emissaries date universe dns my pleasure to be here. my role at the university of dean of students. i am responsible for a behavioral intervention team, and other groups that bring together, campus safety group. i am tasked with not only the prevention and education program around violence, but also student conduct on our congress so it is under my guidance. i have been in higher education quite a long time and student conduct so that i have seen from when i was in school and there was knows to conduct part the many alliteration to where we are today and i am frankly

excited about where we are moving. >> well, that is terrific. so i will stay with one area and then i will trade off with senator bloomberg of and hopefully we look at throughout this within the next couple of hours. we have learned that most schools don't have written protocols between campus law enforcement and local law enforcement. n.a.b. chief denton, maybe you are the right to start off because you've been in both worlds. i don't need to tell you that it's always a bed of roses between law enforcement and campus law enforcement. i have seen those two groups were together well and frankly i have seen them behave badly, where one is dismissive of the other, where there is territorial, inappropriate behavior and i would like your take on what we should do, how

we can do a better job and you should start in anybody else should jump in. one of my serious here as we are having way too many interviews of sexual assault victims of people who don't know how to do a forensic interview. the prosecutors will tell you that in a lot of cases the difference between holding someone accountable sometimes has more to do with how the victim is interviewed in the underlying facts of the case. so in a perfect world, i would have someone on every college campus who is the very person to talk to the victim when he is willing to talk, make sure every single one of those people had been trained in a forensic

interview check because they relates to a sexual assault crime. tommy or sense of how well you all are working with local law worse it and you may be an anomaly because you've come from their name and many times you don't have that, so you have relationships they are that assist you in terms of keeping a working relationship hereby do is speak to that? >> that does help, senator. to speak to the professionalism of one person agencies i am a big advocate of accreditation effort. we recently achieved that at our agency at our age and cnn is a very defined in pacific process for agencies have to create policies, purse teachers to address everything to response to investigations and cases. fundamentally, so you build the relationship by increasing professionalism.

we probably are very, very fortunate in the people have come out through the ranks that come in the people i've worked with and known professionally for 25, 30 years are now heads of agencies, so we do have a very good working relationship. i am fortunate for that. in terms of response to crimes, i think it is basic and fundamental police service. we get a call, request service from us. i expect the very basic on every crime as much as possible, whether that is locating a crime scene, collecting evidence, conducting and identifying interviews when you identify witnesses the utah have to reinterview victims or survivors multiple times. it is fundamental police work in many, many cases in a proceed with that case in the courts as you would any other case. >> what you think is her friend and strong between police department and for those of you

that have seen this side of this is not as good, what is preventing good strong working relationships with campus police and local police? >> well, i can address some of that. we have a really great relationship with southern oregon university in our jurisdiction. our department is a little unique, maybe different or they don't have sworn montfort neck, sore and municipal lot course that would take the case if he was a sexual assault anyway. however, you have to have working relationships because they victim may present for public safety officer, so you still need all of the same training there. we have found that it needs to be an open line of communication for training. training is incredibly important. with a clear understanding, and again, our department if you have options program developed to increase sexual assault reported within our city and the other side of the program was increasing reporting, we are

increasing serial sexual. with title ix, we didn't have to be cautious about information we share at the university that would trigger title ix investigation. so you should see a flip maybe from what you have heard in previous roundtables and i municipal law-enforcement agency has to be cautious about we provide to the university. the intent is always still dare to share information to collaborate because it is much better for the survivor ultimately if we want to go forward if anything pref collaboration there. but i would like to enter for everybody as a starting point that the victims request and the transformation and we found great success with that happening. i also had the unique opportunity to train nationally with different law enforcement agencies and to speak openly about their problems and there is not typically that

collaboration. but university law enforcement and echoes back to a fundamental understanding of what the requires to be successful in the fact there is a general lack of education for law enforcement via campus for municipal and general. >> i think there is another goals besides the one between campus police and area police and student affairs professionals on campus, student conduct, other offices, departments and campus safety. and sometimes that can be a huge gap. when i go to my national conference, i hear that repeatedly. we just don't get along. we don't talk. i'm really blessed to work at an institution where we do talk, we do collaborate and safety matters crew. they are active participants from campus safety as well as our springfield police department.

i would also note and i don't think everyone can do this, but we have got a very unique situation at the springfield police department has a substation on our campus and they are responsible for the entire -- and what our needs are and expressing appreciation for the important work we taken. they often feel unappreciated. and really sitting down and talking brings us great value in

helping citizens of our community to be safe. >> i would recognize another obstacle we have for the university police and organizations on campus would be handling the investigation found title ix cleary and barry last the problem. it is exactly that. we comment from different it from different perspectives with different goals and sometimes we are crossing over and stepping on each other's feet depending on timing when to complete my come forward. save the another semester versus where it exactly happened it can start off campus, come onto campus and so forth. we have a disconnect. we do try to collaborate and communicate if we do not have a written policy. it is more unique to have a written ammo you or policy between the agencies. we are meeting next month on a joint session towards that goal. but we certainly have different

charges in mind as they come forward and some times those are at odds. if i university legal counsel and i am worried about timely warnings, that can be inconsistent with my city police investigation and some of the investigative efforts they would like to do first before illegal acts for campus containment. >> so either one of the police officers are one of the prosecutors if they victim reports to a campus police officer at either cornell or ohio state and if that police officer then takes the statement, in your jurisdictions does the detect do then come after that and start over again? or is the first statement taken from the vic done, are you making an effort to have that statement done by someone who understands the particular requirements of a forensic interview of a sexual assault that done. >> we have multi-jurisdictional

issues. we have crossed jurisdiction would not only local law enforcement as well. our goal is to determine location because that affects whether we have investigation from yvonne forstmann. we don't even start an interview until we know we're taking notes or write plays and as a law enforcement officer, not as a sexual assault advocate, but as law-enforcement, someone who knows the system to prevent to the right place and guide them to the right people to take a forensic statement you would want to have taken in the circumstances. >> so your effort is to get them to the right place? >> then again, it again, it is that their wishes. so with their wishes to let us know simultaneously we are letting our title ix offices know that this is didn't happen and it doesn't matter where it happened, the title ix will take

them on to work. we simultaneously launch both notifications in advocate with the student through the process that can be very confusing when you work with a lot of different agencies. >> you would be rare for a survivor to contact us immediately as the very first contact. oftentimes it is a hall adviser, someone in the wellness center, someone in the student can't do it, student life, we assure that all the support services are in place. as chief zoner said it is in the right place as we flesh out and interview scheduling touch base on the kinds of interviews you are asking for and suggest. >> these are all done without it mlu in place. we have fine on a number of occasions our local law enforcement agencies or any other directives to enter into

any agreement. if i purchase something they'll have to sign, they run it through their legal counsel and either refuse to sign or not refuse to sign, but handshake and work with us. we haven't had a problem working with people. the mou doesn't drive whether we work with people. it's never a bad idea to work with something that was his agencies that have a difficulty working together. but i am not sure he mou is the right thing for that. >> excuse me. >> go ahead. >> we do have a franklin county sexual assault on a protocol among all law enforcement agencies that are again led by our prosecutors to service the road service the roadmap or the roadmap for guidance as well as a guiding document and that is reviewed and analyzed. >> the university as part of that. >> absolutely. >> i want to underline that mike was saying about coordination being a bigger issue than just law-enforcement and the university. it is an internal university

issue and there's also another key relationship outside of the universe be and that is that whoever is the community violence advocates are, anti-sexual advocates are. you know, assault response teams have really been a key best practice that's been developed, showed to work over and over again because you can pauline do people internally that need to be coordinated and the people externally that needs to be involved and they all have to talk to each other. my colleague from the victim rights law center who does a lot of training with the to to shins, she went on the title ix panel. she often says, you know, you should start a sexual response team, but understand for the first six months at least, they

