Probe into Title IX at CSU calls for changes across all 23 campuses

Reports to the Office of Equity, Inclusion, and Compliance, which includes Title IX “are very low, and students report limited awareness of the office and its function.” The office needs to “communicate a positive and caring tone to university students, faculty, and staff, as the current perception held by many campus constituents is one of distrust.”

“When we visited campus in September 2022, the (EIC) office was not using a case management system other than a call log spreadsheet, with interview notes and case details saved in documents and stored locally on the university server. EIC reported they participate in approximately 400 interactions with students, faculty and staff per year; of those, about half are related to Title IX concerns. EIC told us that during the past academic year, four cases went to investigation, and of those, two investigations were completed, and two were still ongoing.”

The full report can be found here.

The campus Equity and Inclusion Office “has been unable to establish a meaningful level of awareness among students and has not been able to conduct prevention, education, awareness, or training, except in short segments at orientations or for discrete groups.” The office’s infrastructure is underdeveloped, which is a particular problem due to the relatively high number of reports the office receives. “We learned that, in 2021-2022, EIO received 135 reports, which EIO reported was the highest ratio of reports by population size in the system. Despite only having two staff members, EIO attempts to separate the outreach and intake function from the investigative function, although this is not always possible. EIO is not sufficiently staffed to engage in the level of prevention, education, and awareness programming required by federal and state law.”

The full report can be found here.

A “significant concern arose as it relates to the university’s follow through after (the Equal Opportunity and Dispute Resolution Office) has completed its investigative process. While EODR is involved substantively in terms of recommending potential sanctions on the student side, and it has direct access to the employee relations / Labor Relations function on the staff side, we received feedback that historically EODR had a challenging relationship with the Office of Academic Personnel (OAPL) and lacked visibility into the faculty sanctioning process. While EODR currently has more employees than most other campus Title IX/DHR offices — six in total, the EODR team reported that staffing was nonetheless insufficient to meet the needs of the campus.”

The full report can be found here.

“The Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI) needs to increase staffing, improve visibility and accessibility, and promote awareness of its role and goals across the university. Students are generally unaware of the supports available through OEI. The Office, in its current and proposed forms, is underdeveloped and under-resourced. We learned from student leaders that they had limited visibility and awareness of, not only OEI, but of all Title IX-related resources for students. Regarding student awareness, campus constituents shared, “there is not a connection to the students from the resources,” and that, “OEI could improve by gaining better knowledge of the Dominguez Hills student body.” One stakeholder shared that “knowing the type of students [at Dominguez Hills] is [necessary]” for OIE “to be able to help [students] with … resources, accessibility and ways to get [help].”

The full report can be found here.

“East Bay’s Title IX and DHR Office is essentially an office of one administrator, with one full-time administrative support who has taken on expanded roles. There is an urgent need to expand the staffing of the office to include individuals to fill functions related to intake and supportive measures, investigations, prevention and education, and allow the administrative support role to take on more expansive documentation and data-related tasks. East Bay’s approach to prevention and education has been organic and ad hoc, rather than strategic. We noted and heard significant concern about the timeliness of investigations, and in some instances, the responsiveness of the Office. The Title IX and DHR Office does not currently have internal written protocols regarding timeframes for each step in the process. We observed that timeliness of investigations is impacted by the staffing constraints and resource needs. We also learned that there are delays even before cases proceed to investigation, such as the time between a report and an intake meeting. In sum, we heard and observed that the investigation process missed required steps, and takes longer than it should at every juncture. We recommend that the Office develop written internal protocols, implement timeframes for accountability, and conduct a process mapping to identify gaps in process and opportunities to enhance timeliness.”

The full report can be found here.

