A Review of Crime on University of California campuses

-::If :f'J-. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor ... ..: ..... COMMISSION ON CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMY . ~"';, 1127 -11th Street, SuIte 550, (916)445-2125 ,- ,,; ... . ~ Sacramento 95814 r.,,,,, •• '· Chairman NATHAN SHAPELL June 15, 1987 Vice-Chairman HAIG G. MARDI KlAN ALFRED E. ALQUIST Senator MARY ANNE CHALKER ALBERT GERSTEN. JR. MILTON MARKS Senator The Honorable George Deukmejian GWEN MOORE Assemblywoman Governor of California M. LESTER OSHEA GEORGE E PARAS The Honorable David A. Roberti The Honorable Kenneth L. Maddy ABRAHAM SPIEGEL President pro Tempore of the Senate Senate Minority Floor Leader and Members of the Senate RICHARDRTERZIAN JEAN KiNDY WALKER PHILUP D. WYMAN The Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. The Honorable Patrick Nolan Speaker of the Assembly Assembly Minority Floor Leader ROBERT T O'NEILL £xec:.:we C·rec:or and Members of the Assembly Dear Governor and Members of the Legislature: The Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, also known as the Little Hoover Commission, has conducted a review of crime on University of California (UC) campuses. The Commission's interest in this issue resulted from a number of well-publicized violent incidents that have occurred on UC campuses. These include: o The rape of a student in her dormitory room at UC Santa Barbara in mid-February 1987; o The rape of a female student in her dormitory room at UCLA in January 1987; o The reported rape of a female student in her dormitory room at UC Berkeley in January 1987; and o The well-publicized "acquaintance rape" case at UC Berkeley in October 1986. Moreover, within the past few years other violent crimes have occurred on UC campuses, such as: a robbery. and attempted murder in one of the UCLA residence facilities in December 1985; and, two murders and a third attempted murder at UC Davis in late 1985. These events, combined with the recent incidents, heightened the Commission's concern regarding the adequacy of the security provided on UC campuses and led to the Commission's study of this issue. In addition to being concerned that the University provide adequate security for students, staff and visitors, the Commission was worried about the UC system's potential legal liability for crimes committed on UC campuses. The Commission initiated its study of crimes on UC campuses in February 1987. As a part of this study, the Commission collected data from the University police departments, campus administrators and systemwide (ThiS letterhead not printed at taxpayers expense} -2- officials, as well as from other outside sources. The Commission staff had meetings with various UC campus police departments, administrators and systemwide officials. The Commission also held a public hearing at UCLA on March 4, 1987 at which the Commission took testimony from University students, administrators and UC campus chiefs of police, and concerned members of the public. The Commission found that the UC campuses are not immune from the increasing problem of crime that is affecting society at large. While there are limitations in using crime statistics for comparisons, the Commission's review indicated that the campuses in the UC system have a relatively higher crime rate than other higher educational institutions in the nation of similar size that report their crime statistics to the Federal Bureau o.f Investigation. Moreover, the UC campuses have been experiencing an increase in reports of serious crimes in recent years, particularly on the urban campuses at Berkeley and UCLA. There are two primary reasons for the increasing number of crimes reported on these campuses. First, according to University officials, there is a growing problem of undesirable outsiders coming onto UC campuses. Second, there appears to be an increased willingness on the part of UC students and staff to report crimes. The Commission also found that some UC campuses have been experiencing problems in fully staffing their police departments and that some UC campuses may not be effectively coordinating security activities. Finally, the Commission determined that acquaintance rape is a significant problem on UC campuses that needs to be fully addressed. To address these problems, the Commission recommends that each UC campus appoint a security review committee to assess current security practices and identify any needed improvements. The Commission also recommends that the UC system and campus administrators review current security planning and budgeting processes to ensure that security activities are appropriately coordinated and funded. Lastly, the Commission recommends that each UC campus develop a strong rape prevention and education program, as well as a uniform disciplinary process. The remainder of this letter provides more specific background on UC security administration, the level of crime at UC campuses, the causes for the increase in crime on UC campuses, additional problems and solutions