one is, this is the rare play where somebody invests $150 billion and doesn't have any accountability for how it is spent in terms of the rultesult that are achieved. we have very soft, subjective, informal measures. but to sustain national confidence in the student aid system and to be able to continue to justify that we are getting what we want as a nation from it, which is education student and education results for all, we need to have a political structure of support that is strong enough to keep us putting precious and highly competed for federal funds into student aid. one very clear purpose is also to help push the state reinvestment in student aid.

federal money cannot chase the declines we're experiencing so long. and that reorientation of the traditional bargain about the feds, the states, the institutions and families and philanthropy together paying for education is something that we need to improve. fortunately, it's been stabilizing in many states, and maybe we are moving in that positive direction. but the -- something that is overlooked, if we think about the danger side of an allocation that follows institutions that are effective in educating first generation underrepresented students, those who have -- who do, indeed, pose an educational challenge for institutions and whose graduation is the reason for our investing so much in

student aid. we look at the negative side of who might lose. i would encourage us all to think about the positive side of having the information that would allow us to reinforce the resources and grow the resources to those institutions who have the kind of track record that many of you were talking about so that we put the resources into their hands to be able to do the things that they're doing or do it for more students or with less struggle and be the models and the beacons we're looking for for that kind of success. this is very complicated work. many of you here in the audience and on the panel have been generous with us in helping us think about these issues. i hope we can count on you to do it as we get closer to versions that we would like to share with you and then share with the entire public so that we can achieve the kinds of goals you're talking about and do it

according to the test that -- it's sarah, right? that she was talking about because in fact, those are my questions as well, and those are the benchmarks for us in a system that succeeds in understanding better who is succeeding at these important goals. and where students are truly being built disadvantaged and where institutions should not be able to participate in our aid system. >> thank you very much. >> i look forward to questions. >> we have time for two or three short questions. if you come down to the microphones, or if you don't, i will ask them, but this is your chance. >> hi. i'm lara kaufman. my question is really short for dr. hillman. the slide you showed comparing

private and for-profit and the cohort -- it says zero with a little asterisk. can you explain that? >> i forgot about that part. >> my sense is that school they only had 68 students total. my guess is they probably don't need to report that data out to the feds. if you have an student that has less than 30 borrowers you have a different criteria for calculating default rate. that's my hunch with that one which actually speaks volumes about how why measure things we think are pretty straightforward but in fact are not. >> it could be zero means zero to 100. >> it could be. >> hi. thank you for your research, and thank you for this panel. my name is jazelle hunt. my question is more about the proposed standards for accountability. it seems a lot of thought has

gone into the factors. has there been any thought about helping poorly ranked schools actually turn themselves around and improve? i know that as sarah was saying, we've seen what happens at the k through 12 level. is that something we're trying to duplicate an a higher education level? >> for me? >> go ahead. >> we have lots of programs currently in place that try to strengthen institutions to be able to carry out these purposes. and the entire notion of including improvements so that institutions wherever they are, if they are on a positive trajectory toward greater effectiveness on whatever measures we end up choosing would be recognized and be protected as everybody said. it's a little hard to talk about something that doesn't exist but that's at least -- everything i

say is, either people have suggested or it is possible we might because the goal is to have lots of opportunities for people to go to schools that will serve them well. our objective is not to eliminate. it's to improve the overall system availability. so the more we can identify good practices, expedite their -- people's awareness of them, identify innovations in any part of education that have value for educating the populations that's we're talking about, the happier we will all be. so there's no reason that -- we're not looking to eliminate unless there are places that are truly not using federal funds to get educational value for people. so improvement would be very important. >> that was the last question, the last word.

i want to take a couple of minutes. we are famous for doing things on time in our project. and we know you've given us your morning, and we appreciate that tremendously. what you see today is a very thoughtful multidimensional effort to understand and think about what could be done about the accountability proposals that the president and others have made in higher education. i'm shadowed by worries about accountability plans that exist in a number of our states and elementary and secondary that have produced counterproductive impacts. these different analyses have shown you many ways of looking at these issues. of looking at geography, looking at pre-college preparations to looking at a variety of institutional resource factors. any qualities in many respects. we have a very complicated

system of higher education in which the states are primary actors in public sector. so we have, in essence, different higher education systems. in a country where the federal government has been the primary actor in the student aid area, and very important. and a vast amount of money goes into this. and a vast amount of the hopes of generations of americans that their children will have a chance to be in a middle class that depends an having post secondary credentials. the stakes are extremely high here. and the reason we did this conference is we want to make sure that there are not unintended harm done. the first rule of policy making, especially when it's so close to the destiny of american young people is do no harm. do no additional harm. try to think about ways that you can do things positively and

contribute. i don't think anybody who presented today doesn't think that it would be better to have better, more accountable institutions. it's not a simple issue. and particularly, it's not a simple issue as some of our panelists pointed out when the data you want to have doesn't exist. when you enact a sond bite on the basis of a theoretical data that doesn't yet exist, you create problems that aren't foreseeable in many dimensions. what we will be doing as we go forward in this area is to be taking these papers, now that the authors have a chance to speak to each other, read each other's work, hear your comments, hear your questions, hear the very thoughtful response of our deputy undersecretary to think deeply about them, to revise them, we will be publishing these as they go through peer review and are revised. they will be on the website of the civil rights project, and i assume our collaborating

institutions. and they will certainly appear in the professional literature. this was not designed to be an attack on the obama administration, its proposals. it's a thoughtful way to try to contribute to an ongoing discussion and we greatly appreciate the welcoming of these contributions and to the discussion. i'd like to thank the authors and commentators and all of you who asked interesting questions today and to tell you this is just a step. this is a very high stakes set of issues that will determine the destiny of individual students, of communities. it will affect racial equality in the united states and mobility. it's a very high stakes issue. i urge all of us to continue to look at this with great interest

and careful and critical judgment and to contribute to a policy making process that trns out to be a lot smarter than the policy making done in elementary and secondary education when sound bites really were enacted into law and we've been stuck with them for 14 years. i'd like to thank everybody for their participation and to close this session now. thank you very much. on the next "washington journal," we'll talk about civil rights, the criminal justice system and the police with steve silverman of flex your rights. then we'll take a look at the new mortgage lending rules aimed at increasing lending with david stevens of the mortgage bankers association. we'll also be taking your calls. facebook comments and tweets on "washington journal," live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

c-span's 2015 student cam competition is rnd way. this competition will award 150 prizes totalling $100,000. create a 5 to 7-minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. it needs to include c-span programming, show varying points of view. go to student cam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. missouri senator claire mccaskill has hosted a series of discussions about campus sexual assaults. one panel included former student victims along with campus safety and sexual assault experts. they talked about how universities are handling compliance with laws designed to prevent sexual assault. this part of the session is an hour.