are just going to fight with each other. and that is sort of a necessary process because, as mike was saying, there's lots of -- sometimes there's a lot of dysfunctional relationships that need to be gotten through. but often times, once you get through those, you have a level of coordination and cooperation and sort of like mindedness that you would never have been able to achieve without that process, having gone through that process. and i think it is important to understand that part of the reason why you want as many people at this table is because of the different roles issue. you know, from a title ix in the cleary act to have, the most important thing is getting a survivor, getting her title ix and her cleary act writes matt

or his rights that. and those rights are based on equality in the title ix context in particular and therefore are much broader than anything the criminal justice system can provide. you know, the criminal justice system is about justice, but it's not about equality. and so, it is important to set up the process and that includes coordination that can fulfill all of the goals that institutions need to fulfill, not just the goals of the criminal justice system. >> i would like to follow up on the point that you just made, which i think is very, very important. in the course of the roundtables roundtables -- it is said and roundtables. we did a reportedly tried to address the issue of

underreporting, why are women, mostly women or victims, not coming forth more frequently. this crime is hugely underreported. maybe outside the campus as well. senator mccaskill and i have had some experience with the military system as well as the civilian -- the underreporting seems to be chronic and repeated problem and that is one reason why enforcement is so because enforcement gives credibility. you can't have punishment unless you have reporting and effectiveness of punishment and prosecution in turn enhances the system and leads to more reporting because it posters the trust of survivors have. so maybe you and i have heard darcy and alexandra hobbs rent

time on the heel campus and others can comment on the issues of the different goals and to what extent more reporting can be encouraged by pursuing all of the goals or whether some of them have to be chosen over others. >> i think that it is important even as we talk about streamlining that we do maintain these different goals precisely because survivors have such a range of needs in the immediate aftermath of violence in the years that follow. so at night referred many different stories from survivors across the country. some people at the moment really want public indication through the course. some people just want an extension on the english paper. some people don't want to have to see the and adorn the next day. and in order to really have a survivor centered approach, we

should really be embracing the fact that we have this wonderful opportunity to pursue different goals through different processes depending on what the survivor wants. >> add to that but it's not just come i agree completely that it's not just offering as many options and available ways to report, then making sure people know what they are and having clarity around it. going back to what we were talking about with the mou, but would promote survivors coming forward as having the response to the theater systems are working together, that there is collaboration, that they are not going to have to tell their story again. we've seen this model work. just being sensitive to the fact like alexander said it is not one-size-fits-all in terms of what justice means and i think for many survivors, just knowing there are different outlets available, that can make all the difference when they are ready to come forward.

>> i think it is just tricky. i think one of the intentions here is making sure different approaches are coordinated without being merged into one. most of the survivors we've spoken to out of hundreds said they would be less likely to report to their school if they thought that would necessitate unsorted police involved in. we have to be very clear that everyone is working together if they want them to work together, but the decision is ultimately up to them. >> with my prosecutor hat on, i have to say that while i am all for giving lots of different options, oftentimes you might negate my option of the criminal prosecution depending on how the initial investigation has led and how that is performed, he sometimes finds our hands and then we have an inability to actually prosecute it would not be the promised upfront. you can think about criminal later, but it has run its course and interfered with our ability to do criminal later. it's a fine balance. >> it is such an issue and i'm

really struggling with this. my staff is nervous right now. we go round and round. these cases are hard cases. they are makeable and i know i have witnesses here is the breakdown has the right kind of interview, the right kind of evidence in the right kind of investigation is done as closing time as possible to the event. the more time that passes, the less likely the areas that there would be a successful criminal prosecution. a lot of this is about cooperation. it is very difficult to get a jury to unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't have cooperation. cooperation is sometimes easy to obtain. part of this is my sense and i don't know how we deal with this in vb darcy you can type in

here. there is multijurisdictional in terms of roles and obligations. as its center is making sure that the gets as much information as possible as quickly as possible and fully understand that waiting to think about whether or not her brutal will ever have a difficult interview with someone in a uniform or whether her brutal rapist will have fear of going to prison has everything to do with her willingness to not only come forward, but come forward quickly. i don't think that what my senses after all these roundtables as there is almost a bias in the system away from the criminal justice system. and i understand why the criminal justice system does not have -- we have -- i'm speaking writ large, not me for hope for

the professionals i worked with a mastering these cases, but there are some horrible stories about how victims have been treated and the way they've been talked to in the way their cases have been handled and that is being used almost as a cudgel to keep the guns from believing that there are people on the panel that will listen and investigate and handle their cases in a supportive manner. honestly with an eye towards the fact. but how do we do this? i mean, help me here prosecutors and attack this and advocate that are worried about victims not having control. this is where you can talk about options. >> i am time to answer everything. anybody who knows me here knows. a lot of what i think you have

been hearing and i am notorious hard on my own profession, so i'm going to acknowledge that first. but it is because we do not have a great history of doing the caseload, set to assault well. let's just address the fact that if we were doing as well, we wouldn't be sitting at this table. so i always have a problem with legislating or putting rolls forward for law enforcement with the assumption they are going to screw it up because i don't think that solves the problem. there is a really wonderful trend now thankfully among law enforcement to acknowledge this has to be done differently. the police in networks for other cases doesn't work in sexual assault because they are drastically different. we never intended to be sitting here today. all we wanted to do is make

things better in the city of ashland. what we did is we went to every victim that was fun to come forward and report to us and asked them if you could change things, what would you do? no restrictions. whatever it was and i completely agree with you because every person answer that differently as to what their individual barrier was. so anything that goes for that is coming from someone assuming what a survivor wants is grossly mistaken. you cannot do that because what is right for one survivor is not right for another. for anybody in a profession to send a note to hands are his egotistical and damaging to this caseload. so we have to do is get out of our own way. we had to use day, tell us how to do this better because obviously we are not doing that well. my chief who is extremely forward thinking says that thy thinking says it best. let's just take the high statistic of 34%. i don't think there's 34% of

reporting. luscious safe areas. even if they're 100% successful, it is still an epic failure. so we had to do something different and what we said was let's try everything they asked us to do. the one thing they asked every single time was for confidentiality. >> that is such an important point and at the end of these roundtables that i held, i came up with the bill of rights. for survivors. one of the rice was to confidentiality. and i think this discussion is extremely valuable, but the other thing we did in the roundtable was veered from survivors about how the system looks from their perspectives and what impressed me and some of the other places and they hear from jessica as well on this issue is how they provided advice to the survivors because

that makes all the difference as to whether number one somebody comes forward in numbers too, whether they stay with it because it is not only the initial report. it is also where do i go from here? am i just going to retreat? am i going to take a semester off because i don't want to run into this guy? the initial, maybe we can hear more about how you have options, you have choices, confidentiality, how all of how all this looks from the standpoint of the survivor. >> there's actually research that says that you have an advocate in the beginning, a confidential advocate that you'll be more likely to continue through whenever administrative or criminal process. so if they had the advocate they will be more likely to cooperate. i think what has to happen is there has to be trust because some of us really to promise that we don't have an agenda.

we are not telling them to not report, which i fear sometimes the problem is the confidential advocates are turning them away from some of these options. what i can promise as i look at them all their options and let them choose because they come from a victim empowerment model and support them with whatever option they want. i think there has to be the trust that we're not turning them away from one of those options fairly telling him what they are. >> lake jessica, we are giving many options. the big pieces that went to be open and honest with students that it's not an episode of spu and it won't be over 45 minutes. with our population and may have been in their senior year and they senior year and they senior year and they may be off to shop states away. that's a big inhibitor that students might not come forward because the process could take years to go through and they just want to move on with their life and do something different wherewith the title ix model, 60 day something has to be handled.

