University Neighborhoods Revitalization Plan CONCEPT DOCUMENT

Core Value #4: The University District shall be a neighborhood of choice.

This is one of five chapters that address safety and law enforcement, community schools, circulation, transit, and parking of the Neighborhoods. Being a neighborhood of choice requires that streets and parking areas are safe and access is adequate to public transit and other key services such as quality community schools.

Safety and Law Enforcement

Back to the Plan’s Table of Contents

Back to the Campus Partners Home Page

The level of crime activity in the University Neighborhoods has been increasing in recent years and reflects trends in similar inner-city neighborhoods across America. This chapter explores the reasons for increased crime in the Neighborhoods, and suggests programs and policies that can turn the situation from negative to positive. The institution of community policing in the Neighborhoods has already begun and will be a centerpiece in the community’s revitalization.

10.0 SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

A. Objectives

The primary area of concern for current and prospective residents and businesses in the University Neighborhoods is the perceived and actual problems related to crime and law enforcement. General consensus exists that no sustainable change to the living, working, recreational, or learning environment can occur without major improvements in public safety.

However, policing America in the 1990s is an especially complex and increasingly dangerous enterprise. The high volume of drugs, drug-related crime, and the high levels of violence and fear associated with the proliferation of guns on our streets has aggravated the challenge of maintaining order, controlling crime, and providing services.

The more progressive law enforcement officials and the more enlightened citizens understand that the challenge of policing and providing for the safety of citizens, families, and communities is one that cannot be accomplished by the police alone. Every element of the community must strive to find the role it needs to play in working with the police in establishing and sustaining a close alliance for dealing effectively with the challenges of crime. Much of the crime in our streets is related to chronic, deep, and structural problems like poverty, unemployment, racial and ethnic clashes, and troubled schools that are beyond the control of our police departments. Yet, the police are called upon to impact the criminal manifestations of these deeper issues; how they perform can and will make a difference in the character of life in their respective cities.

These issues of preventing and fighting crime and establishing good relationships with citizens provide the basis for the following objectives for improved public safety in the University District:

Objective 1: Reduce crime and increase the feeling of safety within the University District.

Objective 2: Improve police visibility and response times in Neighborhoods.

Objective 3 Reverse negative community perceptions about police professionalism.

Objective 4: Effectively address disorderly behavior of students and other patrons of High Street.

B. Policies and Recommendations

Policy 10.1: Develop programs that create a sense of partnership between police and communities being policed.

Recommendation 10.1.1: Deploy and expand current proposals for Community Policing with the University Neighborhoods as the pilot program area.

Recommendation 10.1.2: Plan expansion of the Community Crime Patrol.

Work with CCP Board to plan expansion, both in terms of hours of operation and geographic boundaries.
Identify means of additional support so CCP can expand its service delivery (hours) in those areas where it now operates.
Work with CCP to establish the same relationship with Ohio State-PD that it has with CDP and the Sheriff’s Department.

Recommendation 10.1.3: Expand upon existing police programs to implement community policing in accordance with the following three key parameters:

Intra-agency organizational change,
Inter-agency organizational change, and
Mapping the community.

Policy 10.2: Develop officers who are more sensitive, creative, and flexible in their response to important community issues.

Recommendation 10.2.1: Begin to develop positive relationships between the City, The Ohio State University, and community anchors. Conduct police sensitivity training for officers assigned to the area.

Recommendation 10.2.2: Encourage police officers to invent new responses to chronic problems that face them in the Neighborhoods daily.

Recommendation 10.2.3: Begin developing an Eyes and Ears Program.

Recommendation 10.2.4: Require officers working in the University District to be involved in community-relations programs.

Recommendation 10.2.5: Explore homeownership incentives for police officers to live in the University District.

Policy 10.3: Balance police attention between High Street and the Neighborhoods in correlation with their respective levels of crime and violence.

