BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 913
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Jose Medina, Chair
AB 913
(Santiago) - As Introduced February 26, 2015
[Note: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Committee
on Public Safety and will be heard as it relates to issues under
its jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT: Student safety
SUMMARY: Provides for changes to the written jurisdictional
agreements between postsecondary educational institutions and
local law enforcement. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the governing board of each community college
district (CCD), the Trustees of the California State
University (CSU), the Regents of the University of California
(UC) and the governing board of independent postsecondary
AB 913
Page 2
institutions to update their existing written jurisdictional
agreements with local law enforcement for investigation of
Part 1 violent crimes to include sexual assaults and hate
crimes by July 1, 2016;
2)Requires written agreements to be updated every five years;
3)Defines "Hate crime" to mean any offense described in Section
422.55 of the Penal Code;
4)Defines "Sexual assault" to include, but not be limited to,
rape, forced sodomy, forced oral copulation, rape by a foreign
object, sexual battery, or threat of any of these.
5)Deletes provisions requiring agreements be in place by July 1,
1999 and submitted to the Legislative Analyst by September 1,
1999.
6)Provides for reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state.
EXISTING LAW: Requires, under the Kristen Smart Campus Safety
Act, UC Regents, CSU Trustees, CCD governing boards, and
independent colleges that meet specified conditions to enter
into specific written agreements, by July 1, 1999, with local
law enforcement agencies regarding the coordination and
responsibilities for investigating Part 1 violent crimes which
AB 913
Page 3
occur on campus.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS: Background. College students who are victims of
sexual assault are entitled to the protections and services
provided to victims of the general population (law enforcement
investigation, rape crisis center services, district attorney
criminal prosecutions, etc.) and to the services and remedies
required to be provided by colleges and universities under state
and federal laws. In recent years, there has been an increasing
public awareness of sexual harassment and assault occurring on
and near college campuses. State and federal governments have
responded through laws and regulations that seek to strengthen
partnerships between colleges and local law enforcement agencies
(for criminal prosecutions) and to improve campus handling of
sexual assault complaints (for campus-based remedies).
Campus based requirements and remedies required under federal
law. Pursuant to Title IX of the Higher Education Amendments of
1972 and the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy
and Campus Crime Statistics Act, postsecondary educational
institutions that receive federal financial aid are required to
disclose information about crimes on and around campuses (Clery
Act) as well as establish certain rights for victims of sexual
assault (Title IX). Title IX prohibits sex based discrimination
in education. If an institution knows, or reasonably should
AB 913
Page 4
know about discrimination, harassment or violence that is
creating a "hostile environment" for any student, it must act to
eliminate it, remedy the harm caused, and prevent its
recurrence. The rights provided under Title IX include
notification to victims of the right to file a complaint,
available counseling services, the results of disciplinary
proceedings, and the option for victims to change their academic
schedule or living arrangements, and requires postsecondary
institutions to offer prevention and awareness programs to new
students and employees regarding rape, domestic and dating
violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Enforcement of federal requirements. The United States
Department of Education (USDE) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is
responsible for enforcing campus compliance with federal Title
IX requirements. In the past several years, OCR has issued
strengthened guidance to colleges outlining campuses
responsibilities and obligations to promptly investigate and
respond to sexual violence. In May of 2014, OCR publically
identified campuses under investigation for failing to comply
with the federal requirements. The initial list of campuses
under investigation by OCR contained 55 institutions; by January
of 2015 the list had grown to 94 institutions.
California actions. In California, several highly publicized
events and investigations have contributed to Legislative
attention and action on campus sexual assault. In April of
2013, UC Berkeley students voted "no confidence" in the campus
handling of sexual assault disciplinary actions. Subsequently,
students at UC Berkeley, and at several other California
campuses including Occidental, University of Southern
AB 913
Page 5
California, and UC Santa Barbara, filed complaints with OCR. In
June, 2014, the Bureau of State Audits released a report
containing several recommendations for improving training of
faculty and staff regarding sexual assault prevention and
response. In 2014, two measures addressing sexual assault were
adopted. SB 967 (De Leon), Chapter 748, Statutes of 2014,
established a requirement for campus "affirmative consent" and
other victim centered standards and policies; and, AB 1433
(Gatto), Chapter 798, Statutes of 2014, requires campuses to
immediately report specified crimes to law enforcement.
Committee oversight. On June 30, 2014, the Assembly Higher
Education Committee held a joint oversight hearing to review
compliance with federal sexual harassment laws at California's
public universities. There was overwhelming consensus among
witnesses and Committee members that campuses can and should do
more to protect and respond to sexual assault; several members
committed to monitoring campus progress on these issues. In the
fall of 2014, the Committee organized three roundtable
discussions. The first took place at UC Berkeley in September,
the second at UC Santa Barbara in November, and the third at
UCLA in December. Among the recommendations presented, several
witnesses spoke to the importance of strong coordination between
campus administrators, law enforcement, and district attorneys.
Purpose of this bill. The author argues steps must be taken to
ensure allegations of campus sexual assault are appropriately
responded to and investigated; cooperation between campus and
local law enforcement on sexual assault is critical. The author
notes that the White House Task Force to Protect Students from
Sexual Assault recommended campus and local law enforcement
agencies establish written agreements regarding campus sexual
assault. California law requires written agreements between
local law enforcement and campuses regarding investigations of
AB 913
Page 6
Part 1 violent crimes. However, existing California law does
not require these agreements clarify responsibilities on
non-Part 1 sexual assault or hate crimes. This bill
specifically requires the written agreements between campus law
enforcement and local law enforcement to designate the agency
responsible for investigation of sexual assaults and hate
crimes.
Suggested amendment. The author may wish to consider, rather
than requiring written jurisdictional agreements to be updated
every five years, an amendment specifying that the agreements
must be reviewed at least every five years and updated as
necessary.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California College and University Police Chiefs
Opposition
AB 913
Page 7
None on File
Analysis Prepared by:Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960