requirement that

goes beyond the current law’s requirements and is similar to those of laws

enacted by several states. These state laws are referred to as “open

campus crime log laws.” In support of what they saw as the need for

additional federal legislation, proponents of these bills pointed out that the

statistics that colleges publish to conform with existing law do not provide

enough information and that they are only required to be published once a

year.

1

In this report, we refer to all postsecondary institutions as “colleges.”

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

You asked that we provide you information that would help the Congress

assess the progress made under the Crime Awareness and Campus

Security Act and a description of the contents of states’ open campus

crime log laws. In response, we developed information on

• how the Department of Education has implemented and monitored

compliance with the act;

• the kinds of problems, if any, colleges are having in complying with the

act; and

• the requirements of state laws related to public access to police records on

reported crimes on campuses.

To develop our information, we reviewed Department of Education

regulations and other policy guidance and interviewed Department

officials at headquarters and regional offices. We also analyzed campus

security reports of 25 colleges and interviewed campus officials of these

and other colleges. We also analyzed state statutes and spoke with

representatives of campus safety and related interest groups. (See app. I

for details of our scope and methodology.)

Results in Brief Although colleges are having difficulty complying with the act, the

Department only recently began a systematic effort to monitor

compliance. Starting in 1991, the Department of Education issued policy

guidance to colleges for implementing the law’s crime reporting

requirements. Since that time, the Department has also provided technical

assistance to individual colleges upon request. This assistance has taken

the form, for example, of responding to telephone inquiries to the

Customer Support Branch of the Department’s Office of Postsecondary

Education.

Although the Department began issuing implementing guidance to colleges

less than a year after the law was passed, the Department has only

recently begun to develop procedures for its program reviewers and

auditors that systematically address monitoring compliance with these

requirements. Moreover, citing resource limitations, the Department

delayed preparing a report on campus crime statistics for which the law

prescribed a September 1995 issuance date. The Department issued the

report in February 1997.

At the campus level, colleges are finding it difficult to consistently

interpret and apply some of the law’s reporting requirements. For

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

example, our analysis showed considerable variation in colleges’ practices

for deciding which incidents to include in their reports and what

categories to use in classifying certain crimes. Areas of difficulty included

deciding how to include incidents reported to campus officials other than

law enforcement officers, interpreting federal requirements for reporting

sexual offenses, and reporting data on hate crimes.

Federal legislation proposed in the 104th Congress would have augmented

available information on campus crime by requiring that campus police

records be open to the campus community. Similar laws exist in eight

states. Three laws contain a specific requirement that colleges maintain

daily logs. Most laws protect the identity of victims and informants from

disclosure and ensure that any information that might jeopardize an

ongoing investigation also remains confidential. The state laws vary in

many details, such as whether identification of juvenile offenders is

required and whether noncompliance by the college can result in

penalties. These laws differ from the 1990 act in requiring year-round

access to campus police reports rather than annual summary statistics.

Background The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990 and its

implementing regulations require colleges, as a condition for participating

in federal financial aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher

Education Act of 1965, as amended,2

 to publish and distribute an annual

security report that includes statements about campus3

 law enforcement

policies, security education and crime prevention programs, alcohol and

drug policies, sexual assault education and prevention programs,

procedures for reporting sexual assaults, procedures explaining how

reports of sexual assaults will be dealt with, and annual statistics on crime

incidents. The law also requires colleges to provide timely warning to the

campus community about crimes that are considered to represent a threat

to other students and employees.

The law requires the collection of data on campus crime, distinct from

state or local data, and that information on the incidence of campus crime

2

Title IV authorizes the major federal student loan and grant aid programs. All colleges participating in

title IV programs must sign a Program Participation Agreement certifying that they are in compliance

with various requirements, including disclosure of campus security policy and crime statistics.

3

Department regulations define “campus” as (1) any building or property owned or controlled by the

college within a reasonably contiguous area and used by the college in direct support of, or in a

manner related to, the college’s educational purposes; (2) any building or property owned or

controlled by a student organization recognized by the college; or (3) any building or property

controlled by the college but owned by a third party.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

and of colleges’ security policies and procedures be available. The

statistical reporting provision requires colleges to annually compile and

report to the campus community statistics on reported crimes, such as

murder and robbery, and on arrests for such crimes as liquor law

violations.

