During the quarter, our team has engaged in research and discussions over the issues of safety and security. In addition to in-depth research on different components of a campus community, we have also conducted research in relation to public housing, prisons, and violent gangs. In response to our observations and learning from research done by the others, our team recommends various policies to address the issues of safety and security at UCLA and its surrounding area.
Problem-oriented Policies
We start by responding to the observation that safety issues on campus are of various forms and are caused by a wide range of causes. Furthermore, safety issues that have been dealt with may reappear in different forms or due to different causes. From time to time, new safety issues are also expected to emerge. This leads to the need for solutions and policies to be revised regularly. Hence, in addition to standard policies, the campus can benefit from problem-oriented policies.
We believe that the institution of a commission dedicated to investigating and discussing safety and security on campus is helpful in informing campus communities of safety issues and solutions. This commission shall also include representatives from the student body, the faculty, the administration, UCPD, the Westwood Neighborhood Council, and other relevant groups to provide a broad scope of coverage. The committee shall also include at least one night time staff to enhance the discussion of safety issue at night.
Additionally, the commission shall also hold regular (semi-quarterly / quarterly) public conferences to collect feedback from members of the campus and to report on campus safety and security. Products of the commission, such as safety audits and recommended solutions/safety tips, shall also be distributed in the form of newsletters and/or published by the Daily Bruin.
We also believe that treatment-based policies can be better implemented by the proposed commission. In our research on violent gangs, we observe that youth violence is an especially important issue and that the best solution focuses on treatment rather suppression. We recommend problem-oriented policies in the form of treatment and education, although reasonable suppression should be maintained. Without a strong stance against violence and proper education against committing crime, students may fail to develop a healthy sense of what is right and wrong. This sense of insecurity can also cause students to develop aggressive behaviors as a way of defending themselves and coping with a dangerous campus environment. As in gang prevention practices, it is important for society to invest in and educate misguided individuals rather than blindly punish them.
Isolation and Tolerance
Isolation creates barriers to the formation of a mutually-supportive community, facilitates crime against different people, and prevents effective communication with victims when crimes have been committed. To address the issue of isolation, there ought to be policies targeted at reducing isolation of two types: (1) isolation among individuals within the campus (by race, sexual orientation, entering status, etc), and (2) isolation between the campus community and the outside world.
Open discussions that prioritize the issue of diversity can contribute to the instigation of diversity-building programs other than the Diversity Requirement. Members of the campus should also be held accountable for behaviors that unreasonably marginalize minority groups. Overall, the goal should be to promote at-risk populations’ accessibility to academic, security, and wellness resources, as such accessibility can contribute to abating isolation.
Efforts and policies that advocate increases in social tolerance shall also be developed. Furthermore, a more consensual stance on the issue and methods of diversity, among different members of the campus, can also benefit the campus through effective implementation and advocacy. These initiatives have the potential to protect students from being marginalized and isolated.
Most programs and activities on campus that promote friendships and mutual-support among students (e.g. Ally Week) have been student-initiated and student-led. In order to enhance the positive impacts of these events, we see the need for the university to begin co-funding and advocating for them. Based on our research on prisons, a commission mimicking the Los Angeles Human Relations Commission (see Appendix for the entity’s background) can also be established to better target the issue of social isolation.
Sharing similarities with the environment of a prison, a closed campus community might suffer isolation from the outside world. Just like people from the outside world perceive prisoners to be more dangerous, people from the outside world can also incorrectly perceive students to be more vulnerable and see them as “easy targets”. Monitored efforts to diminish the social barrier between students and the outside world can safely expose students to the real world. This provides students the opportunity to learn how to defend themselves in the outside world and seek help from a broad variety of sources in reporting crimes and potential threats. Interacting with a more diversified world can also reduce the likelihood that students form intangible barriers among themselves. In a monitored community, such as a campus or a prison, members often group themselves by race/sex/religion as they stay within their comfort zones. Exposure to an outside--less monitored--world allows students to learn that true safety and harmony are achieved when people of different backgrounds can communicate and live with each other peacefully and tolerantly.
Design and Use of Campus Space
The design of campus space directly affects how people use such spaces, hence affecting safety and security. Architects and urban planning specialists shall be consulted on the topic of defensible space. Defensible space strategies manipulate different techniques concerning the use of space. In the short-run, this includes landscaping and pathways. In the long-run, strategies target the design and the location of a building or a structure.
