>> so in light of the nsa spying controversy and the chinese government, you know, frustration with what happened there, is there any worry that they could retaliate in a legal context and start filing charges against u.s. officials who spied on china? or things like that? maybe i assume these guys, these chinese are now on interpol. they cannot travel outside of china. so could that happen? >> all nations are engaged in intelligence gathering. what i think distinguishes this case is that we have a state sponsored entity, state sponsored to have the advantage. >> do you put a dollar value on the information that was stolen, either the components or in total? >> not possible to put a dollar value at this point. the indictment alleges threshold

required to charge. but i think surely all of you know that what it takes to do the research and development to develop these new projects to complete in the increasingly competitive global market, you know what the impact is when the cyberoccurring so the dollar value will be substantial. >> a range? millions of dollars of information or billions or dollars of information? >> not a range but it's substantial. >> you said that the investigators were able to track these hackers to a building where they worked and did all of this. wasn't that an opportunity to apprehend them or work with the partners to actually bring them to justice? justice in the court of law. >> we've been able to charge specific individuals by name.

we mentioned where they worked that their department and not the people's liberation army, unit 61398. and we hope as the attorney general said and anticipate that we will be able to bring them to justice and have them face their charges in a court of law. >> the opportunity -- were you able to point them -- find them in this building, or was this just a building like another government building. they were not necessarily in there. the impression that i got from the statements read that these individuals were tracked down to this particular building of this particular block. so why not take them in? >> the building we're referring to is in shanghai, china. and we will -- we hope, that these individuals come to face their charges in a u.s. court. but beyond that, i'm not going to comment further.

>> can you speak a little bit in terms of the u.s. jobs that have been lost as a result of these kinds of things? >> i think there's a lot more data on that that's in other forums. but i can speak directly from western pennsylvania. and we have -- we have taken everything that's been thrown at us in western pennsylvania and faced all of the challenges of the global marketplace. but if you look specifically of the example that i told you about earlier in the investments and seamless pipe and oil country tube, u.s. steel bought a plant in texas to compete. they expanded at great cost and expense over and above the research and development costs. when these intrusions hit and the market was flooded with below cost pipe from china, these plants were padlocked and

people lost their jobs. so it has a real and direct negative impact in the jurisdiction where i practice and the same is true in lorraine, ohio. that was another location for some of this investment to compete. so all around the country, there has been a real and demonstrable loss of jobs. >> you're saying that plant in texas was shut down as a result of the allegations you're making the cyberallegations you're making today. >> the below-cost sales of competitive products and the cyberhacking, the -- there was a very substantial trade case about this in 2009 that you could look at. but yes, absolutely. i'm saying that this cyberhacking leads directly to the loss of jobs here in the united states. >> can you talk a little bit about why now? it's something you've been working on for a long time. the conduct occurred up to 2012.

what made you decide this is now the time to unscale these charges? >> these cases take time. to bring. we bring cases when they are in a point where we can identify individuals and entities responsible for the conduct. a missed opportunity. it's a legitimate question. one thing you have to keep in mind that the people who were charged in this case have never been in the united states. not a question of being able to put our hands on it while in the united states. >> these hackers employed by the people's liberation army. they wouldn't have done this without presumably the approval of the states, the chinese states. that doesn't happen without the chinese state's approval. you want to question the same states to hand them over to u.s. justice. if they don't, what else can you do to bring them to justice? >> we hope we'll have cooperate from the chinese government. we'll see what happens.

it is in the interests of china, it would seem to me, to be seen as respectors of the rule of law. our hope will be that they as a result cooperate with us to the extend we will not have that corporation we'll use all of the means available to us to have all of the people who appear in the federal court here in the united states at pittsburgh and give them due process of american law. a range of things that we can do. and we will employ all of them. >> mr. holder, can i question of why now? we mentioned that the case take a long time. a lot of this activity has been going on for a long, long time. and there was some mention that the leadership gave a green light to this case. was it a problem in the past to get that green light? was it simply that -- that decision to move ahead or -- >> it was really a function of the great investigation i think that was done by the people who

are standing behind me. it took a number of years to put this case together and it was really a function of getting to a point where we felt comfortable bringing the charges we felt today. not as a result of the interaction problems we had within our own government. >> i would say this focuses on a series of specific industries. you see other specific industries -- >> i would express concern about other industries that are potentially at risk, not only from china but from other countries as well. and as we all indicated, this will i hope serve as a notice to every nation around the world that would engage in these kinds of activities that the united states takes it seriously that we will bring charges where that is appropriate and we take all measures that we can to hold individuals responsible for their conduct.

>> thank you. >> federal communications commission chairman tom mueller will testify about a proposal to allow companies such as netflix to be charged more in order to deliver their content faster the customers. chairman wheeler is expected to get questions about media ownership. the houseage from energy and commerce subcommittee begins tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. on c-span 3. wascent federal report critical of the enforcement of safety procedures for pipelines used to transport hazardous gas. a house transportation subcommittee will investigate pipeline safety. live coverage at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> a conversation on combating

rape and sexual assault on college campuses. we will hear from former victims and advocacy groups. this roundtable which is chaired by a senator is the first of several discussions on this topic. cap is hear about the sexual violence a limitation act which went into effect in 2012. >> we are going to convene our first of three roundtables. these roundtables will occur every two weeks. today, we will focus on the and talk to acts about the challenges those rules present. today, we will cover title ix and in four weeks, we will cover both the administrative process but spent a great deal of focus on the criminal law enforcement process and where we are failing to get

these perpetrators into the criminal justice system and what we need to do to improve our abysmal record .probably add to record. i thank you for being here. you are experts in various ways on this issue. this is not a hearing, this is a conversation. here -- i am sure they will be participating. we are working on drafting legislation. what we want to do is maybe simplify because i know this is a complex labyrinth of different rules between title ix and a ,ifferent standards of proof different state statutes. we don't even agree on the definition of consent. those are challenges that i know this area represents and we want

to know if we can simple fight, , perhapssupport provide more mandatory training. 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. if there is one thing i can 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. know, i have arty sent letters requesting detailed information from the department of justice and the department of education regarding their enforcement and oversight. i have launched a survey of

universities regarding their policies. i holding these roundtables the hear from a variety of stakeholders on how they think we can best address the significant problem on college campuses. twoy, we will focus on pieces of legislation that mandates that schools collect and report information of sexual violence. these requirements are a great start but i am concerned they have not been adequately enforced and i believe we can do better to address this problem through this enforcement regimen. i am a former prosecutor with years of prosecuting sexual assault crimes. 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. i know that is not all that is required. i want to make sure whatever steps we take our the right wants and that we respect the

rules of law in this country which includes due process. i know that commitment is shared by the senators. i would like to invite our participants to go around the table and introduced themselves and give a very brief introduction as to the work you do and where you are from. i asked you keep your remarks limited so we have plenty of time. i have lots of questions so i want to make sure we have time to get through all the questions. i hear all your concerns and comments that i know will help inform our decisions as to legislation moving forward. -- do we start to our left why don't we start to our left? you need to hit the button. >> my name is tracy richards and i am with safer. founded by students at columbia university in 2000 and later reorganized as a national nonprofit organization that empowers college student activists to reform their campuses and older campuses

accountable to transparent investigation and disciplinary allah sees and supporting -- and policies and supporting survivors. >> i am the director of the sexual assault prevention and awareness center at the university of michigan. in that role, i am responsible for overseeing the institutions prevention efforts as it relates to students who are survivors of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, sexual harassment and stalking. i serve in a leadership role in developing processes at the institution and ensuring compliance with campuses and under -- and other federal mandates. >> good afternoon. i work for the office of postsecondary education at the u.s. department of education. i am responsible for the regulations that implement the violence against women act and other issues.

