Tag Archives: asu news

Aug 19 2014
32 Comments
Staffing issues

ASUPD tags along while Tempe PD does ACTUAL WORK during “Safe and Sober”

???????????????

From abc15:

TEMPE, AZ – Tempe and ASU police went door-to-door Monday, trying to prevent problems before school starts, by talking with residents in neighborhoods surrounding campus.

On Monday, officers from both departments, ASU students and city officials teamed up to talk with residents in the neighborhoods surrounding Daily Park off Apache Boulevard about any problems they have or had with ASU students.

Tempe police Lt. Mike Pooley said the purpose is to foresee what could be a potential problem and stop it before students start school.

In 2014, ASU moved 24 of its fraternities back onto college-campus housing at the Villas at Vista del Sol apartments.

In 2012, ASU closed Alpha Drive, where fraternities and sororities had houses.

The majority of fraternities moved into neighborhoods off of: Broadway Road to University Drive and McClintock to Mill Avenue.

Tempe police called the area the “Loud Party Corridor” in a 21-page document, outlining the problems in the neighborhood.

The main message Monday – no matter which agency a person contacts about a problem, everyone will work together to solve it.

ASU officials say they want to make sure the first few weeks of school are as safe as possible as many students transition into their new lives as Sun Devils.

Yet again, ASUPD’s Command Staff has shown the world they are merely along for the ride while Tempe PD does the actual work during the start of the “Safe and Sober” campaign. ASUPD Chief Thompson went “door to door” with TPD to express his concern about the increase in loud parties caused by ASU students living in Tempe. He was so concerned, in fact, that he proactively stood by while Tempe’s Command Staff contacted local residents (watch the video here). Thompson’s body language tells Tempe’s residents all they need to know about ASUPD’s stance on crime: we will stand by, look concerned, and then let Tempe PD fix the problem.

Perhaps, Chief Thompson, you should have informed Tempe’s residents that your department is grossly understaffed, and is already running its officers call-to-call…and the school year hasn’t even started! Surely they will be completely understanding about the lack of police presence if they become victims of crimes, right?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 30 2014
31 Comments
General

Our response to the arrest of ASU professor Ersula Ore + “Use of Force” review panel?

ASU profesor Ore arrest

We have received a LOT of emails asking about our opinion about the arrest of ASU professor Ersula Ore. We wanted to comment about this situation and also tie it into other issues we’ve previously mentioned on The Integrity Report (to bring the discussion full-circle).

First, we would like to preface this post with the qualifier that none of the writers of the blog were there for the arrest of Ms. Ersula Ore. We have not spoken to the arresting officer nor any other officers involved in this situation; our conclusions come solely from second-hand and media accounts of the situation.

Our blog, The Integrity Report, was created after problems involving accountability and integrity with ASUPD employees began to overshadow the goal of having a safe and secure learning environment. Our mission is to hold officers accountable for their actions which tarnish the oath all of us swore to uphold; we have absolutely NO interest or stake in defending the officer involved in the arrest of Ms. Ore.

That being said, we are pretty perplexed by the statement made by Arizona Critical Ethnic Studies where they state Ms. Ore was racially profiled by ASUPD Officer Ferrin. There was nothing in any part of the initial contact or arrest that was remotely racially based! ACES made the assumption that Ms. Ore was contacted while walking in the City of Tempe only because she was black; what they failed to mention is that Ms. Ore was walking down the middle of the street in a major intersection and the officer contacted her because nearly hit her while responding to a call.

Walking down the middle of the street is behavior that can be indicative of someone in mental distress, under the influence of alcohol/drugs, or possibly suicidal. As first responders, sometimes we don’t have the ability to stop and explain the entire situation with someone if the circumstances are too exigent. This is just common sense! Would you want an officer responding to a burglary call at your house to stop and give you the play by play while the bad guy runs out your back door?

Officer Ferrin reportedly had no intention of citing Ms. Ore for walking in the street (which is against the law!). Ms. Ore repeatedly refused to show her ID multiple times when asked by the responding officer (which she is required to provide under the law). When Officer Ferrin attempted to take Ms. Ore into custody, she began to resist arrest and also attempted to trip the officer by wrapping her leg around him. Once Ms. Ore was taken into custody, the dash cam video clearly shows her kicking Officer Ferrin in the leg.

ACES stated that Ms. Ore’s lower body was exposed during the altercation, but they fail to mention if it occurred while Ms. Ore attempted to trip the officer (something that occurred–her dress flew up–as a result of an action she did–tripping the officer). The fact that Ms. Ore’s lower body was exposed was unfortunate, but certainly not intentional, especially given the fact there were multiple witnesses filming the situation.