As the agency administering title IV programs, the Department of

Education is responsible for issuing guidance to implement the law,

monitoring colleges’ compliance with its requirements, and issuing two

reports: a compilation of exemplary campus security practices and a

report to the Congress on campus crime statistics. Procedures for

monitoring compliance with title IV requirements include program reviews

of selected colleges, annual independent audits of all colleges participating

in title IV, and compliance reviews in response to complaints received.

According to a 1996 publication of the Student Press Law Center,4

 11

states have laws requiring schools to compile and release statistics on

campus crime.

Two bills—H.R. 2416 and S. 2065—introduced in the 104th Congress

would have required more detailed and current campus security records to

be made accessible to the public. Although a hearing was held in the

House, no further action was taken before the session’s end. Had the bills

been enacted, they would have applied to colleges with police or security

departments and required the colleges, in addition to reporting annual

crime statistics, to maintain open-to-the-public, easily understood daily

logs that chronologically recorded all crimes against persons or property

reported to college campus or security departments. The bills were

modeled after a law that has been in effect in Tennessee since 1994.

The Department Has

Been Slow to Monitor

Compliance and

Report to the

Congress

Department implementation of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security

Act’s reporting requirements has included issuing regulations;

disseminating policy guidance to colleges; providing technical assistance

to colleges and outreach to campus law enforcement organizations; and,

to a limited extent, checking whether colleges have prepared crime

statistics reports and what procedures they have used for disseminating

the reports. However, because of resource constraints, the Department

has only recently expanded its monitoring efforts by initiating program

reviews that specifically address compliance with the act’s reporting

4

The Student Press Law Center, Covering Campus Crime: A Handbook for Journalists (Arlington, Va.:

The Student Press Law Center, Inc., 1996).

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

requirements. Moreover, the Department was late in issuing a required

report to the Congress.

Regulatory Guidance Was

Issued, and Technical

Assistance Was

Emphasized

Following enactment of the law in 1990, the Department issued various

policy guidance documents on campus security to help colleges meet the

law’s requirements, as summarized in table 1. Most of the guidance was

issued as Department letters. Final implementing regulations took effect in

July 1994.

Table 1: Department of Education

Policy Guidance to Implement the

Campus Security Act

Date Type of guidance provided

March 1991 Department letter notifying colleges to prepare, publish,

and disseminate campus crime statistics (required by

original statute)

August 1991 Department letter revising effective date for colleges to

begin compiling statistics and changing colleges’

reporting period (required by statutory amendment)

July 1992 Department letter expanding definition of sexual offenses

category and permitting disclosure of law enforcementrelated student records (required by statutory

amendment)

July 1994 Regulations (34 C.F.R. part 668) specifying statistical

reporting requirements, deadlines, and definitions of

crimes and including—for three of the categories—a

requirement to report statistics on crimes evidencing

prejudice (required by statutory amendment)

May 1996 Department letter further clarifying reporting requirements

and providing information on obtaining technical

assistance and filing a complaint of noncompliance

(Department initiative)

The Department supplemented its policy guidance with technical

assistance provided upon request by its Customer Support Branch. To help

colleges achieve compliance, the Department emphasizes providing such

assistance, rather than imposing sanctions. Under Department policy, the

Secretary imposes sanctions only if a college flagrantly or intentionally

violates the regulations or fails to take corrective action when required to

do so. Available sanctions include fines or limitation, suspension, or

termination of participation in federal financial aid programs. Department

officials told us that although the Department and independent auditors

had identified violations at 63 colleges since the law’s enactment, as of

January 1997, the Department had not imposed sanctions against any

college found in noncompliance with campus security requirements.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

Monitoring Compliance

Has Been Slow, and Some

Problems Remain

Although the Department began issuing guidance to colleges on complying

with the law in 1991, guidance for monitoring program compliance came

much more slowly. The Department did not issue its first program review

guidance specifically addressing campus security until September 1996.

