Ending and preventing vandalism inside the University of Maryland Campus - Research Paper Example

MEMORANDUM Scott Moses Bowen Zhang December 10, Reflections on ENGL393 Part I After reading and practicing concepts and skills on professional writing and rhetoric, I learned the stages of professional writing, improved my ethical use of resources, and enhanced my ability to write for my intended readers and to produce cogent arguments. First, I have acquired knowledge and skills in professional writing because I now practice planning, drafting, revising, and editing, since we have done that in class, particularly through the writing of several papers, including this recommendation report. Before, I did not plan for my writing and I did not usually practice drafting. I presently prefer planning and drafting because they make my writing more organized and my armaments more convincing for my target audiences, since the flow of my ideas are more interconnected and supported with credible resources. For instance, when I first worked on my vandalism proposal, I did not know where to start because I felt discouraged with the absence of primary resources regarding campus anti-vandalism programs. By organizing my research, I learned that I can do the primary research myself and that drafting improves my writing weaknesses through determining further content needs. Second, this class improved my ethical use of resources. I am not aware before of how to properly cite my sources. I sometimes forget to put in-text citations, which is why my ideas may lack credibility. Feedback from my classmates and professor helped me learn how I can improve my referencing ability, such as when they asked me where I got my ideas and to substantiate them with secondary references. I am currently more careful of using in-text citations and in using language that differentiates my thoughts from other people’s ideas. Third, this class enhanced my ability to write for my intended readers and to produce cogent arguments. I had a hard time writing Assignments 3 and 4 because I was unsure of whom my audiences/gatekeepers are. By now, I know that I must write for my audience because this is a recommendation report that will not be relevant to them, if I do not write with their needs, goals, and resources in mind. I also refined my cover letter and resume because I wrote for my audience. Once I determined my intended audiences and gatekeepers, I became more conscious of their needs and how I can make my writing aligned with their organizational/departmental needs and concerns. Hence, ENGL393 improved my ability to organize my writing process and to produce well-cited, well-organized, well-argued technical reports. I can also do primary and secondary research and use information from them and apply them to my reports. In addition, I can make convincing resumes and cover letters for future job applications. I am also more confident now in making future recommendation reports, which is especially valuable in my profession. Part II Assignment 5 has been a challenging and fruitful experience. It is fruitful because I learned a great deal about the contents of each section of the recommendation report and in determining realistic solutions. I removed the discussion of audiences in the methods section and I also no longer added my peer review in it. In addition, this assignment is challenging because of the primary research part where I could hardly get the interviews I needed. Not all my target interviewees were present for the interviews, even in the format of an online interview. I did not get interviews from Ms. Blackwell and the campus police because they did not respond to me despite repeated follow-ups in e-mails and telephone calls. I also had a hard time comparing anti-vandalism solutions, since there are no empirical studies on related campus efforts and I am making almost everything from scratch. When I realized that I did not even have information about the costs of campus vandalism and how prevalent it is, I planned to do interviews and surveys on participants who can provide relevant information. Aside from primary research challenges, I determined that my gatekeeper is Andrea Goodwin, Director of Student Conduct of the University Of Maryland, because I can send this to her for initial consideration, and I think that her office has a large stake because student conduct includes dealing with campus vandalism and student conduct engages issues of ethics and integrity that vandalism affects. My target audiences are still the same, but with emphasis more on the Office of Student Conduct and Office of Community Engagement because my recommendations are geared toward their activities and goals. Besides determining my gatekeeper, as you said in your previous feedback, I need to make my recommendations more feasible, so I shifted from recommending an anti-vandalism task force to improving and expanding current University policies and activities against vandalism. I edited my second and third drafts to engage the target audiences. I want them to know that vandalism is not only costly; it also reflects more troubling problems of poor stewardship and gaps in campus integrity. In addition, regarding the peer review, I learned how to clarify my recommendations and to provide in-text citation, as needed. I realized that I need to be more concrete and realistic in my recommendations because the University has limited time and resources. I tried to be more specific in my recommendations, although there are no bases for comparisons in anti-vandalism activities because of lack of literature on it, so I only compared campus vandalism policies and some activities. I learned that the university does not have a clear definition for vandalism and it does not have well-defined sanctions too, so I included that in my recommendations. I believe that, for my final draft, I enhanced the relevance and urgency of my recommendations to my target audiences through gearing the values and aims of my recommendations to the target departments’ and the University’s financial and human resources constraints and communal values and principles. Cover Letter 9918 Veiled Dawn Laurel, MD 21784 November 6, 2014 Ms. Andrea Goodwin Director of Student Conduct University Of Maryland 2118 Mitchell Building College Park, MD 20742 December 8, 2014 Dear Miss Goodwin: I am Bowen Zhang, a Criminal Justice student at the University of Maryland, College Park. I have already contacted you regarding my recommendation report that is part of our main project under Professor Scott Moses of ENGL393. I want to thank you for participating in the online interview. Your response has been helpful in providing primary research regarding campus vandalism. Besides this interview, I want to present the recommendation report to you for initial consideration. Vandalism is one of our concerns regarding student conduct, and I hope to get your feedback regarding this recommendation report, particularly its feasibility and effectiveness. With emerging national issues regarding racism and hate crimes, we should not take vandalism lightly because it includes hate graffiti and we should ensure that we have policies and actions that prevent vandalism that do not only cost us money, but also impacts the sense of peace, security, and