Case Shows Systematic Problems with the Use of Grant Money For Law Enforcement Efforts –
The arrest of Jennifer Beeman occurred on December 9, on charges of embezzlement of public funds and eight other felonies in connection with her alleged misuse of public funds as director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program.
A joint investigation by UC Davis Police and the U.S.Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General included a search of Beeman’s banking records. Beeman is believed to have embezzled from $2,000 to $13,000, according to investigators.
In addition, the university returned over $100,000 to the U.S. Department of Justice, due to questionable costs the university identified in the use of a grant awarded by the Department in 2005.
Those expenses were identified by the university as not allowable under the terms and conditions of the grant, but not as fraud. This grant, which Beeman had helped administer for UC Davis, was intended to support programs against sexual violence. The Office of the Inspector General has concluded its investigation of UC Davis.
Beeman was director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program for 16 years until December 2008, when she was placed on administrative leave. Beeman left university employment in June 2009.
In September 2009, UC Davis announced that Beeman had exaggerated the numbers of forcible sex offenses reported under the Clery Act in 2005, 2006 and 2007. UC Davis corrected those figures in 2009 and has taken steps to improve oversight of the collection of Clery Act statistics.
UC Davis’ Campus Violence Prevention Program provides victims of sexual assault, stalking and domestic violence the opportunity to divulge the crimes in confidence and connects them to health care and other support services, regardless of whether they choose to file a police report.
What becomes more interesting is looking at the connections between Ms. Beeman, the Yolo County DA’s Office, and other organizations with regards to grants and grant funding.
One of the interesting connections was between Ms. Beeman and the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
CALCASA was one of the organizations hit for misuse of federal grant money.
Inspector General Laura Chick in a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger writes, “One grant CalEMA [California Emergency Agency] has awarded [to CALCASA] provides critical training for rape crisis centers statewide to increase comprehensive services to all victims of sexual assault, especially unserved and underserved populations. Unfortunately, the sole recipient contracted to conduct this work, having spent a good deal of the $300,000 it was awarded, has woefully failed to achieve the promised results. Of the monies expended so far, nearly half were not used properly.”
“Significant objectives of the grant, including conducting training programs and creating and distributing valuable information, have not been achieved,” she continues.
Perhaps most serious is the improper expenditures of $48,532. Writes the Inspector General, “Despite the insignificant activities taken by CALCASA to meet the objectives of the grant, expenditures of $110,713 were claimed and reimbursed by CalEMA, through August 31, 2010.”
A full 44 percent of the costs claimed were improper.
Ms. Beeman worked with CALCASA in 2007 to secure a nearly $1 million federal grant – a grant which is now in question.
According to an October 2, 2007 release from the UC Davis News Service, “The three-year project, supported by a $999,369 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, aims to coordinate a model program to reduce the incidence of campus-based violence against women, including domestic and dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. The program will also focus on improving the quality of response when such incidents do occur.”
The grant was supposed to benefit all ten UC Campuses.
“With this grant, the University of California is taking a major step forward to reduce violence against women and improve assistance for those who are affected by it,” said UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef at the time. “Together, we can enhance services throughout the UC system and beyond.”
That December, Vanderhoef brought the new federal grant opportunity to the attention of his UC Chancellor colleagues, who strongly endorsed this collected effort to reduce the number of sexual assaults throughout the university system. Judy Sakaki, UC’s Vice President for Student Affairs, encouraged discussions among her colleagues, and they expedited the gathering of information for the grant application, made through the Campus Violence Prevention Program at UC Davis.
“Again, the University of California is attempting to solve a serious societal problem,” Sakaki said. “The united efforts of our 10 campuses can make a dramatic difference.”
“We are looking forward to building upon and sharing the expertise we have gained through our long and productive collaboration with the federal Office on Violence Against Women,” said Jennifer Beeman, director of the violence prevention program at UC Davis since 1992 and the administrator of the new systemwide project. “We want to work with other campuses to create a model intervention within the state of California.”
On October 29, 2009, the Bee reported, “As part of the federal grants that supported the violence prevention program, Beeman had been required to update the crime situation at UC Davis in twice-yearly reports.