Until this recent incorporation of campus security in program review

guidance, the Department’s program reviewers had not emphasized

monitoring campus security reports in their title IV reviews, focusing

instead on compliance with other provisions of title IV. Although most of

the nearly 2,800 title IV program reviews conducted between September

1992 and May 1996 found noncompliance with some title IV program

requirements, only 24 of these reviews identified campus security

violations.5

 Department officials told us that monitoring had generally

been limited to checking whether colleges published a campus security

report and had procedures for its distribution. Since no review guidance

for monitoring campus security was available until September 1996, it is

unlikely that the reviewers checked whether the reports contained all the

required information or whether information was accurate.

Under the new monitoring guidance, program reviewers must check a

college’s crime report for all required information and should attempt to

evaluate the procedures used to collect crime data. The accuracy of crime

statistics need not be verified unless it becomes apparent from a

complaint or some other source that the security report may be

incomplete or inaccurate. In such cases, the Department is to take

appropriate action to ensure compliance, including more thoroughly

examining the statistics and, if warranted, taking formal administrative

action. As of January 1997, the Department had received five complaints of

noncompliance: one precipitated an in-depth campus security compliance

review; the other four complaints are still being investigated.

Even with the new guidance, however, program review officials told us

that staff are still having some difficulty monitoring compliance. Reasons

for the difficulty include reviewers’ limited experience in dealing with law

enforcement matters, uncertainties about how to interpret certain

definitions of reportable crimes, and differences among campuses that

make evaluation difficult under a single set of program review guidelines.

In the case of urban campuses, for example, reviewers may have difficulty

in determining which facilities are campus related. The difficulties

involving definitions and differences among colleges are discussed in more

detail later in this report.

5

Department officials said that, between May 1996 and January 1997, an additional 27 program reviews

identified violations.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

The Department has yet to issue guidance for independent auditors who

conduct federally required annual audits of all colleges participating in

title IV programs. The Department’s June 1995 independent audit guide

does not provide guidance to auditors on checking for campus security

compliance. As of August 1996, only six audits had documented

noncompliance on security matters since the act took effect, and a

Department official said that most auditors participating in training

sessions held in regional Inspector General offices were unaware of

campus security reporting requirements, further suggesting that auditors

may not be routinely scrutinizing campus security reports.6

 The

Department plans to issue an updated audit guide that will explicitly refer

to campus security compliance and instruct auditors to ensure that

campus security reports are prepared and distributed according to federal

requirements. A Department official responsible for writing the audit guide

expects it to be issued some time in 1997.

Required Report to the

Congress Was Late

Although the Department issued a required report on exemplary campus

security practices in September 1994, the Department was more than 1

year late in issuing a report on campus crime statistics to the Congress.

The law required the Department to review campus crime statistics and

issue a report to the Congress by September 1, 1995. Citing limited

resources to perform such a review, the Department postponed issuing the

report until February 1997.

As the basis for the report, the Department conducted a national survey on

campus crime and security. A representative sample of 1,500 colleges was

surveyed to establish baseline information on crime statistics by such

attributes as type of school (such as 4-year public or 2-year private),

nature of the campus (such as urban or rural and residential or

commuter), and types of public safety employees providing campus

security. Having compiled and reported the survey results, the Department

plans to evaluate whether additional actions are needed at the federal

level.

6

In addition, Department officials said that campus security is not generally included in the

Department’s quality control reviews of independent audits.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

Colleges Are Having

Difficulty Applying

Regulatory Criteria

and Are Not Reporting

Uniformly

Our review of selected colleges’ campus security reports and our

interviews with selected campus officials indicate that colleges are having

difficulty applying some of the law’s reporting requirements. As a result,

colleges are not reporting data uniformly. Of the 25 reports we reviewed,

only 2 provided information in all the prescribed categories. Table 2

summarizes the principal problems colleges are having.

Table 2: Colleges’ Principal Problems

in Reporting Crime Statistics Problem Reason

Excluding crimes reported to campus

officials other than campus security officials

Details of crimes reported to academic

officials, such as counselors, are protected

from disclosure, and some campus safety

officials are reluctant to report numbers

they cannot verify.

Using incorrect categories to report

sex-related offenses

Crimes to be reported in this category

were amended in 1992 to provide different

reporting systems for sex offenses.

Using an incorrect category to report murder Some colleges are reporting deaths as

homicides, which can include deaths from

negligence, rather than just murders.