>> morning. welcome. we are glad that you are all here. we are going to convene our first of three roundtables on the serious problem of sexual assault on college campuses. these rontables will occur every two weeks for the next six weeks. today, as you know, we're going to focus on the cleary and save acts and talk to you about the challenges that those rules and regulations present. two weeks from today, we'll cover title 9. in four weeks from today we'll cover both the administrative process that's been a great deal of focus an the criminal law

enforcement process and where we're failing to get these perpetrators into the criminal justice system and what we need to do to improve our abysmal record in that regard. i thank all of you for being here. you were all invited because you are experts in various ways on this issue. and this is not a hearing. this is a conversation. the goal here, and i want to say for senator gillibrand and senator blumenthal, they are both very sorry they cannot be here today. i'm sure they'll be participating in the other roundtables we will have. we're working on drafting legislation. and what we want to do is maybe simplify because i know this is now a complex labyrinth of different rules between save and cleary and title 9 and different standards of proof, different state statutes. we don't even agree on the

definition of consent. so those are challenges that i know this area represents and we want to see if we can simplify, clarify, augment, support, perhaps provide more mandatory training but with the grants that go with that so that universities can access grants to help train people on campuses for important things like that initial forensic interview that we all know is crucial that, frankly, if there's one thing i could do by waving a magic wand and that is making sure every victim at the moment of report is immediately seen to by someone who is trained that can do the type of interview that makes the difference between success and failure in terms of ultimately bringing someone to justice for a serious felony. as many of you know, i have already sent letters requesting detailed information from the department of justice and the department of education regarding their enforcement and

oversight. i've also launched a survey of 450 college and universities regarding their policies and procedures relating to sexual violence. i am holding these roundtables to hear from stakeholders about how they think we can best address this problem an college campuses. today, as i said, we'll focus an clairy and campus save acts. two pieces of the legislation which among other requirements mandate that schools collect and report information about sexual violence. these requirements are, in fact, a great start. but i'm concerned they haven't been adequately enforced. i also believe that we can do better to address this problem through this enforcement regimen. i'm a former prosecutor. and, obviously, that informs my approach to this problem. i want to know that survivors are getting the services they need and that perpetrators of sexual violence are being held criminally accountable. but i know that's not all that's required. i also want to make sure that whatever steps we take going

forward are the right ones and that we respect the rule of law in this country which includes due process. i know that commitment is shared by senator gillibrand and senator blumenthal. i now like to invite our participants to go around the table and introduce themselves. if you would, give a very brief introduction as to the work you do and where you're from. i ask that you keepior remarks are limited at this point so we have plenty of time. i have lots of questions. i want to make sure we have time to get to all of the questions and that i hear all of your concerns and comments that will help inform our decisions as to legislation moving forward. why don't we start to my left. >> my name is -- >> you need to hit the button and -- there you go. >> my name is tracy. i'm with safer or students active for ending rape. we were founded by students at columbia university in 2000 and later reorganized as a national non-profit organization that

empowers college student activists to reform their campus sexual assault policies and hold them to transparent investigative and disciplinary processes and supporting survivors. >> my name is holly. i'm the director of the sexual assault prevention and awareness center at the university of michigan. in that role ooum responsible for overseeing the institution's prevention efforts, our response efforts as it relates to students who are survivors of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, sexual harassment and stalking. and i also serve in a leadership role in developing policies and processes at the institution and ensuring compliance with campus save and other federal mandates. >> good afternoon. my name is lynn. i work for the office of post-secondary education at the u.s. department of education. i'm responsible for the regulations that implement the violence against women act and

other cleary issues. >> and save? >> yes. >> i'm alson, the executive director for the cleary center for security an campus. we were finded in 1987 by howard and connie clery and provide training and technical assistance to clery compliance and benchmarks as well. >> i'm caroline carver. i represent the university of south florida system. i'm the associate compliance officer for that system. my chief responsibilities are to oversee higher education opportunity act compliance including clery, violence against women act and also where those law s interface with titl 9. >> good afternoon. i'm the chief of police at george mason university but i'm here on behalf of the international association of campus law enforcement

administrators. >> i'm lauren dunn. i've been a long time activist over eight years now and recently graduated from the university of maryland law school just this last friday. so i guess i'm a lawyer now and -- >> that's the first time you've been able to say that. >> yeah. it feels good. also the founder of surv justice. it's support institutions in handling sexual assault. >> senator baldwin, welcome. we're glad you're here. and i'll turn it over to you if you have any comments before we begin. >> absolutely. i first want to thank you and some of our other senate colleagues for convening this first in a series of roundtable discussions on sexual assault and violence on campus. and i want to thank you forrior critical work on the issue. i also want to share some words of praise with the administration for taking, i think, very important steps to

raise the profile of student sexual violence, including an establishment of a white house task force to look further into the issue. and while i'm encouraged by the advances that we're seeing on this issue, including the strengthening of federal law that we'll be talking a little bit more about today, i also think we can all agree there's much, much left to be done. and so i wanted to just call attention to two quick issues. i was proud in recent weeks to introduce the tyler clementy anti-harassment bill that would include cyberbullying and harassment into our anti-harassment policies. for those of you who know about the life of tyler clemente, he was the victim of cyberbullying

and ended up after his freshman year committing suicide because of the -- because of the activities. i also, and we can address this in the discussion, but senator mccaskill, you and your colleagues on the services committee have done just an incredible job of elevating the issue of the sexual violence that we see in our military. there's one issue that i see sort of overlap between what we're talking about today and that and that's the rotc's on our campuses across the country where many of our officers are trained and come through. and i have certainly heard anecdotal information that concerns me and thinks we need to raise the -- elevate the focus on that in terms of data

collection and understanding really what's happening. and so it complements your leadership on that committee with what we're doing here today. so, again, thank you to all of you for coming, and i see a fellow badger. so thank you for being here. >> thank you. and we're glad you're here, senator. let's start with the clery act. and maybe allison you can start off and all of these, everyone should just jump in. this will be a free-flowing discussion. the worst thing that could happen is for you to leave this room saying, i wish i would have told her this or told them about this. we want to hear everything that frustrates you. everything you think is working. everything that you think is problematic. you know, please don't hold back. the clery act, i think that at least in some of the people i've talked to it was originally

