1 | P a g e

St. Francis Xavier University

2015/2016

Prepared by: Matthew Girard, Student Conduct Officer

Conduct Report

2 | P a g e

Introduction……………………………………………………………..................Page 3 Incident Reporting

Totals & Year to Year Comparison………………………………….Page 4, 5 Monthly Breakdown……………………………………………………..Page 6 Reporting Sources……………………………………………………….. Page 4

Demographics Year of Study……………………………………………………………….. Page 7 Sex of Student Reported On…………………………………………… Page 7

2015-2016 Data Caseloads……………………………………………………………………. Page 8

Community Code Violations Minor Violations…………………………………………………………… Page 9 Major Violations…………………………………………………………… Page 11 Residence Life and Student Conduct Total Incidents per House………………………………………………… Page 12 Individual Students in an Incident Report per House…………… Page 13 Percentage of House Pop. Involved in an Incident………………. Page 13 Outcomes

Fines…………………………………………………………………………… Page 15 Bonds………………………………………………………………………….. Page 15 Educational Outcomes…………………………………………………… Page 16-17

Discipline & Appeals Committees……………………………………………… Page 18 Trends and Recommendations…………………………………………………… Page 19 - 21

Table of Contents

3 | P a g e

The following report outlines, summarizes and compares specific aspects of the StFX

Conduct Process pertaining to Incident Report writing on campus. This report is designed to

give the reader an “at a glance” overview of the 2015-2016 academic year through the eyes of

the StFX Conduct Office and will touch on the following:

• Number of incidents filed per month

• Number of students documented per month

• Students documented based on year of study

• Minor violations summary

• Major violations summary

• Residence Life and Student Conduct

• Outcomes review

• Discipline and Appeals Committee information

Megan Turner returned as the Student Conduct Coordinator for the majority of the 2015-

2016 academic year, eventually switching roles within StFX, bringing in the newest Student

Conduct Officer; Matthew Girard. Girard officially started the new role on January 25th, 2016

leaving his former position as a Residence Life Coordinator, a role he worked in for roughly one

and half years.

There were a few changes to residence to acknowledge for the 2015-2016 academic year

specifically MacDonald House switching to all first year students with the exceptions of the

House President and Vice President. This move was made to help reduce negative rivalry and

previous negative behaviours that have been exhibited in MacDonald House year after year.

A new addition to this report and will be included at the end is a “Trends &

Recommendations” section. Since most sections will at least touch on trends seen throughout

the year, this last section will only include significant trends accompanied by potential

recommendations for the upcoming year. The 2015-2016 report will also include commentary

from the Student Life Advisors to gain insights on how the students they oversee view

Residence Life on campus.

A new survey was introduced this year to all students living in Residence asking about their

experience in their specific house. This feedback will help up identify areas of strength and

weakness for each house & Residence building and for some residence buildings explain the

high number of students switching to other residence buildings.

Introduction

4 | P a g e

In total there was 1156 reports filed for the 2015-2016 academic year which

includes reports identified as FYIs. FYIs are submitted for damages to buildings where no

student is identified, & health concerns (both physical and mental). Duplicate reports were

removed from the total number, the Student Life Office receives reports for the same incident

when there are multiple reporting bodies present at an incident. Multiple reports help to give

more than one perspective to a situation and helps the Student Conduct Officer understand

what truly happened in the moment.

Of the 1156 Reports filed, there were 1056 students reported on, meaning that

their name was attached in a report at one point throughout the previous academic year.

Students who repeatedly broke Community Code Violations were only counted once which is

how we came to the 1056 number. In total there were 160 students who were documented

and found responsible for Community Code violations more than once.

The number of reports filed is consistent with the 2014-2015 academic year

which had 1146 reports filed. Number of students reported on increased from 952 in

Incident Reporting 22

7

204

160

46

150

143

167

59

181

179

154

49

138

135

134

86

S E P T O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R

REPORT WRITING 2015-2016

# of Incident Reports Received # of Students Reported On

5 | P a g e

2014/2015 to 1056 in this past academic year, meaning 104 more students were involved in a

report compared to the previous year.