Omitting information on hate crimes Some colleges reported that they were

unaware of this requirement, which is not

mentioned in the Department’s letters to

colleges.

Excluding information on crimes reported to

local police

Local police records do not always lend

themselves to identification and

categorization of incidents at

college-related facilities (such as

fraternities or sororities).

Using arrest data to reflect reported liquor,

drug, and weapons possession violations

Such factors as whether the campus

police department has arrest power can

affect the number of arrests reported by

the school.

Excluding Crimes

Reported to Campus

Officials Other Than Law

Enforcement Officials

Campus law enforcement officials differ as to whether their reported

statistics must include crimes reported to them by other campus

authorities without information identifying the persons involved in the

reported incidents. For example, according to comments the Department

received during rulemaking, students are sometimes more comfortable

reporting incidents—particularly sex-related offenses—through academic

rather than law enforcement channels.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) generally prohibits

the disclosure of education records or information from education

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

records, which originally included personally identifiable details on crime

incidents. As a result of a 1992 amendment to FERPA, however, reports of

incidents maintained by campus law enforcement officials for law

enforcement purposes are not now classified as education information

and, therefore, may be disclosed. Even incidents reported to campus

authorities other than law enforcement officials may be included in the

campus crime statistics as long as information identifying the persons

involved is not disclosed. But reporting such incidents in the statistics is

not required under a Department interpretation of the Crime Awareness

and Campus Security Act. According to that interpretation, colleges may

exclude from their statistics those incidents that campus law enforcement

officials cannot validate because, for example, the parties’ names were not

disclosed.7

The fact that the incidents need not be reported is reflected by variations

in campus security reports, as some reports excluded information from

non-law-enforcement sources for which no personally identifiable

information was provided. Our review of 25 reports prepared by colleges

showed that some of the data may have been incomplete or incompatible

because of differences in safety officials’ access to information, insistence

on verifiable data, or both. Six reports showed direct and varied attempts

to address these differences—for example, by supplementing required

crime categories with explanatory subcategories, adding a column

showing incidents reported to other officials, or adding footnotes. When

we asked campus law enforcement officials at the 25 colleges how they

treated such cases, we found an even greater variation in their responses

than in the reports. For example, nine said their numbers included

incidents reported to campus officials who were not law enforcement

officials without any notation to that effect, and four said their numbers

excluded incidents they could not verify. Some were concerned about

reporting incidents for which no details were provided because, without

details on specific cases, they were unable to verify that a crime had

occurred, had been properly classified, or had been counted only once—if,

for example, a crime had been reported to more than one office. At some

colleges, security officials do not receive even unverifiable statistics from

counselors: Officials at five colleges said counselors are not required to or

generally do not report incidents to them, and the general counsel of one

state’s higher education organization concurred in that interpretation.

7

The preamble to the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act regulations states that reported

crimes need not be disclosed unless appropriate law enforcement officials are able to conclude, with

the same degree of certainty they would require under the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting System, that

a crime has occurred.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

Using the Wrong

Categories in Reporting

Sex-Related Offenses and

Murder

Although colleges’ statistical reports included most of the prescribed

criminal reporting categories, reporting officials appeared to have

difficulty principally with two categories: sex offenses and murder.

In 60 percent of the reports we reviewed, colleges had difficulty complying

with the reporting requirement for sex-related offenses. Colleges are

required to report statistics on sexual offenses; they are not required to

distinguish between forcible and nonforcible offenses.8

 Of the reports we

reviewed, 15 incorrectly categorized offenses. For example, several

colleges listed incidents as “rape” or “attempted rape,” both of which are

less inclusive than the term “forcible sexual offense.”

We also noted a discrepancy in how colleges reported the number of

murders. Seven of the reports we reviewed labeled incidents resulting in

death as homicides, but the law requires the term “murders.” According to

the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, homicide can also include

killings that result from negligence, whereas murder refers to willful

killings. Because homicide is not as specific a term, the use of this broader

category could obscure the actual number of murders.