>> hi, i am allison. i am the executive director for the cleary center. we were founded in 1987. training and technical assistance specific to cleary compliance. >> i represent the university of south florida system. my chief responsibilities are to oversee higher education opportunity compliance including cleary, campus aid, the violence against women act, and also where those laws interfaced with title ix. >> i am the chief of police at george mason university but i am here on behalf of the international association of law enforcement administrators. >> thank you. i am a am a campus sexual

assault survivor and have been a longtime activist. i recently graduated from the university of maryland law school. i am a lawyer now. >> that is the first time you have been able to say that. >> i am also the founder of survjustice which is a institution and handling sexual violence. welcome.r baldwin, we are glad you are here. i will turn it over to you. >> absolutely. i want to thank you along with some of our other senate colleagues for convening this first in a series of roundtable discussions on sexual assault on campus. i want to thank you for your critical work. to share some words of praise for the administration for taking 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. while i am encouraged by the advances we are seeing on this including the strengthening of federal law that we are going to be talking a little more about today, i also think we can all agree there is much left to be done. i wanted to just call attention to two quick issues. i was proud in recent weeks to introduce the tyler clemente anti-harassment bill that would include cyber bullying and harassment into our anti-harassment policies. for those of you who know about the life of tyler clemente, he was the victim of cyber bullying ended up committing

suicide because of the activities. when we can address this in the you andon -- senator, your colleagues on the armed services committee have just done an incredible job in elevating the issue of sexual violence that we see in our military. there is one issue that i see sort of overlap between what we are talking about today and that on the campuses across the country where many of our officers are trained and come through. i have certainly heard anecdotal information that concerns me and i think we need to raise -- elevate the focus on that in terms of data collection and understanding what is happening. so, it complements your

leadership on that committee with what we're doing here today. again, thank you for all of you for coming. i see a fellow badger. thank you for being here. >> thank you. we are glad you are here, senator. let's start with the cleary act. maybe, allison, you can start off. everyone should just jump in. this is going to be a free-flowing discussion. the worst thing for this to happen is for you to leave this room am for you to wish you said something. we want to hear everything that frustrates you, everything you think is working, everything you think is problematic. please, do not hold back. think it wast -- i originally envisioned this would be data people could rely on and it would be consumable by someone.

i don'tlem is now think anybody knows that data is even there. getting past the first problem that it is not reliable. the second problem is it doesn't appear to me to be out there where families even know that it exists. this is something they could even ask for and find out what the data is on a campus. allison, who do you believe the data is intended to be for? >> sure. again, i just interviewed one of our founders for something separate. we talked about the intention to be forewarned. arect people know when they going to a campus, what crimes have been reported on that campus. for a current student, prospective students, employees. you said side to that, anything we had the air, i

will take that to heart. if you have a campus that reports 60 sex offenses versus a campus that reports zero, the perception by the public is that campus reporting 60 is unsafe. when in fact, i would disagree with that. that campus reporting 60. it is an unreported crime. they are seeking help. they know where to go. did getting the education to know to call that sexual assault. that is one of the challenges i have seen with the numbers. the annual security report that areuses prodcuce that to be made public are wonderful documents that provide summaries of policies. one of the other struggles i see is to check off the compliance box, sometimes documents are created and have policy statements.

then there is no complete policy behind. or if there is a complete policy, that policy is not being implement it on the campus. i am sure some of my colleagues could probably add to what i just started a conversation . >> how do we do better on the problem that a college campus says they have had zero, that should be a real red flag to any parent. that means they are not reporting their statistics and don't take this problem seriously as opposed to one that may have 60 which is counterintuitive. it may mean they have a really robust program where they are accurately collecting data and victims feel comfortable coming forward. does anyone have any ideas on how we can get past that bump because that is going to be the problem? i think there is an incentive to not accurately report. >> i think the white house already started addressing that. they are talking about the victimization survey.

we have an underreported problem and when we measure that an have that number at the top of the cleary chart and then have the number on the bottom be underreported, that is how you contrast it. sexual violence is under it -- is everywhere. i think when colleges have to face those numbers, the incentive is to have the 60 cap as well is the victimization. i think we start thinking about that now and how that works with cleary. the challenge is geographically based and bound. how does that happen with victimization which happens everywhere? >> the answer to the cleary problem is maybe mandating. the white house is talking about voluntarily doing it. >> they make you return books before you can get your diploma. they could figure out how to make students take a survey. we have to be thoughtful about how the survey was framed. it has to be a subtle method of

have you had an experience we didn't want this to happen because when you force the people asked people to identify legally, you're going to see underreporting. i didn't know what happened to me was rape for a long time. it took a long time for me to come to that realization. it is how it is actually conducted. there's been a long history of victimization surveys in the united states done by the department of justice. you have thoughts or recommendations on that in terms of people sharing? >> one of the recommendations that i would encourage is that campus is that are not doing surveys use validated instruments further surveys so that we are able to be able to compare from campus to campus the information that is coming out of the surveys. in the ways that cleary was intended to function.

that they would be able to be comparable data. are would be possible if we using survey instruments that have been tested, that have been demonstrated to actually measure that which we are hoping to measure. i would note that the university of new hampshire has for 20 years a survey that they have used. instrumentlidated that could be the beginnings of an instrument that other campuses could adopt. >> what you were saying is tentatively -- potentially education or doj would come up with a standard survey that everyone would use with standard language on the question? upi would hope we would come with a core of standard of information that would be able to be comparable from institution to institution. 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 will serve not only as a tool for consumers to be able to use to compare data, but also as a learning instrument for the campus itself to be able to identify what practices are effective. it is my hope 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 to respond to those surveys. anonymity, confidentiality so we can get to the heart of what is happening. if anybody has an inkling that their identity is going to be revealed, they're not going to answer honestly and the date is going to be useless. model for that will be something like the american whiche association

administers surveys annually at many college campuses. looking at some of the instruments they use to administer. many institutions, if not all, regularly -- >> it is all private health data. >> there was confident that people taking the survey relies aalize -- >> to speak about the accessibility of the data -- currently, depending on how you filter the data, how you access the data, it pushes the information out in an excel format. sometimes the data comes out incorrect. there are many types of graphical errors. there's errors in spacing, errors in the columns. we found that to be a huge challenge. >> tell me where you used an acronym. >> if you go to the website -- a

nd you try to download the aeary data it comes out with typographical errors, spacing issues, the headings are sometimes not correct. there are commas weather should not be. if you are getting the most accurate data. >> just talking about access to literally -- accessibility to data, i can say students were very disappointed. they are not going to do that again. one of the big problems with .his issue the data gets flushed out. come forwardents so i definitely think data is of concern. >> let me ask our police chief.