Comparison by Year

179

101

137

47

64

91

112

57

184

114

132

115

118

115

104

70

220

187

111

92

104

71

128

117

181

179

154

49

138

135

134

86

S E P T O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R

YEARLY COMPARISON OF # OF STUDENTS REPORTED ON

2012-13 2013-14 2014/2015 2015/2016

187

115

116

51 53

70

88

43

220

153 1

72

64

136

129

131

79

273

216

148

58

122

87

152

90

227

204

160

46

150

143 1

67

59

S E P T O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R

YEARLY COMPARISON OF REPORTS GENERATED PER MONTH

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-2016

A Community Code Moodle course will be delivered to all first year students starting September 2016.

A decrease in reports early on in the year will show that the course had an impact on student

behaviours

6 | P a g e

When looking at the 2015-2016 Academic Year Conduct breakdown by month it gives us

insight into which months we are seeing increased Code Violations. Charts like the ones above

allow us to go back and look at events and campus life each month that may have played a role

in the increase of behaviours. Although numbers differ from year to year the overall pattern

remains the same. When we average both the “Number of Reports Generated” and the

“Number of Students Reported On” we can see that there is a consistent relationship from year

to year. These spikes and or dips are the result of what we know about the Student Life Cycle,

as well as what we are doing in our own campus community. When we see spikes on the chart,

there have been consistent events planned at those times that have historically resulted in a

higher number of reports being generated and students being documented.

September is a month that has been consistently high with reports since 2012,

September is a time where students are still getting used to their environment, learning the

rules and testing the limits. School is often not as intensive at this time, so students feel like

they have time to partake in extra-curricular activities. The remaining spike points are a result

of consistent events from year to year including Orientation Week, First week of school,

Halloween, Homecoming, SuperSUBs, Last Class Bash and second semester events including

House Hockey Cups (BurMac,Laser, TNT/Chillis, TRIMAC, Plesis/OC), St. Patrick’s Day, Last &

Class Bash.

Monthly Breakdown

0

50

100

150

200

250

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Average # of Reports Generated Vs. Students Reported On from 2012-2016

Avg. IR's Received Avg. # of Students Reported on

7 | P a g e

We see that first and second year students are reported on at a higher rate

primarily because it tis those years that make up most of our Residence Community, once a

student hits their 3rd year many start seeking housing off-campus.

*Primarily male students get reported on more than female students.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Sex of Student Reported On

Male Female

Demographics

98

115

87

28

7672 73

44

73

49 48

17

5058

4032

7 814

48

4

178

2 2 1 1 1 4 215 4 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Year of Study

1 2 3 4 5+

8 | P a g e

Incident Reports are generated by a member of a designated reporting body, including

StFX Safety & Security Services, Residence Life Staff & the Inn staff. Incident reports get sent to

the Student Life Office where potential violations are assigned and then a conduct meeting is

scheduled with one of 5 potential adjudicators. For Minor Violations, or first time offenders,

the conduct meeting is set up with that student’s Residence Life Coordinator, and for any

higher level or repeat offenders the Conduct meeting is with the Student Conduct Officer. In

certain circumstances, the Director of Student Life will also take on conduct meetings. The

following chart breaks down the caseload of each adjudicator from the 2015-2016 academic

year.

It is important to note that in mid-January RLC Matthew Girard switched positions to the

Student Conduct Officer role, and Tyler Mckone took over the vacant RLC role. At this time all

parties took on a higher caseload to help ease the transition. Below is a building breakdown for

the Residence Life Coordinators:

• Maureen McEwan: Cameron, & MacKinnon Halls

• Matthew Wensink: (September 2015- Feb 2016) Bishops, Lane, Govs & Apts.

o (Feb 2016 – April 2016) – MacIsaac, Lane Hall

• Tyler McKone – (Feb 2016 – April 2016) Bishops Hall, Riley Hall, O’Regan Hall

• Matthew Girard –(Sept 2015 – Feb 2016) MacIsaac, O’Regan, & Riley Hall

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Conduct Meeting Breakdown

Matt G Tyler FEB* Matt W Maureen SCO DSL

Caseloads

9 | P a g e

The 2015-2016 Community Code of Conduct divides offences into 2 categories; Minor and Major. (Appendix D) Minor offenses are actions that are disruptive and disrespectful to others and can cause minor harm. Major offenses are actions that endanger the health and safety and/or security of another individual or the University Community. Major offenses also include actions that would break the Municipal, Provincial and Federal laws.

