Clery Act—Some California Colleges and Universities Are Not Accurately Reporting Campus Crime Statistics and Safety Policies as Federal Law Requires

Clery Act

Some California Colleges and Universities Are Not

Accurately Reporting Campus Crime Statistics

and Safety Policies as Federal Law Requires

May 2021

REPORT 

For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact MargaritaFernández, Chief of Public Aﬀairs, at ..

This report is also available online at www.auditor.ca.gov | Alternative format reports available upon request | Permission is granted to reproduce reports

 Capitol Mall, Suite  | Sacramento | CA | 

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

.. | TTY ..

...

For complaints of state employee misconduct,

Don’t want to miss any of our reports? Subscribe to our email list at

auditor.ca.gov

Elaine M. Howle State Auditor

621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento, CA 95814 | 916.445.0255 | 916.327.0019 fax | www.auditor.ca.gov

May 27, 2021

2020‑032

e Governor of California

President pro Tempore of the Senate

Speaker of the Assembly

State Capitol

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

As required by section 67382 of the Education Code, my oﬃce conducted an audit of the

accuracy of crime statistics compiled and reported by a selection of postsecondary educational

institutions. In general, our audit found that the six institutions we reviewed did not fully

comply with the requirements of the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy

and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act).

Four institutions reported criminal oﬀenses in their 2020 annual security reports, but they did

not do so accurately. Further, we found omissions in two of these institutions’ crime logs—

public records that are intended to provide timely information about all criminal activity on

campus. Because of these errors and omissions, current and prospective students, staﬀ, and

other stakeholders may have an inaccurate understanding of campus safety. Finally, we found

that just one of the six institutions we reviewed had fully complied with the Clery Act and federal

regulations that require institutions to have in place speciﬁc security policies and disclose these

policies in their annual security reports.

If institutions do not disclose all required policies, students and other stakeholders may not

have the information necessary to make informed decisions about their personal security, or

they may not be aware of resources available to help ensure their safety.

Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA

California State Auditor

iv Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Selected Abbreviations Used in This Report

Alliant Alliant International University

Cañada Cañada College

DOE U.S. Department of Education

DOE handbook The Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting

San Joaquin San Joaquin Delta College

Santa Clara Santa Clara University

Sonoma Sonoma State University

Title IV Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965

Berkeley University of California, Berkeley

Irvine University of California, Irvine

VAWA Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

vCALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Contents

Summary 1

Introduction 3

The Four Institutions That Reported Speciﬁed Crimes Had Errors in

Their Reported Crime Statistics 9

Five of the Six Institutions Did Not Provide Complete Information

About Important Campus Safety Policies to Current and Prospective

Students and Employees 19

Other Areas We Reviewed 23

Appendix A

Crimes and Violations That Institutions Must Report Under Federal

Crime Disclosure Requirements 27

Appendix B

Crime Statistics in the 2020 Annual Security Reports of Six Institutions 29

Appendix C

Six Institutions’ Compliance with Federal Law and Regulations

Regarding the Disclosure of Security Policies 37

Appendix D

Scope and Methodology 43

Response to the Audit

Alliant International University 45

Cañada College 47

San Joaquin Delta College 49

Santa Clara University 51

California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From

Santa Clara University 53

Sonoma State University 55

California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From

Sonoma State University 57

University of California, Irvine 59

vi Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

1CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Summary

Crime on college campuses is a major concern for both students and their families.

To help inform them about campus safety, the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of

Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (CleryAct) requires all

eligible institutions that participate in federal student aid programs under TitleIV of the

Higher Education Act of  to prepare, publish, and distribute annual security reports

disclosing speciﬁed campus crime statistics and campus security policies. California state

law requires the California State Auditor to report the results of an audit of not fewer

than six of these institutions to the Legislature every three years. is audit focused on

a selection of six institutions—some public and some private—from across the State.

Fourof the institutions reported Clery reportable crimes, and we reviewed the accuracy

and completeness of their crime statistics. At all six institutions, we reviewed annual

security reports to assess whether they included all required policies.

The Four Institutions That Reported Speciﬁed Crimes Had Errors in

Their Reported Crime Statistics

All four institutions we reviewed that reported criminal oﬀenses—the

University of California, Irvine (Irvine), SanJoaquin Delta College

(SanJoaquin), SantaClara University (SantaClara), and Sonoma State

University (Sonoma)—reported statistics that were inaccurate or

incomplete to varying degrees. For example, Sonoma did not report a

sexual assault because it did not follow up with the police to determine

the speciﬁc location of the incident even though it was aware that the

incident had occurred on university property. In addition, although

all four institutions have written procedures for collecting and

reporting crime statistics, these procedures alone were not suﬃcient

to ensure compliance. Further, SantaClara and Sonoma did not

maintain accurate daily logs of all crimes reported to them, a critical

tool for informing the public about recent crimes at each institution.

e CleryAct requires institutions with campus police or security

departments to maintain and make available to the public these daily

crime logs.

Five of the Six Institutions Did Not Provide Complete Information

About Important Campus Safety Policies to Current and

Prospective Students and Employees

Five of the six institutions we reviewed—Alliant International

University (Alliant), Cañada College (Cañada), Irvine, SanJoaquin,

and Sonoma—failed to include certain policies in their annual

security reports as required by the CleryAct and federal regulations.

We identiﬁed  policies that federal law requires institutions to have

Page 9

Page 19

2 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

in place and, in most instances, that they must disclose in their annual

security reports. Our review found that either these ﬁve institutions

did not disclose certain policies or the policies they disclosed were

inadequate. e U.S. Department of Education provides detailed

information about required policy disclosures, and some of the

institutions also relied on other sources of guidance, such as

documents prepared by their systemwide oﬃces or external reviews.

However, the institutions failed to follow these sources of guidance,

leading to the problems we found.

Summary of Recommendations

Irvine, SanJoaquin, SantaClara, and Sonoma

Irvine, SanJoaquin, SantaClara, and Sonoma should strengthen

their written procedures that describe the processes they will follow

for identifying and reporting Clery reportable crimes and ensure

that their staﬀ follow them. Sonoma’s procedures should direct its

Clery coordinator to obtain additional information about potentially

reportable crimes when the initial information submitted by campus

security authorities is inconclusive.

SantaClara and Sonoma

SantaClara and Sonoma should take corrective action to ensure that

they include all crimes in their daily crime logs.

Alliant, Cañada, Irvine, SanJoaquin, and Sonoma

Alliant, Cañada, Irvine, SanJoaquin, and Sonoma should ensure that

their staﬀ identify and correct any missing or inadequate policies.

Agency Comments

Alliant, Cañada, Irvine, and San Joaquin all generally agreed with

our recommendations and indicated that they would implement

thoserecommendations. Sonoma indicated that it concurred with the

recommendations in our report and listed steps it believes will address

some of the issues we identiﬁed. SantaClara did not agree with our

conclusions that it did not follow Clery reporting requirements and did

not agree with our recommendations.

3CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Introduction

Background

Students and their families have a clear interest in the safety of college

campuses. e federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security

Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (CleryAct) requires all eligible

institutions participating in federal student aid programs under TitleIV

of the Higher Education Act of  (Title IV) to prepare, publish, and

distribute annual security reports. ese reports are to disclose speciﬁed

campus crime statistics and campus security policies. Congress enacted

these requirements in , due in part to the reported increase in crime

on college campuses. Among other incidents, the  rape and murder

of college student Jeanne Clery was a factor in prompting Congress

to pass the disclosure requirements. In a statement to Congress in

, Jeanne Clery’s parents testiﬁed that their daughter and her fellow

students did not know about the recent rate of violent crimes on

their campus. As part of a  amendment to the  law, Congress

renamed the law in memory of Jeanne Clery.

CleryAct Requirements

e CleryAct requires institutions to publish an annual security report

containing statistics related to speciﬁc crimes,

including criminal homicides, sex oﬀenses, robberies,

and aggravated assaults. ese oﬀenses, referred to

in this report as Clery reportable crimes, are listed

in detail in AppendixA. e crimes are grouped

into four categories: criminal oﬀenses, oﬀenses that

violate the Violence Against Women Reauthorization

Act of  (VAWA), hate crimes, and arrests and

referrals for disciplinary action, as the textbox shows.

Each institution must distribute its annual security

report by October  to all enrolled students and

current employees, a requirement that the institution

can fulﬁll by posting the report to its website and

notifying students and employees of its availability.

Each institution must also notify prospective

students and employees of the report’s availability

through either physical or electronic mail, provide

a description of its contents, and establish a means

of requesting a copy. Additionally, each institution

is required to submit its campus crime statistics

annuallytothe U.S.Department of Education (DOE).

VAWA, enacted in , introduced a series of changes to federal law, including provisions for

enhancing investigations and prosecutions of sex oﬀenses.

Categories of Clery Reportable Crimes

Criminal oﬀenses are incidents of murder, manslaughter,

rape, fondling, incest, statutory rape, robbery, aggravated

assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

VAWA oﬀenses are incidents of domestic violence, dating

violence, and stalking.

Hate crimes are any CleryAct criminal oﬀenses or any

incidents of larceny theft; simple assault; intimidation;

or destruction, damage, or vandalism of property that

are motivated by bias against individuals with certain

characteristics.

Arrests and referrals for disciplinary action are violations

that involve illegal drugs, liquor, and weapons laws that are

not necessarily prosecuted as crimes.

Source: DOE handbook.

4 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

e CleryAct requires institutions to report

statistics related to crimes that occurred within the

speciﬁc locations categorized in the textbox.

Figure illustrates some of these locations. e

institutions must annually report these statistics for

the most recent and two preceding calendar years

for which data are available.

Figure  displays the process for institutions to use

for compiling and reporting their crime statistics

related to all Clery reportable crimes that have

been reported to their campus security authorities.

Campus security authorities can include campus

police; individuals who are responsible for campus

security, such as monitors at entrances to the

institutions or at institution-sponsored events;

oﬃcials who have signiﬁcant responsibility for

student and campus activities; and individuals

Figure 1

Example of Campus and Public Property Locations for Which Institutions Must Report CleryAct Crime Statistics

College Building

College Housing

HIGH STREET

BROAD STREET

MAIN STREET

SECOND AVENUE

Reportable sidewalk

Reportable street

Reportable campus buildings

Reportable campus grounds

Note: Darkened areas are oﬀ-campus.

Source: Adapted from the DOE handbook.

Clery Reporting Locations

Institutions must report statistics related to crimes

thatoccur:

• On campus.

• In on‑campus student housing facilities.

• In or on noncampus buildings or property, such

as oﬀ‑campus housing, that an institution owns

orcontrols.

• On public property, such as a sidewalk, that is within

a campus or immediately adjacent to and accessible

from a campus.

Source: Federal law and the DOE handbook.

5CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

or organizations that campus security policies have identiﬁed as

responsible for receiving student and employee reports of criminal

oﬀenses, such as rapes or robberies. e CleryAct also requires

institutions to make a reasonable, good-faith eﬀort to obtain and

disclose reportable crime statistics from local law enforcement

agencies about crimes that occur at Clery reporting locations but that

have not been directly reported to campus security authorities.

Figure 2

Process for Postsecondary Educational Institutions to Compile and Report Crime Statistics Under the CleryAct

Requests crime

statistics

Institution Institution’s

Clery coordinator

Institution’s

security

authorities

and

local law

enforcement

agencies

Institution’s

Clery coordinator

Prepares crime statistics

for submission to the

DOE and inclusion in the

annual security report

Submits crime statistics

to the DOE

Provide crime

statistics information

Publishes crime

statistics in

the annual

security report

Source: Federal law and the DOE handbook.

* For purposes of this report, we deﬁne the individual or individuals appointed by an institution to compile and report crime statistics under the

CleryAct as the institution’s Clery coordinator.