If Officer Ferrin was at fault, ASU would throw him under the bus in a heartbeat to preserve their image. Additionally, the officer would be facing administrative punishment or criminal charges, neither of which is occurring at the moment. Is the dash cam video footage shocking? Absolutely. But the untrained observer must realize there is no pretty way to use force on a subject. Unlike the scenarios TV shows and movies portray, there is no “easy” way to take someone into custody that is actively and physically resisting arrest. In this scenario, the force used to affect the arrest certainly appears reasonable given the circumstances of the arrest.

Does ASUPD need a “Use of Force” review panel?

The above scenario involving Officer Ferrin raises the larger issue of reviewing officers’ use of force; are the members of the department that are actually investigating these incidents even qualified to do so? In this circumstance, due to the very sensitive subject matter, ASUPD requested that DPS review Officer Ferrin’s use of force, even after the department found that his use of force was reasonable. DPS undoubtedly has people that are certified defensive tactics instructors that possess the training and experience to review the case with a certain degree of expertise that ASUPD cannot do (We are extremely confident that DPS will also find Officer Ferrin’s use of force was justified, by the way). ASUPD’s Commanders (who would be tasked with an investigation such as this) have NO advanced DT training or certification that would make them qualified to investigate a use of force scenario, period.

How would ASUPD respond to a use of force scenario that was much more muddled than this one (no video or audio)? Or perhaps a scenario in which the responding officer used force, was tried in the court of public opinion, and the university wanted to fire him/her to save face? Better yet, what about an officer who used excessive force and was never reprimanded or investigated? ASUPD’s ability to initiate and investigate use of force scenarios is arbitrary, at best (just like all ASUPD initiated IAs).

The deciding factor in an officer’s fate shouldn’t be left to a supervisor who has little training on the topic of use of force, and who may not be able to review the case without bias due to a preexisting relationship with the officer or external influences. ASUPD should consider establishing a “Use of Force” review panel comprised of DT instructors, some administrators, and possibly a civilian, none of which would have any ties to ASUPD. A review panel is in place at almost every other major law enforcement agency in the valley already! This would serve to vindicate officer’s whose use of force was justified (Officer Ferrin), and punish those who have used excessive force (Corporal Khalid).

 

Edited to add some links to media coverage of this incident:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/justice/arizona-jaywalking-arrest/index.html

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/video-officer-throws-arizona-state-university-professor-to-the-ground

http://www.azfamily.com/news/ASU-professor-talks-about-arrest-on-CNN-265267761.html

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/7336906-Video-of-police-arresting-ASU-professor-goes-viral/

 http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2014/06/ersula_ore_arrest_to_be_reviewed_by_asu_and_independent_agency_after_video_goes_viral.php

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 05 2014
20 Comments
General

Kevin Salcido addresses The Integrity Report once again

Earlier today, the head of ASU’s Human Resources department (Mr. Kevin Salcido) sent this email to all of ASUPD’s employees in regard to a recent photograph posted on The Integrity Report:

To: All Members of the ASU Police Department

Recently , a law enforcement photograph of an ASU police officer, her name, her rank and a picture of her automobile (including her license plate number) was posted to the “Integrity Blog”. This action violates the expectation that was communicated on February 19, 2014 (see below).

A.R.S. §§ 39-123, 39-124, and 39-128 prohibit the release of peace officer photos in all but a limited number of circumstances. The law was passed by the Legislature to help protect and safeguard our peace officers and their families. The recent unauthorized posting of our ASU PD officer’s law enforcement photo on the blog is contrary to law and will not go unaddressed. Again, as noted below, anyone we identify who publicly shares or takes and posts sensitive operational information, obtained through any means , which could potentially compromise the security and safety of the ASU community can and will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

The large majority of Police Department professionals are devoted to the safety and security of the ASU community and their work is appreciated on a daily basis. There are multiple avenues available for raising concerns including the PD chain of command, the Office of Human Resources and the Office of Equity and Inclusion. This is a university after all and we should be able to have an open exchange of ideas. As the Chief Human Resources Officer, I am disappointed that a very small minority of employees continue to avoid these channels and have become disruptive to our mission of serving and protecting students. Those who are so unhappy here are invited to take their careers elsewhere. They will most assuredly be happier and we will not feel their loss.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation. As always, you can reach me at 5-6608 with questions or comments.

Kevin Salcido
Associate Vice President/Chief Human Resource Officer
Arizona State University

We would like to take a moment to address some of these “expectations” we failed to adhere to, as well as some points brought up in the body of this email.
The “expectations” Salcido mentions refers to an email he sent to all PD employees on February, 2014. In his email, Salcido stated that posting an old schedule to illustrate how low officer staffing levels were “exceeds the bounds of free expression and protected activity because it has safety and security implications for the ASU community”. The “safety and security implications” are only the ones the university itself created by failing to properly staff and manage a police department, period. Beyond that, old schedules are NOT listed as an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so any member of the public could request the same information we posted.
The assertion that we broke the law by posting a professionally taken photograph of an officer is ludicrous, and the sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes you cite we violated do not appear to be applicable to this situation.