Types of Violations

228

187

147

36

87

166152

66

47

71

4226

4156

2137

0

50

100

150

200

250

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Minor Vs. Major Violations

Major Minor

Minor Violations

68

163

20

0 0 3

19 153 2 2 5 6 6 0

29

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p)

Total # of Minor Violations 2015-2016

10 | P a g e

The total number of Minor Violations for the 2015-2016 academic year where students were

‘found responsible’ reached 341. Throughout the 2015-2016 academic year Minor a), b), c), g),

h) & p) were most common. The following is a breakdown of the most common Minor

violations:

• Minor b) Making excessive noise- Made up 48% of Minor Violations

• Minor a) Possessing open alcohol – Made up 20% of Minor Violations

• Minor p) Possessing drug paraphernalia in Residence – Made up 9% of Minor Violations

• Minor c) Removing University common space furniture… Made up 6% of MVs

• Minor g) Failing to comply with or complete a code of conduct outcome: 6% of MVs

• Minor h) Having beer bottles in residence: Made up 4% of Minor Violations

Excessive noise continues to remain an issue, and we did see a spike in reports compared to

previous years because of the emphasis that was put on excessive noise within residence. We

have seen improvements in many buildings regarding the type and level of noise, and expect to

continue to see improvements as student staff members continue to educate students on

respect for the community.

0

50

100

150

200

250

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p)

Individual Minor Offences Comparison by Year

11/12 12/13 14/15 15/16

11 | P a g e

We also saw a rise in the amount of drug paraphernalia documented compared to

previous years, again most likely because of an increased focus on substance and protecting the

community from the harms associated with them. We have also done a lot of work on our drug

policy which brought many issues within residence regarding substance to light. From 2011 to

2016 Minor a), b), c), g), h), & p) remained the most consistently breached Code violations.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Minor Offences Yearly Comparison

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16

Major Violations

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r) s) t) u) v) w) x)

Total Major Violations

12 | P a g e

In total there were 1066 Major Violations assigned to reports where the student was

found in violation. Many times Major violations are assigned in combination, so this number

does not represent 1066 separate Incident Reports with one Major Violation. The following is a

breakdown of the most common Major Violations that students were found responsible for

(Please refer to the actual community code of conduct for the official terminology of each

violation):

• Major s) Underage Drinking…Made up 15% of all Major Violations

• Major t) Misusing or abusing alcohol, Drinking games…. Made up 11% of Majors

• Major p) Endangering the Health/Safety of self/others…Made up 11% of Majors

• Major a) Interfering with any University Official…Made up 8% of Major Violations

• Major i) engaging in any form of damage/theft…Made up 8% of Major Violations

• Major n) Possession/use/misuse of drugs & prescription Meds… Made up 8%

• Major w) Failing to comply with/complete an outcome…Made up 8%

Again we are seeing consistent trends from year to year with Major Violations, Major t),

s), p), a), i), w) & d) remain high as far back as 2011. We do notice that Major n) has fluctuated

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r) s) t) u) v) w) x)

Comparison of Individual Major Offences by Year

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16

13 | P a g e

throughout the years, with a noticeable difference between 2014/2015 & 2015/2016 academic

year.

Residence Life Conduct

1430

615

27

4935

25

49

10 1127

222

83

4330

165

0

50

100

150

200

250

Total Incident Reports filed per House

9

26

711

3026

20 2326

9 11

27

131

54

3126

113

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of Individual Students Named in a Report per House

14 | P a g e

The above graph is slightly misleading as each house does not have the same number of

students living within it. Houses at StFX range from 30–250 students at capacity. The graph

below takes in the number of students living within each house (not capacity) at the end of the

academic year to get a better idea of the percentage of students being documented within

each house, this gives us a much better comparison.

A note should be made that the percentage presented above shows us the number

of students that have had their names included in a report, this does not specifically mean that

they have also been found in violation. Nonetheless we see consistently high numbers in the

same buildings from year to year. This past year MacDonald House switched to an all first year

residence (except HP/VP) with the hopes of decreasing damage and reducing number of

reports filed, however the percentage of students named in reports increased by 1% from the

previous year. The consistently high percentage coming from both MacPherson and MacDonald

House is largely due to the rivalry & traditions that persist between/within the two house;

damages, and lack of respect to Residence Staff. MacIsaac also increased by 5% from last year,

but also experienced a higher number of students leaving the building to other Residence

buildings that better suited their lifestyle.