one of the things that realizes that theealized is cleary act by definition is the ucr and the national incident-based reporting and it is my understanding that if force intotaken by their car and driven across town and then they break into someone else's apartment and then there is a rape, you are reporting a kidnapping, a rape, and and breaking and entering as three separate incidents and nobody has any idea it was the same crime. is that actually the way it works? that wef the challenges have talked greatly about is not only accessibility to information but making it useful.

that is one of the problems we encounter in our business is the challenge of the differences between ucr. the cleary act has even expanded some definitions that don't even cover under ucr. it creates a lot of challenges for campus law enforcement to or other municipal agencies are counting these particular statistics, yet college campuses where.uired to determine able tows very. being capture that type of information. then the hierarchical rule of how we count those crimes. the fact is when the information comes out it is aggregate data. it actually means it is just one incident of recurring or

separate pieces to the incident. >> somebody could go on a crime spree in one night and blow up the data over one continuing criminal behavior over one evening because there are so many different types. --a good example could they could be that they designate it as a robbery, but you could put it under hate crime. that information comes out. >> why is it that way? why are we using both? how that cameow about? >> i can't answer that question, but i know they handle incidents like that. and it is one event, and i believe that is what we turned out to do.

is victim is a and. that is coming up with a bigger problem. >> we are counting all the different crimes. >> we are victim centric. the public also crime requirement. you have the ability to explain and user-friendly language that is accessible. if you are looking at statistics you have an ability to get a sense of what occurred, so there

would be more detail. about the crime log. i am speaking about -- as a parent. and the probability that they .an request a crime log the third issue is it is reported as raw numbers. two rapes on a campus that is a small cosmetology school, 25 students versus a large institution, two rapes, 100,000 people. they are both two rapes. they are both horrible, but it is a very different safety

situation, i think, in my mind, and with the raw numbers, there is no room for a parent to compare apples to apples. >> do we need a whole new data schematic for this? anybody willing to sign up for that project? >> i think you can capitalize you can go on there, type in your zip code and see over crisis intervention service. why not type in a school, have the security data show up there. have the ability to contract a few colleges. my understanding is that it is physical and you have to be on campus and you can go see it. they can also be electronic. maybe that is something that schools can have a link to or a route to. >> it seems to me with technology today, we ought to be able to do a rot of this more simply with electronics. there ought to be a way where you can have a user-friendly dynamic where you could go on and click on the university can get the data can't get the crime logs, 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? allow them to do a narrative. have they put an emphasis on reporting? as a result victims, i don't know. would that -- should that all be done through clery? probably. right? >> one of the things that 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 talked 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 is 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 incidents would be a very helpful matrix. >> it is context? >> absolutely. it is context. what is the campus doing to address these matters proactively and in the event of a traumatic incident. >> one of the things the white house talked about and spent some time on and i don't think it has come to any conclusion and that is somehow should this

data be included in school rankings like the u.s. news and world report ranking? >> one of the challenges with that is that we're requiring schools to self-report that data. if you just look at the statistical numbers. if you're looking at things that holly mentioned like what are the prevention efforts happening on campus. how many counselors do they have? that may speak more strongly than the data itself. we recognize that we cannot necessarily trust every institution to report the data accurately. if you look at new york state campus, for example, if you go into the clery data and look at how many results are occurring per campus in new york state, it is less than half an assault occurring per campus. if you have one in five women who is a survivor of a completed

sexual assault on her campus, we know that data is not correct. you have to rely on institutions to generate that data. i don't know if using those numbers is the best way. >> what about the climate survey? >> they would potentially be a more accurate picture. >> absolutely. i know the outreach foundation is doing 32 -- they are trying to figure out how to measure, not just compliance with the laws but true safety. having an objective third party coming in saying you're doing a great job but let's go through. do you have this policy? do you only have your own security force? i think we need to look outside of schools to get a true picture of what's happening. >> can i just -- i think it is a very wise suggestion to look at the survey report. in term of getting more accurate higher quality clery data, are there clear impediments we

should be thinking about, for example, interacting with one or more municipal police departments that are responding because there isn't a campus. 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. one of the things that is the compliance -- compliance is all about training, getting information out there, have everybody on the same page reporting the same things and the way that the law is written now, we are to train new students and employees on the

definitions of these crimes and the local jurisdiction. i could be in a state that doesn't. dating violence, domestic violence, stalking, they may or may not have a definition of consent when i report for my school, i must report based on the clery definitions and they are not always the same, obviously. to me there is 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. >> i think to piggyback on that. the first thing i want to talk about, we have this document that talks about prevention. talks about statistics. institutions have to do that

with the annual security report which essentially has these cliffsnotes of policies and the numbers. and in order to put that together well, it requires training. these policies have full policies that they support. and then a step further, the institutions are trained to implement them. what we have seen with a lot of the cases on college and university campus is they are not implementing policies well and survivors are suffering as a result. that's when you see major changes made. title nine is a conversation for two weeks from now. they are making changes because they have been called out on it. there has been public scrutiny. now they are inning resources and energy from leadership.

they are talking about clery when their board of trustees have never talked about it before or possibly have misspelled it for a number of years. a lot of -- a lot of what is there in the law, if you're trained on it. if it is being implemented, i think works well. the challenge that i see a lot day-to-day as a technical assistance provider for -- clery and as an organization that worked on compliance with clery is we get some people who get it. they are that lone soldier. they have no support. there is a difference too. i think if we have resources, it would be great. a lot of times we'll say just the support. we ask them what they are doing and if you can help. even having the president's name attached can help. i don't have a solution. i wish i did. you can't have this conversation without ignoring the organizational dynamics that come into play.

>> it almost has been like a check the box thing on too many campuses. we're going to do the bare minimum that we can do to be compliant but we are not really having robust training or the underlying support on campus to make this work the way it's supposed to work. frankly, we don't have the data yet from the survey. i think we do need to make some changes because nothing is more frustrating than a rote exercise that you're required to do. that's why people get mad at the government. that is one of the problems we have got here is that if every campus took it seriously and tried to support it and understand that there is something required other than cut and paste on -- oh, it is time to cut and paste on the security report again.

right? but the same language, i bet if we look, i bet those reports change very little. >> i'm someone that says i wish we didn't have to do enforcement. i wish we could train and educate people to do it. what we're seeing is that it is the only way we're going to see changes. i can name five institutions on one hand that really do it well. they are all under investigation. >> to piggy back on what allison was saying, 1/3 of the policies were not fully compliant with the clery act in written policy. we're seeing 1/3 of the schools out of 300 that are not compliant. >> that means thousands of schools are not compliant. >> yes. to me, as a compliance officer, i look at the statutes and the regulation and then i help

administration and management interpret it into a policy and then i work with the units to help them get it done. but, you know, we are not, i'm a compliance officer and my management team, they are not experts in sexual assault, dating violence, preventing those types of crimes. what we need is simple things. give us the model policy. what does it look like. not just cut and paste and legalese. the policy is just the beginning. we need the procedures to implement it. to get those procedures to implement it, i thought of a simple solution. the department of education, they conduct audits. surely they can publish best practices. what have they seen when they have gone into institutions? could they publish their audit reports so that we can see the good and the bad? >> where are those audit reports?