Additionally, the CleryAct requires institutions to

include certain campus policies and procedures in

their security reports. e textbox gives examples of

the types of policies institutions must include, which

we refer to as security policies. Institutions must also

include their procedures for students and others to

report criminal actions or other emergencies that

occur on campus.

When Congress reauthorized VAWA in , it

amended the CleryAct to include additional crimes,

conduct, and policies that campuses must report.

Under the VAWA amendments to the CleryAct,

institutions’ annual security reports must include

policy statements regarding their programs to

promote awareness of and prevent domestic violence,

dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking as well

as the disciplinary procedures the institutions will

follow if they receive a report of such conduct, among

other topics. In addition, the VAWA amendments to

the CleryAct require institutions to report statistics

Examples of Security Policies Institutions Must

Report Under the CleryAct

• Policies related to the possession, use, and sale of

alcohol and illegal drugs.

• Policies related to alcohol and drug abuse education.

• Policies for victims or witnesses to report crimes on

a voluntary, conﬁdential basis for inclusion in the

annual disclosure of crime statistics.

• Policies related to preventing dating violence,

domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

• Policies that include certain speciﬁed information, such

as programs to inform students about campus security

procedures and practices and prevention ofcrimes.

Source: Federal law.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

for reported crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual

assault, and stalking. Further, they clarify requirements for institutional

disciplinary procedures and instruct campuses to provide speciﬁed

educational programs.

Government Oversight

Both the state and federal governments conduct oversight activities

that evaluate institutions’ compliance with the CleryAct. State law

requires the California State Auditor (State Auditor) to determine

institutions’ compliance with the requirements of the CleryAct

by evaluating the accuracy of the crime statistics they report and

the eﬀectiveness of the procedures they use to identify, gather, and

disseminate these data. State law also requires the State Auditor to

report to the Legislature the results of such an audit every three years

of not fewer than six institutions that receive federal student aid.

e State Auditor previously issued audit reports on this subject in

December , January , January, October, July,

and May . ese reports have generally found that the institutions

reviewed were not fully complying with CleryAct requirements.

For instance, the  report identiﬁed that four institutions did not

accurately report criminal oﬀenses in their annual security reports.

DOE has published guidance to assist institutions in meeting

CleryAct requirements. at guidance is contained in a document

published in  called e Handbook for Campus Safety and

Security Reporting (DOE handbook), which provides detailed

information for institutions. In October , DOE published a

new guidance document that contains signiﬁcantly less detailed

information than the DOE handbook. However, DOE still allows

institutions to rely on the  handbook.

DOE also conducts reviews to evaluate institutions’ compliance with

CleryAct requirements. ese reviews can be initiated in a variety

of ways, including through complaints it receives fromstudents,

employees, or the public. Based on the ﬁndings from its reviews,

DOE can issue ﬁnes of up to , for each violation. According

to its website, DOE published at least three CleryAct compliance

reviews over a two-year period in  and . For example,

in  DOE published its CleryAct review of the University of

California, Berkeley (Berkeley), which identiﬁed multiple violations.

Notably, DOE found that Berkeley failed to report hate crimes in

two annual security reports and failed to disclose security policies

in multiple annual security reports. In  Berkeley agreed to pay

.million in total ﬁnes as a result of the CleryAct violations that

DOE identiﬁed.

7CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

State Law Requirements

In addition to federal requirements, state law requires institutions in

California to adopt additional policies related to sexual assault, which

we refer to as the aﬃrmative consent law. According to a legislative

committee analysis, the aﬃrmative consent law was proposed because

sexual violence continues to be a signiﬁcant problem on college

campuses, raising serious questions about the ability of colleges and

universities to provide safe learning environments, particularly for

female students. Eﬀective in January, the aﬃrmative consent law

requires that the governing board of each community college district,

the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the

University of California, and the governing boards of independent

postsecondary institutions adopt policies that include an aﬃrmative

consent standard in determining whether consent to sexual activity

was given by both parties. e law deﬁnes aﬃrmative consent as

the aﬃrmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in

sexualactivity.

e aﬃrmative consent law further requires institutions to adopt

detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual

assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving

students. Institutions must adopt these policies in order to receive

state funds for student ﬁnancial assistance. Moreover, to receive

such state funds, institutions are also required, to the extent feasible,

to enter into agreements or partnerships with existing on-campus

and community-based organizations or otherwise make available to

students a variety of assistance services such as counseling, mental

health, and victim advocacy.

Institutions Reviewed as a Part of This Audit

is audit focused on six public and private institutions from across

the State: Alliant International University (Alliant), Cañada College

(Cañada), University of California, Irvine (Irvine), SanJoaquin Delta

College (SanJoaquin), SantaClara University (SantaClara), and

Sonoma State University (Sonoma). As Table shows, four of these

institutions reported crimes under the CleryAct for , the latest

year included in their  annual security reports.

e other two

institutions—Alliant and Cañada—did not report any crimes in their

annual security reports.

We describe the work we performed for this

audit in our scope and methodology in AppendixD.

Appendix B includes the number of Clery reportable crimes these institutions reported for  and .

An outside agency reported one crime to Alliant for its San Diego campus in . In its report,

the agency informed Alliant that it was an unfounded crime, which meant that a law enforcement

agency determined that it was a false or baseless report before the report was submitted to Alliant.

We conﬁrmed that Alliant identiﬁed this crime as unfounded in its annual security report.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Table 1

Four Institutions’ Enrollment and Their 2019 Reported CleryAct Crime Statistics

IRVINE

SAN

JOAQUIN

SANTA

CLARA

SONOMA

Enrollment 36,908 18,870 8,669 8,649

Criminal Oﬀenses

Aggravated assault 1 0 1 2

Arson 0 3 0 0

Burglary 15 1 3 27

Motor vehicle theft 4 1 2 0

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 0 0 0 0

Manslaughter by negligence 0 0 0 0

Robbery 0 1 1 0

Rape 16 0 8 16

Fondling 14 1 0 3

Incest 0 0 0 0

Statutory rape 1 0 0 1

Subtotals 51 7 15 50

VAWA Oﬀenses

Domestic violence 1 0 1 3

Dating violence 8 0 1 13

Stalking 27 0 2 0

Subtotals 36 0 4 16

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes 1 3 0 1

Subtotals 1 3 0 1

Arrests

Drug abuse arrests 6 0 6 1

Liquor law arrests 1 1 2 2

Weapons law arrests 1 1 1 1

Subtotals 8 2 9 4

Disciplinary Actions

Drug abuse 48 0 92 6

Liquor law 317 0 320 4

Weapons law 2 0 2 4

Subtotals 367 0 414 14

Grand Totals 467 14 442 86

Source: The 2019 crime statistics each institution reported in its 2020 annual security report.

9CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

The Four Institutions That Reported Speciﬁed Crimes

Had Errors in Their Reported Crime Statistics

Key Points

• None of the four institutions we reviewed that reported criminal oﬀenses—Irvine,

SanJoaquin, SantaClara, and Sonoma—fully complied with the crime reporting

requirements of the CleryAct and federal regulations. All four institutions reported

statistics that were inaccurate or incomplete to varying degrees. Although all four

institutions had written procedures for collecting and reporting crime statistics, these

procedures alone were not suﬃcient to ensure compliance.

• Even though the CleryAct requires institutions with campus police or security departments

to maintain and make available to the public daily logs of all crimes reported to them,

SantaClara and Sonoma did not include all relevant crime reports in their daily logs.

Errors in the Crime Reports of the Four Institutions May Lead to an Inaccurate Understanding of

Campus Safety

To determine whether the four institutions that reported criminal oﬀenses accurately reported

Clery reportable crimes, we reviewed a selection of either  or  of the crimes that each

institution reported for  and assessed whether they were accurately reported in terms of

the type of crime and the location in which the crime occurred.

Further, at each institution we

also reviewed a separate selection of  crimes to assess whether the institutions had properly

included them in or excluded them from their annual security reports. Generally, our review

revealed three diﬀerent types of errors, as Figure  illustrates.

Figure 3

Types of Reporting Errors We Found

A rape reported by a

student was not included

in the crime statistics.

An incident of domestic

violence was incorrectly

categorized as dating violence

in the crime statistics.

Two drug violations were

reported in the crime

statistics even though the

violations did not result in

either an arrest or

disciplinary action referral.

OVERREPORTING

REPORTING IN THE

WRONG CATEGORY

UNDERREPORTING

EXAMPLE EXAMPLEEXAMPLE

REPORT

Source: Federal law and review of institution crime reports.

We based the number of crimes we reviewed on the total number of reported crimes at each institution.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

All four institutions reported statistics that were inaccurate or

incomplete to varying degrees. As Figure  indicates, of these

institutions, Irvine had the highest rate of inaccurate crime statistics

and SantaClara had the lowest error rate. However, it is important

for each institution to correctly and completely report all its Clery

reportable crime statistics to give students, institution employees,

and the public an accurate picture of the crime situation on the

respective campuses.

Figure 4

Number and Types of Crimes With Reporting Errors Among the Crimes We

Reviewed for2019

San Joaquin







Santa Clara







Sonoma







Irvine



 



Underreporting: Clery Act crimes not reported in the annual security report

Reporting in wrong category: Clery Act crimes reported incorrectly

No reporting errors

Overreporting: Incidents erroneously reported as Clery Act crimes









 











Source: Analysis of the four institutions’ crime statistics and crime reports.

Note: We tested either 45 or 60 crimes at each institution based on the number of reported crimes.

The ﬁgure depicts the number of individual crimes we reviewed that had reporting errors. However,

the total number of errors we found were higher than shown in the ﬁgure because at each campus

we found at least one reported crime with more than one type of reporting error.

11CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

e most serious type of error we identiﬁed was underreporting

of crimes. When an institution fails to report crimes occurring

on or near its campus, interested parties—such as current

and prospective employees and students—may be unaware of

serious incidents that could aﬀect their health and safety. For

example, Sonoma did not report a sexual assault that occurred

in a campus dorm. In fall , an oﬃcer from Sonoma’s campus

police department responded to a report of a suspicious injury

to a student. In speaking with the oﬃcer, the student conﬁrmed

that they had been sexually assaulted in their dorm room, but

they chose not to provide the oﬃcer with additional details or the

identity of the suspect.

However, this incident met the requirement

for reporting because Sonoma knew the type of crime that was

reported

, the date it was reported, and that it was reported to have

occurred on property owned or controlled by the university.

Sonoma’s failure to report this crime was caused by its insuﬃcient

review of the crime report and associated documents. Sonoma’s

Clery coordinator indicated that she did not report this incident

because she was not provided with the location where it occurred.

Speciﬁcally, when explaining her assessment of whether to report

the incident for CleryAct purposes, she referenced the campus

security form submitted by the campus police department and

Sonoma’s daily crime log. Neither source mentions the dorm

room as the location of the assault, and both state that the location

of the incident was “unknown.” However, the campus security

form also indicates that the crime occurred on property owned,

controlled, or leased by the university. erefore, although the Clery

coordinator did not know the exact location of the crime, which

she would need in order to make a Clery report, she received a

report of a sexual assault occurring on university property—a Clery

reportinglocation.

e Clery coordinator explained that if information is missing, she

follows up with the police, but that in this case the information on

the campus security form seemed complete. However, the campus

security form clearly indicated that the crime occurred on Sonoma’s

campus property. If the Clery coordinator did not believe she had

enough information to report the crime based on the security form,

we expected her to have contacted the campus police department

for more information. If she had done so, she would have learned

that the incident occurred in a dorm room on the Sonoma campus

and she would have therefore determined that this crime should be

included in Sonoma’s  crime statistics.