to your point, senator mccaskill, about having someone come in quickly, it may take several days, several months for someone to see an advocate and at that point if they turn around and say the next day they want to file criminal justice or criminal report, that time is past. at least at connecticut college but under a statute of limitations. as a freshman a student can come back and filed a report. obviously the case is heard to prove, but the option is still there and that is important to remember the length of the process. >> i was just going to add not only the length, but the different types of evidence in the criminal justice system. is beyond a reasonable doubt and with better administered a process which is a preponderance of the evidence. you have the dems wanted to go with what they might see as the easier, less burdensome. >> the people that are in college judicial panels have all been trained as federal mandate for an average juror that

decision. the prosecution can police officers could do an amazing job at the investigation, but the defense attorney does a great job -- >> they haven't all been trained, just so you know. the adjudication and haven't all been trained. they probably have been a kanata college. i assure you they haven't been across this country. we a variety of people making assertions that is quietly inappropriate questions at these adjudications. >> we as a survivor of rights, mr. bloomberg, but frequently we see therefore that france has long instant public records laws and restrictions that require us to make our police records open to a very large extent even went survivors that insert genes so while that may be a best case for some states to do that. >> how you handle public records in terms of your model, it is

similar to the medical system, restricted and not restrict good supporters. on most public record request your police agency on a report worried sick down has been made that you want to keep it confidential. >> let me say first the difference between us and the military model is we are getting information for those doing investigation and that's the goal from the beginning were it's not going to somebody who is restricted and not doing investigation. i believe the permission needs to go with law enforcement. specifically when these reports are released, what we do is a huge break from traditional policing, but we can do this legally and make a different state by state. in oregon, with public records laws, that is when a case has been closed and is no longer being investigated. we're pretty lengthy statutes of limitation. what we do is enact debated.

it doesn't mean they told us they never want to do something. they just don't want to right now and it solves a lot of problems because how in the world can you expect a survivor to make a determination about adjudication when something this just happened. frankly, they were not good necessary because we don't have anytime cooperated noninformation. so that is never even a conversation we have. the document everything they will let us and it does help of some of those delays you are talking about. but i was also says we can overcome those delays. that is a traditional policing response to save delayed reporting there for him likely to go forward. we have shown for years now that is not the case. we give much better cases because we're working with the victim the entire time. it's not adversarial. it is not i need you to do this when i would say is from the cases are not debated, we don't have to really say.

could there be a time? yes. you have to know somebody who made a report to request the report and that's pretty unlikely. it's not impossible, but it's unlikely. when they get to public records typically we party come to a decision that they want to go forward with what is called a complete investigation. it goes to the das office and the options are not available because we're not going to tell them how to do their work, but the victim understands that. >> if it goes to the das office and they decide to not take it, then it becomes open. the decision is by the victim as to whether or not they want to complete investigation with the possibility of referral to the prosecutor. >> it is completely with them. they want to not close it for as long as possible because we have found time and time again the way they feel a six-month and again, the other half of the

program as we identify serial appropriation, which changes the conversation. we could still get someone come in in get someone come in in two years later that says i'm ready now on because we did a good job documenting, good forensic interviewer, audio recorded. our prosecutor stands a chance. i'm not saying it's easy, but they stand a chance. >> going back to the students by knowing their options, the sense we get is they are given an option. you can go to law enforcement, but it is with the negatives and there are make it a salon person obviously. our standard of proof is tired it takes what expense of the semester to finish the case. i don't know when students are given options, they are told positives of law enforcement, which are the enforcement officers will collect more evidence more quickly, especially in cases and more power they are and if you ultimately have a result and

your orders of protection will last many years. we had a young woman who was assaulted on campus outside of new york state and order of protection on campus came to new york for a job in the offender was coming to her work place. not doing anything criminal, just violated the order protection and was completely, completely unenforceable. they need to be sold their options, but maybe in a written form that says yes, this is your law enforcement option and it will take this amount of time and this is the standard of proof, but these are also the benefits of it to encourage more reporting. >> alexandra, do you think it is fair to say that now that dems are being discouraged to law enforcement overall to nancy or darcy or jessica. do you believe that the dems are

being told that negative about going to law-enforcement and not being talked to in your friend. >> i can say when a report of violence to my score five, six years ago i successfully told not to go to the police that it would be emotionally draining. but that being said, i never would've come forward if i had been forced into that option. because there's been another version of this where most schools offer an informal or formal complaints you can go through disciplinary hearing where they might be expelled if your school is doing a good job for us to write a book report or an informal mediation response. we do see schools doing a similar thing were they say you have these two options. you can go informal or formal. but if you go formality will be

hard, just letting you know. some of that comes from the position of these administrators who might only taught that student while they are actively engaged with the board said they see a student who has these are hard proceedings. but they don't see as a student who is forced to spend time with his or her rapist three and a half years on campus because he or she went through mediation rather than his disciplinary hearing. this is certainly an opportunity to talk about a model of bill of rights with the kind of language is school should be using to present options that strong for the experiences of people who have gone through this process, that if implemented the process in many different ways. >> sorry. that comes back to the importance of mou. i was on a first name basis are detected and can cause or my cell phone. having the reassurance when a

student does come, i can sit and call this person noted personally come and give them the positive aspects after just despite how important is to have an advocate through the process because yes it may be hard, but i will help along the way. if you did if you need help with your academic stuff, let me talk to your teen. been there with a student, but helping them throughout that is so important. >> one of the rights inc. was to not take it. confidentiality and advocate. by the way, senator mccaskill and i joined in expanding the right to an advocate within the military system. so i thought from what i heard in a roundtable is that the idea of an advocate who would provide advice. it matches that the advocates speak to the world in advocacy, but also can advise on these options with confidentiality

because that is what an advocate, a lawyer does for a client. rather than the university having the application to provide advice, which really puts the university in a very anomalous and conflicting position and guarantee an advocate provides those rights. >> at the two speak towards the confidentiality piece as well. you can have the best forensic interview, the best prosecutor, the best case going forward. can maintain confidentiality throughout all of this and social media just and surrounding tennessee. enough information is generally present because we're not usually the first people reported to, even as an administrator, friend boyfriend tells another friend. the battle we have for the blame that our system takes on for lack of confidentiality is sometimes just the leakage of

what we have to deal with right now. there is very little we can do to manage that. it is unfortunate and it's also very impactful on the victims. it is very impactful on the investigations that people are presuming things that have happened. they tell stories. want to comment stories. want to comment this out. is that retractable and these are about as we all face. >> another challenge -- >> 99% of which would not be admissible in court. >> but it does impact the ability to move forward. >> it impacts the big gun. >> tremendously. >> exactly. >> fundamentally on posting report on daily log, unlike municipal agencies, every pork is on a log as reported in the classification of the events we have classified it. sexual assault, whatever it might be in another challenge that will have to be resolved in

the issue as you wrestle with the issue of confidentiality. >> .log is under cleary, chief? >> chief zoner then i were using and the prosecutor is the today's, but everything from video evidence as we enhance our campuses and sun campus to observe and confirm that people were coming or going. we do subpoena phone records. we subpoena e-mail, text messages and help build the case. so at the point cases ready for court and the diverse as now i am ready, we have a case built and a lot of confirmation information that is dealt up through really aggressive evidence collection. >> only fun was misled to be in the process to begin with. if they are not given the option, would text messages too quickly. release all of his things. we have the inability if there

is not truly real option to go law enforcement after -- it is basic discussion, which is i need the away from me on campus right now. we lose when we lose. how common is it that this comes to an ra for someone who is not part of campus police and stays within the at minister and a part of the university comes to your point earlier, and the tea, but it never gets to even campus law enforcement for the subpoena of phone records or text messages are missing that nature. >> well, if that is the victims choice, if that is the survivor's choice, there is nothing wrong with that. if it stays within the institution. you know, if for instance she has no interest or she has no interest at that moment and pursuing a criminal investigation, that, you know,

the dilemma for the on-campus fairs and who is advising a survivor, you know, in a moment, in the aftermath, dvd aftermath is with regard to the criminal process is you have to -- you have to balance between giving full informed can sign order, you know, given enough information about the option so that she can make an informed choice about the options. you are restricted in terms of blood and permission you can give her by what the options actually are. so we are not all living in ashland, oregon unfortunately and not everyone has a criminal

justice system that is structured to give multiple options and to hold on to have it in three years so that there can be a prosecution later if the survivor is ready for it. you know, all of those things are relatively uncommon. and if you are going to be a good advocate and support for the survivor who has come to you as the campus%, then you need to give them an honest idea of what they can expect from various processes. you know, whether it be internal or external. and you know, some of those are just going to be fat face and i am going to be very clear with anyone i talk to you, you, if you have this goal, if your goal is to not have to rehab in the cafeteria, that you are going to