ARS 39-123:

A. Nothing in this chapter requires disclosure from a personnel file by a law enforcement agency or employing state or local governmental entity of the home address or home telephone number of eligible persons.
B. The agency or governmental entity may release the information in subsection A of this section only if either:
1. The person consents in writing to the release.
2. The custodian of records of the agency or governmental entity determines that release of the information does not create a reasonable risk of physical injury to the person or the person’s immediate family or damage to the property of the person or the person’s immediate family.
C. A law enforcement agency may release a photograph of a peace officer if either:
1. The peace officer has been arrested or has been formally charged by complaint, information or indictment for a misdemeanor or a felony offense.
2. The photograph is requested by a representative of a newspaper for a specific newsworthy event unless:
(a) The peace officer is serving in an undercover capacity or is scheduled to be serving in an undercover capacity within sixty days.
(b) The release of the photograph is not in the best interest of this state after taking into consideration the privacy, confidentiality and safety of the peace officer.
(c) An order pursuant to section 28-454 is in effect.
D. This section does not prohibit the use of a peace officer’s photograph that is either:

1. Used by a law enforcement agency to assist a person who has a complaint against an officer to identify the officer.
2. Obtained from a source other than the law enforcement agency.
E. This section does not apply to a certified peace officer or code enforcement officer who is no longer employed as a peace officer or code enforcement officer by a state or local government entity.

This entire statute refers to the actions of an AGENCY, or LOCAL/STATE municipality, NOT the actions of an individual. Furthermore, the picture we published WAS NOT and WILL NOT be serving in the capacity of an undercover officer, nor was her privacy, confidentiality, or safety compromised. Sgt. Pam Osborne has several social media sites accessible to the public in which contain pictures of herself and her family (the pictures were already removed from one site after we published the initial picture), and her picture is available using the “Google” search engine, so her privacy, confidentiality, and safety were apparently not compromised by those arguably more personal pictures. The picture we released was a department sanctioned photograph which was available on the W drive to all PD employees.

Photographs of this nature are regularly used on the ASU website, which is accessible by the public.

The burden of proof is on the State to prove the release of the photograph is a privacy, confidentiality, or safety concern.

The picture of the motor vehicle we also released was taken on a public street in a public place, so we are also legally allowed to publish it. Out of professional courtesy, we did redact the license plate number.

It is ironic how Salcido addresses the issue with this photograph immediately, yet other photographs we have released which show members of the department, dressed in uniform and acting inappropriately goes on unmentioned.

ARS 39-124:

Releasing information identifying an eligible person; violations; classification; definitions
A. Any person who is employed by a state or local government entity and who, in violation of section 39-123, knowingly releases the home address or home telephone number of an eligible person with the intent to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to an eligible person or the eligible person’s immediate family or cause damage to the property of an eligible person or the eligible person’s immediate family is guilty of a class 6 felony.
B. Any person who is employed by a state or local government entity and who, in violation of section 39-123, knowingly releases a photograph of a peace officer with the intent to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to a peace officer or the peace officer’s immediate family or cause damage to the property of a peace officer or the peace officer’s immediate family is guilty of a class 6 felony.

This is pretty simple: we did not release the photograph to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to the officer/her family, or cause damage to the property of the officer/her family. First, there is no investigation to hinder in regard to Sgt. Osborne. Second, we would never want another officer—regardless of how deplorable of a person they are—to be injured or their property damaged. There is no text accompanying the photograph that would incite a reasonable person to commit physical injury or property damage to the officer or her family. Finally, there is no personal identifying information (address, phone number) in the photograph that would compromise the officer’s safety, period.

ARS 39-128:

Disciplinary records of public officers and employees; disclosure; exceptions
A. A public body shall maintain all records that are reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of disciplinary actions, including the employee responses to all disciplinary actions, involving public officers or employees of the public body. The records shall be open to inspection and copying pursuant to this article, unless inspection or disclosure of the records or information in the records is contrary to law.
B. This section does not:
1. Require disclosure of the home address, home telephone number or photograph of any person who is protected pursuant to sections 39-123 and 39-124.
2. Limit the duty of a public body or officer to make public records open to inspection and copying pursuant to this article.

What is the point of including this statute? This just says the state isn’t require to disclose a photograph if requested through a public records request.