do they get published? >> they do compliance to reviews and that information does become public. >> if i wanted to go look at the results of a compliance audit done by d.o.e., department of education, where would i look? where would i find it? >> it is on the f.s.a. data center website. >> what does f.s.a. stand for? >> i'm sorry. the office of student aid. >> if i go on the website, and click on there, am i going to be able to find these audits and y50u6r9s that have been cited for not being compliant on clery? >> yes. >> is that part of a larger audit or do you do clery-specific audits? >> in 2010, the office of federal student aid which is responsible for enforcing the

clery rules created a special unit that does nothing but create clery compliance. we have plans to double that in the next few years. there are specifically clery compliance reviews being done as well as when we do audits on larger compliance issues, we also look at clery through those. >> how many institutions would you say on annual basis are getting a clery compliance audit either through the clery-specific unit or as part of a larger student aid. is that what it is called? >> yes. >> a larger f.s.a. audit? what would be the number on an annual basis? >> 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 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. >> ok. i was also an auditor. 13 is not very many for 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 effort so it is not just 13 people. i -- how many of the just clery audits are being done by the 13 auditors on an annual basis opposed to the 300 unit. the clery unit, how many are they doing? >> about 20. >> that is still a lot for 13 people. i can't wait to look at the audits. >> we also have a summary with

an analysis of the findings that we put together. i have a spread sheet. >> that would be great. >> they are the only division addressing a law enforces title nine. that is a big part of this problem. we spend all day making laws and rules and regulations. when it comes to survivors who ask for enforcement, we don't have special ed enforcers who know the details of this law or work together with the clery doesn't work with them. not a big person giving big money for other than survivors to recover. if you're going to spend money somewhere, please allow them to spend it on enforcement.

>> or at least integration. >> i think that would help institutions because they are splitting their minds on the issue of sexual assault between two laws and now three. that is difficult. so if the government can figure out how the put it into one unit, so can institutions. >> and they can model that better for the institutions? >> absolutely. >> let me add to that. i was also a former auditor but of clinical trials. what we did for f.d.a. regulated studies, we had a checklist so we knew when the audit team came in, what are they going to look for? that is what we are going to be graded on. why can't we do the same thing? to me, if you find at audit, that is too late. we spent all of this time that we're not getting it right. i would rather get it right and know you have to do x, y and z. >> the only problem with that is when -- the federal government does audits on child support collection, and when i took over that office, we were not collecting very much child support, but we were passing every audit.

they were so busy checking the box they knew they were going to be looked at no one was asking the question why aren't we collecting for child support? you have to be careful when you do that because institutions train themselves to be audit responsive opposed to looking at the underlying problem. it is not that they passed the audit. it is that victims are getting 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 is ultimately the goal here. that is the ultimate deterrent. it is hard for me not to talk about the criminal justice system today because i have to wait two weeks to be able to do that. that 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, which will be soon? >> yes, we are publishing that soon. >> stocking must be included. how are you going to handle the confusion around those three crimes? we already have the confusion of reporting them separately. are you going to be providing definitions for the definition between eating violence and the mystic violence? had a committee -- and domestic violence. >> yes, we had a committee. the committee represented a wide group of interests from law enforcement victims advocate,

state attorneys general. basically, we tried to get the gamut of different interests wet would be affected. grappled with a lot of the issues we have been talking about today, including definitions, including how crimes are counted. we included training programs as well. we were able to come to consensus on language, and i credit the group and all of you who worked on that, because a lot of time and effort went to it. have a veryf we good regulation we are going to be publishing in mid june for public comment. >> the only thing missing is a definition on consent. the ucr.on using sexual states handle

assault the same. >> we still don't have incapacitation. >> i was one of them. i was told it doesn't count for you. we did a great job. you don't have to fight back. you cannot confer consent. that is why it hurts survivors so much to have someone else say because yousual didn't do xyz. it needs to exist. >> the problem is that this is

not a federal crime. unless you're in the district of columbia or in indian reservation, these crimes are state crimes. we cannot define for states elements of their crimes. >> we can do models and incentives. >> that is one thing we should look at. how can we incentivize states to update their definitions of consent? i was surprised we still had 16 states that said it was only by force or threat of force. that is a lot of states that still do not understand that is an inappropriate and incomplete definition of consent. >> that is what laura was talking about. when you go back to the negotiated rulemaking and coming up with a consensus, if we can get states to the point where they are consistent in their loss. under the new regulations, dating violence is not listed. you will continue to have an

inconsistent definition between what other municipalities and sheriffs departments are reporting and what college campuses are reporting. >> should it go into the fbi reporting program? anybody give that any thought? >> if i thought the data was accurate, i would say yes. when survivors are more empowered, that will change. i do not know if it would have the effect we would want right now. >> ok. let's talk about accountability and enforcement. when i realized the punishment for the department of education and for doj is suspending -- i

know there is the $35,000 fine -- but then there is -- the punishment that is supposed to provide all the meat, the stick behind this is suspending institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs. does anyone believe that punishment is ever going to be given to anyone? ok. it was not an adequate deterrent. what do we need to do -- and this is not just with clery. the $35,000 fine is nothing to an institution. i cannot imagine -- what is the annual budget at the university of michigan? >> several million. >> a $35,000 fine compared to a

very small campus that maybe has 500 students -- that does not appear to make much sense and it does not make sense to threaten something we will never do. what do we do about meaningful deterrence? does anybody have any ideas about other ways we can make this work? >> this is my favorite discussion to have. i do not know if there is a way to do it percentagewise, taking a percentage of the school's gross income so that it does hurt, but not overwhelm smaller institutions. at lunch, we are discussing penn state getting find more for

their sport violations versus what clery could ever do to it. there are two ways to enforce title ix and one of them requires voluntary compliance. we made another agreement again, watch out, you will only get a contract every time you violate. they are survivors lives being destroyed. i do think we need intermediate sanctions. the fine is arbitrary and it is not meaningful, so i do not know if we can look at adjusting it. you have to remove that voluntary part of it. we need to change that. >> anybody else?

institutions are operating under a lot of instant -- anxiety and fear. i would be concerned about adding more sticks with no carrots. we do not have enough programs that inspire innovation and new knowledge about this issue. we are placing all of our resources in enforcement and we are not complementing that with innovation. i think we are creating a situation where we do have box checking. >> i understand what you are saying. i get what you are saying. we depend on college campuses for innovation for so many

things and you have -- i do not want to pick on michigan, although i would kind of like to pick on michigan. your system -- you have law school. you have medical school. you are training psychologists and psychiatrists and social workers. you have every discipline, academic excellence in every discipline that is needed to come together on this problem. and you have endowments. you have alumni. if this problem is causing such stress, and i think it is because they are worried that they will be next. there is going to be a victim that will come forward and tell another horrific tale about how they were marginalized and how they did not get help or another heartbreaking suicide where

there is a trail of tears and in action by people in a position to help. what i do not understand why we are not getting more innovation from these college campuses on an interdisciplinary approach that they are willing to put some money behind from their own resources to make it work better. i am very proud to say the university of michigan is innovating. we created one of the first ever primary prevention programs for the college-aged population. we have implemented a controlled group matched of that program so that we can identify its efficacy on the campus, that we are planning to launch a second as well to look at other stages of our efficacy programs.