diversity in the campus. My recommendation asserts that we should have more concrete anti-vandalism campus policies and activities in ending and preventing vandalism because they will affirm our moral integrity when we show respect and value to our communal campus resources and provide appropriate sanctions and support services to vandalism offenders. The recommendation report includes the results of my secondary and primary research. The results of the secondary research provide background on the causes and effects of campus vandalism on community members. It also determines vandalism policies and anti-vandalism activities in our campus and other universities. The primary research, on the contrary, gives more information about the prevalence and kinds of vandalism in the campus. It also provides stakeholder perceptions of anti-vandalism actions from the campus police and the University. The recommendations in this report include community engagement, situational, and policy changes that may improve the concreteness and long-term usefulness of anti-vandalism campus efforts. Altogether, they aim to address the underlying causes of vandalism and indicate that it takes multisectoral efforts to prevent and end vandalism by addressing the causes of regular acts of vandalism that come from apathy and possible violent expressions of hatred and group aggression. I look forward to the opportunity of discussing with you why we need to implement these recommendations. I am interested in learning more about your feedback and suggestions. You can reach me by phone at 443-995-4849 and by e-mail at bzhang46@terpmai.umd.edu, if you want me to provide any other information. I will call your office next week to see if a mutually convenient time can be arranged. Thank you for your time and consideration of this report. Sincerely, Bowen Zhang bzhang46@terpmai.umd.edu 443-995-4849 Recommendations for Ending and Preventing Vandalism inside the University of Maryland Campus Ms. Andrea Goodwin, Director of Student Conduct of the University Of Maryland Bowen Zhang Table of Contents Table of Contents 4 Executive Summary 5 Introduction 6 Methodology 8 Results 9 Secondary Research Results 9 Causes and Effects of Vandalism 9 Anti-Vandalism Policies and Activities in University Campuses 10 Vandalism Activities and Prevalence in the University of Maryland 12 Primary Research Results 13 Cost and Kinds of Vandalism in the Campus 13 Causes of Campus Vandalism 13 Awareness and Evaluation of Campus Anti-Vandalism Efforts 14 Anti-Vandalism Suggestions 15 Findings 16 Recommendations 17 Situational Campus Recommendations 17 Policy Recommendations 18 Campus Engagement Recommendations 20 Conclusion 21 Works Consulted List 22 Appendices 24 Appendix A: Primary Research: Screen shots of email exchanges 24 25 Appendix B: Interview Transcripts 25 Appendix C: Tabulated Survey Results 29 Graphics 34 Figure 1: Vandalism Seen for the Past Six Months 34 Figure 2: Causes of Vandalism 35 Glossary of Terms 36 Executive Summary Vandalism has troubling individual and social causes, as well as negative financial, social, and psychological effects on stakeholders. This report offers recommendations that can end and prevent campus vandalism. I have considered the options of creating an anti-vandalism task force or enhancing existent campus efforts and determined that the latter is more cost-efficient and relevant to existing campus anti-vandalism policies and activities. This recommendation report has two parts, secondary research and primary research. The secondary research gathers literature on the causes and effects of vandalism on different stakeholders and the anti-vandalism policies and activities of other campuses in the U.S. For the primary research, I conducted online interviews with one (1) teacher and one (1) department officer and an online survey on eighteen (18) college students that determined their perceptions regarding the costs and motivations of campus vandalism and suggestions for proper school management and offender-centered resolutions. Findings showed that there is a gap in literature regarding the financial and other kinds of costs of campus vandalism. It is estimated that vandalism in the University of Maryland campus costs around $150,000 every year or more. Campus vandalism is prevalent in terms of writings on campus properties, broken or damaged properties, and some instances of hate graffiti. The recommendations in this report address the need for community engagement, situational, and policy changes. Situational changes seek to improve the ability of the campus police to catch offenders and discourage vandalism, while policy and community engagement suggestions attend to the need for clarifying the definition of vandalism and punishments, helping offenders get needed services, and improving the student body’s knowledge of and responsiveness to campus vandalism. Vandalism has important social and financial implications that underline the importance of immediate punishments, offender behavior management services, and long-term campus awareness-raising solutions. Introduction Vandalism in the University of Maryland campus costs around $150,000 every year or more (Engelmann). The financial cost of vandalism appears to be the most tangible of its negative effects on the University because it results to unnecessary nuisance and cost for the University and students. Vandalism, however, can also have various academic, social, and psychological impacts on students and campus visitors, respectively. Vandalism may seem like an ordinary, regular transgression on University property, but it is an urgent problem because it is an affront on our integrity and ethics, if students and outsiders do not respect and perceive these properties as worthy of value and care. Integrity means knowing that it is wrong to damage the property of others in any way, whether the intentions are malicious or due to carelessness because of lack of empathy for shared community property. Vandalism is wrong and must be ended because University facilities and materials are community goods that are shared with other present and future users in line with our value for stewardship. In line with our sense of personal and collective responsibility that shapes our integrity and stewardship, we must not damage things we jointly use and we must help vandalism offenders change their vandalism attitudes and practices for the sake of respect, peace, and orderliness in the campus. The University of Maryland does not have a specific definition of vandalism, although it categorizes it as a punishable act in the “Code of Student Conduct.” It is inferred from the “Code” that vandalism includes all kinds of damages to campus property and materials. This report defines vandalism as a malicious, unnecessary, or careless damage or destruction of property belonging to University-owned facilities, materials, and other properties (Thomas 152). The basic kinds of vandalism are writings on chairs, desks, doors, and walls in classrooms, libraries, and other facilities and campus-owned vehicles, while the most destructive (physically and/or psychologically) and expensive for the University are damaged properties, such as broken windows and wrecked school equipment and vehicles, and gang-related/organization-related