envisioned this would be data people could rely an and it would be consumable by someone. the problem is now, i don't think anybody knows the data is even there. i mean, getting past the first problem that it's not reliable. the second problem is thatrelia. the second problem is that it doesn't appear to me to be out there where families even know that it exists. that this is something that they could even ask for and find out what the data is on a campus. so allison, who do you believe the data is for? >> sure, i interviewed one of our people recently for something separate and we talked about the intention to be forewarned. to let people know when they go to a campus what crimes have been reported on that campus, so for current students,

prospective students, current employees, prospective employees. often how it plays out, if you have a campus, for example that reports 60 sex offenses versus a campus that reports zero, the perception is that that campus reporting 60 is unsafe, where i would disagree with that. that that campus reporting 60, and as a prosecutor you know that it's often underreported. so that's one of the challenges i see with the numbers. the annual security reports that campuses produce at that are to be made public for families, for employees are wonderful documents that provide summaries of policies. one of the other struggles i see is to check-off the compliance box sometimes those documents

are created, and they have policy statements, the summaries, for example of the sex assault policies. and sometimes that policy's not being implemented on the campus. i'm sure some of my colleagues could add to how i just started the conversation, but. >> so how do we do better on the problem that if a college campus says they have zero that should be a real red flag to any parent that that means they are not reporting their statistics and don't take this problem seriously as opposed to one that may have 60, which could mean they have a really robust program where they are actively collecting data and victims feel comfortable coming forward. does anybody have any ideas as to how we could get past that bump? because that's going to be the problem. i think that is the problem now. there is an incentive to not accurately report. >> i think the white house already started addressing that.

they called it a climate survey. what they're talking about is the victimization survey. we do have an underreported problem. and when we measure that and have that number at the top of the cleary chart saying there's 100 rapes here and only 5 reported, that's how you contrast it. sexual violence is everywhere. but when campuses have to face those numbers, i think we start thinking about how that works now with cleary. the challenge is geographically based and bound. and how does that happen everywhere and between students off campus and on campus. >> the answer to the cleary problem is maybe mandating? because the white house is talking about voluntarily doing climate surveys? >> i'm very for man dating. they make you return books before you get loma.

it has to be have you had an experience where you didn't want this to happen. because when you force people to identify legally, you're going to see underreporting. i didn't know what happened to me was rape for a long time. i thought it was my fault or something bad that happened. and it took he a long time to come to that realization. so the content is an issue. >> how it's actually conducted. there's been a long history of victimization surveys in the united states, done by the department of justice. do you have thoughts or recommendations on that in terms of people, you know, sharing? >> one of the recommendations that i would encourage is that campuses who are doing surveys use validated instruments for those surveys so we are able to compare campus to campus the information that is coming out of the surveys in the ways that

cleary, i believe was intended to function. also that there would be comparable data. that would be possible when we are using survey instruments that have been tested, demonstrated to measure that which we're hoping to measure. >> and i would note that the university of new hampshire has had for 20 years a survey that they have used and that that has validated instrument that could be the beginnings of an instrument that other campuses could adopt. >> so what you're saying is, potentially, we, education or d.o.j. would come up with a standard survey that everyone would use? the standard language on the questions? >> i would hope that we would come up with a core of standard information that would be able to be comparable from institution to institution. but also that institutions be

able to adapt some portions of the survey so that they can actually measure some of the other kinds of interventions that are happening from campus to campus. that this serves not only as a tool for consumers to be able to use to be able to compare data but also as a learning instrument for the campus itself to identify what practices are effective. and it is my hope that those kinds of measures will feed into the yawning gap of research and evidence on what our best practices for prevention as well as response on the college campus. >> those surveys, we need to be able to afford whoever responds to those surveys anonymity, confidentiality so we can truly get to the heart of what's happening. because if anybody has an inkling their identity is going to be revealed they're not going to answer and the information

will be useless. >> i would say a good example of that would be an organization that uses instruments and many institutions if not all regularly do. >> it's all private health data. and people realize it is. >> to speak to senator mccaskill's question about the accessibility of the data on the o.p.'s website, currently, depending on how you filter the data, how you access the data through the website. if it pushes the information out in a cell format, sometimes the tabular data comes out incorrect. and there are many typographical errors. there's errors in spacing, in the columns. and we found that to be a huge challenge. >> tell me again where, you used an acronym. >> the office of post secondary

education. if you go to the website on the cleary. and you try to download the clary data, it often comes out with typographical errors, space be issues. and it questions how accurate the data is. >> related to that, talking about accessibility of data. i can say we are very disappointed they didn't mention the clary reporting act process on the website. they listed the 55 schools under investigation, but they're not going to do that again. now you have to request it. and one of the big problems with this issue, and i know law enforcement can speak to it, it's a silent issue. people didn't know there was a complaint on campus, and if they did, they could come forward. and the evidence gets flushed

out. i think data is of concern. >> let me ask our police chief. one of the things that i realize is that the clary act uses definitions from both the ucr and the national incident base reporting. and it's my understanding that if someone is taken by force into their car and driven across town and then they break in somebody else's apartment and then there is a rape, are you reporting a kidnapping, a rape and a breaking and entering as three separate incidents, and nobody has any idea that it was the sail, all-in-one crime. is that actually the way it works? >> yes, maddal senator. one of the challenges with campus law enforcement is not

only accessibility of the information but making that information useful. and that's one of the problems that we encounter in our business and law enforcement on campuses is the challenge of the differences between ucr and neimers, it presents a lot of challenges for law enforcement. they're counting these particular statistics. yet college campuses are required to come up and try to determine where specifically does it meet the cream. because we all know state laws var' throughout this country. so being able to capture that information and to answer the second portion of your question, the hierarchical role of how we talk about those crimes. the fact of the matter is when the information comes out, it's aggregate data.

it looks like all these crimes are happening on your campus, when in fact it may be one incident. >> somebody who goes on a crime spree one night and could blow up the data over one continuing criminal behavior over one evening because it embraced so many different types of behavior. >> exactly. a good example would be a hate crime. maybe you have to designate a crime as a robbery, but there's some hate in it, you designate it a robbery as to where it occurred and as a hate crime. it looks to the untrained eye as two crimes. >> why are we using both uci and n n neiber. does anybody know how that came about? >> rather than putting statistics and numbers, schools have the flexibility of writing

a narrative and showing it is one event, and that is what we turned out to do with the gender violence crime. my concern, actually is we only count by victimization. so you can have a gang rape that's one rape even though there's ten perpetrators. that, to me, is shocking. and that's coming up with a bigger problem where we have fraternities and teams. >> we're counting all the crimes but not all the different perpetrators. >> yes. we forget where this problem's coming from. >> just to add on it too. there's also the public crime law requirement under clary, you have the ability to detail in more plain language, user-friendly language so to speak that's accessible. so if you are looking at it in institution statistics, you have the ability to request the crime log and get a sense for what

occurred or what happened. so there'd be a little more detail there. >> can i just add to that? that is true about the crime log. and i'm thinking as a parent of the and the whole idea is to give parents and students to the institution informed information, the probability that they're going to even know that they can request the crime log, much less read through it to figure out was it one event being counted as many or a gang rape being counted as one. i think that's too much to ask. >> and the third issue to counting, is it's reported as raw numbers. so two rape ts at a campus that a small cosmetology school, 25 students, in a small rural area, versus a large institution, two rapes, 100,000 people. they're both two rapes, both horrible but it's a different safety situation.