When referring to crime victims in our report, we use the pronouns they/their/them to help

protect the identity of the victims.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

is incident is especially troubling because the determination that

this was not a Clery reportable crime meant that Sonoma did not

consider issuing a timely warning to its campus community. Federal

law requires institutions to establish a policy for issuing alerts to the

campus community about certain crimes in a manner that is timely

and that will help prevent similar crimes. Sonoma’s policy indicates

that the chief of its campus police, in consultation with the Clery

coordinator, is responsible for issuing timely warnings through

one or more of the following methods: electronic mail, Sonoma’s

website, public display video monitors, or hard-copy notices posted

on campus doors. Sonoma’s policy for issuing timely warnings also

states that Sonoma will determine whether an incident requires

a timely warning based on three factors: whether it is a Clery

reportable crime, whether it occurred in a Clery reporting location,

and whether it poses a serious or ongoing threat to the community.

However, Sonoma did not consider issuing a timely warning based

on its policy in this instance because its Clery coordinator did not

deem the sexual assault to be a Clery reportable crime.

We also found instances in which institutions reported crimes in the

wrong category, depriving interested parties of accurate information

about the nature of those crimes. For example, in January  an

individual reported to the Irvine campus police department that they

had been raped by their partner. In a follow-up call, the individual

stated to the campus police oﬃcer that they no longer wanted to

move forward with the case and conﬁrmed in writing that the

incident was a misunderstanding and the actions done to them by

their partner were not forced. However, Irvine reported this incident

as a rape and it also reported it as an unfounded crime, meaning that

law enforcement determined the report was false.

Institutions reported crimes in the wrong

category, depriving interested parties of

accurate information about the nature of

those crimes.

However, Irvine should not have reported the crime as unfounded.

For CleryAct reporting purposes, a crime is deemed unfounded

only if sworn or commissioned law enforcement personnel make a

formal determination that the report is false or baseless. e DOE

handbook states that the withdrawal of an original statement alone is

not suﬃcient evidence to prove the crime did not occur. Speciﬁcally,

law enforcement can conclude that a crime report is false only if

evidence from a complete and thorough investigation establishes that

13CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

the crime that was reported was not, in fact, completed or attempted

in any manner. Additionally, because the student reported that the

assailant was their partner, Irvine should have reported the crime

as dating violence because it meets the deﬁnition of that crime as

contained within the DOE handbook. When we followed up with

Irvine’s Clery coordinator, she agreed that the crime should not have

been reported as unfounded and should also have been reported as

dating violence. Because of the reporting errors with this incident,

Irvine’s  Clery crime statistics gave an inaccurate description of

the types of crimes that were occurring on its campus.

Finally, we found that institutions overreported some crimes,

potentially leading interested parties to conclude that campuses were

more dangerous than they actually were. For example, in April,

SantaClara campus safety oﬃcers responding to a report of drug

use found a BB gun in a dorm room and conﬁscated it. SantaClara

reported this incident as a disciplinary action referral for possession

of a weapon in violation of campus policies. However, our analysis of

state law determined that the possession of a BB gun on a university

campus does not violate state law and therefore should not have

been reported in the campus’s Clery crime statistics. To justify

reporting this incident, SantaClara’s Clery coordinator told us that

the DOE handbook indicates that weapons violations also apply to

weapons used in a deadly manner and cited state law that describes

the willful discharge of a BBgun in a grossly negligent manner,

which can result in serious injury or death, as a crime. However,

this incident did not involve the discharge of the BB gun. Further,

the DOE handbook speciﬁcally advises that institutions should not

report violations of their policies if there was no violation of the law.

erefore, SantaClara incorrectly ampliﬁed the seriousness of this

incident and provided an inaccurate portrayal of campus safety in

its  crime statistics by reporting the possession of a BBgun as a

weaponsviolation.

Institutions overreported some crimes,

potentially leading interested parties

to conclude that the campuses were

moredangerous.

In addition to the types of errors we describe above, we found that

Irvine and SantaClara did not include in their annual security

reports all of the Clery reportable crimes they identiﬁed. Irvine’s

Clery coordinator described to us the process she uses to track

all of her campus’s police and incident reports and to determine

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

which incidents are Clery reportable. However, when we compared

her records of reportable incidents with the crimes listed in Irvine’s

annual security report, we found that the annual security report

did not include one domestic violence incident and  disciplinary

referrals for liquor law violations. Similarly, at SantaClara, when we

compared the Clery coordinator’s records of reportable crimes with

those reported in SantaClara’s annual security report, we found that

SantaClara did not report  disciplinary referrals for liquor law

violations and  referrals for drug law violations. Both coordinators

acknowledged the mistakes and explained that human and software

errors were the cause.

Although the four institutions informed us that they take steps

to review the accuracy of their crime statistics and to adhere to

CleryAct guidance, they all had errors in their reported crime

statistics. When we asked these institutions about their processes

for ensuring that they are reporting accurate crime statistics,

they generally described a similar process: each institution’s Clery

coordinator collects reports from multiple sources and determines

whether reported crimes should be included in the Clery crime

statistics. All four of the institutions—Irvine, SanJoaquin,

SantaClara, and Sonoma—also had written procedures for collecting

and reporting crime statistics. However, errors can still occur

when these procedures do not include suﬃcient guidance for staﬀ

or processes to ensure that staﬀ adhere to that guidance. Until

institutions take stepsto strengthen their procedures and ensure that

staﬀ follow them, they—and the public—will not have assurance that

their staﬀ are collecting and reporting crime statistics accurately.

Failure to Maintain Complete, Up-to-Date Daily Crime Logs at Two

Institutions May Be Contributing to an Incorrect Understanding of

Campus Safety

e CleryAct requires institutions with campus police or security

departments to maintain daily logs of all crimes reported to them,

including both Clery reportable crimes and crimes that are not

reportable under the CleryAct, such as petty theft. According to the

DOE handbook, the purpose of an institution’s crime log is to provide

crime information on a more timely basis than the annual security

report. Institutions must enter all reported crimes in their crime logs

within two business days of the reports being made to campus police

or security departments, unless disclosure of such information is

prohibited by law or would jeopardize the conﬁdentiality of the victims.

According to federal law, the institutions must make these daily crime

logs available to the public for the most recent -day period.

15CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Despite the role these logs play in providing a transparent view

of campus safety, we found problems with the completeness of

the daily crime logs at two of the institutions we reviewed. All

fourinstitutions that reported Clery crimes in  maintained

daily crime logs. However, SantaClara’s log was missing ﬁve crimes

and Sonoma’s log was missing six crimes. As part of our review

of a selection of the Clery reportable crimes that each institution

included in its annual security report, we determined whether the

institution had also recorded those crimes in its daily crime log.

Figure  shows the number of crimes missing from each log.

Figure 5

Number of Crimes Missing From 2019 Crime Logs Among the Crimes

WeReviewed





















 

Source: 2019 crime reports and daily crime logs from SantaClara and Sonoma.

Note: The crimes we reviewed for inclusion in the crime log were the same crimes we reviewed to

determine whether they were accurately reported in the Clery crime statistics. This totaled 30crimes

at SantaClara and 15 crimes at Sonoma.

e most serious omissions from the crime logs were reported

instances of sexual assault. For example, a SantaClara student

reported a rape to staﬀ at the SantaClara TitleIX oﬃce. SantaClara

appropriately included this incident in its  Clery crime statistics

but did not include it in its daily crime log. e DOE handbook

allows institutions to temporarily withhold certain crimes from

their logs, but only if there is clear and convincing evidence

that the release of information would jeopardize an ongoing

investigation or the safety of an individual, cause a suspect to ﬂee

or evade detection, or result in the destruction of evidence. e

DOE handbook also states that institutions should document their

reasons for temporarily withholding incidents from the daily crime

log. When we asked SantaClara’s Clery coordinator to provide us

with this documentation, he did not provide it. Instead, he stated

that he believed including the crime in the daily crime log would

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

have caused the victim further anguish. However, he did not

explain how the desire to avoid doing so, however legitimate, was

consistent with the DOE guidance or actually prevented SantaClara

from including the crime in its log and thereby alerting students

and employees in a timely fashion.

In fact, SantaClara never included this incident in its crime log.

e DOE handbook directs institutions to disclose an incident in

the daily crime log once the adverse eﬀect is no longer present.

SantaClara stated that it took  days for its TitleIX oﬃce to reach

a ﬁnal determination on this incident, at which point the institution

would ostensibly have concluded its investigation. SantaClara

argued that as a result of the time it took to do so, any timeliness

from including the incident in the daily crime log would be lost.

Even if it was appropriate for SantaClara to temporarily withhold

the crime from its log, the DOE handbook does not allow for

institutions to reach their own conclusions about whether too

much time has passed for crime information to be useful. For these

reasons, SantaClara should have included the incident in its daily

crime log.

Similarly, in  an individual reported a rape along with fondling

and dating violence to Sonoma’s Oﬃce for the Prevention of

Harassment and Discrimination. However, we could only ﬁnd a

rape listed on Sonoma’s daily crime log around the time of this

report. When we asked Sonoma’s campus police department to

conﬁrm that this entry in the crime log was the same report we

reviewed, it responded that it believed the entry was the same case.

However, although the campus police department conﬁrmed that

the rape was reported in the log, it could not provide a reason as

to why the other crimes were not reported and acknowledged that

they probably should have been included. Sonoma’s police chief,

who joined the department in December , could not explain

the process his department used in  to maintain the crime log

to ensure that it included all reportable crimes, and he noted that

many employees who worked for the department at that time are

no longer there. He indicated that he intends to develop policies

and procedures for his department to maintain the crime log.

In addition, SantaClara did not include all the crime reports from

local law enforcement agencies in its crime log that the CleryAct

requires. Because some crimes that occur at a Clery reportable

location are investigated by a local law enforcement agency, such

as a police department, the academic institution may not be aware

of these crimes unless the agency reports them to the institution.

SantaClara indicated that it receives crime statistics from the

SantaClara Police Department monthly. However, we identiﬁed

threecrimes that local law enforcement agencies reported to

SantaClara that were not included in its daily crime log. ese

17CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

omissions occurred because SantaClara believed that they were

reported too late to be included in its crime log. SantaClara

stated that it believes that retroactively creating a report and then

updating the daily crime log would not capture the timely intent of

the daily crime log’s publication. erefore, SantaClara’s general

practice is to update its log to include crime information from law

enforcement agencies only when it receives information about

the crime within roughly twobusiness days of the date the crime

occurred. However, according to the DOE handbook, crimes that

are initially reported to a local law enforcement agency must be

included in the institution’s daily crime log after being reported to

the campus security oﬃce. Further, the DOE handbook states that

the date the institution records in its daily crime log for crime reports

received from local law enforcement agencies should be the date the

institution receives the crime reports. As such, SantaClara should

have included these crimes in its daily crime log each month after

receiving the information from its local law enforcement agency. If

SantaClara believes that receiving crime statistics from its local law

enforcement agency monthly is not timely enough, it should request

that these statistics arrive more frequently and include them in its

log as required. e incomplete crime logs raise concerns about the

thoroughness of the information that SantaClara makes available to

members of the public seeking information on reported crimes.

