Lake Michigan College still has questions to answer

3-22-2010 Michigan:

As a former director of an agency providing services to sexual offenders and their victims and as a former school board member, I am interested in the legal, public safety and educational policy issues surrounding Lake Michigan College's actions.

I was first concerned with LMC using the "other" category of their student conduct code to suspend/expel sexual offenders and the actions of administrators in a serious policy and legal matter without public representation from the board. Administering a code of student conduct to behavior occurring long before enrollment is, to say the least, a stretch. With no stated appeal (student handbook) to the governing board, but rather a board of administrators and students, how is it determined that the code of conduct was even remotely intended to include pre-student behavior?

I was aghast to read the comments of the college's spokesperson who indicated this came to light when a prospective student disclosed his history. She reportedly said, "This brought to light we could have other students." Why the apparent surprise when the responsibility clearly lies with the college to use the sexual offender registry? The registry has existed with public access for many years. The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act (2002) added a new subsection to the Wetterling Act - the federal law dealing with state registration of sex offenders - requiring states to obtain information about enrollment from registered sex offenders and to provide that information to law enforcement agencies. Offenders have to report enrollment or face criminal charges. They are not required to report to colleges.

I wonder why LMC administrators and staff, let alone students and parents, were apparently not informed how to be aware of enrolled offenders of adults as well as children. The law has required since 2002 that institutions of higher education provide notice to the campus community of where they can obtain information identifying registered sex offenders who are enrolled. This can include a local police department or an Internet site. The act stopped well short of banning sex offenders from campuses. LMC's student handbook, unlike other community college handbooks (including LMC's partner, Siena Heights University), does not include reference to where to find this information available by college at the Michigan State Police Sexual Offender Registry site.

Clearly, laws establishing a sex offender registry and requiring offenders to report where they are attending school and requiring colleges to inform their "campus communities" are intended to be the first safety measure. LMC appears to not be using this valuable resource with staff or with the community. The LMC president's statement - "This entire process has been about our belief that we as a college have an obligation to protect the thousands of children who come to our college each year for a wide variety of educational activities" - begs the question, where has administration and the board been in their concern for safety, oversight and compliance with law since 2002?

While it is understandable that during possible litigation, specifics cannot be discussed, the public has a right to know of policies related to compliance with law and who is giving the board and administration legal and policy advice, either directly or through the community college association. Without informing the public, the board will again leave the public wondering, if not drawing conclusions, about its competence. ..Opinion.. of Marc Del Mariani lives in Stevensville.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lake Michigan College announces split decision on suspensions

See earlier story.

3-14-2010 Michigan:

BENTON HARBOR - One Lake Michigan College student who appealed a suspension for being on the child sex offender registry will be allowed to return to campus, and another who appealed remains barred, a committee decided late Friday.

A news release from the college provided no details on the split decision.

Faculty and administrators who were members of the appeals panel were likewise mum on the subject.

Marjorie Zibbel, an associate dean for community and business services, said that as a stipulation of her participation on the panel, "I was asked to promise not to discuss this with anyone outside the panel."

Other panel members were faculty members Frank Stijnman, Michelle Stone and Erick Pifer, and administrator Lee VanGinhoven, executive director of facilities management.

Pifer had no comment, as well. The others could not be reached for comment.

Two members of the Student Senate also took part, but their names were not released.

Committee members were drawn from a pool much like a jury, LMC spokeswoman Laura Kraklau said. The appeals were heard separately, and which committee members heard which appeal is being kept confidential.

Such a policy allows for discrimination -between decisions- based on differing personal beliefs, and no history of courtlike decisions. Can these be appealed to circuit courts?

In a written statement, LMC President Robert Harrison said, "This entire process has been about our belief that we as a college have an obligation to protect the thousands of children who come to our college each year for a wide variety of educational activities."

Harrison added, "At this point, we will review our college policies and procedures related to this topic and determine from there how we will proceed."

The college instituted the policy that prohibited child sex offenders from its campuses Feb. 7. The issue came to light when a student attempting to register admitted to being on the registry. He was not allowed to sign up for on-campus classes.

Administrators discovered that there were three students on the registry already on campus. They were suspended and barred from the college's four campuses, although they will be allowed to take classes online. Two of those students chose to appeal their suspensions, which amounted to expulsions since names remain on the registry for 25 years.

The new policy was announced on the college's Facebook page. Respondents questioned why the college's policy did not extend to those convicted of sex crimes against adults, including rapists.

There was no similar announcement about the outcome of the appeals on the LMC Web site.