“Both the university’s Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation and Title IX offices remain understaffed, under-resourced, and report to the Vice President for Administration and Chief Financial Officer. We recommend combining the Title IX and DHR Offices into one centralized office that consolidates and streamlines the university’s reporting, resources, and response functions for all conduct implicated under the CSU’s Nondiscrimination Policy. Significant investment in personnel is necessary to support this combined office. This combination of Title IX and DHR functions will drive collaboration, resource-sharing, and consistency in Fresno State’s responses to all forms of prohibited discrimination and harassment, and will better align resources, policy, and practice. The Title IX function is still relatively immature and faces significant staffing/resourcing challenges. A fully resourced office would include a Title IX Coordinator, a prevention and education coordinator, a support and intake coordinator, a full-time administrative manager, and sufficient investigative capacity. During our campus visit, we learned from university administrators that understaffing of the Title IX Office was a major concern, with many individuals commenting that the Title IX Coordinator was being stretched too thin.”

The full report can be found here.

Investigators “heard directly from multiple individuals who had negative experiences with or perceptions of Title IX and DHR at the university and about the culture and climate at Fullerton more broadly. Some stakeholders, particularly faculty and staff, described a culture of fear, retaliation, and prioritization of some constituencies’ needs over others. Stakeholders also described deep divisions; for example, between management personnel plan employees (MPPs) and employees, administrators and faculty, employee relations personnel and collective bargaining units, and — in some cases — between faculty and staff. Currently, the DHR program at Fullerton is under-resourced and not well-known. The current resourcing levels impair the program’s ability to raise awareness and fully meet the needs of the university community. Moreover, the current reporting structure raises concerns about accessibility, visibility to students, and potential conflicts of interest because it sits within HRDI.”

The full report can be found here.

“The Title IX/DHR Office has a practice of sending “sunset” emails to indicate that the Title IX/DHR Office will “close” the case because the complainant has not responded. We have concerns about communicating closure when, in fact, there is no date by which a person must decide whether or not to move forward. Instead of achieving the goals of the sunset email – which, as we understand it are prompting an interested complainant to respond and indicating openness to moving forward in the future – the sunset email as written may actually have the opposite effect. A complainant may believe that they have missed the timeframe to initiate a complaint, when in fact the ability to move forward is open-ended. This is a small but important change in approach to communicating with individuals who may have experienced discrimination, harassment, or interpersonal violence, as delayed or tentative reporting, gradual processing, and prevarication are the norm. We also noted some gaps in consistently reflecting when a complainant asks for a particular supportive measure, and it is not provided. Similarly, the office would benefit from using “memory markers” — a follow up email provided after a meeting that summarizes the discussion and agreed upon next steps to ensure that there is a mutual understanding and the timely opportunity to clear up any miscommunication.”

The full report can be found here.

The Office of Equity and Compliance  “reported that it receives over 400 reports per year and that the majority of those are Title IX related. Consistent with the pattern across the system, the majority of the Title IX cases resulted in provision of supportive measures only, without proceeding to a formal investigation. This speaks to the need to ensure the allocation of resources within OEC to focus on intake, outreach, and the coordination of supportive measures and care. We repeatedly heard praise for the OEC team, especially regarding their responsiveness and availability to work through issues and address concerns on an as-needed basis. We learned, however, OEC does not have the same visibility when it comes to the average student. One administrator explained that marginalized students are less likely to ask for help, and as a result, the university needs to understand how to engage students with a ‘bottom up approach.’ We heard the perspective that students often do not report to OEC because they feel like nothing is getting done, and that perception spreads through word of mouth. We understand that many students are more comfortable relying on the Campus Confidential Advocate. … During our review, we learned that students sometimes experience the grievance process as ‘cold, uncaring, and too focused on legal requirements.’ We received feedback that some students feel they have to ‘do so much’ in order to ‘prove’ that the Non-discrimination Policy was violated. We heard it is sometimes difficult for students to understand why things are done a certain way. We learned from campus partners that OEC sometimes expresses the perspective that their hands are tied, and that they need to follow the policies, procedures and law. According to one administrator, ‘word of mouth’ spreads such that students hear about other students’ experiences with the process – that it was ‘too much,’ and ‘not what they thought it was going to be.’

The full report can be found here.

The campus suffers from a confusing setup for the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, the report said.

