UC Davis’ newest campus crime report to the federal government shows a decline in forcible sex offenses from 2007 to 2008, even after adjusting for an incorrect, inflated number last year. The report also shows a decline in almost all other categories.

The crime stats are in the university’s Clery Act filing, which accounts for incidents on and around the Davis and Sacramento campuses. The report shows fewer robberies, weapons arrests, drug and liquor arrests, and disciplinary actions related to liquor.

The data show the same number of aggravated assaults, nine; the same number of disciplinary actions related to weapons, one; and eight more burglaries (up to 129).

“UC Davis has always been a safe college campus — and our newest Clery Act report substantiates that,” Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said.

Upon releasing the report, officials revealed that Jennifer Beeman, the former director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program, significantly over-reported the number of forcible sex offenses that were committed on and around the campus in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Officials also said Beeman, who retired in June after 16 years as director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program, had been investigated for improper use of grant funds — and, as a result, paid $1,372 to the university as reimbursement. Officials said a second investigation of Beeman is under way, but are not saying anything more about it at this time.

Spicuzza said the Campus Violence Prevention Program has always been a tremendous asset to victims of violent crime, and nothing has changed — despite the revelation about the inflated statistics.

The Campus Violence Prevention Program, a unit of the Police Department, provides victims of sexual assault, stalking and domestic violence the opportunity to report in confidence and be connected to health care and other support services without necessarily filing police reports.

UC Davis’ revised Clery Act numbers for forcible sex offenses, based on internal and independent, outside reviews: 21 (2005), 23 (2006) and 33 (2007). Each figure is less than half of what the campus reported in previous Clery Act filings.

The new report lists 27 forcible sex offenses in 2008 and one nonforcible sex offense. The single nonforcible sex offense compares with three the year before.

Official: ‘Isolated incident’

Officials could not say why Beeman over-reported the forcible sexual offense statistics. UC Davis has reported its findings regarding the over-reporting and revision of its Clery Act statistics to the U.S. Department of Education, which oversees implementation of the Clery Act for postsecondary education institutions.

The campus will be cooperating with the Department of Education concerning any further review and action that the agency might choose to pursue.

In addition, UC Davis has reported its findings and revised Clery Act statistics to the U.S. Department of Justice and the UC Office of the President, because UC Davis is the lead UC campus on a nearly $1 million Justice Department grant aimed at enhancing services for crime victims and coordinating a UC systemwide response to violence on all UC campuses.

“The problem with the reporting of these statistics was an isolated incident related solely to one individual,” said Robert Loessberg-Zahl, assistant executive vice chancellor. “We believe we’ve taken the necessary steps to ensure the long-term integrity of the Campus Violence Prevention Program and the long-term integrity of its Clery Act statistics.”

Officials acknowledged that the campus erred by relying on a single person — the director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program — to both review the program’s caseload and to report its Clery statistics.

UC Davis did not bring in a second person to review the program’s caseload because of the former director’s concern about compliance with privacy laws, which require that clients’ identities be held in confidence.

To ensure the future integrity of the Campus Violence Prevention Program and its contributions to Clery statistics, a newly created panel of campus experts will review all crime statistics reported by the program. That panel will include a uniformed command officer from the UC Davis Police Department, a Clery Act specialist from the Office of Student Judicial Affairs and an attorney from the Office of Campus Counsel. The review will be conducted using case information from the program’s files that have been edited to remove clients’ identities.

UC Davis first became aware of a possible problem with the program’s reporting of its caseload of forcible sex offenses in April 2009, when a staff member there began compiling Clery statistics for the 2008 calendar year.

The staffer verified 17 forcible sex offenses — significantly fewer than the 57 cases that the program reported in 2007 and the 52 cases it reported in 2006. (The numbers from the Campus Violence Prevention program are only one element of the campus’ Clery Act filing; it also includes data from the Davis and Sacramento police departments.)

The staff member alerted the campus Police Department, and it launched a review of the program’s case files for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The internal review validated only 10 forcible sex offenses reported exclusively to the program in 2005, only four in 2006 and only 16 in 2007.

In addition, the campus Police Department review could not find in the program’s files the remaining cases reported by the then-director in 2005, 2006 and 2007 as being subject to Clery Act reporting requirements.

When police reported their findings to campus administrators, the Office of Campus Counsel commissioned an external review by Dolores Stafford, the police chief of George Washington University and a nationally respected expert on the Clery Act.

Stafford’s review confirmed the findings of the campus Police Department’s internal review: There was a significant over-reporting of sexual offenses by the director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Other investigations

Officials said they put Beeman on administrative leave with pay on Dec. 11, 2008, in connection with allegations that she improperly charged travel expenses to a federal grant.

At some point shortly after that date, UC Davis changed Beeman’s leave from administrative leave to medical leave, and made that retroactive to Dec. 11. She remained on medical leave until June 9, 2009, her last day of employment.

Based upon information received from the campus Police Department concerning possible irregularities in Beeman’s travel billing and reimbursement requests, UC Davis management initiated an internal review of financial practices in the Campus Violence Prevention Program.

A subsequent review by Internal Audit Services substantiated several charges against Beeman. The audit concluded that Beeman had been reimbursed twice for travel expenses, had claimed reimbursement for hotel expenses that exceeded the expenses incurred and had been reimbursed for mileage to attend meetings that records showed she did not attend. The audit covered travel claims that Beeman filed between July 1, 2005, and July 30, 2008.

Campus reimbursed $1,372

The review found that Beeman submitted three travel claims totaling $686 that were paid by both UC Davis and an outside agency. She also inappropriately claimed and was reimbursed $622 for hotel expenses that exceeded those actually incurred.

The travel reimbursement expenses were charged to two federally funded grants: $399 to the Statewide Flagship Program to Reduce Violence Against Women, and $909 to the Grant to Reduce Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus. UC Davis police removed these travel expenses from the grants, and Beeman reimbursed UC Davis.

The review also found that Beeman submitted mileage reimbursement claims and was reimbursed $64 for trips to three meetings that records show she did not attend. The mileage reimbursements were paid from a departmental account, not grant funds. Beeman also has reimbursed the university for the $64 paid to her for the mileage expenses.

In all, Beeman reimbursed UC Davis $1,372, and the investigation was closed. But those substantiated findings led UC Davis to launch a second investigation. The subject matter and details of that investigation cannot be disclosed because the investigation is ongoing.

While officials cannot address Beeman’s personnel situation directly, because of privacy and confidentiality concerns, they can say that it is the university’s practice to not initiate disciplinary action with an employee who is on medical leave. If and when an employee returns from that leave, the employee could be subject to disciplinary action.

On the Net

2009 Clery Act report: police.ucdavis.edy/clery.htm

Campus Violence Prevention Program: cvpp/ucdavis.edu

UC Davis Police Department: police.ucdavis.edu