16
THE JEANNE CLERY ACT
The Jeanne Clery Act
Carrie G. Connolly
Virginia Commonwealth University
The Jeanne Clery Act
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crimes Statistics Act is a federal law that all higher education institutions seeking state or federal funds must adhere by in order to remain in compliance. The Clery Act’s purpose is to provide the campus community with crime information in order for the community to make well-informed decisions. The policy is complex with several facets, which can be challenging when working with a large university. However, through collaborations with various departments, advance planning and well documented incidents, universities can remain in compliance with the Clery Act and help keep the community safe.
Description of Policy
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics (Appendix A) is often referred to as the Clery Act (J. Venuti, personal communication, March 6, 2014). The Clery Act is a federal statue, which institutions of higher education must follow in order to remain in compliance and continue receiving federal funds. Universities are required to disclose crime statistics happening on or around campus. The United States Department of Education coordinates the compliance guidelines. Failure to comply can result in loss of all federal financial support or it may result in fines for the institution.
The Clery Act requires several methods of communicating and recording crimes on or around campus. A yearly report is compiled which will categorize major crimes into a specific area, such as homicide, theft, arson, etc (see Appendix A for full list). This is referred to as the annual security report. The annual security report contains three full years of data, and faculty, staff, students and prospective students must be made aware of the report and given access to it upon request. All crimes are categorized into statistics at the end of each year, and the Department of Education can request statistics at anytime outside of the annual security report. In addition to the annual security report, universities with police departments or security must all publish a daily crime log. Crimes must be added to the log within 48 hours and available for at least 60 days. Upon request, the university has two days to provide logs over 60 days times. The annual security report and crime log give community members the ability to make well informed decisions based on the information given about crime on or around campus.
Another area of the Clery Act is the timely notification of serious or on going threats to the campus community. The crimes requiring a timely notification are limited to those in the annual security report. The Clery Act also mandates an emergency response plan for severe threats, which may include, but are not limited to those required to be reported in the Clery Act. The emergency system must be tested once a year to remain in compliance. The Clery Act gives additional requirements on disclosing and reporting fire situations and student kidnapping incidents.
Policy Type
The Clery Act is thorough and extremely detailed as it outlines all of the various requirements of the law. The Clery Act is an example of a regulatory policy. A regulatory policy can restrict, prohibit or require certain behaviors and includes consequences for those who do not comply (Fowler, 2013). Institutions who do not comply with the Clery Act can face fines or lose all federal financial support, which includes federal student loan and grant programs. The student’s finances would suffer, but their safety would be at risk as well.
Legal Issues Relevant to Policy
The Clery Act is referenced in several legal cases related to safety and security on college campuses. For example in Williams v. Utica College of Syracuse University (2006), a female student living on campus was attacked when an intruder entered her residence hall. The student sued the university claiming negligence. However, Utica College was able to provide the annual security report that is published in accordance with the Clery Act. In addition, the university emphasized that the report is given to all incoming students in the student handbook. The handbook describes the security available in residence halls, including the fact that the building is open to the public during normal business hours. The incident was distributed with a timely notification to the university community, but the suspect was never apprehended. The case was dismissed (Williams v. Utica, 2006).
In another case, Havlick v. Johnson and Wales University (2007), a student sued because his name was listed in the timely alert notification posted on campus. The student claimed that having his name on the alert was defamatory. Havlick was listed on the timely alert as having punched another student and pulling a knife out during the incident. The force of the punch caused the victim to fall down and sustain a head injury. The altercation was because Havlick was upset that the victim had turned down a bit to join Havlick’s fraternity. The details were included in the crime alert posted on campus from the Campus Security Office. University legal counsel advised the Campus Security Office to include Havlick’s name because it was deemed essential information for the community to make safe decisions (Havlick v. Johnson and Wales, 2007)
Havlick was found responsible for assault, but he was found not responsible for possessing a deadly weapon. In his suit, he claimed that as he was found not responsible for the weapons charge, the crime alert was defamatory because it was not true. The Campus Security Office posted the crime alert in order to remain in compliance with the Clery Act. The court ruled that as the Security Office published the report based on the information given at that time, and not on the outcome of the student’s collegiate judicial hearing. The university acted in good faith and the case was dismissed (Havlick v. Johnson and Wales, 2007).
In King v. San Francisco Community College (2011), the court dismissed the charges based on the Clery Act. King claimed to have been stalked on campus with little to no assistance from the police department on campus. However, the Clery Act does not give instructions or requirements on what a university must do to apprehend a suspect. The Clery Act only states that certain crimes must be reported to the community and included on the daily crime log (King v. San Francisco, 2011). The Clery Act cannot support King’s concern about lack of police involvement.
Research Issues Relevant to Policy
While there are numerous court cases that reference the Clery Act, little research has been done to determine whether or not the policy is effective (Janosik & Gregory, 2003). Janosick and Gregory (2003) reached out to 944 higher education campus security officials to survey their perception of the effectiveness of the policy. Their survey contained the following five questions: Has the nature of law enforcement changed since the implementation of the Clery Act?; How are institutions distributing mandated reports to constituents?; Has the act had an impact on reducing crime?; Do campus police perceive the act influenced community behavior?; and are colleges hiding incidents? The responses give administrators a glimpse of the effectiveness of the Clery Act (Janosik & Gregory, 2003).