It recommends that the office be separated from Human Resources and that changes be made to make it better known on campus and to address its “negative perception amongst faculty and staff, in part because of its connection to HR, and in part because of historical experiences or perspectives which taint current perception.” Proposed reforms included strengthening internal processes such as intake and initial assessment. The report also called for improvement in resources for students “to provide a holistic approach to sexual and interpersonal violence prevention and address issues related to discrimination and harassment. Given the gaps in awareness reported to us, as well as the issues of distrust, in-person engagement with campus constituents is critical to shifting perception and building trust.” It also recommended that more be done to address behavior that falls outside of Title IX and is considered “other conduct of concern.”

The full report can be found here.

“During the period of our review, and until June 5, 2023, Cal Maritime did not have an on-campus Title IX Office and the interim Title IX Coordinator worked remotely. The DHR Office was separately housed in Human Resources and the DHR Administrator was also the Assistant Vice President of Human Resources. During our listening sessions with the community, we learned of the community’s perception that Cal Maritime is not invested in its Title IX and DHR programs. Underlying reasons for this opinion included negative perceptions of prior Title IX personnel (prior to December 2021) and concerns about pervasive discrimination and harassment on campus that were deeply impacting the community. On June 5, 2023, a new Title IX Coordinator began working in person and on campus at Cal Maritime. The process to transition the DHR office out of HR to be combined with and under the leadership of the Title IX Office is being reviewed by Cal Maritime. Our recommendations address combining the Title IX and DHR functions, building upon the infrastructure developed by the interim Title IX Coordinator, improving visibility, and resolving the trust gap with the Cal Maritime community.”

The full report can be found here.

When she assumed the presidency in 2022, Vanya Quiñones inherited a Title IX/Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation Office (Title IX/DHR Office) that was “broken and nonfunctional.” The programs remain “in a state of flux, although the Title IX/DHR Office is improving under new interim leadership and the university has prioritized rebuilding the office to better serve the community.” The report recommends “steps to increase its awareness and visibility. Most notably, we recommend that the Title IX/DHR Office revamp its website, which is antiquated and not regularly updated.” Other recommendations are “an awareness campaign to educate the university about the office, its purpose and function, and resources available through the office” and internal reforms to receive and investigate complaints.

The full report can be found here.

The Office of Equity and Compliance is a concern on campus because of its history of staff turnover. “While the campus community generally reflected that OEC currently appears to have dedicated and talented staff, campus partners raised concerns about the long-term stability of the unit given the office’s significant history of turnover. With some suggested improvements, we believe OEC will be well-positioned to fulfill its core functions and to serve the needs of the Northridge community.” Other recommendations include updating the office’s website and other changes “to best serve the Northridge community … launching an awareness campaign to educate the university about OEC; increasing the capacity for oversight within OEC, as well as ensuring ongoing training and professional development for OEC staff.” Investigators also recommended that Northridge “build a formalized prevention and education program, including a dedicated prevention and education coordinator and a reconstituted and expanded university Prevention and Education Oversight Committee, to address issues related to discrimination and harassment, including sexual and gender-based harassment and violence.”

The full report can be found here.

“Individuals with whom we spoke reported that OEC had been rebranded several times in the past few years, such that the student population is generally not aware of what the office is or does. More broadly, though, we learned from student leaders that the student population (which consists of a sizable commuter population) does not know what OEC is, where it is located, or the services it offers. The university professionals with whom we spoke reported that employees were far more aware and knowledgeable about OEC than students. That said, we heard from multiple people that most people on campus don’t encounter OEC or Title IX except for their one annual required training. There is a significant knowledge gap amongst both students and employees about their reporting options and/or duties. One individual reported that they had ‘never worked on a campus this size where people don’t know they’re supposed to report things to Title IX. It comes up all the time.’ Another individual reflected that it seemed like there was a ‘very narrow entry point’ to OEC because the ‘students and staff have no idea where to go.’”

The full report can be found here.

The campus saw a significant increase in Title IX and DHR reports in fall 2022 once Covid-19 restrictions were lifted and the campus was reopened for in-person activities. The university has inconsistent documentation and recordkeeping; as such, information is not always easily accessed. “This inefficiency has resulted in an overreliance on individual and institutional memories.” The report also highlighted other concerning conduct outside of Title IX violations including “recent bias incidents.” The report noted “that since our campus visit, there have been a number of developments that have impacted the Title IX and DHR functions at the university. Most notably, in fall 2022, there were multiple reported incidents of sexual assault that impacted the Sacramento State community.” President Nelsen subsequently announced to the campus community on January 24, 2023 that the university had created a Sexual Violence Prevention, Safety, and Support Action Plan that focused on “prevention and support resources” aimed at improving campus safety.