Finally, during our review of SantaClara we became aware that

the version of the crime log published on its website omitted

some crimes and displayed inaccurate information for others. In

January, we downloaded SantaClara’s  crime log from its

website. During our review, we identiﬁed  diﬀerences between

the daily crime log on its webpage and a  crime log its Clery

coordinator generated for us upon request. ese diﬀerences

resulted from crimes that SantaClara incorrectly excluded from the

website version of the log as well as items that SantaClara included

that were not actually crimes. SantaClara’s Clery coordinator

was not aware of this problem before we pointed it out, but he

later indicated that some of these diﬀerences were caused by the

institution’s reporting system either not identifying some crimes

correctly or failing to display crimes it did identify correctly in

the daily crime log report. e Clery coordinator explained that

if someone from the campus or a member of the public were to

request a copy of the daily crime log, he would generate a new

report from the reporting system instead of just directing them to

the SantaClara webpage. However, he acknowledged that there

has only been one such request in the last three years. Given that

it is so rare for the Clery coordinator to receive these requests, the

webpage may well be the public’s main source of daily crime log

information. Because the crime log on its website did not contain

all relevant crimes, SantaClara’s website implied that the campus is

safer than the actual log used to generate the website data indicates.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Recommendations

Irvine, SanJoaquin, SantaClara, and Sonoma

To ensure that they accurately report crime statistics in their annual

security reports, Irvine, SanJoaquin, SantaClara, and Sonoma

should, by November , strengthen their written procedures to

clearly describe the processes they will follow for identifying and

reporting Clery reportable crimes and ensure that their staﬀ follow

them. Sonoma’s procedures should direct its Clery coordinator

to obtain additional information about potentially reportable

crimes when the initial information submitted by campus security

authorities is inconclusive.

SantaClara

To ensure that its crime log is accurate, by July  SantaClara

should do the following:

• Require its Clery coordinator to include all crimes in its daily

crime log as it becomes aware of those crimes, such as when it

receives crime reports from local law enforcement agencies.

• Require its Clery coordinator to periodically review the version

of the crime log posted on its website to ensure that it aligns with

SantaClara’s oﬃcial crime log.

Sonoma

To ensure that its crime log includes all reported crimes, Sonoma

should, by July, develop and implement procedures for

maintaining its crime log.

19CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Five of the Six Institutions Did Not Provide Complete

Information About Important Campus Safety Policies to

Current and Prospective Students and Employees

Key Points

• Five of the six institutions we reviewed—Alliant, Cañada, Irvine, SanJoaquin, and

Sonoma—failed to include all policies that the CleryAct and federal regulations require

in their annual security reports. Speciﬁcally, either the institutions did not disclose certain

policies or their policy disclosures were inadequate.

• Federal guidance is available for the institutions to rely on to ensure that they include

all required security policies in their annual security reports. Additionally, some of the

institutions we reviewed also rely on other sources of guidance, such as documents

prepared by their systemwide oﬃces or external reviews. However, the errors we found

indicate that the institutions are not adequately following these sources of guidance.

Five Institutions Did Not Disclose Important Information About Their Policies Related to Sex Oﬀenses,

Disciplinary Actions, or Emergency Response Procedures

Five of the six institutions we reviewed did not

fully provide descriptions of the security policies

and processes that the CleryAct and federal

regulations require in their annual security reports.

We identiﬁed  policies that federal law and

regulations require institutions to have in place

and, in most instances, to disclose in their annual

security reports. ese policies and processes

fall into nine categories, as the textbox shows.

AppendixC lists all  disclosure requirements we

reviewed and it identiﬁes whether the institutions

fulﬁlled them. Overall, we found that ﬁve of the

six institutions had either missing or inadequate

policies. e total number of missing or inadequate

policies for each institution were as follows:

• Alliant had no missing policies and

ﬁveinadequate policies.

• Cañada had  missing policies and

ﬁveinadequate policies.

We reviewed the  annual security reports for Irvine and SantaClara, and the  annual security reports for Alliant, Cañada, SanJoaquin,

and Sonoma because these were the most recent reports available during the time of our review of security policies.

Categories of Policies and Processes Institutions

Must Develop or Disclose

• Annual reports and access to campus policies

• The daily crime log and crime reporting

• Campus law enforcement and crime prevention

• Illegal drugs and alcohol

• Campus sex oﬀense programs and procedures

• Sexual violence prevention and education programs

• Processes the institution will use to take disciplinary

action in cases of an alleged sex oﬀense

• Campus emergency response and evacuation

procedures

• Processes the institution will use when there is a

report of a missing student

Source: Federal law.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

• Irvine had no missing policies and four inadequate policies.

• SanJoaquin had two missing policies and  inadequate policies.

• Sonoma had four missing policies and ﬁve inadequate policies.

Our review determined that SantaClara had no missing or

inadequatepolicies.

In the remainder of this section, we focus on key policies regarding

campus sex oﬀense programs and procedures, disclosure of processes

for taking disciplinary action in cases of alleged sex oﬀenses, and

policies regarding campus emergency response and evacuation

procedures. ese are the three areas where we found the greatest

number of missing or inadequate policies. Each of the ﬁve institutions

with missing or inadequate policies failed to disclose information

related to one or more of these speciﬁc areas. Figure  summarizes each

institution’s compliance.

Federal law requires institutions to provide policies regarding their

campus sex oﬀense programs and procedures. For example, institutions

are required to disclose a statement of policy regarding their programs

to promote awareness of and to prevent domestic violence, dating

violence, sexual assault, and stalking. However, Alliant, Cañada,

SanJoaquin, and Sonoma each failed to include at least some of this

program information in their annual security reports. Without this

information, current and prospective students and employees may not

receive critical information about available programs that describe the

actions they can take to reduce their risk of sexual assault or to safely

intervene if they witness a potentialassault.

Additionally, we found that four institutions were missing or had at

least one inadequate disclosure concerning their processes for taking

disciplinary action in cases of an alleged sex oﬀense. Only SantaClara

and Sonoma had complete and adequate policies in this area. We

identiﬁed six elements that federal law requires institutions to disclose

regarding their processes for disciplinary action. For example, institutions

must describe how they determine which type of proceedings to use

and the standards of evidence for those proceedings. Alliant and Cañada

each failed to adequately disclose which type of disciplinary proceeding

they will use based on the circumstances of an allegation of dating

violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. For example,

Alliant’s annual security report indicates that it may either use a method

of informal resolution or conduct a formal investigation, but it lacks a

comprehensive description of the circumstances under which it will use

each process. In contrast, SantaClara’s security report lists four criteria

the institution uses to determine that informal resolution is appropriate.

Most signiﬁcantly, Cañada did not adequately disclose any of the

sixrequired policy elements.

21CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Figure 6

Number of Missing or Incomplete CleryAct Disclosures in Key Policy Areas by Institution

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Alliant

San Joaquin

Irvine

Sonoma

Sex Oﬀense Programs and Procedures

Sex Oﬀense Disciplinary Actions

Emergency Response and Evacuation Procedures

Sex Oﬀense Programs and Procedures

Sex Oﬀense Disciplinary Actions

Emergency Response and Evacuation Procedures

Sex Oﬀense Programs and Procedures

Sex Oﬀense Disciplinary Actions

Emergency Response and Evacuation Procedures

Sex Oﬀense Programs and Procedures

Sex Oﬀense Disciplinary Actions

Emergency Response and Evacuation Procedures

Policy Missing Policy Inadequate Fully Disclosed

61 2

Cañada

Sex Oﬀense Programs and Procedures

Sex Oﬀense Disciplinary Actions

Emergency Response and Evacuation Procedures

Source: Analysis of the most recent annual security reports for Alliant, Cañada, Irvine, SanJoaquin, and Sonoma.

Note: SantaClara did not have any missing or incomplete disclosures.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Finally, we found that three institutions—Cañada, SanJoaquin,

and Sonoma—had missing or inadequate polices regarding their

emergency response and evacuation procedures. e CleryAct

and federal regulations require institutions to disclose policies

for how they will notify students, employees, and the public that

an emergency exists and how they will respond to an emergency.

For example, Sonoma failed to include a statement regarding its

procedures to test its emergency response and evacuation system

annually, as federal law requires. In addition, SanJoaquin’s policy

in this area was inadequate. Federal law deﬁnes tests as regularly

scheduled drills, exercises, and appropriate follow-through

activities designed to assess and evaluate emergency plans and

capabilities. However, SanJoaquin’s policy indicates that instead

of conducting annual tests as deﬁned in law, it tests its emergency

notiﬁcation system throughout the year by sending warning

notiﬁcations to students and employees. Although SanJoaquin’s

policy is to send these warnings and emergency notiﬁcations

through identical distribution methods, such as email, text message,

and social media, the sending of a warning on its own is not the

same as a test because it lacks drills, exercises, and follow-through

activities to ensure that the system is functioning as intended.

Although federal guidance is available for the institutions to rely

on to ensure that they are including all required security policies,

ﬁve of the six institutions we reviewed still failed to adhere to the

requirements in law. Only Santa Clara adhered to all requirements.

As we discuss in the Introduction, the DOEhandbook provides

detailed information for institutions. Additionally, some of

the institutions also rely on other sources of guidance, such as

documents prepared by their systemwide oﬃces or external

reviews. However, the errors we found indicate that the ﬁve

institutions are not adequately following these various sources of

guidance. erefore, the institutions must take steps to ensure that

their Clery staﬀ follow the available guidance to ensure compliance.

Recommendation

To ensure that all security policies are included in their annual

security reports, Alliant, Cañada, Irvine, SanJoaquin, and Sonoma

should, by November , establish procedures requiring

their staﬀ to review all security policies for compliance with the

CleryAct requirements, identify missing or inadequate policies,

correct them, and ensure that they are disclosed to the public in

compliance with federal law.

23CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Other Areas We Reviewed

As part of the audit work required by section  of the

Education Code, we reviewed the subject areas in Table. In the

table, we indicate the results of our review and any associated

recommendations we made that we do not present in other sections

of this audit report.

Table 2

Other Areas We Reviewed as Part of This Audit

Compliance With State Law Related to the CleryAct

Within state law, we identiﬁed 41 state-mandated policies that community college

districts and the California State University Oﬃce of the Chancellor are required

to develop. Further, the University of California Oﬃce of the President and the

governing boards of private postsecondary institutions are also required to develop

some of these policies. Certain of these policies address issue areas similar to

those addressed by the federally required policies that we present in AppendixC;

however, state law requires these entities, rather than the institutions, to establish

the policies. The required policies include creating an aﬃrmative consent standard

as required by the aﬃrmative consent law, creating an interview protocol for

obtaining information from sex oﬀense victims when investigating alleged crimes,

and requiring campus law enforcement agencies to have written agreements with

local law enforcement agencies to clarify responsibilities for investigating certain

crimes. During our review, we interviewed staﬀ at each institution we selected to

determine if they had the applicable policies from their oversight entity.

One institution, Cañada, did not have in place the required policies regarding

their campus aﬃrmative consent standard and complaint evaluation policy

for cases involving an alleged sex oﬀense. For example, Cañada was missing

a required policy stating that the accused may not use an aﬃrmative consent

excuse under circumstances in which the accused reasonably should have known

that the complainant was unable to consent, such as unconsciousness. State law

requires institutions to adopt four policies in this area, including an aﬃrmative

consentstandard.

Additionally, three institutions—Alliant, Cañada, and SanJoaquin—did not

adopt all required policies regarding their campus’s victim-centered policies and

protocols in cases involving an alleged sex oﬀense. For example, Alliant’s relevant

policies and procedures did not discuss how the campus will identify and locate

witnesses as required. State law requires institutions to adopt policies that include

13 components in this area, such as a statement of how an institution will protect

individuals’ privacy and conﬁdentiality.

continued on next page . . .

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

In addition to the policy issues we identiﬁed, three institutions—Alliant, Cañada,

and SanJoaquin—lack suﬃcient written agreements with local law enforcement

agencies. State law requires institutions to enter into written agreements with these

agencies to designate operational responsibility when investigating certain crimes

such as robberies or hate crimes that occur at Clery reporting locations. Cañada

does not have agreements covering all of its campus property. Further, Alliant’s

campus in SanDiego does not have any written agreement with its local police

department. According to Alliant’s vice president of student aﬀairs, the former

director of security engaged in discussions for an agreement with the local police

department in 2016, but a written agreement was not ﬁnalized. She also stated

that Alliant will initiate the process and enter a written agreement with its local

police department. Although SanJoaquin asserted that it has a formal agreement

in place with its local law enforcement agency, it was only able to provide us with

an unsigned and undated template. Therefore, we could not determine if the

agreement had been approved or was in eﬀect.