Recommendation 10.3.1: Work with Neighborhoods of Choice Coordinating Committee to develop a Super Agency to coordinate delivery of intervention services and address the following:

Additional participants (representatives from relevant City, university, and community organizations) need to be identified.
Precise structure and membership needs to be determined.
Mode of operation needs to be decided.
Priorities and follow-up need to be established.

Policy 10.4: Strengthen and expand existing programs at The Ohio State University which prepare students to live on their own off campus and to understand the responsibilities and behavior expected of them.

Recommendation 10.4.1: Enhance programs at the university which provide students with information on personal safety, rental housing, neighborhood expectations and character, and life skills to live off campus.

Recommendation 10.4.2: Enhance programs at the university which address the problem of students who abuse alcohol and other drugs and who are drunk and disorderly in public areas.

Recommendation 10.4.3: Inform students about and enforce the existing provisions of the university’s Code of Student Conduct which prohibits certain misconduct by students while involved with a university related activity or a student organization activity. The code already applies to such activity, whether on or off campus.

Policy 10.5: Recognize that the police division is only one of the City’s problem-solving mechanisms, and consequently, consider important roles that other agencies and residents have, or could have, in working with police to address neighborhood living conditions.

Recommendation 10.5.1: Begin studying the potential for expansion of the Mutual Aid Pact between Ohio State University Police and the Columbus Division of Police.

Recommendation 10.5.2: Seek approval from the Mayor for the creation of the Community Service Aide position, and determine the specific role of other social services.

Recommendation 10.5.3: Work with the City Recreation and Parks Department and with the Wexner Center to develop a Comprehensive Youth Outreach Program. Action steps would include the following:

Identify additional organizations in the City for participation.
Increase transportation resources beyond the four vans currently assigned to provide access to the City’s 28 recreational centers.
Develop a neighborhood-based mechanism for determining the nature and magnitude of youth needs and for addressing these needs.

Recommendation 10.5.4: Encourage landlords to run Police checks on potential tenants.

Recommendation 10.5.5: Develop a better approach for representing crime statistics so that large areas of the community are not negatively portrayed for small isolated areas of high crime.

Recommendation 10.5.6: Public telephones restricted for outgoing calls only, should be located in key locations throughout the University District.

Recommendation 10.5.7: Improve levels of street lighting in critical areas where high levels of evening and late night pedestrian traffic occur, predominantly in the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods. Improve overall lighting in other neighborhoods by either trimming trees that obscure existing lights or increasing number and brightness of fixtures.

Policy 10.6: Address current shortages in supervisory and patrol staff and re-prioritize activities.

Recommendation 10.6.1: Consider redefining cruiser districts to optimize police presence.

C. Setting and Current Issues

Crime Conditions in the University District: The following is a summary of current crime conditions, based on analyses of both incident reports and arrest data:

Crime in the University District (excluding The Ohio State University) based on 1994 figures:

The per capita rate of violent crimes is 14.2% higher for the University Neighborhoods than for the City as a whole, although rates of rape and homicide are lower for the University Neighborhoods than for the City.
The per capita rate of property crimes in the University Neighborhoods is 21.6% higher than for the City.
The substantial majority of arrested offenders (75%) reside in the areas in which the offenses were committed. The figure reached as high as 93.2% in 1988.
The last decade has witnessed an overall increase in violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) from under 400 cases in 1985 to 500 incidents in 1994.
The precinct encompassing the University District has averaged four homicides a year.
Incidences or rape have fluctuated steadily since 1984 between 30 and 60 reports annually.
Less serious property crimes (burglary and larceny) have decreased since 1984, but more serious incidents have increased by 50%.
Auto theft has increased 81% since 1984.
Arrests for violent offenses increased from 1984 to 1994 and have included juveniles at an increasing rate.

Crime at The Ohio State University:

The university has experienced two homicides between 1984 and 1994.
Larcenies have decreased by 25% since 1984.
The annual number of auto thefts has doubled between 1984 and 1994.

The following conclusions about crime in the University District may be stated:

1. Serious crime, defined as Part 1 offenses (as well as some less serious crime defined as Part 2 offenses) are on the increase.