The full report can be found here.

“Although we observed many strengths and heard positive feedback about the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance from those who work most closely with the office, we also heard directly from multiple individuals who had negative experiences with or perceptions of Title IX and DHR at the university and about the culture and climate at San Bernardino more broadly. Some stakeholders, particularly faculty and staff, described a culture of fear, retaliation, bullying, and prioritization of some constituencies’ needs over others. Stakeholders also described deep divisions; for example, between administrators and faculty, management personnel plan employees (MPPs) and employees, and employee relations personnel and collective bargaining units.” “As with other universities, San Bernardino grapples with conduct issues that do not rise to the level of a policy violation, but are nonetheless disruptive to the university’s living, learning, and working environment. San Bernardino has an ombuds office but has no consistent and formalized mechanism for navigating these behaviors, which we refer to as other conduct of concern. As a result, the university triages these behaviors in an ad hoc manner, leading to inconsistent responses, which have led to perceptions by students, staff, and faculty that there is a lack of accountability.”

The full report can be found here.

“The University Center for Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination receives a relatively low number of reports. San Diego State is the (10th) largest CSU university by student enrollment (but) receives a relatively small number of reports for a university its size. In the 2021-2022 academic year, CPHD reported receiving 187 reports and completed no investigations. During the prior fiscal year, CPHD received 92 reports of allegations related to Title IX and completed four investigations.

CPHD has an insufficient infrastructure required to support its functions and is under-resourced to carry out its myriad roles. CPHD could benefit from additional team members, notably administrative support, an experienced investigator, and a prevention and education coordinator. This would allow CPHD to strengthen its internal processes, especially with respect to intake and outreach. As compared to other CSU universities, the opportunities for training and education for students at San Diego State are relatively robust. However, from our observations, there were fewer opportunities for training, education, and professional development provided to faculty and staff than for students. While CPHD professionals have appropriate subject matter expertise, experience, and training, there is a disconnect in their efforts and how those efforts are received by campus constituents. This in part, is due to a lack of resources that limit the staff’s capacity. Further, the campus perception of CPHD is marred by recent historical experiences, including a high-profile matter involving members of the football team. To address these concerns, we recommend taking steps to increase the awareness, visibility, and connectivity of CPHD to campus constituents served.”

The full report can be found here.

The Pffice of Equity Programs and Compliance has grown to five staffers, has among the highest number of complaints compared to other campuses and suffers from broad community distrust. “The community largely expressed a distrust of the OEPC process, describing responses as delayed and ineffective. Students reported a view that the office was hyper-legalistic and lacked a caring and supportive space for students. An updated website with easily accessible access to information, expanded training and education programming that includes opportunities for feedback, and additional personnel to OEPC to improve timeliness of responses will, over time, improve the accessibility and credibility of OEPC. Additional university resources like a Confidential Advocate and dedicated respondent resource will provide additional needed support to parties.” Although the office has high visibility given that it has received “among the highest number of reports of all CSU universities, which reflects community awareness of the office and its function … investigators remain stretched too thin to deliver timely responses and investigations. While there is significant work to be done in the areas outlined above, there is notable support from senior leadership and positive momentum with the current staff in OEPC that positions the university on a path to having a fully developed Title IX and DHR program.”

The full report can be found here.