and with the raw numbers, there's no way for a parent to compare apples to apples. ? so do we need a whole new data schematic for this? anybody willing to sign up for that project? >> i think you can capitalize that alone. you can go in and type in your zip code and see the crisis intervention surveys. type in your school, have the ability to contrast a few colleges. if you want the data to be useful, we need it in one location. and the question on the crime log, it's typical to be on campus and can you go see it. it can also be lek drelectronic. maybe schools can have a link to. >> it seems to me, with technology today, we ought to be able to do a lot of this more simply with electronics. there ought to be a way that you could have a user-friendly dynamic, where you could go on and click on a university, get the data, get the crime logs.

get, and so you could get context, how many students, and even allow the university to talk about, you know, where their numbers are. are they up? are they down? let them do a narrative to explain, for example, if they are a high number, that this is because they've put an emphasis on reporting, that they have doubled the number of rape crisis centers and counselor and as a result victims -- i don't know. should that all be done through clary? probably, right? >> one of the things i think would be very helpful and i would just reflect also that when we look at the numbers and we know that reports don't equal a clear picture of what's happening on campus, i talk to a lot of parents, and parents want to know, how do i make determinations about what is a

safer campus for me to send my child. and i think that looking at the prevention and response efforts that are happening on a campus are an excellent determination, because that is something that campuses are able to effect and that's something that we have more evidence makes an impact on campus. so i think, as we're looking at finding ways to compare campuses, i think allowing for parents to have the data about those prevention efforts and have the data about those response efforts in addition to the reported incidence would be a very helpful may tribs. >> it's cop text. >> absolutely. it's context, not only what's happening on the campus, but what is the campus doing to address these matters, both proactively and in the event of a traumatic incident. >> one of the things the white house talked about and spent some time on and haven't, i don't think it's come to any

conclusion, and that is, should somehow this data be included in school rankings, like the u.s. news and world report rankings? >> one of the challenges with that is because we're requiring schools to self-report. this data that it height not actually paint an accurate picture if you're just looking at the statistical numbers. if you're looking at things, you know, that holly mentioned, like what are the prevention efforts happening on campus. do they kent students with a local rape crisis center. do they have a record of crisis intervention, prevention. that data may speak more loudly in itself. students have filed more and more clary act violations against their campuses. we cannot trust every institution to report the data accurately. if you look at new york state campuses, for example, if you go into the clary data and look at how many assaults are happening per campus in new york state,

it's less than a half of an assault happening per campus. and if you have one in five woman who's a result of a completed or attempted sexual assault, we know that's not correct. and you really have to rely on the institutions to general rate that data, so i don't know if using those numbers is the best way. the climate surveys would be a more accurate picture. >> absolutely. and i know they are trying to figure out how to measure, not just compliance with the laws, but true safety. and so having an objective third party kind of coming in as a watchdog and saying institutions, of course you think you're doing a great job, but do you have this policy? do you have this practice? are you coordinated with local law enforcement or do you have your own security in force. i think we need to look outside schools to see what's really happening. >> i think it's a very wise

suggestion to look at climate survey, but in terms of getting better, more accurate, higher quality cleary data, are there clear impedestrianments we should be thinking about? we're talking about campuses that have their own police department versus campuses that are reporting and interacting with one or more municipal police departments that are responding because there isn't a campus. you know, definitions that may be being applied differently in different states and different campuses. are there a set of clear obstacles that we ought to be grappling with to make that campus-based data more accurate? >> i have something, if you don't mind. one of the things that's very difficult for me is the compliance person -- >> move the mic up a little closer. there you go. >> one of the most difficult things for me as a compliance person is compliance is all

about training, getting earverye on the same page, reporting the same thing. even the way the law is written right now, we have to train employees on this jurisdiction. dating, violence, domestic violence and stalking, they may or may not have a definition. they may or may not have a definition and consent. when i report for my school, i must report based on the cleary definitions. and they're not always the same, obviously. so to me, there's a disconnect. to me, it needs to be very simple. everybody has the same definition. we all report on the same things. apples to apples. >> and i think to piggyback on that, the first thing i want to talk about is we talked about having this document that talked about prevention and has the

statistics. institutions have to do that right now with their annual security report which essentially hathese cliff notes and policies, and then the numbers. and if order to put that together well, it requires training. so having training, that when you have these summary policies, these policies actually have full policies that they support. and then a step further, the institutions are trained to implement them. what we've seen with a lot of the cases on college and university campuses across the news is they're not implementing policies well, and survivors are suffering as a result. and that's when you see major changes made. so some of the institutions that have made some major changes, specific to cleary compliance as well as title ix -- that's a conversation for two weeks from now. they're making changes because they've been called out on it. there's been public scrutiny. so now they're investing resources, leadership. they're talking about cleary when their board of trustees or

chancellors have never talked about it or possibly have misspelled it for several years. so now they're talking about it and doing some work around compliance. so a lot of, too, a lot of what is there in the law, if you're trained on it, if it's being implemented, i think works well. the challenge i see a lot day to day as a campus director and as an organization that works and trains folks on compliance with cleary, we get some people who get it on campuses who really are in a compliance role, and they get it, and they understand what the requirements are. but they're that lone soldier. a lot of times when we talk institutions. we'll say just support, ask them what they're doing and how to help. even if having the president's name attached to something can help. so i think there's -- and i don't have a solution, i wish i

did -- but you can't have a conversation without ignoring the organizational elements. >> it has almost been like a check the box thing on too many campuses. we are going to do the bare minimum weigh have to do to be compliant. but we're not having the support on campus to make this work the way it's supposed to work. i mean, frankly, we don't have a data yet from the survey, but i think we do need to make some changes, because nothing is more frustrating than a rote exercise that you are required to do that has no meaning. that's why people get mad at the government. and that's one of the problems that we've got here. if every campus took it seriously and tried to support it and understand that there's something that's required other than cut and paste -- oh, it's time to cut and paste on the security report again, right? and, and put the same language

