August 15, 2017 (W6) Sent via email: Dear (W5) This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Bard College (BC). In that complaint, you alleged that Bard College had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by doing the following: I Discouraging reporting of sexual assaults to local law enforcement and University officials, and persistently dissuading students from seeking remedies through the campus adjudication process; - Fostering a hostile environment for victims of sexual violence; II Failing to inform students of rights under Title IX or the Clef)? Sexual Assault Victims? Bill of Rights; 0 Failing to provide adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation and complaint process. 0 Providing inadequate sanctions for sexual violence; 0 Practicing disclosures of personal case information in campus wide emails, Timely Warnings; - Practicing deliberate administrative indifference to sexual violence, thereby inhibiting the ability of women students to access education. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were unable to substantiate the claims raised. However, the Division will continue its close monitoring of Bard College and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well-served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into BC Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clem: Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clary Act non-compliance committed by Bard College, please feel free Federal Student Art ill?{ICE of LLB. of FDUCAT-ON (llerjr Act Compliance Division StudcntAitl.gov ?30(5) ar a cage Page 2 to send that information, along with anylal] supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director US Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 15, 2017 (bll?l Dear (bits) This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Bellevue College (BC). In your complaint, you alleged that BC had persistently violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we identi?ed certain shortcomings in BC campus safety operations and CleryAcf compliance program. To address these concerns, BC will be required to take speci?c steps to ensure future compliance. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives as several enforcement and technical assistance options to address these types of concerns. BC will be required to work with Division of?cials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure that violations will not recur. In addition, the Department will continue to closely monitor the College to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being wellvserved by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clery Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of CleryAct non?compliance committed by BC, please feel free to send that information, along with anylall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleeromplaints@ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, 1 thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education Federal Student OFFICE of me LLS. of Clery Act Compliance Division StudcntAitLgov August 15, 2017' a To Ms. Laura Dunn for{ Sent via E-mail: laura.dunn@surviustice.org Dear Ms. Dunn: This letter is to inform you that the Clery Act Compliance Division (Clery Division) of the US. Department of Education (the Department) has completed its assessment of the complaint that you filed on behalf against Brown University (Brown; the University). The complaint alleged that Brown?s handling of a serious incident of sexual violence resulted in multiple violations of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clary Act). I am writing to advise you of our findings. When the Department receives a complaint, we carefully consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and then determine an appropriate course of action. After careful consideration, we have determined that this matter will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that the decision to close this case does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the violent acts that your client endured. Our determination is based solely on the fact that at the time of the incident, it appears that Brown substantially met its Clair-y Act obligations in its handling ofthis case. The record indicates that the incident was reported to a campus security authority and that an investigation was conducted. The University issued a .. I ders (NCO) to both parties and took other interim measures to address at least some of the (bile) serious concerns about the alleged per etrator?s continued presence on campus. It also appears that Brown officials _b)(6l communicated with throughout the process, informed her about available resources, and provided required notices and updates. A disciplinary hearing was held approximately six months after the initial report and as a result of that proceeding; the accused was suspended from the University for a period of three years. Documents acquired during the assessment indicate that information about the outcomes reached and sanctions imposed by the disciplinary body were communicated to both sides. A few other points: it is not clear that the University?s efforts to facilitate service of process constituted a violation of the Clary Act or the NCO itself era is no question that the timing of the service no doubt caused significant distress for It is also possible even likely that the alleged perpetrator deliberately filed legal papers so that delivery would coincide with the start of the hearing. While this is regrettable, this act cannot be attributed to Brown. We do want to point out that Brown has changed its NCO policy so that orders are no longer issued to complainants. The new policy provides for the issuance of orders only to the accused person so that he accuser does not bear responsibility for avoiding their attacker. We also understand that felt strongly that the accused should be expelled permanently for his offenses. It is important for us to note here that our jurisdiction does not authorize us to impose sanctions or to require an institution to reconsider the sanctions that were imposed after a finding of responsibility. As you know so well, Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2013 strengthened the Clary Act in a number of ways. These regulations went into effect on July 1, 2015. VAWA affords additional protections to survivors and requires institutions to better serve victims of Federal Student Ar] of Eh? LLS. of (fl-qr} Act Division Brown University Page 2 sexual violence. The law also gives the Department additional enforcement authority to make sure survivors and their advocates have accurate and timely information about their options and improved access to the accommodations, services, and support that they need. Generally, the Clary Act requires institutions to take specific actions to address and prevent the most serious crimes against persons and property ranging from murder to arson. VAWA significantly expanded those requirements to address more sexually?based offenses than was previously possible. 1 also want you to know that the assessment and research that was conducted pursuant to this complaint indicated that Brown has strengthened its policies, procedures, and programs since the time of this incident. We will continue to monitor the University to make sure that the law is followed and that members of the campus community are well-served by the University?s campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. I encourage to remain vigilant and track Brown?s progress in this regard. Brown?s current campus safety and crime prevention information is online at: Although this complaint is now closed, the Department?s action in this regard must not be construed in any regard as a general endorsement of Brown?s polices or practices or of its overall compliance with the Clary Act. Please also be assured that the Department has the authority to reopen this matter if the need arises. Along those lines, we also want you to know that during the complaint assessment process, we detected other Clary Act compliance concerns. The Clery Division will initiate an appropriate intervention to address these concerns and to help ensure that the University takes remedial action to prevent future lapses in compliance. While we cannot provide specific information about these next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement, technical assistance, and training options that we can employ to address these issues. We very much appreciate the information that you and your client have provided and assure you that we will monitor the University?s progress going forward. You and your clients are encouraged to review the 2016 edition of our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? for more information about the Clery Act. The Handbook is available on the Department?s website at: If you learn of additional information about Brown that you believe we should know, please advise us immediately. You may submit documents and other information via electronic mail to CleryComplaints @ed.gov. In closing, we ask that you remind your clients that students and employees that are the victims of sexual discrimination, harassment, or violence or any kind may be entitled to seek redress under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act. As you know, Title IX is intended to prevent sexual discrimination in all forms, including sexual violence, harassment, and retaliatory acts that create a hostile environment. These important provisions are enforced by the Department?s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Clients can learn more about OCR and their complaint process at: On behalf of the US. Department of Education, we thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention and for your unwavering commitment to the cause of campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S. Department of Education August 15, 2017 Sent via electronic mail to: Thank you for contacting the US. Department of Education (the Department) regarding your concerns about Brigham Young University-Hawaii?s the University) efforts to comply with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clary Aer). In your complaint dated ?33(6) you alleged that a University professor harassed you and another student whom you reterenced by name on several occasions during You further alleged that this individual committed acts of mental and emotional abuse that created a hostile environment for you and your classmate. Finally, you claimed that BYUH may have violated the Clary Aer because University officials did not adequately intervene to stop the actions of this individual. This letter is to inform you that the Department?s Clery Act Compliance Division (Clery Division) has completed its assessment of your complaint. When the Clery Division receives a complaint of this type, we carefully consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and then determine an appropriate course of action. After careful consideration, we have determined that this matter will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that this decision does not in any way minimize the seriousness of what you and your classmate endured. The incidents that you described and the aftermath of them were no doubt very traumatic. The sole reason for closing the complaint is that the information presented does not fall within the parameters of the Clary Act and as such, we do not have jurisdiction over this case. At the time of the occurrence and the subsequent report, the University either met its obligation or was not required to provide the specific accommodations and services that were referenced in the complaint. Generally, the Clary Act requires institutions to take specific actions to disclose statistics of the most serious crimes against persons and property that are reported as occurring on the campus ranging from murder to arson. Although the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013 expanded the scope of the Clary Act and our jurisdiction to include reported incidents of domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, the