How State College Police Crime Data Masked Rape on and Around Penn State and Betrayed the Community
I lived in State College., went to Penn State and know this place. It’s a university town built on community, on trust, on the idea that students and families can rely on accurate information when making one of the biggest decisions of their lives. What just came to light is nothing short of pathetic. It is a betrayal of that trust and a slap in the face to survivors.
After Sandusky, one would think this town would follow the law to a “t” instead of once again hiding in plain sight the reality of sexual abuse.
A new Spotlight PA investigation found that for nearly a decade, the State College Police Department underreported rape crimes in public data by hundreds of cases. From 2013 to 2021, local police reported 67 rapes to the Pennsylvania State Police and ultimately the FBI, when in reality there were 321 a staggering gap of 254 cases. These weren’t trivial coding errors. They were crimes reclassified as lesser “sex offenses” instead of rapes. This created a misleading picture of sexual violence in a college community where 75% of rape victims are Penn State students.
Why This Matters: Data Shapes Perception and Safety
Crime data isn’t some dry set of numbers in spreadsheets. It’s the foundation on which:
- prospective students and families assess campus safety,
- campus officials structure prevention and support services,
- public health and criminal justice resources are allocated, and
- survivors decide whether they can come forward.
Pennsylvania annual crime statistics feed into the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Universities then use this data to compile their Annual Security Reports (ASRs) under the federal Jeanne Clery Act. Those ASRs are legally mandated disclosures that every college including Penn State must publish annually. They show campus crime rates for the preceding three years and alert students to campus threats.
When local police underreport something as serious as rape whether by confusion over an outdated definition or systemic misclassification it has a domino effect:
- Penn State’s public crime data and Clery statistics are incomplete;
- Students and families make enrollment decisions with false information;
- Public safety resources and survivor supports are misaligned;
- And survivors themselves are robbed of community acknowledgment of what happened to them.
Let’s Be Clear: This Is About More Than Definitions
Police claimed they were using an outdated FBI definition of rape one that didn’t include many forms of sexual violence and that they weren’t aware of a definition change from 2012. As a result, they counted many rapes as lesser “sex offenses” when they reported crime figures.
That may sound bureaucratic, but here’s what it actually meant:
The public including tens of thousands of Penn State students and their families were misled about how common violent sexual assault really was in and around the university. They were told a narrative of safety that wasn’t true. The real scope was obscured.
That deception isn’t abstract. It shapes lived experience, and it shapes risk.
Title IX and the Clery Act: Obligations to Report and Protect
Under the Clery Act, schools that participate in federal financial aid virtually all colleges must disclose campus crime statistics honestly in their Annual Security Reports. Police crime data feed directly into those reports. Penn State’s ASRs like the University Park 2025 Annual Security Report rely on local law enforcement data and internal campus police records. They use this to populate sexual assault and rape figures.
When crime data are tampered with intentionally or not Clery loses its meaning. Students and families trust these reports to evaluate campus safety. A prospective student whose family reviews Penn State’s ASR and sees low rape statistics might reasonably think they’re choosing a safer environment. But that trust was misplaced.
From a Title IX standpoint, universities also have an obligation to:
- provide accurate, transparent reporting about sexual violence;
- ensure supportive procedures for survivors; and
- implement prevention and training programs based on real levels of risk.
You can’t do these things if the foundation the data is inaccurate.
Penn State has faced Clery Act enforcement actions in the past.
Following the Jerry Sandusky scandal, the U.S. Department of Education sought fines against Penn State for multiple Clery Act violations, including failure to properly classify and disclose crime statistics, issues in maintaining accurate daily crime logs, and other reporting failures. The proposed fine totaled about $2.4 million, in part for “reporting discrepancies in crime statistics published in the annual security report and those reported to the department’s campus crime statistics database.”
Civil Liability: What Happens When Data Put Students at Risk?
Here’s where the stakes get even higher.
Suppose a student chose Penn State because they reviewed crime data and made an enrollment decision. They did this under the assumption that the campus/area had relatively low rates of rape. Suppose that student was then sexually assaulted during their time there.
Could a civil claim arise?
This isn’t legal advice, but generally:
- Schools have been sued under Clery Act theories. They face this when they fail to comply with their reporting obligations or timely warn the campus community of threats.
- Students have brought claims asserting negligent misrepresentation when universities provided inaccurate safety information. They relied on this to their detriment.
- If Penn State’s crime data were materially misleading especially over years that could form the basis of deeper scrutiny from regulators and civil litigators.
There are limitations: statutes of limitations vary, and proving reliance (that the student specifically chose the school because of the misleading data) can be complex.
But the key point is this:
When institutions public safety or educational distort or suppress safety information, they expose themselves to not just moral accountability but legal scrutiny, especially when a student’s safety and bodily autonomy are at stake.
This Isn’t Just Numbers These Are People
The Spotlight investigation tells the story of real victims survivors like Lexi Tingley and her friend. Their assault was miscounted or misrepresented in police records. These were real people whose experiences were erased from the public narrative of community safety, simply because of how the crime was coded.
That’s the human cost.
Restoring Truth and Trust
Data integrity isn’t academic. It’s foundational to community safety, survivor support, accountability, and empowerment. When law enforcement and universities lean on incomplete or incorrect data, they betray every student and survivor who trusted them.
If Penn State’s crime reporting depends on flawed local data, then it’s not enough for universities to publish an Annual Security Report filled with numbers that don’t reflect reality. Universities must ensure the data feeding those reports are accurate and stand in transparency and accountability with survivors.
Penn State families deserve better. Survivors deserve better. And communities built on trust and truth demand accountability.