in. i bet if we look, those reports change very little. >> and i'm someone that says, i wish we didn't have to do enforcement. i wish we could train and educate and people would do it. but we're seeing, anecdotally, is that enforcement is the only way we're going to see changes. i can name five institutions on one hand who do it really well. they're all under investigation. ? right. >> to piggyback off what allison was saying in october of last year, our results were published from our accountability project. and we looked at 300 school policies related to campus sexual assault. a third were not compliant with the cleary act in written policy. so we're seeing a third of the schools out of 300 samples are not complying in some way with their policy how can they be compliant in action. >> that means thousands of schools are not compliant. >> exactly. >> and i'd like to add, to me,

as a compliance officer, what i do is look at the statutes, i look at the regulation and then i help administration and management interpret it into a policy, and then i work with the units to help get it done. but i'm a compliance officer, and my management team, they're not experts in sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, reventing those types of crimes. what we need is simple things. give us a model policy. what does it look like? and not just cut and paste. here's the legalese from the legislation. i put it in my policy, now we have a policy. we need the procedures to implement it. and i thought of a simple solution. the department of education, they conduct audits. surely they could publish best practices. what have they seen when they've gone into institutions. the institutions that are implementing procedures that are right. could they publish their audit

report so that we can see, the good and the bad. >> where are those audit reports? do those audit reports get published? >> our office of student aid does compliance reviews, and that information does become public. i want -- >> and where, if i wanted to go look at the results of a compliance audit done by d. or n not, department of education, where would i find it. >> it's on the fsa data website. >> what's that stand for? >> the office of federal student aid? >> so click on there, am i going to be able to find this, these audits and universities that have been cited for not being compliant on clary? >> yes. >> and is that just part of a larger audit, or do you do clary specific audits? >> we have put a highlight on clary in recent years.

in 2010, the office of federal student aid, which is responsible for enforcing the cleary rules created a special unit that does nothing but cleary compliance. it started out with five staff members. it's grown to 13, and we have plans to double that in the next few years. so there are specifically cleary compliance reviews being done. as well, when we do audits on larger compliance issues, we also look at clary through them. so it's being done through two different mechanisms >> so about how many institutions on an annual basis are getting a clary compliance audit either through this clary specific unit or as part of the larger student aid, is that what it's called? >> yes. >> a larger fsa audit. what would be the number on an annual basis in. >> i don't know the number on an annual basis.

about 300. >> 300 a year. and has there been any attempt to collate those results and put a report together on the status of clary compliance on college campuses on an annual basis that we could look at year to year? has there been any effort to do that? >> we have not done it yet, but we are going to implement that. >> okay. and i, i've, besides being a pros securityecuto prosecutor, i was also an auditor. you have 7,000 campuses? >> yes, we certainly are planning to grow that office, and as i mentioned, we are also doing that through our larger compliance efforts, so it's not just 13 people. >> how many of the just clary audits are being done by the 13 auditors on an annual basis as opposed to the 300 number? the clary special unit, how many are they doing? >> about 20. >> that's still a lot for 13 people. i can't wait to look at the

audits. i want to see what they are. >> we actually have a summary, if it would be helpful, too, of the findings that we put together and a spreadsheet i'm happy to share. >> that would be great. i'd like to see it. >> to the don't's credit, they're the only department enforcing it. they're not specialized. and that is a big part of this problem. we spend all day making laws, making rule, making regulations. it's overwhelming to institutions. then when it comes to survivors, you don't have enforcers who know the details. so on the government's side there could be a better pro; having more people, having more funding, not a big person on giving more money for other than survivors to recover, but if you're going to spend money somewhere, please spend it on enforcement. allow them to have specialized units. >> or at least forced

integration. >> and i think that would help institutions, because they are splitting their minds on the issue of sexual assault between two laws. and now three. and it is difficult. so if the government can figure out how to put it into one unit, so can institutions. >> and they can model that better for the institutions. >> absolutely. >> let me add this to that. i was also a former auditor but of clinical trials. and what we did for fda studies, they had a wonderful checklist, if you will. so we knew when the audit team came in, what are they going to be looking for, so that's whew -- what we were going to be graded on. you've got all this time where we're not getting it right, and i'd rather get in front of it and get it know, caroline, you've got to do x, y, z. fine. >> the only problem with that, i will tell you that having, when the federal government does audits on law enforcement, on

child support, and when i took over that office, we weren't collecting very much child suort, but we were passing every audit. so they were so busy checking the box that they knew they were going to be looked at, nobody was asking the question, why aren't we collecting more child support. so they were busy. so you have to be careful when you do that because then institutions train themselves to be audit responsive as opposed to getting at the underlying problem. it's not that they pass the audit, it's that victims are getting the services on campuses. young people on campuses are being trained about the reality of this problem and we are getting more law enforcement activity around these crimes. i mean, that's ultimately the goal here. that's the ultimate deterns. i mean, it's hard for me to talk about the criminal justice system today, because i've got to wait two weeks to do that, but it is a huge part of the problem. let's look at some of the other

things i have on my list here. the reporting changes that are coming through save, which were part of vowa. i know we're supposed to see a draft soon? >> yes, we will publish that in mid june. >> under the new law, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking must be included. how are you going to handle the confusion around those three crimes? we already have the confusion of reporting each crime separately, but maybe not each perpetrator separately. are you going to be providing definitions for the difference between dating violence and domestic violence? >> yes. we had a negotiated rule-haking committee. and several of the members of this round table served on that committee. and we were very grateful for the expertise that you brought to the table. the committee represented a very wide group of interests, from

law enforcement, that's victims advocates, state attorney generals. basically, we tried to get the gamut of different interests that would be affected by these regulations. and we grappled with a lot of issues that we've been talking about today, including definitions, chug how criminclu crimes are counted. we talked about training programs as well. and we were able with this group with very different interests to come to consensus on language. and i really credit the group, all of you who worked on that, because a lot of tile and effort went into that, and you've worked very hard to come to consensus on that. so we feel as though we have a very good regulation that we'll be publishing in mid june for public comment and we plan to publish it in final by november 1. >> the definition was the definition on consent, which did come up at the rule-making table and we didn't create.