2. The University Neighborhoods area has a considerable higher violent and property crime rates than the city of Columbus.

3. Juveniles are increasingly more involved in serious crime.

4. Most of the serious offenders are males.

5. Blacks are disproportionately over-represented in the offender and arrested populations.

6. Violent victimization is found in greater proportions in Cruiser Districts 46 and 47 where the typical victims are black females, while in other districts they are white males (females when rape is the offense).

7. The majority of the offenders live in the area where they committed their crimes.

The Culture of Alcohol Abuse: A compelling set of concerns exist around alcohol, the high concentration of bars, and the many problems related to them including underage drinking and drunkenness. Particularly, high school age students are found in the area because of its youth culture and the easy availability of alcohol. Evidence suggests that these activities lead to such crimes as robberies and assaults where students are both victim and perpetrator. Such problems are aggravated by the attraction that the area has for large numbers of non-students, some of whom view the opportunity as easy pickings for criminal behavior. Notwithstanding an increasing number of police officers and special units assigned to the area, there has been no significant decrease in the nature of the problems. There are, however, several other important issues generated by the perceptions and realities of the intractable High Street experience that tend to reinforce its existence; and do so at the expense of the police and neighboring communities.

A growing number of police officers and citizens believe that the negative aspects of the High Street experience would not exist if there were unambiguous messages from the leadership of the City and, especially, the university condemning the behavior. The message that exists now suggests that students and visitors coming to the area are above the law and that their behavior is acceptable. One of the important consequences of this subculture continuing is that it places an immense burden on the police; a growing number of its officers are assigned to the area at the expense of good relations with adjacent communities. A common complaint from CDP is the lack of university enforcement of a student code of conduct.

Community-Police Relations: Residents of the University District have expressed considerable concern about police arrogance and unapproachable behavior. The feelings of these citizens is that there is a need for better recruitment and higher standards of training, especially cultural sensitivity and competencies. The need for police officers to get out of their cars and to engage the community is often cited among citizens concerned about improving the relationship between their police department and their community. Finally, many express concern that the police are not marketing themselves effectively to win the community on its side. Consequently, people call the police only when there is an absolute need to do so.

The CDP is aware of the need for their officers to spend more time in positive interaction with citizens. Indeed, that is a primary reason for their Park, Walk, and Talk program. For the most part, this appears to be only a paper program. There is very little indication that supervisors either encourage it or are held accountable for seeing that it is done. Nor are officers held accountable for spending time with this program. One of the reasons offered is too few supervisors to allow for effective supervision.

Problems with police relations are especially prevalent in the Weinland Park area. The neighborhood is considered the "hot spot" because its high volume of serious crime, even relative to the rest of the study area. Residents in this area feel ignored by the City both in absolute terms and in comparison to other communities. The neighborhood is particularly void of the kind of relations that generate the mutual respect needed to address the many problems that make life very difficult for both those who live there and for those having responsibility for delivering police services to the area. The arrest of the Short North Posse in this area has had a substantial positive impact on crime in this area and the City and District Attorney’s Office are to be congratulated on cleaning up the area and beginning a summer Youth Enrichment Program.

The recent designation of the Weinland Park community as a pilot project for community policing efforts is encouraging because it recognizes that something different needs to be done to address the issues of crime and alienation, and to bring a more comprehensive approach to the problems in that community, including the involvement of the citizens in addressing those problems.

Response Times: A major complaint from residents in the University District is that police visibility and response time are not very good. Citizens have expressed their anger about the impact drug trafficking is having on the quality of life in their neighborhood and the absence of a concerted police effort to stop it. In particular, they do not understand how relatively low levels of violence on High Street are more compelling and receive more police attention than their neighborhood needs. The police also have difficulty justifying the difference in attention.

The current lack of police visibility is due in part to shortages in supervisors. Sergeants speak of the frequency with which they have to "double" and "triple." Doubling means that in addition to supervising their precinct, they have to supervise another as well because there is no other sergeant on duty. Tripling means covering two other precincts in addition to one's own precinct. This means that officers in the field do not get the supervision needed under the style of policing that this division is currently committed to.