that UC administrators and police departments are currently addressing, and the Commission's recommendations. BACKGROUND The University of California operates an educational system that includes nine campuses and serves 147,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The UC system maintains police departments at each of the nine campuses. Presently, the nine campuses are authorized a total of 310 sworn peace officers. These sworn personnel are supplemented at each of the system's campuses by other personnel, including student aides and non-sworn security guards. Exhibit I provides a summary of the sworn peace officers and other security personnel at each of the UC campuses. -3- The responsibility for campus security on UC campuses is decentralized among the nine individual campuses. General policy and personnel matters are handled on a systemwide basis by the Office of the Senior Vice President for Administration. In addition, one of the campus Chiefs of Police serves as a Coordinator of Police Services for the nine campuses overall. The police department on each campus reports to the Chancellor of that campus. Each Chancellor is individually responsible for setting the funding level for his or her own campus. Therefore, the security programs at each campus differ as to funding, staffing levels, and operations. EXHIBIT I NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL UC CAMPUS SECURITY 1 2 Campus Sworn Officers Security Guards Other Total Berkeley 72 10 121 203 Davis 47 12 168 227 Irvine 22 25 110 157 Los Angeles 60 6 258 324 Riverside 13 3 37 53 San Diego 24 8 68 100 San Francisco 25 31 9 65 3 Santa Barbara 32 0 78 110 Santa Cruz 15 5 5 25 4 Total 310 100 854 1,264 1 Includes protective service officers and security guards who are primarily unarmed personnel. 2 Includes administrative, parking, paramedic, part-time and student employees. 3 Three police officer positions are left vacant and the funds are used to provide 48 Student Community Service Officers. 4 Totals do not include police forces at Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. SOURCE: Coordinator of Police Services, University of California. Based on March 1987 data. -4- Exhibit II provides a summary of the level of security funding for each of the UC campuses and the UC system as a whole. EXHIBIT II UC CAMPUS SECURITY BUDGETS 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 Overtime/ Operating Campus Personnel Costs Casual Help Expenses Total Berkeley $5,293,688 $259,512 $2,350,562 $7,903,762 Davis 1,836,878 236,404 1,125,113 3,198,395 Irvine 1,649,337 322,531 548,629 2,520,497 Los Angeles 4,055,864 196,831 1,023,635 5,276,330 Riverside 595,262 143,000 83,000 821,262 San Diego 1,107,669 286,962 1,906,659 3,301,290 San Francisco 1,897,000 357,000 1,093,000 3,347,000 Santa Barbara 1,624,774 77,348 280,275 1,982,397 Santa Cruz 780,400 92,542 132,141 1,005,083 2 Total $18,840,872 $1,972,130 $8,543,014 $29,356,016 1 Does not include budgets of the UC police forces at Lawrence Berkeley or Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. 2 Includes approximately $12.7 million in sworn personnel costs. Source: Individual campuses of the University of California. -5- Exhibit II shows that the funding for security varies considerably from campus to campus. For example, UC Berkeley spends approximately $7.9 million a year while UC Riverside spends approximately $821,000 annually. Generally speaking, the urban campuses devote more funding to security. Moreover, those UC campuses with teaching hospitals and major research facilities devote more funding to security due to the increased security needs associated with such facilities. Finding til The UC System Has a Relatively Higher Crime Rate Than Other Higher Educational Institutions There are a variety of factors that influence the volume and type of crime that is reported on college campuses in the UC system and across the United States. However, notwithstanding these limitations, crime statistics are useful indicators of the relative level of crime occurring on college campuses. The Commission's review indicated that the UC system has a considerably higher crime rate than the average crime rate of the approximately 120 other campuses in the nation with enrollment greater than 10,000 students as reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There have been a few studies done recently that have compared campus crime rates. However, the most recent and comprehensive information that the Commission identified in its review was the annual crime statistics published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Relative crime rates are difficult to judge and compare, primarily because varying factors may influence both the actual amount of crime in a given area, and secondarily because differences in reporting methods or definitions may affect the crime rate reported. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, in its annual publication entitled Crime in the United States, says that many factors influence the volume and type of crime in a given area, including, but not limited to: o Population density and degree of urbanization with size of locality and its surrounding area. o Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration. o Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors. o Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. o Administrative and investigative emphasis of law enforcement. o Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). o Attitudes of citizenry toward crime. o Crime reporting practices of citizenry. -6- The FBI further states that "caution should be exercised in making any inter-campus comparisons or ranking schools, as university/college crime statistics are affected by a variety of factors. These include: demographic characteristics of the surrounding community, ratio of male to female students, number of on-campus residents, accessibility of outside visitors, size of enrollment, etc." The Commission analyzed the 1985 crime statistics from 120 of the 357 college and university campuses listed in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual crime statistics report. Each of these 120 campuses had enrollment of 10,000 or more students. Exhibit III presents the results of this analysis. Exhibit III indicates that the DC system has a higher rate of violent crimes, property crimes, and total crimes per 1,000 students than the average for the approximately 120 higher education institutions with enrollment of 10,000 or more students that are listed in the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime statistics. For example, the number of violent crimes per 1,000 students in the DC system is 1.03 as compared to an average of .71 violent crimes per 1,000 students for other higher educational institutions surveyed. Thus, the DC violent crime rate is approximately 45 percent higher than the average computed for the university and college campuses reviewed. Similarly, Exhibit III indicates that the number of property crimes committed on DC campuses is 60.83 per 1,000 students versus the average computed in this study of 35.18 property crimes per 1,000 students. Thus, the DC property crime rate is 73 percent higher than the average for the other higher educational institutions reviewed. -7- EXHIBIT III COMPARISON OF CRIME RATE IN UC SYSTEM WITH OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS HAVING ENROLLMENT OF 10,000 OR MORE STUDENTS Number of 1.2 - Violent 1.03 Crimes 1.0 - Per 1,000 Students .8 - .71 .6 -, .4 - - .2 Average UC System for HIgher Educat lona I InstItutIons 60 8'l Number of 60 Property Crimes 50 - Per 1, 000 Students 40 35.18 30 20 - 10 - - Average UC System for HIgher EducatIonal InstItutIons 61.84 Total 60 - Number of Crimes 50 - Per 1,000 Students 40 - 35.89 30 - 20 - 10 - Average UC System for HIgher EducatIonal InstItutIons Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, July 27, 1986. Based on 1985 crime reports. -8- Finally, the total number of violent and property crimes per 1,000 students is 61.84 in the UC system versus the average for other higher educational institutions reviewed of 35.89 per 1,000 students. Thus, the number of total crimes per 1,000 students at UC is 72 percent higher than the average for the 120 college and university campuses reviewed. Discussions with staff and students at various University of California campuses have provided various reasons for the recent increase in crime on the campuses. Generally, there are two main reasons provided for the increased level of crime on UC campuses. These include the presence of undesirable outsiders on campus and an increase in the willingness of students and staff to report crimes. Undesirable Outsiders on Campus Several of the urban and suburban campuses have had major problems with youth gangs and outsiders with prior criminal records coming onto campus during the past few years. For example: o The current and former police chiefs at UCLA have indicated that the campus and adjacent Westwood Village have become a major meeting place for various youth gangs and criminals from as far as 40 miles away. The UCLA Police Department estimates that as many as 95 percent of the violent crimes committed on campus may be committed by non-students or staff. Problems with gang members on campus have become so bad in the last several years that, in 1985 and 1986, the UCLA Police Department refused to admit known youth gang members and groups to the campus during the annual Mardi Gras celebration. Over 600 gang members were turned away each year. Moreover, at the 1987 Mardi Gras there were two gang-related shootings. Finally, during the last few years, UCLA students and staff have seriously considered curtailing or abandoning several traditional celebrations because they attract so many outsiders and so much trouble; o UC Irvine has experienced a cyclical increase in local ethnic youth gang activity. This is indicated by an increasing number of gang members in 1985 and 1986 who were arrested for various criminal activities on or adjacent to campus; and o According