Salcido is correct in stating that “the large majority of Police Department professionals are devoted to the safety and security of the ASU community”, however the qualifying statement of “…and their work is appreciated on a daily basis” is untrue. Who appreciates employees below the Sergeant level? Certainly not the university, who has elected to give all its officers less than a 10 cent pay raise and no cost of living increase (and also giving no pay increase to any civilian employee).

Line-level employees are also not appreciated by the members of their Command staff, who refer to them as “bees”, unleash frivolous IAs if they try to leave ASU, or are told they should work at McDonalds if they don’t like the hostile work environment.

Mr. Salcido himself has shown that he does not appreciate the work of employees at ASUPD nor care about their well-being because he has routinely failed to act upon the concerns of the 10-12+ employees who have brought serious issues to him. Salcido has flatly refused to investigate any of the alleged misconduct reported to him, instead delegating it to the very department that mishandled the issues in the first place.

It is insulting that Salcido suggest we use the PD or HR Chain of Command to address any concerns or problems, because several of us have tried to resolve issues this way with no success. There are several paper trails and digital voice recordings to back up these assertions. There is absolutely no ability to deal with these issues within any Chain of Command at ASU, because the university’s prurient interest in controlling negative press about itself ultimately prevails.

If there is such a small minority of employees causing issues, and—according to you, Mr. Salcido, these issues have no merit—then why has ASU repeatedly addressed The Integrity Report in meetings and memos? If what is being said here is limited to only a handful of employees, why acknowledge the blog and give it life?
The truth is that ASU’s dirty laundry is being aired for the world to see, and for the first time ever, ASU cannot control the negative publicity. We know ASU was accused of stifling the 1st Amendment Rights of a student who spoke against the rising cost of tuition, and we also know that ASU contacted indeed.com and had the site administrators stop people from posting negative comments about ASUPD. It is not a far stretch to assume that ASU would also want to stifle what is being said about its police department online.
However, the primary difference in the case of The Integrity Report (and what makes it such a sensitive issue among Command staff) is that it has the potential to cause many people to lose their jobs, from officers all the way up to President Michael Crow. Everyone who knew some of the issues detailed on this site yet refused to intervene is at risk of being implicated. All these issues coupled with the fact that the public and media are starting to circle like buzzards on a rotting carcass, and you have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to stifle The Integrity Report.

When that day comes where people are finally removed from their positions, in Salcido’s own words, “we will not feel their loss”.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 13 2014
11 Comments
General

Updated: ASUPD’s staffing…by the numbers!

We wanted to provide an update to several posts where we discussed ASUPD’s alarming staffing numbers (check out a few here and here). The current staffing numbers were provided courtesy of ASUPD’s roster following shift bid. It’s important to note that these numbers are only for sworn employees and do NOT include investigations nor Sergeant rank and above.

To patrol ALL of ASU’s four campuses (Tempe, Downtown, West, and Polytechnic), for a total of over 76,000 students, ASUPD has a grand total of 45 bodies assigned to patrol. Of those 45, 12 are Sergeants (supervisors who may not be patrolling the campus), and 5 Corporals. When those “supervisory” positions are factored out of the equation, that leaves 28 officers to patrol 76,000 students. The current staffing setup relies on the fact that none of these people assigned to patrol will get sick, injured, take FMLA leave, take military leave, and be forced to go on leave for purposes of IA.

28 officers is INSANE! According to the DoJ, ASU should have 2.1 sworn officers for every 1,000 students. ASUPD isn’t even REMOTELY close to that officer/student ratio.

For any students, parents, or members of the media reading…you should be extremely disturbed by these numbers. These numbers, unfortunately, keep getting lower due to recruits “failing” out of FTO, or laterals quitting as soon as they step in the door.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 04 2014
11 Comments
General

Head of ASU’s HR, Kevin Salcido, failed to properly handle a complaint regarding inappropriate behavior by a faculty member…sound familiar?

This is a long article but definitely worth the read. It illustrates how the head of ASU’s HR, Kevin Salcido, has repeatedly been informed of issues among his faculty members (whether they are professors accused of sexual harassment, or a Police Chief accused of incompetence), and has repeatedly failed to take appropriate and timely action against university employees.

From abc15.com

The federal government confirmed Thursday that Arizona State University is under investigation for the possible mishandling of a report of sexual assault or harassment.

An ASU alum wants to trigger a second inquiry.

Jasmine Lester said she plans to file a Title IX complaint against the school sometime in the next few weeks.

“Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education
programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance,” according to a U.S. Department of Education news release.

ASU is one of dozens of schools nationwide with an active Title IX investigation involving sexual assault or harassment, the Thursday release said.

Lester said she will file her complaint because, among other reasons, a university administrator discouraged her from filing a sexual harassment complaint within the university system.

