Title IX Reporting Data

The University of Richmond encourages all members of the campus community to report to a Title IX Coordinator and the University of Richmond Police Department when they become aware of possible sexual misconduct. The University responds to every report of possible sexual misconduct, from any source, including reports from the affected student, a third party, anonymous reports, and reports based on statements made on social media. The University provides support and resources for survivors of sexual misconduct, while investigating reports and holding accountable individuals who through our conduct process are found to have violated the Sexual Misconduct policy.

Reports of sexual misconduct include a broad range of behaviors, including obscene drawings, offensive gestures, unapproved distribution of explicit photographs, unwanted touching, unwelcome sexual advances, sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, non-consensual sexual intercourse, non-consensual sexual contact, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking.

The statistics below provide aggregate data on the disposition of Tier I sexual misconduct reports for the past five academic years, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. Tier I sexual misconduct reports are reports where the initial information provided indicates possible non-consensual sexual intercourse, non-consensual sexual contact, dating/relationship violence, domestic violence, stalking, and sexual exploitation. Definitions of these terms can be found in the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy. The term “Complainant,” as used below, refers to the individual who is the subject of an act or incident of alleged sexual misconduct. The Complainant may or may not be the individual who makes the report of sexual misconduct. The term “Respondent,” as used below, refers to the person who is alleged to have violated the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy. The data is aggregated to protect the privacy of the students involved.

Clery Crime Statistics: Data regarding reports of possible sexual misconduct are maintained by the University’s Title IX Coordinator. The protocol for tracking these reports is different than that used by the University of Richmond Police Department for tracking crime statistics pursuant to the Clery Act. For example, the data on sexual misconduct reports includes reports from any location and reports of any conduct that may violate the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy, including conduct that would not constitute a crime. The crime statistics maintained by the University of Richmond Police Department include only reports of potential crimes occurring on campus or in the University’s Clery geography.

Reporting Data Flow: 2016-21

274 Total Reports

This includes all reports from all sources, including directly from the Complainant and third-party sources that could potentially fall under the Sexual Misconduct Policy. Those reports range from obscene drawings on whiteboards to reports of non-consensual sexual intercourse.

168 Tier I Reports

This includes all reports from all sources of a potentially serious violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy occurring at any time and at any location, on or off campus. Tier I reports are those indicating possible sexual exploitation, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, nonconsensual sexual contact, or nonconsensual sexual intercourse. The definitions of these categories include a broad range of conduct.

163 Cases - Complainant can be Identified

The University pursues all reports, including anonymous reports, reports from third parties, and reports based on posts on social media. In 26 cases over the past five years, a Complainant could not be identified so the process ended at this stage.

34 Cases - Complainant is Identified and Chooses to Pursue an Investigation

Once a Complainant is identified and has verified the report, the Complainant is offered support (e.g., counseling services, a no-contact order, provisions to make a rooming change, classroom accommodations, creation of a safety plan, etc.). The Complainant is also offered options to pursue an investigation through the University conduct system, the legal system, through both avenues, or through neither. Over the past five years, 110 Complainants have either denied a third-party report or have chosen not to pursue an investigation. The University continues to provide support, resources, and remedial steps, but the investigation would end here at the Complainant’s choosing. An investigation can be reopened at a later time if the Complainant wishes to move forward.

13 Cases - Respondent is a Student, Faculty, or Staff member of the University

In order to pursue University conduct proceedings, the Respondent must be a current UR student, or a staff or faculty member. Over the past five years, 21 conduct proceedings ended at this stage because the Respondent was not subject to the University’s disciplinary process. In these cases, the University will assist the Complainant with other actions, such as no trespass orders to keep the Respondent off campus, assistance with reporting to the police department for the location where the act occurred, if off campus, and seeking protective orders.

7 Cases - Investigation Completed and Respondent Charged with Conduct Violation

All cases subject to the University’s disciplinary processes are investigated thoroughly. In 6 of 13 cases eligible for consideration under the conduct system over the last five years, the review of all evidence, including statements from the Complainant, the Respondent, witnesses, as well as documentary and electronic evidence, revealed insufficient evidence to charge the Respondent with a conduct violation.

3 Respondents admitted responsibility once charged and were sanctioned.

4 Respondents went to a hearing for consideration of the sexual misconduct charge. 2 were found responsible after the hearing and appeal process.

0 Respondents left the University before completion of the conduct process. 

Summary of Sanctions

Of the 7 cases in which a Respondent was charged with a sexual misconduct violation, 5 were ultimately found responsible or accepted responsibility and were sanctioned. 2 were suspended, banned from campus, or permanently separated from the University. The other 3 faced other sanctions, commensurate with the offense for which they were found responsible.