The university’s “Title IX and Gender Equity Office receives and addresses a high volume of cases. The university reported that the volume of reports for 2022-2023 was 27% higher than in 2021-2022. As of May 9, 2023, the Title IX Investigators were actively investigating approximately 15 formal complaints. The Interim Title IX and Gender Equity Officer reported that, at any given time, the Title IX and Gender Equity Office is monitoring approximately 200 cases. There are email, phone and in-person reporting channels for individuals to raise concerns to, although those channels are difficult to find and unclear. There is no clear statement about when and how to report, whether responsible employees are required to report, how to submit the online complaint form, or where one might go if they have questions. We recommend either a unified reporting portal for all conduct that may fall under the Nondiscrimination Policy or enhancements to the DHR reporting websites so that they mirror the resources, explanations, and visibility of the Title IX and Gender Equity reporting website. We note that the contact information for the DHR Administrator and general information about the DHR function can be found on university websites but is difficult to find without searching. Unlike the Title IX and Gender Equity Office, which has a standalone website, OEO exists only as a sub-page of the University Personnel website.” It is recommended the university “develop a website dedicated to prevention and campus programming that is kept current, facilitates distribution of prevention and education materials, and incorporates the opportunity for feedback and recommendations.”

The full report can be found here.

San Luis Obispo’s Civil Rights & Compliance Office “is one of the best resourced Title IX/DHR offices in the system,” but members of the campus community shared “ concerns about gaps in responsiveness that should be addressed.” There are also “challenges in the relationship” between CRCO and Safer, the campus office that offers confidential support for victims of sexual assault, sexual violence, harassment and stalking. “Campus stakeholders described a palpable breakdown in communication related to multiple issues, including the provision of supportive measures, employee reporting responsibilities, and the sharing of information between CRCO and Safer.” Those communication problems are “negatively impacting perceptions, and perhaps functioning, of the Title IX program.”

The full report can be found here.

“While the Title IX Coordinator is knowledgeable, respected, and has 12 years of tenure as a Title IX Coordinator, she also serves as the Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, which includes myriad other responsibilities (that do not involve Title IX/DHR). In addition, the office has also experienced significant turnover and understaffing, which has impaired the office’s ability to strengthen its own internal processes and to maintain formal cross-campus collaboration.” The report also stated that: “San Marcos currently has one position that is responsible for faculty retention/tenure/promotion and discipline. This represents a perception of conflict of interest for many at San Marcos and may represent a barrier to faculty’s use of this resource. … Additionally, the discipline and sanctioning phases of Title IX and DHR cases largely occur without the involvement of the Title IX Coordinator, or in some instances the complainant.

The full report can be found here.

The campus community’s perception of the Office for the Prevention of Discrimination and Harassment, which handles Title IX reports, “remains colored by the university’s recent experience, which includes a high-profile matter involving the former President’s husband.” Because of recent changes, including new leadership, there is renewed optimism that the office is in a position to succeed, but “numerous challenges remain in rebuilding trust and strengthening the functioning.” Those include hiring more staff “to fill necessary positions to support necessary intake, support, and investigative functions.” The office should also launch a campaign “to educate the university about OPHD, its purpose and function, and resources available through OPHD.”

The full report can be found here.

The office on campus that houses its Title IX responsibilities, the Equity Programs & Compliance office, is understaffed, compromising its ability to perform its functions, according to the report. “With a staff of two, EPC lacked the resources and personnel needed to sustainably fulfill core Title IX and DHR functions, let alone additional responsibilities.” With just 135 reports of sexual misconduct in 2021-22, it’s also possible that some cases aren’t being reported. “Reporting numbers at Stanislaus State are substantially lower than what one would expect for a campus of its size,” the report states.

The full report can be found here.

“The turnover in leadership positions, coupled with the gap in effective documentation practices, can contribute to loss of institutional history, inconsistent practices, and gaps in service. We heard about ‘things falling through the cracks’ and staff identifying the need to ‘retain knowledge or information to capture what is going on before people with institutional knowledge leave.’ We observed the same limitations in resources and staffing that exist across the system. Current (Chancellor’s Office of Human Resources) COHR staff expressed the need for an intake and supportive measures coordinator, a conflict resolution and restorative justice facilitator, and a prevention and education coordinator. We heard that complainants are less frequently resolved through informal resolutions, including restorative approaches, in part due to the lack of effective conflict resolution functions and cultural expectations that complaints will be resolved formally, rather than informally.” The report also outlined that ‘some Chancellor’s Office employees have a negative perception of COHR, expressing distrust or fear of retaliation.’

The full report can be found here.