The need for more police officers is also apparent at the patrol level. Because there are not enough relief officers to cover for the regular officers who are out sick, on vacation or in training, the cruiser districts are frequently not fully staffed. The term "laid in" is used to describe a car out of service because an officer is not available. The consequences of officer shortage include the following:

Officers from one precinct may be dispatched to another precinct to handle a call for service. Doing so aggravates the shortage problem in the precinct sending the officer.
Officers may elect to give an arrestee a summons to appear in court rather than making a physical arrest when doing so would be the more prudent action. Making the physical arrest would be more time consuming thus reducing his time of availability to respond to other calls for service.
Well-meaning programs such as Park, Walk, and Talk, cannot be adequately supervised.
Officers cannot be creative in their approaches to solving community problems when they are involved in responding to one call after the other with no time for anything else.

The CDP has taken a number of steps in the last three years to improve police services, including freeing more officers from administrative responsibilities to function in an enforcement capacity. The combination of a growing City population, increases in violent crime, and other calls for service suggest very strongly the need for an in-depth evaluation regarding the need for additional officers and the most effective means for deploying them. These are issues that can be considered under CDP’s new re-organization plan. The cruiser districts need to be smaller and more consistent with the boundaries of the precinct's neighborhoods.

Current Organizational Structure and Staffing Patterns in the University District:

precinct.jpg (55547 bytes)

The city of Columbus is divided into four police zones under the direction of the deputy chief of the patrol subdivision. Each zone is headed by a commander who reports to the deputy chief. The study area, except for a small piece in the southwest corner, is in zone 4. The zone is divided into five precincts, each headed by a sergeant; there are three watches: first, second, and third. The watches (shifts) change at 6 a.m. or 7 a.m. depending on the precinct and then after every eight hours. Three regularly assigned lieutenants act as watch commanders on their respective watches and, in effect, are in charge of the entire zone during that period. Two relief lieutenants are assigned to the zone and occasionally fill in for the regular lieutenants when the latter are involved in training or are off duty for other reasons, such as vacation or sick leave. The relief lieutenants are frequently involved in planning/conducting special operations such as ACE and SCAT activities. There are two relief sergeants assigned on each shift to fill in for the regular sergeants when they are off duty.

At any given time approximately 150 uniformed officers are policing the city of Columbus. For special events and activities, such as football games and the annual 4th of July activities, there are far more. Usually the study area will have a larger proportion of the policing effort responding to The Ohio State University-generated activities and the high concentration of bars. The staffing of Precinct 4, which has responsibility for one of the City's highest crime areas, would normally be as follows: On first shift: four cruisers (cars) and a patrol transport vehicle (paddy wagon); second shift: five cruisers, patrol transport vehicle, and a two-officer walking crew; third shift: five cruisers and a patrol transport vehicle. All patrol transport vehicles have two officers. Additionally, there are officers assigned to midwatch hours. That is, there is one officer assigned from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. and two officers assigned from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.; and there are two officers in service from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m.

This staffing arrangement means that the number of cruiser districts (the geographical area patrolled by a police officer during a particular watch/shift and unless otherwise directed, the police officer is dedicated to servicing citizens in that area) varies depending on the time of day. For example, there are five cruiser districts from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m.; six districts from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.; seven districts from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m.; and five districts from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. The cruiser districts are determined by the Research and Development unit of the CDP based on its analysis of crime data, demographic information, and response time.

Existing Special Programs: A number of CDP and neighborhood-based special programs are already in place in the University Neighborhoods. These include the following:

Street Crime Attack Team (SCAT) - This team consists of six officers and a sergeant who report to a lieutenant. The officers are on six-month temporary assignments and come from the ranks of patrol officers from zones 1 and 4. These officers work in plain clothes and address the problems of street drug sales and prostitution. This team also conducts surveillance and addresses other specifics as requested by any precinct sergeant in zones 1 and 4.