“Her count of sexual assaults was lower than what the campus originally reported to the federal campus crime statistics clearinghouse, known as the Clery Act, but higher than the numbers UC Davis recently publicized as corrections.
“For example, the original Clery Act reports showed 69 forcible sex offenses at UC Davis in 2007. In correcting the figures earlier this month, the university pegged the actual number at 33. But progress reports on the violence prevention grant UC Davis filed to the Department of Justice in 2007 indicate 43 sexual assaults occurred.
“Similar discrepancies existed in reports from 2006 and 2005, according to The Bee’s review of more than 1,000 pages of grant documents.”
The 2007 grant was to bring CALCASA together with POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training, which trains law enforcement officers and agencies).
According to the 2007 release from UC Davis, “The project will collaborate with two major organizations. The California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), which represents more than two thirds of the state’s 90 rape crisis centers, will bridge the project with rape crisis centers in communities surrounding campuses. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training will help develop and deliver specialized training for law enforcement agencies on campuses.”
“Sandy Ortman, director of special programs for CALCASA, said UC Davis and its violence prevention program are well positioned to lead the project because the campus program is well recognized and respected nationally. ‘UC Davis has the experience, the commitment to the issues — and a chancellor who understands the issues,’ Ortman said.”
It continued, “Ortman commended the UC system for working to reduce the number of incidents against women and to encourage more to be reported — something that people can misread.”
“Increased reporting of incidents against women can actually be a good thing,” she said. “What it means is that you provide helpful, caring and appropriate services so women come forward. It speaks to the level of service being provided.”
Finally, it concluded, “In fact, reported incidences of violence against women at UC Davis have risen. The total number of sex offenses (forcible and non-forcible) reported at UC Davis increased from 33 in 2004 to 68 in 2006, according to the latest statistics prepared in compliance with the Clery Act.”
“Beeman and others attribute those higher reporting numbers to effective outreach programs and services that make it as comfortable as possible for victims to come forward.”
We now suspect otherwise.
The local rape crisis center surrounding UC Davis is the Yolo County Sexual Assault Center which happens to work closely with the DA’s Office and the Yolo County’s Multi-Discilinary Iinterview Center. The MDIC is sponsored in part by a grant under the DA’s budget.
“The Yolo County’s MDIC (Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center) is a collaborative of community agencies committed to protecting our children. It is through this partnership that Yolo County is able to deliver the best service to our community despite limited public resources. Our partners include: Yolo County District Attorney, Davis Police Department, UC Davis Police Department, Winters Police Department, Woodland Police Department, Yolo County Sheriff Department and Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Center.”
All of these organizations are interrelated and work together. The DA’s sexual assault unit which is heavily grant-funded, works very closely with victim advocates for the District Attorney’s Office and from the Yolo County Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Center. Additionally, the unit works in partnership with the Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center.
Ms. Beeman will take the fall here in this case, particularly because she embezzled and misused money from the grants. However, there are problems with the entire funding system that relies heavily on grants that are often competitively awarded. Such competition produces incentives for agencies to show results.
Results could mean the prosecution of cases that are suspect. We previously showed how a DA statutory rape grant (Block Grant) may have led to the DA attempting to pursue statutory rape charges against then-18-year-old Michael Artz who had sexual relations with a 16-year-old classmate.
We also have the more extreme abuse, where county crime statistics were falsified. In September we had an entire story on that, but the Beeman case is another clear example.
Finally there is just a general misuse of money. The CALCASA grant is a clear example of how an organization misused a portion of grant money, not from out of some sort of nefarious intention, but rather due to a lack of institutional control and safeguards.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The problem here is grant funding is given out like candy, w/o much in the way of accountability built into the system. There is no concerted and consistent effort to determine if the funding worked as intended, if it was spent properly, if all the funding was really needed, etc.
What is also troubling is that this type of grant funding is still being given out, even tho the entire nation is in fiscal crisis. I don’t blame agencies/entities for going after grant funding if it is out there to be had (I do blame them if they mispend it), but I do blame the gov’t at all levels for handing out tax dollars willy nilly on any type of issue that has a “feel good” component to it.