be better off in the university title ix is to. if your goal is to have him incarcerated, and we need to talk to the police. >> what about equality and not doing this to another one and. >> we want to empower them. i wouldn't say that to the big to. i don't want this person to do that again and focused on them and what their needs are as a survivor and i want them to feel empowered what is best for them. i want this person not to attack anyone else, they should be on their burden. they've earned it victimized, why is it their burden out to have to do some and they don't want to do. so i struggle with that because i want that people off the street, but i also want to empowers him want to do something after losing power. >> there's also a practical turn. i don't think this is twisted

mr. porky schools or hold perpetrators accountable for a couple reasons. schools can hold perpetrators account of old because often the criminal justice system is not hold perpetrators accountable and ultimately if we don't push survivors into the criminal justice system are early, we might miss out on text messages. if we push them in, we will miss out on survivors. >> i'm going to say this to my mind first and first active and it not one you would hear from any law enforcement officers unfortunately. but what we have learned and it took us about to get there and there was tears of flashiness and it still makes us uncomfortable. we are not happy with it because of course we want to get to a place where we can arrest serial sexual offenders. but we had to realize again what an orders to get their, we needed to wonders and fully acknowledge that it is never the victim's responsibility for that arrest. they are never respond to vote

for the offender doing the next offense. the offender is responsible for the next offense, not evict them and we cannot lose sight of that because will be here and i hear this on different groups. i just fine for me. i hear it in advocacy, too. we would get to a place where it makes us uncomfortable to acknowledge that somebody could know that this happened and we are not doing anything about it. what i think we have to realize is we are doing something about it by allowing a survivor to enter the criminal justice system and so the focus should not be she didn't come forward and give us everything. the focus should be we are grateful that she came forward and gave us anything. that is a very different perspective that changes the entire caseload. he will be successful if you come from that perspective. >> is your reporting of? >> 106%. from 2009 where we did nothing

to 2010 to 2013 was 106% increase. >> to what extent can and if you comment? two and if you have numbers on either up or down based on changes quite >> i can't cite the exact numbers. we have been on discussion group would soon increase reporting. we've been under fire for increased reporting. this is what we are trying to see for years euro forward. >> who is giving you trouble about increased reporting? >> parents, other students. >> the campuses that say they don't have a problem because there's none reported are lying. or they have the biggest problem. >> lying or denying or competent. >> we are setting up their processes so it shows reporting. which is not always, to be fair, it is not always -- it is not

like there's some evil aster grind who is back in a back room setting things up. i think it happens in a much worse that old-fashioned and one of the ways in which it happened is by him porting necessarily criminal justice be like processes and the traditional policing model, the traditional model, importing those products as these into administrative process these that don't have the power even to do that kind of coercive being that the traditional model sort of relies upon. so schools don't even have the power pinot witnesses, for instance. and so, they don't have the power to collect forensic evidence. there's all kinds of things that they simply cannot do. yet, they are importing the

light, you know, the right to counsel or they are having evidence collected that would be for a big evidence, that some police office -- campus police officers just keep being admitted in knowledge these days just mean that it leads us to believe that the campus as soon as the same as the criminal system and the criminal system doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to sexual island, so that instead chilling reporting just by operation of a bunch of, as i said, pretty much unintentional thing, but it ends up being quite affect his. the lack of reporting can be

seen as a veto on the system. >> if you have fewer reports, that means your system isn't doing -- >> the point i was making if you have a lot fewer reports at any given campus, no parent should take that as a signal there's a lot less is old. >> which is by the mandatory survey idea is the way to kind of level the playing field between the various -- all of the school is because will be collecting data on the same basis and separating data collection from getting fixed in service as, which is jessica's dad is the reporting should be about as helping them to access what they need rather than depending on none to solve our crime problems for us. >> i think this is a very

cyclical problem and it only keep talking about is that their goal is on day one can do very different a 10 and six months down the road it shouldn't just be us versus them, as the criminal versus administrative is because for time is after there is a discouragement, u.s.? people discouraged from going to the criminal justice system click you can see there's arty built-in perception you are not going to get justice or be treated properly unless you're doing it right. i think we are doing it right where i am not. the point is where i find difficulties if they are not truly that it, they come to us on a five page paper that was the sanction and now they want to do some that it cannot do it time are so hampered that i say see you never take cases anyways at the perpetuation of the reputation we are not helping them and we are not there from them from the beginning.

i can sit all day long. i can wait a year, two years, whatever until the survivors ready to move forward and move through the system. it just n. of the evidence that the get-go from the beginning. >> so you save a calm after they are dissatisfied with the weak result of the administrative process? >> yes. >> that is the whole reason. this is just the right thing to do, human element of this program, but we are still criminal justice. we say this gives options to survivors, but also gives information to want for smith. they had to be beneficial to both. so traditional law enforcement is only beneficial for line for you. we go forward in the way best for us and i'm obviously overgeneralizing here, but that is true. in each be beneficial for both survivors among horsemen to be affect you. what i can say is i hear to try here to get something in the administrative process that

could be helpful and if i can say the one thing i've seen throughout the years would make the biggest difference is some mandate that anybody who's interviewing a survivor of sexual assault betrayed to do so and for the option to be recorded so that the don't have the option to demand that is recorded because i can't tell you, and reports have been given or someone did a synopsis of what a survivor said and does nothing about the survivor intended. so if those two things happened, i can take that case and i can cooperate it five years later, but i have do have the audio recording of what was said by the actual survivor. >> that is your title ix because it depends on who the lead investigator is and how they were trained and so were their pushes and time frames are the steps on the toes of the criminal justice system for ability to read and parse. >> searches that were better at

the single investigator model? >> i would think so. >> i don't know about that. i would be curious what the advocates or survivors think about the recording. i have been in conversations that say that is chilling in itself that by recording it does put an extra burden that their testimony will be in each does some future point or if their recollections change or become out of trauma and they have a whole different factors. >> but if the interview is done right, the recollections won't change because the interview will not ask them to remember things they don't remember, but rather ask them to say what they can remember is supposed to a typical -- as you well know, there's two different kinds of investigative interviews. this kind of investigative interview with acknowledging they may not remember everything we don't want you to remember things you don't really remember because it happens so often is the victim will try to bootstrap their credibility they make

enough things they don't really remember because they are so whether worried about whether they will be believed. that is the opposite of what you want the victim to do. >> again, we had all the same ideas, but when you talk to researchers. we consulted with victims. we consulted the victim advocates heavily. they are who built the program. what we learned is with victims who traditionally didn't want the recording if it wasn't an option for them. when you sit and tell someone i'm not going to make you do this because here is what i want to do. i don't want to sit down two hours later if i'm lucky, maybe two days later that i sit down at my reporting guess as to what used to. i want to come if you disapprove of the report said, to be able to go back to this and make sure that i am right. i also never want someone later to say he sets an aged. i have never, ever in four years had someone tell me no, ever.

>> the u.k. from the option. >> it's never been pushed on them. i explain why want to. we have had people say i'm not ready to do that. anytime before that happens. i am a forensic interviewer. we do this for kids all the time. this has been a model replicated well for children. i matter and pseudo-survivors of sexual assault should be treated like children, however they should be given the opportunity to talk about what they are able to remember it in an environment that is accepting and understanding of trauma and we do not do a good job of that with law enforcement. >> packets to the bottom line that i am moving to ashland, oregon. he gets back to training in forensic interviews. >> at the very important point because it gets us back to what we can do, you know, what we mean in the congress, the legislature, as much same as my

prosecuting days, we are not going -- neither of us is going to be doing now. i think supporting training is so critical, but also models for how the administrative -- the school deals with it that would be useful because i want to sort a address a point the unique, new the. i think they were due process requirements for the schools as well because they have the power to have an impact on individual lives that can be transforming, that can change those lives forever. so they have a responsibility. you know, it is a due process responsibility, a fairness

responsibility that i think is as important as the criminal justice system. the standards, procedures may be different. the obligations may be different, but they need to be concerned about those obligations as well. and it goes back to, you know, maybe the victim needs are not kids they are, too, with the administrative process. it may not be, you know, we don't want lawyers sorted dealing with this essay minitrial necessarily, but are there ways that we the federal government can help with that administrative process. number one, training by senator mccaskill has a period we have heard about training and the lack of it and the diversity and howard universities approached the issues. but there are other models we can occur.