The issue has drawn national attention, including an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education's Web site. Experts have questioned the effectiveness and legality of having a blanket policy for all child sex offenders, rather than addressing them on a case-by-case basis.

Gloria Gillespie, a Berrien County commissioner and a counselor who has worked with sex offenders and victims for 35 years, has expressed her opposition to the policy. She met with Harrison and members of his staff Thursday to offer her expertise in the hope they would rescind the policy.

Gillespie told them that she had been in a conference that day with the head of Berrien County's juvenile court, who reported that 17 of the 115 juveniles ages 7-12 who came to court last year were sex offenders.

"That means, in six years, when they want to go to college, they can't," if a college or university has a policy like LMC's in place, she said. ..Source.. JOHN MATUSZAK - Assistant Local News Editor

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lake Michigan College bans child-sex convicts

Other articles relevant to this issue: Indiana wants to trim cost of educating inmates (Note comment: Education reduces recidiviism) --- Some Question Why Sex Offender Still Can't Read (Note: Education affects sex offender therapy) --- Three State Recidivism Study (Note: The analysis of the data indicates that inmates who participated in education programs while incarcerated showed lower rates of recidivism after three years. For each state the three measures of recidivism, re-arrest, re-conviction and re-incarceration were significantly lower.)

2-26-2010 Michigan:

Those on sex-offender registry or on parole or probation for sex offenses against children can no longer take classes on campus

BENTON HARBOR - People convicted of sex crimes against children and listed on the state's sex offender registry will no longer be able to take classes on any of Lake Michigan College's four campuses, and three students have been suspended with the new rule.

The community college made the announcement Feb. 17 on its Facebook page after someone questioned the new policy.

Dana Marie Edwards posted this comment: "Why is LMC, an adult education facility, discriminating by denying education to students who happen to have a CSC on their record?" CSC stands for criminal sexual conduct.

In an unsigned response, LMC said: "In the best interest of those we serve, we've made the decision that students convicted of sexual offenses in regards to children will not be allowed to take classes on LMC campuses, but may take online classes."

School officials said the decision was made earlier this month after a prospective student tried signing up for winter semester classes at the Bertrand Crossing campus near Niles and informed school officials he was a registered sex offender and his victim had been a child. The age of sexual consent in Michigan is 16.

"(He) self-identified during that process that (he'd) been convicted of criminal sexual conduct against a minor," said college spokeswoman Laura Kraklau. "This brought to light that we could have other students enrolled who could have the same conviction on their record. So that's kind of what sparked it."

Kraklau said the prospective student wasn't allowed to register, and afterward three students were suspended between Feb. 11-15. She said the dean of students met with each student, "and that meeting is considered due process."

Kraklau said tuition money has been reimbursed. The winter registration period runs between October and Jan. 11. She said the rule change was made Feb. 7.

"There's not yet a (formal) policy regarding this issue," Kraklau said. "The college cabinet (upper-level college administrators) made a decision for the protection of children on the college's four sites to not allow convicted child sex offenders who are still on the sex offender registry and/or on probation or parole to be students on any of our four campus locations."

She said administrators used the "other prohibited misconduct" section of the student conduct code to enforce the new rule. That section states that either the assistant dean of college life or the executive dean of student services can, with the president's approval, stipulate other actions that can be considered misconduct.

Kraklau said school officials are calling the removal of the three students from LMC suspensions, which means they'll be allowed to take classes on-site once they're no longer required to register as sex offenders and are no longer on probation or parole. But because offenders are required to register for either 25 years or life under Michigan law, the suspensions are essentially expulsions.

Along with the Bertrand Crossing campus in Niles, LMC has campuses in Benton Harbor, Benton Township and South Haven. The ban does not include students on the registry who have been convicted of a sex crime against an adult.

Kraklau said child day care is provided at the South Haven and Benton Township campuses, but children also use the other campuses. As an example, she cited the Youth Robotics and Fabrication classes being offered at Bertrand Crossing. The classes began in January and are open to children as young as 5.

LMC declined to release the names of the suspended students, citing federal privacy laws. The Michigan sex offender registry lists 10 sex offenders attending LMC's various campuses. Of those, five committed a sex crime against a child. Kraklau said that of the five, only the three suspended were actually students enrolled at LMC. Using information from the registry, The Herald-Palladium could not reach the prospective student or the three suspended students for comment.

Officials with the U.S. Department of Education said they did not know if any other college or university bans people convicted of committing sex crimes against children. An official of a national association of college registrars and admissions officers also said he was not aware of any other such college policy.