Recommendations

To ensure that they are fully compliant with state law, Alliant, Cañada, and SanJoaquin

should, by November 2021, develop all required policies related to campus safety.

To ensure adequate public safety coverage for their campuses, Alliant, Cañada, and

SanJoaquin should ensure that they have the required written agreements in place with

local law enforcement for all applicable areas of their campuses.

Follow-Up With Institutions We Surveyed in Our 2015 and 2018 Audits

In our July 2015 report, California’s Postsecondary Educational Institutions:

More Guidance Is Needed to Increase Compliance With Federal Crime Reporting

Requirements, Report 2015-032, we conducted a survey in which most, but not all,

institutions surveyed indicated that they posted their annual security reports to

their websites. Further, some of those institutions did not indicate that they make

their students and employees aware of their annual security reports through email.

We recommended that the Legislature require the California Department of Justice

to provide guidance to California’s public and private institutions and systemwide

oﬃces regarding compliance with the requirements of the CleryAct and VAWA.

In our May 2018 report, CleryAct Requirements and Crime Reporting: Compliance

Continues to Challenge California’s Colleges and Universities, Report2017-032, we

followed up with these institutions and found that three still failed to meet these

requirements. One institution did not post its annual security report to its website.

The two other institutions did not notify their students and employees of their

annual security reports through email, and both of these institutions’ reports were

missing some or all required security policies.

For this report, we followed up with these three institutions by reviewing their

websites and other documentation to determine whether they were currently in

compliance with the CleryAct. We found that as of February 2021, two colleges,

PaloVerde College (Palo Verde) and Lassen Community College (Lassen), were still

failing to meet some CleryAct requirements.

Palo Verde did not post its 2020 annual security report to its website but instead

maintained its 2017 report online until we brought this issue to its attention in

February 2021. Further, although Palo Verde indicated that its 2020 annual security

report was completed in November 2020, the college conﬁrmed that it did not

notify students and staﬀ through email of the availability of the report. Lastly,

we found that Palo Verde’s 2020 report continues to lack some required security

policies, such as policies for emergency response and evacuation. When we brought

these issues to Palo Verde’s attention, it agreed to review and update its annual

reporting processes to ensure they meet the requirements in federal law.

25CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Lassen did not post an annual security report to its website but instead posted its

2019 Department of Education Campus Safety and Security Survey, which does not

contain all of the information required in the annual security report. Speciﬁcally, the

survey lacks a description of any of the required security policies. The manager of

custodial services and security at Lassen explained that she followed the process a

previous staﬀ member at the college used and that she was unaware of the campus

security policies that are required in the annual security report. Once we brought

this issue to its attention in February 2021, Lassen completed its 2020 annual

security report, posted it to its website, and notiﬁed students and staﬀ through

email of its availability within one week. However, its 2020 annual security report

continues to lack some of the required policy disclosures, such as several policies

for emergency response and evacuation. After we discussed our ﬁndings with

the institution, Lassen also agreed to take steps to ensure its reports meet federal

requirements in the future.

Review of Some Zero-Reporting Institutions’ Policies and Procedures

To determine whether institutions had adequate processes in place for collecting

and reporting crime statistics in accordance with CleryAct requirements, we

contacted a random selection of 20 institutions that reported zero Clery reportable

criminal oﬀenses to DOE for 2018. All 20 institutions conﬁrmed to us that they

reported zero crimes in 2018. We then requested that they send us all their policies

and procedures for collecting and reporting crime statistics in accordance with

CleryActrequirements.

Of the 20 institutions we reviewed, 10 provided us with a copy of their policies and

procedures for collecting and reporting crime statistics under the CleryAct. The

remaining 10 institutions did not provide written policies and procedures. Instead,

these 10 institutions generally pointed us to broad descriptions of the reporting

process, such as summarized statements in their annual security reports or other

guidance that they use, such as that from DOE. Although we did not perform

additional work with these campuses to verify the accuracy of the crime statistics

in their annual reports, without documented processes for staﬀ to follow to gather

and report crime statistics, campuses have less assurance that they are compiling

and reporting accurate and complete data.

During our work with two of the 20 institutions we discuss above, we identiﬁed

that they did not have complete annual security reports. These two institutions

published crime statistics but did not include policy declarations that are required

by law, such as policy statements describing the programs designed to inform

students and employees about the prevention of crimes and the procedures for

students and others to report criminal actions. One institution, whose most recent

three annual security reports were missing the policy declarations, explained that

it believed that its reports had met all of the requirements. It noted that annual

trainings about CleryAct requirements might be helpful for compliance. After we

notiﬁed both institutions about these issues, they indicated that they have begun to

update their annual security reports to address them.

26 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards and under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Government Code

sections et seq. ose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain suﬃcient,

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our ﬁndings and conclusions based on the audit

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our ﬁndings and

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA

California State Auditor

May , 

27CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Appendix A

CRIMES AND VIOLATIONS THAT INSTITUTIONS

MUST REPORT UNDER FEDERAL CRIME DISCLOSURE

REQUIREMENTS

e CleryAct and federal regulations require all institutions that

participate in federal student aid programs under TitleIV of the

Higher Education Act of  (TitleIV) to report statistics for the

categories of criminal oﬀenses and violations shown in TableA.

Table A

Crimes and Violations Reportable Under the CleryAct

CRIME/VIOLATION APPLICABLE DEFINITION

Criminal Oﬀenses

Aggravated assault An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inﬂicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This

type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily

harm. However, it is not necessary that injury result from an aggravated assault when a gun, knife, or other weapon

is used that could and probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed.

Arson Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public

building, motor vehicle or aircraft, or personal property of another.

Burglary The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft. For reporting purposes, this deﬁnition includes the

following: unlawful entry with intent to commit a larceny or felony, breaking and entering with intent to commit a

larceny, housebreaking, safecracking, and all attempts to commit any of the aforementioned.

Fondling The touching of the private body parts of another person for the purpose of sexual gratiﬁcation, without the consent

of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age or because

of his/her temporary or permanent mental incapacity.

Incest Sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is

prohibited by law.

Motor vehicle theft The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. This includes all cases in which automobiles are taken by persons not

having lawful access, even though the vehicles are later abandoned—including joyriding.

Murder and nonnegligent

manslaughter

The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

Manslaughter by negligence The killing of another person through gross negligence.

Rape The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a

sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Robbery The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force

or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.

Statutory rape Sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.

continued on next page . . .

28 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

CRIME/VIOLATION APPLICABLE DEFINITION

VAWA Oﬀenses

Dating violence Violence committed by a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the

victim; and where the existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of the following

factors: the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, or the frequency of interaction between the persons

involved in the relationship.

Domestic violence Includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of

the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has

cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim

under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an

individual who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of thejurisdiction.

Stalking Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a speciﬁc person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for her,

his, or others’ safety; or to suﬀer substantial emotional distress.

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes Crimes reported to local police agencies or to a campus security authority that are any of the crimes described above,

as well as larceny-theft, simple assault, and intimidation; destruction, damage, or vandalism of property; and any

other crimes involving bodily injury that manifest evidence that the victim was intentionally selected because of the

perpetrator’s actual or perceived bias against the victim’s race, gender, gender identity, religion, sexual orientation,

ethnicity, national origin, or disability.

Arrests and Disciplinary Actions

Drug abuse violation The violation of laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled substances and the

equipment or devices used in their preparation and/or use; the unlawful cultivation, manufacture, distribution,

sale, purchase, use, possession, transportation, or importation of any controlled drug or narcotic substance; arrests

for violations of state and local laws, speciﬁcally those related to the unlawful possession, sale, use, growing,

manufacturing, and making of narcotic drugs.

Liquor law violation The violation of state or local laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation,

possession, or use of alcoholic beverages, not including driving under the inﬂuence and drunkenness.

Weapon law violation The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation, possession,

concealment, or use of ﬁrearms, cutting instruments, explosives, incendiary devices, or other deadly weapons.

Unfounded Crimes

Unfounded crimes An institution may withhold, or subsequently remove, a reported crime from its crime statistics in the rare situation

where sworn or commissioned law enforcement personnel have fully investigated the reported crime and, based on

the results of this full investigation and evidence, have made a formal determination that the crime report is false

or baseless and therefore “unfounded.” Only sworn or commissioned law enforcement personnel may “unfound” a

crime report for purposes of reporting under this section.

Source: Federal law.

29CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Appendix B

CRIME STATISTICS IN THE 2020 ANNUAL SECURITY

REPORTS OF SIX INSTITUTIONS

e CleryAct and federal regulations require all institutions that

participate in federal student aid programs under TitleIV to report

statistics for the categories of criminal oﬀenses and violations

described in AppendixA. Tables B. through B. summarize the

criminal oﬀenses, VAWA oﬀenses, hate crimes, arrests, disciplinary

actions, and unfounded crimes that the six institutions we reviewed

reported for , , and .

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Table B.1

Alliant International University’s Crime Statistics Under the CleryAct

ENROLLMENT NUMBER REPORTED

ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY,

SANDIEGOCA

2017 2018 2019

Enrollment 3,780 3,780 3,536

Criminal Oﬀenses

Aggravated assault 1 0 0

Arson 0 0 0

Burglary 1 0 0

Motor vehicle theft 0 0 0

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 0 0 0

Manslaughter by negligence 0 0 0

Robbery 0 0 0

Rape* 0 0 0

Fondling* 0 0 0

Incest* 0 0 0

Statutory rape* 0 0 0

Subtotals 2 0 0

VAWA Oﬀenses

Domestic violence 0 0 0

Dating violence 0 0 0

Stalking 0 0 0

Subtotals 0 0 0

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes 0 0 0

Arrests

Drug abuse arrests 0 0 0

Liquor law arrests 0 0 0

Weapons law arrests 0 0 0

Subtotals 0 0 0

Disciplinary Actions

Drug abuse disciplinary actions 0 0 0

Liquor law disciplinary actions 0 0 0

Weapons law disciplinary actions 0 0 0

Subtotals 0 0 0

Unfounded Crimes

Unfounded crimes 0 0 1

Totals 2 0 1

Source: Crime statistics in Alliant International University’s 2020 annual security report and fall 2017

through 2019 student enrollment information.

* Institutions are required to disclose statistics on four types of sex oﬀenses in their annual security

report: rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape.

31CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Table B.2

Cañada College ‘s Crime Statistics Under the CleryAct

ENROLLMENT NUMBER REPORTED

CAÑADA COLLEGE 2017 2018 2019

Enrollment 5,825 5,607 5,390

Criminal Oﬀenses

Aggravated assault 0 0 0

Arson 0 0 0

Burglary 0 0 0

Motor vehicle theft 0 0 0

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 0 0 0

Manslaughter by negligence 0 0 0

Robbery 0 0 0

Rape* 0 0 0

Fondling* 0 0 0

Incest* 0 0 0

Statutory rape* 0 0 0

Subtotals 0 0 0

VAWA Oﬀenses

Domestic violence 0 0 0

Dating violence 0 0 0

Stalking 0 0 0

Subtotals 0 0 0

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes 0 0 0

Arrests

Drug abuse arrests 0 0 0

Liquor law arrests 0 0 0

Weapons law arrests 0 0 0

Subtotals 0 0 0

Disciplinary Actions

Drug abuse disciplinary actions 0 0 0

Liquor law disciplinary actions 0 0 0

Weapons law disciplinary actions 0 0 0

Subtotals 0 0 0

Unfounded Crimes

Unfounded crimes 0 0 0

Totals 0 0 0

Source: Crime statistics in Cañada College’s 2020 annual security report and fall 2017 through 2019

student enrollment information.