Omitting Hate Crimes The Department’s regulations for the Crime Awareness and Campus

Security Act require colleges to report statistics on murders, forcible

rapes, and aggravated assaults that manifest evidence of prejudice based

on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, as defined in the Hate

Crimes Statistics Act. However, of the reports we reviewed, only five

included this information. Eleven of the 16 officials we asked about the

omission told us they were unaware of the requirement, which was not

mentioned in the Department’s letters explaining the statistical reporting

requirements. Another two said they lacked direction on how to report

these crimes.

Excluding Information on

Crimes Reported to Local

Police

Although the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act requires that

crime statistics include on-campus occurrences reported to local police,

our interviews with college officials and review of their statistical reports

suggest that colleges vary in their inclusion of incidents reported to local

police. Of the 25 reports we reviewed, 1 specifically stated that it did not

include incidents reported to local police, and a second stated that it

included such incidents when available. In contrast, six reports indicated

8

Forcible sex offenses include forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and

forcible fondling. Nonforcible sex offenses comprise incest and statutory rape.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

that incidents reported to local police were included. According to a law

enforcement official we contacted and our analysis of a Department

program review, reporting such incidents can be difficult. For example,

record systems of some local police departments do not lend themselves

to converting the incidents to the categories required for campus security

reports. Moreover, identifying incidents at college-related facilities can be

a problem when a campus is dispersed throughout a large urban area.

Using Arrest Data for

Three Reporting

Categories

For three crime categories—liquor, drug, and weapons possession

violations—the law requires statistics on the number of arrests, rather

than on the number of reported crimes. For these categories, uniformity of

statistics can be affected to some degree by school policies and type of

authority of the campus security department. For example, one campus

security report we reviewed contained a footnote to the effect that

liquor-law violations were frequently adjudicated through campus judicial

procedures and, therefore, would not be included in the arrest statistics.

Three law enforcement officials told us that offenses are less likely to

result in arrests on campuses that do not have security departments with

the power to make arrests.

States’ Open Campus

Crime Record Laws’

Provisions Vary

We identified eight states that require public access to campus police or

security department records on reported crimes: California,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia,

and West Virginia. In all but Minnesota, the laws in general apply to all

institutions of higher education, public and private. Minnesota’s law

applies only to public colleges.

Three of the eight states (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee)

have laws specifically requiring campus safety authorities to maintain

daily logs open to public inspection. The remaining five, while not

prescribing the log format, require disclosure of information similar to that

required to be kept in the logs.

Certain provisions are common to a number of these state laws. For

example, they generally contain a provision exempting disclosure that is

otherwise prohibited by law. Many prohibit publication of the names of

victims or of victims of sex-related crimes. Many also include some type of

provision protecting witnesses, informants, or information that might

jeopardize an ongoing investigation. Several law enforcement officials

emphasized to us the importance of including such a provision.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

The laws also differ in a number of other respects, such as the following:

• California, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma specifically provide for penalties

for noncompliance; the other states do not specify penalties.

• Only California includes a specific reference to occurrences involving

hate; in fact, California’s law requires inclusion of noncriminal hate-related

incidents.

For more information on the eight laws, see appendix II.

We also agreed to determine whether any legal challenges had been raised

to state open campus crime log laws and whether the effectiveness of such

laws had been studied. We did not find any reported cases challenging

these laws or any studies of their positive or negative effects.

In addition, according to the Student Press Law Center’s Covering Campus

Crime: A Handbook for Journalists, all 50 states have open records or

“sunshine” laws, most of which require public institutions’ records to be

open to the public unless they are specifically exempted. Generally, public

colleges are covered by those laws. For example, Colorado’s open records

law declares that it is public policy that all state records be open for

inspection, including all writings made, maintained, or kept by the state or

any agency or institution—which would include state colleges.9

 These

laws generally provide that if records are kept, they must be open; the

laws are not intended to impose a new recordkeeping requirement.

Conclusions The consistency and completeness of campus crime reporting envisioned

under the act have been difficult to attain for two primary reasons. First,

the differing characteristics of colleges—such as their location in an urban

or other setting or the extent to which complaints may be handled through

campus governance rather than through police channels—affect the

colleges’ ability to provide a complete and consistent picture of incidents

that occur on their campuses. Second, some confusion exists about

reporting requirements, particularly about how certain categories of

crimes are to be classified.