and hate-based graffiti. Vandalism is a punishable act in the campus because it increases school bills and costs of services that are passed on to students and it creates an atmosphere of disorder, fear, violence, and poor respect for communal resources (Naso; Rafferty; “The Scoop on Vandalism” 2). This report offers recommendations for ending and preventing vandalism in the University campus. By ending vandalism, it refers to responding to possibly deep-seated causes of vandalism, such as anger and hate against individuals or other groups, and dealing with other internal causes of vandalism (e.g. substance abuse and psychological disorders, see Van Lier et al.), as well as these causes’ interplay with social forces (e.g. peer pressure and organizational affiliations). The prevention part emphasizes the use of policies and environmental and community engagement efforts. I have considered the options of (1) creating an anti-vandalism task force or (2) enhancing existent campus efforts through recommending policy changes and having a more active education arm against vandalism. Furthermore, the criteria I used are based on the efficiency and effectiveness of the option in ending and preventing campus vandalism (Hannan; Hazard; Naso; Rafferty). I chose these criteria based on secondary research regarding anti-vandalism policies and the reality of constraints in resources and time. The criteria are: (1) cost efficiency; (2) acceptability of the option to the stakeholders; (3) relevance and appropriateness; (4) achievement of the goal of preventing vandalism in the short and long-run and ending its repetitiveness for offenders; and (5) sustainability. Please see the Glossary of Terms for the meanings of these concepts. Methodology This recommendation report has two parts, secondary research and primary research. Secondary research includes studying the current policies and actions on vandalism across the U.S. and determining the causes and effects of vandalism on different stakeholders. I undertook the secondary research to become aware of the causes of vandalism because I want to offer solutions that can realistically and meaningfully address these causes. I also aimed to get background information on the effects of vandalism because determining these negative effects enhances the usefulness and urgency of these recommendations. Furthermore, I am also interested in understanding how other campuses are faring in tackling vandalism. I seek to learn more about their anti-vandalism policies, punishments, programs, and activities. conducted the secondary research through using library databases and Google using the key words of “vandalism,” “campus,” “university,” and “policy,” as well as “causes,” “anti-vandalism,” “effects,” and “program.” I chose credible resources from official government and school websites, as well as scholarly articles. For the primary research, I conducted online interviews with Professor Brian Engelmann and Ms. Andrea Goodwin, Director of Student Conduct a teacher. I originally planned to interview Ms. Gloria Aparicio Blackwell, Director of Community Engagement and MPO Robert Jenshoej, Crime Prevention Department of the University Of Maryland Campus Police, but they were not available for the interviews despite repeated attempts to contact and follow up with them. Moreover, I interviewed Professor Engelman because he has studied gangs and their social activities, which includes vandalism. I asked these interviewees about the motivations of vandalism and the proper situational (school management) and offender-centered resolutions. I also asked them if they think that an anti-vandalism task force is feasible and if it can gain stakeholder support. I also determined their views on the costs of vandalism and their awareness to and assessment of the actions of the University and the police against vandalism. In other words, this primary research gives information that existing literature cannot provide, while determining evidence that can support proposed solutions. In addition, instead of conducting these interviews face-to-face, I conducted it online because these interviewees lacked time for face-to-face interviews. Aside from these interviews, I conducted an online survey where I targeted 20 students, but only 18 students replied. The survey aimed to know how students experienced vandalism in campus, their experiences and viewpoints about anti-vandalism efforts from the University and the campus police, their perceptions of an anti-vandalism task force and other recommendations, and their suggestions that can end campus vandalism. Like the interview, the survey aims to gather information about the kinds and level of vandalism in the campus and the students’ acceptance for different anti-vandalism programs. Results Secondary Research Results Causes and Effects of Vandalism Secondary research shows diverse causes and effects of vandalism. The causes of vandalism are complex and composed of personal and social causes. The individual causes of campus vandalism are boredom, anger, and revenge, while the social/environmental causes are peer pressure, effects of drugs and/or alcohol, association with other groups, lack of outlets of expression, lack of/poor lighting in some areas, and low human traffic, among others (Hannan; Hazard; McKim-Smith; Sălcudean; “The Scoop on Vandalism”). These environmental effects are not always causative and may be more correlated with personality variables, such as poor empathy for collectively-used facilities and materials and propensity for violence or risk-taking (Hazard; van Lier et al). In addition, some of the effects of vandalism are financial costs to the schools and students, feelings of poor safety levels in the campus, anxiety when hate graffiti are seen, and distrust of one another (Hannan; Hazard; “The Scoop on Vandalism”). These effects indicate the interconnection between what people see and how they feel about the destruction of communal properties in an environment that is expected to be safe and orderly. Anti-Vandalism Policies and Activities in University Campuses The University of Maryland’s Anti-Vandalism Policy and Activities The University of Maryland prevents vandalism through categorizing it as a punishable act in the “Code of Student Conduct.” In the section, “Prohibited Conduct,” 10(e), it states: Rioting, assault, theft, vandalism, fire setting, or other serious misconduct related to a University-sponsored event, occurring on- or off-campus, that results in harm to persons or property or otherwise poses a threat to the stability of the campus or campus community. Such conduct may result in disciplinary action regardless of the existence, status, or outcome of any criminal charges in a court of law. (University Of Maryland Code Of Student Conduct 3). It combines vandalism with other aggressive acts against the University and its inhabitants. The Code of Conduct’s policy on vandalism is further reinforced through no-vandalism rules that can be found across different facilities and parts of the campus. Besides this policy, the University has police campus efforts to prevent and respond to vandalism activities. At present, the University does not have an anti-vandalism task force, but it does have a Crime Prevention Department that is under the