Campus Crime and the Clery Act.  In 2008, Fresno State reported 218 criminal offenses, but did not report 324 instances of larceny-theft during that time. (story here)

The Clery Act excludes larceny reporting on campus and thus some colleges may be tempted to misidentify larceny related crimes (e.g. burglary) to make their numbers look better.

This highlights one of the challenges of the bureaucracy.  The FBI/Department of Justice already have requirements for criminal reporting through the National Incident-Based Reporting System.  Since the adoption of the Clery Act, the Department of Education is involved in collecting reports of criminal activity as well.

This seems like a waste of resources, resulting in muddied statistics whose original purpose was to empower parents to make better decisions, and force universities to be more accountable to crime on campus.

I’m in favor of the “intent” of the Clery Act.  The crime perpetrated on Jeanne Clery in 1986 was tragic.  And while it’s doubtful her life would have been spared if reporting was in place before her death, as a parent, I certainly want the most reliable information about an organization I may send my child to.

However, if reporting requirements are complicated and cross multiple federal agencies, I fear that the focus becomes more on bureaucratic process and less on getting accurate information to the people who need it.  My 8 years in the military qualifies me to comment on bureaucracy.

A more effective approach may be to enhance the location requirements of the NIBRS.  There is already a process of reporting set up at the city, county, state, tribal and federal law enforcement levels.  All that would be required is an enhancement to existing processes that have the same location requirements of the Clery Act – any crime on campus, unobstructed public areas immediately adjacent to or running through the campus, and certain non-campus facilities including Greek housing and remote classrooms.

The Clery Act, while well-intended, adds additional bureaucracy and requires non-law enforcement individuals to learn and do something law enforcement is trained and required to do already.  Schools continue to deal with a  myriad of issues, adding yet additional bureaucracy seems wasteful.  It seems to complicate information gathering and sharing.

Additionally, the Clery Act is limited to those schools receiving financial aid, while the National Incident-Based Reporting System involves over 17,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide.  Rather then limit the intent of the Clery Act to schools receiving funding, the DOE (or DOJ) could post crime stats for all schools on a dedicated website.  Schools could then grab the information from there.

Would it make sense that The Department of Education capture the relevant information from the NIBRS and publish it on their website.  With the crime information reported by agencies already reporting other information, institutions could focus on reporting on the disciplinary actions (if any) committed by their students.

This seems like a more effective use of resources, with a greater impact to schools, parents and law enforcement agencies.