Surprisingly, 57% of respondents noted that the Clery Act has created a more positive atmosphere in campus law enforcement. 43% stated that there has been a vast improvement of educational programming. The majority of respondents noted an increase in technology to provide reporting and crime alerts to the community. Unfortunately, the survey only had 15% of respondents state that crime has gone down since the Clery Act (Janosik & Gregory, 2003). While the Clery Act’s purpose is not to reduce crime, it would be ideal to see a reduction in crime as students begin to make better decisions with the readily available information. Only 10% believe that community members alter their behavior based on the information available in the Clery Act. However, it is reassuring to see that over 90% reported that their institutions are in compliance with the Clery Act and are not hiding information (Janosik & Gregory, 2003).
Unfortunately, while the data suggests campuses perceive the policy as effective, McNeal (2007) notes that several campuses are fined each year for violations. Many institutions view the act as a burden rather than understanding the importance of giving the community valuable safety information and creating a daily procedure to do so. When institutions were questioned about why there are some who do not comply, the most common responses were lack of funding, overall institutional resistance, lack of understanding of the policy, and inadequate support (McNeal, 2007). With a complex policy, the entire institution needs to be invested in the mission of the Clery Act, otherwise non-compliance is more likely to occur..
There is still much work that needs to be done on campuses in addition to the reporting required through the Clery Act in order to keep our campuses safe. Keels (2004) encourages campuses to start building collaborations with departments on campus to work towards compliance of the Clery Act and reinforce student safety. She discusses the importance of a well-organized response plan for emergency situations in addition to understanding who is responsible for each portion of the plan. Every campus will have a different plan due to the various demographics. For example, an urban institution’s needs will be vastly different than a rural residential campus (Keels, 2004).
In addition to creating a campus response plan, Keels (2004) encourages education. Through educational programming, campus officials can assist students with making well informed decisions. The information through the Clery Act serves no purpose if the students do not know what to do with the information they receive. Exposing students to safety information and policies early, for example, during new student freshmen orientation, students will know early on that they must be proactive in making good safe decisions. Additional resources, such as escort services and continued police trainings can also assist with keeping a safe campus and working in compliance with the Clery Act (Keels, 2004).
Interview
Purpose and Procedure
The purpose of the interview was to learn how Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) implements the Clery Act. The interview also helped break down the legal jargon in the text to help us understand the various components of the law. The VCU Police Department works with the US Department of Education on reporting statistics for the campus, so the group decided to interview someone from the Police Department. The institution coordinates all interviews through a public relations specialist, so we worked with their department to schedule a time to meet with the Chief of Police. We provided a list of twelve questions (Appendix B) in advance of the interview and notified them of our request to tape the interview. The public relations specialist for the VCU Police Department contacted us and let us knows that we would be meeting with the Chief of Police and that we would be able to tape the session.
Each of the four group members had three questions to ask. We decided in advance that if the question was answered in a previous statement, we would not have him repeat the answer. We set up the camera and took a seat at the table. After a brief introduction, we began to ask our questions.
Profile of Interviewees
The VCU Chief of Police and VCU Assistant Chief of Police were in attendance at the interview. While the Chief answered the majority of the questions, it was good to have the perspective of the Assistant Chief as well. Both have been at VCU for several years and have a variety of experiences in law enforcement on and off campus to be able to compare and contrast the two systems. The Chief noted several times that while the VCU Police Department has a large role in the implementation of the Clery Act, their office is not the one who will be held accountable for failure to comply. It is a team effort from the entire campus community. However, as he oversees several tasks such as maintain the crime log and timely notifications, interviewing the Chief was the best choice.
Data by Questions
The Clery Act was established after a student, Jeanne Clery, chose to go to LeHigh University based on her parents understanding that it was a safe campus. Jeanne was considering another school, but due to recent crime at that school, her parents refused to send her there. Jeanne was brutally raped and murdered in her residence hall at LeHigh on April 5, 1986. It was later disclosed that several crimes had occurred on campus in recent months and yet the community had not been notified. Her parents pressed for legislation, and four years after Jeanne’s death the first version of the Clery Act was established. It was adjusted in 1992 and 1998 to remain where it is today. The purpose of the act is to give the campus community information about crime on or around campus in order to make well-informed decisions. J. Venuti (personal communication, March 6, 2014) used the example of going down another street if a student knows a crime was recently on the street one would normally use.
While the VCU Police Department has a large role complying with the Clery Act, the Police Department is not solely responsible for compliance. The US Department of Education has recently began using media audits to solicit reports from universities. For example, if a report in the media discusses an alleged crime on campus, the Department of Education may request crime logs and statistics for that particular type of crime. However, the president of the university is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the law. VCU does not have a choice in compliance. It is a federal law, and as such, the university must follow the law.