This unit has potential to be far more effective. The unit is a morale booster for its participants, in part because it gives otherwise uniformed officers the opportunity to work in plainclothes and address important crime problems. There are, however, some territorial and communication problems that diminish the unit's ability to carry out its mission. One of these problems stems from status distinctions between plainclothes and uniform officers, which hampers their ability to communicate effectively. A larger communication problem manifests itself, at times, between the leadership of the unit and the specific precinct sergeant. These problems are apparently small enough that if addressed now, they will allow what is otherwise a good program to realize its potential.

The Active Criminal Eviction Project (ACE) - This project operates throughout the City during the summer. It is staffed by six officers and sergeants per shift working overtime, and is funded by an annual grant from the City Council. The 1995 ACE program allows officers to work precinct cruisers while the precinct officers are addressing specific problems in their area which have been identified by the precinct sergeant.

The concept of ACE is to saturate an area with officers for up to 30 days to rid the area of a given problem. While the police effort seems to be effective in ridding the area of a particular problem or diminishing its effects while they are on the scene, many believe such a program merely displaces problems to other areas or are only effective for the period of elevated police presence. Such a weeding program could be more effective if followed up by a "seeding" effort involving other agencies.

The Intoxicated Pedestrian Project - This project is a short-term, state-funded effort to target drunken pedestrians who are likely to become petty criminals (public indecency, fighting) and/or victims (robbery, assaults) which plague the area. There is a sergeant and six officers who work overtime on Friday and Saturday nights in the university area. This project is part of the overall police effort to reduce the negative effects of the High Street subculture. It is too early to assess the effectiveness of its operations. If the efforts of this unit are not accompanied by equally aggressive proactive and prevention-oriented activities to address the High Street problems, this unit will be spending its time processing more and more people into the criminal justice system without substantially diminishing the circumstances that are generating the behavior of those targeted.

Park, Walk, and Talk - This program directs officers to spend some portion of their day getting out of their vehicles and interacting positively with neighborhood citizens. Precinct sergeants are directed to record how much of their officers' time is spent in this fashion. Officers exaggerate the amount of time spent, and no one is held accountable for seeing that officers are actually in compliance with the directive. The problem of too few supervisors makes it almost impossible for sergeants to inspect the level of compliance with this directive.

Community Crime Patrol, Inc. - This agency employs part-time trained citizens who patrol selected non-high crime areas in teams of two from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. every night. They are equipped with whistles and walkie-talkies on the university communication system that permit communications with the sheriff's department, the Columbus Division of Police and University Police. A deputy sheriff and a Columbus police officer are assigned to the unit. These citizens are the eyes and ears of the respective law enforcement agencies. Their activities have lead to the apprehension of many criminals and the prevention of many crimes. Additionally, they have rendered assistance to a large number of victims.

The unit enjoys a fine reputation with law enforcement and with an increasing number of citizens who are requesting their presence in neighborhoods where they live. This program appears to be a great return for a small investment

The CDP has also been evaluating the idea of community policing and has planted some seeds of community policing through isolated programmatic efforts. With a grant from the Federal government to implement community policing, an allocation from the City Council for community policing, and a plan to re-organize the division, the CDP will be involved in a transitional process of divorcing itself from some of the traditional ways of policing as it embraces a course of action to bring excellence in policing to the city of Columbus and to the University Neighborhoods area. The CDP will be involved in the challenge of building on the richness of its experiences to include a broader community-based approach to the many challenges facing it, the City, and its neighborhoods. Community policing will provide the opportunity to be more innovative and effective in addressing them. This is a worthwhile undertaking by the CDP.

Current And Recent Community Programs: Several efforts have been underway to curb crime in the area and provide positive outlets for neighborhood youth.