that is because the university of michigan has an extraordinary wealth of resources. we have chosen to invest some in this effort. many campuses do not have that benefit and we need to be able to extend the ability to innovate to other campuses that do not have those kinds of resources. campuses look different and we need to have different kinds of innovations to address specific campus populations. for those who don't have this, it is important that they we provided the support and encouragement to do that research. >> michigan has -- i am sure you do have a program you've put together that is excellent. that is one of the reasons you are on this panel. what are we doing to share that? i mean, if you put together a model that works, where you have an interdisciplinary approach

and you have a criminal justice degree where forensic interviewing is taught so that there are people on campus to understand there is a big difference as opposed to the kind of interview that should be done when somebody is willing to talk about what has occurred. why are we not seeing this cross pollinate across the country? >> the office of violence against women has been considering doing things highlighting what has been done. schools will have an incentive to keep funding. they need to use that money wisely.

there are models of schools that do well. university of michigan has been highlighted, i am very proud that they have done such great things. leave that to newspapers and other things. i do not know if that is the business of the government. we do not need to be handing out money to wealthy institutions. the people who are suffering are the victims. who leave school in debt. if we are going to give money, let's give scholarships to survivors who are brave enough to file complaints. >> the prosecutor in me just said we cannot give scholarships to someone who is brave enough to file a complaint. they will be cross examined. their credibility would be attacked. i get the point you are making. it is a valid one.

does anybody disagree that we should look at fines tied to the size of the school? >> i do not know that i necessarily agree. i agree with the points that holly made that -- again, going back to institutions that have changed that have been under investigation. they have not even been found in violation yet, so they have made the changes based on the media scrutiny. they have been on the cover of "time," "newsweek." they have made changes even before there is any finding of violation. while fines serve as some deterrent, i almost think the public being out there in public, the attention that has been on this issue, six months in particular the spotlight has really shown on this. i don't know that putting all of

the eggs into looking at fines is the way to handle it. holly makes a great point. i really agree with putting on my prevention hat. i was charged with preventing alcohol use, suicide, eating disorders, sexual assault. they would pick up the phone and say we have an eating disorder problem and you need to go out and educate on it. we need to start being strategic about prevention. look at the public health model. colleges and universities have not, some have -- many, because of lack of support or lack of

resources, are not building robust programs around prevention. if they do have programs around prevention or maybe one person, they are not being strategic about how they prevent. they may do a one-shot orientation. i struggle with this daily, how do we help them change that? beyond writing a check, how do they do this? even if it is creating a grant program, and we have one, they do not hand out a lot of those, only a small amount. being at an institution that could have applied for that, i would've had to write that federal grant with maybe the help of irb.

that struggle -- it goes back to some of the organizational dynamics within in terms of what is valued. is prevention valued? i do not know if it is valued in all institutions. >> if we don't step up enforcement side, the enforcement side brings the media attention. the only thing we can rely on to make these universities and colleges do what they should be doing this for them to get a bad story. that is a lot of victims. that would be a depressing conclusion. we have to figure out some way to up the ante that is short of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front pages. >> more focus with the

department of ed. to do the work. i think the changes i have seen institutions start to make is when they are immediately under investigation. i would almost rather see an investment -- >> in all fairness, the fines will be paying for this. we have an issue with budget from our government. where does the money come from? they can fund their own enforcement. that is the justice in every survivor would back that up. >> senator, enforcement, i understand that is a component. the important pieces to have clarity. so many people are confused about how to read the regulation or understand what is going on. it is hard to say enforcement

when you have some many people who do not understand the regulations. you have so many people who do not understand the regulations. i work with a lot of good people who want to do the right thing. i am cautious to label institutions. a lot of people is doing the right thing, there is mass confusion. >> what about the victims? being told that the laws hard to figure out is not an answer. i understand, i went to law school and i studied this law, but we are talking about victims. >> at the end of the day, we all want to be on the same page. >> through these roundtables, i thought i knew this area pretty well, i have already learned several things today that i did not know. there are ways we can simplify this. what needs to be reported and how you define it. we need to be less reticent about best practices models being provided to schools. there has been -- i know the

task force has done some of that, toolkits for universities to help them figure out the right way and the more we do of that, the more consistency we will get on campus. we can compare apples to apples. i get the point you are making. it requires schools to publish their evidentiary standard. we still do not have an evidentiary standard in law. >> one is provide in the grievance letter. the title ix grievance process does address sexual assault. the answer is provided somewhere. i think it needs to be

solidified. campuses are not dealing with crimes. the behavior may also qualify as a crime, but they are talking about misconduct. >> i know it is in a dear colleague letter, i will tell you that if i were in court, the judge would say to me, i don't remember where we studied it. >> it is just guidance. >> it is just guidance, and it is problematic for institutions. it is hard for us to come down on institutions not using the standards when our government has not have the political will to put it into law. if we are not talking about losing someone's liberty, we are talking about losing something of value. the preponderance of the evidence is an appropriate standard for losing something of value, not your liberty. that is all we are talking about. i feel pretty strongly that we need to step up and do that and i think it would send the right

message that this is what it is. there are still campuses who still are not using it. >> absolutely. >> does anybody disagree with that? >> having the preponderance of the evidence standard would empower more colleges to take more severe action against assailants. in many cases, colleges and universities are afraid of taking a stronger stance for fear of having the alleged assailants come back and file lawsuits. stating that it is not a criminal courtroom. you have to call it a sexual misconduct, violation of the college. having that stronger preponderance of the evidence

might encourage and empower institutions to take a stronger stance against assailants come especially repeat perpetrators. >> here is a hot one. according to law enforcement, with more survivors report to law enforcement if they had clear information on how to do so or accompanied by an advocate in the process? >> i first tried going to the school. they said, do you want to go to the police, i felt comfortable. i think it is hard to go to the police right off the gate. i think very few people do that. the white house talked about having a confidential space. even in the military, we have options.

and people have the safe space are empowered. it has to be of their free will. >> what about requiring law enforcement to report it -- the university to reported to law enforcement unless the survivor opts out? >> i think it can be used as a threat to keep victims silent. when it goes to the police, sometimes your friends find out and your family finds out. it can be a very big thing. not everyone wants the spotlight on their sexual assault. i see the intention in it, but i am worried about it used as a threat. if you talk to me, i have to talk to the police. >> the ability to opt out and to say no, i do not want to report it. >> who will make sure they know their rights?