.. is many lower courts, is noticed and a right to be heard and

that's just for state institutions. private institutions proceed under contract law and all they have to do is follow their own procedures. now everyone has to follow their own procedures as you know, the state schools have to follow their own procedures as well but they have these constitutional requirements as well because they are state actors. but even in the case of the same institution, their requirements are really quite minimal in comparison to the criminal justice system and that's critical because, because it makes it possible for schools to put the complaining student and the responding student on an even playing field. the criminal justice system doesn't do that and there are reasons reasons for why that is, because the criminal justice system can throw someone into

jail or put them to death and those kinds of issues are not relevant in the campus context. so for the campus context what they need to be doing is protecting the living and learning environment of all of their students which means equality and is also what title ix requires. so all of these things actually you can have a very robust administrative process while meeting the legal requirements on all sides and there is a tendency to assume that the criminal justice due process requirements are the same due process requirements for all proceedings but that just isn't true and that's not true on

supreme court precedent as well as many many lower court judgments in these cases. >> i totally agree nancy and nre university and i don't think we meet but we following office of civil rights and what they have provided as guidelines, and number of us not only title ix coordinators office but also student conduct. we have gone through title ix investigative training and has made the shift in our conduct process when we are dealing with issues of sexual violence. so we are not using the traditional model which is more adversarial. not we try to be fair but now that i have been introduced to the investigator training ica huge difference and the student

conduct officer reporting that adopting the title ix model and following through very well with it, we are getting more education and more cooperation from the respondent. you know, they used to lawyer up immediately first thing. you are cut off from talking to your students which drives me crazy by an attorney saying this is my client and you will tal talk -- you don't talk to him or her directly. you talk to me. what a title ix investigation kind of just melds all that away so that you proceed in a very objective fact-finding manner and everyone seems to get more on board with it because they know you don't have a particular outcome that you are searching

for. the outcome will arise from the facts. >> do any of the schools that you work with or that you are familiar with, are any of them using students on their decision-making boards? >> the ale is and i think it's a bad idea. i think that students are discouraged by the idea that now not only may they have have to see their assailant in the cafeteria but they may have to see the person that they told their story to. >> do we have any idea -- there's probably no one here that would know that nancy may be how many schools are using this to make those decisions? >> noem -- no, i don't know that maybe we need to think about it. i would say that just because it's sort of tangential to this one of the things, one of the

problems in this area and i say this as a researcher is just there is too little research on what is actually going on and that is connected to the transparency issue in a couple of different ways. one is that schools have an incentive to pretend that this is not a problem, and they are successful in pretending that this is not a problem than the last thing they are going to want to do is empower their faculty or anyone else to be conducting research as to the extent of the problem and therefore how to fi fix it. you need research on the extent of the problem before you can determine whether or not you can fifix it and how to fix fix it g to fi fix it are actually effective. so you know i don't know the

answers to that question in part because there is an enormous research gap and part of the reasons why there is an alarmist research gap is because of transparency issues. >> i don't know who is using it or not that my school did away with using hearing boards sometime ago and being a victim advocate i can say we have a lot more victims wanting to go through the administrative process when they are told they are just talking to a trained investigator. they don't have to face their faculty, their students, their suspect so i think that is more victim friendly model. i do think we need training on the investigative process but the police. anyone who is talking to a survivor. it could be something that we could have more of. >> that may well include the dormitory quite with the

terminology is on all the campuses that the person who is in charge of the entryway. the student advisor who often maybe the line of first reporting. in other words at midnight when a distraught student wants to talk to someone if it isn't the roommate it may be the person -- maxie the nra and that is what other training could be because the first person someone is going to tell after a sexual assault is their friend or a hall adviser and how that person response is going to influence that person to tell anyone again so if the first person they tell will lead simmons for seminars the resources that person will be more likely to go through the process. we also need to be training our community. >> they would be more likely to go to that first responder if they understand what happened to them is a crime so we need to get baseline knowledge out

there. just so that people -- all of this conversation is assuming that people get to a certain stage in the process so so many survivors said what happened to me was not rape. >> it's interesting because it's so fascinating to me that in this day and age there are so many young people that think race can only occur between strangers. they don't think if it's rape between people who know each other that is the same thing. you are right, there is a baseline. talk a little bit about the statutory challenges we have in the states. i know that new york, and i think every state is different, thought incapacitation and consent. let's talk about that. that's not something we can fix obviously but i think it's important we acknowledge that there is work to be done at the state level in terms of

underlying statutes. >> there's definitely a gap between the college definitions and the college policies on what is sexual assault and then our state statute, what we can actually prosecute. it goes back to what you said before about sometimes people go to law enforcement they are sent away. in new york state obviously a forcible rape is a rape. if someone is intoxicated to the point of being physically helpless so they are sleeping or they are unconscious that is rape, that is sexual assault that if a person is voluntarily intoxicated but still functioning, walking, talking and participates in a sexual act they are not present to be unable to consent. it's not like driving while intoxicated. you were .08 any presume you can't drive it's not the same. if you are intoxicated and you did that on your arm, you are still considered legally able to

consent. so that's the difference between our state law and the policies we have an ecologist that we have in our jurisdiction say where person is you know not consenting if they are intoxicated to the point where that -- not making a rational decision. >> that makes me thankful to be a prosecutor in colorado and it goes back to your initial comments talking about the definition of consent in overplay with intoxication. we have incapable -- not going to encompass the bulk of what we see which is the intoxicated you know -- maxie voluntarily intoxicated. >> not all the way to pass out stage so we are in that gray area and we need that state protection in order to -- an

alternative. we also alternatively look at them as two different theories as prosecution but certainly i have greater options before me so that's a very important note. >> do we need to legislate statutes for the university-based administrative process? we have them in the criminal justice system and that is it would be irrelevant and not appropriate to bring into the adjudication process any evidence that would have anything to do with the victim's prior sexual conduct. >> i would hope every university in the country would be committed to that without any legislation. >> we have talked to those. >> it would be highly objectionable and a criminal courtroom. >> that is what occurred to me

when it was talking about well all we need is a quality. what occurred to me was well you have a quality, we have heard about or at least i have situations where the accused could literally interrogate the survivor. giving the survivor their right to interrogate the accused may not really be equality especially when it comes to certain areas like past experience. senator mccaskill said maybe there needs to be some. >> i think that's about when i say equality i mean equality of rights, procedural rights so you can set up your proceedings so that no one cross-examines anything else. a lot of schools, even that use, continue to use the hearing board kind of model have adopted

a system whereby neither of the two students are allowed to talk to each other. they have to give their questions through the board. so that is, you know that's an improvement. it's mainly just, and i think getting back to becca's point about making sure that students understand what has happened to them is a crime, i also want them to know what happened to them is a violation of their title ix rights. it's a violation of their right to an equal -- to equal educational opportunity and you know, they don't understand that. even more so they don't understand the fact that it's a crime. >> alexander i'm sorry. i interrupted you.

