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