University of Maryland Police Department and which responds to vandalism reports. Through the Crime Prevention department, campus police officers conduct their usual safety and patrol practices that serve to prevent and respond to different campus crimes, including vandalism. Moreover, the University Police Department offers different services that can help report and reduce vandalism, such as Campus Text Alerts, Crime and Theft Prevention, and regular police patrols. Police visibility and crime response channels are the main mechanisms of the campus police in reducing vandalism. Other Universities’ Anti-Vandalism Policies and Activities With regards to the actions or programs of other universities in the U.S. regarding vandalism, they have student conduct policies and no particular anti-vandalism task forces, at least for those selected for comparison and contrast. These universities have clear definitions of and punishments for vandalism. For instance, Article 16 of the University of Tampa’s “Student Rights and Responsibilities” states that: “A. Students are prohibited from malicious, unwarranted or negligent defacement, damage or destruction of property belonging to others or to the University” and “B. Offending students are responsible for restitution for damages incurred to property, facilities or grounds owned by the University.” It has a clear definition of vandalism and emphasizes restitution as punishment for offenders. One university underlines the punishment for vandalism offenders. The Maryland Institute College of Art has a clear vandalism policy in its “Policies and Handbooks”: Students who commit vandalism on or off campus are subject to disciplinary action by the College, which can include any or all of the following: restitution (monetary or other appropriate compensation for damages), disciplinary probation, community service, suspension from the College, or dismissal from the College. In addition to discipline by the College, students are subject to civil legal action by property owners and criminal prosecution for their actions. This policy includes diverse punishments. These punishments are clearer and more diverse compared to that of the University of Maryland. Besides these punishments, to prevent vandalism, these universities also have campus police patrols. There are no empirical studies that compare the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of these policies and efforts across campuses, however, so it is hard to determine if they are effective and efficient in deterring vandalism. It also makes it difficult to base recommendations on actual empirical analyses of intervention efficacy. Nonetheless, college and university campuses across the U.S. take it seriously enough to list vandalism’s meaning, examples, and punishments and to conduct campus police patrols. Vandalism Activities and Prevalence in the University of Maryland Secondary research showed that vandalism has increased for the past years in the campus. On April 4, 2012, Tom Roussey of ABC 7 News reported two separate incidences of anti-Semitic vandalism in the University of Maryland campus. Students who were interviewed showed anxiety that discrimination existed in their surroundings (Roussey). Anxiety and fear can result to confusion and insecurity, which may affect academic standing and social interactions in the campus. Moreover, based on the “University of Maryland University College 2013 Annual Information Report,” there are 5 vandalism reports in 2010, 1 in 2011, and 4 in 2012 (6). The spike in vandalism in 2012 is a cause of concern because 6 of these vandalism incidents are related to hate crimes (“University 2013 Annual Report” 6). Campus vandalism activities are increasing for the past few years, while the causes and resolutions to them are not sufficiently researched based on my secondary research. Primary Research Results Cost and Kinds of Vandalism in the Campus The interview and survey results showed that vandalism costs $150,000 or more and it is rampant in the campus, but mostly in the forms of breaking and defacement of campus property. Professor Engelmann believes that vandalism costs $150,000, while Miss Goodwin thinks it costs a few thousands of dollars. They do not agree on how much it costs the university because there are not enough recent studies that examine how much it costs for the University to clean and replace damaged properties and facilities. Regarding the kinds and prevalence of vandalism, Professor Engelmann has seen broken chairs and writings on classroom walls, chairs, and desks. Ms. Goodwin has also seen writings on desks, study carrels, and restroom walls of the McKeldin Library. She says that the writings are mainly in pencil, pen, or marker. She adds that she also sees spray-can graffiti in the bathrooms. The survey results revealed that many students have seen vandalized properties and they are in the form of writings on different campus equipment and other things, while some have seen burnt properties. However, the majority has not seen new kinds of vandalized properties for the past six months. See Figure 1 for recent vandalism seen. Vandalism in the campus includes both non-violent and violent forms. Causes of Campus Vandalism Regarding the causes of vandalism, the survey and interview showed that boredom, anger, effects of alcohol and/or drugs, peer pressure, and lack of outlets for expression are some of the main motivations for vandalism. Other causes are revenge, associations or affiliations with other groups, absence of light, poor human traffic, and other factors. Professor Engelmann agrees that alcohol, anger, and apathy can cause offenders to vandalize campus property, while Ms. Goodwin thinks that many people engage in vandalism for the “excitement and the ‘rush’ it provides for them, and because of boredom.” Student survey supports that people who vandalize have internal and external motivations, including anger, effects of alcohol and/or drugs, peer pressure, and lack of outlets for expression. See Figure 2 for the causes of campus vandalism according to student respondents. Awareness and Evaluation of Campus Anti-Vandalism Efforts Besides these causes, findings showed that not many people are aware of anti-vandalism efforts from the police or the University. Professor Engelmann knows that security cameras are installed all over the campus and patrols are increased in response to general crime prevention programs and not vandalism per se, but Ms. Goodwin says that she is not familiar with any concrete anti-vandalism efforts. The survey further shows that many students are not aware of anti-vandalism efforts from the police or the University, whereas some are knowledgeable of these actions through police patrols and vandalism policies. All parties agree that the University and the police can do more in preventing campus vandalism. Professor Engelmann believes that “the police and the University should work to provide adequate lighting in all corners of the University and to ensure that there are no exceptionally remote and removed areas in campus buildings where students can get away with a lot.” Miss Goodwin suggests that the University should ensure “that perpetrators are held accountable and made to pay restitution.” The survey confirms that many students think