Ending Vandalism Inside the University of Maryland Campus - Research Proposal Example

MEMORANDUM Scott Moses October 27, Reflections on ENGL393 By midterm of ENGL 393, I learned writing strategies that work best for me which are getting peer feedback and conducting a comparing and contrasting approach, when needed, while I also learned that my strengths are my interpersonal skills that are important in conducting primary research and my organized writing skills. I did not enjoy peer feedback before this class because I felt that the feedback was focused more on form than the substance of my writing. I am thankful that my ENGL 393 peers gave meaningful peer feedback, such as what happened in Assignment 1. Kevin Muldoon and Robert Luo were helpful in fixing my paper’s grammatical mistakes and in improving the importance of my paper to target audiences, especially in explaining why the latter would need the suggested transportation management system. Furthermore, I learned that the comparing and contrasting approach is difficult, particularly when I cannot find actual campus anti-vandalism programs that are similar to what I have in mind. However, this approach is best for this paper because it is a recommendation paper and I want to know what anti-vandalism programs are already working to provide useful suggestions. Doing a comparing and contrasting approach helps enhance my knowledge about anti-vandalism efforts. Aside from these writing strategies, my strengths are my interpersonal skills and my organized writing skills. I am an extrovert and I believe I have strong interpersonal skills. In Assignment 3, for example, I already have a good student-police relationship with my MPO Robert Jenshoej of the University of Maryland Police because I already asked help from him in my past studies and class projects. Strong interpersonal skills are essential in conducting primary research because I need to talk directly with people in many instances. This class has made me realize my strengths in building and maintaining trust with my audiences. In addition, I also have good organized writing skills. I am a good planner because I prefer setting a manageable pace for my research and writing processes. I also enjoy writing drafts and getting feedback because they help me improve the clarity and relevance of my writing more to my target audiences. I am not a good critique of my work though, and it is something I want to work on. Technical writing is difficult for me because it is not the core skill that I have developed in my past courses. ENGL393, nonetheless, shows that I can be good at technical writing, provided that I focus on finding feasible solutions for real audiences. This course, after all, is about persuasiveness with brevity, so I am slowly learning how to write concise, but relevant reports for my audiences. In order to be a better critique of my work, furthermore, I have to get more peer feedback and learn from how they criticize my work. Having guideline questions for self-critique is essential in providing structure and direction to self-criticism. I find this course quite useful in my metacognitive development as a writer, where I am becoming more aware of how I write through being clear on for whom I am writing and why they would find my writing relevant and urgent to their needs and preferences. I am grateful for how ENGL393 has enhanced my ability to see myself as a student writer who will one day write similar technical reports that might help solve real-life problems. Name Instructor Class October 27, 2014 Recommendations for Ending Vandalism inside the University of Maryland Campus Context On April 4, 2012, Tom Roussey of ABC 7 News reported about two separate incidences of anti-Semitic vandalism in the University of Maryland campus. According to 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). Vandalism, the deliberate destruction/defacement of public or private property, is a distressing crime (Hazard 18). It upsets those who pay for fixing/cleaning up vandalized properties, the taxpayers, and those who are entrusted with keeping surroundings safe, the campus police (McKim-Smith 29). Vandalism is also stressful for students because it makes them feel concerned of campus security (Hazard 20; Thomas 151-152; Naso 56; Roussey). Campus vandalism is important because, despite not being widespread, it is recurring enough to cost the University money and because it may underlie social and individual problems that might lead to violent crimes in the future that will be of large concern for the police and the rest of the campus community. As individuals, offenders who vandalize properties may be people who have substance abuse or psychological problems that decrease their ability to self-monitor and control risk-taking behaviors. There is lack of research on college campus vandalism, which is why this research is important to criminology research too. To make up for the lack of campus vandalism evidence, studies on the vandalism behaviors of other groups are used for this paper. Van Lier et al. studied the development trajectories of 360 Caucasian children, ages 10 to 15, and who have self-reported antisocial behaviors (ASB). These researchers studied the trajectories of “physical violence, theft, vandalism, and alcohol-drug use” to determine if these trajectories have the same paths. Their findings showed that vandalism increased during adolescence, alongside physical violence, theft, and alcohol-drug use. This study suggests that vandalism can have co-occurring behavioral problems that may worsen further if they remain unaddressed, which could threaten students and other campus users. Apart from individual problems, vandalism could be a symptom of underlying social, economic, cultural, political, and religious issues. Anti-Semitic vandalism in the campus might indicate racial and religious conflicts that may worsen in time if not properly addressed (Sălcudean). Vandalism might be a conduit of hate crimes that could threaten minority members in the campus. This is bad for the police who already have the burden of handling hundreds of drug and liquor violation referrals, two of the highest crime rates in the campus in 2012, and