you mentioned the ucr, that leaves it up to states. unfortunately, not all states handle it the same. >> some have incapacitation. >> absolutely. wisconsin used to be one of them. i don't know what can be done on a federal level there, but we did have a very wonderful, the department did a great job of presenting a definition of consent that talks about not only affirmative consent. you don't have to yell no. you are simply focusing on is there a yes, is there an agreement. and absent that, it can't confer consent. that's why it hurts survivors so much to say clearly it's consensual, because you didn't do x, y, z when you lived through it. that's what's missing, and it needs to exist. >> the problem is, that obviously, this is not a federal

crime, unless you're on, in the district of columbia or indian reservations in some instances. you know, these crimes are state crimes. so we can't define for states elements of their crimes. >> but we can do models and incentives. >> we can. and i think that's one thing we should look at in this legislation is how can we innocent advise states. i was surprised we had 16 states that said it was only by force or threat of force. that's a lot of states that still don't understand that that is an inappropriate and incomplete definition of consent. so. >> madam senator, that's exactly what laura was talking about specifically. but also when you go back to negotiating rule making and coming up with a consensus. the piece on the ucr and

neibers, if we can get states to be consistent on their laws, dating l dating violence are not listed. so you are going to continue to have an inconsistent definition from what sheriff departments are reporting versus what campuses are reporting. >> should we put clary down as part of the ucr? should it go in to the fbi's uniform crime reporting program? has anybody given that any thought? >> if i felt the data was accurate, i would say yes, but i know it's very much not at this point. i think in the years to come, when survivors are more empowered, that will change. we'll feel safe coming forward and reporting. i don't know if it would have the effect we want raight now, but in the future.

>> okay. let's talk a little bit about accountability and enforcement. when i realized that the punishment for the department of education and for d.o.j. is suspending, i know there's a $35,000 fine for violation. but then there's, the punishment that supposedly, supposed to provide all the meat behind this, all the stick behind this is suspending institutions from participating in federal student financial aids pro fwral. does anybody believe that punishment is ever going to be given to anyone? okay. so every time i told my kids, if you did that again i'm never going to speak to you, it took them about ten minutes to do it again because it wasn't a realistic deterrent because they knew it wasn't a realistic punishment. what do we need to do, obviously

not just with clary, and by the way, a $35,000 fine is nothing to a large institution. i mean, i can't imagine, what's the annual budget at the university of michigan? >> several billion. >> yeah, so $35,000 fine to an institution that has a $2 billion budget or $3 billion budget, whatever it is, i few it was a lot because you guys have a huge system compared to a small campus that maybe has 500 students, you know, that doesn't appear to make much sense, and it certainly doesn't make sense to threaten something we're never going to do. so what do we do about meaningful deterns? does anybody have any ideas about other ways we could make this work? >> this is my favorite discussion to have, because it's so needed. cleary, i do think the fines are small ir. i don't know if there's a way to do it percent able wise there is

a way to do it percentage wise so it does hurt. at lunch we were discussing penn state getting fined more for their sports violations, millions versus what clary could do it. i think you're hitting at title ix. there are two ways to get at it. one requires voluntary compliance. we saw it first, they violated and they made another agreement again. watch out, you're only going to get another contract. these are survivors' lives being destroyed, leaving schools. so i do think we need intermediate sanctions. obviously that fine is arbitrary. we're being way too nice to

institutions. and as a survivor who suffered at an institution. they don't care. they didn't have a cost. they still don't . and we need to change that. >> anybody else on fines? >> i would say that institutions are already operating, i think, under a lot of anxiety and fear around addressing sexual assault on a college campus. i would be concerned about adding more sticks with no carrots additionally. one of the things that we don't have enough of are programs or grants that encourage and inspire innovation and new practices and new knowledge about this issue, when we're placing all of our resources in enforcement and not complimenting that with innovation, then i think that brother' creating a situation where we do have box checking instead of new thinking. >> well, you know, one of the things about that, and i understand what you're saying, i get what you're saying. but one of the things that's disappointing to me about this

is that we depend on college campuses for innovation for so many things in our society. and you have on a college campus, and i don't want to pick on michigan, although i kind of would like to pick on michigan. if you were kansas i'd really like to pick on you. your system, you have law schools. you have a medical school. you are training psychologists and psychiatrists. and social workers. you have every discipline. and academic excellence in every discipline that is needed to come together on this problem. and you have endowmentendowment. you have alumni. if this problem is causing such stress to universities, and it is, because they are worried that they are going to be next. there is going to be a victim come forward and tell another

horrific tale about how they were marginalized, how they were shouldn shupted aside. there is a trail of tears of inaction from people who were in a position to help. why we are not getting more innovation from these college campuses on an interdisciplinary approach that they are willing to put money behind from their own resources to make it work better. >> i am very proud to say the university of michigan is in fact innovating that we created one of the first ever primary prevention programs for the college-age population, that we have implemented a control group matched four-yearlong tud nal study of that program so we can vigorously identify its efficacy. we are planning a second as

well. and that is because university of michigan has an extraordinary wealth of resources in all of the ways in which you've identified. and we have chosen to invest them in this effort of the many campuses do not have that benefit of the and we need to be able to extend the ability to innovate to other campuses that don't have those kinds of resources because campuses look different, and we need to have different kinds of knowledge and different kinds of innovations to address specific campus populations. and for those campuses that don't have these resources it's important that they have the support and research to do that new thinking >> so if michigan has, i'm not, i'm sure you do have a program that you've put together that is excellent. that's one of the reasons you're on this panel. what are we doing, and maybe, laura, you can speak to this or any of the other round-table participants. what are we doing to share that? if you put together a model that

works. >> mm-hm. >> where you've got an interdisciplinary approach, where you've got a criminal justice degree, where forensic interviewing is taught, so there are people on campus who understand, there's a big difference between where were you, what did you do, why, why are we not seeing this cross pollinate across the country? >> i now the office of violence against women has been highlighting what has been done, what does work, and i think that they should be provided resources to do that. i will say in this discussion of carrot, they'll give a grant for three years and the school gets rid of their program when the grant's up. it is about enforcement, because schools will have an incentive to keep funding their own programs. they have money. they don't need more. they need to use that money

wisely. and unless there's a cost, they won't. there are models of schools that do well. university of michigan has been highlighted. i'm very proud that they have done such gait things. but leave that to newspapers and other things. i don't know if that's the business of the government to be doing it. the government needs to put the incentive in the right place. we don't need to be handing out money to rich institutions. harvard is in trouble. they have money. they will figure it out. right now, those who leave school in debt have no compensation ever for what is done to them. if we're going to give money, let's give scholarships to survivors behave enough to file complaints and make the school better for earn elveryone else. >> the prosecutor in me says we can't give scholarships to those brave enough to come forward. their credibility would be attacked on that. but i get the point that you're making and it's a valid one.