For the 2016/2017 academic year, MacIsaac, MacDonald, MacPherson & MacNeil

will be moving to all first year buildings due to negative traditions, damages and

documentations. An exception was made for the Tri-Macs to have 6 returning students.

8%

19%

11%

18%

38%

76%

47%

53%

87%

26% 28%

69%

60%

36%

21%

13%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage of Students Named in a Report per House

15 | P a g e

An outcome is given to a student who is found responsible for violating the StFX

Community Code. Consideration of the nature and severity of an incident is a predominant

factor when applying an outcome. Other factors that are taken into consideration are previous

violations a student has been found responsible for, the incident’s impact on the community

and the student’s capacity to recognize the above mentioned factors. Outcomes can be used

on their own or in combination with another outcome(s).

Table 1. Fines Issued

Year Total Fines Issued Total Monetary Amount

2012-2013 168 $11,965 2013-2014 274 $13,945

2014-2015 265 $12,375 2015-2016 276 $12,985

Table 2. Behaviour Bonds

Total Students Percentage Amount

Year 2014-2015 2015/2016 2014-2015 2015-2016 2014-2015 2015-2016 Issued 44 45 $9,750 $9,550

Forfeited 10 17 23% 38% $1,350 $1,650 Returned 28 27 64% 60% $7,100 $7,650

Outstanding 6 1 $1,300 $250

Community Code Outcomes

Monetary Outcomes

16 | P a g e

Table 3. Outcome frequency per year

Table 4. Educational Outcome frequency per year

# of

Students 2012-13

# of Students 2013-14

# of Students 2014-15

# of Students 2015-16

Alcohol Probation 110 99 80 84

Behavioral Contract 72 150 173 118

Premises Ban 50 70 67 59

Residence Probation

29 33 46 45

Loss of Student Privileges

16 3 4 13

Residence Suspension

11 7 7 6

Residence Expulsion

1 1 0 0

University Suspension

2 0 1 2

University Expulsion

0 1 0 0

Educational Outcomes

Total # of Students 2012-13

Total # of Students 2013-

14

Total # of Students 2014-

15

Total # of Students 2015-

16

Alcohol Workshop

83 81 102 78

Drug Workshop

27 20 16 39

Other*: 125 240 188 195

Educational Outcomes

17 | P a g e

18 | P a g e

The primary goal of the Community Code of Conduct is to be educational in nature.

Educational outcomes are developed and applied with student development as the focus. For

alcohol related violations, 78 students were referred to an “Alcohol Awareness Session”. These

sessions are facilitated by an Addictions Counselor with pre and post session tests. Each student

is asked to complete the questionnaire before and after each session to measure the increase

in knowledge retained from the session. In conjunction, Addictions Services also runs “Drug

Awareness Sessions”. 39 students were referred to the drug sessions this year.

Other forms of educational outcomes were utilized at this time as well. These include,

but are not limited to reflective essays, apology letters, informal meetings with the Human

Rights and Equity Advisor, Twitter campaigns, Slide show presentations, bulletin boards,

wellness contracts and the Community Code quiz. All outcomes listed above provide students

with an opportunity to reflect upon their actions. Students are encouraged to think about how

these actions impacted them as well as the community at large and how future Community

Code violations could be prevented.

A major goal for the upcoming school year is to move to a more holistic Student

centered approach in our conduct meetings, looking at all areas of the student’s life. This will

also allow us to develop more specific educational outcomes based on the needs of the student

at the time. A more holistic approach to conduct meetings will help us get to know the

students better, make them feel like and understand that we are truly here to help not to just

assign outcomes. We are all invested in the success of our students at StFX. Through outcomes

we hope to engage, develop, and create thoughtful students.

19 | P a g e

There were a total of 16 students involved in 7 Discipline Committee hearings

throughout the 2015-2016 academic year. We also experienced a higher number of Appeal

requests this past year, totaling 33. Of those 33 requests; 8 were dismissed, meaning they did

not provide sufficient grounds for the appeal to be heard by either the Director of Student Life

or the Appeals Committee. 6 appeals resulted in assigned outcomes being upheld, and 7

outcomes were varied, with a total of 12 cases being heard by the Appeals Committee. There

were 10 students who had intentions to appeal but no official appeal request form was

submitted, meaning that 23 appeal requests were officially submitted.