>> i've talked to a lot of campuses and victims, this requirement that they are required to say, you may report to law enforcement or you may not, they are hearing don't report to law enforcement. i think that might be because some of the universities are shading it that way because they know it remains an administrative proceeding on campus and it is not as difficult for the university. that is what a lot of victims tell me they hear. when they are told, they are just hearing the second part. >> it is a tough issue. i am not saying it is easy. i am telling you the silence cuts both ways. >> what about jane doe reporting? >> a couple of things. campuses can have in their policies these types of procedures, the option to report

to law enforcement. it depends how the picture is painted, right? if it is painted in terms of, we can go to local law enforcement, but you really do not want to do that. >> they will ask you really embarrassing questions. it will be awful for you. >> the white house solution, building that relationship with crisis centers, where they are trained to provide options of empowerment counseling. i know they sound fluffy, but if they are done well, they really work in terms of explaining and providing the education to students about what happened and providing some of the definitions in the language that students will understand. i can actually be raped by my friend.

and explaining the process. this is when your parents or guardians will be contacted. someone that can explain to them that takes three sessions sometimes to fully explain the process from a to b. if a student is experiencing trauma, they can look back at that or have that document so they know what is afforded to them. the other piece -- per clery, you have to include that. it gives you an accurate number. if your counseling center is giving you the anonymous numbers, we can include this number in our statistics. it is confidential and voluntary. this way we can have an accurate picture of what is going on on our campus. i am certainly in favor of that if it captures the right data.

this happens here and that is why the board of trustees, we are hiring a prevention person. >> it is my understanding that there are a number of college campuses and universities who are not recording the data. if the only place it resides is an institution with confidentiality? if someone goes to a mental health center or to a hospital and the only people they tell are people who have a requirement of confidentiality, they are not even including the data because they are considering it confidential even though it is just an aggregate of the data. >> some are, it depends on the institution. >> it is very important that we have jane doe reporting options and that victim advocates are training side-by-side with law

enforcement so that together, they understand that they are working as a team. they have different roles, but they are a team. when it comes to explaining options and choices, we want survivors to be fully informed and to make those informed choices and that takes time and trust and takes well-trained and well informed law enforcement officers as well who have not only the knowledge about forensic examinations, but also understand the impact of trauma and are able to sensitive to survivor so they are getting really good information that they are able to pursue. so we have fewer matters coming before prosecutors that do not have enough information to move forward, which is the biggest issue we see when it comes to law enforcement. not having enough information so that the case can move forward.

>> a lot of campuses are really devoted to creating a collaborative environment. they are establishing sexual assault teams that include a number of individuals who have the responsibility for responding to those particular crimes. that way they can go with the victim to say this is what we can do for you and needs are the avenues we can take. that would be something i would advocate for, the establishment of some sort of team. >> one of the challenges we found is that survivors who go through their college and go through law enforcement also are doubly traumatized and victimized.

if the local law enforcement does not have a specific person or group of people who are properly trained on how to conduct an interview and how to collect the forensic evidence, it can be doubly traumatizing. the story that came out of columbia university where one of the survivors has been working with the senator. she went to her college disciplinary process and the college did not find her assailant guilty of anything. he was not removed from campus. she finally said, i was not getting the outcome i wanted, so i'm going to the nypd. an officer showed up at her room and disregarded a lot of her concerns, kept wanting her to repeat very traumatizing information, kept trying to question the nature of her relationship and the nature of the assault because they had had consensual sex before he did rape her.

she said, i came out of that experience feeling incredibly disempowered. the officer said it probably won't go anywhere -- >> where was this? >> at columbia with the nypd. if the nypd, one of the largest law enforcement bodies in the nation, is not training officers properly and how to interact, i do not think we can start to require students to have to opt out until we can train local law enforcement. >> i am not aware of any moderately sized police department that does not have trained sexual assault detectives that would take that report. that does not sound like a trained sexual assault detective. >> it did not.

>> i brought people to report to police before and sometimes they make them report to someone initially to go see detective from the right unit. you cannot always control who is responding. i promise you, if we handle this issue well, you do not ever have to mandate it. it is a reflection of how our system is failing. we are talking, our faces are in the news. it is changing already, but what we need to see is the pieces we cannot control. when we see the consequence, we know it is safer for us to speak out. >> we will spend a lot of time on this. i understand the incredible stress and heartache and problems with coming to law enforcement. but i also know that the vast

majority of these perpetrators are not even getting a criminal interview. they are never having the moment where the police officer sits across the table from them and asks them the difficult questions. we will not get any meaningful deterrence on this problem until that begins happening. there is a chicken and egg problem happening here. if they do not have any confidence that something could happen to the perpetrator in terms of being convicted of a crime. >> training law enforcement is not just about how sensitive you

are, it is knowing her perpetration looks. i shock people by talking about repeat perpetrators. right now, we only talk about the victims and that needs to change. you can't put a victim through that.that. >> jane doe reporting, i guess part of me thinks that if the universities were required to report that this crime occurred to law enforcement without any identifying information, that is another check on the institution, but they would have to be telling the police that this occurred, or even though it would not be giving out the name of the alleged perpetrator. >> would police be required to investigate them?

>> i don't the police would investigate if they do not know the name of the victim or the perpetrator, but it would be another place the data would be located. the federal government feels distant and not something people are worried about. if the university president was confronted by the chief of police that he turned and 12 incident reports to the local police without identifiers, all of a sudden, he is seeing a front-page article in his future or she is seeing a front-page article in her future. that is another place that you would have to be accountable and if nothing else, it opens a line of communication between the university and local law enforcement. i know there is a huge issue. i bet you spent a lot of time at your meetings talking about how you get meaningful and healthy cooperation between local police and university police because there is a natural friction. >> it depends on the

jurisdiction and institution. >> and the leadership. >> as title ix has expanded and local law enforcement has begun to understand these particular things, it has created even more friction because their understanding of what are requirements as campus law enforcement goes against the mission within their own agency. it becomes very difficult. the jane doe reporting, it becomes extremely difficult to investigate those crimes without any willing victim. or name of perpetrator. >> when i began the domestic violence unit in the 1990's and i had people come to me and said

we cannot do domestic violence because most the time, we don't have a victim. we need to expand the homicide disband the homicide unit. we managed to put cases together. it is amazing there are cases that can be put together without a cooperative victim. >> that is the problem and that is why we don't want mandatory reporting. we do not want that done for us. i do not want my friends and family questioned. clery has already anticipated what you are trying to do. i do know that the city can share data and supplement the report. campuses have no authority to make city police work with them. that is something the government could do. we could obligate.

they can oppose and hold back. that way you are not forcing victim disclosure, you are just having a better relationship and that sounds to me like what you are getting at, a good relationship. >> i know from laura's perspective, when you do have a college campus that does have a law enforcement agency trained versus a college campus that does not, you see more of a disconnect between local law enforcement and the institution when you do not have that entity on campus. it creates a lot of different challenges when dealing with the sharing of information. >> should campus staff be required to report to the administration? >> i am not sure if i know the answer about whether they should or not, but if we require faculty, but also staff to

report information, we have to educate our student body about where there are confidential resources and about the responsibilities of anyone they share information with to report. every member who has an obligation to report also has equally robust training so they are appropriately responding to that student so the student is getting support and care. one of the challenges when we expand our reporting requirements is that we say to the student, you can tell anybody on campus this information and they will share it with the institution. and then we create the obligation that that person is going to be equally poised to be able to address those matters. that is something that we should think carefully on as to whether or not all members of the campus will be supporting survivors.