that the University and the police can do more to end or prevent vandalism. Many of them do not agree that the University has enough or has clear punishments for offenders and that these actions and policies are known to students. Anti-Vandalism Suggestions In terms of actions against and on offenders, stakeholders offer different common and new solutions. Professor Engelmann recommends “counseling and sanctions plus [offenders must be] made to pay restitution for vandalism,” while Miss Goodwin has more recommendations, including “community service and washing off the vandalism (or replacing the damaged property or paying for its damages)…restitution, apologies, and counseling would be adequate.” Survey respondents note that law enforcement, clear policies, increase in visibility of the staff, more police patrol, more punishment, and more education can reduce vandalism. They agree that education for students is important to increase their sense of stewardship for community resources. As for the recommendation for a task force versus enhancing existent efforts, respondents give mixed results. Professor Engelmann thinks that the “current police and watch block will suffice as long as both are willing to work together to strategize the best ways in which to tackle and deter vandalism on campus.” Miss Goodwin is unsure if a task force is needed to deter campus vandalism. More students strongly agree that a task force is needed, although many students also think that the University only needs to strengthen current University and campus police efforts that aim to end campus vandalism. In addition, around 44.44% are willing to participate in an anti-vandalism task force. This finding conflicts with the almost overwhelming positive response when asked if they think that students should participate in an anti-vandalism task force. When asked about creative ways of ending vandalism, stakeholders offered education and more community discussion and engagement. Professor Engelmann recommends student discussions on vandalism and in promoting the value of campus property, while Miss Goodwin emphasizes lighting up all dark areas and educating students about the impacts of campus property destruction on their financial costs and wellbeing. Student respondents recommend having speeches about anti-vandalism, hanging posters in libraries to encourage students to end vandalism, increasing punishments, installing more cameras, and improving campus police patrol. Findings Findings indicated that vandalism is prevalent in the University, but mostly in terms of writings on campus properties and broken or damaged properties. The worst kinds are broken/burnt properties, vandalism in residence halls, and hate speech. Some of these stakeholders have seen an increase in vandalism for the past six months too. None of them reported hate-speech graffiti aside from the news report. This is interesting because it is either they are not aware of it, or they do not find it alarming enough. The University, moreover, noted an increase in vandalism from 2010 to 2012, and it is disturbing that majority are related to hate crimes (“University 2013 Annual Report” 6). Hate crimes combined with alcohol use/abuse and drugs may result to violent actions against others (Thomas). Furthermore, these findings showed that stakeholders in the campus may be aware or not fully aware of the efforts of the University and the police in addressing vandalism. They think that the cameras and police patrol are helping in preventing vandalism. They stress the need for more University sanctions too. Some students are also aware of these policies and actions, but not the majority. These findings suggest that vandalism efforts are not that widely known to all students and there may be a need for a stronger education effort against vandalism. Moreover, these stakeholders feel that the University and the police can do more, and that an anti-vandalism task force is not necessarily needed. They think that more sanctions are needed, as well as student-based education efforts. They also believe in the effectiveness of more security cameras and lights in places where people do not usually pass and dark areas. They show the importance of community engagement too as they encourage community discussions on vandalism and education about its effects on the campus. They argue for the importance of regular campus discussions and use of media to help students understand that vandalism is wrong and that it has social and financial costs for all of them. They are also willing to be active members of the community in reporting and preventing vandalism. Recommendations The recommendations in this report include and respond to these stakeholders’ recommendations and secondary research, specifically, improving existent efforts and offering more sanctions and health and social support for at-risk offenders. These recommendations aim to align policies and behaviors that are essential in ensuring the development and protection of moral integrity and the promotion of a stewardship viewpoint in the campus. These recommendations are the following: Situational Campus Recommendations (1) More lights in dark areas that people do not usually use. Increase in campus lighting can deter illegal campus behaviors, not just vandalism. This suggestion is cost-efficient because additional lights are less expensive than increasing police employees or hiring more staff to guard or monitor these areas (Johnson 11). This is also acceptable to the stakeholders based on the interview and survey. This option is relevant and appropriate because many students do vandalism on these unlighted or poorly-lit areas. Compared to other anti-vandalism efforts, this is also a common response to vandalism (Johnson 11). This option can also prevent vandalism in the short and long run because it can increase the visibility of places and reduce the risk-taking behaviors of offenders if they think they will be caught and get punished. This option is also sustainable because lights and electricity costs are already part of the university expenses. (2) Additional security cameras (closed-circuit television or CCTVs) in usually vandalized places. A more extensive CCTV system can deter and catch offenders of diverse misbehaviors. This suggestion is not as cost-efficient as increasing lights because of the high costs of installing and maintaining security cameras. However, if they can deter or catch offenders, then the costs are justified (Johnson 28). This option is also acceptable to stakeholders based on the interview and survey and is comparable to other efforts when responding to vandalism issues (Naso). This option is relevant and proper because it can capture the identity and actions of offenders. By being a preventative and detection measure, these cameras can prevent vandalism in the short and long run. It cannot be sustained though without budget allocated for its maintenance and eventual re-purchase once already broken due to use or abuse. These new cameras also cost more when being integrated into the surveillance security system of the campus. (3) Provide outlets of expression. The Office of Student Conduct can help the campus allot spaces and areas in the campus where people can write their frustrations and other ideas (“The Scoop