2013-2014 2014-2105 2015-2016 # of Appeal Request 33 18 33

# that did not submit Official Requests

1 10

# of Appeal requests dismissed

18 5 8

# of Appeals upheld 8 4 6

# of Appeal outcomes varied

7 4 7

Number of DC hearings 12 9 7

Number of Students involved in DC Hearings

28 10 16

Discipline & Appeals Committee

20 | P a g e

This is not a summary of the report however I will be highlighting stats that stood out,

and areas we should potentially be looking at to assess student needs and if our approach is

truly working the best it can be.

Keeping in-line with previous, there was no significant change in the number of reports

generated including both IR and FYIs. New this year, the monthly breakdown of IRs generated

were average from 2012 to 2016 to show consistent trends and or spikes. These spikes

correlate to both the Student Life Cycle as well as to large events on campus. If we want to

reduce the spikes we see, the University may want to look into reducing the number of

“primarily” drinking focused events and add more inclusive programming. Stats to look at in

the future would be specific break down of violations per month. This would help us see if

there are trends of certain behaviors at different points throughout the year, knowing this

could help us prepare and alter programming to address needs.

Percentage of Students in each house reported on:

There are a number of houses on campus that have an extremely high percentage of

students reported on. Even though the percentages are including both students found

responsible and not responsible, it is still an eye opening percentage. Below is a recap of the

highest percentages:

• MacDonald: 87%

• MacPherson: 79%

• Tompkins: 53%

• Thompson: 47%

• MacNeil: 69%

• MacIsaac: 60%

A note should be made that houses in Cameron Hall have a lower occupancy # than other

buildings, and often the students hang out altogether which could be part of the reason that

there is such a high percentage in those houses. High percentages leads us to ask the

Notes & Recommendations

IR Breakdown by Month

21 | P a g e

questions: are we documenting too much when some of the lower level violations could be

dealt with through a conversation with the floor RA/ or by StFX Safety & Security Services.

Two most common minor offences included Minor a) Possessing open alcohol in an

unlicensed or public area and b) Making Excessive noise or misusing/ abusing powerful

speakers and or subwoofers. Open alcohol violations remains high from year to year and slows

down the conduct system for both RLCs and the SCO when a much more meaningful

conversation could be had by that student’s Resident Assistant. An idea that is worth

considering is having RAs meet with students on their floor who commit minor violations, this

will help empower the RA on the floor, give them more of a community management approach

and create a much deeper relationship with the student. With any change will we need to

provide extra training for the RAs and RLCs. Defining open alcohol a little more for the RAs will

also help avoid unnecessary documentations.

Excessive noise was focused on a little more than previous years which is why we saw an

increase in documentations for this. The focus on excessive noise was designed to help educate

students on being respectful to all students in their residence, and creating a much friendlier

environment for all. There is still progress to be made with noise levels, and this will happen

through continued education and a focus on respect on each floor.

Most common Major violations included Major p), s) & t), these three violations are

generally used in tandem when there are drinking games, or an over intoxicated student.

Majority of the time, students are not documented solely for underage drinking, Major s) is

added on after the student is breaking a separate code violation, that involves alcohol. With

the community management piece that we hope to put into action a little more in the

upcoming year, we could see Major s) violations coming in at a higher rate, especially in

buildings that moved to all first years. This will also take more training, because Resident Staff

typically have not documented for underage drinking on its own.

Future recommendations would be to breakdown which violations are happening most

in each building. This would allow us to if it the same type of behaviors happening in each

house from year to year and we could adapt different strategies for each house depending on

what violations are occurring. Another stat that would be interesting to run would be a

breakdown of violations by month, to see if time of the year plays a role on which specific

violations we are seeing. Right now we only get a total number of minor/major violations per

month.

Minor & Major Violations

22 | P a g e

We saw an increase in the number of appeals from last year as well as an increase in the

number of outcomes varied through the appeals process. This could indicate a number of

things; new evidence could have come up that was not present at the time of the

hearing/decision, the outcomes didn’t match the need of the student or the outcome was

unfair based on the facts of the incident. A recommendation for tracking appeals and

outcomes that get varied may be to the Appeals Committee note a general reason for the

varied outcome. This will help us track at the end of the year as well as give us feedback on the

types of outcomes we are assigning.

Appeals