Campus Partners Safety Coordinating Committee: The Community Affairs Committee of the Campus Partners Board of Trustees convened the Safety Coordinating Committee in 1995. The committee is chaired by Mark Hatch, Director of the Community Crime Patrol, and is comprised of representatives of Columbus Division of Police, Ohio Department of Public Safety - Liquor Enforcement, University Police, Office of Student Affairs, Campus Partners, Ohio State administration and student body, and representatives of the University Neighborhoods community. The committee shares information about upcoming events and activities in the University District that could potentially cause safety problems. The committee also encourages networking and cooperation among the various offices and units concerned about public safety along High Street and in the East Campus neighborhood.

Drug Sweep: In March of 1995, Federal and local police authorities orchestrated a sweep of areas in the study area known for drug activity. The raid resulted in 44 convictions, with sentences up to 33 years. None of the convicted are eligible for parole.

Summer Enrichment Program: Last summer, the Weinland Park Community Collaborative, with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Office of the Mayor, launched the six-week Weinland Park Summer Enrichment Program. The program was designed to instruct children from kindergarten through the sixth grade in drama, dance, reading skills, soccer, and basketball.

The program was also sponsored by the Godman Guild, Weinland Park Elementary School, Nationwide Insurance Company, and Campus Partners. Plans are underway to hold an enrichment program annually. The program was initiated as a "seed" effort following the "weeding" of drug activity in March 1995.

D. Programs and Concepts

Community Policing: Community policing is an innovative approach to determine how crime is produced in society. The underlying assumption of community policing is that community criminogenic elements are conducive to crime production and that traditional reactive law enforcement failed to provide an adequate response to the crime problem.

"Community Policing," as defined by Robert Friedmann in a book titled "Community Policing: Comparative Perspectives and Prospects," is a policy and strategy aimed at achieving more effective and efficient crime control, reduced fear of crime, improved quality of life, improved police services, and police legitimacy through a proactive reliance on community resources that seeks to change crime-causing conditions. It assumes a need for greater accountability of police, greater public share in decision-making, and greater concern for civil rights and liberties.

Community policing is not merely foot patrol even though it has certainly brought officers back to the community, but it is still not very clear what is it that officers do on foot that makes an impact on crime (that they do not do in their vehicles). Community policing offers a comprehensive approach and elevates observation (and intervention) to a higher level than just managing crime after it happens. It is proactive and it should be offered in addition to, not instead of, reactive policing.

Community policing evolved as a response to police professionalism which itself was a development in the policing movement that reacted to officers being too close to the community and thus being in danger of corruption and abuse of service responsibilities. However, police professionalism resulted in distancing police from the community and thus the loss of intelligence base, cooperation of citizens, support, and trust.

In the 1980s, community policing became a "buzz-word" for law enforcement and turned into the latest development in the policing movement. The majority of law enforcement agencies have adapted some form of it. However, there are no clear-cut standards and many departments adopt various elements of it; community policing thus means different things to law enforcement jurisdictions. It is safe to say that community policing is in some sense elusive and is approachable in different theoretical and operational ways.

Community policing has at least three key parameters:

Intra-agency organizational change
Inter-agency organizational change
Mapping the community

The following is an outline of the important components of each of these parameters.

Intra-agency organizational change refers to changes in organizational structure (decentralization), communication patterns (more open), supervision (increased interaction), increased officers’ discretion, recruitment of mediation-oriented officers, expansion of community-policing training, match performance evaluation to performance criteria, match rewards with performance, and extent scope of community policing.

Inter-agency organizational change refers to changes in interaction patterns between agencies (flatten), increase organizational knowledge on needs and resources, identification of possible patterns of resistance and of support, define jurisdiction, reward cooperation and enhance coordination. This could be done with the creation of the Super Agency.

Mapping the community, or taking inventory, refers to better understanding the crime picture through improved statistical analysis and the use of GIS but even beyond that to learn more about the community being served, the intervention required, coordination efforts required, and the strengthening of traditional social control mechanisms to include the family, church, school, and various civic associations.