on Vandalism” 1). This is cost-efficient if students use their own materials. It is also effective in attaining goals of ending vandalism because it provides outlets for expression. It is relevant and appropriate too because it can alleviate the need for public expression or relieve boredom. It is sustainable if the campus can maintain these grounds for such uses. It is not a new option and already practiced in other campuses where graffiti arts are allowed in certain spaces only (Sălcudean). Policy Recommendations (1) Clarify and identify specific and general vandalism acts and proper sanctions in University policies and rules to hold offenders accountable for their actions. The Office of Student Conduct is particularly important in addressing this policy gap because it wants to hold offenders responsible for their actions and to encourage other students to improve their ability to care for and respect school properties through anti-vandalism policies. This addresses the criteria well because it helps everyone know more about vandalism’s sanctions. This aspect of the University also needs further expansion because compared to other universities, our Code of Conduct does not have a specific definition of “vandalism” and its forms and it also lacks a list of appropriate sanctions for different kinds of vandalisms. We also do not have any standards and guidelines for determining the proper punishments and other related health and education services for offenders. Moreover, this recommendation also helps prevent vandalism because not many students want to pay for damaged/defaced property or go through counseling. Clear definitions and sanctions can help students know that they are accountable for their vandalism activities, and they should be more mindful of preventing and reporting vandalism acts (Johnson 29). (2) Increase sanctions by including payment of restitution, community service for all vandalized properties, and referral to health or social agencies for those who have visible psychological or drug/alcohol abuse/use or other behavioral problems. The Office of Student Conduct can help improve the definition and sets of sanctions as it deals with different vandalism reports. It should consider counseling for apathy and other risk-taking behaviors should also be included as punishment because those who vandalize for fun need to feel more empathy when conducting property destruction and because this can have a deterrence effect (Johnson 29). Attendance of these health care/social services must be mandatory and non-compliance should result to suspension and possible expulsion. This recommendation satisfies the criteria because stakeholders called for stricter sanctions. Restitution must also be added to the punishment that includes administrative and legal processes to get money from offenders and to pay for the fixing of replacement of vandalized properties (Johnson 29). Moreover, I also want to help the offenders to deeply understand why what they are doing is wrong to them and to the campus community. I want them to get the health and social support they need if they are already at-risk because of substance abuse problems and other violent behaviors that may escalate (Johnson 29). Campus Engagement Recommendations (1) Ask writers to write on vandalism every month on the school paper and community paper. The Office of Student Conduct can spearhead these writing activities. This option is cost efficient because writing is virtually a voluntary activity (“The Scoop on Vandalism” 1). This recommendation may be acceptable to the stakeholders because it is part of the education aspect of preventing vandalism. It is relevant and appropriate because students need ethos, pathos, and logos before they can see that they have a stake in ending vandalism. It can also lead to the achievement of the goal of preventing vandalism in the short and long-run as part of the campus’ regular education aspect. It can also be sustainable as long as editors are reminded of these articles. This option has also been recommended and done in other settings where vandalism is an issue (“The Scoop on Vandalism” 1). (2) Create an anti-vandalism month where students talk about vandalism, its causes and effects, and help in cleaning up vandalized properties. The Office of Student Conduct can launch this event because it promotes our integrity and ethics if we discuss vandalism more and understand why it is bad for all of us, thereby potentially aligning moral standards of school respect with actions that reflect it. This option is cost efficient because it can be done through existing programs and promotes community engagement (Cress et al. 154). It can also reduce costs in cleaning up vandalized properties because of the volunteerism involved. It is also acceptable to stakeholders who want to talk about vandalism more. It is relevant and appropriate because it encourages school unity and empathy for school property. It prevents vandalism in the short and long run because discussions can improve knowledge about vandalism and decrease the need to practice in it. It is sustainable if recognized as a traditional University event. Conclusion Vandalism in the University of Maryland campus costs around $150,000 every year or more (Engelmann). It is prevalent in terms of writings on campus properties and broken or damaged properties. Regarding the causes of vandalism, the survey and interview showed that boredom, anger, effects of alcohol and/or drugs, peer pressure, and lack of outlets for expression are some of the main motivations for vandalism. Other causes are revenge, associations or affiliations with other groups, absence of light, poor human traffic, and other factors. The recommendations address community engagement, situational, and policy changes that the Office of Student Conduct can help attain. Situational changes seek to improve the ability of the police to catch offenders and to prevent vandalism, while policy and community engagement suggestions address the need for clarifying and increasing punishments, helping offenders change their mindsets about vandalism, and improving the knowledge of the campus regarding the ill effects of vandalism to them and other stakeholders. It is hoped that this recommendation report will prove the need for the recommended changes and that related stakeholders will support and fund it. We need to make changes in how we see, define, discuss, and respond to vandalism because to do so will affirm our moral integrity when we respect and protect our communal resources and promote diversity and orderliness. Works Consulted List Cress, Christine M., Collier , Peter J., and Vicki L. Reitenauer. Learning Through Serving: A Student Guidebook for Service-Learning and Civic Engagement across Academic Disciplines and Cultural Communities. 2nd ed. Virginia: Stylus, 2013. Print. Engelmann, Brian. Online Interview. 19 Nov. 2014. Goodwin, Andrea. Online Interview. 18 Nov. 2014. “Graffiti and Vandalism.” Maryland Institute College of Art, 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2014. . Hannan, Maureen. “Skate Park Vandalism.” Parks & Recreation (2012): 56-57. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. Hazard, Andrea. “Vandalism Hurts.” Current Health 36.3 (2009): 18-21. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. Johnson, Kelly Dedel. “School Vandalism and Break-Ins.” U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . McKim-Smith, Gridley. “The Rhetoric of Rape, the Language of Vandalism.” Womans Art Journal 23.1 (2002): 29-36. JSTOR. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. Naso, Markisan. “Vanquishing Vandalism.” Journal of Property Management 72.5 (2007): 56-57. Business Source Complete. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. Rafferty, Victoria. “Vandalism on College Campuses: The Need for More Security.” Online Submission. ED509678. ERIC. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. Roussey, Tom. “University of Maryland Anti-Semitic Vandalism Discovered.” ABC 7 News, 4 Apr. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. . Sălcudean, Ileana Nicoleta. “Art and Vandalism. CrossBreeding of Street Art (Re)Interpretation of Street Art from a Sociological, Aesthetical and Interactivity Perspective.” Journal of Media Research 5.1 (2012): 45-60. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. “Student Rights and Responsibilities.” University of Tampa, 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2014. . “The Scoop on Vandalism.” National Crime Prevention Council. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . Thomas, Robert Murray. Violence in Americas Schools: Understanding, Prevention, and Responses. Connecticut: Praeger, 2006. Print. “University of Maryland University College 2013 Annual Information Report.” University of Maryland University College (UMUC). Web. 20 Oct. 2014. . “University Of Maryland Code of Student Conduct.” University of Maryland University College (UMUC), 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. . van Lier, Pol A.C., Vitaro, Frank, and Edward D. Barker. “Developmental Links between Trajectories of Physical Violence, Vandalism, Theft, and Alcohol-Drug Use from Childhood to Adolescence.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 37.4 (2009): 481-492. EJ834938. ERIC. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. van Luijk, Henk. “Integrity in the Private, the Public, and the Corporate Domain.” Corporate Integrity and Accountability. Ed. George G. Brenkert. California: SAGE, 2004. 38-54. Print. Appendices Appendix A: Primary Research: Screen shots of email exchanges Appendix B: Interview Transcripts Interviewee: Brian Engelmann Interviewee Contact: bmengel@umd.edu 2220B LeFrak Hall University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 (301)-489-1734 Interview Date: 19 November 2014 I sent an email to let Prof Engelmann submit an online interview. Below are his answers. 1) Have you already witnessed vandalism in campus? If yes, please describe what it is and when and where you saw it. Some examples are glass breakage, graffiti, and general property destruction I am aware of vandalism but have not personally witnessed it. 2) What is the worst kind of vandalism that you have witnessed in campus and why do you think it is the worst kind? How did this vandalism make you feel? Broken chair. I think physical destruction of furniture is worse than writing on a desk or a wall. This made me feel like students and others dont care too much about some of the Universitys property and that maintenance or replacement of the chair is not on the Universitys radar 3) For school administrators and the police, how much do you think is vandalism costing the University? I believe that vandalism costs the University about $150,000 per year. 4) What do you think are the offender-centered (i.e. personal motivations) causes of vandalism? Some examples are anger, boredom, revenge, frustration, ideological goals, and stealing property. alcohol, anger and apathy for other peoples property. 5) Think of an example of vandalism in campus and consider its environmental characteristics. What do you think are the environmental factors that contribute to vandalism in school (i.e. poor lighting, covered areas with few passers-by et al.)? unsure 6) What have the University and campus police done to prevent vandalism in campus? Are these actions effective? Why? Why not? They have installed cameras all over campus and have increased police patrol in areas where vandalism occurs. 7) What do you think should the University and campus police focus on when addressing vandalism? I think the police and the University should work to provide adequate lighting in all corners of the University and to ensure that there are no exceptionally remote and removed areas in campus buildings where students can get away with a lot. 8) What do you think should the University do with these offenders? Counselling? Sanctions? Any new ideas for controlling these behaviors? Counseling and Sanctions plus made to pay restitution for vandalism. 9) What can students to do to prevent vandalism in campus? Confront it when they see someone vandalizing or call the police. Speak out against it. 10) For students, will you participate in a program that deters vandalism or cleans up vandalized properties? Why? Why not? Im not a student 11) Do you think that a task force on vandalism is needed to deter vandalism or can the current campus police and watch block suffice in deterring vandalism? I think the current police and watch block will suffice as long as both are willing to work together to strategize the best ways in which to tackle and deter vandalism on campus. 12) Can you think of any creative new ways of deterring offenders? What are they and how can they be funded and implemented? People take more pride and ownership in their surroundings and in other peoples things when they understand the value of it. Perhaps starting some conversations with students to get them talking about it and speaking against vandalism. 13) Are you aware of other anti-vandalism campaigns in other campuses? What are they? Can they be implemented in our campus too? I am not. Interviewee: Andrea Goodwin Interviewee Contact: agoodwin@umd.edu 2118 Mitchell Building, College Park, MD 20742. Telephone: 301.314.8204 Interview Date: 18 November 2014 I sent an email to let Ms. Goodwin submit an online interview. Below are her answers. 1) Have you already witnessed vandalism in campus? If yes, please describe what it is and when and where you saw it. Some examples are glass breakage, graffiti, and general property destruction Yes, in McKeldin Library I have seen writing on desks, study carrels, and on restroom walls. The writing is mainly in pencil, pen, or marker. Sometimes there is spray-can graffiti in the bathrooms. I have not seen any other form of property destruction on campus. 2) What is the worst kind of vandalism that you have witnessed in campus and why do you think it is the worst kind? How did this vandalism make you feel? I think vandalism in the residence halls is particularly troubling because it is where students live. 3) For school administrators and the police, how much do you think is vandalism costing the University? Perhaps thousands of dollars a year. 4) What do you think are the offender-centered (i.e. personal motivations) causes of vandalism? Some examples are anger, boredom, revenge, frustration, ideological goals, and stealing property. I think a lot of times people engage in vandalism for excitement and the "rush" it provides for them, and because of boredom. 