In our research on public housing sites, we observed that most crimes are less likely to occur when visibility of the surroundings is maximized. This informs residents of potential threats and signals potential criminals that they can be easily seen and caught if they commit crimes. Utilizing this idea, the campus can make use of public space in relation to private spaces. For instance, stairwells should be covered with wide, clear glasses and corridors should be designed with minimal corners. While staying “green”, plantings should not obscure potential threats. Finally, people’s heights should be taken into consideration to ensure the visibility and accessibility of safety devices (e.g. fire alarms, 911 Quick Link stations).
Campus administration can also manipulate on-campus activities to better enhance safety. Assignment of classrooms for the night time, for example, should be clustered among buildings closer to parking structures or bus stops. Time-adaptive rules, such as allowing cross-structure parking at night, can also modify how the campus is used at different times to more effectively target issues that are common or unique during those times.
Additionally, we recommend regular audits of safety hardware on campus, such as the “Bruin Alert” system and emergency light poles, to ensure that they are functioning when there is an actual emergency. Since these devices also serve as instruments that signal the campus’ seriousness in dealing with crimes, it is also important that these devices are well-maintained and functional.
Borders Management and Partnerships
The border between a college and the town it resides in are blurred in reality, but in terms of policies these borders act as obstacles to ensuring a safe environment. The relationship between these two entities is vital to policy improvements that increase the safety of the overall environment of the locale. Gumprecht’s 2003 article on the American College Town describes that a college town is not simply a town or city with a college residing in it, but rather where the college exerts its influence and presence on the town itself.
College campuses often utilize the surrounding town for services such as housing, and students constantly pass between the campus and city border. As a result, ensuring safety for college students not only means creating a safe campus, but also a safe surrounding environment as well.
UC Davis and Davis are an example of how colleges and their towns should interact in regards to safety. After a chaotic 2010 Picnic Day, the Davis City Council and UC Davis planned on canceling the event. However, both entities took responsibility and cooperated by issuing city ordinances that restricted sale of alcohol on that day.
On the other hand, based on our research and observation, UCLA and Westwood do not seem to have as cooperative of a relationship. UCPD crime reports show that there is a high concentration of assaults between Veteran and Gayley apartment area; however, neither apartment managers nor the UCLA administration want to pay for increased Community Service Officer (CSO) (See Appendix for CSO’s background) presence in the area. A college and its town must cooperate in order to ensure the safest educational experience.
Our research on public housing also shows that the movements of residents significantly affect the source of crimes--whether it originates internally or externally. In agreement with our research on public housing sites, we observe that crimes committed against students and those committed by students often occur beyond the campus borders and in Westwood.
This leads us to recommend that the borders between UCLA and Westwood be reevaluated when developing crime prevention strategies. As we mentioned earlier, representatives of the Westwood Village Council and Westwood communities shall be included in the safety and security commission on campus. Stronger partnership between the two communities--the campus and Westwood--shall also be built when dealing with safety issues concerning students and residents/businesses in Westwood.
We applaud UCPD’s coverage and reasonable jurisdiction over Westwood. We recommend that the current situation where one enforcement entity oversees both the campus and Westwood be maintained. We also recommend that both the campus and Westwood communities embrace and support the system where UCPD is charged to monitor safety issues of both regions. Additionally, we recommend other forms of security presence such as the Community Service Officer Program should be integrated into Westwood.
Appendix
Human Relations Commission:
The Human Relations Commission, a city agency, contributes to eliminating community-related isolation. They implement programs to make sure that youths and college students have positive experience in education as they recognize that youths do not have many alternatives for self advancement. Instead of just taking the perspective of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) as representative of the city, the commission’s goal is to promote a better understanding of LA and available resources. The commission provides alternative perspectives, training, and opportunities for youths.
The Human Relations Commission came out of the 1965 Mclaren Report in response to the LA Watts Riots and civil unrest. The focus is to recognize citizens‘ and LA residents‘ rights so that they won’t be inappropriately policed or exploited by government agencies such as the LAPD. The Human Relations Commission is also charged to resolve conflict and to ensure that LA residents have a voice in everyday life and government.
Community Service Officer (CSO):
The concept of community service officers was first publicly advocated by the United States government in 1977. Although initially implemented to compliment neighborhood police forces, college campuses soon followed suit. UCLA established its community service officer program that same year—1977. The UCLA CSO program serves as the “eyes and ears” of the UCPD and provides safety and escort services to both UCLA’s students and visitors. The CSO program deploys approximately 17 officers per night and can be accessed through a simple phone call service: (310) 825-4774.