so does anybody disagree that we should look at fines to be tied to the school as opposed to a set amount? >> i don't know that i necessarily aagree. and i say that reluctantly. i agree with the point that holly made that -- and, again, going back to why i did make the statement that institutions that have been changed have been under investigation. so they haven't even been found in violation yet. so they've made the changes, from my view, or from where i sit, based on the media scrutiny, that they've been on the cover of "time", "news week." and they've made changes even before there's any finding of violation yet. so while fines, i'm sure, serve as some deterrent. i almost think that the public, the attention that has been on this issue for the last six months to two years, but six

months in particular, i think the spotlight has really shown on this. so i don't know that putting all of the eggs into looking at fines and the energy into looking at fines, i don't know if that's the way to tackle it. holly makes a great point that i really agree with coming, putting on high prevention hat, working in a community organization and prevention and formally in a college intervention. i was it, so i was charged with preventing alcohol abuse, eating disorders, sexual assault, whatever the issue was, quote-unquote, that came up through athletics or greek life, they'd pick up the phone and say okay, we've have an eating disorder. we have to look at the public health model which is where we pulled the piece. colleges and universities have not -- some have, so i don't want to put them in all one

bucket -- but many because of again, lack of support or lack of resources, depending on their budget endowment are not building robust programs around prevention. and if they do have programs around prevention or maybe one person, if they're lucky enough, they're not being strategic about how they prevent, so they may do a one-shot orientation presentation. anstruggle with this daily with how do we get, how do we help them change that. and, you know, beyond writing a check, which i certainly can't do from our non-profit budget, how do we, how do they do this, right? and even if it's creating a grant mow grprogram. and we have one. they do not hand out a lot of those. it's only a small amount. and it's writing, again, being at a ips tuesday who could have applied for that. i would have had to then write that federal grant, with maybe

the help of irb, who would just sign a piece of paper. so i think that struggle comes in, and it goes back to some of the organizational dynamics within in terms of what is valued, and is prevention valued? and i wish i didn't have to say it, because i value it, but i don't know that it's valued in all institutions yet. i think we have a long way to go on the prevention side. >> but if we don't step up the enforcement side, i mean, the enforcement side brings the media attention. so, if we're going to say, the only thing we can rely on, that makes these universities and colleges do what they should be doing is for them to get a bad story. >> sure. >> first of all, that's a lot of victims. >> yeah. and, you know, that, to me, would be a depressing conclusion. so we've got to figure out some way to up the ante that is short

of waiting for another tragedy to hit the pages. >> i would say a 13 team person can't do it, so i think it's the changes i've seen institutions start to make are when they're immediately under investigation, so no fine yet. we don't know if the fine is $35,000 or upwards of $1 million. so i would almost rather see the investment in a team. >> but in all fairness, the fines will be paying for this. we have this coming in our government, where does the money come from? i think every survivor would back that up. >> senator mccaskill, if i could add that enforcement, i understand that component, especially being in law enforcement. the important piece is to have clarity. you're enforcing something, yet there's so many people so confused about how to read the regulation or understand what's going on. so it's hard to say up

enforcement when you have so many people who don't understand the regulations. it comes down to training. it comes down to doing a lot of things on the back end. i work with a lot of really good people who want to do the right thing. so i'm cautious to label institutions when you know, you know, the backside of people who are, a lot of people are really doing the right thick. it's just mass confusion. >> a lot of it isn't about law. it's about treatment, value that you give to students. i understand. i went to law school. i studied this law. i understand how hard it is. but we're talking about victims. >> at the end of the day, we all want to be on the same page, and that's exactly what i'm talking about. >> through these round tables, i already, today i thought i knew this area pretty well. i've already learned several things today that i didn't know. there are ways that we can simplify this. i think particularly around what needs to be reported and how you define it.

and we need to be less reticent about best practices models being provided to schools. i know the task force has done some of that tool kits. for universities, to help them figure out the right way, and the more we do that, the more consistency we get from campus to campus, and it means all of it gets more reliable. becauseque compare apples to apples. we have no ability to know which campuses are doing well and which ones aren't because they aren't even doing it the sail w -- same way. you can watch the rest of this at c-span.org. friday, a discussion about efforts in middle eastern countries to recover national assets stolen by former government officials. federal officials and experts

will be at the center for strategic and international studies, live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern here on c-span 3. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, here on c-span 3 we kpleemt that coverage by showing you the most relevant hearings and public affair events. and then on weekends, it's the home of american history tv. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites. history bookshelf, the best known american history writers. the presidency. lek tuctures in history. and our new series, real america, featuring archival government and educational films

from the 1930s to the '70s. funn funded by your local cable provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. now on more sexual assaults on campus. university administrators and advocates for victims of sexual assaults make up the panel. this is an hour. thank you so much, senator. i'm so pleased to be here today with you and with senator tester and with my co-panelists. i'm so grateful to both of you for your commitment to this incredibly important issue and to all of you at this table for your commitment to doing something to address the pervasive and horrible problem of sexual violence on campuses. as senator mccaskill said today, i am not able to address

individual fact patterns or hypotheticals, because we want to ensure that we are able to conduct investigations of complaints and cases with the kind of independence that we need in order to be able to ensure respect in the court system. but i am delighted to be here today to talk generally about this problem and to answer whatever questions i can. i don't think i need to tell any of you that sexual violence is a form of discrimination. it refers to physical acts that are perpetrated against a person's will, or where a person is incapable of consent, can include rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual abuse and sensual coercion. i use the term sexual assault to refer to all of those. they are obviously a safety issue. but importantly, for the department of justice and the department of education, they are also a civil rights issue, and we have tools that we are committed to using to the utmost extent in order to ensure that

people's civil rights are protected on the nation's campuses. we enforce a variety of statutes that have relevance to the issue of sexual assaults. one, of course, is title ix of the education amendments of 1972, which we enforce in conjunction with the department of education and other agencies that fund institutions of higher education. we also enforce title iv of the civil rights act of 1964, which bans, moamong other thing, sex discrimination in public schools and schools of higher education. in addition we address the violent control act and the state streets act. and those statutes allow us to take a holistic approach, because it gives us jurisdiction over sex discrimination by law enforcement agencies. and as senator tester knows, we

worked very cooperatively with both the university of montana at missoula, and the missoula police department to enter into agreements to address the handling of sexual assault complaints by students and members of the missoula community using all of these statutes. and i think our hope is that those agreements will be a model for other universities around the country to be able to adopt the kind of proactive steps that are necessary to really address these problems. so just a word on what those proactive steps are and the provisions of our agreements with the university and the law enforcement entities in montana, one thing is a requirement that universities have clear and accessible policies that comply with the law. it is critical that students know their rights and that