>> i was just going to say that i knew a student who lost her disciplinary hearing because she had a previous sexual relationship and the board decided based on a previous relationship it was okay for him to take cues from her body language that even though she was saying no she wanted to so literally the school was saying no means yes. >> u.s. the question earlier and i don't mean where we have problems especially so the hi focus end of the school is underpinning a complaint bears this enhanced reaction in almost feeling that i need to make sure that i ate himself properly consistent with title ix that you can get an over reactionary response. so for example a timely warning requirement. if they survivor is not ready to

move forward yet they are struggling, legally struggling with well is there a serious or ongoing threat? i don't know if there's an ongoing threat because they are not telling everything so an exercise of caution because i don't want to get crossways of query i'm going to do a timely warning. it blows the investigation from the beginning so over legislation is almost at times. >> i don't know about this timely warning thing. do we need the time warning and sexual assault cases? >> in circumstances where we are dealing with the consent issue especially if it involves intoxication or drug usage, the incident isn't what you are telling people about. what you are telling about is how it came about and it's a very fine line.

we have been able to work with language that we have to be very careful. we don't want to be in a position where we are using language that can come across as blaming the victim for being in a circumstance and get the circumstance did add to the situation in the confusion. so using language very carefully to say that there was in fact a reported sexual assaults so we are being transparent in me to say something happen on this campus and then to soar to trailing out a little bit because sometimes the reporters and come to us. it still might be an ongoing threat because he might be dealing with the rapists or you need to get something out there that you don't have enough information to move forward other than to say this is still a pervasive problem on campus. it has not gone away. your timely warning is actually every advisory that the world hasn't changed enough that we

can move forward from here. >> i also think there needs to be reality about how this crime is perpetrated. a timely warning, what exactly is that going to do? because to me and again i'm not an expert at all in the college process but from common sense standpoint someone who looks at these cases and investigates them this is reinforcing the meth that people are jumping out of bushes and sexually assaulting people. that is not what's happening so if it's nonstranger sexual assault predominately any warning that goes out everybody is going to think that's not going to happen to me anyway. it's always a surprise because you are never thinking the person is going to do this to you would do it to you. >> therein lies one of the fundamentals that makes it hard so that timely warning seemed so counterproductive and all reinforcing what we are all trying so hard to fight to get

out to society and that's not the reality of these cases. >> i can live with what chiefs owner in detective hull just said when you are facing a potential query from the department of that you are probably going to think about this differently and identifying challenges here >> we have done this on several occasions. >> we have been on the side of the timely warrants and it's been spoken of today about hiding the reality of sexual assault on campus and i think you know they should never be so specific they would out the victim. they should never be that specific but it does say. >> if the campus is small enough you can do everything again.

>> if you are dealing with a small campus and you say it occurred you are asking for social media and you are asking for all that. i think we have to really look at this. it's one thing if it is jumping out of the bushes you know a darkened part of campus where someone has been physically assaulted and sexually assaulted by a stranger but it's a whole mother thing if it's a drunken fraternity party where a young lady is assaulted by three or four young men. >> my guess is and this goes back to nancy's point in the general points made here, the lack of reliable data and information generally on this these issues. my guess is that more likely than not the victim and the assailant know each other. >> at the right time if there could be some clarity that comes out of this discussion

particularly from the department of education and the compliance audits we would sincerely appreciate that. as the negotiated rulemaking that was one of our guiding principles to seek clarity in the language that came out of that and make things simpler. this is one issue that your colleagues speak of. it would help guide us in these timely warning cases because i also hear from applicants on my campus that they want a timely warning for for all sexual assault and if that's correct or not. >> the question is we knew you had a sexual assault why didn't you do a timely warning not by the d.o.e. but by my campus? it didn't meet the threshold. do we have a person at hand and everything is all set but responding back to educating the public on what exactly all these efforts are for his helpful. >> a couple of things i want to bring up regarding regulations

is to say that the query crime statistics are very misleading and i never hear that so i'm going to say it. clery designs -- defines very carefully what areas a crime is to be reported. i would say well over 50% of sexual assaults that we are aware of on our campus are occurring off campus. a student is a student. they are in a house or a loft apartment or whatever among people who know each other, they will not fall into a clery statistic because they are off campus. it's important if we want people to make educated decisions and be aware, it's important that those crime statistics reflect as much as we know about where

sexual assaults have occurred. >> i would mimic what mike just said. it's incredibly important and i can carry it one step further. at our university or fraternities are not part of the official student greek system so any sex assault occurring breathy fraternities are not captured in clery as well as the off-campus are those different kinds of group residences that artificial on campus or sanctioned by the universities. >> parimore students living in those locations so it's even worse because the vast majority of the students are simply not being captured. go ahead. >> in defense of tracking warnings for a second i think one of the most powerful tools we have seen as students taking the law into their own hands and filing federal complaints. it is really hard to file a clery complaint because you are dependent on your schools information to know if your

school's information is correct or not and your students have to trek up to some remote office and get their records with their phones because they would allow to take these records out of the office. i think the one thing that a timely warning does it allows people to know they are being counted so if there's a move away from that we need to see an increase of department of education proactive investigations because students just aren't going to have information they need to do that work themselves. >> one thing i would suggest with a timely warning is that any changes are going to be made to that, that you consider carefully some ways in which to give the victim control over how the timely warning, if the timely warning is given and how it is given. whether that be allowing her, or him, to veto a timely warning in

their case or making it more of an opt-in situation but if what we want or avoid our concern is that certain survivors are going to not want a timely warning that certain survivors are, then the way to resolve that dilemma is to put the decision in the hands of the survivor. and you know, acknowledging that there may be problems in terms of asking a survivor to make that decision at that moment in time. with these policy choices is rarely a perfect situation. i just want to put that on the

table is something to consider if there are going to be changes to the timely warning. >> i would also not like to see timely warning used as a way to get information out of the victim that they don't want to share because timely warnings are about an ongoing threat and may be the victim doesn't want to report yet. i don't want to tell you to sexually assaulted me that my ra told me this happen. i don't want them to hear if you don't tell us we have to do a timely warning because now there's an ongoing threat and i don't want to see it be used that way either. >> we have a problem with timely warnings. you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. so you guys need to put your heads together and give us some advice about this. speaking of the quality, should we contemplate legislating that all title ix violations that occur in all code of conduct

violations occur all be handled by the same process regardless of who the alleged perpetrator is and get away from the reality on some campuses that the athletic department has their own process if the accused person is an athlete collects. >> yes. i think it's core that all students must be treated the same regardless of who is the victim, who is the respondent and what their status is. i can't imagine any equality if you don't have that. where i thought you were going and i got uncomfortable was that you know we are talking about students. there is also faculty and staff and i know on our campus the faculty will have a different process because the faculty

handbook that is developed over time. so that is where i thought you were going but i don't have -- i have no discomfort and actually i would applaud that all students are treated. >> to a navy universities have separate systems one for the athletic department and one for the campus? >> absolutely not. >> some schools do. >> the human resources process for those that are staff that might have to go to human resources hearings. we have the faculty hearing process. we also have crimes that occur that have no affiliation with the university that happen on our universities. visitors than we do with that as well and none of this applies. >> i think the mandated reporting that has evolved or

not her fault but is in place now really also addresses that issue. we not only emphasize with ra's you must report but also the same message is to coach his. you must report until it reaches the title ix coordinator. there needs to be a lot of training of faculty and staff but i think that may be already in place. >> one thing that i would like to bring up is the fact that when i hear training i think of the two or three hour training session that we can check a box and say we have accomplished this but i think it's more about building a culture where they are constantly talking about this issue. at the great relationship with their athletic department and it's not just the one hour training but a call just to say hi and build rapport so they know something happens they can call me we can work together through the process.

because their numbers are going to go out. the more work you're doing on the campus those numbers will increase and they think with your help to really let everybody know that that's a good thing he goes people to get worried and you think i don't want to have all these clery numbers and how can you show? i struggle with that with parents. i do appear in orientation the first year students may then and i learned how to paint it in a positive light quickly and let students parents know that we are no different than any other college across the country. how we are different as we are doing something about it in being proactive so that does reflect a higher number. they know where to they know what ago when they feel comfortable at the process so i think it changed the public perception. that's going to increase people reporting the numbers to campuses as well. >> yeah darcie we have a joint task force with the athletic department with the district attorney's office for that same reason so we start building those lines of communication and systems approach for windows

cases pop out. >> especially looking at athletes as a positive thing too. we still vilify athletics and it can be such a huge asset because just like the number of perpetrators is a small percentage of the population at the same thing for athletics. athletics don't want to have that stigma so how do we get athletes to be allies with us? >> you have done that. >> with a good relationship with her men's ice hockey team. they have taken green dot is a major initiative for their team and stuck behind as their mantra and have helped us raise a huge amount of awareness and really created success. >> did they make the -- green? >> they did get green dot jersey specifically for the annual game. >> can i raise an issue we have mentioned a little bit here but very often it sort of the elephant in the room? alcohol use.