Lester said a professor flirted with her for more than a year, took her out for drinks, and created “sexual tension.”

“‘We’re talking about sexual harassment as more of a shove you up against the wall kind of thing,'” the school’s Title IX coordinator said, according to Lester.

After Lester persisted and filed a report, the school found no evidence of sexual harassment, Lester said.

She said parties with a stake in the investigation went on a smear campaign against her, another reason for the federal filing.

Multiple calls to ASU for comment were not returned. As such, details of Lester’s complaint with the school could not be confirmed.

 

What is interesting about this article is Jasmine Lester previously met with the head of ASU’s Human Resources department, Kevin Salcido (you can view the transcript of the discussion here). In this discussion, Jasmine and another individual mention to Salcido how some of Jasmine’s concerns regarding inappropriate behavior by a faculty member were brought to the attention of ASU officials, who waited three years to initiate any sort of response (Salcido responded,  “it’s unfortunate that it took a while for that to make it our way”).

Salcido also avoids answering direct questions about why the faculty member was allowed continue to lead  study abroad trips (where Jasmine’s incident occurred), or why it took so long to fire professors engaged in sexual relationships with students.  Salcido states that if he isn’t informed about such incidents, he can’t do anything about them (despite the fact Jasmine reported her incident to both faculty members and ASU administrators).

Salcido goes on to lecture Jasmine about how the rules of evidence [in a university investigation] aren’t the same as in a criminal court, but how she needs witnesses, emails, text messages, etc. Salcido also has the nerve to state that he is speaking both as an HR person and “also as someone who was, in a prior life, a police officer”.

The lack of an appropriate and timely response Jasmine experienced with Salcido is nearly identical to the response Salcido has given to the 10+ ASUPD employees who have spoken with him. Many current and former employees have come forward to speak with Salcido directly in regards to the on-going problems occurring at ASUPD (staffing, the FTO program, supervisors engaging in illegal and unethical behavior). He has stated on several occasions that he “can’t just fire half the police department”, despite being told (again, by multiple employees) many members of the Command and training staff were/are engaged in illegal/unethical behavior. Several employees who spoke to Salcido about this topic also witnessed the negative behavior first hand, or provided Salcido with the names, dates, and documents that would prove the merits of the accusations.

In regard to the slew of former employees ASUPD has left in its wake, Salcido has more or less stated the opinions and experiences of the people who have left the university aren’t relevant to what is currently transpiring within ASU, and speaking to them would be essentially pointless.

Much like his interactions with Jasmine Lester, Salcido’s pledge to “look into” ASUPD’s problems were completely useless. When the head of the Human Resources department at the largest university in the United States is incapable of removing problem employees from the university DESPITE witnesses and evidence…it makes one wonder how many other issues Salcido has failed to act appropriately on.

P.S. Mr. Salcido, you could never be a police officer, even in a prior life. Your deliberate indifference in the face of adversity illustrates your complete lack both compassion for others and a moral compass.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 14 2014
68 Comments
General

ASUPD’s firearms training is far from “professional”

In the past, we’ve briefly mentioned some issues surrounding ASUPD’s firearms training unit, and its professional standards (we are discussing the unit as a whole). The problems surrounding firearms training at ASUPD have been already extensively documented within the department, through both formal and informal complaints. Unfortunately, the issues at hand have yet to be even broached within the department, and are still ongoing.

This list is by no means conclusive, but touches on the major issues department personnel have with ASUPD’s firearms training.

  1. ASUPD’s line-level officers must utilize an outdoor range, while ASUPD’s firearms instructors are allowed to utilize Tempe PD’s indoor range.
    • This is self-explanatory. Line-level officers have to suffer through 110+ degree weather and no shade to qualify, while the firearms instructors (and occasionally, an officer tight with the firearms crew) use Tempe PD’s indoor, air conditioned range.
  2. ASUPD’s outdoor range has no restroom facilities, no access to water or shade. 
    • The outdoor range in the summer time is like being in hell. It’s dirty, very hot, and very dry. Have to use the restroom? Hope using the open desert as your toilet is acceptable. One officer previously filed a complaint with OSHA regarding the lack of bathroom facilities. Did we mention the broken glass and garbage scattered around the range as well?desert
  3. The range is a very long commute for nearly all of ASUPD’s officers…and that commute doesn’t come with reimbursement for mileage (most officers use their POV).
  4. ASUPD’s officers aren’t provided ammo for practice before qualification.
    • Officers already don’t make very much, but having them bear the additional burden of paying for their own ammo to practice is ludicrous. Tempe PD’s officers make more than ASUPDs’, AND they still receive a box of ammo for training purposes per month.
  5. Some members of the firearms staff create a hostile training environment on the range.
    • While handling a firearm, the last thing an officer needs to be concerned about is being treated like a scolded child. Even in emails sent out to members of the department, some of the firearms staff come across as condescending and rude. Qualification is already stressful enough–you shouldn’t be assing up your employees BEFORE they even get to the range.
  6. The firearms training unit is similiar to a fraternity!
    • It is essentially a “good ole boy’s club”, and if you are not part of it, you are treated like an outsider. The mission and focus should be on making sure all your officers can successfully qualify, reinforcing good habits, emphasizing marksmanship…ie, TRAINING! The mark of a good instructor is measured by the officers that succeed.hay

