How Much Does It Cost?
“We did not find the SAFER California Universities interventions to be expensive to do. In part, that was because many of them were already being undertaken by the city. For example, the noise ordinances and landlord interventions had started before we at Cal Poly got into the active phase of the program. For us, it was a matter of moving towards better coordination of existing efforts.”
-Martin Bragg, Director, Health & Counseling Services, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo 

The SAFER California Universities campuses found that implementing the interventions were not expensive to do. In many cases, staff shifted existing resources away from activities that were not having the desired impact in reducing problems. They were also able to more effectively coordinate existing resources on campus and with local law enforcement agencies. In addition, the implementation and enforcement of local party response and noise ordinances both generated funds and reduced the number of costly responses.

“I recommend the SAFER Schools Risk Management Approach because it demands engagement and coordination, but not really any additional work, from a variety of campus/community stakeholders to succeed. It’s exciting when the synergy clicks and student drinking/party expectations and behaviors shift. At a large institution like UC Berkeley, this cross-silo approach is absolutely needed for sustained reductions in harm related to student drinking. SAFER Universities’ focus on targeted times (first 10 weeks of fall semester) and places (off campus parties) makes sense to deterrence-minded police and feels manageable to overwhelmed student conduct and counseling staff.  The checklist of interventions--enforcement operations and visibility activities - is simple, but not simplistic, and it’s easy for project coordinators to communicate and monitor.  In our case, the SAFER Universities approach has been a good fit and has, almost in its entirety, been institutionalized.”
-Karen Hughes, coordinator for PartySafe@Cal, a program of the University Health Service at the University of California-Berkeley.

Click here to read a case history of the SAFER California Universities experience at the University of California-Berkeley.
...........................

Lupe Samaniego-Kraus, ATOD Coordinator, University of California, describes the cost associated with implementing the SAFER California Universities intervention on her campus.

Were the Safer Universities intervention Expensive to do? click here to play 

Were you able to shift some of the existing resources that you have away from things that were not evidence-based to SAFER INTERVENTIONS? click here to play

...........................

What is Needed?
“For me the most important point is that alcohol abuse in the student community can set the stage for tragic circumstances and that sort of dedication should come from that place of wanting to make the environment safer and wanting to impact the environment in such a way that people are safe, that people are not injured or not killed. Every year we lose at least a half dozen students in ways that are related to alcohol, whether it’s a fight or an accident or a suicide and that’s a core reason why it’s important to invest in these efforts.”
-Lt. Andrew Greenwood, Berkeley Police Department

While campuses did not find the costs of the SAFER Universities interventions to be very high, having a dedicated staff person is definitely a plus. Many campuses already have someone charged with overseeing prevention efforts, so it is a matter of having that person shift some focus away from less effective activities to the evidence-based interventions of SAFER Universities interventions.

Anticipating the enforcement resource issue and having a strategy to realign existing resources is very important as well as having an equal leadership role with the police. While law enforcement agencies often cite lack of resources as a barrier to implementing enforcement measures, they are already reacting to situations which in the long run costs more resources then being proactive and focused. Reductions in problems associated with unruly house parties means reductions in calls to respond to those problems, saving enforcement times and resources. 

Mobilizing support for an issue may require some local data and a focus on what has been proven effective.  If the off-campus party issue is of importance to the campus, community and police you have a receptive audience that is looking for ways to address it. So it is important to convey that the SAFER model can be implemented with commitment of stakeholders and minimal resources. 

SAFER California Universities campuses did a good job of getting things done with minimal resources by anticipating potential obstacles. In developing the SAFER California Universities research project, the researchers did not want resources to be a barrier to implementation. For example, the strategy included a recommendation that an enforcement leader worked as a partner with the campus liaison who coordinated the visibility of the interventions. Issues of enforcement were reframed by not asking police to do x and y, but instead ask enforcement agencies what they are currently doing, what grants they may have (e.g. DUI), and what legal remedies were in place. That way the campus and city Police Departments started to focus their efforts to get more bang for the buck and provide the benefit of a visibility campaign to students to create the deterrent effect. Many of the campuses did a great job with this approach and established good partnerships with the campus and city PDs. So the question should not be what resources are needed, it should be what can be accomplished with existing resources by being focused and working together. Many SAFER campuses were able to overcome the resource barrier so often encountered when people are asked to try something different rather than sticking with more of the same.

Cost Response Ordinances
Cost response ordinances serve two purposes when it comes to reducing the risks associated with unruly house parties and protecting the health and safety of students.

First, holding students who host these parties or landlords who allow such parties to take place on their property are held accountable for costs incurred by law enforcement agencies who respond to calls for service from concerned neighbors or even partygoers themselves can be a strong motivation for hosts to make those parties safer.  

Second, permitting law enforcement agencies to charge hosts and/or landlords for the costs that they incur when they respond to call for service provides an incentive for them to enforce local noise and nuisance ordinances. Many communities have noise and nuisance ordinances in place. Some even have cost response ordinances. Often times it is merely a matter of encouraging law enforcement agencies to use those tools in a more focused and strategic way. Other communities may need to enact or strengthen ordinances to provide law enforcement agencies with tools that have been proven to be effective when used strategically to reduce problems related to unruly house parties.

Click here for a model cost response ordinance.

Click here to see ordinances in SAFER California Universities communities.
City of Berkeley . City of Chico . City of Long Beach . City of Riverside . City of Santa Cruz