The Department originally relied mostly on its regulations, letters to

colleges, and technical assistance to implement the Crime Awareness and

Campus Security Act. Its continued efforts in providing technical

assistance to school officials, as well as its recent issuance of monitoring

9

Colo. Rev. Stat. secs. 24-72-201 to 24-72-309.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
B-276054 

guidance to Department officials and its current work to update audit

guidelines for independent auditors, may achieve more consistent

reporting and compliance with the law by colleges. For example, these

efforts may improve consistency in categories used and type of crimes

reported. However, inherent differences among colleges will be a

long-term obstacle to achieving comparable, comprehensive campus crime

statistics. Although a federal open crime log law could offer more timely

access to information on campus crime and a means of verifying the

accuracy of schools’ statistical reports, such logs would continue to reflect

the inherent differences among colleges apparent in the summary

statistics currently required by the act. For example, such logs might not

include off-campus incidents or, without an amendment to FERPA,

incidents that students report through non-law-enforcement channels.

Agency Comments On February 12, 1997, the Department of Education provided comments

on a draft of this report (see app. III). The Department generally agreed

with our basic conclusions and provided us a number of technical

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. Please

call me at (202) 512-7014 or Joseph J. Eglin, Jr., Assistant Director, at

(202) 512-7009 if you or your staff have any questions about this report.

Other staff who contributed to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

16

Appendix II 

Provisions of State

Open Campus Crime

Record Laws

18

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Department of

Education

22

Appendix IV 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

24

Tables Table 1: Department of Education Policy Guidance to Implement

the Campus Security Act

5

Table 2: Colleges’ Principal Problems in Reporting Crime

Statistics

8

Abbreviations

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

IACLEA International Association of Campus Law Enforcement

Administrators

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Page 15 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

To determine the actions the Department of Education has taken to

implement and monitor compliance with the Crime Awareness and

Campus Security Act, we interviewed officials at the Department’s

headquarters and regional offices and analyzed pertinent regulations,

policy guidance, and other documents. To identify difficulties colleges

were having in complying with the act, we interviewed officials at 27

colleges selected from a judgmental sample of colleges from the following

four groups.

Members of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement

Administrators (IACLEA)—Ten Colleges. Our initial college law

enforcement contact was the Director of Police at the University of

Delaware, also a past president of IACLEA and a recognized authority on the

Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act. He provided us with the

names of chief law enforcement officials at eight IACLEA member colleges,

one in each of the eight states with open campus police log laws. These

officials, in turn, referred us to two additional member colleges.

Non-IACLEA Members in States With Open Log Laws—Eight Colleges. Using

a list of non-IACLEA colleges provided by IACLEA, we selected six 4-year and

two 2-year colleges representing all eight states with open log laws and

spoke to their heads of campus security. All eight colleges had an

enrollment exceeding 1,000 students.

Colleges in States Without Open Log Laws—Seven Colleges. From a

universe of colleges representing all states, we randomly selected colleges,

with enrollments exceeding 1,000 students, that participated in title IV

programs from the Department’s Integrated Postsecondary Education

Data System, stratified by type of college (such as 4-year private or 2-year

public) and geographic region. The chiefs of campus security at these

seven colleges composed the third group of officials interviewed.

Colleges Involved in Complaints About Crime Statistics—Two Colleges.

We included two other colleges for information on complaints regarding

crime statistics. We included the first of these because a complaint had

been lodged against that college. We included the second college because

it was subject to the same state crime reporting system as another

college—the only one that has undergone an in-depth Department review

as a result of a crime statistic complaint.

In addition, we asked the campus security officials interviewed to send us

a copy of their most recent campus security statistics. We received

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

statistical reports from 25 colleges and evaluated them to determine the

extent to which the reports conformed to crime reporting requirements

prescribed in the act. We did not trace the numbers to source documents

to check their accuracy or completeness. We also searched the literature

and reported case law to determine whether any studies had been done on

the effects of or legal challenges to state open log laws. We analyzed state

statutes and spoke with representatives of campus safety and other

interest groups as well as faculty specializing in criminal justice.

We performed our work between June 1996 and January 1997 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix II 

Provisions of State Open Campus Crime

Record Laws

State Date Institutions covered

Officials

involved/required

actions/penalties

Information to be

covered

Identification to be

provided/

individuals exempted

California

Calif. Ed. Code secs.