ASUPD Firearms Frolic

These pictures are NOT indicative of a “professional” firearms unit, and convey how serious some of the instructors take their jobs.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 01 2014
26 Comments
General

ASU misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part Two)

In our last Clery post, entitled “ASUPD misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part One)” , we looked at what the Clery Act is, what reporting is required  of universities who are obligated to adhere to Clery, and why the Clery Act is so important. In this second installment, we are going to discuss how exactly ASUPD is misrepresenting its crime statistics (and how that violates the requirements of the Clery Act).

1. ASUPD omits crime stats from specific reporting areas required under the Clery Act

In our previous post about the Clery act, we discussed different areas other than campus ASU is required to provide crime statistics for, namely:

Public Property

  • Public property (All public property, including thoroughfares, streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities, that is within the campus, or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus, as well as any public transit stops adjacent to campus).

However, according to page 33 of ASU’s 2013 Annual Security and Crime Safety report, we found this small disclaimer:

Clery public prob

Similarly, on page 34 of the Crime Safety report, we found this disclaimer for West, Poly, Downtown and Lake Havasu campus’ public property reporting:

West poly public

Down Lake Havasu

So essentially, what ASUPD is telling the public via the Crime safety report is that the crime stats on the report do NOT include areas adjacent to ANY campus, nor do they include the crime stats for the EIGHTEEN areas considered “non campus properties”.

ASUPD’s excuse for not including public property crimes is that ASU “is unable to provide a statistical breakdown appropriate for Clery Act reporting” is a weak excuse. The “Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting” requires a university  to show a “good faith” effort to collect crime data from another non-university police agency.

This “disclaimer” about not having statistical data appropriate for Clery reporting is to be utilized when other agencies refuse to release their crime statistics, or  the information provided to the university is unable to be attributed to ANY of the university’s Clery geography (page 103).  ASU IS provided crime stats/information (by Tempe PD) that are able to be broken down to the “public property” level simply by looking at the physical location of the offense; this is the type of work that crime analysts routinely engage in.

ASU is also able to request the crime stats for their non-campus properities by merely providing the address of the property to the appropriate jurisdiction. We reached out to Scottsdale PD, home of Skysong (one of the non-campus property locations) and we were told that ASU contacted them approximately one time to request crime information.

We accessed the database referenced in page 33 of the Crime Safety report to see what crimes ASU may have missed because of its exclusion of public property statistics, and this is what we found for ASU’s Tempe Campus:

Tempe 1

Tempe 2

ASU excluded a significant amount of crimes occurring adjacent to campus (and several that occurred ON campus but were handled by other police agencies) from its Crime Safety Report (go to raidsonline.com and use the date range of August 2012-August 2013 to view the above posted data in a clickable format)

 Non-campus property

These are the non-campus statistics from ASU’s Skysong Campus which are not included on the Tempe non-campus property in the Crime Safety report (cited from raidsonline.com, using the date range of August 2012-August 2013): Note that the campus boundary is marked with a solid blue line, and each of the crimes are circled in red.

Skysong crimes

Note there are five motor vehicle thefts, one sexual assault, and one commercial burglary NOT included in ASU’s Crime Safety Report.

 

2. ASUPD improperly classifies crimes so they don’t meet the criteria for Clery reporting

Sex offenses

Perhaps the most misclassified/reclassified type of crime are those linked to sex offenses. Clery Act has a much more broad definition of what a sex offense is compared to definition used by the UCR (which excludes forcible fondling). Under the Clery Act, there are two types of sex offenses: forcible and non-forcible.

  • Forcible sex offense: Forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling.
  • Non-forcible sex offense: Incest, statutory rape.

“Schools can wrongly categorize reports of acquaintance rape or fondling as “non-forcible” sexual offenses — a definition that should only apply to incest and statutory rape”, according to an article by publicintegrity.org.

In August 2007, an ASU student reported being sexually assaulted at the Sigma Chi fraternity house. Subsequent follow-up emails to then Assistant Chief Jay Spradling went unanswered, and the sexual assault was later reclassified. The student alleged that her sexual assault was not investigated by Officer Janda (who documented the assault on a field investigation card) because she was intoxicated. Clery specifically states that a sex offense is presumed to be forcible if the person is incapable of giving consent “due to his or temporary/permanent physical or mental incapacity”.