you know we have mentioned it's not an offense. clearly it's not an offense to the crime of sexual assault. we need to repeat that again and again and again but the university presidents have said to me i wish we didn't have so much alcohol abuse because it leads to all these problems. from an enforcement standpoint, you know as though they had nothing to do with it. so they could do nothing about it but we are here about enforcement. is it that something that needs to be addressed or more forcefully and aggressively because so often it is involved in nonconsensual and other kinds of crimes, sexual assault. >> i think it's important that we are clear about what we mean

by involved because i think it's absolutely true that a lot of students are drinking or have been drinking when they are a salted. i don't think the alcohol is the book for there. i think often because it's with they are assaulted by people they know they have been out in the social environment and there's alcohol involved. i have heard a lot of survivor stories rape is only one i ever heard where it was really alcohol but played the definitive role where it was sort of the college rape story of the popular imagination which the woman wakes up and has no idea what happened. this is not an ambiguous situation. she was passed out and put into a car and driven away. i think we can talk about training students as bystanders in social situations. i don't think they can stop by stuffing college drinking we

will stop college rape. >> alcohol is a weapon of perpetrators are using to cause sexual assault so i think we have to be careful when they focus on alcohol it's not about stopping drinking. if you don't drink you won't be raped because that's not going to stop sexual assault. we need to talk about perpetrators who are using alcohol as a way to be able to perpetrate sexual assault and i think that easily gets confused. >> i want to say too we thought much about the specific problem because we do find in law enforcement i have seen some truly awful community presentations about keep safe and women's safety and that it makes me absolutely cringe. >> a drinking buddy right? >> i think the intentions are extremely ill-informed and i will read you -- read you a brief part in mou. we put in here because we believe so much about it. policy shall provide any risk

reduction strategies to avoid shifting the focus from the offender's responsibility to not commit sexual assault. for example risk reduction strategy should be framed by how the perpetrator targeted victim by either intoxicated or isolated persons instead of how aids victims behavior about the assault to behave i.e. consumption of alcohol. we don't as professionals try to effect change. we need to be perpetuating these myths. >> of these myths get in the play when they investigate these cases. they should've been drinking or this wouldn't have happened and it gets in the way peoples investigation be it police are frustrated. >> and you have to understand if you are going to be a good criminal investigation -- an investigator to understand how a perfect traitor lacks credibility and oftentimes those

are wrapped up in a drug facilitated or alcohol facilitated attack. the differences showing of a premeditated bad not how the victim a lot of. >> often we talk to the media lot but how many are too many as if they are hard and fast one to many world. it's a scenario where state laws are a giant quilt of mixed bag. it's really hard to say to people well in the state of intoxication standard that doesn't talk about that. they talk about mental incapacity. they don't see themselves in what we are talking about an outlaw. so it's really hard to just try and draw black-and-white in this area and again i think we need to shift the dialogue so we are talking about how this is a factor in the crime but not because of the coin. >> do we have model state policies in capacity and consent that it been put out by the ndaa

or by doj or asbury or any of those? >> i said on the public policy committee for the task force and this is something that is come up routinely. anyone who spends time with us investigating these crimes will become frustrated by the amount of consent cases that they can't take. das office. they want to. >> because of the writing of different state statutes. we have to pull together police chiefs and the national d.a. association and try to get them to work on a model state statute on consent. i would think in this environment it would have political success. >> colorado and i mentioned the two different subsections earlier. we expect almost 100% of the time consent defense but within the statutes we have there able to work through that and what consent means so i don't know if there is a model that's being

proposed out there but colorado certainly is a workable series of statutes we can provide to either one of those. >> we will pull some of the statutes. >> i'm surprised there isn't one. >> i'm going astray for second in early u.s. the question where you might be you might be a lookup lookup on administrative site and i'd like to bring up one thing from the prosecutor law enforcement side and it does have luck with the university. we have an extreme shortage of saying programs in and the ability for survivors to come forward. while selfishly that is helpful to me on the forensic evidence collection there is that side but there's the well-being and safety and medical support that the survivors lacking. i've been working hard in establishing one in my community. >> there's not one in boulder? >> no. i know. we are aggressive and we are educated and intelligent in this area but it becomes a lack of funds. you can say go get a grant that

everyone is competing for those grants and nobody thinks it's their one job or role to provide the same exam so. >> women of america rise up. there should be a sane exam in every community in the country for the availability of saying exams. >> we saw legislation for texas and state-by-state legislation that you can't discourage and/or you must provide one for the problem is you have a lot of students who are going to say they are university-based medical. nobody's supposed to to do than help in that land that is often what is prompting them to report so i still think we need a lot of a lot of help and funding availability and support for medical end of realm of getting sane programs more established and accessible to our survivors. that's a huge hurdle for us. >> an impact of the collection of evidence and the retention of that evidence is tremendous in

our field and for the hospital so even if they don't report to one person at the hospital is mandated to hold onto that. >> we have colorado legislation that has been proactive in saying we help and you are sending every test it down now but our survivors have to drive 45 minutes to 50 minutes to get a sane exam. that's enough right there that people are deterred and not going to drive out there so we need more well-established and available saying programs. >> the senator has done a great job of supporting telehealth and new innovations he can make that available particularly in the rural community so i think it's something that we need an additional push for. >> we will look about as we look at the grant funds and we are trying to put it in. it's sad for me because those involved in establishing the first rape kit examinations in a kansas city hospital at st. luke's in 1979.

and yet we are still talking about this. it's sad to me that this has not become. >> we have had programs before but they have failed because of funding issues. it depends on the model. your rape crisis center-based model and your medical facility-based model so there's a difference of opinion on philosophy that it comes down to funding. >> speaking of funding we have just created new regulations for query and we have these facts coming out of title ix. that's a lot of time and money that universities need to be doing that and i'm lucky that i work at a place where we have a dedicated victim assistance service. there are some people that are at the title ix coordinator who went there with many hats doing prevention and doing response and there's not enough funding trade i know since our last roundtable there's a grand out there but they can only give out so much money. i'm grateful for it but there's

there is not enough to do a prevention to do response. >> and we have to look in one of the things we are going to try to do as we trapped this legislation is to address the problems we have heard about but also see if there are places where we can simplify and make things less complicated. the worst thing is to have someone in your job that feels they are so overburdened by filling out reports that they don't have time to check to see whether the underlying policies are taking root in whether or not they are really making a difference in terms of establishing protocols and processes that are supporting the victims. this is an area of weekend over legislate because it sounds good and we want information. the saddest part is a lot of information we demand there very few people that actually consume it. that is really a waste of time. >> that's a large concern to have mass quantities of reports

and not have that information. i think having the funding there for the crime statistics is so important but as a prevention person i would be remiss to say that that's where we should be throwing our money. we can do a lot of work around prosecution the criminal justice system and the judicial process but how wonderful would it be if there wasn't our problem? i talk to students all the time about culture change. it's not an overnight process but it is doable. pick any type of that cultural aspect of macon talk about how it's changed over 30, 40, or 50 years. i truly believe we can work with college students to become their future jurors and prosecutors and defense attorneys so they are changing that culture overall. it's a challenge that we are waiting until college to be talking about these issues. these things need to be coming up in elementary school middle school and high school because when students get to us they are 18 years old and have set ideas on how to treat people. you can just undo that in a 45 minute orientation program so