>> right now, under the clery act and title ix, someone who is law enforcement or monitoring access, anyone you designate, then there is the people with significant responsibilities for student activities. that encompasses most of your student affairs, life coaches, greek life, greek advisors. with the responsible employee side, it sometimes goes -- one of the pieces that we have seen from the organization is if it

is done really well, and there is a lot of training, if there is training about what you do when a student discloses and how you handle that disclosure, if there is not training, it could have a chilling effect because it creates a mandated reporter. you cannot say that to people and then not train them on what that means. you are a campus security authority. you have to provide assistance and information in case there is a reason to issue some type of warning. then talking to the students saying we know you are building rapport with students but you are not qualified to take this disclosure. and these are ways to talk to the residents regularly about what the requirements are and if

you have to disclose you can keep it private. it may not be able to be confidential but you can keep it private. i think it is good if it is done well. >> i'm an r.a. i want to apologize because i have to leave now. but i wanted to, first of all, share how valuable this feedback is for us. i really appreciate your time here. and senator mccaskill started the meeting by saying this roundtable will be a success if nobody feels like they have left and said i wanted to make that point and i didn't. so, right before i leave i guess i want to offer the opportunity -- if there is a topic we haven't delved into this first hour and a half that you want to leave before i unfortunately have to depart. >> something that might be of interest to you when we were at the table talking about considering internet crimes and

we couldn't address it but that is an issue. the cyber elements, not just like stalking but harassment, intimidation. those are not actually captured on a clarion. maybe an area to look into. >> thank you. >> additionally, i want to revisit that. i think it is important to fund more research on this issue. one of the places where campuses do receive research dollars to address significant public issues is around alcohol and other drugs. do research to increase our knowledge on this so when aware -- we are not complying with the acts of

campus, we are doing so with practices that are based on evidence. >> also going along the line of the internet and technology, the technology is coming up with a lot of great intervention strategy and programs for reporting sexual violence on campus, intervention, an to have funding and access to those programs on college campuses could go a long way. i don't know how many attended the data jam on campus sexual violence at the white house but there were great proposals about how to create intervention and strategies and creating accountability for college regarding the aggregate data that is reported through third parties. >> thank you very much. >> i'm an r.a. and somebody on my floor brings me a video on a cell phone and it is clearly someone having sex with someone and it is pretty obvious from

the video that the victim is completely incapacitated. and there is even conversation among one or more perpetrators about the fact that she's incapacitated. and the r.a. recognizes who the victim is. does the victim -- does the r.a. in that circumstance have a duty under the law now or should she have a duty under the law to report it? >> they need to create a policy encouraging a policy of reporting when the victim is unable to do so. being intoxicated or passed out, the victim may not even know it occurred and i think that is a different circumstance. it doesn't mandate reporting but it does say colleges are supposed to encourage that type of reporting.

>> but does this r.a. need to talk to the victim first? >> i don't think so because the victim may not know it happened. >> what if the victim feels not incapacitated and saw the video and clearly it still looked to this r.a. as if this was nonconsensual. does this r.a. have a duty to report that? >> my advice there as a c.s.a. is good faith so there is that piece for good faith. if the director for a rape crisis center report this it is clear they are not to investigate. the last thing you want to have the r.a. do is go to the victim and say listen, there is what -- you should not have, to me it sets up a bad example -- it is the start -- it has already been a bad situation but it is a start of a bad situation if the r.a. goes to question the victim in the video. >> we want the survivor to have great power as to whether or not this case is criminally investigated or not but at the

same time there is a public safety duty of people that work at this university to protect other people from these crimes. so, if we are going to give all the power to the survivor as to whether the case goes forward then any time a bystander comes forward, you are saying they would almost have to check off with the victim before they could in fact -- once law enforcement gets that name and once law enforcement gets that video, then law enforcement has a duty to go question that victim. the law enforcement do not have a choice. they can't then say, well, yes, this crime was committed but now the victim still has the opportunity not to cooperate. and say i'm not going to tell you anything. ultimately, the victim has a lot of power because it is very difficult to move forward with an investigation with a noncooperative, obviously, the most important witness to the crime.

i guess that is -- everybody said we can't mandate reporting but wait a minute. we need to mandate reporting because very few people do this once. very few people do this once. >> senator mccaskill, one way the university of michigan has addressed this conundrum is creating a review panel. in the instances where we have a survivor who is unwilling to participate in the institution's process for whatever reason, a review panel that is made up of representatives from law enforcement, a representative from my organization, a reserve who represents the interests of the accused student and also our title ix coordinator get together to look specifically at matters of community safety versus survivor autonomy and talk through the issues to make a

determination in the instance where there is a survivor who is unable or unwilling to move forward with the institution process, whether or not the institution has an obligation to continue to review or investigate that matter or if there is other action the institution may take to address the responsibility for community safety while not investigating that particular incident. >> yikes. that makes me really uncomfortable. if there is a video of somebody being raped, i want law enforcement to get it like in 10 minutes and -- you have a panel to question whether or not law enforcement should receive it? >> that was looking specifically at campus responsibility. not law enforcement responsibility. >> i'm talking about campus personnel having a responsibility to report to the university which then would have a duty to report to law enforcement under those circumstances, i believe. if you want to solve this

problem make victims comfortable making that choice themselves. i can't say it any other way. i hear the pain, i have worked with victims of gang rape. i have been a victim of gang rape. i helped a student. i care for every survivor. the reason i reported, i didn't want the victims to be victimized by the same men. when i felt i could come forward i was able to do so but you can't take that choice away. i know we want to give the individuals who have been harmed victims will see the system works and they will see an article that doesn't let the football player go for rape and there are victims reporting and their cases are mishandled and we see that and we know it in our bones that is not safe yet. when we see the cases that are reported handled better, we will

automatically have higher reporting. if we do it this way we will deter survivors from speaking. >> so your recommendation is the law would not require somebody who has direct, independent corroboration of a felony that they would not report it? >> i don't think they should be mandated to report it. if they choose to do so that is one thing. mandatory, taking it away from victims who can report it themselves and they are capable, intelligent individuals that can still occur. it is not as though that crime will never get reported if we don't force somebody else to do it. jurisdiction would you be -- >> would you be comfortable in the law it if it said it could be reported so the institution would though there is an issue? >> i think the whole idea of reporting is to be investigate

and those men taken off the street. make it anonymously and you still don't do that. >> report something keeping track of the severity of the problem. the clarity is not a basis of prosecution. it is all anonymous data. but now you are trying to suggest that it also has the law enforcement purpose which you are right it hasn't had before. i think that you will change the nature of the beast and i promise you campus survivors will not appreciate it. >> i believe that the campus security authority in the scenario you gave, every scenario is different the r.a. would have to give that to their law enforcement and they may not know the name of the person in the video, maybe they do. i think there is a lot of unknown but campus public safety or law enforcement would need to determine if they need to warn, if something they need to warrant on anything and if they know the person, i think that is a team like holly's might come in to reach out and not say this was reported, it was mandated reporting. i think that would be the best way to play it. but to reach out to that student and say this came to our attention, this was brought by a third party. do you want to talk about this. the student may say i don't want

to do anything. and but they have been given their option. as the scenario you are giving as a campus security authority the r.a., i would think it was a violation and i would put them on a cleary violation for not reporting in. they are obligated to report that. i think that would be in good faith seeing it on video. >> i agree with allison if she is mandated or he, the r.a., if they are mandated as a campus security authority they most likely would have an obligation. from a campus law enforcement perspective as we talk about c.s.a., the definition of c.s.a. is fairly broadly defined so some institutions may designate it and others not. one thing we talk about is narrowing that definition and then as laura suggested,

encouraging that reporting for those who are not designated as a c.s.a. >> and there is -- i think it is really important that everything we do in this area empower victims and survivors and empower survivors to be the ones who make a decision. i completely agree with you, laura. it just is very difficult when there is clear evidence of a serious crime and you know there are repeat offenders that someone would get the wrong impression that they didn't have any obligation to bring that forward. frankly, in some instances at least in my experience the survivor, when at the realize other people were there that wanted to help it made all the difference in the world. the loneliest journey is when you think no one is on your side.