67380 and 94380

1992 Community colleges,

the U. of Calif., Calif.

State U., the Hastings

School of Law, and all

colleges receiving

public funds for

student financial aid

Excludes public and

private colleges with

<1,000 full-time

students and

community colleges

unless legislature

provides the funding

to implement

Police or campus

security or safety

authorities: compile

records and make

information available,

within 2 business days

after the request, to the

college’s students,

employees, applicants

for admission, or the

media

For private colleges

other than those listed,

appropriate officials shall

make information

available on request of

students, employees, or

applicants for admission

Penalty: civil damages

not to exceed $1,000 if

information is not made

available

Financial aid

colleges: occurrences

reported to campus

police, security, or

safety authorities;

arrests for campus

crimes involving

violence, hate

violence, theft,

property destruction,

illegal drugs, or

alcohol intoxication;

and acts of hate

violence for which a

written record is

prepared even if not

criminal

Other private

colleges: same,

except no mention of

hate violence

Financial aid

colleges: identity and

description of

persons arrested and

of victims, except

name and address of

victims of sex-related

crimes unless with

consent and not if it

would endanger the

person or the

successful

completion of the

investigation or a

related investigation

Other private

colleges: records of

all reported

occurrences and

arrests for crimes

involving violence,

theft, destruction of

property, illegal

drugs, or alcohol

intoxication that

happen on campus

Massachusetts

Mass. Gen. Laws

Ann. sec. 41:98F

1991 Each college or

university with

enforcement officers

deputized by the state

Campus enforcement

officers deputized by the

state: make log available

to the public without

charge during business

hours and at other

reasonable times

Easily understood

chronological, daily

log, including

responses to valid

complaints; reported

crimes; and names,

addresses, and

charges filed against

arrested persons

Names and

addresses of arrested

persons and charges

against them 

Exempts from

disclosure incidents

involving certain

types of handicapped

persons, which are to

be separately

maintained

(continued)

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix II 

Provisions of State Open Campus Crime

Record Laws

State Date Institutions covered

Officials

involved/required

actions/penalties

Information to be

covered

Identification to be

provided/

individuals exempted

Minnesota

Minn. Stat. Ann. secs.

13.32, 13.82, and

13.861

1993 Public educational

agencies and

institutions

Providers of security

services at public

campuses and U. of

Minn. police: make

available as public

records law enforcement

records that are kept

separate from education

records and maintained

solely for law

enforcement purposes,

including response or

incident data and arrest

information

Date; time; place;

events in brief,

including resistance

encountered and

weapons involvement;

names and

addresses of

witnesses, victims,

and casualties,

except for protected

categories; and

names and locations

of any health facilities

to which injured

parties were taken

Name, age, sex, and

address of adults

arrested and names

and addresses of

victims, witnesses,

and casualties unless

—incident involved

sexual misconduct,

—need to protect

informant or

undercover agent, or

—need to protect

victim or witness

when victim or

witness requests

privacy and

convinces police

disclosure poses a

threat

Oklahoma

Okla. Stat. 1051 secs.

24A.2, 24A.3, 24A.8,

and 24A.17;

Okla. Stat. 74 sec.

360.17

1991 (under

the state

Open

Record Law,

rather than

an open log

law)

Public and private

campuses (under the

state’s Campus

Security Act, private

colleges’ police

departments are

public agencies for

the limited purpose of

crime enforcement)

Commissioned campus

police officers: specified

law enforcement records

must be open to any

person for inspection

and copying during

regular business hours 

Public body or public

official shall not be civilly

liable for damages for

providing the required

access to public records 

Penalty: violation

punishable by fine not

over $500, imprisonment

not over 1 year, or both,

and reasonable attorney

fees 

Records must be open, if

kept; the intent is not to

impose a new

recordkeeping

requirement

Chronological list of

incidents including

offense, date, time,

general location,

officer, brief summary

of what happened,

and circumstances of

the arrest;

arrestee description,

including

demographics, and

conviction information

Persons arrested or

convicted

Identification of other

than the person

arrested is required

only as required by

another law, if the

court finds it in the

public interest, or if

another individual’s

interest outweighs the

reason for denying

access

Records of the Office

of Juvenile Systems

Oversight are exempt

unless disclosure is

court ordered

(continued)