how can we change that culture from a that culture, and they are five and learning about consent because someone is to going them and not stopping so they are learning if i say no it doesn't matter. how can we change that? personally i think that's where the money should be going. >> i would like to echo that sentiment. it's the strong urges i have to share with you that we really are dealing with people who have been socialized for 18 years on gender roles, on respect and civility and differences that are still present of boys will be boys and girls need to be polite. we can be reactive but i am with darcie on that let's get the education there sooner. let's get a more pervasive and let's get it to a place where the equality starts the conversation much earlier. >> is there anything else we haven't talked about today that any of you feel we have skipped over? it's interesting because i have

a list of questions and we have covered almost all of them in the natural course of talking about the things we have talked about in is two hours. is there anything that we have neglected to address that we need to bring up before we finish today? >> i guess i would just like to say building on this discussion of prevention that enforcement is good prevention and if we are going to talk about we will require schools that someone is holding them accountable too. this circles back to our conversation about money because the department of education needs to be big enough to be on the ground conducting investigations about the gaps between what they can see on paper of the university's policies and how universities are actually being treated. >> in that regard i would encourage a collaborative process within the department of ed and the office of civil rights rather than an adversarial process. i have been exposed to a

voluntary compliance review that then were crafted that reports to something else. so i think if you want compliance and if you want enforcement it has to be a different flavor to it so to speak, to encourage compliance through training, through education. as it stands now there's a fear that if you call the office of civil rights or the department of ed for guidance you may be waving a red flag and the focus comes to you. >> i have to respectfully really disagree. i'm on a campus where the department of education came and by a series of violations and said sorry we are not going to find amount of complaints. that's one of the reasons we are seeing -- we are still having these conversations. they know they're not going to be held accountable and that

does feel in some ways very gender to me. we give perpetrators and school second chance after second chance after second chance. >> i think there is value to both point and i think there is value to cooperating but then there is value to bringing the hammer down. we have got to figure out if no school thinks the hammer is going to come down and that's also a problem and frankly we have talked a lot about the statute. the only real penalty that they have is to remove all federal funding which we all know is totally unrealistic and is never going to happen. we need to have some kind of middle ground of a problem. they are adamant about wanting to stay with a voluntary compliance program. i've got no problem with the voluntary compliance program with maybe a first offense but if you are back on that campus and they have not kept their end

of the bargain and not done what they agree to do then there needs to be something other than an idle threat and i don't think they have that right now. >> and the hammer has to be something that does not punish students. after all, potentially the victims so to have a penalty that is ineffective nuclear option without any other kinds of graduated responses and also to have the penalty hit the people whom you are trying to protect and get those rights of equality doesn't seem very smart either. >> it's hard. it is, to kind of follow-up on both the enforcement and the technical assistance and the training that we are talking about earlier one good way, one good place to put our money as the federal government is to

require training from not only law enforcement or the frontline first responders but also you know those trauma informed interviewing techniques should also, every title ix coordinator on campus should be required and that training should be provided by the federal government. >> it doesn't have to be provided by staff of the office for civil rights. it can be provided by a say a technical assistance provider who is identified by a ovw by the office of violence against women or the department of justice which is what they do with the campus grantees. there are a number of different ways to do it but the training should be as uniform as possible and therefore it should come, it should be controlled at a fairly

detailed level by the federal government and should be required. and you also deal with the funding issues because if the federal government is providing that training in schools don't have to come up with the money to provide it themselves. and you know from my perspective that's part of the way that you get these various messages and information about multiple goals and the fact that there are title ix rights as well as you know the they're right to be free from crime and things of that sort. >> i agree with nancy and something bad in terms of the ministry of process that we have discussed, i really recommend looking to the association of student conduct administrators for best practices.

i recognize clearly there are outlier institutions. there are institutions not doing the right thing. >> there are a lot that are doing the right thing. >> there are a lot and i would look to the association that provides leadership. >> okay, good discussion. >> for my final comments i want to touch briefly on the different perspective. i do believe many of the issues we are talking about today and dealing with do have an enforcement answer to a point. i acknowledge that law enforcement isn't going to be right for everybody however when you break from the traditional model of law enforcement and you start providing an impairment that encourages reporting and therefore identifying serial perpetrators and providing that information to our das to prosecute those offenders that is a form of prevention and it will have an impact on our college campuses because we are

not only sending a message to the victims that they should be heard and what happened to them should be taking seriously where sending a message to offenders that they can no longer keep people silent the same way they have before. i do believe if we focus no matter how you feel about law enforcement if you focus on fixing some of the issues with our response right now some of these issues will be affected. >> i think i love you. [laughter] i think all the prosecutors are going yes. and by the way i think it is very interesting. you have kind of reworked the traditional law enforcement model and one of the things we need to do is we need to figure out a way to make that model title ix compliant. if we could do that i think we might be onto something that could have a real positive impact on empowering victims and ultimately holding perpetrators accountable which is what we want to do.

first empower victims and take care of victims the second hold them accountable. i know right now it's not title ix compliant. i have already talked to the white house about this challenge and i think we are going to try to get our heads together and figure out if we can somehow legislative blade to make that particular model title ix compliant. it's a little tricky because of the reporting stuff but i think it might be worth it. >> i apologize if i said this already but we have over 40 campus law enforcement agencies that have reached out and said i want to do the right thing and we have to tell them right now you are amazing and that's so great and i'm sorry. so i think it's a positive thing that they are reaching out. it's an unfortunate answer that they can provide the law. >> lets figure out a way that we can make a title and compliant because technically it's not compliant but i think what you're doing embraces what we want to see happen within title

ix. so we have to figure out a way. i think we are in a better place with title ix after the facts came out. i just want to give ocr credit for having done you know, from my perspective you know, acknowledging that there is a wide diversity among how well schools are handling this issue that it might not be enough. what we set out was this free path approach where you had privilege reporters and you have confidential reporters and then you have responsible employees who wear their confidentiality is ultimately the decision of the title ix coordinator. but the confidential employees, that middle category is now based on the judgment of the school and so the school could

not identify anybody including people who are sort of obviously should be confidential employees. they could refuse. they can refuse under this system to identify them as confidential employees and so that might be a place. >> if you've ever school that is done that make sure to let me know because i will have them as a witness at a hearing. that would really be bad if they try to take mental health professionals or health professionals and tried. >> i'm not talking about those folks because those folks had privilege based on state law. i'm talking about the folks like women's center directors like i used to be who do not have privilege based on counseling license for instant read but are likely to be considered by

students as being someone who i can go to confidentially and i report would not be automatically advance to the title ix coordinator. part of the idea of you having options is that you have options. so there might be a way under title ix to retain the sort of enforcement idea but still give options. but it may not be advisable to leave that entirely up to the school to determine. and to actually identify folks on campus in certain roles that should be confidential regardless of whether they have privilege. >> in this model the only person who would decide whether someone is confidential or not would be the victim. it wouldn't be the schools. >> to hang up that we have seen is for this to be effective and due to time we didn't talk about

the other side of the program which is the investigation you would have to make your campus law enforcement not title ix reporters. in order for this to be truly effective is and i think a lot of people people have our tents and camp with one person who is employed by campus is not a responsible person. >> we have got to work on it. i want to thank all of you. it's been terrific. >> thank you all. >> we have learned a lot and i think we are better informed than when they began and you are all doing tremendous work and i appreciate taking the time and traveling to be your dad helping us with this and please continue to communicate with us especially once the legislation is drafted and you have a chance to look at it. we will tell you the certainty that a piece of legislation being drafted does not mean it's going to look anything like that when it's finished so there'll be plenty of opportunities, plenty of opportunities to shape it and change it and tweet it

and it mended and we will look to you for guidance on the best ways we can get the best package possible to get at this problem that i know you will work out at every single day. thank you very much. be thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> what i have right here is a partially processed plant that i have cut down into sections that are the right-wing for hanging and then i took off all the big fan leaves and those are sent to the kitchen to make edibles. there's a small amount of thc so they get that for really good price from us. ..

the court also ruled 6-3 that web company aereo, violated broadcast stations copyright licenses by opinion lick i performing their programing without paying any fees. if you haven't heard of aereo, the company has been delivering more than two dozen channels over the internet intended for markets using tiny antennas. the "usa today" has a chart on the winners and losers in the case onhe