to the Chief of Police at Berkeley, the southern end of the campus and adjacent areas have become a haven for street gangs and other criminals from Richmond, Oakland, and other surrounding areas. These groups and individuals are responsible for the great majority of drug dealing and related violence, as well as ~hysical 'and property crimes in the area. The UC Berkeley Police Department has set up a "Southside Project" to deal with this problem area, which contains a large number of University office buildings, dormitories and other property. The Police Department has drastically increased its patrols in the area, and in some instances denied access to University property to potential troublemakers as well as instituting a massive preventive education program among students and staff. This program attempts to teach students and staff how to conduct themselves on the street and on University property in high crime areas. -9- Increased Willingness to Report Crimes Another reason for the increase in reported crimes at UC campuses may be that more students and staff are willing to report crimes. At six of the nine UC campuses, Crime Prevention offices have been established to help students and staff avoid or deal with problem situations and to encourage the reporting of crimes. At UCLA, the work of the Police Department's Crime Prevention Program has led directly to an increase in the reporting of crime. This appears to have been particularly successful in the reporting of "acquaintance rape" or "date rape," where the persons involved previously knew one another. However, even with an increase of reported crime, the actual unreported crime rate in several categories still may be large. The UC police departments, through their Crime Prevention programs, are continuing to attempt to persuade students and staff to formally report crimes to the police department so they may be investigated and resolved. Finding 112 Urban Campuses of the UC System are Experiencing an Increase In the Rate of Crime The University of California system in general, and the urban campuses at Los Angeles and Berkeley in particular, are experiencing an increase in crime. As previously mentioned, this is caused primarily by an influx of undesirable outsiders on or adjacent to University property and an increased willingness by students to report certain crimes. However, the increasing rate of crime indicates that the UC system's campuses are no longer as safe for students, staff and visitors as they previously were considered to be. Morever, in comparison to other large university and college campuses, UC Berkeley and UCLA have a relatively high rate of crime. Exhibit IV shows that the number of crimes in certain categories reported by UC campus police departments has been gradually increasing since 1982. EXHIBIT IV SELECTED CRIMES REPORTED BY UC CAMPUSES BETWEEN 1982 AND 1986 Offense 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Homicide 3 0 0 3 0 Rape Actual 10 7 8 8 16 Attempted 13 8 12 10 l3 Robbery 37 37 48 51 43 Assault Aggravated 62 46 75 67 74 Simple 171 226 248 209 286 Totals 296 324 391 348 432 -- Source: University of California; Systemwide Crime Statistics - 1986 (Draft) -10- While Exhibit IV shows that the number of these crimes on UC campuses has gradually increased systemwide since 1982, the increase is more pronounced on the large urban campuses at Berkeley and Los Angeles. Exhibit V presents the number of these crimes reported at UC Berkeley and UCLA during the last five years. EXHIBIT V SELECTED CRIMES REPORTED AT UC BERKELEY AND UCLA BETWEEN 1982 1986 &~ UC Berkeley 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Homicide 1 0 0 0 0 Rape Actual 1 0 2 4 7 Attempted 3 3 6 2 4 Robbery 9 14 21 18 29 Assault Aggravated 18 15 41 31 35 Simple 48 61 78 69 97 Totals 80 93 148 124 172 - - UCLA Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 Rape Actual 6 2 2 0 5 Attempted 3 2 1 2 1 Robbery 12 18 16 23 8 Assault Aggravated 9 10 8 10 15 Simple 32 33 46 33 62 Totals -62 65 73 68 91 Source: University of California, Systemwide Crime Statistics - 1986 (Draft) -11- Exhibit V shows that these types of crimes have increased at UC Berkeley and UCLA in recent years. For example, the number of reported rapes and rape attempts at the Berkeley campus increased from 6 in 1985 to 11 in 1986. At UCLA, reported rapes and rape attempts increased from 2 in 1985 to 6 in 1986. Similarly, the number of assaults at UCLA increased from 43 in 1985 to 77 in 1986. On the Berkeley campus, assaults on and adjacent to University property increased from 100 in 1985 to 132 in 1986. A closer examination of the crime statistics indicates that a considerable number of the crimes occurring on University property involve visitors or other persons not formally affiliated with the University. For example, 28 of the 35 reported aggravated assaults on the UC Berkeley campus in 1985 involved at least one non-University affiliate as victim, perpetrator, or both. Furthermore, 13 of the assaults were against University police officers, many in