>> i want prosecution of sex crimes. i feel very passionate our system failed and it needs to be reformed. it is just how it is framed because survivors are being told don't tell me anything because i will have it tell police you will did he ever reporting. as long as it would be made clear the survivors can keep having their voice. >> i would say some cases we have heard about the problem isn't getting it to law enforcement because they are getting there. it is the response you are hearing. i don't want to speak for everyone at the table but there are things i read in media accounts i thought nobody would say that and you learn because you meet that person and you are like wow somebody said that. we had a mistake. this person said one of these absurd statements students are

going to keep getting raped until chickens come home or whatever the statement and you find out that was said and so there is not much -- there is only so much we can do in the law in terms of getting it to law enforcement but until we are all, i think, having a campus process and designed can campus process through title ix until away get to the point when the statements are not being made and they are being made in the campus process, too. don't get me wrong. >> anything else? i have gotten through my list. we have done it in less than two hours. anything else that you all want to bring up? that we haven't talked about or anything you feel like you need to augment? >> thing one thing with clery that will come up, it originally had the idea that house like how safe the physical campus was having gone to an urban school i walk a block and i'm not on campus but i'm by the school i

know that it is geographically bound creates a lot of issues. if we add victimization surveys did it happen on or off campuses. some schools are worried about having crimes counted against them and making it feel unsafe. campuses in the students' mind where the students hang out and people live and that may not be considered campus under the clery act, but i know that is an issue that needs to be addressed. and it is going to be needed to be updated. >> i think that is right. in the military it is wherever the member of the military is. it is not just on base. we do not limit the authority of the ucmj if the perpetrator or the survivor is a member of the military there is jurisdiction.

and it does not matter -- now, there is dual jurisdiction. if it happens in town as opposed to a base. i think that is right. i think we need to look at that. and even though on some campuses they don't consider greek houses on campus which really seems to defy logic but there are campuses that don't. >> another idea i know i floated it earlier the complaint process going into effect with the regulations taking force in the fall will take place for the first time ever. they don't always know about clery and a lot can be condition to make sure that is on and wherever we centralize this information. investigators have limitations on how they can update about progress and whether you are doing a title ix or clery complaint it is hard to not know

who is being talked to and i think the government can did more for transparency. i also know that the investigators have some limitations in how they can update about progress and as a victim, whether you are doing a title ix complaint, it is stressful to be on campus and not know if anything is being looked at, not know if anything is being trucked to, and i think the government can do more for transparency. someone is talking about it? let me add my story. let's expose what has been happening. the more we can do with transparency matters. >> let's hear from universities about that and maybe from you. why should we not have all these investigations? why do they need to be a secret until they are over? >> the university of michigan is currently under investigation and we have shared that information with our community. i'm not certain why a campus would not share that information with their community.

>> why -- i know that they put the 55 names out there, but there is evidently has not been a change in the policy that will have an ongoing disclosure. >> we didn't make those 55 names public and we certainly can give some more thought of how to in the future. >> i understand if there is an investigation that you do not want to reveal the details of the investigation while the investigation is pending, because you can screw up the investigation. bad guys can get away. if it is a matter of letting people know that there is an investigation, i think you are right. i think that knowing is someone is looking at it will give him for two other survivors that there is a process in place and they can rely on structural support.

>> giving information about where that announcement is made, here. here is you can e-mail if you want to contribute. just with my work through survjustice, i see people who say, we want to add this information. i think there is a benefit. >> [indiscernible] not just we investigated. we internally corrected everything and it magically goes away. we need to know what went wrong so that others can look at that and learn and do better. >> i think that came up while we were talking about sanctions. we just had the regulation that will go into effect in the fall that will require schools to show all sanctions for dating violence, sexual violence, and stocking. what about sanctions? sometimes they are not doing a good job of sanctions. they will do an educational video as a consequent order -- consequence or summer suspension.

maybe they can include that in reports. we have had five cases of sexual assault and zero consequences. that says something about a campus and how they are taking it. i think that can be added to cleary, requiring sanctions. >> i think we should do the same for institutions. if an institution is not complying with the law, this is what will happen, and not just a $35 fine. >> we think it is important for people to have opportunities in investigations. we started doing public listening sessions to provide that opportunity. >> public means on campus. what about alumni who have left? i think it can be expanded. we are seeing alumni organizations that say, hey, that happened to me 20 years ago and it was handled poorly. just thinking beyond that. >> anybody else?

i want to add that in the campus state regulations, that i am proud of, that will be issued in november, we set appropriate bars for campuses to reach, i believe, as it relates to training and prevention. for many campuses, this will be a lot of new information. i am concerned that those campuses get guidance and resources from the federal government. i see already the cropping up of many for-profit organizations that are looking to cash in on an institution's fear. what we want is for institutions to be operating from the point of the best practice possible, not from a place of fear. that would be my encouragement. >> do people like you have an organization across the country? >> we do not currently have an organization across the country,

though this is something a number of us are hoping to create. i have a colleague in the audience who will join me after this to discuss this matter. >> i think you should. >> thank you. >> i think you all are being tasked with putting your universities and colleges in a compliant position, not just by making sure you have done all the things you are supposed to do, but that you have robust training and policy supporting it and that everyone understands that it is not just her office that has a role here. i think you all could benefit from cross-pollination. >> thank you for the encouragement. >> i don't know what i can do besides saying it is a great organization, but i think it is. >> i think that even -- before

it started happening before the -- throughout the country, it has to happen on campus. i'm sure that everyone at michigan knows the great work that holly is doing, but there are probably some folks who don't. i think knowing your resources on your campus or all campuses -- and i don't know, i guess that is nothing we can legislate. having folks, i think we have seen the clearance complier -- cleary compliance role on campus. we have a collaborative learning program and we have ongoing professional development in teams of five. it forces them in teams of five to really examine compliance from all levels and then assess themselves. there is a self-assessment tool where they have to do their own program review. they are doing their own review

to see what they can find and do it with others. that is another thing. while it is great to see it happening nationally, i think you see it happen in our own campuses. it sounds so simplistic, but that is what we are missing. the biggest challenge the round -- silos would be number one. >> this is another place where the campus climate assessment could be a useful tool. looking at the levels of information saturation on a campus. having campuses set goals for improvement over the course of time. when we are looking at campus climate assessments, it is important that they are happening on intervals so campuses can monitor their progress. >> i am glad to see that you are excited about it. i have a feeling we will have push back about the mandated campus climate assessment. we will have to be ready to win that fight. >> absolutely. >> i just wanted to add on to

what allison was talking about. educationng at higher opportunity compliance, which includes all of this, when i had compliances initial project three or four years ago completely grass roots because realized we have a problem, we need to get everything into compliance, when it was all said and done i coordinate with 27 separate organizational units. enforcementom law to wellness, to dch e.o., so and iery complicated agree with alison, it has to start with the institution. ad there needs to be centralized entity to keep track of it. because what my law enforcement officers do every day is completely different than my title 9 coordinators, than my folks in athletics