Politicians never saw a tax dollar they did not want to spend. It is so easy to spend OTM (other people’s money), but I’d bet my bottom dollar these same politicians would not give a dime of their own money to these so called “worthy causes”. They know better.
On a different tack, I just heard U.S. Senator Bernie Saunders (Independent, Vermont) filibustered for 8 1/2 hrs on the extension of tax cuts package. During his speech he revealed some startling news. While Congress was approving $700 billion for TARP (federal bailout), the Fed, behind closed doors, loaned out something like 3 trillion dollars to large corporations (like GE, Goldman Sachs) here and abroad and even to foreign banks in South Korea, Saudia Arabia, Bavaria. Shocking how easily our gov’t can spend taxpayer dollars. No wonder we had a tea party movement/revolt. Something has got to change about the way our gov’t does its business – without giving the taxpayers “the business”…
Elaine: “The problem here is grant funding is given out like candy, w/o much in the way of accountability built into the system. There is no concerted and consistent effort to determine if the funding worked as intended, if it was spent properly, if all the funding was really needed, etc.”
This is exactly why people should not get upset at the Inspector General’s office for demanding that the conditions of the grant be fulfilled as was outlined in the grant application.
We do need more oversight and accountability for all the grant money (tax payers’ money) given out. At least, the Inspector General’s office is attempting to make people accountable for the money they take.
“The problem here is grant funding is given out like candy, w/o much in the way of accountability built into the system. There is no concerted and consistent effort to determine if the funding worked as intended, if it was spent properly, if all the funding was really needed, etc.”
Actually there is, that is the role of the inspector general’s office who apparently routinely audits grants.
However, when an inspector general attempts to do her job, your response is somewhat different:
“4/5 of the goals were met on a test program (that is what a “pilot project” is), and a portion of the other goal was met. Are you going to accuse an agency of malfeasance bc they did not achieve 100% efficiency? I wish all gov’t agencies were this (approx 90%) efficient! Twenty lashes with a wet noodle to the Yolo Probation Dept. for being 10% inefficient on a test program! “
Technically arrested, but not “cuffed and stuffed” by cops. The fact that the DA issued a warrant and did not have her picked up, smells of a back door agreement to allow her to go set up bail, turn herself in just to go through the booking process and then get released.
A courtesy not extended to just anyone? Why was it given by the DA to her?
All non-violent arrest should be handled this way since it does not tie up cops, waste resources and create other problems, but this is part of the power and threat the DA has to use when he wants and chooses not to use when there is something in it for him.
Roger Rabbit: Does this mean that Jennifer Beeman is going to be prosecuted for grant fraud by the Yolo DA’s office?
If the DA’s office has a past working relationship with Beeman and her office, isn’t this a conflict of interest for the DA’s office to be the prosecutors?
Shouldn’t this case be prosecuted by the feds or someone at the state level? I hope both the Inspector General’s office and David will follow this chain of events to see how Beeman’s prosecution proceeds.
dmg: “However, when an inspector general attempts to do her job, your response is somewhat different:
“4/5 of the goals were met on a test program (that is what a “pilot project” is), and a portion of the other goal was met. Are you going to accuse an agency of malfeasance bc they did not achieve 100% efficiency? I wish all gov’t agencies were this (approx 90%) efficient! Twenty lashes with a wet noodle to the Yolo Probation Dept. for being 10% inefficient on a test program! “”
I think the IG was being overly critical in the case of the Yolo Probation Dept., from the details you gave in your article. Also, I think you said somewhere in a past article that these grants have been given out over a ten year period or more, so why has it taken the IG’s office so long to uncover the misuse? My sense is this is a bit of indiscriminate grandstanding bc “accountability” is the new “politically correct” thing to do. The case involving Beeman makes far more sense to me – a clear misuse of funds if there ever was one. Accountability should be a built in part of the system that takes place on a yearly basis – no grandstanding. If you don’t handle the grant money properly, then you don’t get it the next year. Very simple. But then I wouldn’t give out this type of grant money in the first place.