Problem-oriented Policies
We start by responding to the observation that safety issues on campus are of various forms and are caused by a wide range of causes. Furthermore, safety issues that have been dealt with may reappear in different forms or due to different causes. From time to time, new safety issues are also expected to emerge. This leads to the need for solutions and policies to be revised regularly. Hence, in addition to standard policies, the campus can benefit from problem-oriented policies.
We believe that the institution of a commission dedicated to investigating and discussing safety and security on campus is helpful in informing campus communities of safety issues and solutions. This commission shall also include representatives from the student body, the faculty, the administration, UCPD, the Westwood Neighborhood Council, and other relevant groups to provide a broad scope of coverage. The committee shall also include at least one night time staff to enhance the discussion of safety issue at night.
Additionally, the commission shall also hold regular (semi-quarterly / quarterly) public conferences to collect feedback from members of the campus and to report on campus safety and security. Products of the commission, such as safety audits and recommended solutions/safety tips, shall also be distributed in the form of newsletters and/or published by the Daily Bruin.
We also believe that treatment-based policies can be better implemented by the proposed commission. In our research on violent gangs, we observe that youth violence is an especially important issue and that the best solution focuses on treatment rather suppression. We recommend problem-oriented policies in the form of treatment and education, although reasonable suppression should be maintained. Without a strong stance against violence and proper education against committing crime, students may fail to develop a healthy sense of what is right and wrong. This sense of insecurity can also cause students to develop aggressive behaviors as a way of defending themselves and coping with a dangerous campus environment. As in gang prevention practices, it is important for society to invest in and educate misguided individuals rather than blindly punish them.
Isolation and Tolerance
Isolation creates barriers to the formation of a mutually-supportive community, facilitates crime against different people, and prevents effective communication with victims when crimes have been committed. To address the issue of isolation, there ought to be policies targeted at reducing isolation of two types: (1) isolation among individuals within the campus (by race, sexual orientation, entering status, etc), and (2) isolation between the campus community and the outside world.
Open discussions that prioritize the issue of diversity can contribute to the instigation of diversity-building programs other than the Diversity Requirement. Members of the campus should also be held accountable for behaviors that unreasonably marginalize minority groups. Overall, the goal should be to promote at-risk populations’ accessibility to academic, security, and wellness resources, as such accessibility can contribute to abating isolation.
Efforts and policies that advocate increases in social tolerance shall also be developed. Furthermore, a more consensual stance on the issue and methods of diversity, among different members of the campus, can also benefit the campus through effective implementation and advocacy. These initiatives have the potential to protect students from being marginalized and isolated.
Most programs and activities on campus that promote friendships and mutual-support among students (e.g. Ally Week) have been student-initiated and student-led. In order to enhance the positive impacts of these events, we see the need for the university to begin co-funding and advocating for them. Based on our research on prisons, a commission mimicking the Los Angeles Human Relations Commission (see Appendix for the entity’s background) can also be established to better target the issue of social isolation.
Sharing similarities with the environment of a prison, a closed campus community might suffer isolation from the outside world. Just like people from the outside world perceive prisoners to be more dangerous, people from the outside world can also incorrectly perceive students to be more vulnerable and see them as “easy targets”. Monitored efforts to diminish the social barrier between students and the outside world can safely expose students to the real world. This provides students the opportunity to learn how to defend themselves in the outside world and seek help from a broad variety of sources in reporting crimes and potential threats. Interacting with a more diversified world can also reduce the likelihood that students form intangible barriers among themselves. In a monitored community, such as a campus or a prison, members often group themselves by race/sex/religion as they stay within their comfort zones. Exposure to an outside--less monitored--world allows students to learn that true safety and harmony are achieved when people of different backgrounds can communicate and live with each other peacefully and tolerantly.
Design and Use of Campus Space
The design of campus space directly affects how people use such spaces, hence affecting safety and security. Architects and urban planning specialists shall be consulted on the topic of defensible space. Defensible space strategies manipulate different techniques concerning the use of space. In the short-run, this includes landscaping and pathways. In the long-run, strategies target the design and the location of a building or a structure.