the course of campus demonstrations. The number of violent crimes occurring on some UC campuses, particularly the UC Berkeley and the UCLA campuses, is relatively high compared to other campuses listed in the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime statistics. Exhibit VI summarizes the universities and colleges with enrollment greater than 10,000 students reporting a higher number of violent crimes. This exhibit indicates that UC Berkeley and UCLA have among the highest number of violent crimes committed in the 120 universities and colleges reviewed. -12- EXHIBIT VI SUMMARY OF VIOLENT CRIMES ON UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE CAMPUSES WITH MORE THAN 10,000 STUDENTS STUDENT VIOLENT VIOLENT CRIMES UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE ENROLLMENT CRIMES PER 1000 STUDENTS Michigan State 37,393 84 2.2 UC Berkeley 29,745 56 1.9 Louisiana State, Baton Rouge 26,475 49 1.9 UCLA 33,064 40 1.2 Arizona State 31,743 36 1.1 University of Kentucky 17,544 35 2.0 University of Kansas 28,218 33 1.6 Boston University 21,991 32 1.5 Washington State University 15,697 30 1.9 Eastern Kentucky University 10,812 29 2.7 University of Oklahoma 18,156 28 1.5 Western Michigan 15,896 27 1.7 University of Florida 32,283 27 0.8 CSU San Diego 26,329 26 1.0 Bowling Green University 15,583 26 1.7 Ohio State University 46,398 25 0.5 North Carolina State 19,753 25 1.3 University of Texas, Austin 44,781 24 0.5 Univ. of Maryland-College Park 31,698 23 0.7 University of Illinois, Chicago 21,167 23 1.1 Note: The Federal Bureau of Investigation definition of a violent crime includes homocide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, July 27, 1986. Based on 1985 crime reports. -13- Finding 113 Some UC Campuses Have Experienced Problems in Fully Staffing Their Police Departments Testimony at the Commission's public hearing in March 1987 and employee turnover information received from the University of California indicates that some UC campus police departments have experienced trouble in maintaining full and adequate staffing. These staffing problems are due in part to inequities in pay between urban UC police departments and nearby public police departments. The responsibility for campus security on UC campuses is decentralized among the nine individual campuses. General policy and personnel matters are handled on a systemwide basis by the Office of the Senior Vice President for Administration and a Coordinator of Police Services. The individual police departments on each campus report of the Chancellor of that campus. Each Chancellor is individually responsible for setting the funding level for his or her own campuses. Therefore, the security programs at each campus differ as to funding, staffing levels, and emphasis on operations. However, certain general conditions and problems are common to most of the campus police departments. All of the UC police departments use both sworn peace officers and non-sworn, unarmed support and administrative staff. In addition, several campuses also employ Protective Service Officers, armed or unarmed, who mayor may not be under the direct control of that campus' police department. Each campus police department, because it is budgeted by the Chancellor of that campus, and because each campus is in fact different in setting and emphasis, has a different budget and personnel base. Generally speaking, the urban campuses will have a higher ratio of officers to students, and staff than the suburban or rural campuses. The UC teaching hospitals and major research facilities have a higher ratio of officers to student/staff because they have increased risks. In addition, each campus police department will maintain its budget· in its own manner, reflecting that campus' unique needs. This causes a problem when systemwide budget data is needed, since not all cost centers are paid for or duplicated on all campuses in the same way. Comparisons of budget and workload data on a campus-by-campus basis is thus difficult. Public testimony and information supplied by UC officials indicates that all campuses, regardless of the ratio of staff to students are experiencing an increasing workload. Besides responding to crimes, the campus police departments perform a very large number of preventive patrol and service functions. In addition, the police departments frequently are required to respond to unique demands for public protection, such as providing public protection and law enforcement during demonstrations on or near UC campuses. Responding adequately to these increasing needs for patrol or special services can be a major burden. For example, the UCLA Police Department has a net operating budget of approximately $5.2 million for FY 1986-87. Of this total budget, approximately $2.5 million is budgeted for regular non-student personnel costs. However, overtime costs for demonstrations and increased crime prevention patrols and investigation will total almost $650,000. Additional funds to cover overtime costs are not always readily available from