5) Think of an example of vandalism in campus and consider its environmental characteristics. What do you think are the environmental factors that contribute to vandalism in school (i.e. poor lighting, covered areas with few passers-by et al.)? I think that certain spaces in the main library building on campus are not populated and are desolate and far from any staff members. I think students feel as though they can write all over the desks and carrels without getting caught - same thing goes for the bathrooms. 6) What have the University and campus police done to prevent vandalism in campus? Are these actions effective? Why? Why not? Im not sure what theyve done 7) What do you think should the University and campus police focus on when addressing vandalism? Making sure that perpetrators are held accountable and made to pay restitution. 8) What do you think should the University do with these offenders? Counselling? Sanctions? Any new ideas for controlling these behaviors? I think community service and washing off the vandalism (or replacing the damaged property or paying for its damages). So, I think restitution, apologies, and counseling would be adequate. 9) What can students to do to prevent vandalism in campus? Call public safety is there is anything suspicious going on in areas that are not well-lighted or trafficked. Refrain from defacing school property by writing on it. 10) For students, will you participate in a program that deters vandalism or cleans up vandalized properties? Why? Why not? N/A 11) Do you think that a task force on vandalism is needed to deter vandalism or can the current campus police and watch block suffice in deterring vandalism? unsure 12) Can you think of any creative new ways of deterring offenders? What are they and how can they be funded and implemented? Make sure that all areas of campus are well lighted in darkness and educate students about the impact of property destruction 13) Are you aware of other anti-vandalism campaigns in other campuses? What are they? Can they be implemented in our campus too? Not aware of any but Im sure a campaign would be a great idea. Appendix C: Tabulated Survey Results 1) I have seen vandalized properties in campus. By vandalism, the survey refers to glass breakage, graffiti, writings on campus properties (e.g. desks and chairs) and general property destruction. 2) What vandalized properties have you seen? Please give examples and the approximate date that you saw them. They make some graffiti in walls. At testudo writing on the door of washroom，dont know the time because it already here None Last year, in front of library Writings on desks in libraries. bus stop shelter Walls and doors of restrooms. Every time I use restroom I see random writings. I saw the chewing gum was sticked to the chairs and the testudo was on fire. Also I saw someone was standing on the testudo. In the bathroom. 3) Have you seen newly vandalized campus properties in the past six months aside from what you have seen before this time? 4) I believe that these are the causes of vandalism: 5) The University has well-known anti-vandalism efforts in campus. 6) The University has sufficient sanctions for vandalism offenders. 7) I think that the University should improve its efforts in preventing vandalism. 8) The campus police is active in their efforts of ending vandalism 9) The campus police has effective responses to vandalism. 10) I think that the campus police should improve its efforts in preventing vandalism. 11) I think that vandalism can be resolved through a task force dedicated to it. 12) I think we only need to strengthen current University and campus police efforts that aim to end campus vandalism. 13) I believe that students should participate in an anti-vandalism task force. 14) What are the resolutions to ending vandalism in campus? Be nice to people.Friendly environment is important. Law enforcement. Make clear policies Have more staff look over the campus during the day. campus will be more clean. More police patrol Education 15) Will you volunteer to participate in a task force or neighborhood watch that reports vandalism and cleans up vandalized properties? 16) Are there creative ways of ending campus vandalism and what are they? Some Speech about it. N/A Paint the wall or keep the rooms clean Hang posters in libraries and encourage students to engage in ending campus vandalism activities and supervise each other. Law enforcement. Installing more cameras, giving some punishments to them and more campus police patrol. Graphics Figure 1: Vandalism Seen for the Past Six Months Figure 2: Causes of Vandalism Glossary of Terms Acceptability to the stakeholders- Acceptability refers to stakeholders’ agreement that these recommendations/options would work in attaining goals and in maximizing limited resources. Acceptability means approval or support from stakeholders. Appropriateness- Appropriateness refers to the suitability of the recommendations to the goals and activities of related stakeholders. Cost-efficiency- It refers to being able to use the least amount of resources in attaining the goal and objectives of the program or recommendations. A cost-efficient program is often the least expensive, if not one of the least-expensive recommendation or option. Integrity- I refer more to moral integrity that balances personal and social integrity. Personal integrity refers to doing what we see as our personal moral standards, while social integrity refers to behaving according to socially-set moral standards (van Luijk 39). Moral integrity means that we accept the existence of our personal and social moral standards and we are committed to doing them in our everyday lives (van Luijk 40). Efficacy- Effectiveness of interventions. Offender-centered resolutions- They refer to solutions that are geared to individual causes of vandalism, such as feelings of boredom, or effects of using drugs or alcohol. Relevance- Relevance refers to the significance of recommendations to the unique needs and conditions of stakeholders. Sustainability- Sustainability means the ability of the target primary audiences in sustaining recommended programs and activities. It also means that the suggestions do not harm the environment or take unnecessary resources from the University. Stakeholders- These are individuals or groups who have a stake or interest in the recommendations, meaning they are directly/indirectly affected by the recommended actions financially, socially, politically, and/or academically. The primary stakeholders are the officials of the Director of Student Conduct of the University Of Maryland because they are in charge of student conduct violations, including vandalism. Stewardship- It refers to responsible management and use of resources. Vandalism- The University of Maryland does not have a specific definition of vandalism, although it categorizes it as a punishable act in the “Code of Student Conduct.” It is inferred from the “Code” that vandalism damages campus property and materials. This report defines vandalism as a malicious, unnecessary or careless damage or destruction of property belonging to University-owned facilities, materials, and other properties. It includes writings on walls, desks, and chairs, among others, and broken windows and equipment. Read More