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix II 

Provisions of State Open Campus Crime

Record Laws

State Date Institutions covered

Officials

involved/required

actions/penalties

Information to be

covered

Identification to be

provided/

individuals exempted

Pennsylvania

Penn. Consolidated

Stat. Ann. 2502-3 and

2502-5

1994,

effective

1/11/95

All higher education

institutions

Campus police or

security officers:

chronological logs to be

public record, available

for inspection without

charge to the public

during business hours

and at other reasonable

times; may charge a

reasonable fee for

copies 

Local and state police

must provide arrest

information for the

college to include in the

log

Penalty: attorney general

may bring action to

compel compliance for

willful violation or failure

to comply promptly with

a court order to comply;

civil penalty of not over

$10,000

Chronological, daily

log of valid

complaints, reported

crimes and

responses, charges

filed, and disposition

of charges, if

reasonably available

Names and

addresses of arrested

persons and charges

against them

Identification

specifically not

required: any names

or addresses other

than those of persons

arrested

Juveniles must be

identified only if

adjudicated as adults

Tennessee

49 Tenn. Code Ann.

7-2206

Effective

1/1/94

All higher education

institutions with a

police or security

department

Each higher education

institution with a police or

security department

composed of state,

private, or contract

employees: keep and

maintain an easily

understood,

chronological daily log;

entries are public

records and are to be

available free during

business hours and at

other reasonable times

for inspection by the

public

Chronological daily

log of all reported

crimes against

persons or property,

date, time, general

location, charges

filed, and names of

arrested persons

Names and

addresses of persons

arrested

Information

specifically not

required unless

otherwise provided by

law: names of

persons reporting,

victims, witnesses, or

uncharged suspects

or other information

related to investigation

(continued)

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix II 

Provisions of State Open Campus Crime

Record Laws

State Date Institutions covered

Officials

involved/required

actions/penalties

Information to be

covered

Identification to be

provided/

individuals exempted

Virginia

Private colleges:

23-232.2 Code of Va;

public colleges:

under Va. Freedom of

Information Act [COV

2.1-342]

Private

colleges:

1994; public

colleges:

1992

Public and private

higher education

institutions

Campus police (who

must meet training and

other requirements for

state law enforcement

officers and, in the case

of public colleges, may

exercise police power

over any property owned

or controlled by the

institution and adjacent

rights of way): maintain

adequate arrest,

investigative, reportable

incident, and noncriminal

incident records; records

to be open, during

regular business hours,

to state citizens,

students of the college,

students’ parents, and

the media

Criminal incident

information containing

date, time, and

general location of

alleged crime;

charges filed against

arrested persons; and

injuries, damages, or

property loss suffered

Names and

addresses of persons

arrested for felonies

or misdemeanors

involving assault,

battery, or moral

turpitude

Identification not

specifically required

when disclosure is

prohibited by law or

when the information

is likely to jeopardize

an ongoing criminal

investigation or an

individual’s safety or

result in destruction of

evidence or flight of a

suspect

West Virginia

W. Va. Code 18B-4-5a

1992 All institutions of

higher education

Security officer or any

other officer of the

institution: provide

information to the public

within 10 days on any

properly reported,

credible, alleged crimes

(as defined in the federal

Crime Awareness and

Campus Security Act), or

crimes reported by the

local police as having

occurred on the

college’s property

Nature, date, time,

and general location

of the criminal offense

Identification required

is not specified.

Information may be

withheld upon

certification of need to

protect the

investigation, but in

no event after the

arrest.

Identification

specifically not

required: name of

victim

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Appendix IV 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Charles M. Novak, Evaluator-in-Charge, (206) 287-4794

Susie Anschell, Evaluator, (206) 287-4828

Acknowledgments The following staff made significant contributions to this report: Meeta

Sharma, Senior Evaluator; Stanley G. Stenersen, Senior Evaluator; and

Roger J. Thomas, Senior Attorney.

(104860) Page 24 GAO/HEHS-97-52 College Campus Security
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100