the University budget. As a result, sworn personnel positions may be -14- left vacant or not' filled as rapidly as possible. This results in salary savings that are used to offset overtime costs. According to the UCLA Police Department, at any given time up to 8 of the 60 sworn officers' positions that are budgeted may be left vacant so that salary savings will accumulate to defer unfunded overtime costs. The retention of trained officers is also becoming a problem in the police departments at UCLA and Berkeley. During the last three years, the UCLA police department has experienced a turnover of 24 of its 48 patrol officers, or 50 percent of the patrol force. At UC Berkeley the turnover has totalled approximately 30 percent during the same period. The reasons given for this turnover are varied, including career opportunity and promotion, but a major factor appears to be the relatively lower pay scale at urban UC campuses. A recent survey completed by UCLA Police Department of six other local police agencies indicates that UCLA police officers are paid an average of 14.6 percent less than a comparable officer in the surveyed departments. A similar salary survey is now being completed by the UC Berkeley Police Department. In addition, urban UC campus officers have the opportunity to transfer to a UC campus in a less expensive area with no change in payscale. As a result, the urban campuses have a higher proportion of less-experienced officers on their force and must adjust their activities and actions accordingly. Finding fJ4 Some UC Campuses May Not be Effectively Coordinating Security Activities Each UC campus independently determines how responsibility for building and dormitory security is allocated. Several campuses have a "lead agency," usually the police department, to provide security for campus housing and other buildings. In addition, other campuses may involve several administrative departments in providing dorm security. The Commission has found that some campuses may not be effectively coordinating and carrying out security activities. Due to differing environments on UC campuses, building security measures for students and staff vary widely from campus to campus. Response to student and staff concerns about personal safety also differ from campus to campus. It might be useful, however, to look at one campus' security measures as an example. At UCLA prior to mid-January of this year, the Vice Chancellors for Student Affairs and Business Administration shared responsibility for student housing operations and security. Security measures that officials at UCLA said were in place in the "high-rise" dormitories included: o A 24-hour card entry control system for the main doors of each dormitory; o Self locking doors on each residence room; o Staffing of a front desk in each dormitory foyer from midnight to 6:00 a.m.; -15- o Periodic internal and external building patrols by a Community Service Officer; and o Education programs for dorm residents on crime prevention. These measures have been instituted in the past two years as a result of several assaults, rapes and an attempted murder in UCLA residence halls by non-students. In spite of these measures, incidents of physical and sexual assault continued to occur, culminating in the rape of a student in her dormitory room on the morning of January 10, 1987. In response to this incident, the authorities charged with dormitory administration took additional steps to beef up security, including the following: o Hired approximately 135 new student employees to increase first floor entry control staff and floor monitoring functions during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily; o Contracted with the UCLA Police Department for two career foot patrol officers to be assigned to the residence halls from 9: 00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. with overlapping schedules on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays; o Scheduled a team of career employees consisting of one General Manager and one Assistant Director to tour the residence halls from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, and from 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays during implementation period of increased door monitoring hours; o Increased "Duty II Resident Assistant coverage from one residence assistant scheduled from 7 :00 p.m. to 1 :00 a.m. to two resident assistants working from 7: 00 p.m. to 7: 00 a.m. These additional resident assistant hours will be replaced by additional part-time employees as soon as scheduling allows; o Placed additional IIcard readers II inside each high rise at primary entries to be used by door monitors to verify resident I.D. 