It wasn't immediately known if LMC's rule change could make the college vulnerable to a lawsuit for possibly violating the three suspended students' civil rights.

But one lawyer said the college's rule is overly broad and could ban students who pose no threat to students or children.

Blanket policies a problem

Miriam Aukerman, a lawyer with Legal Aid of Western Michigan, based in Grand Rapids and with an office in St. Joseph, said she couldn't speak specifically about the cases of the three suspended students and the one prohibited from enrolling. But she said some potential students could be unfairly excluded from enrolling at LMC.

"What I would say is that seems to me to be a pretty shortsighted policy," she said. "Because if you're denying admission or expelling anybody who is on the registry, you're going to catch a lot of people. Clearly the intention here is to not have the individuals on campus who are potentially dangerous.

"But the registry is much, much broader than that. It includes people who are on for offenses that are 'Romeo and Juliet' offenses. And even if these are three individuals - I don't know anything about their circumstances - (whose) cases are not that, they're obviously precluding other individuals from attending who might be in that situation.

"There's also lots of people who are on the registry who adjudicated as juveniles," continued Aukerman, who helps offenders with obstacles in re-entering society, such as obtaining housing and work. "There are people on the registry who are on for offenses they committed when they were 9 years old.

"The sociological research shows that juvenile offending and 'Romeo and Juliet' offending is not predictive of subsequent sexual misconduct. It's very different from what we think about as the kind of predatory behavior that people are concerned about.

"And so the concern really is that what universities should be doing is making individualized decisions, looking at the specific circumstances of everybody's case and saying, 'Is this person a danger to the community? Is this person a threat to the safety on our campus?' And if someone is, then it seems a university can make an appropriate decision. But making blanket policies that deny education based on someone's registered status is lumping everyone together when these situations are very fact specific."

Not a college's job

Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, said determining who can and who can't attend college based on aspects of their criminal history can become a slippery slope. The AACRAO is a nonprofit Washington, D.C.-based organization that lobbies on behalf of higher education.

Nassirian said the ban could also be viewed as additional punishment for the convicted and not as a stop-gap safety measure. He said he's not aware of any other college or university banning sex offenders whose victim was a child.

"We tend to believe that the judicial system and the criminal justice system are the appropriate venues for working out who ought to have access to higher ed and who should not if it is a matter either of privilege or a matter of safety," Nassirian said.

"We don't think we in higher ed are qualified to conduct threat assessments on individuals, because, frankly, we're not qualified and we're not good at it. We think there are different professions that focus on different kinds of threats. We have law enforcement, and then the judicial system for people who may have criminal tendencies that may put others at risk. And we have the mental health infrastructure in this country as well as the public health infrastructure in this country to conduct threat assessments with regard to emotional, behavioral or medical issues.

"But it would be as silly for us to suddenly enact a ban on the basis of our medical judgments that people who sneeze should not be admitted to our school because, of course, they would be carrying the bird flu or the swine flu or whatever the next plague may be, as it is for us to get involved in other matters that we don't know about," Nassirian continued.

"We think we should do our job. We think we should assess people academically and reach out to them, and make sure that people who are academically qualified to benefit from education do so. We leave these other matters to other competent authorities and, you know, frankly, I think that's the way it ought to be." ..Source.. SHAWN McGRATH - H-P Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Indiana wants to trim cost of educating inmates

10-4-2009 Indiana:

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (AP) — Indiana wants to cut the cost of educating prison inmates, and that's leading to increased competition among state colleges jockeying for contracts.

The State Student Assistance Commission is considering capping the amount of money it spends on state prison inmates at $120 per credit hour. Six colleges provided postsecondary education to inmates last year at rates ranging from $76 per credit hour at Ivy Tech to $162 at Indiana State University.

Ivy Tech says paying its rates for associate degree programs could have saved the commission nearly $2.9 million. Other universities say they can be competitive.

Gov. Mitch Daniels says he encourages the competition as Indiana tries to educate prisoners and give them job skills to reduce recidivism rates. ..Source.. by AP

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Some Question Why Sex Offender Still Can't Read

9-8-2009 Indiana:

Man Spent 6 Years In Juvenile Sex Offender Program

INDIANAPOLIS -- Some are questioning why a 20-year-old sex offender who served six years in state correction facilities when he was an early teen is still unable to read.

David Likens is currently awaiting trial on charges he broke the leg of his 8-month-old daughter at the home he shares with the child's mother, Gina Williams, 19, at Heart's Landing apartments on the city's east side.