* Institutions are required to disclose statistics on four types of sex oﬀenses in their annual security

report: rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Table B.3

University of California, Irvine’s Crime Statistics Under the CleryAct

ENROLLMENT NUMBER REPORTED

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 2017 2018 2019

Enrollment 35,242 36,032 36,908

Criminal Oﬀenses

Aggravated assault 0 0 1

Arson 0 0 0

Burglary 25 46 15

Motor vehicle theft 5 7 4

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 0 0 0

Manslaughter by negligence 0 0 0

Robbery 0 0 0

Rape* 14 18 16

Fondling* 2 14 14

Incest* 0 0 0

Statutory rape* 0 1 1

Subtotals 46 86 51

VAWA Oﬀenses

Domestic violence 7 4 1

Dating violence 9 9 8

Stalking 14 18 27

Subtotals 30 31 36

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes 0 3 1

Arrests

Drug abuse arrests 17 25 6

Liquor law arrests 6 1 1

Weapons law arrests 2 8 1

Subtotals 25 34 8

Disciplinary Actions

Drug abuse disciplinary actions 21 55 48

Liquor law disciplinary actions 278 264 317

Weapons law disciplinary actions 2 2 2

Subtotals 301 321 367

Unfounded Crimes

Unfounded crimes 0 3 4

Totals 402 478 467

Source: Crime statistics in University of California, Irvine’s 2020 annual security report and fall 2017

through 2019 student enrollment information.

* Institutions are required to disclose statistics on four types of sex oﬀenses in their annual security

report: rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape.

33CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Table B.4

SanJoaquin Delta College’s Crime Statistics Under the CleryAct

ENROLLMENT NUMBER REPORTED

SANJOAQUIN DELTA COLLEGE 2017 2018 2019

Enrollment 17,282 17,420 18,870

Criminal Oﬀenses

Aggravated assault 3 3 0

Arson 1 0 3

Burglary 3 0 1

Motor vehicle theft 3 1 1

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 0 0 0

Manslaughter by negligence 0 0 0

Robbery* 1 2 0

Rape

†

0 1 0

Fondling

†

2 2 1

Incest* 0 0 0

Statutory rape

†

0 0 0

Subtotals 13 9 6

VAWA Oﬀenses

Domestic violence 3 2 1

Dating violence 0 0 0

Stalking 1 1 0

Subtotals 4 3 1

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes 0 2 3

Arrests

Drug abuse arrests 4 2 0

Liquor law arrests 3 1 1

Weapons law arrests 3 4 1

Subtotals 10 7 2

Disciplinary Actions

Drug abuse disciplinary actions 4 0 0

Liquor law disciplinary actions 3 0 0

Weapons law disciplinary actions 2 0 0

Subtotals 9 0 0

Unfounded Crimes

Unfounded crimes 0 0 1

Totals 36 21 13

Source: Crime statistics in SanJoaquin Delta College’s 2020 annual security report and Community

Colleges Chancellor’s Oﬃce 2017 through 2019 fall student counts.

* The institution reported one robbery in 2019 but also identiﬁed that it was unfounded and

reported it as an unfounded crime as well. We report this crime only in the unfounded category.

†

Institutions are required to disclose statistics on four types of sex oﬀenses in their annual security

reports: rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape.

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Table B.5

SantaClara University’s Crime Statistics Under the CleryAct

ENROLLMENT NUMBER REPORTED

SANTACLARA UNIVERSITY 2017 2018 2019

Enrollment 8,629 8,642 8,669

Criminal Oﬀenses

Aggravated assault 0 1 1

Arson 0 2 0

Burglary 4 2 3

Motor vehicle theft 1 2 2

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 0 0 0

Manslaughter by negligence 0 0 0

Robbery 0 1 1

Rape* 2 3 8

Fondling* 1 1 0

Incest* 0 0 0

Statutory rape* 0 0 0

Subtotals 8 12 15

VAWA Oﬀenses

Domestic violence 0 1 1

Dating violence 2 3 1

Stalking 2 4 2

Subtotals 4 8 4

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes 0 0 0

Arrests

Drug abuse arrests 1 3 6

Liquor law arrests 1 0 2

Weapons law arrests 0 2 1

Subtotals 2 5 9

Disciplinary Actions

Drug abuse disciplinary actions 78 105 92

Liquor law disciplinary actions 361 387 320

Weapons law disciplinary actions 3 2 2

Subtotals 442 494 414

Unfounded Crimes

Unfounded crimes 0 0 0

Totals 456 519 442

Source: Crime statistics in SantaClara University’s 2020 annual security report and fall 2017 through

2019 student enrollment information.

* Institutions are required to disclose statistics on four types of sex oﬀenses in their annual security

report: rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape.

35CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Table B.6

Sonoma State’s Crime Statistics Under the CleryAct

ENROLLMENT NUMBER REPORTED

SONOMA STATE 2017 2018 2019

Enrollment 9,223 9,201 8,649

Criminal Oﬀenses

Aggravated assault 1 2 2

Arson 0 0 0

Burglary 14 9 27

Motor vehicle theft 18 0 0

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 0 1 0

Manslaughter by negligence 0 0 0

Robbery 0 0 0

Rape* 10 13 16

Fondling* 0 4 3

Incest* 0 0 0

Statutory rape* 2 0 1

Subtotals 45 29 50

VAWA Oﬀenses

Domestic violence 2 6 3

Dating violence 1 2 13

Stalking 1 5 0

Subtotals 4 13 16

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes 1 2 1

Arrests

Drug abuse arrests 4 6 1

Liquor law arrests 7 9 2

Weapons law arrests 0 3 1

Subtotals 11 18 4

Disciplinary Actions

Drug abuse disciplinary actions 5 6 6

Liquor law disciplinary actions 12 17 4

Weapons law disciplinary actions 3 1 4

Subtotals 20 24 14

Unfounded Crimes

Unfounded crimes 1 0 1

Totals 82 86 86

Source: Crime statistics in Sonoma State’s 2020 annual security report and fall 2017 through 2019

student enrollment information.

* Institutions are required to disclose statistics on four types of sex oﬀenses in their annual security

report: rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape.

36 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

37CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Appendix C

SIX INSTITUTIONS’ COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW

AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE OF

SECURITY POLICIES

e CleryAct and federal regulations require all institutions that

participate in federal student aid programs under TitleIV to prepare

annual security reports that disclose certain campus security policies.

ese policies include procedures for students and others to report

criminal actions. VAWA amended the CleryAct to require institutions

to include in their annual security reports certain policies, procedures,

and programs pertaining to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual

assault, and stalking as well as the procedures the institutions will follow

if such conduct occurs. We identiﬁed policies that federal law and

regulations require institutions to have in place and, in most instances,

to disclose in their annual security reports. TableC indicates whether

the six institutions we reviewed adequately disclosed each of the

required policies in their most recent annual security reports.

As shown in the summary below Table C, we found the largest number of

violations in the following three categories: campus sex oﬀense programs

and procedures, processes the institution will use to take disciplinary

action in cases of an alleged sex oﬀense, and campus emergency response

and evacuation procedures. We discuss the institutions’ violations in

these three areas starting on page of ourreport.

Table C

Six Postsecondary Educational Institutions’ Compliance With Federal Law and

Regulations Regarding Disclosure of Security Policies

SUMMARY

NUMBER OF

REQUIREMENTS

TOTAL

VIOLATIONS

NUMBER OF THE

SIX INSTITUTIONS

COMMITTING

VIOLATIONS

NUMBER OF

DIFFERENT

REQUIREMENTS

VIOLATED

Requirements concerning annual reports and access to campus 9 5 3 3

Policies concerning the daily crime log and crimereporting 7 0 0 0

Policies concerning campus law enforcement and crime prevention 4 4 2 2

Policies concerning illegal drugs and alcohol 3 2 2 1

Policies concerning campus sex oﬀense programs andprocedures 9 14 4 8

Sexual violence prevention and education 1 4 4 1

Processes the institution will use to take disciplinary action in cases

ofan alleged sex oﬀense

6 9 4 6

Policies concerning campus emergency response and

evacuationprocedures

11 9 3 5

Processes the institution will use when there is a report of a

missingstudent

9 2 2 1

Totals 59 49 * 27

* Five of the six institutions had violations.

continued on next page . . .

38 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

DESCRIPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ALLIANT CAÑADA IRVINE

SAN

JOAQUIN

SANTA

CLARA

SONOMA

Requirements Concerning Annual Reports and Access to Campus

1 Submitted Clery crime statistics to the DOE annually.

2 Prepared, published, and distributed an annual security report.

3 Disclosed within its annual security report its most recent

threeyears of Clery crime statistics.

4 Established policies for preparing the annual disclosure of its

crimestatistics.

5 Collected and included in its annual security report hate crime and

VAWA crime statistics.

6 Separated its crime statistics into the following categories: campus,

noncampus, public property, and campus-residential.

7 Included within its annual security report a list of the titles of each

person or organization to whom students and employees should

report criminal oﬀenses.

8 Included within its annual security report a statement of its current

policies concerning the security of, maintenance of, and access to

campus facilities.

9 Included a description of procedures that encourage pastoral

counselors and professional counselors to, if appropriate, inform

the persons they are counseling of any procedures to report crimes

for inclusion in its annual security report.

Policies Concerning the Daily Crime Log and Crime Reporting

10 Maintained a daily log recording all crimes reported to its police or

security department.

11 Included within its annual security report a statement of policy

concerning the monitoring and recording of criminal activity at

oﬀ-campus student organizations that the institution recognizes

and that are engaged in by students attending the institution.

12 Made its crime log for the most recent 60-day period open to

public inspection during normal business hours and any portion of

the log older than 60 days available within two business days of a

request for public inspection.

13 Updated its crime log and made it available for inspection no later

than two business days after it received new information.

14 Included within its annual security report a statement of current

campus policies regarding procedures for individuals to report

criminal actions or other emergencies, as well as a statement

concerning the institution’s response to such reports.

15 Included within its annual security report policies for making

timely warning reports to members of the campus community.

16 Included within its annual security report policies or procedures for

victims or witnesses to report crimes on a voluntary, conﬁdential

basis for inclusion in the annual disclosure of crime statistics.

Policies Concerning Campus Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention

17 Included within its annual security report a statement of its current

policies concerning campus law enforcement, including the law

enforcement authority of campus security personnel, including

whether they have the authority to make arrests, and the working

relationship of campus security personnel with state and local

law enforcement agencies, including whether the institution has

agreements, such as written memoranda of understanding, with

such agencies for the investigation of alleged criminaloﬀenses.

39CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

DESCRIPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ALLIANT CAÑADA IRVINE

SAN

JOAQUIN

SANTA

CLARA

SONOMA

18 Included within its annual security report policies that encourage

accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police

and the appropriate law enforcement agencies, when the victim of

such crime elects to or is unable to make such a report.

19 Included within its annual security report a description of the

type and frequency of programs designed to inform students and

employees about campus security procedures andpractices and to

encourage students and employees to be responsible for their own

security and the security of others.

20 Included within its annual security report a description of

programs designed to inform students and employees about the

prevention of crime.

Policies Concerning Illegal Drugs and Alcohol

21 Included within its annual security report a statement of policy

regarding the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages and

enforcement of state underage drinking laws.

22 Included within its annual security report a statement of policy

regarding the possession, use, and sale of illegal drugs and

enforcement of federal and state druglaws.

23 Included within its annual security report a description of

programs for drug or alcohol abuseeducation.