's from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily; o Removed heavy undergrowth and foliage adjacent to residence halls and pathways; and o Retained an outside security consultant to evaluate and recommend additional security measures. The consultant began work in late March 1987 and is scheduled to complete his report by July 1, 1987. Any recommendations are scheduled to be implemented by October 1987. The long-term execution of this program may be delayed or hampered, however, by a number of factors. These include: 0 A longstanding lack of clear authority, only very recently resolved, over dormitory security. Prior to the last week of February, 1987, authority for dormitory administration and internal security was split between UCLA's Business Enterprise -16- Administration and Student Affairs Offices. Due to prior major problems in coordinating the new dorm security arrangements, the Business Enterprise Administration is now ultimately responsible for future dormitory security decisions. o The Police Department is consulted on security measures by residence hall administrators in an advisory role and does not have direct ongoing responsibility for resident hall security. Instead, UC Police Department officers are responsible for external and occasional internal patrols on campus. o Student apathy, due to a lack of commitment to personal security measures and fear and resentment of "loss of privacy," causes many of the security measures to be umvorkable. For example, non-students can currently walk into the residence halls behind students entering with proper passes. In addition, as of mid-March, auxiliary doors which are not wired for either card entry or alarms can be blocked open or have the locks taped open for subsequent entry. There was also considerable student concern voiced at the Commission's March public hearing about the Business Administration Office's system of notifying students about security changes. Many students apparently were not well-informed about increased dorm security measures. Thus, these students may be less willing to actively participate in these measures. The Business Administration Office has indicated that it will continue to make the best possible effort to inform and involve dormitory residents of current and future security measures. o Security at the dormitories on UC campuses is typically a self-funded activity that is paid for through dormitory fees. Testimony at the Commission's public hearing questioned whether such means of paying for security would be ample to pay for the actual security needs. Any measures for continued student and staff security, on all UC campuses, should recognize the need for clear lines of authority and the full and willing participation of students and staff. Without addressing both of these factors, the security system at UC campuses can be breached and students and staff potentially can be victimized. Finding 115 Acquaintance Rape is a Significant Problem on DC Campuses that Needs to be Fully Addressed The problem of acquaintance rape on DC campuses is a significant and growing one, as it is on campuses nationwide. The causes for this increase may include. changes in campus morals, increased awareness of the problem, and increased reporting of such incidents. The result is that a problem that has long been ignored or overlooked is now receiving considerable attention. The University needs to strengthen programs dealing with this problem and make them more consistent from campus to campus. Improved disciplinary procedures should also be instituted to deal with acquaintance rape involving University students. Acquaintance rape has become a major topic of concern both on University of California campuses and nationwide. Although statistics on the actual incidence of acquaintance rape are not available for the UC system as a whole at this time, some general information regarding the extent of the problem is available. These include: o A nationwide survey conducted by Kent State University faculty in 1985 indicates that as many as 27.5 percent of all college women surveyed had prior experience of rape, attempted rape or some form of sexual coercion. o In 1986, as many as 20 acquaintance rape victims sought help from UC Berkeley's campus rape prevention center. o The UC Irvine Rape Prevention Program sees as many as 60 women per year, although not all of these women have been sexually coerced within that given year. o In a recent study, 8 of the 9 DC campus Rape Prevention Education Programs indicated that they saw a total of approximately 235 to 243 rape victims annually who had not reported such assaults to the police. The UC Irvine Rape Prevention Center is currently completing a UC systemwide survey of the campus resources available for rape victims, as well as basic information on reported and possible rapes and sexual assaults. However, a general consensus appears to exist that only a very small fraction of acquaintance rapes or sexual assaults are even brought to the attention of police or University authorities. Testimony at the Commission's public hearing on UC security in March 1987 indicated several potential measures which could specifically address this problem, including: o A streamlined, centralized rape reporting system for each campus, so that University officials and students will have a better grasp of the magnitude of the problem