When he appeared in court last week, Likens .asked the charges against him be read aloud, because, he told the judge, he couldn't read.

"I can read some, but I'm not that good. Basically, my reading stinks," he told 6News' Derrik Thomas.

Likens and his two brothers were convicted in 2001 in the molestation of a 3-year-old girl, when Likens was 12 years old. He served six years in a secure residential sex offender program, where he also attended classes, and was released when he was 18.

Representatives with the Indiana Public Defenders Council said they are concerned that it wasn't mandatory that Likens learn how to read while in state custody.

"Education is important for the person and is important for law abiding citizens. It's in our interest that people learn develop and grow so they see other options than crime," said spokesman Larry Landis.

Likens said that when he was released from the sex offender program, .he had trouble holding jobs at several fast food restaurants because he couldn't read the work schedule.

He said he does not blame the system for his failure to read.

"Everybody tried to help me, but it's too hard for me to do," he said. "I'm capable, but it's going to be hard for me to do because of how I was raised and all that."

Likens is being held on $50,000. He has entered a not guilty plea ahead of his trial set for November. ..Source.. by The Indy Channel.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Three State Recidivism Study

September 2001:

Submitted to the Office of Correctional Education United State Department of Education
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Correctional Education Association conducted the Three State Recidivism Study for the United States Department of Education Office of Correctional Education. The study was designed to see if education, independent of other programs, could have significant impact on the behavior of inmates after release. Data on about 3,200 inmates, who were released from Maryland, Minnesota and Ohio prisons in late 1997 and early 1998, are reported in this longitudinal study. The research design, which uses educational participation while incarcerated as the major variable, measures the impact of education while incarcerated on post release behavior, primarily recidivism and employment. The states pooled their data in a format that allows for individual state as well as aggregate reports. Within each state the correctional, parole and probation, education and work force agencies cooperated in the data collection.
When the study began each state determined 1,000 or more people about to be released from their state prisons. This type of research design, called a release cohort, provides for a framework with internal control groups.

The research tools were designed by a number of correctional researchers. The Pre-Release Survey was developed to gather information from the inmates themselves on factors closely correlated with criminal behavior. These included information on socio-economic factors, criminal behavior, family life, educational experiences and work history. The Educational/Institutional Data Collection Form contained questions that included criminal behavior, demographic information, institutional behavior and education history during incarceration. The Parole/Release Officer Survey contained questions designed to collect data on subsequent criminal behavior, employment and educational experiences. Post Release Criminal History Data was collected to measure recidivism. Employment data was collected to find out about the kinds of jobs and the amount of wages earned after release.

Inmates, about to be released, were assembled in the various institutions where the Pre-Release Survey was administered by trained staff. Those who did not want to take the survey were excused. The refusal rate was very low. Inmates put their answers on scan sheets. Criminal history and educational data from the education and correction records were collected from the various agencies using the Educational/Institutional Data Collection Form in either an electronic or a scan sheet format. After release the parole officers were sent the Parole/Release Officer Survey for behavioral, educational and employment information for the ex-offenders under their supervision. In two states, the state departments of labor were able to contribute Employment Data for post release employment and wage information. Finally, re-arrest, re-conviction and re-incarceration data were collected from state Criminal History Data files. The federal Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics commonly uses these three areas to describe recidivism.

All the information obtained from the surveys and state databases were entered into one large database to allow for individual state and aggregate reports. Over 500 variables were collected on each of the study participants, resulting in a very large quantity of information. There are demographic data on family and community background, economic status and employment, educational experience, offender perspectives on education and motivational factors that correlate highly with criminality as well as educational, correctional and criminal history. This is the first study to collect extensive information from the inmates themselves.

Another unique aspect of the study is the collection of individual wage data from two of the states labor databases. Data was collected from each state, but only Maryland and Minnesota was useable. The Ohio data was in a format that could not be read by the researchers.

The analysis of the data indicates that inmates who participated in education programs while incarcerated showed lower rates of recidivism after three years. For each state the three measures of recidivism, re-arrest, re-conviction and re-incarceration were significantly lower. The employment data shows that in every year, for the three years that the study participants were followed, the wages reported to the state labor departments were higher for the education participants compared to the non-participants.

The following report narrates the overall design, execution of the study, data analysis, discussion of the results and conclusions. ..more.. by Dr. Stephen J. Steurer -and- Dr. Linda Smith -and- Dr. Alice Tracy, Correctional Education Association

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...