It is important for community policing to involve the media to assist in disseminating "positive" stories on police, community, and individuals. There is a window of opportunity epitomized by the Mutual Aid Pact between CDP and The Ohio State University Police, by the Campus Partnership development program, by the Community Crime Patrol, and by City attention to community policing. It is important to take advantage of this opportunity and watch for various pitfalls in implementing community policing in the University Neighborhoods area. It is important to note that community policing is not equal to foot-patrol, that fighting fear of crime is not enough, that there is a need to buy into a long-term, thorough plan or otherwise risk losing support, and that there is a need for solid external support.

It is essential that the City leadership (elected and appointed) buy into the concept of community policing to guarantee any thorough implementation and start a process that will make it become a reality. To that effect, meetings need to be continued with key leadership groups and individuals to ascertain the extent to which they are receptive to these recommendations.

CDP needs to implement the MAPP concept and utilize the City’s $1 million grant for community policing and implement the Federal grant CDP received recently.

Super Agency: This facilitating coordinating mechanism is suggested to enhance service delivery and various City and other interventions. Membership ought to be at the highest level and could use as a start the existing City’s Neighborhoods of Choice Coordinating Committee as well as added members (e.g., Mayor’s chief of staff as potential chair, chief or deputy chief, department heads, Ohio State, the business community). If the highest level representatives cannot participate on a regular basis, the Super Agency format can still be an effective coordinating tool if other representatives with appropriate authority participate.

The Super Agency needs to meet on a regular basis (2 to 3 times a month) and maintain interest, permanence, and continuity of its activities, effectiveness, and membership. Preliminary explorations with CDP have met with great enthusiasm concerning the concept and a desire to adopt and implement it.

Community Service Aide: CSAs are seen as working with CDP community police officers (as well as other service agencies) to identify community and social problems, mobilize community participation, develop community leadership, and address existing problems. For example, focusing on truancy, public health, and physical deterioration are some issues where CSAs - as paraprofessionals - could assist police and other agencies.

Expand Cooperation Between The Ohio State University Police and CDP: On the basis of the Mutual Aid Pact between the two departments, cooperation could be expanded to include proactive policing. The police departments and the university community need to work closer together to enforce student code of conduct and to present a less tolerant attitude toward infractions of law and order.

The idea is not to provide additional officers, but to develop a stronger relationship between the university and the Columbus police forces. There is joint planning and information sharing between the two police units, but the mutual aid compact is circumscribed by jurisdictional limits and is primarily concerned with cooperation in emergency situations. The pact should be strengthened to encourage additional joint activities and to promote proactive policing that would fit well within the recommended community policing construct.

Student Conduct Off-Campus: Many non-student residents and local law enforcement personnel believe that many of the safety-related problems in the University Neighborhoods area a function of student behavior. While The Ohio State University enforces a Code of Student Conduct which sets a minimum level of acceptable behavior by its students, the university is seen as tolerating, if not condoning, negative incidents involving students which occur off the university property.

The Ohio State University has publicly denounced disruptive behavior of students off-campus, but the law enforcement community and residents expect the university to take more aggressive action. Ohio State’s Code of Student Conduct already applies to student behavior both on-and-off-campus while students are participating in university-sponsored activities or activities sponsored by registered student organizations. The university should inform its students of the code and its application and should enforce its provisions. In addition, the university should strengthen and expand programs which will assist students, particularly first-and second year students, in understanding the responsibilities they must assume in living on their own in a neighborhood. The programs also should address personal safety, tenant-landlord issues, alcohol and drug abuse, and misconduct.

Eyes and Ears Programs: As part of the City’s acknowledgment that police alone cannot do the job of crime control, this program builds on the City’s ability to provide additional "eyes and ears" to police efforts and to encourage non-City agencies to do the same. This could be done by mandating all City employees who operate two-way radio-equipped vehicles and/or who have two-way radios to receive police training in how to observe their surroundings and how to notify police immediately of suspicious activities observed in the course of carrying out their primary functions. This program would also encourage the postal service, the power and gas companies, and others to be involved in this effort.

The key to a successful eyes and ears program will be implementation. The implementation process must include participants buying into the idea by clearly identifying the benefits -to all parties- that will result from their participation.