Policies Concerning Campus Sex Oﬀense Programs and Procedures

24 Included in its annual security report a description of its educational

programs that promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape,

domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking

primary prevention and awareness programs for all incoming

students and new employees, which shall include the following:

a. A statement that the institution prohibits the oﬀenses of

domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

b. The deﬁnition of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual

assault, and stalking in the applicable jurisdiction.

c. The deﬁnition of consent, in reference to sexual activity, in the

applicable jurisdiction.

d. Safe and positive options for bystander intervention that may

be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene

when there is a risk of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual

assault, or stalking against a person other than such individual.

e. Information on risk reduction to recognize warning signs of

abusive behavior and how to avoid potential attacks as well as

risk reduction and bystander intervention.

25 Included within its annual security report a statement of its

programs to prevent domestic violence, dating violence, sexual

assault, and stalking, and the procedures it will follow once an

incident has been reported.

26 Included within its annual security report information about

the importance of preserving evidence and options regarding

notifying law enforcement and campus authorities.

27 Included within its annual security report a statement of policy that

it will provide a written explanation of his or her rights, options,

and services when a student or employee reports that he or she has

been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,

or stalking, whether the oﬀense occurred on or oﬀ campus.

continued on next page . . .

40 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

DESCRIPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ALLIANT CAÑADA IRVINE

SAN

JOAQUIN

SANTA

CLARA

SONOMA

28 Included within its annual security report a statement of policy

that it will provide written notiﬁcation to students and employees

about existing counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy,

legal assistance, and other services available for victims both

within the institutions and in the community.

29 Included within its annual security report a statement of policy

that written notiﬁcation and assistance will be provided to victims

about options for reasonable accommodations regardless of

whether the victim chooses to report the crime to campus police

or law enforcement.

30 Included within its annual security report a statement of

policy that it generally must maintain as conﬁdential any

accommodations or protective measures provided to the victim.

31 Included within its annual security report a description of

procedures victims should follow if a sex oﬀense, domestic

violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking has

occurred; and the rights of victims, in addition to the institution’s

responsibilities, regarding orders of protection, no -contact orders,

restraining orders, and similar lawful orders.

32 Included in its annual security report a statement advising the

campus community where law enforcement agency information

provided by the State concerning registered sex oﬀenders may

beobtained.

Sexual Violence Prevention and Education

33 Included within its annual security report descriptions of its

education programs that promote the awareness of rape,

acquaintance rape, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual

assault, and stalking, including ongoing prevention and awareness

campaigns for students and faculty.

Processes the Institution Will Use to Take Disciplinary Action in Cases of an Alleged Sex Oﬀense

34 Included within its annual security report a statement that

describes each type of disciplinary proceeding used by the

institution, including steps, timelines, and determination process;

how to ﬁle a disciplinary complaint; and how the institution

determines which type of proceeding to use.

35 Included within its annual security report a statement that the

accuser and accused are entitled to the same opportunities to

have an advisor of their choice present during an institutional

disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be

accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by an advisor

of their choice.

36 Included within its annual security report a statement of policies that

includes that both the accuser and accused will be simultaneously

informed in writing of the results and appeal process of any

institutional disciplinary proceeding that arises from an allegation of

domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

37 Included within its annual security report a policy of possible

sanctions or protective measures that it may impose following

a ﬁnal determination of an institutional disciplinary procedure

regarding rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence, dating

violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

38 Included within its annual security report a statement of its

procedures for institutional disciplinary actions consisting of a

prompt, fair, and impartial investigation and resolution conducted

by trained oﬃcials who receive annual training related to domestic

violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

41CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

DESCRIPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ALLIANT CAÑADA IRVINE

SAN

JOAQUIN

SANTA

CLARA

SONOMA

39 Included within its annual security report a statement of policy

on how it will protect the conﬁdentiality of victims, including

publicly available recordkeeping without including personally

identifyinginformation.

Policies Concerning Campus Emergency Response and Evacuation Procedures

40 Included within its annual security report a statement of the

policies it will use to immediately notify the campus community

of a signiﬁcant emergency involving an immediate threat to the

students or employees on campus.

41 Included within its annual security report a description of its

process to conﬁrm that a signiﬁcant emergency or dangerous

situation involving an immediate threat to the students or

employees is occurring on the campus.

42 Included within its annual security report a description of its

process to determine the appropriate segment or segments of the

campus community to receive a notiﬁcation.

43 Included within its annual security report a description of its

process to determine the content of the emergency notiﬁcation.

44 Included within its annual security report a description of its

process to initiate the emergency notiﬁcation system.

45 Included within its annual security report a list of the titles of

the persons or organizations responsible for carrying out its

emergency notiﬁcation plan.

46 Included within its annual security report a statement that the

institution will initiate the emergency notiﬁcation system, unless

issuing a notiﬁcation will compromise eﬀorts to assist a victim or to

contain, respond to, or otherwise mitigate the emergency.

47 Included within its annual security report its procedures for

disseminating emergency information to the larger community.

48 Included within its annual security report a statement publicizing

its emergency response and evacuation procedures in conjunction

with at least one test per calendar year.

49 Included within its annual security report a statement advising

that required tests of response and evacuation procedures may be

announced or unannounced.

50 Included within its annual security report a statement

documenting, for each test, a description of the exercise, its date,

its time, and whether it was announced or unannounced.

Processes the Institution Will Use When There is a Report of a Missing Student

51 Included in its annual security report a statement indicating the list

of titles of the persons or organizations to which individuals should

report that a student who resides in on-campus student housing

has been missing for 24 hours.

52 Included within its annual security report a statement requiring

that any missing student report must be referred immediately to

its police or campus security department or, if there is no police

or campus security, to the local law enforcement agency that has

jurisdiction in the area.

53 Included within its annual security report a statement containing

an option for each student to identify a contact person or

persons whom the institution shall notify within 24 hours of the

determination that the student is missing.

continued on next page . . .

42 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

DESCRIPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ALLIANT CAÑADA IRVINE

SAN

JOAQUIN

SANTA

CLARA

SONOMA

54 Included within its annual security report a statement advising

students that their missing person emergency contact information

will be registered conﬁdentially, accessible only to authorized

individuals, and disclosed only as necessary.

55 Included within its annual security report a statement advising

students that if they are under 18 years of age and not

emancipated, the institution must notify a custodial parent or

guardian within 24 hours of the determination that the student

is missing, in addition to notifying any additional contact person

designated by the student.

56 Included within its annual security report a statement advising

students that it will notify the law enforcement agency within

24hours of the determination that the student is missing, unless

the local law enforcement agency was the entity that made the

determination that the student is missing.

57 Included within its annual security report the procedures it must

follow when a student who resides in an on-campus student

housing facility is determined to have been missing for 24hours.

58 Included within its annual security report the procedures it

will follow if the student is under 18years of age and is not

emancipated, to notify the student’s custodial parent or guardian

and any other designated contact person within 24hours that the

student ismissing.

59 Included within its annual security report a statement advising

that regardless of whether the student has identiﬁed a contact

person, is above the age of 18, or is an emancipated minor, it will

inform the local law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction in

the area within 24 hours that the student is missing.

Source: Federal law and information obtained from the institutions.

= Fully Disclosed

= Not Disclosed

= Partially or Inadequately Disclosed*

= Not Applicable. The institution is not required to disclose this security policy because it does not have student housing.

* A policy was partially or inadequately disclosed when a requirement included multiple components and the policy did not address all of them.

43CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Appendix D

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

Section  of the Education Code requires the State Auditor

to report the results of an audit of not fewer than sixinstitutions

that receive federal student aid to the Legislature every three years.

is law requires the State Auditor to determine the institutions’

compliance with the requirements of the CleryAct by evaluating

the accuracy of the crime statistics they report and the eﬀectiveness

of the procedures they use to identify, gather, and disseminate these

data. e State Auditor previously issued audit reports on this subject

in December , January, January, October,

July, and May.

When selecting the six institutions we reviewed, we deliberately

chose two—Alliant and Cañada—that had reported no Clery

reportable crimes in , the most recent year of reporting that

was available at the time of our selection. To gain some assurance

that these two institutions were familiar with federal requirements

for collecting and reporting crime statistics, we interviewed staﬀ

at these institutions to understand their processes for collecting

and reporting crime statistics and we reviewed relevant supporting

documentation. We also interviewed local police departments near

each institution to obtain their perspective about criminal activity

on and surrounding each campus.

To evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the crime statistics

from the other four institutions, we interviewed staﬀ and reviewed

relevant supporting documentation about their processes for

meeting CleryAct requirements. We selected a number of crimes

they included in their most recent reports, interviewed staﬀ about

their reporting decisions, and examined each crime’s incident

report from the institution’s campus security or police department.

We also reviewed the institutions’ crime logs, evaluated their

crime reporting processes, and interviewed representatives of

local police departments to gain an understanding of their working

relationships with the institutions.

To determine whether the six institutions adequately disclosed

security policies as required in federal and state law, we reviewed

their most recent annual security reports and interviewed staﬀ. We

also reviewed the institutions’ websites and other documentation

they provided to us.

As part of our  audit, we conducted a survey and received

responses from certain institutions that indicated they had not

fully complied with the CleryAct’s requirements. In our 

audit, we followed up with  institutions that had previously

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

indicated that they did not post their annual security reports on

their websites or that they had failed to notify their communities

of the availability of their annual security reports; we found that

three were still not compliant. For this audit, we followed up with

these threeinstitutions to determine whether they had posted their

annual security reports or notiﬁed their communities about the

availability of these reports.

Finally, to gain assurance that institutions were not reporting

zerocrimes because of a lack of policies and procedures

for collecting and reporting crimes statistics, we contacted

institutions that reported zero Clery reportable crimes in .

We conﬁrmed with staﬀ at each institution that they reported

zero crimes. We then requested they provide us with their policies

and procedures for collecting and reporting crime statistics for

CleryAct purposes to determine if they provided their staﬀ with

documented guidance.

Assessment of Data Reliability

In performing this audit, we relied on electronic ﬁles from campus

safety oﬃces at Irvine, SanJoaquin, SantaClara, and Sonoma that

the institutions use to track and report on campus crimes. e

U.S. Government Accountability Oﬃce, whose standards we are

statutorily required to follow, requires us to assess the suﬃciency

and appropriateness of the computer-processed information we use

to support our ﬁndings, conclusions, and recommendations. We

assessed the institutions’ data by comparing them to corroborating

documentation from actual incident reports created by the

campus and local law enforcement. We determined the data to be

suﬃciently reliable for the purpose of determining the accuracy of

each institution’s Clery reportable crime statistics.

45CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

May 12, 2021

Elaine M. Howle, CPA

State Auditor

621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ms. Elaine M. Howle,

Thank you for your letter dated May 6, 2021 and for the opportunity to review and respond

to the draft audit report, "Clery Act: Some California Colleges Are Not Accurately Reporting

Campus Crime Statistics and Safety Polices as Required Under Federal Law “.

Upon receiving the redacted audit draft report Alliant International University reviewed the

document and each recommendation noted in the audit report. This letter is our response.

The University did not find any factual errors in the draft report and has already initiated

review of the audit recommendations to begin implementing recommended changes. Below

you will find our responses to each recommendation.

Recommendation #1

To ensure that all security policies are included in their annual security reports Alliant

should, by November 2021, establish procedures requiring its staff to review all security

polices for compliance with the Clery Act requirements, identify missing or inadequate

polices, correct them, and ensure they are disclosed to the public in compliance with federal

law.

University Response

We concur. Written procedures will be created and implemented for on-going review of and

adherence to Clery Act guidance for the purpose of developing and disclosing all policies as

required. The University is correcting the 5 inadequate polices identified in the draft audit

report and will disclose them to the public in compliance with federal law.