this is also bad for the University who might be seen as incapable of protecting its students from hate-crime-based vandalisms. The problem of vandalism matters because it is a criminal act that might be exhibiting deeper social and individual issues, and which can co-occur or reinforce more violent crimes and behaviors in the campus of the University of Maryland. My primary target audience is the Crime Prevention Department of the campus police. The campus police will be interested in this recommendation because it can help them improve and expand their efforts in reducing vandalism without high costs. The University of Maryland administration and students will also find this report important because they are the stakeholders of these properties. The campus administration will particularly want to address vandalism because it is visual and emotional enough to attract the media that will be bad publicity and because it can directly disturb peace and safety perceptions in the campus. Project Description This recommendation report is different from others that are usually reactive in approach. By reactive, these are responses that discourage vandalism at the common target places. Its activities include putting up cameras and increasing barriers to property (i.e. as in Naso 57) without understanding the deeper causes of and finding more extensive solutions to vandalism. This report is different from other reactive programs because it is hinged on community problem analysis that is essential in determining the motivations of offenders, so that important issues are discussed. It also embodies a stakeholder framework because it encourages stakeholder participation in the decision-making process. The main goals of the report do not involve merely catching offenders, but also in helping change their vandalizing ways through understanding their motivations and providing health care and educational responses as needed (Sălcudean 57). Thus, the proposed solution significantly rests on the first step of understanding vandalism, its roots, antecedents, and risk factors. The following is the initial outline of the recommendation report. These recommendations come from different sources in the working bibliography. These sources understand that vandalism is a crime, but it can also provide opportunities for deep social analysis and finding practical school-community-based solutions to vandalism. Some sources also determine finding alternative spaces for offenders to express themselves and to help them communicate their frustrations and aspirations in healthier, less destructive manners (Hannan 57; Sălcudean). Recommendations to End Vandalism in the Campus I. Conduct community-issues analysis that examines the issues that underlie vandalism. A. Invite Gloria Aparicio Blackwell, Director of Community Engagement, Andrea Goodwin, Director of Student Conduct, and MPO Robert Jenshoej from the Crime Prevention Department of the campus police. This is important because it engages relevant stakeholders in understanding the prevalence and causes of vandalism in their community and how it may be related to other criminal and delinquent behaviors. B. Discuss the motivations of offenders and what can be done in school community and individual levels to stop vandalism. This stage reveals what is known and not known about vandalism. It facilitates self-awareness and community self-awareness regarding analyzing social problems and finding solutions to them (“The Scoop on Vandalism”). II. Develop a vandalism response program and strategy that are evidence-based and empirical in their monitoring and evaluation methods. A. Create a multisectoral task force that will invite volunteers from students to help in the reporting and cleaning up of vandalism in the campus. The value of this element is its stakeholder orientation to finding and implementing solutions to vandalism. B. Set priorities. With limited resources, both human and non-human, the task force should be able to determine what they must do first and what they can do later on. C. Determine recommended changes in the physical environment. These changes indicate that offenders can be deterred from vandalism if there are enough obstructions and tools that increase the risks of being detected and captured (Johnson). D. Identify offender-focused responses. These responses emphasize monitoring usual vandalism targets and helping offenders find other self-expression and entertainment outlets, as well as educational and health care interventions (Johnson). E. Establish school-management responses. It highlights the responsibility of the school in managing the school factors that contribute to vandalism (Johnson). Audiences The target audiences are the Crime Prevention department of the campus police, specifically MPO Robert Jenshoej of the campus police. The campus police will be interested in this recommendation because it can help them improve their efforts in reducing vandalism cost-efficiently. At present, they investigate vandalism reports, but they do not have an actual anti-vandalism program. In addition, the campus police will benefit from the suggested solutions because they will have partners in eradicating vandalism. They may find the recommended program’s cost-efficient measures essential in addressing the motivations of vandalism offenders (Cress et al. 154). The cost-efficiency comes from tapping existent health care and educational resources of the campus. Moreover, as a student, I find the campus police accommodating. I have asked help from them about campus services and research in the past. I will contact them regarding the research and recommendations report. The secondary audiences are the University of Maryland and students, specifically Gloria Aparicio Blackwell, Director of Community Engagement, and Andrea Goodwin, Director of Student Conduct. They represent the school’s and students’ interests. Blackwell has worked for community education programs through the Center for Educational Partnership. She can offer insights on how to handle the educational-side of anti-vandalism efforts. Goodwin’s office particularly handles vandalism and theft cases in the campus and gives out the proper sanctions and