In our research on public housing sites, we observed that most crimes are less likely to occur when visibility of the surroundings is maximized. This informs residents of potential threats and signals potential criminals that they can be easily seen and caught if they commit crimes. Utilizing this idea, the campus can make use of public space in relation to private spaces. For instance, stairwells should be covered with wide, clear glasses and corridors should be designed with minimal corners. While staying “green”, plantings should not obscure potential threats. Finally, people’s heights should be taken into consideration to ensure the visibility and accessibility of safety devices (e.g. fire alarms, 911 Quick Link stations).
Campus administration can also manipulate on-campus activities to better enhance safety. Assignment of classrooms for the night time, for example, should be clustered among buildings closer to parking structures or bus stops. Time-adaptive rules, such as allowing cross-structure parking at night, can also modify how the campus is used at different times to more effectively target issues that are common or unique during those times.
Additionally, we recommend regular audits of safety hardware on campus, such as the “Bruin Alert” system and emergency light poles, to ensure that they are functioning when there is an actual emergency. Since these devices also serve as instruments that signal the campus’ seriousness in dealing with crimes, it is also important that these devices are well-maintained and functional.
Borders Management and Partnerships
The border between a college and the town it resides in are blurred in reality, but in terms of policies these borders act as obstacles to ensuring a safe environment. The relationship between these two entities is vital to policy improvements that increase the safety of the overall environment of the locale. Gumprecht’s 2003 article on the American College Town describes that a college town is not simply a town or city with a college residing in it, but rather where the college exerts its influence and presence on the town itself.
College campuses often utilize the surrounding town for services such as housing, and students constantly pass between the campus and city border. As a result, ensuring safety for college students not only means creating a safe campus, but also a safe surrounding environment as well.
UC Davis and Davis are an example of how colleges and their towns should interact in regards to safety. After a chaotic 2010 Picnic Day, the Davis City Council and UC Davis planned on canceling the event. However, both entities took responsibility and cooperated by issuing city ordinances that restricted sale of alcohol on that day.
On the other hand, based on our research and observation, UCLA and Westwood do not seem to have as cooperative of a relationship. UCPD crime reports show that there is a high concentration of assaults between Veteran and Gayley apartment area; however, neither apartment managers nor the UCLA administration want to pay for increased Community Service Officer (CSO) (See Appendix for CSO’s background) presence in the area. A college and its town must cooperate in order to ensure the safest educational experience.
Our research on public housing also shows that the movements of residents significantly affect the source of crimes--whether it originates internally or externally. In agreement with our research on public housing sites, we observe that crimes committed against students and those committed by students often occur beyond the campus borders and in Westwood.
This leads us to recommend that the borders between UCLA and Westwood be reevaluated when developing crime prevention strategies. As we mentioned earlier, representatives of the Westwood Village Council and Westwood communities shall be included in the safety and security commission on campus. Stronger partnership between the two communities--the campus and Westwood--shall also be built when dealing with safety issues concerning students and residents/businesses in Westwood.
We applaud UCPD’s coverage and reasonable jurisdiction over Westwood. We recommend that the current situation where one enforcement entity oversees both the campus and Westwood be maintained. We also recommend that both the campus and Westwood communities embrace and support the system where UCPD is charged to monitor safety issues of both regions. Additionally, we recommend other forms of security presence such as the Community Service Officer Program should be integrated into Westwood.
Appendix
Human Relations Commission:
The Human Relations Commission, a city agency, contributes to eliminating community-related isolation. They implement programs to make sure that youths and college students have positive experience in education as they recognize that youths do not have many alternatives for self advancement. Instead of just taking the perspective of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) as representative of the city, the commission’s goal is to promote a better understanding of LA and available resources. The commission provides alternative perspectives, training, and opportunities for youths.
The Human Relations Commission came out of the 1965 Mclaren Report in response to the LA Watts Riots and civil unrest. The focus is to recognize citizens‘ and LA residents‘ rights so that they won’t be inappropriately policed or exploited by government agencies such as the LAPD. The Human Relations Commission is also charged to resolve conflict and to ensure that LA residents have a voice in everyday life and government.
Community Service Officer (CSO):
The concept of community service officers was first publicly advocated by the United States government in 1977. Although initially implemented to compliment neighborhood police forces, college campuses soon followed suit. UCLA established its community service officer program that same year—1977. The UCLA CSO program serves as the “eyes and ears” of the UCPD and provides safety and escort services to both UCLA’s students and visitors. The CSO program deploys approximately 17 officers per night and can be accessed through a simple phone call service: (310) 825-4774.