incidents which you referred to do not fall within those parameters. I also want you to know that the investigation and research that was conducted pursuant to your complaint indicated that BYUH has strengthened its policies, procedures, and programs since the time of these incidents. We will continue to monitor all institutions to make sure that the law is followed and that members of each campus community are well?served by their school?s campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. I encourage you to remain vigilant and track BYUH's progress in this regard. You can review current campus safety and crime prevention information at: You may also wish to review the 2016 edition of our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? for more information about the Clary Act. The Handbook is available on the Department?s Federal Student AH pl? FDUCAT.QN {?ler} Act Compliance Division Brigham Young University - Hawaii Page 2 website at: If at any time you learn of additional information that you believe we should know about, please contact us immediately. The best way to reach us is by electronic mail at Cleeromplaints@ed.gov. Finally, we remind that you and other affected by sexual harassment may have a valid claim and be entitled to seek redress under Title IX of the Education Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1972. Title IX specifically addresses issues of sexual discrimination in all forms. including sexual violence and harassment as well as retaliatory acts that create a hostile environment. These important provisions are enforced by the Department?s Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). You can learn more about ED OCR and the complaint process at: You may also have grounds for a private cause of action as well if you can document that your rights were violated. Thank you for your commitment to the cause of campus safety and crime prevention. We wish you every success in your future endeavors. Best. Candace R. McLaren, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S. Department of Education August 15, 2017' libli?l Sent via electronic mail to: (bli?l Dear This letter is to inform you that the Clery Act Compliance Division (Clery Division) of the US. Department of Education {the Department) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Carnegie Mellon University the University). In your complaint, you stated that CMU may have engaged in a pattern of serious violations of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clary Act) related to a serious crime of sexual violence that was committed against you on the CMU campus in Specifically, you alleged that the University did not issue any safety alerts regarding this incident and also failed to provide accurate and complete information about academic accommodations to which you may have been entitled. You also stated that CMU may have not classified this incident in the required manner, which may have caused the University?s campus crime statistics and its daily crime log to be inaccurate. Finally, you expressed serious concerns about campus disciplinary process When the Clery Division receives a complaint, we carefully consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and then determine an appropriate course of action. After careful consideration, we have determined that this matter will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that this decision does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the violent acts that you endured. There can be no doubt that the incident that you described was very traumatic and that it had a negative effect on your ability to continue your enrollment at the University. Our determination is based solely on the fact that at the time that the incident in question occurred and was subsequently reported, it appears that CMU met its Clary Act obligations as they existed at the time. I want you to know that since that time, the Clary Act was strengthened through Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013. The VAWA amendments provide additional protections and require institutions to better serve survivors of dating and domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law also gives the Department additional enforcement authority to make sure that survivors and their advocates have the information that they need and receive the accommodations, services, and support that they need. Generally, the Clary Act requires institutions to take specific actions to address and prevent the most serious crimes against persons and property ranging from murder to arson. VAWA significantly expanded those requirements to address more offenses than was previously possible. I also want you to know that the investigation and research that was conducted pursuant to your complaint indicated that CMU has strengthened its policies, procedures, and programs since the time of the incident. We will continue to monitor the University to make sure that the law is Federal Student Ar] of Hip LLS. of ("Tl-qr} Act (Soniyilizlrn'c Division Carnegie Mellon University Page 2 followed and that members of the campus community are well-served by the University?s campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. I encourage you to remain vigilant and track progress in this regard. You can review current campus safety and crime prevention information at: You may also want to review the 2016 edition of our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? for information about the Clery Act. The Handbook is available on the Department?s website at: If at any time you learn of additional information that you believe we should know about, please contact us immediately. The best way to reach us is by electronic mail at Cleeromplaints@ed.gov. During our investigation, we noticed your postings on social media. By speaking out about your experiences, you are helping to educate and protect future students. If survivors reach out to you, please point them to Department resources on the Clery Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act. Title IX specifically addresses issues of sexual discrimination, including sexual violence and harassment as well as retaliatory acts that create a hostile environment. Victims may be able to seek redress by filing a complaint with the Department?s Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). You can learn more about ED OCR and their complaint process at: On behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, we thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention and for your commitment to the cause of campus safety and victim?s rights. Best, Candace R. McLaren, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S. Department of Education August 15, 2017' (blt?l Sent via email Dear Sir, This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Clark University (CU, the University). In your complaint, you alleged that CU violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act}. Specifically, you claimed that the University did not disclose accurate and complete statistical information about sex offenses and other serious campus crimes. You also asserted that CU failed to issue timely warnings to advise the campus community about criminal activity that may have posed an ongoing threat to student andfor employee health or safety. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the con?nes of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we identified certain shortcomings in CU campus safety operations and lery Aer compliance program. Appropriate action will be taken to address these concerns. Additionally, CU will be required to take specific steps to ensure future compliance. While we cannot provide speci?c information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options to address these types of concerns. CU will be required to work with Division officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure that any identified violations will not recur. In addition, the Department will continue to closely monitor the University to ensure that the law is being followed and that campus community members are well?served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into operations at any time. Finally, our Division would like to emphasize that we respect your right to remain anonymous and assure you that we will endeavor to protect your personal information. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting" (2016) for more information on the Clans Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clary Act noncompliance committed by the University, please feel free to send that information, along with anyi?all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaintsC?iledgov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director Clery Act Compliance Division US Department of Education Federal Student Ar] of Iii-P LLS. DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION Clcr} .Iltt't Conniiliautrc Division August 15, 2017 Ms. Laura Dunn, Founder and Executive Director, Suerustice, lnc. Sent via email: laura.dunn@surviustice.org Dear Ms. Dunn This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division") las completed its assessment of a complaint ?led on behalf of your clien (We) agai st the College of St. Scholastica the College). In that complaint, you and (bus) set out a number of claims alleging that CSS violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), especially the Section 304 provisions that were added to the Clary Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthoriaation Act of 2013 (VAWA). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the assessment, Department officials detected certain areas of concern that will require refinements to the College?s campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. As such, CSS officials will be required to work with Department officials to ensure future compliance. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement options. In addition, the Division will also continue to closely monitor CSS to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into the College?s Clary operations at any time. In closing, we encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) with and other clients to help them understand the Clary Act and to encourage her to stay engaged in this important work. The Handbook is available online at: If, after doing so, has any additional concerns about Clary Act compliance, please encourage her to please send that information, along with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Federal Student At] (If ,rl'l'r? LLS. u" filer} 5?th Dit'isinn College of St. Scholastica Page 2 On behalf of the Department, we thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for your commitment to campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education August 15, 2017' (bll?l Sent via email: (We) Dear This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division") has completed its assessment of your complaint against Cornell University (Cornell). In that complaint, you alleged that Cornell had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act) by doing the following: Failing to provide sufficient support to the victim I Failing to provide adequate living accommodations to the victim I Failing to provide an unbiased conduct hearing process When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were unable to substantiate the claims raised. However, the Division will continue its close monitoring of Cornell University and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well?served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into Cornell?s Clery operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clery Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clery Act non?compliance committed by Cornell, please feel free to send that information, along with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints@ed.gov. Federal Student UFFICF of ,I?hie LLS. of Clery Act Compliance Division StudcntAidgov (W5) Cornell Universin Page 2 On behalf of the Department, we thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 15, 2017 (blt?l Sent via email: Dear Sir or Madam, This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Dakota County Technical College the College). In the complaint, you alleged that the College violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by doing the following: - Failing to produce Annual Security Reports (ASR). - Failing to compile and disclose accurate and complete campus crime statistics - Failing to implement and adhere to required policy statements. I Failing identify and train Campus Security Authorities (CSA). I Retaliating against When the Division receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual andfor documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were able to identify certain shortcomings in campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. As such, the College will be required to work with Department of?cials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure future compliance. As part of this process, the Division will conduct an appropriate intervention to ensure that corrective action is taken. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options. Additionally, the Division will continue to closely monitor DCTC to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well?served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into Clary operations at any time. In closing, we want you to know that we respect your right to remain anonymous and assure you that we will endeavor to protect your personal information to the extent permitted by Federal law. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clary Aer noncompliance committed by DCTC, please feel free to send that information, along with anyr'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleerornplaints@edgov. Federal Student Ar] all? FDUCATKON filer} Act Compliance Divisnm Student-Ningm Dakota County Technical College Page 2 On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S. Department of Education August 15, 2017' (bile) (bit?l (b)(5l Dear This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against East Los Angeles College (ELAC). In that complaint, you alleged that ELAC violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were unable to substantiate the claims of noncompliance alleged in your complaint. Please be assured that the Division will continue to monitor ELAC to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well- served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should any lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has a range of enforcement and technical assistance options to address them and has the authority to open additional investigations into ELAC Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Glory Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new concerns about Clary Act compliance, U, please feel free to send that information, along with anyr'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleeromnlaints@ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division Federal Student Ar] UFFICF of LLS. pf EDUCATION (fiery Act Compliance Division StudcntAidgov August 16, 2017' (blt?i (W15) Dear This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against University of Hartford the University). In that complaint, you alleged that UH violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by failing to produce Annual Security Reports and by not taking effective action to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual violence on campus. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we identified certain shortcomings in UH campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. Appropriate action will be taken to address these concerns. UH will have to collaborate with Department officials and take specific steps to ensure future compliance. While we cannot provide speci?c information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options to address these types of concerns. Appropriate improvements and reforms will be put in place to help ensure that lapses in these areas of concern will not recur. In addition, the Department will continue to closely monitor the University to ensure that the law is being followed and that campus community members are well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into operations at any time. In closing, we want you to know that we respect your right to remain anonymous and assure you that we will endeavor to protect your personal information. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new concerns about potential Ciery Act violations; please send that information, along with any/all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleeromplaints@edgov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division Act (Totnpliance Division August 15, 2017 (bll?l Dear This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Indiana University (IU). In that complaint, you alleged that IU had violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by failing to properly 1) disclose incidents of campus crime, with an emphasis on stalking; 2) conduct proper disciplinary hearings and follow-up, and, 3) provide an adequate safety program. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were unable to substantiate the claims alleged in your complaint. Nevertheless, the Division will continue to monitor to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well-served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into 1U Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of CtewAcr non-compliance committed by IU, please feel free to send that information, along with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division Federal Student AH of Ihp LLS. FDUCATION (Ilery Act Compliance Division StudcntAitlgov August 15, 2017 (bll?l Sent via email: Re: Complaint Assessment Clery Violations at Kaplan College Dear This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Kaplan College (KC), which was renamed Brightwood College. In that complaint, you alleged that KC had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the ClaryAcr) by doing the following: I impeding Campus Security Authorities from reporting law violations to the local police department that involved the possession of illicit drugs, and Clary crimes that occurred on-campus property; II destroying evidence of illegal drug possession on-campus property, and I failing to report statistical data for crimes that occurred on Clery-geography, during calendar year 201 1. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were able to identify certain shortcomings in campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. As such, additional work on the part of KC is necessary to achieve Clem-1 compliance. For this reason, we are requiring KC to work with Division officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure that future violations do not occur. Additionally, the Division will continue its close monitoring of KC to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into tery operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of ClaqrAcr non-compliance committed by please feel free to send that information, along with anylall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?ed.gov. Federal Student all? FDUCAT-ON (Ilel'y Act Compliance Division StudcntAidgov defan Coffege Page 2 On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 15, 2017 (bus) Sent via email (bile) Dear (bits) This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Kansas State University (K-State; the University). In that complaint, you alleged that K?State had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act {the Clary Act) by failing to properly investigate crimes of sexual violence and by not providing adequate protective measures to survivors. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, we consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and determine an appropriate course of action within the confines of our limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were unable to substantiate the claims alleged in your complaint. Therefore, after careful consideration, we have determined that your complaint will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that the decision to close this case does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the events described in your complaint. Our determination is based solely on the fact that at the time of the incident, it appears that K-State substantially met its Clary Act obligations in the handling of this incident. Although the complaint is now closed, nothing about this action should be construed as a general endorsement of the University?s polices or practices. Please also be assured that the Division will continue to monitor K-State to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well~served by the University?s campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs. Should any lapses in compliance be uncovered. the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into K- State?s operations at any time. In closing, we also encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act. The Handbook is available online at: If you identify other concerns about State?s compliance, please send information and supporting documentation to us via electronic mail at Cleeromplaints@ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education Federal Student 14:] all? FDUCATIQN (Ilcry Act (.?ompliancc Division StudcntAidgov August 15, 2017 Sent via email: (him) (IONS) Dear This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Liberty University (LU). In that complaint, you alleged that Liberty University had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the lary Aer) by failing to provide a prompt, fair and impartial investigationr'resolution to your sexual assault that occurred June 2000. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. The Division thanks you for your statement and will continue to monitor Liberty University to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into Liberty University Clery operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clery Ac: and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clery Acr non-compliance committed by Liberty University please feel free to send that information, along with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division Federal Student Ar] of LLS. all? FDUCATION (Ilery Act (.?ompliance Division StudcntAidgov August 2017' Ms. Laura Dunn, Founder and Executive Director, Suerustice, Inc. Sent via email: LauraDunn@surviustice.org Dear Ms. Dunn, This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of the complaint filed on behalf by your client (bills) I, against Longwood University the University). In the comp amt, you set out a number of claims by alleging that LU violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Ciery Act), including the Section 304 provisions that were added to the Clary Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we did detect certain potentially serious shortcomings in the University?s campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. As such, the University will be required to work with Department officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure future compliance. As part of this process, the Division will conduct an appropriate intervention to ensure that corrective action is taken. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options. In addition, the Division will also continue to closely monitor LU to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into the University?s Clary operations at any time. In cl sing. we ncourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) with (We) to help her understand the C!er Act and to encourage her to stay engaged in this important work. The Handbook is available online at: If, after doing so, (W6) has any additional concerns about Clary Act compliance, please encourage her to please send that information, along with anyr'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?ed.gov. Federal Student An OFFICE of LLS. of Clery Act (."ompliance Division Longwood University Page 2 On behalf of the Department, we thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for your commitment to campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education Federal Student '2 An OFFICE of the U.S. DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION Act Compliance Division Student-kid.ng August 16, 2017 (blt?l (bits) Sent via electronic mail to: Dear (bl(5l This letter is to inform you that the Clery Act Compliance Division (Clery Division) of the US. Department of Education (the Department) has completed its assessment of the complaint that you filed on behalf of youragainst Michigan State University the University). In your complaint, you allege at MSU may have violated the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) as a result of its handling of serious on?campus incident that involved youriibltel Iinlibllel stated that during the incidentJihHBl I libli?l I You also expressed serious concerns about public safety and cam] 'sciplinary processes and stated that the University engaged in unequitable treatment of {bli?l based onl?gender. When the Clery Division receives a complaint, we carefully consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and then determine an appropriate course of action. After careful consideration, we have determined that this matter will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that this decision does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the traumatic experiences that (bli?l endured or the negative consequences that resulted from this incident. Our determination is based solely on the fact that at the time that the incident in question occurred, it appears that MSU met its Clery Act obligations. We opted to keep our assessment open for an extended period of time during which we considered the facts of the case from multiple perspectives; however, we reached the conclusion that the Department simply did not and still does not have the authority to require the University to reevaluate the handling of (bits) case. During the assessment, we did evaluate efforts to improve is campus safety and Clery Act compliance programs, especially with regard to the implementation of Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013. The VAWA amendments provide additional protections for all students regardless of gender and require institutions to better serve survivors of sexually-based offenses. The law also gives the Department additional enforcement authority to make sure that victims of crime and their advocates have access to accurate information as well as the accommodations, services, and support that they need. Our assessment indicated that MSU has strengthened its policies, procedures, and programs since the time of this incident. We will continue to monitor the University to make sure that the law is followed and that members of the campus community are well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. You can see current campus tit-1ft Act tffompliant'c DH [sum Michigan State University Page 2 safety and crime prevention information at: safety?report}. We also invite you to review the 2016 edition of our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? for information about the Clery Act. The Handbook is available on the Department?s website at: If at any time you learn of additional information that you believe we should know about, please contact us immediately. The best way to reach us is by electronic mail at CleryComplaints@ed.gov. Although this complaint is now closed, the Department?s action must not be construed as a general endorsement of polices or practices or of its overall compliance with the Clery Act. Please know that the Department has the authority to reopen this matter if the need arises. (bli?l Although you mentioned that a Title IX complaint was ?led on behalf, we noticed that that it does not appear that the Office for Civil Rights has any open cases at MSU. We hope that your complaint was resolved to your satisfaction. On behalf of the Department, we thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention and for your commitment to ad the cause of campus safety and victim?s rights. We also wish you and (blisl all success in your future endeavors. Thank you for reaching out to the Clery Act Compliance Division. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S. Department of Education FSA, Enforcement Division Candace.McLaren@ed.gov August 16, 2017 (him) 51th via email' (bii?l (bli?l Dear This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against North Central Texas College (NCTC). in that complaint, you alleged that North Central Texas College violated the Jeanne Ciery Disclosure of Campus Securin Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), The Drug~Free Schoois and Communities Act (DFSCA), audior Part 86 of the Department?s General Administrative Regulations. When the Division receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual andior documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During our assessment of your complaint, the Division determined that the allegations lodged do not fall within the narrow scope of this office?s jurisdiction. As such, we are unable to take any further action. This lack of jurisdiction notwithstanding, the Division will continue its close monitoring of North Central Texas College and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well?served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Ciery Act non?compliance, please feel free to send that information, along with all supporting documentation, to our Division, via email, at C1eryComplaints?ed gov. On behalf of the Department, 1 thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division . . (fiery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017' {blt?l {blt?l (W5) Dear This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Niagara University (NU). In your complaint, you alleged that NU violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), speci?cally by covering up serious crimes of sexual violence. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were unable to substantiate the claims that were alleged in your complaint. However, the Division will continue its close monitoring of NU and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well-served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into NU Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? {2016) for more information on the Clary Aer and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clem-utter non-compliance committed by NU, please feel free to send that information, along with anylall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division (fiery Act (Tolnpliancc Division August 16, 2017 Suerustice Inc. 1629 Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC. 20006 To the Of?cials and Directors of Suerustice: This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Old Dominion University (ODU). In that complaint, you alleged that ODU violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Aer) by doing the following: Failing to distinguish sexual assaults occurring in residence halls from all other reports of on campus sexual assaults in its 2011 Annual Security Report; - Failing to include proper definitions and statistics regarding sexual assault and its four subcategories of sexual assault in both 2015 and 2016 Annual Security Reports; In Failing to record a victim?s Doe?) sexual assault in the daily crime log within two business days; I Failing to provide Ms. Doe with written information about the importance of preserving evidence and instead obstructed her from receiving a scheduled forensic examination for roughly eight hours; 0 Failing to provide Ms. Doe with written information that she could decline to report the crime to law enforcement before receiving a forensic examination that could preserve evidence of the rape; Failing to provide Ms. Doe with written information about options to report to non- campus law enforcement or campus authorities; - Failing to provide Ms. Doe with written information about her right to obtain a restraining order and have it enforced on campus by - Failing to provide Ms. Doe with written information about existing counseling, victim advocacy, legal assistance, and related service both on and off campus; 0 Failing to provide Ms. Doe with written information about existing counseling, victim advocacy, legal assistance, and related academic, living, transportation, and working situations; I Failing to provide Ms. Doe with protective measures that were reasonably available; and, . . Clary Act (.?olnpliancc Division Suer?usti-ze Old Dominion University Page 2 (bl(5l When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were able to identify certain serious shortcomings in ODU campus safety operations and CleryAcr compliance program. As such, additional work on the part of ODU is necessary to achieve Clary compliance. For this reason, we will conduct an appropriate intervention to ensure that corrective action is taken and that long?term improvements and reforms will be put in place. Additionally, the Division will continue to closely monitor ODU to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (20] 6) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of CleryAcr noncompliance committed by ODU, please feel free to send that information, along with anylall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryConiplaints?ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, 1 thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017 Ms. Myka Held, Staff Attorney, Survlustice, lnc. Sent via email: mykaheld surviusticeerg Dear Ms. Held, This letter is to inform Survlustice that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of the complaint filed on behalf of your Iagainst the University of Richmond (UR, the University). In the complaint, you set out a number of claims byalleging that UR violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the CteryAct), especially the Section 304 provisions that were added to the Clary Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. After careful consideration, we have determined that this matter will be closed and that no further action will be taken on the complaint at this time. We want to emphasize that the decision to close this case does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the violent acts that your client endured. Neither should it be construed in any regard as a general endorsement of the University?s policies, procedures, or practices. Our determination is based solely on the fact that at the time of the incident, it appears that UR substantially met its lery Act obligations in its handling of this off?campus incident. As such, our Division determined the complaint did not fall within the Clary Act?s limited jurisdiction. At the same time, we want to advise you that during the Division?s assessment, we did detect certain shortcomings in the University?s campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. As such, the University will be required to work with Department officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure future compliance. As part of this process, the Division will conduct an appropriate intervention to ensure that corrective action is taken. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options. In addition, the Division will also continue to closely monitor UR to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well?served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into the University?s Clary operations at any time. Please note {bit?tile} tit-1ft Act tffonipliant't? [in tsn'un University of Richmond Page 2 In closing, we encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) with (him) to help her understand the Clear Act and to encourage her to stay engaged in this important work. The Handbook is available online at: If, after doing so, (W6) has any additional concerns about Clary Act compliance, please encourage her to please send that information, along with anyi'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at On behalf of the Department, we thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for your commitment to campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education August 16, 2017' To: Ms. Myka N. Held for (blt?l Email: mheld?surviusticeorg Dear Ms. Held, This letter is to inform you that the Clery Act Compliance Division (Clery Division) of the US. Department of Education (the Department) has completed its assessment of the complaint that you filed on behalf of your client, Iagainst Rider University (Rider; the University). The complaint alleged that Rider violated multiple violations of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (CleryAcr) as a result of its improper handling of a serious crime of sexual violence. I am writing to advise you of our determination. When the Clery Division receives a complaint of this type, we carefully consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and then determine an appropriate course of action. After careful consideration, we have determined that this matter will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We must emphasize that the decision to close this case does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the violent acts that your client endured. The incident that was described and its after?effects were no doubt very traumatic. The reason for our determination is based solely on the fact that our assessment indicates that the University substantially met its Clary Act obligations in this case. in general terms, the Clary Act requires institutions to take specific actions to disclose information about the most serious crimes against persons and property that are reported as occurring on the campus. As you know, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013 expanded the scope of the Clary Act and our jurisdiction to address a wider range of sex offenses involving intimate partner violence. The records reviewed in this case indicated that the incident was reported to a campus security authority and that an investigation was conducted in accordance with the University?s policies and procedures. Furthermore, it appears that Rider took interim measures in accordance with its standard policies to help ensure the safety of (bile) while the investigation and disciplinary proceeding were being conducted. The assessment also indicated that the University has continued to strengthen its policies, procedures, and programs since the time of the incident. These improvements are no doubt at least in part due to the scrutiny that the University has received from concerned community members like your client. For these reasons, we have determined that this matter can be closed at this time. At the same time, we note that this closure action must not be construed in any regard as a general endorsement of Rider?s polices or practices or of its overall compliance with the Clary Act. Please be assured; however, that our Division will continue to monitor Rider to make sure that the law is followed and that members of each campus community are well-served by their institution?s campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. fiery Act DH isnm Rider University Page 2 Please keep in mind that the Department has the authority to reopen this matter at any time if new information comes to our attention. {bl(7i(A) Final] we encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) with i and other clients to help them understand the Clary Act and to encourage her to stay engaged in this important work. The Handbook is available online at- If, after doing so, (him) has any additional concerns about Cier Act compliance, please encourage her to send that information, along with any/all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryCompiaints@edgov. On behalf of the Department, we thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for your commitment to campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education August I6, 2017' (bite) (mm) Dear (We) This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Skidrnore College (Skidmore). In that complaint, you alleged that Skidmore had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clay Act) by improperly handling reports of serious crimes of sexual violence. The purpose of this letter is to update you about the case and close the complaint. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, we consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and determine an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were indeed able to identify certain shortcomings in Skidmore's campus safety operations and CtaryAar compliance program. As such, additional work on the part of Skidmore is necessary to achieve Ciary compliance. For this reason, we will require Skidmore to work with Division officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure that violations do not recur. Additionally, the Division will continue to closely monitor Skidmore to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into Skidmore?s t'ary operations at any time. We also encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Ciarjv Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clary Aer non?compliance committed by Skidmore, please feel free to send that information, along with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleeromplaints@ed.gov. (bit?{HA} Federalswdent .. (fiery Act {iol'nplianccil)ivision SludentAitlgov imam 0 age PageZ IThank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for your commitment to the cause of campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017' this) Itblt?l I Dea {bll?l This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Southern Arkansas University (SAU). In your complaint, you alleged that handling of a serious incident of sexual violence committed against you resulted in multiple violations of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clary Act). I am writing to advise you of our findings. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, we consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and determine an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were able to identify certain shortcomings in campus safety operation and Ciery Act compliance program that validate the concerns raised in your complaint. To address these concerns, SAU will be required to take specific steps to ensure future compliance. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives as several enforcement and technical assistance options to hold institutions accountable. SAU will be required to work with Division officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure that violations will not recur. In addition, the Department will continue to closely monitor the University to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Cierjv Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clary Aer noncompliance committed by the University, please feel free to send that information, along with anyl'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleeromnlaints@ed.gov (blG?ltAl Clary Act (Tornpliancc Division Southern Arkansas University Page 2 (MUHA) on behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention and wish you great success in your future endeavors. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director US Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017 Myka N. Held, Esq. Sent via email: myka.held@survjustice.org Survlustice Staff Attorney 1629 Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC. 20006-1631 Dear Ms. Held: This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of the complaint that you ?led against Saint Mary?s College of California (St. Mary?s) on behalf of I. In that complaint, you alleged that St. Mary?s had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by doing the following: Failing to provide reasonable accommodations for sexual assault victims; - Failing to provide written explanation of sexual assault victim?s rights; 0 Failing to provide an impartial investigations and resolutions; I Failing to provide anticipated timelines in sexual assault proceedings; II Failing to abide by its prescribed timeframes for extensions; 0 Failing to properly train officials tasked with investigating and adjudicating sexual assault incidents; I Failing to prevent retaliation; - Failing to properly follow policies and procedures for the institution?s disciplinary processes; I Failing to provide adequate information for risk reduction; 0 Failing to conduct the disciplinary proceedings according to the institution?s timely notice policy; and Failing to provide information on the importance preserving evidence. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were unable to substantiate all the claims raised. However, the Division will continue its close monitoring of St. Mary?s and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well-served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this . . (fiery Act Compliance Division SlittlentAitl.gt?n' Saint Mary?s College of Cah?imfa Page 2 monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into St. Mary?s Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clary Act non?compliance committed by St. Mary?s please feel free to send that information, along with anyr'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints@ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, 1 thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017' Rebecca Peterson-Fisher Sent via email: Equal Rights Advocates I 170 Market Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Ms. Peterson-Fisher, This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of a complaint ?led on behalf of your against Stanford University (Stanford; the University). In the complaint, alleged that Stanford mishandled several incident of sexual violence in a manner that a so resulted in multiple violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act (Title IX) and the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), including the requirements of Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, commonly known as VAWA. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were able to identify indications of potentially serious shortcomings in Stanford campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. As such, additional work on the part of Stanford will be required to ensure future Clary compliance. For this reason, we will conduct an appropriate intervention to ensure that corrective action is taken and that long?term improvements and reforms are put in place. While we cannot provide speci?c information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement options. Additionally, the Division will continue to closely monitor Stanford to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into Stanford?s Clary operations at any time. {blUllAl In closing, we encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in (fiery Act (Tornpliancc Division SludcntAitlgm' Stanford University Page 2 doing so, you learn of any new indications of Clary Act noncompliance at Stanford, please send that information, along with anylall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at ClewComplaints@ed.aov. On behalf of the Department, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for your commitment to the cause of campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education August 16, 2017' {bl(5l Dear (bile) This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Susquehanna University (SU). In your complaint, you specifically alleged that SU violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) as a result of its improper handling a serious crime of sexual violence. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, we consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and determine an appropriate course of action within the con?nes of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. After careful consideration, we have determined that this complaint will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that the decision to close this case does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the violent crime committed against you. During the Division?s assessment, we were able to substantiate any clear violations of the laws that we enforce. We also want you to know that the standards for how institutions handle these cases have been enhanced. Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) strengthened the Clary Act in a number of ways. These regulations went into effect on July 1, 2015. VAWA affords additional protections to survivors and requires institutions to better serve survivors of sexual violence. The law also gives the Department additional enforcement authority to make sure survivors and their advocates have accurate and timely information about their options and improved access to the accommodations, services, and support that they need. Generally, the Clary Act requires institutions to take specific actions to address and prevent the most serious crimes against persons and property ranging from murder to arson. VAWA significantly expanded those requirements to address more sexually-based offenses than was previously possible. Please be assured that the Division will continue to monitor SU to ensure that the University follows the law and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. The Department has the authority to open additional investigations into campus safety operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If you have any other concerns about possible noncompliance at VU, please feel free to send that information, along Act Division Susquehanna University Page 2 with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleeromplaints@ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. We wish you great success in all of you future endeavors. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017' (bits) (bills) Dear This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Texas International University (TAMIU). In that complaint, you specifically alleged that TAMIU violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by failing to 1} properly disclose incidents of crime; 2) identify and train Campus Security Authorities; and, 3) adequately document internal processes and procedures. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we identified certain shortcomings in TAMIU campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. To address these concerns, TAMIU was required to take speci?c steps to ensure future compliance. While we cannot provide specific information about intervention so far or our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options to address concerns. TAMIU will be required to work with Division officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure that violations will not recur. In addition, the Department will continue to closely monitor the University to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of CleryAer non-compliance committed by TAMIU, please feel free to send that information, along with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division Clery Act (Tolnpliance Division August 16, 2017' (like) Sent via email: liblml Re: Complaint Assessment -- Clery Violations at the University of Illinois at Chicago Dear This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). [n that complaint, you alleged that UIC had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by doing the following: I failing to alert the UIC campus community that a male student sexually assaulted three students in an on?campus student residential facility on various dates, during the Fall semester of 2015; II failing to preserve and make accessible upon request its Daily Crime Log, as stipulated by Federal regulations, and II underreporting its crimes statistics for calendar year 2014. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were able to identify certain shortcomings in campus safety operations and Clery Act compliance program. As such, additional work on the part of UIC is necessary to achieve Clary compliance. For this reason, we are requiring UIC to work with Division officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure that future violations do not occur. Additionally, the Division will continue its close monitoring of UIC to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division's jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of ClentAcr non-compliance committed by please feel free to send that information, along with anyr'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at C1eryCon1plaints?ed.gov. Clary Act (Tornpliancc Division ?30(5) University of?l?mis a: Ckieago Page 2 On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. MeLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017' Clo Laura Dunn Suerustice Sent via electronic mail to laura.dunn@surviusticeorg 1629 Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006?1631 Re: Joint Complaint against University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) Dear Ms. Dunn: This letter is to inform you that the Clery Act Compliance Division of the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) has completed its assessment of the Suerustic complaint against the University of Maryland Baltimore County the University), submitted on October 18, 2016. Your complaint alleged that UMBC engaged in a pattern of very serious violations of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (C {cry Aer). Specifically, you claimed that the University violated federal law by failing to provide a prompt and fair institutional disciplinary proceeding re ardin sexual assault; (ii) failing to provide a prompt investigation or resolution regarding (bits) Icornplaint of sexual assault; and failing to ensure an adequate and reliaale investigation into the complaint of sexual assault. . When the Department receives a complaint of this type, we consider the allegations, conduct preliminary research, and determine an appropriate course of action. After careful consideration, and coordination with the liblUllA) Iteam assigned to this complaint, we have determined that this matter will be closed without further review. The reason for that decision is not that the allegations are not serious, they certainly are; however, the team has initiated contact and made numerous document requests and will continue to investigate those same issues. Furthermore, theMwill provide information to our Team to ensure that those claims against UMBC that overlap with the Clary Act?s regulations are handled appropriately. Finally, we encourage you to review the new 2016 edition of our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting.? The 2016 edition of the Handbook is now available on the Department?s website at: If after looking at the Handbook and the institution?s next ASR, you come to believe that the institution may still be in violation, please report your concerns to us by sending an evmail to Cleeromplaints@ed.gov. tilcl'y Compliam?c [211151011 University of Maryland Baltimore Count}r OPEID: 00210500 Page 2 Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for your commitment to safer campuses. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Director Clery Act Compliance Division US Department of Education FSA, Enforcement Division August 16, 2017 {bl(5l Sent via email: Dear (bl(5) This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC-CH). In that complaint, you alleged that UNC-CH had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act {the Ciet'y Act), The Drug~Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA), andfor Part 86 of the Department?s General Administrative Regulations by doing the following: - Underreporting cases of sexual violence I Failing to notify the broader community of acts of sexual violence I Failing to ensure an equitable hearing process a Failing to interview all witnesses and treat all witnesses equitably. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were unable to substantiate the claims raised. However, the Division will continue its close monitoring of UNC-CH and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well?served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill?s operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Ciery Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Ciery Act non?compliance committed by please feel free to send that information, along with anyt'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at C1eryComplaints?ed.gov. . . Act (.?otnpliancc Division (WIS) University ofNoth Carolina Chapel Hill Page 2 On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017 (bl(5l (blti?l (W15) Deal This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against University of North Florida (UNF). In your complaint, you alleged that UNF violated the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clear}? Act) by failing to properly conduct student conduct proceedings. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment, we were unable to substantiate the claims raised in your complaint. However, the Division will continue to monitor UNF to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well-served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into UNF Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of additional Clary Act compliance concerns at please send that information, along with anyiall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?edgov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division . . Clary Act Compliance Division SludentAitlgr?n' August 16, 2017' End Rape on Campus (EROC) Sent via email: info@endrapeoncampus.org Dear EROC Of?cials, This letter is in reference to a complaint that EROC ?led on behalf of Complainant, regarding a serious sex offense that occurred while his daughter was enrolled at the University of Alabama the University) in Tuscaloosa. This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of the complaint against UA. In that complaint, (We) alleged that UA violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), both in the handling 0 case and more generally in terms of other incidents that came to the complainant?s attention. Specific Clery Act concerns were raised, including the following: - Under-reporting of sexual assaults - Failing to issue Timely Warnings - Failure to maintain an accurate and complete crime log The complaint also alleged that the University violated Title IX requirements by failing to address ongoing issues that resulted in the fostering of a hostile environment for students. When the Department receives complaints of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During our assessment of the complaint, the Division determined that complaints at issue do not fall within the scope of this of?cels jurisdiction. As such, we are unable to take any further action. Our investigation determined the alleged sexual assault occurred at a private residence on July 2, 2015, which the University does not own or control. The alleged stalking incident on October 2, 2015; that involved a ?suspicious car" inside the victim?s ?gated complex" was not reported to the UA police or another Campus Security Authority. For these reasons, our Division determined the complaint did not fall within the Clery Act?s limited jurisdiction. The incident that gave rise to this complaint was a heinous crime that had tragic consequences. We want to emphasize that the closure of this complaint is a jurisdictional matter and should not be viewed in any way as minimizing the seriousness of the incident or its consequences. Notwithstanding this closure, the Division will continue to monitor Clery Act compliance to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well~served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa Clery operations at any fiery Compliancc DH 1min University of Alabama Page 2 We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clery Act. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new issues of Clery Act noncompliance committed by UA, please feel free to send that information, along with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at: Clei'yComplaints@ed. gov. On behalf of the Department, 1 thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education August 16, 2017 I Sent via email: Dear (bll?l This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against the Universit of Oklahoma the University). In your complaint, you explained that you were th Ilbllel OU and that your experiences compelled you to look into the University?s campus safety and crime prevention efforts in more depth. You speci?cally alleged that OU violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by under-reporting sex offenses and other campus crimes, among other violations. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division's assessment, we were able to identify certain shortcomings in OU's campus safety operation and CleryAcr compliance program. To address these concerns, OU will be required to take speci?c steps to ensure future compliance. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement options. OU will be required to work with Division officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure that violations will not recur. In addition, the Department will continue to closely monitor the University to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the fer}! Aer and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of CleryAcr noncompliance committed by the University, please feel free to send that information, along with any/all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?edgov Finally, we would like to remind that you may also be entitled to seek redress under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act. Title IX specifically applies to a variety of conditions that may create or result in a hostile environment. These important provisions are enforced by the Department?s Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). You can learn more about ED OCR and their complaint process at: ng?era. ll . t'lt-I'y .?tt?t (fitmipliancr Du [sum University of Oklahoma Page 2 We thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for your commitment to safer campuses. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017 we) Sent via Dear (MB) This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against University of Utah (Utah, the University). In the complaint, you alleged that Utah violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), by failing to: 1) properly compile and disclose crime statistics; 2) issue timely warnings and emergency noti?cations; and, 3) maintain an accurate and accessible daily crime log. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division's assessment, we did detect certain potentially serious shortcomings in the University's campus safety operations and Clary Acr compliance program. As such, the University will be required to work with Department officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure future compliance. As part of this process, the Division will conduct an appropriate intervention to ensure that corrective action is taken. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options. In addition, the Division will also continue to closely monitor Utah to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well?served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into the University?s Clary Act operations at any time. In closing, we encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for additional information on the Clary Act. The Handbook is available online at: If, after doing so, you identify any additional concerns about Utah?s Clary Act compliance, please send that information, along with anylall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleeromplaints@ed.gov. . . (fiery Act (Tolnpliancc Division University of Utah Page 2 On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director Clery Act Compliance Division US: Department of Education calmnm Igreghughes@le.utah.gov; rchouck@le.utah.gov; patrent@le.utah.gov; nfo@endrapeoncampus.org; sduckworth@le.utah.gov; shollins@le.gov; angelaromero@le.utah.gov; news@ksl.com; ealberw@sltrib.corn; idbner@sltrib+corn August 16, 2017 Sent via email: (bile) (b)(5l Dear This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against University of Washington-Seattle (UW). In that complaint, you alleged that the University of Washington- Seattle had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disciosure ofCompus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act), The Drug?Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA), andior Part 86 of the Department's General Administrative Regulations by doing the following: I Failing to issue Timely Warnings in accordance with the iery Act. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were unable to substantiate the claims raised. However, the Division will continue its close monitoring of the University of Washington-Seattle and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well?served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into Clery operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clery Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clery Act non?compliance committed by the University of Washington? Seattle, please feel free to send that information, along with anyiall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?ed.gov. On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division . . Clery Act (.?olnpliancc Division August 16, 2017' Sent via email: Dear (bills) This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against University of Wisconsin Whitewater (U.W. Whitewater). In that complaint, you alleged that University of Wisconsin Whitewater had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act) by doing the following: - Failing to inform you of your options to notify proper law enforcement authority or to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying law enforcement; - Failing to notify you of existing counseling services for sexual assault victims; - Failing to notify you of the option to change academic and living situations; - Failing to give you the same opportunity as the respondent to have others present during a campus disciplinary proceeding. When the Division receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual andi'or documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the con?nes of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During our assessment of your complaint, the Division determined that complaints at issue do not fall within the scope of this office?s jurisdiction as the crime in question did not occur on Clary geography. As such, we will not be taking any further action. This lack ofjurisdiction notwithstanding, the Division will continue its close monitoring of University of Wisconsin Whitewater and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well-served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into U.W. Whitewater?s Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of CleryAr-t non-compliance, please feel free to send that information, along with all supporting documentation, to our Division, via email, at CleryComplaints?ed.gov. Clary Act (Tolnpliancc Division University of Wisconsin Whitewater Page 2 On behalf of the Department, I thank for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director US Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division cc: Laura Dunn at SurVJustice laura.dunn@survjusticecrg August 16, 2017' Sent via email: (bile) Dear (bile) This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against University of Wisconsin Whitewater (U.W. Whitewater). In that complaint, you alleged that University of Wisconsin Whitewater had violated the provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the lary Act), The Dru g?Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA), and/or Part 86 of the Department?s General Administrative Regulations by doing the following: I Failing to implement policies which encourage accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police; a Failing to maintain a record of your sexual assault; a Failing to notify you of existing counseling services for sexual assault victims. When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. During the Division?s assessment of the facts alleged in your complaint, we were unable to substantiate the claims raised. However, the Division will continue its close monitoring of University of Wisconsin and all other institutions of higher education to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of our campus communities are being well?served by the campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary programs in place. Should lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Division has the authority to open additional investigations into U.W. Wisconsin?s Clary operations at any time. We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any new acts of Clary Aer non?compliance committed by University of Wisconsin, please feel free to send that information, along with anyr?all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints?ed gov. Act (Tolnpliancc Division University of Wisconsin Whitewater Page 2 On behalf of the Department, I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director US Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division cc: Laura Dunn at Suerustice lauradunn@survjustice.org August 16, 2017' (bills) (bll?l Dear {bll?l This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Valparaiso University (VU). In your complaint, you specifically alleged that VU violated multiple provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act and the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, we consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and determine an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. After careful consideration, we have determined that this Clery component of your complaint will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that the decision to close this case does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the violent crimes committed against you. Our determination is based solely on the fact that at the time of the incident, it appears that VU substantially met its Clary Act obligations as they existed at that time. The record indicates that the incident was reported to a campus security authority and that an investigation and disciplinary hearing were conducted. Although the outcome of that hearing was not in your favor, it appears that the hearing conformed to the University?s policies and procedures and did not violate the Clary Act. As you may have heard, Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013 strengthened the lary Act in a number of ways. These regulations went into effect on July 1, 2015. VAWA affords additional protections to survivors and requires institutions to better serve survivors of sexual violence. The law also gives the Department additional enforcement authority to make sure survivors and their advocates have accurate and timely information about their options and improved access to the accommodations, services, and support that they need. Generally, the ClaryAcr requires institutions to take specific actions to address and prevent the most serious crimes against persons and property ranging from murder to arson. significantly expanded those requirements to address more sexually?based offenses than was previously possible. Please be assured that the Division will continue to monitor VU to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. The Department has the authority to open additional investigations into campus safety operations at any time. Clary Act (Tornpliance Division Valparaiso University Page 2 We encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If you have any other concerns about possible noncompliance at VU, please feel free to send that information, along with anyfall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at mentioned above we are aware that vo' (W5) (bim'iAi lThank you for bringing this matter to our attention and we wish you great success in all of you future endeavors. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017 {bll?l Dea (bite) This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Worcester State University (WSU). In your complaint, you specifically alleged that WSU violated multiple provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act (Title IX) and the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), including the requirements of Section 304 that were added to the Clary Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, commonly known as VAWA. When the Department receives a complaint, we carefully consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and then determine an appropriate course of action. After careful consideration, we have determined that this matter will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that the decision to close this case does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the violent acts that you endured. Our determination is based solely on the fact that at the time of the incident, it appears that WSU substantially met its Clary Act obligations in its handling of this case. We have not evaluated the institution?s compliance with Title IX in any regard. The record indicates that the incident was reported to a campus security authority and that an investigation was conducted. The University issued No Contacthtay Away Orders to each of the assailants and took other interim measures to address at least some of the concerns that you had about your health and safety. It also appears that WSU officials communicated with you throughout the process, informed her about available resources, and provided required notices and updates. A disciplinary hearing was held approximately two months after the initial report and as a result of that proceeding; disciplinary action was taken against two assailants. Documents acquired during the assessment indicate that information about the outcomes reached and sanctions imposed by the disciplinary body were communicated to all parties. Based on the complaint and subsequent communications, we understand that you felt strongly that the punishments should have been more severe. It is important for us to note here that our jurisdiction does not authorize us to impose sanctions or to require an institution to reconsider the sanctions that were imposed after a finding of responsibility. (bll7ltel (bl(7l(Al The closure of vour Clary/Act complaint WM) Federalstudent, (Clary Act Complianceil)ivision Worcester State University Page 2 In closing, we also encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Cler Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If, in doing so, you learn of any additional Clary Act compliance issues at please send that information, along with anyr'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at leeromplaints ed. amt. On behalf of the Department, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and we wish you great success in all of you future endeavors. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq, Director U.S Department of Education Clery Act Compliance Division cc: Surviustice August 16, 2017' Carly Mee, Staff Attorney Survlustice, Inc. Sent via email: carlv.mee@surviustice.org Dear Ms. Mee, This letter is to inform Survlustice that the US Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Pivisinn?l has mmnleted its assessment of the complaint that you ?led on behalf of your client against the Washington University School of Medicine the School). In that complaint, you and (We) alleged that WUSOM violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), including the Section 304 provisions that were added to the Clary Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. As we noted in a recent letter toregarding another complaint involving the main campus of this institution, we detecte inlcations of certain shortcomings in the School?s campus safety operations and Clalijcr compliance program. As such, the School will be required to work with Department officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure future compliance. As part of this process, the Division will conduct an appropriate intervention to ensure that corrective action is taken. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options. In addition, the Division will also continue to closely monitor WUSOM to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well-served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into the School?s Clary operations at any time. We also we encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) with (bll?l to help her understand the Clary Act and to encourage her to stay engaged in this important work. The Handbook is available online at: If, after doing so, (mm) has any additional concerns about Clary Act compliance, please encourage her to please send that information, along with anylall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Cleeromplaints@edgov. (fiery Act (.fl'unpliancc Division StiltlciltAitl.gm-' Washington University School of Medicine Page 2 Finally, we would like to remind that you that (We) may be entitled to seek redress under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act. As you know, Title IX specifically applies to a variety of act and conditions that may create or result in a hostile environment. As you also know, these imortant provisions are enforced by the Department?s Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). can learn more about ED OCR and their complaint process at: On behalf of the Department, we thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for your commitment to campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education - . a -. (fiery Act Compliance Division StiltlciltAirl.gm-' August 16, 2017' Ms. Laura Dunn, Founder and Executive Director, Suerustice, Inc. Sent via email: laura.dunn@surviusticeorg Dear Ms. Dunn, This letter is to inform Suerustice that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division? has comleted its assessment of the complaint that you ?led on behalf of your client against the Washin ton University in Saint Louis the University). In that complaint, you an alleged that WUSTL violated multiple provisions of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), including the Section 304 provisions that were added to the Clary Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, it considers the allegations, gathers factual and documentary evidence, conducts an assessment, and determines an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. As noted in a closure letter for another complaint regarding this institution, we did detect indications of certain shortcomings in the University?s campus safety operations and Clary Act compliance program. As such, the University will be required to work with Department officials on appropriate improvements and reforms to help ensure future compliance. As part of this process, the Division will conduct an appropriate intervention to ensure that corrective action is taken. While we cannot provide specific information about our next steps, please know that our authority gives us several enforcement and technical assistance options. In addition, the Division will also continue to closely monitor WUSTL to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well?served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. Should additional lapses in compliance be uncovered as a result of this monitoring, the Department has the authority to open additional investigations into the University?s Clary operations at any time. We also encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) with (bus) to help her understand the lery Act and to encourage her to stay engaged in this important work. The Handbook is available online at: If, after doing so, (bll?l has any additional concerns about CleryAct compliance, please encourage her to please send that information, along with anylall supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at CleryComplaints@edgov. (fiery Act Division Washington University in St. Louis Page 2 Finally, we would like to remind that you that may be entitled to seek redress under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act. As you know, Title IX specifically applies to a variety of act and conditions that may create or result in a hostile environment. As you also know, - a a I . provisions are enforced by the Department?s Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). can learn more about ED OCR and their complaint process at: On behalf of the Department, we thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for your commitment to campus safety. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education federal?tment, - . a -. (fiery Act Compliance Division August 16, 2017 (bits) Dear (bite) This letter is to inform you that the US. Department of Education?s Clery Act Compliance Division (?the Division?) has completed its assessment of your complaint against Yale University (Yale; the University). In your complaint, you alleged that Yale violated multiple provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act (Title IX) and the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clary Act), including the Section 304 provisions of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). When the Department receives a complaint of this type, we consider the allegations, gather factual and documentary evidence, conduct an assessment, and determine an appropriate course of action within the confines of its limited jurisdiction under Federal Law. After careful consideration, we have determined that your Clery component will be closed and that no further action will be taken at this time. We want to emphasize that the decision to close this case does not in any way minimize the seriousness of the violent crimes referenced in your complaint. Our determination is based solely on the fact that at the time of the incident, it appears that Yale substantially met its Clary Act obligations as they existed at that time. The record indicates that the incident was reported to a campus security authority and that an investigation and disciplinary hearing were conducted. It also appears that the disciplinary proceeding that was conducted conformed to the University?s policies and procedures and Federal law. As you may know, Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013 strengthened the Clary/lat in a number of ways. These regulations went into effect on July 1, 2015 provide additional services and protections to survivors of sexual violence. The law also expanded the Department?s jurisdiction to make sure survivors and their advocates have accurate and timely information about their options and improved access to the accommodations, services, and support that they need. Generally, the iary Act requires institutions to take specific actions to address and prevent the most serious crimes against persons and property ranging from murder to arson. VAWA significantly expanded those requirements to address more sexually?based offenses than was previously possible. Please be assured that the Division will continue to monitor the University to ensure that the law is being followed and that members of its campus community are being well?served by its campus safety, crime prevention, and disciplinary policies and operations. The Department has the authority to open additional investigations into Yale?s campus safety operations at any time. Federalswdent .. Act {inl'nplianceil)ivision SludentAitlgov Yale University Page 2 In closing, we encourage you to review our ?Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting? (2016) for more information on the Clary Act and on the Clery Division?s jurisdictional scope. The Handbook is available online at: If you have any other concerns about possible noncompliance at Yale, please feel free to send that information, along with anyi'all supporting documentation, to our Division, via electronic mail, at Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and we wish you great success in all of you future endeavors. Sincerely, Candace R. McLaren, Esq., Director Clery Act Compliance Division U.S Department of Education