Recommendation #2

To ensure that is fully compliant with state law, Alliant should, by November 2021 develop

all required polices related to campus safety. To ensure adequate public safety coverage for

its campuses, Alliant should ensure they have the required written agreements in place with

local law enforcement for all applicable areas of their campuses.

University Response

46 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

We concur. As noted in the draft audit report, Alliant is initiating the development of a

Memorandum of Understanding with the following local law enforcement agencies: San

Diego Police Department, Irvine Police Department, Alhambra Police Department, Fresno

Police Department, Emeryville Police Department, Sacramento Police Department.

If we have overlooked any findings, please advise.

We appreciate your team’s professionalism during the audit process, and we look forward

to implementing the report’s recommendations. Thank you again for the opportunity to

review and comment on this report. If you have any questions, please contact me at 858-

635-4033 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Andy Vaughn

President

Alliant International University

47CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

48 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

49CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

50 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

51CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Office of the General Counsel

500 El Camino Real

Santa Clara, CA 95053

Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor

State of California

621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

Santa Clara University (“SCU”) would like to thank the Auditor of the State of California for the

professionalism exhibited during the audit of SCU’s 2019 Clery Crime statistics and the Annual Security

and Fire Safety Report.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the confidential Clery Act Report 2020-032

(“Audit Report”) after receiving a heavily redacted version on May 6, 2021, with a redacted update of

certain pages received on May 11, 2021.

SCU takes its compliance requirements very seriously and our staff has worked hard to have all policies

and procedures properly in place to meet the standards as outlined by state and federal law in our effort to

cultivate a healthy and safe campus environment for staff, faculty, students, and visitors. We (take pride

in the fact that the State Auditor concluded) that SCU had no missing or inadequate policies in the Annual

Security and Fire Safety Report.

SCU’s Response to the State Auditor’s Recommendations

1. The State Auditor recommends that SCU “strengthen its written procedures to clearly describe

the processes it will follow for identifying and reporting Clery reportable crimes and ensure that

its staff follows them.” SCU seeks to clarify that the Clery reportable crimes were all properly

included in the daily crime log. The discrepancy lies between SCU’s records of reportable crimes

and the crimes included in the Annual Campus Security and Fire Safety Report. This discrepancy

resulted from a latent software issue. SCU has notified the State Auditor that SCU has identified

and corrected the software issue. In its Audit Report, the State Auditor did not identify any

deficiencies in SCU’s written procedures or processes or any instances in which SCU’s staff

failed to follow such written procedures or processes. SCU disagrees with the State Auditor’s

recommendation that SCU should strengthen its written procedures in light of this reporting error.

2. The State Auditor recommends that SCU “[r]equire the Clery Coordinator to include all crimes in

the daily crime log as it becomes aware of those crimes, such as when it receives those crime

* California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 53.

52 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

reports from local law enforcement agencies.” Without a clear understanding of the State

Auditor’s reference to “it”, SCU interprets this recommendation to mean that SCU should require

the Clery Coordinator to include all crimes in the daily crime log as SCU’s Campus Safety

Services department becomes aware of those crimes. SCU’s interpretation is based upon the

State Auditor’s explanation of the Clery requirements on page 20 of the Audit Report wherein the

State Auditor directs, “Institutions must enter all reported crimes in their crime logs within two

business days of the reports being made to the campus police or security departments” (emphasis

added). SCU disagrees with the State Auditor’s conclusion that SCU is not in compliance with

the requirement to include in SCU’s daily crime log reports of crimes received from local law

enforcement. SCU will continue to require the Clery Coordinator to include in its daily crime log

reports of crimes received from local law enforcement as required by 34 CFR 668.46(f). (Clery

Act Appendix for FSA Handbook, page 9.)

SCU’s Response to the General Findings

In Figure 5 of the Audit Report, the State Auditor concludes that, “[w]e identified several crimes that

Santa Clara’s [redacted] crime logs were missing, including a sexual assault at each campus.” SCU

believes the clause “including a sexual assault at each campus” is a drafting error on the part of the State

Auditor. SCU maintains two campuses, one in Santa Clara and the other in Berkeley. SCU has received

no reports of sexual assaults at the Berkeley campus and has received no information from the State

Auditor regarding a sexual assault at the Berkeley campus missing from the daily crime log. SCU

requests that this drafting error be corrected in the final Audit Report.

SCU appreciates the opportunity to respond to the State Auditor. SCU is committed to the health and

safety of the campus community and Clery Act compliance is a large part of aiding that commitment.

Sincerely,

Chief Operating Officer and Senior Legal Counsel

53CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Comments

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE

RESPONSE FROM THE SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the

response to our audit from Santa Clara. e numbers below

correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of

SantaClara’sresponse.

Santa Clara incorrectly states that it properly included all Clery

reportable crimes in its crime log. To the contrary, as we indicate on

page, Santa Clara failed to include ﬁve of the  Clery reportable

crimes we reviewed in its crime log.

Santa Clara mischaracterizes our ﬁndings about its crime reporting

procedures. SantaClara attributes its reporting error, which led it

to exclude liquor law violations and  drug law violations—or

nearly percent of the crimes it identiﬁed as reportable under the

Clery Act—to a software problem. However, when we brought this

issue to its attention, SantaClara also noted human error as a cause,

which we describe on page. A thorough review process would and

should have addressed this human error and prevented SantaClara

from reporting inaccurate crime statistics. Further, as we illustrate in

Figure  and describe on page, SantaClara reported some incidents

it should not have, indicating that responsible staﬀ are not suﬃciently

familiar with federal reporting requirements. erefore, we stand by

our recommendation on page  that SantaClara should strengthen its

written procedures and require its staﬀ to follow them.

Santa Clara’s belief that it complied with the Clery Act requirements

concerning crime logs contradicts the facts of our review. Speciﬁcally,

as we describe on pages  and , SantaClara explained it omitted a

crime from its log because it believed including the crime would have

caused the victim further anguish. However, Santa Clara could not

explain how the desire to avoid doing so was consistent with DOE

guidance or prevented SantaClara from including the crime in its

log. In addition, as we explain on pages  and , Santa Clara also

incorrectly omitted crimes from its log because it believed the crimes

were reported too late to be included.

Santa Clara’s response uses a page number reference from a draft copy

of our report. Since we provided Santa Clara the draft copy, the page

numbers have shifted.

We disagree with Santa Clara’s assertion that it requires its Clery

coordinator to include in its daily crime log reports of crimes received

from local law enforcement. As we describe on page , Santa Clara

Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

failed to include three reported crimes from local law enforcement

agencies in its daily crime log. Given these errors, we stand by our

recommendation on page that Santa Clara include all crimes in

its daily crime log as Santa Clara becomes aware of thosecrimes,

such as when it receives those crime reports from local law

enforcementagencies.

Santa Clara mistakes our redactions as a drafting error. e sexual

assault Santa Clara refers to in its response is the incident we

discuss above in point number three. In order to maintain the

conﬁdentiality of the multiple institutions included in this audit as

required by state law, we provided Santa Clara a copy of the draft

audit report that only included information about SantaClara. We

explained our need to redact the draft audit report to SantaClara

before sending it the redacted report for is review.

55CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

May 12, 2021

Ms. Elaine M. Howle

California State Auditor

621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

This letter is in response to your draft audit report 2020-032 - Clery Act. We have received and

reviewed the draft report, and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to the report and the

recommendations made. We concur with the recommendations included in the report.

While we concur with the recommendations in regards to our 2019 Annual Security Report, we

would also like to acknowledge the following initiatives that were implemented since the

publishing of that report that are directly relevant to the findings of this report. Some of these

improvements were, in fact, implemented prior to the initiation of this audit, which covered only

the 2019 Annual Security Report.

•

The Clery Compliance Office cross trained another employee from Risk Management to

allow for all Clery crime statistics to be double verified on a monthly basis.

•

California State University made improvements to the mandated language and provided

additional guidance within the systemwide template that address all of the policy

statement deficiencies included in this report. These changes were implemented with

the 2020 Annual Security Report and further improvements have been made for 2021.

Sonoma State University (SSU) fully recognizes the critical importance of providing a safe

environment for our students, and adhering to the Clery Act is one of the tools we use to

achieve that goal. SSU has worked to report accurate Clery Act crime statistics and ensure that

all required disclosures are included in our annual security reports to help demonstrate our

commitment to student safety.

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this audit.

Best regards,

Joyce Lopes

Cc. Dr. Judy K. Sakaki

* California State Auditor’s comments appear on page 57.

56 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

57CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Comments

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE

RESPONSE FROM SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on

the response to our audit from Sonoma. e numbers below

correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of

Sonoma’sresponse.

e practice Sonoma asserts to have now in place does not aﬀect our

conclusion or recommendation about its crime reporting procedures.

Sonoma asserts having implemented this practice after publishing its

 crime statistics in its annual security report. However, Sonoma

conﬁrmed to us that it did not have this practice in place during the

development of its most recent crime statistics reporting, which we

reviewed. As part of implementing our recommendation on page,

Sonoma should demonstrate that it has fully implemented this practice

in order to ensure accuracy in the crime statistics it reports. In doing

so, Sonoma should ensure that any improved procedures also address

the speciﬁc issues we found during our review, such as its failure to

follow up with the campus police department to collect necessary

crime information.

Although Sonoma asserts that its  report addresses all the

deﬁciencies we identiﬁed in its  report, Sonoma did not provide

evidence to support this claim during our audit. In fact, in a limited

review of its  report, we found identical language—and therefore

the same deﬁciencies—that we identiﬁed in the  report.

erefore, we stand by our recommendation on page and look

forward to Sonoma’s demonstrating that it has implemented that

recommendation to ensure it provides all required information to its

campus community each and every year.

58 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

59CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2020-032

May 2021

Office of the Chancellor

510 Aldrich Hall

Irvine, CA 92697-1900

(949) 824-5111

[email protected]

May 12, 2021

Elaine M. Howle, CPA

California State Auditor

621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200

Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

University of California, Irvine (UCI) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the draft audit

report. We appreciate the time and effort dedicated by the California State Auditor’s Office

and its staff in conducting this important audit.

UCI fully recognizes the critical importance of campus safety information and making

accurate disclosures to students and stakeholders so they can make informed decisions. UCI

concurs with the two recommendations noted in the draft audit report. Below you will find a

more detailed response to both recommendations.

Recommendation 1:

To ensure that it accurately reports crime statistics in its annual security reports, Irvine

should, by November 2021, strengthen its written procedures to clearly describe the process

it will follow for identifying and reporting Clery reportable crimes and ensure that its staff

follow them.

UCI Response:

UCI will create, by November 2021, clear written procedures to its existing Clery Act

Compliance Procedures setting forth the process on how to identify and report Clery

reportable crimes and will ensure UCI’s staff follows them.

60 Report 2020-032 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

May 2021

Elaine M. Howle, CPA

May 12, 2021

Page Two

Recommendation 2:

To ensure that all security policies are included in its annual security report, Irvine should, by

November 2021, establish procedures requiring its staff to review all security policies for

compliance with the Clery Act requirements, identify missing or inadequate policies, correct

them, and ensure that they are disclosed to the public in compliance with federal law.

UCI Response:

UCI will, by November 2021, establish additional procedures to require its staff to

review all security policies for compliance with the Clery Act requirements, identify

missing or inadequate policies, correct those policies so identified, and ensure they are

disclosed to the public in compliance with federal law.

Thank you and your staff for your thorough and professional efforts in conducting this

audit. We note that some errors have been made and UCI’s staff will work diligently to

implement your recommendations. Our desire is to have clear and transparent reporting in

full compliance with the Clery Act.

Sincerely,

Howard Gillman

Chancellor