The woman, who later sued the Arizona Board of Regents for violating Title IX, stated ASU has in recent years systematically and severely underreported sexual assault reports. Her complaint states that in 2008, ASU reported and posted only four forcible sexual assault reports in its 2009 Annual Security Reports, despite, on information and belief, having received at least several dozen reports.

A 2010 State Press article interviewed a counselor who works with sexual assault victims and is closely affiliated with the university and stated, “ASU does not take sexual assault reports seriously enough, creating a climate that keeps victims quiet and crime stats low”.

In 2011, ASUPD arrested a man accused of fondling at least 14 victims on ASU’s campus the previous year. Under the Clery reporting guidelines, forcible fondling is required to be reported as a forcible sex offense. For the year the incidents occurred (2010), ASU reported a mere 6 forcible sex offenses that occurred on campus (see Campus_Security_Policy )

Prevalence of under reporting sexual assaults

USC, UC Berkley, and Occidental College are all major universities currently facing the possibility of sanctions from the Department of Education for failing to properly report the number of sexual assaults on campus.

Robbery

ASU has also reclassified several robberies into felony thefts, which would prevent their inclusion into ASU’s Crime Safety Report. Under the Clery Act, robbery is defined as:

    • Robbery: is the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person
      or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.

ASU has had several strong arm robbery series which occurred on ASU’s campus where the victim was robbed of an IPhone and then dragged by a vehicle; under the Clery Act, these crimes should have been listed as a “robbery”, but they were later reclassified to a “felony theft” or merely “theft”.

3. ASU doesn’t utilize its resources properly

While formal training in the field of statistics and crime analysis is not required for persons preparing the Crime Safety Report under the guidelines specified by the Clery Act, that type of knowledge is useful when tasked with processing a large amount of data in a relatively short period of time. ASUPD has been fortunate to have a crime analyst on board for the past few years, but unfortunately, the analysts’ job has been reduced to producing crime maps for bike thefts on campus.

ASU’s former analyst (who has subsequently left the department for greener pastures) was much more qualified to process and analyze crime data compared to the Commander in charge of Clery reporting (Michele Rourke), who merely possesses a bachelor’s degree in English and has no formal training in statistics

Additionally, with such a large criminal justice undergraduate/graduate program, ASUPD could utilize several unpaid student volunteers or interns to process and catalog crime reports; this is a relatively common practice in larger departments such as Tempe PD.

4. ASU needs stronger partnerships with other agencies

After looking at the various locations where ASU has property/research labs, it is obvious that the university’s footprint is pretty significant. ASU has demonstrated that it does not have the resources, training, or personnel to effectively fulfill its obligations under the Clery Act; ASU needs to form stronger partnerships and more effective ways to communicate with other police departments. Building a rapport with another agency would assist ASU in obtaining the proper crime information necessary for a thorough Crime Safety report, and perhaps allowing ASU to assist that agency in some other area in the future.

 All of this information, especially when coupled with the storm of negative media coverage over ASU’s crime situation, are evidence that ASU’s students/faculty/staff are NOT as safe as the university would lead them to believe. ASUPD knows the magnitude of the crime problems on and around all campuses, but refuses to do anything about it. 

There is no more hiding behind Tempe PD or any other police agencies; the other agencies did not create the staffing shortages, the lack of training, or incentives to stay in the department—you did, Command staff!  ASUPD is unable to fulfill its basic obligation to serve and protect its community. It is now a matter of time before ASU starts losing students (and $$) because of these shocking safety issues.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 11 2014
18 Comments
General

ASUPD misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part One)

We have very briefly scratched the surface of issues (in previous posts here and here) regarding ASU’s compliance with the Clery Act. We’ve looked at specific cases where ASUPD allegedly violated the Clery Act, and now we’re shifting our focus from the micro to the macro level. Instead of looking on a case by case level, we are going to illustrate how ASUPD’s crime data collection/analysis are systemically flawed, which leads to a misrepresentation of its crime statistics (and also a misrepresentation of the safety of ASU’s campus).

Before we jump into the meat and potatoes of the discussion, it is important to know WHAT the Clery Act is and WHY it is so important for college/universities to follow.

We will break down this post into several sections: one, discussing Clery’s requirements; and two, how ASUPD isn’t following Clery’s requirements.

What is the Clery Act?

The Clery Act is a federal statute requiring colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to maintain and disclose campus crime statistics and security information[1].

The law is named for Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University freshman who was raped and murdered in her campus residence hall in 1986. The backlash against unreported crimes on numerous campuses across the country led to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act.[2][3]

Why is the Clery Act so important?