Comprehensive Youth Outreach Programs: With youths a major element of disorderly and criminal behavior and often associated with blight and disadvantage, a major effort needs to focus on enriching the lives of youth in the University Neighborhoods. A comprehensive approach that views the neighborhood and the individual child as a whole should be developed and implemented rather than focusing on a single activity.

The program should rely on a variety of components such as athletic activities, involvement in the arts, educational programs, mentoring, and neighborhood cleanup projects. Initial exploration of the comprehensive concept was met with approval by representatives of the Wexner Center for the Arts and with the City’s Recreation and Parks Department. Officials of the Recreation and Parks Department agree there is a need for a more aggressive outreach program targeting the large number of youth who live too far away from a recreation center to have maximum involvement in the center's programs. The Recreation and Parks Department is an appropriate candidate to operate the comprehensive outreach program, and would manage the involvement of other City and university organizations, including the Wexner Center.

A collaborative group called The Community for a New Direction can be used as a model for communities such as Weinland Park to identify the exact nature of the outreach programs. The plan of action developed by this organization has a division of labor which includes the neighborhood schools, citizens and the Recreation and Parks Department playing roles in delivering services to their youth.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): The principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) need to be considered in any physical improvement. The program acknowledges that the built environment may influence criminal behavior and the subsequent perception of security and safety by users. The review process focuses on 1) the physical environment - design and use; 2) behavior in the environment - desirable, undesirable and territorial; and 3) the assignment and use of space.

The purpose is to "design in" and take advantage of the principles of natural surveillance, natural access control, and territorial behavior of the normal site users. Clearly designed "defensible" space will enhance the users’ sense of ownership denying criminal anonymity and unhindered access to assets.

Neighborhood Housing Loans: It is a widely accepted belief within police circles and with the general public that the quality of policing provided by an officer is better if done where the officers and their families live. This belief is why efforts continue for police officers to live in the community where they work. One disincentive is that frequently the officers receive a better real estate package for their money outside the City with the added attraction of suburban life as (among others) being safer than the inner City.

There are areas in the City, such as the University District, that can benefit from a greater police presence, infusion, visibility, and a kind of commitment to a community that comes from living and perhaps raising a family there. This notion of having stake-holders in the community should be applied not only to police officers but also to other City employees as well as university faculty and staff.

Expand Drug Treatment and After-Care: Given the direct relationship between drug addiction and crime, efforts need to focus on after-care for drug addicts in the community. While initially perceived as a high-end investment, this strategy is essential if an impact is to be achieved on the reduction of drug use by habitual users as well as rehabilitating them to return to responsible functioning in the community.

Community Crime Patrol (CCP) Expansion: CCP is a proven success story in the University Neighborhoods. It is highly respected by police and the community alike, it enjoys high levels of participation and cooperation, and has demonstrated both efficient and effective delivery of an essential community service. Requests for expansion of CCP have understandably come from both police and community circles, and for the long term such expansion would certainly be advantageous for the University Neighborhoods. However, CCP itself is concerned with too rapid and too wide an expansion which might detract from its ability to deliver quality service, this at a time when it attempts to solidify its services.

Utilize Community Anchors: The University Neighborhoods Revitalization offers a unique opportunity for development and re-development on one hand along with support and community involvement from various "community anchors" located in and operating side-by-side with the needy and problem-ridden neighborhoods.

The idea of utilizing community anchors has three relevant elements:

The utilization of existing resources;

Making those resources available to populations who traditionally did not have access to them; and

Utilizing the anchors for outreach projects so that a partnership can be developed to replace alienation, distance, and the lack of community with their new sense of community and growth.

Anchors as large as The Ohio State University and as small as the Godman Guild could work together to enhance greater community involvement and participation. With the increasing interest that The Ohio State University is demonstrating toward its immediate physical and social surroundings, it needs to play a larger role in tackling major urban problems. This offers a unique opportunity for Ohio State to become a prototype of providing solutions to compelling urban problems.

Back to the Plan’s Table of Contents.

Back to the Campus Partners Home Page.