disciplinary actions. Blackwell and Goodwin would want to prevent vandalism because it is bad publicity for the university and because it costs money to repair vandalized properties (McKim-Smith 29). In addition, they need practical solutions, but they also want long-term recommendations that may help address the fundamental motivations of vandalism (McKim-Smith 29; Hannan 57; Rafferty; van Lier et al.). They would not only want affordable solutions, but solutions that may work better compared to their usual methods of reacting to vandalism by handing it over to the police for investigation. At present, the University has a reactive approach to vandalism by penalizing students for the costs of repairing vandalized properties, if they get caught. The tertiary readers are my classmates in ENGL 393. They may benefit from the solutions because they are campus users and the safety and cleanliness of the campus are usually important to them (Hazard 20). They might also have practical use for the report if their local communities have vandalism problems. They can use my proposal to help resolve vandalism in their areas. In addition, they can help me improve my recommendation report. They can make various suggestions on its writing and content that can enhance the persuasiveness of my report to my primary and secondary audiences. The gatekeeper is Scott Moses. We have a student/teacher relationship. He will check the document first before I will send it to the campus police. He wants us to improve our communication abilities, especially in technical writing. His values are based on his willingness to guide students into improving their research, analysis, writing, and coordinating skills. Research The most relevant sources that I have analyze the motivations of vandalism offenders, although there is dearth in research for studies that focus on college campus offenders. Cress et al. talk about a deconstruction approach that makes me think about the depth and complexity of vandalism. I will use this source to determine the right questions in understanding vandalism from a self-critical point-of-view. After understanding the causes of vandalism, it will be beneficial to read literature on its resolutions, although again, I did not find studies that focus on college campus offenders only. Thomas devotes an entire chapter on vandalism. He tackles practical solutions to vandalism. I will use this source to determine the usual approaches to vandalism. Johnson provides a comprehensive report in vandalism. She has a basic outline that I used for my recommendations report that includes community problem analysis, changes in the physical environment, offender-targeted responses, and school-management responses. I will use her article to determine the approach and specific responses to vandalism. Rafferty also provides feasible solutions to vandalism. She discusses various approaches to and tools in resolving vandalism. I will use this as evidence for different responses that already worked in the past. My primary research plan is to conduct interviews with students, teachers, and the campus police, regarding what they think the motivations of vandalism are and what proper situational (school management) and offender-centered resolutions are. I will also conduct a survey in class regarding the prevalence, motivations, and resolutions to vandalism in the campus. I will ask another teacher and student first for the pilot testing of the interview and survey questions to improve my instruments’ validity and reliability. I will interview three from each group- students, teachers (including Gloria Aparicio Blackwell, Director of Community Engagement, and Andrea Goodwin, Director of Student Conduct), and the campus police. I will ask them these questions: 1) What do you think are the offender-centered (i.e. personal motivations) causes of vandalism? Why are people vandalizing school and student properties in campus? 2) What do you think are the environmental causes of vandalism in school (e.g. poor lighting, covered areas with few passers-by et al.)? 3) What have the University and campus police done to prevent vandalism in campus? Are these actions effective? Why? Why not? 4) What do you think should the University and campus police further do to discourage vandalism in these places? 5) What do you think should the University do with these offenders? Besides this interview, I will also conduct a survey in class regarding the prevalence, motivations, and resolutions to vandalism in College Park. I will ask another teacher and student first for the pilot testing of the interview and survey questions to improve my instruments’ validity and reliability. Some of the survey questions are: Strongly disagree Neither Strongly agree Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 The University has well-known anti-vandalism efforts in campus. 2 The University has effective systems and programs against vandalism. 3 Offenders have individual reasons that motivate them to vandalize property in campus. 4 Boredom causes vandalism. 5 Anger causes vandalism. Conclusion Vandalism is an important issue because of its negative effects on the welfare of the University and community members, including the police, students, teachers, staff, and visitors. This recommendation report is different from others that are reactive in approach because it engages stakeholder participation in decision-making and taps existing health care and education systems and resources. It starts from problem analysis and proceeds to finding responses that include changes in the physical environment, offender-targeted responses, school-management responses, and police responses. The recommendations are holistic and merge human interactions and technological systems and tools in resolving vandalism through deterring its actions and helping offenders find other outlets of expression or other ways of dealing with their problems using relevant healthcare and school institutions. Sources 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. 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. “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. . 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. Read More