Audit finds risk, consequences within UNI’s Compliance and Equity Management Office

CEDAR FALLS — A critical audit of the University of Northern Iowa’s Office of Compliance and Equity Management — responsible for making sure UNI offers equal education opportunities and complies with state and federal laws like Title IX and affirmative action — uncovered shortcomings that could “expose the university to unacceptable risks” and “result in serious consequences.”

“The current governance and reporting structure for (the office) does not promote collaboration with the necessary and appropriate functional areas of the institution, resulting in inefficiencies and the risk for non-compliance with university policy, and state and federal laws and regulations,” according to the April internal audit being presented to the Board of Regents this week.

Citing the imperative for cross-campus collaboration — including with departments like human resources, facilities management, public safety, the dean of students, and Division of Student Life — the audit found UNI’s compliance office director instead “reports only to the president for all responsibilities.”

Given the Compliance and Equity Management Office director also is UNI’s designated Title IX and Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator, “significant coordination and collaboration is required with many functional areas and employees across the institution.”

“Multiple interviews conducted in fieldwork identified that management of this office does not appropriately share information with key process or compliance stakeholders across the institution,” according to the audit. “This has limited the ability of multiple functional areas within the institution to effectively and efficiently carry out their responsibilities.”

DEI landscape

The audit comes as all three of Iowa’s public universities are implementing 10 diversity, equity, and inclusion “directives” the Board of Regents imposed in the fall following widespread criticism and questions from Republican lawmakers about how much money and effort the campuses are putting toward DEI.

Among the directives — many of which lawmakers this session codified in a bill making its way to the governor’s desk — is one requiring the universities eliminate DEI functions not necessary for compliance or accreditation and another mandating they review DEI positions and services to ensure they’re necessary. One directive required a new systemwide policy, consistent with federal law, barring “the consideration of race and other protected class characteristics in admissions.”

Regents adopted such a policy in February, months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in college admissions.

Legislative questions about diversity, equity, and inclusion across Iowa’s public universities have been ramping up over the years — with lawmakers in October 2021 asking the campuses how they “empirically measure the value” of DEI initiatives and how many full-time-equivalent positions each campus had designated as DEI.

The University of Iowa at that time reported 41; Iowa State University reported 75; and UNI reported about five — none of which were tied to its Office of Compliance and Equity Management. When lawmakers asked the universities in February 2023 how many DEI or social justice staff members they each had, UI reported 44, ISU reported 64, and UNI reported 21.

None of UNI’s 21 were listed as working in the Compliance and Equity Management Office.

When the regents in March of that year appointed a working group to study all DEI programs on the campuses, that group reported on UNI’s Compliance and Equity Management Office and its role processing discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct reports and preparing and administering UNI’s affirmative action plan.

That regent study group — like the internal audit — also reported the office was separate from UNI’s chief diversity officer and Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice office and was led by a direct report to the president.

Hiring, budget concerns

That separation and lack of coordination — again — was cited by internal investigators throughout their audit, like their look into UNI’s hiring process. Given the Compliance and Equity Management Office’s heavy hand in hiring, auditors reported duplicated efforts and inefficiencies and a lack of policy guidance for the office’s involvement.

“The extensive involvement also increases the risk that the hiring process is heavily influenced by one office or individual acting based not upon policy and procedure, but their own opinions and preferences,” according to the audit, which reported UNI’s administrative response is underway.

“Changes to the hiring process and the hiring workflow are already under development,” according to the audit. “Affirmative action procedures and policies will be updated as this implementation process unfolds.”

Citing budget concerns with the office, auditors uncovered deficits totaling nearly $400,000 over the last five years — with both the 2021 and 2023 budget years exceeding $100,000 alone.

“This averages out to a nearly $80,000 deficit per year on an average annual budget of nearly $410,000 — or 20 percent overspending,” according to the audit. “These deficits have grown despite an over $60,000 (16 percent) increase in the budget over the past five years.”

In the 2023 budget year, the office spent $565,000 — up 43 percent over $395,000 in 2019. That, according to the audit, breaks down to a $93,000, or 29 percent increase in salaries and benefits, and a $77,000, or 112 percent increase, in other expenses.

“Despite these continued deficits, no formalized plan has been created to align budgeting practices and spending,” according to the audit, reporting management has promised changes going forward.

“A budget that meets the anticipated programmatic needs of the (office) will be developed for fiscal 2025.”

Perhaps indicative of rampant changes across various Title IX and related compliance regulations at the federal level, auditors found the UNI compliance office hasn’t kept up — discovering within its campus policies outdated language, incorrect references, and inconsistencies “resulting in non-compliance.”

“To verify accurate information consistent with the most current laws and regulations, management should establish an annual process for reviewing these policies,” according to the audit. “This review process should include consultation with other university officials, such as the Clery compliance officer, dean of students, and Office of University Counsel, to provide consistency across policies and accurate representation of legal requirements and university expectations.”

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

Comments: (319) 339-3158; vanessa.miller@thegazette.com