on their campus, and be able to take appropriate additional actions. o A timely due-process oriented student disciplinary hearing process under the Student Code of Conduct which allows the victim to be present during the hearing, accompanied by a representative of her choice. o An increased educational program for all students, emphasizing preventive measures, communication, and a better awareness of the role of drugs and/or alcohol in these incidents. As previously noted, each University campus has a rape prevention education program that is funded from a number of sources, including student fees, and in some cases, police department budgets. Each campus' program, as well as the campus' Student Code of Conduct, is generally modelled on the regulations prescribed by the University President's Office. To date, probably the most far reaching and thorough campus program to address acquaintance rape has -18- been instituted at UC Berkeley. In January 1987, Chancellor Ira W. Heyman addressed a policy letter to the campus community defining acquaintance rape within the context of both California's criminal statutes and the Student Code of Conduct. Chancellor Heyman further stated: "The Berkeley Campus will not tolerate sexual assault in any form, including acquaintance rape. Where there is probable cause to believe that the Campus' regulations prohibiting sexual assault have been violated, the Campus will pursue strong disciplinary action through its own channels. This discipline includes the possibility of suspension or dismissal from the University." The Chancellor concluded by stating that students charged with sexual assault can be prosecuted under both State criminal statutes and the campus student conduct code, and that lack of criminal prosecution would not preclude University action. A student/staff committee is currently studying the Student Code of Conduct to determine ways in which the disciplinary hearing and penalty process can be strengthened and improved. University campuses should be careful, however, to insure that disciplinary measures imposed upon students for committing acquaintance rape are promptly and fully executed. Any delay or elimination of the disciplinary terms will be seen by the campus community and the public as evidence that the University will pay no more than lip service to the punishment of acquaintance rape. RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission recognizes the increasing problems that the University of California campuses are having in coping with the encroachment of crime. The Commission believes that the UC Regents, President and Chancellors need to take a serious look at the level of crime that is occurring on UC campuses and what is being done about it. Specifically, the Commission recommends the following: 1. Each campus should appoint a security review committee, reporting directly to the Chancellor of that campus. The Corrnnittee should fully assess each campus' security problems, review current campus security practices, and identify any needs which should be addressed. 2. Each UC campus should take the appropriate actions to enhance existing security to ensure that the security needs identified in each campus' security review are adequately addressed. 3. The Regents, President and Chancellors of the various UC Campuses should seriously consider augmenting budgeted overtime funding for both sworn and non-sworn personnel. In this way, authorized positions can be filled and police activities can be efficiently carried out on and adjacent to University property. 4. The systemwide and campus administrations should broaden the comparative salary survey now used in setting police officers' salaries. Specifically, such surveys should cover additional local -19- jurisdictions in the vicinity of the UC campuses. This broadened salary survey could include as many as 35 to 40 jurisdictions, rather than the 14 currently used. This measure would encourage future recrutiment and retention of the highest quality peace officers. 5. The systemwide coordinator of police services should establish a uniform systemwide data collection system for basic staffing, budget and workload data. This would aid the University in better assessing crime workload and in determining budgetary requirements and staffing needs. 6. The University should strengthen its rape prevention and disciplinary process, by putting into place a uniform, systemwide education process for all students. A uniform disciplinary process should also be instituted to deal with those instances where one or more of the involved parties are University students, staff or faculty. The Commission believes that the Regents, President and Chancellors should take these actions to ensure that the University is not disrupted in fulfilling its mission of providing the highest quality of teaching and research. Assemblywoman Gwen Moore M. Lester Oshea George E. Paras* Abraham Spiegel Barbara Stone* Richard R. Terzian Assemblyman Phillip D. Wyman *Appointed to Commission after the study was initiated.