students, faculty, staff and everyone on campus know their responsibilities when it comes to dealing with sexual assault, without inclusive policies, too often, schools treat victims of, for example, same sex sexual assault or dating violence the same. saying that it is only perpetrated by men against women or stranger rape. it is neither of those things, and schools need to have the kinds of culturally inclusive policies that enable them to deal with each case on campus. they need to broadly disseminate these. the best-written policies in the world are not worth very much if students don't know where to go when they have a concern. that's something that the university of montana has now done very well. when we did our investigation, we discovered that they had eight different policies that referred to sexual assaults and sexual hashesment in various

capacities. and it just wasn't clear where students were supposed to do or what the processes the university was supposed to follow were. pursuant to the agreement, they have now created a policy that provides for a uniform and clearly disseminated way to address sexual assault. training is also critical. for school officials, for students, for any one involved in the investigative or disciplinary process. people really need to know how to understand, how to investigate a complaint of sexual assault, how to treat victims with sensitivity and respect, and what kinds of remedies they need to institute when they find that sexual assaults have in fact occurred. in montana, our agreement calls for training campus law enforcement on investigative techniques. our office of violence against women and deputy director

allison randle is with me today. it includes training on various ways to address sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking and other forms of sexual misconduct. ensuring a response to complaints is an effective way to deal with sexual assault. we look at how campus law enforcement and campus officials deal with sexual assault, how they treat the victims and the perpetrators as well. again, at the office of the violence of women, the act low vieds for pro dwams that provide for training for sexual assault response teams, for sexual assault nurse examiners. for investigation on trauma and

the special investigative techniques they need to take for people with these horrible forms of assault. i'm happy to talk more about those programs. finally, if they find sexual assault, universities need to take effective corrective action. that means stopping the assault, preventing it from happening again and remedying the impact of that assault, whether it's on the individual victim or the campus as a whole. individual relief can include enabling students to change their course schedule, re-take classes without penalty. additional time to prepare for exams. expunging grades that were reduced by the trauma that they were suffering. institutional and campus-wide responses can include improving training, changing policies, increasing monitoring of spots on campus where sexual assault has occurred. ensuring that everyone on campus knows their rights and their responsibilities with regard to

addressing sexual assault. just two other things that i wanted to mention that we do. one is that in addition to working directly with universities, we file amicus briefs in federal court to address the legal standards that apply to sexual assaults, and i think those have been effective in shaping the way in which the law has been applied. we also work very closely, as you know, with the office of civil rights, the department of education, both on investigations and enforcement action and on development of policy guidance and anticipate that we will continue to do so. in closing, i just want to again thank you so much for the opportunity to appear. thank you for your commitment to this issue. i really look forward to today's discussion. i know that together we can really come up with effective solutions to this ongoing problem. >> thank you, ms. samuels. we really appreciate you being here. senator blumenthal has joined us, he has already had a series

of round tables in his state, similar to what we're doing but on different connecticut campuses. and he and i are working closely on developing legislation going forward. would you like to make a few comments, senator blumenthal? >> just to thank you, senator mccaskill for your leadership on this issue and for convening the sear cease of round tables that we're having and thank you to every one of you for being here today. i have a number of questions. i'm going to wait until we finish with some more of the statements. but thank you for all your great work on this issue, and coming together in this way. i think we have the tremendous opportunity, huge potential to really achieve some lasting and vitally needed progress in this area. so thank you for all your great work. and thank you again. >> thank you, senator. why don't we go around the table and start with katie and go

clockwise. if you would identify yourself and where you're from and take a moment to explain your involvement in this issue and what capacity you are you sir of. >> my name is katie the eckly. i am from the university of minnesota. our sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking program on our campus. i have seven years of being a judicial officer and investigator for the university and so i have that unique perspective of being a student comment officer, writing policy and investigating cases, and now more of an advocacy role. and so working with our campuses, with both policies and prevention efforts. >> to be clear, katie, when you were an investigator, were you investigating title ix complaints? >> i was not necessarily investigating title ix complaints. >> good afternoon. i'm deborah noble-triplett, and i'm here today leading the task

force from our president, tim wolf who is very passionate about this topic and would like to ensure not only that our four campuses in our system, our campuses that are safe and have the appropriate communication of policies, the appropriate prevention programs, and the appropriate training, but also that we have a culture of respect. and driving the task force that was formed in february for our university is an effort to evaluate all of our policies, all of our practices and all of our investigatory practices as it relates to mental health issues, which we know can be onset from the trauma of a sexual assault but also to look at what we do for not only victims but those who are alleged perpetrators to ensure due process. so we've been extensive in our efforts and are looking to

become exemplar of the best practice in the months and days to come. >> hi, thank you for having me. i'm ann from the american association of the university of women. aew is a national organization with over 170,000 members and supporters. 1,000 brarnss and 800 college and university partners across the country. in addition to the advocacy work we do on issues including title ix, campus safety, we also support women who are pursuing higher education by giving out around $4 million in scholarships every year, training and working with student leaders on college campuses and conducting research on topics like harassment and violence on campus. >> thank you. >> i'm kathryn samuels.

i waonder if i could introduce y colleagues, dan goldberg, allison randall and becky monroe in the civil rights division. thank you. >> i first want to say thank you so much for having me here and for your leadership on the issue. it means so much to survivors to see you taking this on. my name is dana bolger. i'm a very recent graduate and a former co-director of a grass-roots, student led group. >> hi, there. my name's john kelly, i'm a rising senior at tufts university and a special projects organizer alongside dana. i recently finished up a stipt on the rule making committee through the department of education with cat here. and i'm a trained rape crisis

counselor for the state of massachusetts. >> hi, my name is cat riley. i am title ix coordinator for the university of texas branch in galveston island. i have worked at five different institutions. a new career was really born april of 2011. and that's the title ix coordinator, and i became that. we have training, victim advocatesy, all of those issues in each of the schools that i've been at. so i try to be very inclusive in that process. >> i'm lindy aldrich. i bring a unique perspective to this. we are a legal aid provider. we serve over 400 victims of

rape and sexual assault a year, and we specialize only in rape and sexual assault. the population is so young for this crime. education became a massive part of our practice. i am ate mana i'm the managing attorney as well, so i hear nearly every case that comes through the doors. we work with victims in disciplinary hearings. we file title ix ucr complaints. for the last four or five years we've been going out and working with campuses. we work very closely with the office of violence against women. we teach with the mississippi coalition against violence assault and work with campus dpran tees. and i do consultations with schools all across the country. i bring a varied experience. >> great, well, i've got far more questions than we have

time. but i also want everyone to feel i have comfortable jumping in. this is a discussion. this is not a formal hearing. so please contribute when you've got something to say. the worst thing that could happen is for us to finish a couple hours of this and you walk out of this room saying, boy, they need to know this. we are here to listen and learn.