Colleges and universities who receive federal financial aid programs must comply with the Clery Act. Failure to do so may result in a civil penalty from the United States Department of Education of up to $27,500 per violation, or may suspend them from participating in federal student financial aid programs.[4]

What are the requirements for colleges and universities under the Clery Act[5]?

  • Publish an annual security report by October 1st.
  • Have a public crime log accessible to the public.
  • Disclose crime statistics for incidents that occur on campus, in unobstructed public areas immediately adjacent to or running through the campus and at certain non-campus facilities (remote classrooms) in seven major areas, including:
    • Criminal homicide
      • Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
      • Negligent manslaughter
  • Sex offenses
    • Forcible
    • Non-forcible
  • Robbery
  • Aggravated assault
  • Burglary, where:
    • There is evidence of unlawful entry (trespass), which may be either forcible or not involve force.
    • Unlawful entry must be of a structure – having four walls, a roof, and a door.
    • There is evidence that the entry was made in order to commit a felony or theft.
  • Motor vehicle theft
  • Arson
  •  Schools are also required to report statistics for the following categories of arrests or referrals for campus disciplinary action (if an arrest was not made):
    • Liquor Law Violations
    • Drug Law Violations
    • Illegal Weapons Possession
  • Hate crimes must be reported by category of prejudice, including race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability. Stats are required for four additional crime categories (theft, assault, intimidation, destruction of property.
  •  Issue timely warnings about Clery Act crimes which pose a serious or ongoing threat to students and employees
  •  Devise an emergency response, notification and testing policy.
  •  Compile and report fire data to the federal government and publish an annual fire safety report
  •  Enact policies and procedures to handle reports of missing students.

*The “On-campus” requirement would include ASU’s Tempe, West, Poly, Downtown, AND Lake Havasu City campuses!*

 So the Clery Act also requires colleges/universities to disclose crimes that may not have occurred directly on campus?

Yes; the Clery Act requires colleges/universities to include crimes in their statistics that have occurred on non-campus property, and public property.

 Stay tuned for Part Two of this post, where we will dissect the parts of the Clery Act requirements that ASU is failing to do, and thus misrepresenting its crime statistics.

Thanks to our friends at Sun Devils Against Sexual Assault who are taking the initiative to file a complaint with the Department of Education against Arizona State University for their failure to comply with the Clery Act and also Title IX. Check out their site here.

[1] http://studentaid.ed.gov/about/data-center/school/clery-act

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act

[3] http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20116872,00.html

[4] http://police.vanderbilt.edu/crime-info/clery-act-frequently-asked-questions/

[5] http://clerycenter.org/summary-jeanne-clery-act

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 08 2014
11 Comments
General

Big things are on the horizon!

We’re working on a few massive projects at the moment, so pardon the slow down in posts. We’re working on a piece about the Clery Act (and how ASUPD fails to meet the minimum standards prescribed under aforementioned act) in tandem with a student organization.

We’re also in the process of inundating the PD with several requests for information.

In other words, hang on to your seats, ladies and gentlemen… it should be an interesting ride!

real

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 04 2014
9 Comments
General

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, ASU!

When major events involving ASU affiliated students/faculty/staff happen off-campus (especially in the City of Tempe), the media frequently inquires about the university affiliation of individuals involved. When affiliation information of a victim or suspect is known, Tempe PD will release it to the media. This is a relatively common practice which is merely intended to share information, not purposefully cast ASU in a poor light.

Since this past fall, ASU has seen an increase in negative publicity tied to the off-campus actions of its students (with one media outlet dubbing ASU “a hangover school”). In an effort to curtail negative publicity, sources from Tempe PD tell us that ASU has been requesting TPD not release the university affiliation of suspects/victims. TPD already patrols ASU’s campus due to staffing shortages, wrangles its drunk students, and works its special events, but it is not enough! TPD must also bend to the whims of ASU in an attempt to boost the university’s image.

TPD continued to release the affiliation information of its suspects/victims, and showed it has enough common sense to realize the university affiliation of an individual is easy to find out via asu.edu. This obviously made ASU very upset, as they were furiously attempting to salvage their reputation and credibility as an academic institution; every negative mention of ASU in the media translated into a tangible amount of revenue loss to the university.

How did ASU react? According to sources from TPD, ASU is so upset that TPD continues to release information to the media that makes the university look bad, that it is considering legal action against the City of Tempe. We are not too sure what legal leg ASU has to stand on, but this is a horrible move; without TPD’s assistance, ASU and ASUPD will look like the understaffed, mismanaged, and poorly run place we all see on a daily basis.

A word of advice to Michael Crow and company: don’t bite the hand that feeds you!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →