University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A stakeholder approach to reimagining private departments of public safety: the implementation of a community advisory board recommendation report

(USC Thesis Other)

A stakeholder approach to reimagining private departments of public safety: the implementation of a community advisory board recommendation report

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
A STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO REIMAGINING PRIVATE DEPARTMENTS OF
PUBLIC SAFETY: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RECOMMENDATION REPORT

by

Elizabeth Carreño-Diaz

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT

December 2022

ii
Dedication
I dedicate this work to my family. To my parents, who taught me that everything is
possible and that which seems impossible is especially worth pursuing. A ustedes les debo todo
lo que soy y sere. Por ustedes supe que podria lograr esto y mucho mas. Gracias, por todo. Los
amo, los estimo, los adoro. To my brother and sister, I know I missed a lot as I spent the last
couple of years glued to a computer screen. Thank you for holding down the fort and setting the
bar higher in the process. I love you. To my nieces and nephews, impossible is nothing. I hope
this inspires you to dream big and accomplish bigger. Also, you must call me Dr. Tía now. To
my husband—my love, my fellow pup parent, my unofficial cohort member, my study partner,
my best friend—thank you for your love, endless patience, unwavering support, and unfailing
encouragement.

iii
Acknowledgements
The journey of pursuing this degree taught me many things. Above all, no major
endeavor is accomplished alone. Reaching the finish line would not have been possible without
the help, support, encouragement, and mentorship of some incredibly amazing people along the
way. First, I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Bill Resh, who took me on and helped guide me
without any hesitation. Second, I would like to thank the role models who inevitably became my
friends. I will forever owe the greatest debt of gratitude to JT, my mentor, my man of honor, one
of my very best friends. His mentorship throughout my professional career is what led me to
pursue this degree. His friendship is what helped me finish. Dr. Eric Schockman and Dr. Lois
Takahashi, who were always there to guide me when writing just one more page felt impossible,
thank you for everything but mostly, thank you for being you. Last, I would like to thank my
cohort. It was an absolute honor and pleasure to travel this journey with you. We got ‘er done!

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4
Statement of Purpose .......................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Orientation ....................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 6
Significance of Study .......................................................................................................... 7
Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 7
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 9
Private and Public Police .................................................................................................... 9
Stakeholder Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12
Community Advisory Boards ........................................................................................... 19
History................................................................................................................... 19
Types of CABs and How They Come Together ................................................... 20
Member Roles ....................................................................................................... 21
Benefits of a CAB ................................................................................................. 21
Best Practices and Examples ................................................................................ 22
Motivators ............................................................................................................. 23
Potential Issues...................................................................................................... 24
Areas for Improvement ......................................................................................... 24
Organizational Change Management ................................................................................ 25
Critical Factors ...................................................................................................... 25
Potential Conflicts ................................................................................................. 26
Frameworks........................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 32
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 32
Study Design ..................................................................................................................... 32
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 35
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 36
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 38
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 38
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 40
Ethical Concerns ............................................................................................................... 40
Funding and Compensation .............................................................................................. 40

v
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 40
Chapter 4: Results ......................................................................................................................... 42
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 42
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 47
Phase 1: Assessing Each Recommendation and Action Item Individually ...................... 51
Phase 1 Analysis Results .................................................................................................. 59
Chapter 5: Implementation Recommendations ............................................................................. 61
Phase Two: Assessing Recommendations and Action Items in Clusters ......................... 61
Theme: DPS Uniforms .......................................................................................... 62
Theme: DPS Data ................................................................................................. 63
Theme: Community Engagement ......................................................................... 65
Theme: Wellness ................................................................................................... 67
Theme: DPS Communication ............................................................................... 69
Theme: DPS Training and Policies ....................................................................... 70
Theme: Legal Review ........................................................................................... 72
Theme: DPS Recruitment ..................................................................................... 73
Theme: DPS Mission ............................................................................................ 74
Phase 2 Analysis Results .................................................................................................. 74
Phase Three: Assessing Recommendations and Action Items in Clusters with
Additional Report Data ..................................................................................................... 77
Recommendation: Re-Envision Public Safety ...................................................... 77
Recommendation: Create an Independent Oversight Body .................................. 78
Theme: DPS Uniforms .......................................................................................... 81
Theme: DPS Data ................................................................................................. 82
Theme: Community Engagement ......................................................................... 84
Theme: Wellness ................................................................................................... 86
Theme: DPS Communication ............................................................................... 87
Theme: DPS Training and Policies ....................................................................... 89
Theme: Legal Review ........................................................................................... 91
Theme: DPS Recruitment ..................................................................................... 92
Theme: DPS Mission ............................................................................................ 93
Phase Three Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 93
Chapter 6: Discussion ................................................................................................................... 98
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 99
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 99
Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................. 101
References ................................................................................................................................... 105

vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Types of Stakeholders ......................................................................................................18
Table 2. Factors for Implementation ..............................................................................................27
Table 3. Definitions of Factors for Implementation ......................................................................30
Table 4. Factors for Implementation Framework ..........................................................................34
Table 5. General Recommendations ..............................................................................................42
Table 6. Accountability Action Items ............................................................................................42
Table 7. Alternatives to Armed Response Action Items ................................................................43
Table 8. Community Care Action Items ........................................................................................44
Table 9. Transparency Action Items ..............................................................................................45
Table 10. Recommendation Pillar Totals.......................................................................................46
Table 11. Blanket Factors ..............................................................................................................47
Table 12. Item 36 ...........................................................................................................................48
Table 13. Item 19 ...........................................................................................................................49
Table 14. Item 5 .............................................................................................................................50
Table 15. Phase One Analysis .......................................................................................................51
Table 16. Re-envision Public Safety (Sponsor: N/A) ....................................................................61
Table 17. Independent Oversight Body (Sponsor: N/A) ...............................................................61
Table 18. Phase Two DPS Uniforms (Sponsor: DPS) ...................................................................62
Table 19. Phase Two DPS Data (Sponsor: DPS) ...........................................................................63
Table 20. Phase Two Community Engagement .............................................................................65
Table 21. Phase Two Wellness ......................................................................................................68
Table 22. Phase Two DPS Communication (Sponsor: DPS) ........................................................69
Table 23. Phase Two DPS Training and Policies ..........................................................................70
Table 24. Phase Two Legal Review (Sponsor: DPS) ....................................................................72

vii
Table 25. Phase Two DPS Recruitment (Sponsor: DPS) ..............................................................73
Table 26. Phase Two DPS Mission (Sponsor: DPS) .....................................................................74
Table 27. Phase Two Analysis Results ..........................................................................................75
Table 28. Process of Phase Two Analysis .....................................................................................76
Table 29. Phase Three Re-envision Public Safety (Sponsor: N/A) ...............................................77
Table 30. Phase Three Create an Independent Oversight Body (Sponsor: N/A) ...........................79
Table 31. Phase Three DPS Uniforms (Sponsor: DPS) .................................................................82
Table 32. Phase Three DPS Data (Sponsor: DPS) .........................................................................83
Table 33. Phase Three Community Engagement (Sponsor: USC Civic Engagement as
Primary, DPS with Input from USC Communications as Secondary) ..........................................84
Table 34. Phase Three Wellness (Sponsor: N/A) ..........................................................................86
Table 35. Phase Three DPS Communication (Sponsor: DPS) ......................................................87
Table 36. Phase Three DPS Training and Policies (Sponsor: DPS) ..............................................90
Table 37. Phase Three Legal Review (Sponsor: DPS) ..................................................................91
Table 38. Phase Three DPS Recruitment (Sponsor: DPS) ............................................................92
Table 39. Phase Three DPS Mission (Sponsor: DPS) ...................................................................93
Table 40. Phase Three Analysis Results ........................................................................................94
Table 41. Phases 1-3 Analysis Results Comparison ......................................................................95
Table 42. Phase Three Individual Factor Results ..........................................................................95

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Stakeholder Analysis ......................................................................................................15
Figure 2. Stakeholder Matrix .........................................................................................................16
Figure 3. Stakeholder Typology ....................................................................................................18
Figure 4. Process of Combining Frameworks ................................................................................33
Figure 5. CAB 2020-2021 Community Co-Design Process ..........................................................39
Figure 6. CAB 2020-2021 Community Co-Design Process Phase 3 .............................................39
Figure 7. Depiction of Action Item 36 Analysis ............................................................................48
Figure 8. Depiction of Action Item 19 Analysis ............................................................................50
Figure 9. Depiction of Action Item 5 Analysis ..............................................................................51
Figure 10. Proposed Process for Oversight Body Presentation .....................................................97
Figure 11. Flow of Information through the Different Phases of a Systematic Review ..............101
Figure 12. Organizational Change Implementation System ........................................................103
Figure 13. Process of Identifying Post-Implementation ..............................................................104

ix
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the field of university campus safety by analyzing
a community advisory board report of a university’s department of public safety and provide
recommendations to increase the likelihood of successful implementation. In doing so, relevant
frameworks to identify best practices for organizational change management and change
implementation were reviewed. The researcher applied a mixed-methods research design,
utilized publicly available secondary data, and created a change implementation framework
using two existing models. Additionally, the researcher focused on identifying best practices for
stakeholder analysis and selecting a community advisory board. This research aimed to
accomplish three tasks: determine if a community advisory board report plan was reflective of
best practices for implementation, identify expected obstacles, and provide recommendations to
overcome these obstacles. Results indicate that individual recommendations and action items are
not sufficient for successful organizational change implementation, given the framework of best
practices. Thus, the process of organizational change implementation should be treated as a
system consisting of multiple phases—in this case, a triple analysis of the data.

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
“The history of [campus police] dates back to the 19th century when Yale University
hired two New Haven municipal policemen to patrol campus” (Allen, A. 2021, p. 103; also see
Powell, 1994; Sloan, 1992). Initially, the roles and responsibilities of campus police aligned best
with that of facilities management (Allen, A., 2021; Fisher & Sloan, 2007; Gehrand, 2008;
Sloan, 1992). Within a few decades, however, campus policing expanded. “State legislatures
passed laws allowing universities to staff their own police departments with [peace officer
standards and training] certified sworn officers” (Allen, A., 2021, p. 103). In the late 1980s, after
the violent murder of Jeanne Ann Clery, campus policing transformed. The tragic incident
resulted in the Clery Act, which increases the responsibilities of university and college police
departments or departments of public safety. The Clery Act “requires universities to annually
notify the public about incidents on campus and crimes known to [campus police]” (Allen, A.,
2021, p. 103).
The evolution of campus policing has resulted in more than “10,000 officers serving at
over 4,000 universities” (Allen, A. N., 2017, p. 335; also see Anderson, 2015; Reaves, 2008).
Given the aforementioned laws, many though not all of these officers are equipped with powers
similar, if not equivalent, to that of municipal law enforcement or peace officers. The activities
that campus officers become involved in, which are like those of municipal officers, include
“making arrests, investigating crimes, crime reporting, traffic/accident investigations, and
handling hazardous materials” (Allen, W. D., 2021, p. 335; also see Reaves, 2015). Unlike
municipal officers, however, campus officers still bear facilities management responsibilities for
the communities they serve. This often results in increased contact with their constituents, which
may sometimes be interpreted as over policing. The size of a campus police department varies by

2
institution but is likely to increase if certain determinants are met. Such determinants include
increased property crime, schools with more academically productive students, schools with
higher tuition rates, and campuses in urban areas (Allen, W. D., 2021).
Although “modern campus police agencies have been in existence since the late 1960s
and 1970s, following various social movements and student unrest, they have evolved
tremendously in structure and function over the past two decades” (Jacobsen, 2015, p. 314; also
see Peak et al., 2008; Sloan, 1992; Sloan et al., 2000). Tragic incidents involving universities,
particularly shootings—such as Virginia Tech in 2007, which claimed the lives of 32 students
and faculty members (Camera, 2017)—caused a drastic change in campus policing. In
preparation for potential attacks, “some [campus] departments authorize officers to use rifles,
shotguns, bean bag rifles, rubber bullets, and flash bang grenades” (Allen, A., 2021, p. 104).
Although Virginia Tech is not the only campus targeted by an active shooter, some have argued
that the evolution in structure and function of campus policing has lacked oversight or at a
minimum, the implementation of community input and their recommendations. Private security
forces do not have regulations or public oversight requirements that match those of municipal
police, which some argue is insufficient even in public police departments.
Active shooters have targeted several Southern California college and university
campuses in recent years. In 2013, John Zawhari attacked the Santa Monica College campus
community. The attacker claimed six people’s lives (City of Santa Monica Office of Emergency
Management, 2014). In Isla Vista, a heavily populated community adjacent to the University of
California, Santa Barbara, a student shot and killed three bystanders and wounded 14 others
(Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, 2015). More recently, at the University of California, Los

3
Angeles (UCLA), a doctoral student shot and killed a professor on campus (UCLA Campus
Safety Task Force, 2016).
Although active shooters are a growing concern, other incidents have inspired opposition
to increased police militarization and instead prompted calls for defunding police or developing a
reimagined, more community-oriented public safety design. These events include highly
controversial police encounters involving the deadly use of force that caused the deaths of
Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 (Davey & Bosman, 2014); Philando Castile in St.
Paul, Minnesota, in 2016 (Croft, 2017); and most notably, George Floyd in 2020. Floyd was a
46-year-old African American man who died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Monday, May 25,
2020, after being handcuffed and pinned to the ground by Derek Chauvin, a White police officer.
Bystanders captured video footage of Officer Chauvin behind a police car using his knee to pin
Floyd to the ground by his neck (Hill et al., 2020). These incidents have heightened concerns
about police brutality, criminal justice reform, use of force accountability, and enhanced
regulation among community groups.
Campus police have not been exempt from these incidents. In campus policing, there is
also a growing concern about questionable uses of force. In 2006, for example, the UCLA police
department faced scrutiny for how officers handled an identification card check in a campus
library (Thacker, 2006). Officers used their tasers when a student failed to produce a student
identification card. In 2015, a University of Cincinnati campus safety officer conducted a traffic
stop that resulted in the fatal shooting of Samuel DuBose (Brennan, 2017). The incident occurred
just outside the campus and raised questions about the need for campus safety or private security
officers to become involved in municipal police matters. An investigative report concluded that
“certain aspects of urban policing are best left to the city police department to avoid training,

4
investigatory, tactical and operational conflicts or deficiencies that can negatively impact
relationships with the affected communities” (Kroll, 2015, p. 59).
Statement of the Problem
The events that occurred during the spring and summer of 2020 prompted national and
local calls for changes in public safety practices. It became clear that expectations of the
community and public safety had evolved in a direction that seemed to be in direct opposition to
what may be perceived as increased militarization of public safety personnel. National protests
led department leaders to understand they must be flexible and adapt to community needs and
demands to continue providing services.
In 2020, these incidents resulted in University of Southern California (USC) campus
leaders calling for the abolishment or defunding of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) if
changes those stakeholders deemed necessary were not implemented. Campus safety department
leaders had to address community demands for accountability, community care, alternatives to
armed response, and transparency (DPS Community Advisory Board [CAB], 2021), all while
continuing to prepare for responding to and reducing crime. Although curbing or eliminating
crime altogether is at the core of the USC DPS mission, the CAB’s 80-page report featuring two
recommendations and 43 action items highlighted other key issues to address to become a
department that truly serves the needs of the community.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to analyze the USC DPS CAB report from an insider’s
perspective while applying relevant frameworks to identify best practices for implementation, the
likelihood of successfully implementing recommendations, and possible roadblocks and provide
recommendations to overcome these challenges. Given that the recommendation report was a

5
result of active participation by community stakeholders, planning for its implementation is an
opportunity for DPS to operate in a manner that is reflective of the public’s needs and desires.
Implementing and acclimating to the CAB recommendations is the truest way of acknowledging
community needs and attempting to maintain a mutually respectful relationship with the
community such that DPS is open to feedback and the application of demands.
Theoretical Orientation
Initially, the researcher identified best practices to assess whether the appropriate
stakeholders were involved in the development of the CAB report. Implementing
recommendations intended to shift the culture of a 75-year-old agency requires substantial
change. To assess the likelihood of implementation, the researcher used the lens of change
management theory and applied a combination of best practices. The best practices were two
frameworks. The first consists of eight factors identified by Fernandez and Rainey (2006) as
critical to the successful implementation of organizational change. They provided an analysis
“bringing some much-needed order to the [vast] literature” on organizational change (p. 168).
“The analysis identifies points of consensus among researchers on what are commonly called
organizational transformations: initiatives involving large-scale, planned strategic, and
administrative change” (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006, p. 168; also see Abramson & Lawrence,
2001; Kotter, 1995). The purpose of identifying these points and creating a framework was to
provide a “consideration for leaders of change initiatives in public organizations” (Fernandez &
Rainey, 2006, p. 168):
1. Ensuring the need
2. Providing a plan
3. Building internal support for change and overcoming resistance
4. Ensuring top-management support and commitment
5. Building external support
6. Providing resources

6
7. Institutionalizing change
8. Pursuing comprehensive change
The second framework was a 12-step process for change outlined by Mento et al. (2002):
1. The idea and its context
2. Define the change initiative
3. Evaluate the climate for change
4. Develop a change plan
5. Find and cultivate a sponsor
6. Prepare your target audience, the recipients of change
7. Create the cultural fit—making the change last
8. Develop and choose a change leader team
9. Create small wins for motivation
10. Constantly and strategically communicate the change
11. Measure progress of the change effort
12. Integrate lessons learned
These researchers and their studies have relied on Kotter’s model as support for their
frameworks. Kotter’s model is one of three that has “stood as exemplars in the change
management literature. Kotter’s eight-step model was developed after a study of over 100
organisations varying in size and industry type” (Mento et al., 2002, p. 46).
Research Questions
What are the stakeholder recommendations for transforming a private department of
public safety into one that is inclusive of a community’s needs and addresses its concerns? That
question has been answered at length in the USC DPS CAB’s 80-page report. The focus of this
study, therefore, was to supplement the report by determining the likelihood of its
implementation. The research questions are as follow:
Question 1: Is the USC DPS CAB report plan reflective of best practices for
implementation?
Question 2a: What are the expected obstacles?
Question 2b: Based on best practices, how can those obstacles be overcome?

7
Significance of Study
USC is one of multiple universities that initiated a CAB process following the
controversial events of 2020. Others include Harvard and Stanford universities, both of which
released their CAB findings that shared many similarities with USC’s only weeks ahead of the
USC DPS CAB. USC, however, is the only university to date to have the distinct opportunity of
implementing its stakeholder recommendations on a campus in a major urban city. Given USC’s
location just south of downtown Los Angeles, a cultural shift in its DPS has the potential to lead
the change in reimagined public safety. Successful implementation could not only benefit USC
but also serve as an example for campuses across the country.
Research Methodology
In this qualitative study, the researcher assumed the role of project manager and used a
deductive method to assess the likelihood of implementation of the USC DPS CAB’s final
report. The study was grounded in a mixed-methods research design. The researcher utilized a
codebook as the foundation by which she conducted this study. The researcher also utilized her
institutional knowledge, gained during more than 10 years of employment with USC DPS.
Through this approach, the researcher aimed to determine the likelihood of implementation,
identify potential impediments, and make recommendations for how to possibly overcome them.
Definition of Terms
A community advisory board is “frequently used to facilitate community-engaged
research” (Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2017, p. 281). The fundamental purpose of a CAB is to bridge
the gap between the community and researchers (Lawrence & Stewart, 2016).
Stakeholder analysis is “an approach, a tool or set of tools for generating knowledge
about actors—individuals and organizations—to understand their behavior, intentions, inter-

8
relations, and interests; and for assessing the influence and resources they bring to bear on
decision-making or implementation process” (Varvasovsky & Brugha, 2000, p. 338).
Change management is the “process of continually renewing an organization’s direction,
structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers”
(Moran & Brightman, 2001, p. 111).
Deductive coding is a “top down approach where [the researchers] start by developing a
codebook with [their] initial set of codes. This set could be based on research questions or an
existing research framework or theory. [Researchers] then read through the data and assign
excerpts to codes” (Delve, 2021, para. 12).

9
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Private and Public Police
In The Paradox of Private Policing, Elizabeth Joh (2004) focused on identifying the
differences between public and private policing to determine what defines them. First, it is
important to note that there are more similarities between the same position in different sectors
than differences. Typically, the goal is the same—that is, to prevent crime and the fear of crime.
Joh stated that in the post-9/11 world, it has become increasingly difficult to tell the sectors apart
(p. 49). The differences between the two are most likely to be found in the law and the employer.
Their duties, such as “detaining individuals, conducting searches, investigating crimes, and
maintaining order” (p. 50), are similar. Ultimately, Joh (2004) defined the private police as
“lawful forms of organized, for-profit personnel services whose primary objectives include the
control of crime, the protection of property and life, and the maintenance of order” (p. 55).
Although the job description and duties of public and private police officers may be
similar, the culture between the two sectors can vary. In a quantitative study designed to examine
police culture, Cordner (2017) surveyed approximately 13,000 sworn peace officers across the
United States to determine if their beliefs were most related to their characteristics, occupation,
or agency’s culture. Officers answered questions about job satisfaction, misconduct, organization
leadership, and stress. The results of the study revealed that officers’ views and opinions were
more closely related to their agency’s culture than their occupation or characteristics. This
finding is important and must be considered when implementing substantial cultural changes in a
department. A review and comparison of goals, mission, vision, and values are necessary for this
process to ensure minimal impact on employee morale, which can affect performance and
ultimately, constituent satisfaction.

10
A change from being a department that has historically operated from the concept that
safety involves the reduction of crime to one whose mission and operational designs come
directly from stakeholder input is a dramatic shift, and one that can and will significantly affect
any organization. Transformational leadership can have a positive impact on employee
performance because of two variables, trust and commitment (Indrayanto et al., 2014). To
establish trust, however, leaders must communicate effectively and provide clear and correct
instructions to their employees. This finding suggests that the leaders of an agency that stands to
undergo substantial change must remain communicative and transparent to maintain buy-in and
trust from their officers and the community they serve.
Public police have historically resisted partnerships with private police. The reasons
include lack of regulation and concerns about the quality of employees in the private sector (Joh,
2006). Joh explained that before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, private police were
seen only as complementary to public policing. Post-9/11, however, in the eyes of the public,
private police began to be seen more as equals of public police. John Manzo (2010) interviewed
private security officers to determine how they perceive their work with public police officers.
Participants stated there are similarities in their work and that of sworn peace officers. They said
they feel as though they are responsible for the same work, but they do not possess the same
level of training or tools. The findings of both researchers indicated a potential gap in the
acceptance of private police among public police officers.
These findings are further supported by Nalla and Hwang (2006). Their study examined
the relationship between private security guards and public police who work together in South
Korea. It was designed to measure participants’ views of their counterparts’ professionalism and
optimism for improving the working relationship between both sectors (private and public). In

11
South Korea, private security officers resemble public peace officers. This is the case between
USC DPS and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD); DPS officers wear similar uniforms
and perform police-like functions. However, South Korean security guards are not granted more
powers than the average citizen, like private security in the United States. Results indicated that
representatives of both sectors were willing to work together; however, private sector personnel
were more optimistic. Private security guards said they felt that public police can do more to
bridge the gap in their relationship. To support that finding, the researchers also determined that
private security guards were more likely to share information with the public sector, whereas
public police officers are hesitant to reciprocate (Nalla & Hwang, 2006).
Burbidge (2005) described similarities in private and public policing. The article serves
as a call to action for public policy to implement oversight of private policing. Oversight, like
that of the LAPD, will be one of the most significant changes in the USC DPS organization.
Currently, because it is a private organization, it is not mandated to have regulatory oversight
like public police agencies. Noncriminal disciplinary actions and internal investigations are left
to the discretion of the leadership of the department. Perez and Bromley (2015) suggested that
private or campus police may be more advanced in community engagement and involvement
than their municipal counterparts. Campus police departments are also more diverse. A
significant discrepancy exists in important factors, however, such as union representation,
retirement, and salary benefits, and it favors public police officers. Perez and Bromley (2015) led
a quantitative study that compared operational practices between campus and municipal police
departments. The researchers sought to update information about human resources and
community outreach. They found that campus security had evolved into campus police. Campus
security employees were likely to attend the same police academy as their public counterparts, as

12
is the case at USC DPS. The findings indicated that campus police not only met public police
training standards but exceeded them. Campus police departments employed more women than
city police departments. Campus police departments had a higher officer-to-citizen ratio than city
police departments. A negative discrepancy was found in salaries and union representation.
Campus police departments, at almost every level in the organization, had a lower pay rate.
Campus police officers often were not represented by police unions, unlike their public
counterparts. The findings of this study determined that community policing strategies were
more common in campus police departments than in city police departments. The researchers
concluded that campus police are part of the law enforcement community at large (Perez &
Bromley, 2015).
Stakeholder Analysis
Although unfortunate incidents such as those that took place at Santa Monica College;
University of California, Santa Barbara; and UCLA—campuses equipped with personnel with
full peace officer status—help build the argument for the need for increased police authority,
training, and equipment, it is necessary to include the public to gather and consider the opinions
and concerns of stakeholders. “Public involvement is critical for improving stakeholder support
for projects, and the information shared by community members early in the development
process can better tailor project designs to local needs” (Boyer et al., 2015, p. 56). Although a
stakeholder analysis can be long and tedious work, research has indicated that it is an important
phase that, if skipped, can negatively affect relationships. The exclusion, even if unintentional, of
certain groups, organizations, or individuals can prove costly because it may delay or even
prevent the implementation of new projects and policies. The purpose of stakeholder analysis is
to enhance communication and involvement in the decision-making process.

13
The term “stakeholder” appears to have been invented in the early ’60s as a deliberate
play on the word “stockholder” to signify that there are other parties having a “stake” in
the decision-making of the modern, publicly-held corporation in addition to those holding
equity positions. Examples of stakeholder groups (beyond stockholders) are employees,
suppliers, customers, creditors, competitors, governments, and communities.
(Goodpaster, 1991, p. 54).
David Straus (2002) defined a stakeholder as “someone who has a stake in any given
situation” (p. 40). He described four types of stakeholders: “(1) those with the formal power to
make a decision, (2) those with the power to block a decision, (3) those affected by a decision,
and (4) those with relevant information or expertise” (p. 40). A stakeholder analysis is necessary
not only for the “performance of [an] organization but potentially for the stakeholders
themselves, who may be many and may represent a diversity of not necessarily common
interests” (Heidrich et al., 2009, p. 965). Potential limitations and reasons for avoiding an
analysis are that it can be time-consuming and require intimate knowledge of an organization.
Often, that information may not be readily available.
Additionally, stakeholder identification may raise debates of power imbalance and
legitimacy in the group. Ratings among stakeholders are also important. Ratings of power,
urgency, legitimacy, importance, and influence may yield surprising results. For example, in a
university setting, one might argue that students are the most important stakeholder, given they
are the paying customers. Others, however, may argue it is the quality of the faculty that attracts
students in the first place and therefore, they are higher in the power structure among
stakeholders. Ultimately, “it is the dependence of firms on [actors] for resources that gives those
actors leverage” (Frooman, 1999, p. 195).
Before conducting a stakeholder analysis, Varvasovsky and Brugha (2000) suggested
considering the following questions: “What is the aim and time dimension of the analysis?” (p.
338), “What is the context?” and “At what level will the analysis take place?” (p. 339). Given the

14
size of USC, it has many stakeholders. Based on broad definitions, even utility providers
contracted by a university are stakeholders. To properly identify stakeholders who should be
involved in a decision-making process, a stakeholder analysis should be completed.
Stakeholder analysis is an approach, a tool or set of tools for generating knowledge about
actors—individuals and organizations—to understand their behavior, intentions, inter-
relations, and interests; and for assessing the influence and resources they bring to bear
on decision-making or implementation process. (Varvasovsky & Brugha, 2000, p. 338)
Straus provided a tool (see Figure 1)
1
that can help identify items to be considered during the
analysis. The analysis should be geared toward a group that can remain involved for
approximately 5 years, a period that may mirror that of the acting department leadership. The
analysis should take place at all levels between those affected by the decisions made. The figure
includes a breakdown of the involvement, interest, influence, power, and position of
stakeholders. Quantifying the levels of the variables can help determine how much time and
attention should be dedicated to each stakeholder.

1
Extracted from Vavasovsky and Brugha (2000, p. 339).

15
Figure 1. Stakeholder Analysis

In their work on stakeholder analysis and engagement, Stephanie Missonier and Sabrina
Loufrani-Fedida (2013, p. 1111), suggest the following five-step approach:
1. Identify stakeholders and analyze stakeholder relationships
2. Identify stakeholder interests
3. Assess stakeholder influence
4. Identify controversies
5. Analyze effects of controversies on stakeholder network
Bunn et al. (2002) developed a five-step stakeholder analysis process:
1. Identify the key sectors and stakeholders relevant to the multisector innovation
2. Describe important characteristics of each stakeholder group
3. Analyze and classify the stakeholders according to stakeholder attributes
4. Examine the dynamic relationships among stakeholders
5. Evaluate generic stakeholder management strategies
See Figure 2 for a matrix of stakeholders.

16
Figure 2. Stakeholder Matrix

Note. Adopted from Kennon et al. (2009).

A stakeholder analysis involves the following steps (see Kennon et al., 2009):
● Step 1: Identify your stakeholders—involves identifying a team and why they are
important to the group
● Step 2: Prioritize your stakeholders—requires the use of the stakeholder matrix “to
prioritise their list of stakeholders in terms of how critical they are in helping deliver
on outcomes of the project” (p. 12).
● “The two axes of the matrix are labeled influential and important, with the difference
being:
○ Influential refers to people who have power over the success of the project”
(p. 12).
○ “Important refers to those who have power over the delivery of project
outcomes” (p. 12).
● Step 3: Understanding and managing your stakeholder—involves considering such
items as the likely attributes of the various stakeholders to the project, their attitude to
the project team, and any risks associated with their involvement in the project
● Step 4: Setting goals and identifying costs of stakeholder analysis—requires the team
to designate responsibilities for undertaking each communication task and to set
appropriate timelines.
● Step 5: Evaluation and revision—to occur regularly throughout the life of the project.
It is most beneficial when a stakeholder analysis is regularly updated to identify
whether there are potential new stakeholders, changes in current stakeholder
importance or influence, or if perceptions of the project have changed.

17
When conducting a stakeholder analysis, it is advisable to begin with already established
groups. The importance, relevance, and influence of each stakeholder will change over time. For
example, students become alumni, employees retire, and so on. Although experience is valued,
stakeholder selection should be revisited and reassessed in reasonable time periods. “The best
way to incorporate the Stakeholder Analysis Tool into project work is to have a team champion
who will drive the process” (Kennon et al., 2009, p. 8).
Prell et al. (2009) argued that stakeholder analysis should be used to “avoid inflaming
conflicts, ensure that the marginalization of certain groups is not reinforced, and fairly represent
diverse interests” (p. 501). The purpose of stakeholder analysis is not groupthink or gathering a
group composed of people who share the same thoughts and opinions. Instead, it is an
opportunity to allow stakeholders to weigh in on issues and decision-making opportunities while
providing multiple viewpoints, backgrounds, and experiences. See Figure 3 for a stakeholder
typology (Mitchell et al., 1997).

18
Figure 3. Stakeholder Typology

See Table 1 for definitions of types of stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997, pp. 874–877).

Table 1. Types of Stakeholders
Type Definition
Latent stakeholders With limited time, energy, and other resources to track stakeholder
behavior and to manage relationships, managers may well do
nothing about stakeholders they believe possess only one of the
identifying attributes, and managers may not even go so far as to
recognize those stakeholders’ existence.
Dormant stakeholders The relevant attribute of a dormant stakeholder is power. Dormant
stakeholders possess the power to impose their will on a firm, but
by not having a legitimate relationship or urgent claim, their power
remains unused.
Discretionary stakeholders Discretionary stakeholders possess the attribute of legitimacy, but
they have no power to influence the firm and no urgent claims.

19
Demanding stakeholders Where the sole relevant attribute of the stakeholder-manager
relationship is urgency, the stakeholder is described as demanding.
Expectant stakeholders Those possessing two attributes, and include dominant, dependent,
and dangerous stakeholders.
Dominant stakeholders Stakeholders are both powerful and legitimate [and] their influence
in the firm is assured.
Dependent stakeholders Stakeholders who lack power but have urgent legitimate claims.
Dangerous stakeholders Where urgency and power characterize a stakeholder who lacks
legitimacy, that stakeholder will be coercive and possibly violent.
Definitive stakeholders A stakeholder exhibiting both power and legitimacy already will be
a member of a firm’s dominant coalition. When such a
stakeholders’ claim is urgent, managers have a clear and immediate
mandate to attend to and give priority to that stakeholder’s claim.

Note. Definitions derived from Mitchell et al. (1997, pp. 874–877).

For time and resource efficiency, “one should choose the minimum number of
stakeholders that will capture the important outflows of the value-creating organization”
(Cameron et al., 2008, p. 328).
Community Advisory Boards
History
“As early as 1971, community advisory boards (CABs) described the emerging type of
committee, defined as a group of community members tasked with ensuring the ethical rights of
research participants” (Lawrence & Stewart, 2016, p. 312 also see Brieland, 1971). Community
protests brought about the formation of the first National Institutes of Health-mandated CAB in
1989 and the Community Constituency Group at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Disease in 1990 (Cox et al., 1998; Lawrence & Stewart, 2016; Morin et al., 2003). CABs have
since become more common and “are frequently used to facilitate community-engaged research”
(Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2017, p. 281. Typically, they are academic–community partnerships; a
combination of researchers and select community members. CABs are most common in the

20
health care industry. However, they are also becoming common in law enforcement. The
fundamental purpose of a CAB is to bridge the gap between the community and researchers
(Lawrence & Stewart, 2016, p. 312). Select community members are typically informed and
experienced stakeholders.
Types of CABs and How They Come Together
CABs and their members are likely to be selected based on the research topic and the
needs of the community. Research indicates there are two major models for community
representation: the broad community and a specific population (Morin et al., 2003). The broad
community model can be composed of a multitude of stakeholders such as clergy, academics,
and elected leaders.
The broad community model is employed as generally representative of the community
and members remain for terms that often span for years. The population-specific model
employs a particular demographic of people, such as solely HIV-positive members, to
target this certain group within the larger community. (Morin et al., 2003, p. 516).
In law enforcement CABs, for example, members may be people who have encountered police
through experiences like those being studied. When creating a broad community CAB, research
institutions attempt to select board members who, as an aggregate, will accurately represent a
cross-section of the wider population. For example, an active member of a church might
represent a religious community or a long-time small business owner might represent an
association.
MacQueen et al. (2001) identified five common elements to consider for CAB
effectiveness: locus, sharing, joint action, social ties, and diversity. Ideally, CAB members
should accurately account for these five characteristics. Once a CAB is selected, “researchers
who want to work with a CAB should begin by establishing a shared mission, vision, and
strategic priorities across the stakeholders involved” (Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2017, p. 288).

21
Furthermore, an important phase of CAB creation is ensuring all members feel as though their
voice matters and is equal to that of other members. Special consideration should be given to
those representing communities or voices that have traditionally been marginalized in that
research.
Member Roles
Studies such as that reported by Ortega et al. (2018) have revealed that CAB members
often feel as though their role is to provide firsthand knowledge of community culture and needs
and “advising and implementing” (p. 1536). They value providing recommendations and being
involved in what they perceive to be a decision-making process. CAB members expressed it was
“their responsibility to act as a liaison between their community and researchers” (Ortega et al.,
2018, p. 1535). Their responsibilities included voicing community needs and sharing information
obtained from or learned in the CAB with their communities and constituencies.
Benefits of a CAB
A benefit of a CAB is that it is “one way to engage the voice and agency of the targeted
community in the research protocol” (Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2017, p. 285). The structure of a
CAB is one that creates a space where mutual learning between researchers and community
members can and should take place, leading to understanding and valuing each other’s points of
view and experiences. In health care, “CABs can be a useful mechanism that nurse researchers
can utilize to engage community members in the research process” (Gonzalez-Guarda et al., p.
287). In their evaluation of 24 studies that evaluated community-engaged methods, Gonzalez-
Guarda et al. (2017) identified the following prevailing themes of CABs with successful health
outcomes: (a) real power-sharing between academic and community partners, (b) collaborative
partnerships, (c) incorporating the voice and agency of the target community in the research

22
protocol, (d) bidirectional learning between community members and researchers, and (e)
incorporating bicultural health workers that reflect the cultural identity of the community for
intervention delivery (p. 282). Most important was the theme of real power-sharing because it
“provides the cornerstone on which to build relationships advancing the health of communities”
(p. 282).
Best Practices and Examples
In evaluating the best practices of CABs, researchers found that members appreciated
having open and clear communication with other CAB members. Lawrence and Stewart (2016)
reviewed of six Ugandan CABs. Their findings revealed that boards typically range in group
membership from approximately “10 to 20 members and re-elect members every 2 to 5 years”
(p. 314). Each CAB in their research opted to use the broad community model of representation
to elect its members. Their study found that “community-based CAB member selection, when
possible, is the best method” (p. 318). The process increased “trust in and awareness of the CAB
within the community” (p. 318). This approach increased awareness of CABs and their intended
research in the community and also increased membership opportunities of those belonging to
traditionally marginalized groups.
Research participants also identified the following CAB best practices (Lawrence &
Stewart, 2016, p. 318):
● Make clear the CAB’s role, qualification standards, and selection process to the
community.
● If committing to the broad community model, CABs and their affiliated institutions
must consistently assess the subpopulations that are underrepresented on the board.
● CABs and researchers must not fall into the practice of selecting members from the
same social circles.
● Structure meetings to allow and ensure that all CAB members are given a chance to
voice their concerns and an environment of equity is fostered, whether it be between
researchers and the CAB or CAB members themselves.

23
● Meetings should involve [evidence-based] scientific presentations as well as
opportunities for CAB members to openly address any areas of uncertainty.
Mwinga and Moodley (2015) found additional best practices identified by CAB members in their
research. Those best practices include (p. 6):
● Training of CAB members upon selection
● The selection of CAB members from within the community
● Advertising for membership as opposed to preselection
● Involvement of the community stakeholders at an early stage during the study
● Holding regular meetings
● Selecting individuals who were seen as already committed to contributing to the good
of the community
● Participation should be voluntarily, not one that relies on incentives
Motivators
In their research on CABs, Ortega et al. (2018) identified a gap in literature when it
comes to membership motivators. They conducted a qualitative study to identify motivators. The
study consisted of 15 one-on-one interviews. Their results for motivation to join or remain
committed to a CAB included “1) motivation to participate in the project, 2) perceptions that
they had insider information, 3) views of roles and responsibilities in project planning and
implementation, and 4) challenges and suggestions to improve the community-academic
relationship” (p. 1529). A prevailing theme was a sense of wanting to help the community
through their membership. CAB members said they felt as though they could contribute their
“knowledge, experience, and expertise” (p. 1533). They also said they might be able “to
influence the project decisions that had to be made” (p. 1533).
Most CAB members in the Ortega et al. (2018) study had served for 5 years or more. One
major reason cited by CAB members for staying committed was the sense of community that had
been built. They valued the trust and respect in one another’s expertise. Incentives that motivated
their continued participation included “letters of recommendations, bolstering their resumes,

24
enhancing their networks, and finding opportunities for professional, personal and leadership
growth” (p. 1534).
Potential Issues
The purpose of a CAB is to bring stakeholders to the table and obtain different
experiences, opinions, and points of views. Therefore, a key mistake to avoid is groupthink.
Special efforts should be made to make CABs diverse. Although “convening diverse
stakeholders may be difficult given differences in their goals,” it is one of the most important
steps when creating a CAB (Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2017, p. 284). Given that mutual trust and
respect to different points of view is highly valued in CABs, “consideration needs to be taken to
how power is initiated, negotiated, balanced, and shared” (pp. 282–283). “Real power-sharing [is
incorporated] by engaging diverse stakeholders, especially community members, to work side by
side to establish the mission, vision, goals, programs, and roles of partners” (p. 283).
Areas for Improvement
Areas for improvement in CABs “include incorporating real power-sharing structures
between academic and community partners, ensuring true collaborative partnerships, engaging
the voice and agency of the target community in the research protocol, and nurturing
bidirectional learning processes” (Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2017, p. 287; also see Cyril et al.,
2015). In their study, Lawrence and Stewart (2016) found an issue in CAB training.
Approximately one quarter of their respondents stated that “training could be improved at [their]
CAB” (p. 316). CAB members suggested providing materials and information regarding the
roles and responsibilities of CAB members to newly recruited community members (Ortega et
al., 2018). A barrier to additional involvement in research was obligations outside of the CAB,
which included “personal obligations, personal life, and other committees with which they were

25
involved” (Ortega et al., 2018, p. 1537). The top recommendation to improve a CAB was to
“implement a formal system for new members to be integrated into the team, including providing
role and responsibility specifications” (p. 1538).
Organizational Change Management
Change management is defined as “the process of continually renewing an organization’s
direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal
customers” (Moran & Brightman, 2001, p. 111). It should not only be a plan for what to change
but should be accompanied by a plan of how to change an organization. Research has shown,
however, that it is generally not studied as a change process or implementation problem (Stewart
& Kringas, 2003). There are two types of change processes: planned change and emergent
change.
Critical Factors
Research has suggested several critical factors play a role in successful change
implementation. Those factors include leadership, communication, and stakeholder or employee
participation. Top-down communication is important for employee buy-in. Through a process of
“telling and selling,” managers disseminate information to inform employees about the change
and why they should be committed to implementing it (Russ, 2008). Employee inclusion and
participation is also helpful because it results in bottom-up communication. The emergent
change process relies more on the participation of employees. Rather than simply being informed
about the change, employees play an active role in change implementation. Additional key
internal stakeholders are direct, line-level supervisors. A direct supervisor is defined as “the
employee holding a formal managerial position operating at the first hierarchical level above the
respondent’s position” (Van der Voet et al., 2015, p. 845). Direct supervisors are critical due to

26
their level of communication with and exposure to line-level employees. In law enforcement, for
example, patrol officers communicate most often with their direct supervisors. Patrol officers
very rarely encounter managerial ranks such captains or above.
A leadership style positively associated with change management and implementation is
transformational leadership. Transformational leaders are capable of “[providing] employees
with appealing visions about changes for the future of the organization” (Van der Voet et al.,
2015, p. 846). They create appealing visions for change through inspiration and motivation
(Pawar & Eastman, 1997). “Transformational leaders stimulate their employees to find
innovative and creative solutions in their work by thinking outside the box and by addressing old
problems in new ways” (Van der Voet et al., 2015, p. 846; also see Bass et al., 2003). In
departments or organizations where opportunities are limited, transformational leaders may
capitalize on an implementation phase. They can use the opportunity as a way to mentor and
contribute to the growth of those they are tasked with leading. In a transformation period,
employees will inevitably have questions that require guidance and reassurance from their direct
supervisor.
Potential Conflicts
Three factors to consider in change management that may lead to conflict are complexity,
controversy, and uncertainty (Walker & Daniels, 2019). Collaborative learning is a
“methodology appropriate for complex and controversial public policy situations” (Walker &
Daniels, 2019, p. 1). Although they use it to address natural resources, environmental, and
community conflict, it can be used in various fields. Collaborative learning promotes “creative
thought, constructive debate, and the effective implementation of proposals that the stakeholders
generate” (p. 15). To overcome obstacles, it emphasizes common understanding, addressing

27
participants, and the application of best practices: assessment, stakeholder participation,
leadership, meetings and ground rules, resources, facilitation, communication, decision making,
implementation, and evaluation. Kotter (1995) suggested another potential conflict is the loss of
momentum. The most critical implementation conflict, however, is the failure rate. Balogun and
Hope Hailey (2004) reported around 70% of all change programs fail (Todnem, 2005). Research
has suggested the high failure rate may be the lack of a valid framework of how to implement
and manage organizational change (Burnes, 2004).
Frameworks
Fernandez and Rainey (2006) suggested change leaders should pay special attention to
eight factors (see Table 2) that can “influence the outcome of change initiatives” (p. 169). They
advised readers to not treat the eight factors as a road map for change but add that they might
contribute to the success of implementation efforts. Three of the eight factors emphasize support:
internal, top management and external support. “The literature indicates that involving
organizational members helps reduce barriers to change by creating psychological ownership,
promoting the dissemination of critical information, and encouraging employee feedback for fine
tuning the change during implementation” (p. 170).

Table 2. Factors for Implementation
Factor Task
Factor 1: Ensure the need Verify and communicate the need for change.
Factor 2: Provide a plan Develop a roadmap to implement the change
inclusive of potential obstacles and
recommendations to overcome them.
Factor 3: Build internal support for change
and overcome resistance
Identify support in the organization to assist
with managing or reducing resistance to the

28
intended change.
Factor 4: Ensure top management support and
commitment
Identify potential change agents in the
managerial structure.
Factor 5: Build external support Managerial leaders must develop support
from political overseers and key external
stakeholders.
Factor 6: Provide resources Find opportunities for synergy in resources
increases the possibility of successful change
implementation.
Factor 7: Institutionalize change To make lasting change, members of the
organization must incorporate the new
policies or innovations into their daily
routines.
Factor 8: Pursue comprehensive change For fundamental change in behavior to occur,
leaders must make systemic changes to the
subsystems of their organization.

Note. Derived from Fernandez and Rainey (2006).

Fernandez and Rainey’s (2006) work is supported by the many studies they examined to
arrive at their framework (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Bryson & Anderson, 2000; Johnson &
Leavitt, 2001). Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) examined organizational change literature from
1990 to 1998. They found four research themes common to change efforts:
(a) content issues, which largely focus on the substance of contemporary organizational
changes; (b) contextual issues, which principally focus on forces or conditions existing in
an organization’s external and internal environments; (c) process issues, which address
actions undertaken during the enactment of an intended change, and (d) criterion issues,
which deal with outcomes commonly assessed in organizational efforts. (p. 293)
In their study, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) reviewed six implementation models and derived
two lessons learned of successful organizational change. The first lesson was that “the change
process typically occurs in multiple steps that take a considerable amount of time to unfold and

29
efforts to bypass steps seldom yield a satisfactory result” (p. 303). The second lesson was that
“mistakes in any step can slow implementation as well as negate hard-won progress” (p. 303).
Johnson and Leavitt (2001) also focused on organizational change. They focused on
determining “what works well, why it works well, and how success can be extended through [an]
organization” (p. 129). Johnson and Leavitt referred to their process as appreciative inquiry,
which they argued “provides an opportunity to celebrate what is done well, as organizations
strive to move closer to their vision of the future” (p. 128). Their findings, particularly three of
them, align with those of Fernandez and Rainey (2006). Those three findings are: (a)
“[organizational change] requires committed leadership from the top of the organization”
(Johnson & Leavitt, 2001, p. 135), which is in perfect alignment with the need for top-
management support and commitment; (b) organizational change requires “time and resources to
do the work of leading [the] changes” (p. 135), which aligns with providing resources; and
finally, (c) efforts “need to be recognized, rewarded, and publicly celebrated” (p. 135), which
aligns with creating and informative communications plan.
Bryson and Anderson (2000) sought to “compare and contrast seven approaches most
frequently used in the public sector” (p. 143) for organizational change. The authors focused on
large-group interaction methods (LGIMs). In their study, Bryson and Anderson (2000) found
possible impediments to successful organizational change if certain factors were overlooked (see
p. 144):
• Top-management support: “Methods do not work if leaders are unwilling to share
power and listen seriously to participants”
• Internal support: “LGIMs are unlikely to work if participants are unwilling to find
common ground with one another”
• Ensuring the need: “LGIMs do not work when the events are not focused or are
focused on the wrong issues or problems”
• Providing a plan: “Events must be well planned, managed, and facilitated”

30
• Make the change last: “Extensive follow-up may be required to implement the
strategies formulated”
Mento et al. (2002) identified best practices for change management from three
frameworks to develop a 12-step “pilot’s checklist” (see Table 3). They used Kotter’s (1995)
eight-step model; Jick’s (1991) 10-step approach, which “serves as a blueprint for organizations
embarking on the change process as well as a way to evaluate a change effort already in
progress” (Mento et al., p. 46); and Garvin’s (2000) seven-step acceleration process used at GE.
Garvin’s (2000) model “focuses on the leader’s role in creating urgency for the change, crafting
and communicating the vision, leading the change, measuring the progress of change along
several dimensions, and institutionalizing the change” (Mento et al., p. 46).

Table 3. Definitions of Factors for Implementation
Step Definition
The idea and its context Highlight the idea for what needs to be changed.
Define the change initiative Define the roles of the key players in all change efforts.
Evaluate the climate for change Understand how the organization in its environment, how
it operates, and what its strengths and weaknesses are.
Develop a change plan At a minimum, the plan should include specific goals and
provide detailed and clear responsibilities for strategists,
implementers, and recipients.
Find and cultivate a sponsor The recruitment of influential informal leaders and the
development of a commitment chart. The commitment
chart should help one to: Identify target individuals or
groups whose commitment to the change is needed;
define the critical mass needed to ensure the effectiveness
of the change; develop a plan to gain the commitment of
the critical mass; and create a monitoring system to
assess the progress.
Prepare your target audience, the
recipients of change
Actual implementation occurs only when employees
accept the concept of change, generally, and of the

31
specific change, internally. [Therefore,] the use of focus
groups, surveys, and suggestions to bring the issues of
resistance to the surface [is recommended]. Speaking
with the audience most affected by the change gives
immediate feedback and allows for the target to express
their frame of reference.
Create the cultural fit—making
the change last
Getting started with concrete actions and developing
long-term plans to ensure that change persists. [This step]
is concerned with altering staffing, training, appraisal,
communication and reward systems, as well as roles and
reporting relationships, to ensure that they complement
and reinforce change.
Develop and choose a change
leader team
In large-scale change, the leader plays a critical role in
creating the corporate vision. The leader both inspires the
employees to embrace the vision and crafts an
organizational structure that consistently rewards people
who focus their efforts on pursuing the vision.
Create small wins for motivation One must plan for and create visible performance
improvements. Employees involved in those
improvements should be recognized. The longer and
more drastic the change, the more necessary it is for
small victories to be celebrated.
Constantly and strategically
communicate the change
From the very beginning of the change effort, effective
communication is critical. The goals of the
communication effort should be: To increase the
organization’s understanding and commitment to change
to the fullest extent possible; to reduce confusion and
resistance, and to prepare employees for both the positive
and negative effects of the change.
Measure progress of the change
effort
This involves creating and installing metrics to assess
program success and to chart progress, using milestones
and benchmarks.
Integrate lessons learned At the root of lessons learned is reflection. Reflection
then connects learning directly to job performance and
yields more relevant personal learning. At the heart of the
reflection process is the use of carefully thought-out
trigger questions.

Note. Definitions derived from Mento et al. (2002, pp. 49–56).

32
Chapter 3: Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to outline and describe the research methods used to
answer the posed research questions. The contents of this chapter include the researcher’s
approach, procedures followed, research design, data collection, data sources, participant
information, data analysis, ethical considerations, and study limitations.
Research Questions
Question 1: Is the USC DPS CAB report reflective of best practices for implementation?
Question 2a: What are the expected obstacles to implementation?
Question 2b: Based on best practices, how can those obstacles be overcome?
Study Design
The researcher assumed the role of project manager for the implementation phase of the
CAB recommendations. The methodology for developing an implementation plan for the USC
DPS CAB recommendations was grounded in a mixed-methods research design, utilizing a
combination of existing literature and an organizational change management conceptual model.
The existing literature was a report titled One USC: A Vision of Community Safety for All (DPS
CAB, 2021). The research was conducted in multiple phases. The first phase consisted of
identifying best practices or necessary factors in a plan to successfully implement organizational
change. After completing a robust literature review, the researcher selected two frameworks,
each from seminal articles (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Mento et al., 2002), then compared and
combined them while eliminating the overlap in factors. Figure 4 is a visual description of the
process the researcher utilized to combine the frameworks and obtain a final research instrument.

33
Figure 4. Process of Combining Frameworks

To eliminate redundancy, the researcher gathered the points of research and compared the
explanation and definitions of the factors in both frameworks. The researcher identified and
condensed factors by completing a side-by-side comparison and connecting similar factors. The
resulting framework utilized to complete this research leans heavily toward that of Fernandez
and Rainey (2006) but incorporated the communications plan introduced by Mento et al. (2002).
According to the American Society for Public Administration, Fernandez and Rainey’s (2006)
work has not only been cited more than 400 times by other scholars but it was also selected by
Public Administration Review (2015) as one of the organization’s top 75 most influential articles
in honor of its 75-year anniversary. In the selection process, the “Editorial Board reviewed the

34
over 3,000 articles [Public Administration Review] has published since its inception in 1940”
(para. 1). Fernandez and Rainey’s (2006) article highlighting the eight factors of change was
among the top 2% of articles this journal ever published. The resulting framework is shown in
Table 4.

Table 4. Factors for Implementation Framework
Ensure the need:
• Verify the need, highlight, and communicate the change
Provide a plan:
• Create a roadmap with defined roles of key players
Build internal support for change and overcome resistance:
• Identify support in the organization and prepare the recipients for change
• Create small wins for personnel
• Find and cultivate a sponsor
Ensure top management support and commitment:
• Identify change agents in the organization who can assist in the implementation of
change
Build external support:
• Develop support from key external stakeholders
Provide resources:
• Identify opportunities for synergy in resources
• Identify leader(s) who inspire employees to embrace the vision
Create an informative communications plan:
• The goal of the communication effort should be to increase the organization’s
understanding and commitment to change
• Install metrics to assess program success and chart progress
• Communicate the progress
Make the change last:
• Incorporate the new policies or innovations into daily routines
• Make systemic changes to the subsystems of the organization

This framework served as the foundation by which the researcher completed the study,
using it as a codebook. “A codebook is a set of codes, definitions, and examples used as a guide
to help analyze [data]” (Decuir-Gunby et al., 2011, p. 138). By using these codes, the researcher
analyzed and determined whether the USC DPS CAB report reflected best practices for

35
implementation. Codes are “tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or
inferential information compiled during a study” (Decuir-Gunby et al., 2011, p. 137; also see
Miles & Huberman, 1994). DeCuir-Gunby et al. (2011) suggested structuring a “codebook using
three components: code name/label, full definition, and an example” (p. 138).
With a complete codebook, researchers can begin to make connections in their data. “The
more specificity in a codebook, the easier it is for coders to distinguish between codes and to
determine examples” (Decuir-Gunby et al., 2011, p. 138). Once the framework to be utilized as a
codebook was finalized, the researcher moved onto deductive coding for the second phase of the
research. In this phase, the researcher utilized a top-down approach by beginning with the codes
and reviewing the USC DPS CAB report to determine if the data in the report fit the codes to
answer the research questions. The purpose of this approach was to identify the strengths,
weakness, opportunities, and threats of organizational change implementation.
Data Sources
In 2015, the USC provost tasked the university’s Diversity Task Force with creating a
CAB (Flay, 2016). Shortly after it was formed, members of that CAB separated from the group.
Reasons for the separation remain unclear, and a public attempt to reconvene or recreate a CAB
was not made until summer 2020. After the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others,
USC Undergraduate Student Government (2020)
2
distributed a seven-page proposal via a
university-wide email listserv, requesting a university commitment to recreate the CAB and
“create permanent at-large positions on the CAB for students and community members” (p. 2).
The proposal included recommendations for stakeholder selection, mission and purpose, areas of
responsibility, and meeting timeframes.

2
https://usg.usc.edu/

36
The principal data source utilized to complete this research, therefore, was a report
formed as the result of student activism and stakeholder concerns. The report features two
recommendations and 43 action items aiming to accomplish three goals: (1) “Help ensure an
environment where everyone feels safe and respected,” (2) “Play a crucial role in USC’s
renewed efforts to remedy broader social inequities within [its] community,” and (3) “Increase
the trust between the university, DPS and the broader community” (DPS CAB, 2021, p. 15). The
researcher utilized an organizational change management conceptual model made up of factors
identified as most important for consideration when implementing major change in an
organization. Additional sources included the researcher’s institutional and cultural knowledge
of USC and DPS and publicly available information published on the university’s website.
Participants
Although this study did not include participants, the CAB report utilized to complete this
research did. Given the importance of the CAB participants, the researcher felt an overwhelming
responsibility to detail the board member selection process and the hard work and logistical
obstacles that had to be overcome. In summer 2020, the USC University Relations staff was
tasked with creating a CAB formed of stakeholders representing the entire USC campus
community. This task came at a time in which the world was physically distant due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Having recently transitioned to virtual meetings and remaining physically
distant posed additional obstacles to community engagement attempts. USC University
Relations, however, proceeded with the task at hand and began contacting already formed
university constituent groups to ask for nominations and recommendations of who should serve
on the CAB. The constituent groups include the academic senate for faculty representatives,
3

3
https://academicsenate.usc.edu/about/

37
staff assembly for staff representatives,
4
and both undergraduate
5
and graduate
6
student
government. Neighborhood community groups were nominated by the Civic Engagement
7

department at USC. Civic Engagement employees are tasked with being on the ground in the
local neighborhood and therefore, know people who work and live in the community. Members
were identified by peers in their groups. Once recommendations were submitted to University
Relations, the interim vice president reached out to nominees, via private email, to inform them
of the potential nominations and formally invite them to serve on the board (S. Garrison,
personal communication, October 29, 2020).
University Relations staff members were cautioned to avoid selecting only people who
were supportive of DPS and the university and instead aim for diversity of thought. Ultimately,
the selection process resulted in a 19-person board with five categories: four academic
representatives, including the two co-chairs; four staff representatives; four neighborhood
representatives; four student representatives, two undergraduate and two graduate; three at-large
members, including the parent of a USC student; and several ex-officio members, including the
then-chief of DPS. The community category representatives included a gang interventionist, a
local schoolteacher, and a local resident who was born and raised in the neighborhood and had
lived there for more than 50 years at the time. The co-chairs were selected by the university
president due to their expertise in law enforcement and political science.
University Relations intentionally did not establish a framework for developing a CAB
report to give board members the opportunity to develop their own. The initial meetings were
focused on organization. Terms and succession planning had yet to be determined as of the date

4
https://staffassembly.usc.edu/
5
https://usg.usc.edu/
6
https://gsg.usc.edu/aboutgsg/what-is-gsg/
7
https://communities.usc.edu/civic-engagement/

38
of this research. To obtain additional participation, two primary communication methods were
applied. The first was the CAB website,
8
where the board was intentional about transparency and
inclusion and provided interested stakeholders the opportunity to read minutes, provide input,
and RSVP for listening sessions. The second communication method was the university-wide
email listserv. Additional participants in this research were more than 700 stakeholders
representing student, faculty, staff, and community groups. It is worth mentioning that
scheduling meetings that met the availability of a board composed of 19 members, all with
different roles and responsibilities in their professional, academic, and personal lives, must have
posed unimaginable logistical challenges and required sacrifices from all involved. The board,
however, overcame those obstacles and remained committed to the mission. Thus, it produced a
comprehensive report (DPS CAB, 2021) in what some may consider a short timeframe,
considering the task.
Data Collection
The researcher acquired the CAB recommendation report through the publicly available
CAB website once a USC university email announced its completion. The codebook used to
assess each recommendation was created by the researcher based on the frameworks of
Fernandez and Rainey (2006) and Mento et al. (2002) as a guide.
Data Analysis
The final USC DPS CAB report was composed through evidence-based examination,
stakeholder focus groups, community feedback sessions, an independent legal analysis, a peer
institution analysis, and a review of more than 600 documents, including DPS policies, training
calendars, and stop-data. The process occurred in four phases, as shown in Figure 5.

8
https://dpscab.usc.edu/

39

Figure 5. CAB 2020-2021 Community Co-Design Process

Note. Adopted from A. Hancock-Alfaro & E. Southers, personal communication, November 20,
2020.

The eight community feedback sessions that occurred in Phase 3 focused on the following topics:
USC DPS, race and identity profiling, community engagement, and interaction with the LAPD
and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. CAB 2020-2021 Community Co-Design Process Phase 3

40
The process from selecting CAB members to completing the recommendations took
approximately 10 months to complete.
The Researcher
At the time this research was conducted, the researcher had worked in the USC DPS for
approximately 10 years. For more than 7 years, she was assigned to the Community Affairs
Bureau. In the USC DPS, the researcher held the title of director. The researcher’s professional
responsibilities included organizing community engagement events and managing community
relations programs.
Ethical Concerns
Some members of the CAB have worked with the researcher on community engagement
efforts. However, it is important to note that the researcher was never in a supervisory position or
maintained a close personal relationship with any CAB member. Results of the study will not
negatively affect continued community engagement efforts between the researcher and the
community.
Funding and Compensation
The researcher was not compensated to conduct this study.
Limitations
The research design of this study did not include interviews or surveys. Therefore, the
researcher did not request human subjects research approval from an institutional review board.
9

As a result, the researcher utilized only publicly available and accessible information. The
researcher did not contact CAB members or other stakeholders for further additional
information, which may have added value to the results of the study. Additionally, the researcher

9
https://oprs.usc.edu/irb/

41
took the approach of project manager in the institution, and although the study was supported by
a robust literature review, the results (i.e., implementation recommendations) were formed
largely based on her institutional knowledge of USC and the USC DPS.

42
Chapter 4: Results
Definitions
Accountability: The CAB’s definition of accountability mirrors that of peer institutions
like the University of California, Berkeley, which defined police accountability as “a formal
process of holding law enforcement accountable for harm (e.g., internal disciplinary processes,
civil or criminal trials, etc.)” (Chancellor’s Independent Advisory Board, 2020, p. 14).
Accountability can also refer to “a practice in which law enforcement acknowledges the
concerns and complaints of community members and responds in a meaningful way” (p. 27).
CAB Definition of Community Care: “A foundational premise that prioritizes the health,
well-being, and safety of USC faculty, staff, students, community stakeholders and those living
on and around USC’s campus” (DPS CAB, 2021, p. 37).

Table 5 shows a summary of the USC DPS CAB general recommendations.

Table 5. General Recommendations
1. (I) Re-envision public safety.
2. (M) Create an independent oversight body.

Note. Total general recommendations: 2.

Table 6 shows a summary of the USC DPS CAB accountability action items.

Table 6. Accountability Action Items
3. (I) USC: Create a public policy statement about the seriousness of racial profiling by DPS,
students, faculty, staff, community members and visitors. Statement should include that

43
racial profiling will not be tolerated as a false complaint, nor will it be tolerated as the basis
for a subjective suspicious stop in the case of DPS.
4. (I) DPS and USC: Ensure that sustained complaints and reports of bias, discrimination, or
profiling—or sustained misconduct investigations involving the same—can result in the
termination of employment.
5. (I) DPS: Develop and provide a community engagement card or QR code, to be furnished to
everyone who has an interaction with DPS personnel, which will provide an opportunity to
forward information (e.g., commendation, complaint, quality of service) to DPS.
6. (I) DPS: Log sufficient information to analyze the percentage of each officer’s investigative
stops in which the detained individual was found to be engaging in criminal activity.
7. (I) DPS: Record all self-initiated field contacts with persons in a computerized daily log.
This should include reason for contact, outcome of interaction and any potential conflicts.
These reports should be submitted at the end of each shift.
8. (I) DPS: Create a database that flags/identifies officers who have committed racial profiling
stop offenses, and/or who have been released from duty. This database should be one that is
accessible for annual USC public reporting, and also shared with local and centralized
professional background check hubs—not just those tied to officer background checks.
9. (M) USC: Engage in a thorough review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between USC (DPS) and the City of Los Angeles (LAPD) to ensure that the MOU reflects
the ONE USC community safety vision.
10. (M) DPS: Adopt a clear and comprehensive policy related to the handling of complaints
against officers from the public that extends beyond the Administrative Investigations
Management (AIM) database. That policy should, at a minimum, identify those responsible
for complaint intake, detail the investigative steps and protocols required for all complaints,
identify the standard of proof and categorize and define the possible findings.
11. (L) USC: Review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between USC (DPS) and
the City of Los Angeles (LAPD), at least every three years to ensure that the relationships
are clear, that the terms of the MOU sufficiently incorporate new practices, technology,
experience, and changes in the law, and that the MOU reflects the goals and values of USC.

Note. Total accountability action items: 9.

Table 7 shows a summary of the USC DPS CAB alternative to armed response action
items.

Table 7. Alternatives to Armed Response Action Items
12. (I): Reassign some of the current duties of armed officers (PSOs) to others. Determine
which duties are appropriate for this reallocation.

44
13. (I) DPS: DPS policies and protocols should ensure the equitable response, treatment of
disturbance calls relating to parties, noise complaints or alcohol-related issues involving
students.
14. (I): Develop a comprehensive training and development strategy for all DPS employees.
15. (I) DPS: Change DPS policy to permit officers to stop individuals only when they have a
fair probability that the individual being detained has, is or is about to commit a crime, and
document the interaction.
16. (M) USC: Should adopt a community-based violence intervention program, partnering with
community intervention workers with a diversity of life experience that allows them to be a
credible messenger—a “license to operate”—thereby being able to build and sustain
violence reduction and promote peace in the community.
17. (L) Mental Health: Have other services provide the mental health response. If some
functions currently handled by DPS are reassigned to other campus entities, the USC
administration and DPS should consider reallocating funding in support of those reassigned
services and redirecting resources from DPS to those other campus entities.
18. (L) Homelessness: Implement the Street Medicine Pilot Program with Keck Medicine as the
lead response.

Note. Total alternatives to armed response action items: 7.

Table 8 shows a summary of the USC DPS CAB community care action items.

Table 8. Community Care Action Items
19. (I) USC: Should commit to creating an inclusive and inviting campus for the surrounding
communities by assessing its current safety, access, and security protocols to implement
processes that would welcome USC’s neighbors into USC campus life.
20. (I) USC: Should commit to the creation of student/neighbor engagement activities that
would create opportunities for each to learn from one another and build egalitarian
relationships of trust and care.
21. (I) USC: Should adopt within its academic policy the ability for a racially profiled student to
seek and utilize academic assistance resources due to stress caused from the incidence of
being racially profiled. This includes deferral of assignments and tutoring support.
22. (I) USC: USC should fund and create trauma-informed mental health resources, including
counselors, to support and provide relief for the experiences of racially profiled students
within Student Health Services, at no cost to the student.
23. (M) DPS: Needs to modify its recruitment and hiring practices to ensure that DPS officers
are best suited to be members of a campus community as part of a service organization.
24. (M) DPS: Trainings should include neighbor-led-sessions that provide the community’s
historical context and sensitivity training.
25. (M): Leverage existing programs such as Troy Camp and Joint Educational Project (JEP).

45
26. (M) USC: Create and implement community-led sessions about the history of the region at
student orientation, DPS, required trainings, and other campus activities throughout the
year.
27. (M): Organize neighborhood events and volunteer opportunities—such as “Adopt A Block”
events—targeting student groups and organizations to give back to the communities they
may at times inadvertently harm.
28. (M) USC: Craft a diverse and broad marketing campaign that invites the community onto
campus and highlights university resources that are accessible to all (such as recreation
facilities and/or medical campus support services).
29. (L): Continue exploring opportunities for expanded shared spaces with the communities we
serve.
30. (L) USC: Should expand how it offers various services and supports its neighbors utilizing
the wealth of campus resources.

Note. Total community care action items: 12.

Table 9 shows a summary of the USC DPS CAB transparency action items.

Table 9. Transparency Action Items
31. (I) DPS: Should review, re-imagine, and clearly publicize its mission, which should include
providing a safe and secure campus environment that allows students, faculty, staff, and
campus visitors to realize their academic and social pursuits.
32. (I) DPS: Should clearly communicate how DPS is different from the LAPD; and what the
LAPD does; and the relationship between DPS and LAPD.
33. (I) DPS: If possible, DPS should look at ways to immediately change its uniform so that
they can easily be distinguished from LAPD officers in a way that could quickly be
implemented.
34. (I) DPS: Should clarify its mission and its policies with regard to students whose
problematic behavior would normally justify receiving a citation by an LAPD officer if
committed by a non-student. DPS should ensure that its officers are responsive to
complaints from the local community and no inappropriately protecting students for activity
that would otherwise merit a citation.
35. (I) DPS: Should be more transparent about the data concerning its operations, including stop
data, arrest data, and basic budget information.
36. (M) DPS: Should clearly publicize the revised statement on its website.
37. (M) DPS: Must better communicate the services its officers provide and the scope of their
respective enforcement.
38. (M) DPS: Should change the color of its uniforms and/or create a more approachable look
in its uniform design with colors not reminiscent of LAPD or other local municipal police

46
forces so that students and the community around USC can easily identify DPS officers and
distinguish them from LAPD and other agencies’ officers.
39. (M) DPS: Should form a working group, consisting of students, staff, faculty and DPS
personnel, to determine uniform options and associated costs and present its findings with
recommendations to the future oversight body.
40. (M) DPS: Should develop educational materials to teach all community members about: 1.
The services it provides and its enforcement authority and 2. The different roles of each
classification of DPS officers.
41. (M) DPS: Should maintain an activity log dashboard on the DPS website, which lists
statistical information about its operations and activities, and which will serve as a building
block to repair community trust. The information on the dashboard should be updated at
least once a month to ensure its timeliness and accuracy.
42. (L) DPS: Should continually reassess its mission statement and operations and ensure that
its website and education materials are continually amended to provide proactive, accurate
and timely information to the USC community.
43. (L) DPS: Should work with an on-campus data analysis partner to collect and make
available relevant and timely information regarding policing practices and outcomes on and
near USC’s campuses. This data should be used to inform and direct non law enforcement
resources, not as a tool to increase surveillance and enforcement.
44. (L) DPS: The new permanent oversight body and DPS should present a proposal and budget
to the university administration for a full uniform change.
45. (L) DPS: Should review statewide policies and procedures to ensure that its data reporting
practices are in alignment with the applicable state laws. These laws include Senate Bill
1421, enacted as an amendment of the California Penal Code Section 832.7, and Assembly
Bill 953, enacted as an amendment to the California Government Code Section 12525.5.

Note. Total transparency action items: 15.

Table 10 shows a breakdown of the USC DPS CAB recommendations and action items.

Table 10. Recommendation Pillar Totals
Pillar Items
Recommendations
General 2
Action items
Accountability 9
Alternative to armed response 7
Community care 12
Transparency 15

47
Data Analysis
The USC DPS CAB report is a plan to reimagine and restructure the USC DPS into a
department that is reflective of the community’s inputs and needs. The report is a description and
summarization of the agreed-upon need for change based on the decisions, observations, and
agreements of various stakeholders who were selected and worked together after a robust
stakeholder analysis. Additionally, the report is inclusive of the input of hundreds of other
community members, at every level, who became involved through listening sessions. Equipped
with this information, the researcher made the decision to proceed with Factors 1 and 2, ensuring
the need and providing a plan, as “blanket factors” during the various data analysis phases (see
Table 11). That is to say, the researcher proceeded with the data analysis phases under the
assumption that all recommendations and action items met the criteria for Factors 1 and 2.

Table 11. Blanket Factors
Code Factor Definition
Ensure the need 1 Ensuring the need by verifying, highlighting, and communicating
the change.
Provide a plan 2 Providing a plan by creating a roadmap with defined roles of key
players.

In Phase 1 of the data analysis, the researcher carefully read each recommendation and
action item—with the eight key factors of implementation in mind and under the assumption that
Factors 1 and 2 were blanket factors—to determine whether statements fit the criteria of the
remaining factors. The criteria the researcher used to make that determination were words and
language used to complete the sentence(s) describing the action item. For example, action item
36 states: “[DPS] should clearly publicize the revised statement on its website.” In this case, the
researcher determined the words “publicize” coupled with “on its website” were indicative of a

48
communications plan. Action Item 36 met three of the eight key factors of implementation, or
37.50%. See Figure 7 for a depiction of this analysis.

Figure 7. Depiction of Action Item 36 Analysis

Table 12 shows the results of the Item 36 analysis.

Table 12. Item 36
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
X X X 3 37.50

Furthermore, it is important to note that the researcher also considered the following
questions during the data analysis phases:
1. If this statement or recommendation were to be implemented, what value would that
provide in possibly meeting other factors?
36. “[DPS] should clearly
publicize the revised
statement on its website.”
Factor 1 (F1): Ensure the need (12.50%)
Factor 2 (F2): Provide a plan (12.50%)
Factor 3 (F3): Internal support (12.50%)
Factor 4 (F4): Top management support (12.50%)
Factor 5 (F5): External support (12.50%)
Factor 6 (F6): Provide resources (12.50%)
Factor 7 (F7): Communications plan (12.50%)
Factor 8 (F8): Lasting change (12.50%)

49
2. To what factors does the statement or recommendation lead?
For example, regarding Item 19 (“USC should commit to creating an inclusive and
inviting campus for the surrounding communities by assessing its current safety, access, and
security protocols to implement processes that would welcome USC’s neighbors into USC
campus life”), Table 13 displays the relevant factors.

Table 13. Item 19
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
X X X 3 37.50

As the recommendation is written, it may only be seen as meeting Factors 1 and 2.
However, when considering the value that the recommendations may provide upon
implementation, it also met the criteria for Factor 5: external support. See Figure 8 for a
depiction of this analysis.

50
Figure 8. Depiction of Action Item 19 Analysis

Last, the researcher also considered the following question during the data analysis phases:
1. What does the statement or recommendation imply?
When considering implications of the recommendations, additional factors may be met. For
example, regarding Item 5 (“Develop and provide a community engagement card or QR code, to
be furnished to everyone who has an interaction with DPS personnel, which will provide an
opportunity to forward information [e.g., commendation, complaint, quality of service] to DPS”),
Table 14 and Figure 9 display the relevant factors and analysis process.

Table 14. Item 5
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total Total
X X X 3 37.50

19. “[USC] should
commit to creating an
inclusive and inviting
campus for the
surrounding communities
by assessing its current
safety, access, and
security protocols to
implement processes that
would welcome USC’s
neighbors into USC
campus life.
F1: Ensure the need (12.50%)
F2: Provide a plan (12.50%)
F3: Internal support (12.50%)
F4: Top management support (12.50%)
F5: External support (12.50%)
F6: Provide resources (12.50%)
F7: Communications plan (12.50%)
F8: Lasting change (12.50%)
*Added value upon
implementation

51
Figure 9. Depiction of Action Item 5 Analysis

Phase 1: Assessing Each Recommendation and Action Item Individually
Table 15 displays the relevant factors of each recommendation and action item in the
Phase 1 analysis process.

Table 15. Phase One Analysis
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
1. Re-envision public safety.
Sponsor: N/A
X X 2 25.0
2. Create an independent oversight body.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

2 25.0
5. “[DPS should] develop
and provide a community
engagement card or QR
code, to be furnished to
everyone who has an
interaction with DPS
personnel, which will
provide an opportunity to
forward information
(e.g., commendation,
complaint, quality of
service) to DPS.
F1: Ensure the need (12.50%)
F2: Provide a plan (12.50%)
F3: Internal support (12.50%)
F4: Top management support (12.50%)
F5: External support (12.50%)
F6: Provide resources (12.50%)
F7: Communications plan (12.50%)
F8: Lasting change (12.50%)
*The wording in the
recommendation implies
resources such as “a
community engagement card
or QR code” will be
provided.

52
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
3. Create a public policy statement about
the seriousness of racial profiling by
DPS, students, faculty, staff, community
members and visitors. Statement should
include that racial profiling will not be
tolerated as a false complaint, nor will it
be tolerated as the basis for a subjective
suspicious stop in the case of DPS.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X 3 37.5
4. Ensure that sustained complaints and
reports of bias, discrimination, or
profiling – or sustained misconduct
investigations involving the same – can
result in the termination of employment.
Sponsor: DPS and USC
X X

X 3 37.5
5. Develop and provide a Community
Engagement Card or QR code, to be
furnished to everyone who has an
interaction with DPS personnel, which
will provide an opportunity to forward
information (e.g., commendation,
complaint, quality of service) to DPS.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0
6. Log sufficient information to analyze
the percentage of each officer’s
investigative stops in which the detained
individual was found to be engaging in
criminal activity.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0
7. Record all self-initiated field contacts
with persons in a computerized daily
log. This should include reason for
contact, outcome of interaction and any
potential conflicts. These reports should
be submitted at the end of each shift.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0

53
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
8. Create a database that flags/identifies
officers who have committed racial
profiling stop offenses, and/or who have
been released from duty. This database
should be one that is accessible for
annual USC public reporting, and also
shared with local and centralized
professional background check hubs –
not just those tied to officer background
checks.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

3 37.5
9. Engage in a thorough review of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between USC (DPS) and the City of Los
Angeles (LAPD) to ensure that the MOU
reflects the ONE USC community safety
vision.
Sponsor: USC
X X X X X

5 62.5
10. Adopt a clear and comprehensive
policy related to the handling of
complaints against officers from the
public that extends beyond the
Administrative Investigations
Management (AIM) database. That
policy should, at a minimum, identify
those responsible for complaint intake,
detail the investigative steps and
protocols required for all complaints,
identify the standard of proof and
categorize and define the possible
findings.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X 3 37.5
11. Review of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between USC
(DPS) and the City of Los Angeles
(LAPD), at least every three years to
ensure that the relationships are clear,
that the terms of the MOU sufficiently
incorporate new practices, technology,
experience, and changes in the law, and
that the MOU reflects the goals and
values of USC.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

X 4 50.0

54
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
12. Reassign some of the current duties
of armed officers (PSOs) to others.
Determine which duties are appropriate
for this reallocation.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

X 3 37.5
13. DPS policies and protocols should
ensure the equitable response, treatment
of disturbance calls relating to parties,
noise complaints or alcohol-related
issues involving students.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X 3 37.5
14. Develop a comprehensive training
and development strategy for all DPS
employees.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

2 37.5
15. Change DPS policy to permit
officers to stop individuals only when
they have a fair probability that the
individual being detained has, is or is
about to commit a crime, and document
the interaction.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X 3 37.5
16. Should adopt a community-based
violence intervention program,
partnering with community intervention
workers with a diversity of life
experience that allows them to be a
credible messenger – a “license to
operate” – thereby being able to build
and sustain violence reduction and
promote peace in the community.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

3 37.5
17. Have other services provide the
mental health response. If some
functions currently handled by DPS are
reassigned to other campus entities, the
USC administration and DPS should
consider reallocating funding in support
of those reassigned services and
redirecting resources from DPS to those
other campus entities.
Sponsor: Mental health
X X

X

X 4 50.0

55
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
18. Implement the Street Medicine Pilot
Program with Keck Medicine as the lead
response.
Sponsor: Homelessness
X X

X

3 37.5
19. Should commit to creating an
inclusive and inviting campus for the
surrounding communities by assessing
its current safety, access, and security
protocols to implement processes that
would welcome USC’s neighbors into
USC campus life.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

3 37.5
20. Should commit to the creation of
student/neighbor engagement activities
that would create opportunities for each
to learn from one another and build
egalitarian relationships of trust and
care.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

3 37.5
21. Should adopt within its academic
policy the ability for a racially profiled
student to seek and utilize academic
assistance resources due to stress caused
from the incidence of being racially
profiled. This includes deferral of
assignments and tutoring support.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

X 4 50.0
22. USC should fund and create trauma-
informed mental health resources,
including counselors, to support and
provide relief for the experiences of
racially profiled students within Student
Health Services, at no cost to the
student.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

X 4 50.0
23. Needs to modify its recruitment and
hiring practices to ensure that DPS
officers are best suited to be members of
a campus community as part of a service
organization.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X 3 37.5

56
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
24. Trainings should include neighbor-
led-sessions that provide the
community’s historical context and
sensitivity training.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0
25. Leverage existing programs such as
Troy Camp and Joint Educational
Project (JEP).
Sponsor: N/A
X X

2 25.0
26. Create and implement community-
led sessions about the history of the
region at student orientation, DPS,
required trainings, and other campus
activities throughout the year.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X X

X 5 62.5
27. Organize neighborhood events and
volunteer opportunities – such as “Adopt
A Block” events – targeting student
groups and organizations to give back to
the communities they may at times
inadvertently harm.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

X

3 37.5
28. Craft a diverse and broad marketing
campaign that invites the community
onto campus and highlights university
resources that are accessible to all (such
as recreation facilities and/or medical
campus support services).
Sponsor: USC
X X

X X X

5 62.5
29. Continue exploring opportunities for
expanded shared spaces with the
communities we serve.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

X X

4 50.0
30. Should expand how it offers various
services and supports its neighbors
utilizing the wealth of campus resources.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X X

4 50.0

57
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
31. Should review, re-imagine, and
clearly publicize its mission, which
should include providing a safe and
secure campus environment that allows
students, faculty, staff, and campus
visitors to realize their academic and
social pursuits.
Sponsor: DPS
X X X

X

X

5 37.5
32. Should clearly communicate how
DPS is different from the LAPD; and
what the LAPD does; and the
relationship between DPS and LAPD.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

3 37.5
33. If possible, DPS should look at ways
to immediately change its uniform so
that they can easily be distinguished
from LAPD officers in a way that could
quickly be implemented.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0
34. Should clarify its mission and its
policies with regard to students whose
problematic behavior would normally
justify receiving a citation by an LAPD
officer if committed by a non-student.
DPS should ensure that its officers are
responsive to complaints from the local
community and not inappropriately
protecting students for activity that
would otherwise merit a citation.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0
35. Should be more transparent about the
data concerning its operations, including
stop data, arrest data, and basic budget
information.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X

4 50.0
36. Should clearly publicize the revised
statement on its website.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X X 4 50.0
37. Must better communicate the
services its officers provide and the
scope of their respective enforcement.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

3 37.5

58
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
38. Should change the color of its
uniforms and/or create a more
approachable look in its uniform design
with colors not reminiscent of LAPD or
other local municipal police forces so
that students and the community around
USC can easily identify DPS officers
and distinguish them from LAPD and
other agencies’ officers.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0
39. Should form a working group,
consisting of students, staff, faculty and
DPS personnel, to determine uniform
options and associated costs and present
its findings with recommendations to the
future oversight body.
Sponsor: DPS
X X X

X

X 5 67.5
40. Should develop educational
materials to teach all community
members about 1. The services it
provides and its enforcement authority
and 2. The different roles of each
classification of DPS officers.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X X

4 50.0
41. Should maintain an activity log
dashboard on the DPS website, which
lists statistical information about its
operations and activities, and which will
serve as a building block to repair
community trust. The information on the
dashboard should be updated at least
once a month to ensure its timeliness and
accuracy.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X X X 2 67.5
42. Should continually reassess its
mission statement and operations and
ensure that its website and education
materials are continually amended to
provide proactive, accurate and timely
information to the USC community.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X X X 5 67.5

59
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
43. Should work with an on-campus data
analysis partner to collect and make
available relevant and timely
information regarding policing practices
and outcomes on and near USC’s
campuses. This data should be used to
inform and direct non law enforcement
resources, not as a tool to increase
surveillance and enforcement.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X X

4 50.0
44. The new permanent oversight body
and DPS should present a proposal and
budget to the university administration
for a full uniform change.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0
45. Should review statewide policies and
procedures to ensure that its data
reporting practices are in alignment with
the applicable state laws. These laws
include Senate Bill 1421, enacted as an
amendment of the California Penal Code
Section 832.7, and Assembly Bill 953,
enacted as an amendment to the
California Government Code Section
12525.5.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X 3 37.5
Average

3.56 45.0

Phase 1 Analysis Results
When assessing both recommendations, “re-envision public safety” and “create an
independent oversight body,” and the 43 action items individually, the rate of factors met was
low—an average of 3.56 or 45.0% (range = 2–5; 25.0%–67.5%). Additionally, there were no
criteria by which the researcher could determine a sponsor for recommendations or action items
that were not clearly assigned one. After the first phase assessment, the researcher identified
recurring themes among action items, which created an opportunity to create clusters. To
increase the number of factors met and thus, the likelihood of successful implementation, the

60
researcher pursued additional analysis phases that involved grouping action items that shared
similarities into thematic clusters.

61
Chapter 5: Implementation Recommendations
Phase 2 involved an assessment of two recommendations, seven clusters of action item,
and two miscellaneous single-item categories. The two recommendations were “re-envision
public safety” and “create an independent oversight body.” The themes of action item clusters
were DPS uniforms, DPS data, community engagement, wellness, DPS communication, DPS
training and policies, and legal review. The two miscellaneous single-item categories were
recruitment and DPS mission.
Phase Two: Assessing Recommendations and Action Items in Clusters
Table 16 displays the relevant factors of the recommendation to re-envision public safety
during the Phase 2 analysis.

Table 16 Re-envision Public Safety (Sponsor: N/A)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
1. Re-envision public safety. X X 2 25.0
Total 2 25.0

Table 17 displays the relevant factors of the recommendation to establish an independent
oversight body during the Phase 2 analysis.

Table 17. Independent Oversight Body (Sponsor: N/A)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
2. Create an independent oversight body. X X

2 25.0
Total 2 25.0

62
Theme: DPS Uniforms
After combining action items into themes, the DPS uniforms cluster featured four action
items. The rate of factors met increased from an average of 45.0% when action items were
assessed individually to 87.5% when assessed in a thematic cluster, a 42.5% increase. All four
action items (100%) were originally assigned to DPS as a sponsor; thus, the sponsor for this
theme remained DPS.
Table 18 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “DPS Uniforms” during the Phase 2
analysis.

Table 18. Phase Two DPS Uniforms (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
33. If possible, DPS should look at
ways to immediately change its
uniform so that they can easily be
distinguished from LAPD officers in a
way that could quickly be
implemented.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
38. Should change the color of its
uniforms and/or create a more
approachable look in its uniform
design with colors not reminiscent of
LAPD or other local municipal police
forces so that students and the
community around USC can easily
identify DPS officers and distinguish
them from LAPD and other agencies’
officers.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
39. Should form a working group,
consisting of students, staff, faculty
and DPS personnel, to determine
uniform options and associated costs
and present its findings with
recommendations to the future
oversight body.
X X X

X

X 5 62.5

63
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
44. The new permanent oversight body
and DPS should present a proposal and
budget to the university administration
for a full uniform change.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
Total X X X X X X

X 7 87.5

Theme: DPS Data
After combining action items into themes, the DPS data cluster featured eight action
items. The rate of factors met increased from an average of 45.0% when action items were
assessed individually to 87.5% when assessed in a thematic cluster, a 42.5% increase. All eight
action items were originally assigned DPS as a sponsor; thus, the sponsor for this theme
remained DPS.
Table 19 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “DPS Data” during the Phase 2
analysis.

Table 19. Phase Two DPS Data (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
5. Develop and provide a community
engagement card or QR code, to be
furnished to everyone who has an
interaction with DPS personnel, which
will provide an opportunity to forward
information (e.g., commendation,
complaint, quality of service) to DPS.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
6. Log sufficient information to analyze
the percentage of each officer’s
investigative stops in which the detained
individual was found to be engaging in
criminal activity.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
7. Record all self-initiated field contacts
with persons in a computerized daily
log. This should include reason for
contact, outcome of interaction and any
X X

X

X 4 50.0

64
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
potential conflicts. These reports should
be submitted at the end of each shift.
8. Create a database that flags/identifies
officers who have committed racial
profiling stop offenses, and/or who have
been released from duty. This database
should be one that is accessible for
annual USC public reporting, and also
shared with local and centralized
professional background check hubs—
not just those tied to officer background
checks.
X X

X

3 37.5
35. Should be more transparent about the
data concerning its operations, including
stop data, arrest data, and basic budget
information.
X X

X

X

4 50.0
36. Should clearly publicize the revised
statement on its website.
X X

X X 4 50.0
41. Should maintain an activity log
dashboard on the DPS website, which
lists statistical information about its
operations and activities, and which will
serve as a building block to repair
community trust. The information on the
dashboard should be updated at least
once a month to ensure its timeliness and
accuracy.
X X

X X X 5 62.5
43. Should work with an on-campus data
analysis partner to collect and make
available relevant and timely
information regarding policing practices
and outcomes on and near USC’s
campuses. This data should be used to
inform and direct non law enforcement
resources, not as a tool to increase
surveillance and enforcement.
X X

X X

4 50.0
Total X X

X X X X X 7 87.5

65
Theme: Community Engagement
After combining action items into themes, the community engagement featured 10 action
items. The rate of factors met increased from an average of 45.0% when action items were
assessed individually to 75.0% when assessed in a thematic cluster, a 30.0% increase. The
breakdown of originally assigned sponsors is as follows: Six action items were assigned to USC
as a sponsor (60.0%), three action items were not assigned to a sponsor (30.0%), and one action
item was assigned to DPS as a sponsor (10.0%). Simply assigning USC as a sponsor is vague,
given the size of the institution. After carefully reviewing each action item and based on the
researcher’s institutional knowledge, the researcher recommends the sponsors for this cluster, at
this stage, be USC Civic Engagement as the primary sponsor and DPS as the secondary sponsor
with input from USC Communications.
Table 20 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “Community Engagement” during the
Phase 2 analysis.

Table 20. Phase Two Community Engagement
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
16. USC: Should adopt a community-
based violence intervention program,
partnering with community intervention
workers with a diversity of life
experience that allows them to be a
credible messenger—a “license to
operate”—thereby being able to build
and sustain violence reduction and
promote peace in the community.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

3 37.5
19. Should commit to creating an
inclusive and inviting campus for the
surrounding communities by assessing
its current safety, access, and security
protocols to implement processes that
X X

X

3 37.5

66
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
would welcome USC’s neighbors into
USC campus life.
Sponsor: USC
20. Should commit to the creation of
student/neighbor engagement activities
that would create opportunities for each
to learn from one another and build
egalitarian relationships of trust and
care.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

3 37.5
25. Leverage existing programs such as
Troy Camp and Joint Educational
Project (JEP).
Sponsor: N/A
X X

2 25.0
26. Create and implement community-
led sessions about the history of the
region at student orientation, DPS,
required trainings, and other campus
activities throughout the year.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X X

X 5 62.5
27. Organize neighborhood events and
volunteer opportunities—such as “Adopt
A Block” events—targeting student
groups and organizations to give back to
the communities they may at times
inadvertently harm.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

X

3 37.5
28. Craft a diverse and broad marketing
campaign that invites the community
onto campus and highlights university
resources that are accessible to all (such
as recreation facilities and/or medical
campus support services).
Sponsor: USC
X X

X X X

5 62.5
29. Continue exploring opportunities for
expanded shared spaces with the
communities we serve.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

X X

4 50.0
30. Should expand how it offers various
services and supports its neighbors
utilizing the wealth of campus resources.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X X

4 50.0

67
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
40. Should develop educational
materials to teach all community
members about: 1. The services it
provides and its enforcement authority
and 2. The different roles of each
classification of DPS officers.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X X

4 50.0
Total X X

X X X X 6 75.0

Note. Item 40 overlaps with theme of DPS communication.

Theme: Wellness
After combining action items into themes, the wellness cluster featured five action items.
The rate of factors met increased from an average of 45.0% when action items were assessed
individually to 62.5% when assessed in a thematic cluster, a 17.5% increase. The breakdown of
originally assigned sponsors is as follows: Two action items were assigned to USC as a sponsor
(40.0%), one action item was not assigned a sponsor (20.0%) though the description of the action
item indicates the responsibility should fall to DPS, and one action item was assigned to
“homelessness” as a sponsor (20.0%) although there is no department in the university that
operates under that name. The Street Medicine Team, however, which can be found in the
description of the action item, is housed in the Keck School of Medicine of USC.
10
The
remaining action item was assigned “mental health” as a sponsor (20.0%). Similarly, there is no
such department at USC. However, the description of the action item suggests the department
most aligned with that vision is USC Student Health, which offers counseling and mental health
services.
11
Determining the appropriate sponsor or group of sponsors requires further analysis of

10
https://sites.usc.edu/streetmedicine/about/ourteam/
11
https://safety.usc.edu/counseling/

68
the action items. Table 21 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “Wellness” during the Phase
2 analysis.

Table 21. Phase Two Wellness
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
12. Reassign some of the current duties
of armed officers (PSOs) to others.
Determine which duties are appropriate
for this reallocation.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

X 3 37.5
17. Have other services provide the
mental health response. If some
functions currently handled by DPS are
reassigned to other campus entities, the
USC administration and DPS should
consider reallocating funding in support
of those reassigned services and
redirecting resources from DPS to those
other campus entities.
Sponsor: Mental health
X X

X X

X 5 62.5
18. Implement the Street Medicine Pilot
Program with Keck Medicine as the lead
response.
Sponsor: Homelessness
X X

X

3 37.5
21. Should adopt within its academic
policy the ability for a racially profiled
student to seek and utilize academic
assistance resources due to stress caused
from the incidence of being racially
profiled. This includes deferral of
assignments and tutoring support.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

X 4 50.0
22. USC should fund and create trauma-
informed mental health resources,
including counselors, to support and
provide relief for the experiences of
racially profiled students within Student
Health Services, at no cost to the
student.
Sponsor: USC
X X

X

X 4 50.0

69
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
Total X X

X X

X 5 62.5

Theme: DPS Communication
After combining action items into themes, the DPS communications cluster featured four
action items. The rate of factors met increased from an average of 45.0% when action items were
assessed individually to 62.5% when assessed in a thematic cluster, an 17.5% increase. All four
action items were originally assigned to DPS as a sponsor; thus, the sponsor for this theme
remained DPS. Table 22 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “DPS Communication”
during the Phase 2 analysis.

Table 22. Phase Two DPS Communication (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
32. Should clearly communicate how
DPS is different from the LAPD; and
what the LAPD does; and the
relationship between DPS and LAPD.
X X

X

3 37.5
37. Must better communicate the
services its officers provide and the
scope of their respective enforcement.
X X

X

3 37.5
40. Should develop educational
materials to teach all community
members about: 1. The services it
provides and its enforcement authority
and 2. The different roles of each
classification of DPS officers.
X X

X X

4 50.0
42. Should continually reassess its
mission statement and operations and
ensure that its website and education
materials are continually amended to
provide proactive, accurate and timely
information to the USC community.
X X

X X X 5 62.5
Total X X

X X X 5 62.5

70
Note. Item 40 overlaps with theme of community engagement.

Theme: DPS Training and Policies
After combining action items into themes, the DPS training and policies cluster featured
eight action items. The rate of factors met increased from an average of 45.0% when action items
were assessed individually to 62.5% when assessed in a thematic cluster, a 17.5% increase. The
responsibility of assigned sponsors is different in this cluster when compared to others because
one action item, Item 4, splits the responsibility among two parties. Thus, for the purpose of this
assessment phase, although other action items had one sponsor, Item 4 was split into two
portions. The breakdown of sponsors in this cluster is as follow:
• Action Item 3: USC
• Action Item 4: DPS and USC
• Action Item 10: DPS
• Action Item 13: DPS
• Action Item 14: N/A
o The description of this action items indicates the best sponsor fit is DPS
• Action Item 15: DPS
• Action Item 24: DPS
• Action Item 34: N/A
o The description of this action items indicates the best sponsor fit is DPS
DPS was responsible for sponsorship of 93.75% of this cluster, whereas USC was only
responsible for 6.25% sponsorship of this cluster. Thus, DPS remained the primary sponsor of
the DPS training and policies cluster. Table 23 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “DPS
Training and Policies” during the Phase 2 analysis.

Table 23. Phase Two DPS Training and Policies
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
3. Create a public policy statement about
the seriousness of racial profiling by
X X

X 3 37.5

71
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
DPS, students, faculty, staff, community
members and visitors. Statement should
include that racial profiling will not be
tolerated as a false complaint, nor will it
be tolerated as the basis for a subjective
suspicious stop in the case of DPS.
Sponsor: USC
4. Ensure that sustained complaints and
reports of bias, discrimination, or
profiling—or sustained misconduct
investigations involving the same—can
result in the termination of employment.
Sponsor: DPS and USC
X X

X 3 37.5
10. Adopt a clear and comprehensive
policy related to the handling of
complaints against officers from the
public that extends beyond the
Administrative Investigations
Management (AIM) database. That
policy should, at a minimum, identify
those responsible for complaint intake,
detail the investigative steps and
protocols required for all complaints,
identify the standard of proof and
categorize and define the possible
findings.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X 3 37.5
13. DPS policies and protocols should
ensure the equitable response, treatment
of disturbance calls relating to parties,
noise complaints or alcohol-related
issues involving students.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X 3 37.5
14. Develop a comprehensive training
and development strategy for all DPS
employees.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

2 25.0
15. Change DPS policy to permit
officers to stop individuals only when
they have a fair probability that the
individual being detained has, is or is
about to commit a crime, and document
the interaction.
X X

X 3 37.5

72
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
Sponsor: DPS
24. Trainings should include neighbor-
led-sessions that provide the
community’s historical context and
sensitivity training.
Sponsor: DPS
X X

X

X 4 50.0
34. Should clarify its mission and its
policies with regard to students whose
problematic behavior would normally
justify receiving a citation by an LAPD
officer if committed by a non-student.
DPS should ensure that its officers are
responsive to complaints from the local
community and no inappropriately
protecting students for activity that
would otherwise merit a citation.
Sponsor: N/A
X X

X

X 4 50.0
Total X X

X X

X 5 62.5

Theme: Legal Review
After combining action items into themes, the legal review cluster featured three action
items. The rate of factors met increased from an average of 45.0% when action items were
assessed individually to 75.0% when assessed in a thematic cluster, a 30.0% increase. All three
action items were originally assigned DPS as a sponsor; thus, the sponsor for this theme
remained DPS. Table 24 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “Legal Review” during the
Phase 2 analysis.

Table 24. Phase Two Legal Review (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
9. Engage in a thorough review of the
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
between USC (DPS) and the city of Los
Angeles (LAPD) to ensure that the MOU
X X X X X

5 62.5

73
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
reflects the ONE USC community safety
vision.
11. Review of the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between USC
(DPS) and the city of Los Angeles
(LAPD), at least every three years to
ensure that the relationships are clear,
that the terms of the MOU sufficiently
incorporate new practices, technology,
experience, and changes in the law, and
that the MOU reflects the goals and
values of USC.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
45. Should review statewide policies and
procedures to ensure that its data
reporting practices are in alignment with
the applicable state laws. These laws
include Senate Bill 1421, enacted as an
amendment of the California Penal Code
Section 832.7, and Assembly Bill 953,
enacted as an amendment to the
California Government Code Section
12525.5.
X X

X 3 37.5
Total X X X X X

X 6 75.0

Theme: DPS Recruitment
DPS recruitment is a standalone action item for which DPS is responsible as its sponsor.
When removed from other action items, the percentage of factors met decreased from 45.0% to
37.5%, a 7.5% decrease. Although not an ideal fit, an argument can be made to add this item to
the DPS training and policies cluster. Table 25 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “DPS
Recruitment” during the Phase 2 analysis.

Table 25. Phase Two DPS Recruitment (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
25. Needs to modify its recruitment and
hiring practices to ensure that DPS
X X

X 3 37.5

74
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
officers are best suited to be members of
a campus community as part of a service
organization.
Total X X

X 3 37.5

Theme: DPS Mission
DPS mission is a standalone action item for which DPS is responsible as its sponsor.
When removed from other action items, the percentage of factors met increased from 45.0% to
62.5%, a 17.5% increase. Although not an ideal fit, an argument can be made to add this item to
the DPS communications cluster. Table 26 displays the relevant factors of the cluster “DPS
Mission” during the Phase 2 analysis.

Table 26. Phase Two DPS Mission (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
31. Should review, re-imagine, and
clearly publicize its mission, which
should include providing a safe and
secure campus environment that allows
students, faculty, staff, and campus
visitors to realize their academic and
social pursuits.
X X X

X

X

5 62.5
Total X X X

X

X

5 62.5

Phase 2 Analysis Results
Table 27 displays a summary of the Phase 2 analysis results for each recommendation
and action item cluster.

75
Table 27. Phase Two Analysis Results
Recommendation or action item cluster % Sponsor
Re-envision public safety 25.0 N/A
Create an independent oversight body 25.0 N/A
Theme: DPS uniforms 87.5 DPS
Theme: DPS data 87.5 DPS
Theme: Community engagement 75.0 USC Civic Engagement as primary,
DPS with input from USC
Communications as secondary
Theme: Wellness 62.5 Unknown
Theme: DPS communication 62.5 DPS
Theme: DPS training and policies 62.5 DPS
Theme: Legal review 75.0 DPS
Theme: DPS recruitment 37.5 DPS
Theme: DPS mission 62.5 DPS
Average 60.23

In the Phase 2 analysis, action items were clustered into themes. The researcher utilized a
method like that of Phase 1 to determine how many of the eight key factors of implementation
each cluster met. This phase was supplemental to that of the earlier phase. For example, the theme
of DPS communication, as a cluster, featured five of the eight key factors. Although each of the
four action items met the criteria for Factors 1, 2, and 7, the researcher was most concerned with
how many factors the cluster met overall, not how many times it met an individual factor. To
make the proper determination, however, the researcher honored the analysis of Phase 1 by not
altering the results of the deductive coding method.

76
Table 28. Process of Phase Two Analysis
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
32. Should clearly communicate how
DPS is different from the LAPD; and
what the LAPD does; and the
relationship between DPS and LAPD.
X X

X

2 25.0
37. Must better communicate the
services its officers provide and the
scope of their respective enforcement.
X X

X

2 25.0
40. Should develop educational
materials to teach all community
members about: 1. The services it
provides and its enforcement authority
and 2. The different roles of each
classification of DPS officers.
X X

X X

2 25.0
42. Should continually reassess its
mission statement and operations and
ensure that its website and education
materials are continually amended to
provide proactive, accurate and timely
information to the USC community.
X X

X X X 3 37.5
Total X X

X X X 5 62.5

Table 28 shows the process of Phase 2 analysis. In this case, a cluster composed of four
action items met five factors a total of 15 times. Factor 1 was met four times. Factor 2 was met
four times. Factor 6 was met twice. Factor 7 was met four times. Factor 8 was met once. For this
analysis phase, the key piece of information is that the cluster, which became its own action
item, met five (62.5%) of the eight key factors of implementation. Overall, utilizing the cluster
approach, or Phase 2 analysis, appears to have generated a higher likelihood of implementation
when compared to the singular approach, or Phase 1 analysis. In Phase 1, the average likelihood
of the USC DPS CAB report implementation was 45.00%. In Phase 2, the average likelihood of
implementation was 60.23%, an increase of 15.23%. Although this approach created more
favorable results, it also led to the realization of an additional opportunity and thus, led to a third

77
analysis. The researcher utilized a similar deductive method approach using data from the body
of the USC DPS CAB report rather than simply focusing on its results, the two recommendations
and 43 action items.
Phase Three: Assessing Recommendations and Action Items in Clusters with Additional
Report Data
Recommendation: Re-Envision Public Safety
When reviewing the body of the report, several statements fit as potential action items for
the recommendation of re-envisioning public safety. Thus, the four statements displayed in Table
29 were pulled from the report and clustered into the theme of re-envisioning public safety. After
analyzing each statement, the researcher determined that together, they met 62.5% of the
organizational change implementation factors. This raised the likelihood of implementation from
two (25.0%) in the first and second phase assessments to five (62.5%) in the third.

Table 29. Phase Three Re-envision Public Safety (Sponsor: N/A)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
1. Re-envision public safety. X X 2 25.0
We [DPS] need to completely re-
envision how this job can be done. We
understand the tactical reasons why it’s
been done the way it has in the past but
we can make changes and be the leaders.
(p. 31)
X X X

3 37.5
In July 2020, 382 USC faculty members
signed a letter urging USC to redirect
resources to initiatives to make
underrepresented students and members
of the community feel safer on campus.
(p. 38)
X X X

X X

5 62.5
The most cost-effective strategy involves
a re-envisioning of safety that leverages
the knowledge and resources of the
X X

X

3 37.5

78
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
entire university community to properly
address cases involving mental health,
homelessness and other social services.
Specifically, our university has invested
in student mental health and street
medicine programs that can now offer
critical infrastructure to support action
items in our report that devolve directly
from the re-envisioning of public safety
completed to date. (p. 22)
We contend that USC should better
value the members of our faculty, staff
and student community with meaningful
expertise in these areas and entrust them
with resources and mandates to address
these inequalities. (p. 22)
X X X

X

4 50.0
Total X X X X X 5 62.5

Note. This is a new cluster created from the body of report.

Recommendation: Create an Independent Oversight Body
When reviewing the body of the report, several statements fit as potential action items for
the recommendation of creating an independent oversight body. Thus, the nine statements
displayed in Table 30 were pulled from the report and clustered into the theme of creating an
independent oversight body. After analyzing each statement, the researcher determined that
together, they met 100% of the organizational change implementation factors. This raised the
likelihood of implementation from two (25.0%) in the first and second phase assessments to
100% in the third.

79
Table 30. Phase Three Create an Independent Oversight Body (Sponsor: N/A)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
2. Create an independent oversight body. X X 2 25.0
In tandem with a community-engaged
re-envisioning process, we recommend
that the future oversight body we
propose below take some specific
actions in the immediate term. We found
successful sector-specific transformation
can be achieved through a two-part
strategy of an external accreditation
process that includes revision of all
relevant job descriptions to be consistent
with the ONE USC community safety
vision, followed by a requirement of re-
application by all staff to the newly
designed positions. (p. 22)
X X

X

X 4 50.0
It was clear through our co-design
sessions and our deliberations as a CAB
that a permanent independent oversight
body with a mandate from and reporting
to the president and Board of Trustees is
an essential part of ensuring that both the
more detailed recommendations are
implemented and that public trust in the
CAB process is preserved. (p. 23)
X X X X

X

5 62.5
We contend that ex officio collaboration
with members of the president’s senior
leadership team is the proper role for this
new body rather than reporting to them.
First, this role has worked very well as
part of our current structure to offer
context, expedite data requests and
wherever applicable participate in
meetings and subcommittees. Moreover,
while it is tempting to suggest that the
permanent body report to a member of
the president’s senior leadership team
(whether, for example, the vice president
of administration, general counsel or
chief diversity officer), we argue that the
scope of work this new body will
undertake requires a reporting structure
that preserves organizational integrity,
X X

X

X

X 5 62.5

80
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
unfiltered annual reporting to the
president and Board of Trustees and a
related but distinct annual report
available to the general public,
consistent with the transparency
displayed by several of our similarly
situated peer institutions. (p. 23)
At a minimum we strongly recommend
that this new board’s scope of work
include: (a) Advice regarding the annual
budget for community safety and
protection; (b) Independent review and
assessment of all complaints lodged
against DPS; (c) Analysis and review of
annual stops and other relevant safety
data; (d) Creation and review of quality-
of-service benchmarks with external
contractors; I Oversight of policy
development for use of inevitable
advances in community safety
technology; and (f) Assist where
warranted with practices of
transformative justice. (p. 23)
X X

X

X 4 50.0
A future oversight body should also
reflect the diversity of campus
stakeholders and also consider how it
can leverage campus systems and
structures already ingrained in making
change in the process. (p. 24)
X X

X

3 37.5
Inclusion of advisory board members
from Undergraduate Student
Government (USG), Graduate Student
Government (GSG), Staff Assembly,
Academic Senate or the Provost Council
would build inclusivity in the process
and allow for broader engagement. (p.
24)
X X X

X

4 50.0
The oversight body should also consider
how outspoken neighbors and those who
are often complained about, such as
Greek life members, can be included to
bridge the divide between these entities
X X

X X

4 50.0

81
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
through community-based problem
solving. (p. 24)
In the future, we believe that the
forthcoming oversight body must play a
crucial role in ensuring that we have
improved communication with all
stakeholders about DPS and all of our
campus safety operations by continuing
to engage with the community in a
variety of ways, including hosting
listening sessions, holding “town halls”
to discuss DPS operations, conducting
“report card” surveys of stakeholders
and maintaining an easy-to-navigate
website with links to where community
members can find information about
DPS. (p. 24)
X X X

X X X X 7 87.5
A future oversight body has a role in
promoting the community voice in DPS
policies and program decisions as well.
(p. 23)
X X

X

X X 5 62.5
Total X X X X X X X X 8 100.0

Note. This is a new cluster created from the body of report.

Theme: DPS Uniforms
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items.
However, no additional action items for the theme of DPS uniforms were identified. Thus, there
are no changes to that theme from Phase 2 to Phase 3. This theme remained at a factor
satisfaction rate of 87.5% (see Table 31).

82
Table 31. Phase Three DPS Uniforms (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
33. If possible, DPS should look at ways
to immediately change its uniform so
that they can easily be distinguished
from LAPD officers in a way that could
quickly be implemented.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
38. Should change the color of its
uniforms and/or create a more
approachable look in its uniform design
with colors not reminiscent of LAPD or
other local municipal police forces so
that students and the community around
USC can easily identify DPS officers
and distinguish them from LAPD and
other agencies’ officers.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
39. Should form a working group,
consisting of students, staff, faculty and
DPS personnel, to determine uniform
options and associated costs and present
its findings with recommendations to the
future oversight body.
X X X

X

X 5 62.5
44. The new permanent oversight body
and DPS should present a proposal and
budget to the university administration
for a full uniform change.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
Total X X X X X X

X 7 87.5

Theme: DPS Data
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items.
However, no additional action items for the theme of DPS data were identified. Thus, there were
no changes to that theme from Phase 2 to Phase 3. This theme remained at a factor satisfaction
rate of 87.5% (see Table 32).

83
Table 32. Phase Three DPS Data (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
5. Develop and provide a community
engagement card or QR code, to be
furnished to everyone who has an
interaction with DPS personnel, which
will provide an opportunity to forward
information (e.g., commendation,
complaint, quality of service) to DPS.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
6. Log sufficient information to analyze
the percentage of each officer’s
investigative stops in which the detained
individual was found to be engaging in
criminal activity.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
7. Record all self-initiated field contacts
with persons in a computerized daily
log. This should include reason for
contact, outcome of interaction and any
potential conflicts. These reports should
be submitted at the end of each shift.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
8. Create a database that flags/identifies
officers who have committed racial
profiling stop offenses, and/or who have
been released from duty. This database
should be one that is accessible for
annual USC public reporting, and also
shared with local and centralized
professional background check hubs—
not just those tied to officer background
checks.
X X

X

3 37.5
35. Should be more transparent about the
data concerning its operations, including
stop data, arrest data, and basic budget
information.
X X

X

X

4 50.0
36. Should clearly publicize the revised
statement on its website.
X X

X X 4 50.0
41. Should maintain an activity log
dashboard on the DPS website, which
lists statistical information about its
operations and activities, and which will
serve as a building block to repair
community trust. The information on the
dashboard should be updated at least
X X

X X X 5 62.5

84
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
once a month to ensure its timeliness and
accuracy.
43. Should work with an on-campus data
analysis partner to collect and make
available relevant and timely
information regarding policing practices
and outcomes on and near USC’s
campuses. This data should be used to
inform and direct non law enforcement
resources, not as a tool to increase
surveillance and enforcement.
X X

X X

4 50.0
Total X X

X X X X X 7 87.5

Theme: Community Engagement
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items.
However, no additional action items for the theme of community engagement were identified.
Thus, there were no changes to that theme from Phase 2 to Phase 3. This theme remained at a
factor satisfaction rate of 75.0% (see Table 33).

Table 33. Phase Three Community Engagement (Sponsor: USC Civic Engagement as Primary,
DPS with Input from USC Communications as Secondary)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
16. USC: Should adopt a community-
based violence intervention program,
partnering with community intervention
workers with a diversity of life
experience that allows them to be a
credible messenger—a “license to
operate”—thereby being able to build
and sustain violence reduction and
promote peace in the community.
X X

X

3 37.5
19. Should commit to creating an
inclusive and inviting campus for the
surrounding communities by assessing
its current safety, access, and security
X X

X

3 37.5

85
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
protocols to implement processes that
would welcome USC’s neighbors into
USC campus life.
20. Should commit to the creation of
student/neighbor engagement activities
that would create opportunities for each
to learn from one another and build
egalitarian relationships of trust and
care.
X X

X

3 37.5
25. Leverage existing programs such as
Troy Camp and Joint Educational
Project (JEP).
X X

2 25.0
26. Create and implement community-
led sessions about the history of the
region at student orientation, DPS,
required trainings, and other campus
activities throughout the year.
X X

X X

X 5 62.5
27. Organize neighborhood events and
volunteer opportunities—such as
“Adopt A Block” events—targeting
student groups and organizations to give
back to the communities they may at
times inadvertently harm.
X X

X

3 37.5
28. Craft a diverse and broad marketing
campaign that invites the community
onto campus and highlights university
resources that are accessible to all (such
as recreation facilities and/or medical
campus support services).
X X

X X X

5 62.5
29. Continue exploring opportunities for
expanded shared spaces with the
communities we serve.
X X

X X

4 50.0
30. Should expand how it offers various
services and supports its neighbors
utilizing the wealth of campus
resources.
X X

X X

4 50.0
40. Should develop educational
materials to teach all community
members about: 1. The services it
provides and its enforcement authority
and 2. The different roles of each
classification of DPS officers.
X X

X X

4 50.0

86
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
Total X X

X X X X 6 75.0

Note. Item 40 overlaps with communication cluster.

Theme: Wellness
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items.
However, no additional action items for the theme of wellness were identified. Thus, there were
no changes to that theme from Phase 2 to Phase 3. This theme remained at a factor satisfaction
rate of 62.5% (see Table 34).

Table 34. Phase Three Wellness (Sponsor: N/A)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
12. Reassign some of the current duties
of armed officers (PSOs) to others.
Determine which duties are appropriate
for this reallocation.
X X

X 3 37.5
17. Have other services provide the
mental health response. If some
functions currently handled by DPS are
reassigned to other campus entities, the
USC administration and DPS should
consider reallocating funding in support
of those reassigned services and
redirecting resources from DPS to those
other campus entities.
X X

X X

X 5 62.5
18. Implement the Street Medicine Pilot
Program with Keck Medicine as the lead
response.
X X

X

3 37.5
21. Should adopt within its academic
policy the ability for a racially profiled
student to seek and utilize academic
assistance resources due to stress caused
from the incidence of being racially
X X

X

X 4 50.0

87
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
profiled. This includes deferral of
assignments and tutoring support.
22. USC should fund and create trauma-
informed mental health resources,
including counselors, to support and
provide relief for the experiences of
racially profiled students within Student
Health Services, at no cost to the
student.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
Total X X

X X

X 5 62.5

Theme: DPS Communication
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items. In this
review, six additional action items for the theme of DPS communication were identified, and are
displayed in Table 35, increasing the total number of action items in this theme from four to 10.
After analyzing each newly added statement, the researcher determined the theme increased in
factor satisfaction rate from 62.5% in Phase 2 to 87.50% in Phase 3, an increase of 25.0%.

Table 35. Phase Three DPS Communication (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
32. Should clearly communicate how
DPS is different from the LAPD; and
what the LAPD does; and the
relationship between DPS and LAPD.
X X

X

3 37.5
37. Must better communicate the
services its officers provide and the
scope of their respective enforcement.
X X

X

3 37.5
40. Should develop educational
materials to teach all community
members about: 1. The services it
provides and its enforcement authority
and 2. The different roles of each
classification of DPS officers.
X X

X X

4 50.0

88
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
42. Should continually reassess its
mission statement and operations and
ensure that its website and education
materials are continually amended to
provide proactive, accurate and timely
information to the USC community.
X X

X X X 5 62.5
During the co-design listening sessions,
we consistently heard the general
sentiment that the community wants
DPS to improve its communication
strategies, to share more information and
to be more transparent about its
operations. (p. 41)
X X

X

X

4 50.0
The CAB’s co-design sessions made it
crystal clear that the USC community
wants DPS to improve its
communication strategies and to be more
transparent. The community needs to
trust DPS and that will not happen
unless DPS becomes better at
communicating openly and honestly
with the community, and is more
transparent about its policies, its
operations and its role in the community.
(p. 42)
X X

X

X

4 50.0
Based on the co-design sessions,
combined with the CAB’s discussions
and our research about best practices in
campus policing, our overall
recommendation in response to these
concerns is that DPS needs to
communicate better about all aspects of
what it does. If DPS wants to increase
trust within the community, it must get
better at communicating with the
community. Too many members of the
community do not know what DPS does,
or how DPS can help them. (p. 42)
X X

X

X

4 50.0
In this report, when we talk about
improving communication, we mean that
DPS should engage in consistent, timely,
honest and open problem-solving
discussions with all stakeholders
X X X

X

X X 6 75.0

89
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
concerning matters of campus safety and
well-being. (p. 41)
Likewise, improved information-sharing
means sharing the information that will
facilitate the community’s awareness
and understanding of matters that affect
campus safety and community well-
being. (p. 41)
X X

X

X

4 50.0
These immediate term recommendations
involve making sure the current record is
clear and consistent across multiple
platforms – print, internet, social media
– and later, in the medium term,
publicizing a revised mission and
explaining topics like enforcement
jurisdiction in plain language once those
subjects themselves have been
harmonized with the ONE USC
community safety vision. (p. 42)
X X

X X

4 50.0
Total X X X

X X X X 7 87.5

Note. Item 40 overlaps with community engagement cluster. As a cluster, this features 10 factors
(an increase of six after adding the body of the report).

Theme: DPS Training and Policies
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items.
However, no additional action items for the theme of DPS training and policies were identified.
Thus, there were no changes to that theme from Phase 2 to Phase 3. This theme remained at a
factor satisfaction rate of 62.5% (see Table 36).

90
Table 36. Phase Three DPS Training and Policies (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
3. Create a public policy statement about
the seriousness of racial profiling by
DPS, students, faculty, staff, community
members and visitors. Statement should
include that racial profiling will not be
tolerated as a false complaint, nor will it
be tolerated as the basis for a subjective
suspicious stop in the case of DPS.
X X

X 3 37.5
4. Ensure that sustained complaints and
reports of bias, discrimination, or
profiling—or sustained misconduct
investigations involving the same—can
result in the termination of employment.
X X

X 3 37.5
10. Adopt a clear and comprehensive
policy related to the handling of
complaints against officers from the
public that extends beyond the
Administrative Investigations
Management (AIM) database. That
policy should, at a minimum, identify
those responsible for complaint intake,
detail the investigative steps and
protocols required for all complaints,
identify the standard of proof and
categorize and define the possible
findings.
X X

X 3 37.5
13. DPS policies and protocols should
ensure the equitable response, treatment
of disturbance calls relating to parties,
noise complaints or alcohol-related
issues involving students.
X X

X 3 37.5
14. Develop a comprehensive training
and development strategy for all DPS
employees.
X X

2 25.0
15. Change DPS policy to permit
officers to stop individuals only when
they have a fair probability that the
individual being detained has, is or is
about to commit a crime, and document
the interaction.
X X

X 3 37.5

91
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
24. Trainings should include neighbor-
led-sessions that provide the
community’s historical context and
sensitivity training.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
34. Should clarify its mission and its
policies with regard to students whose
problematic behavior would normally
justify receiving a citation by an LAPD
officer if committed by a non-student.
DPS should ensure that its officers are
responsive to complaints from the local
community and no inappropriately
protecting students for activity that
would otherwise merit a citation.
X X

X

X 4 50.0
Total X X

X X

X 5 62.5

Theme: Legal Review
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items.
However, no additional action items for the theme of legal review were identified. Thus, there
were no changes to that theme from Phase 2 to Phase 3. This theme remained at a factor
satisfaction rate of 75.0% (see Table 37).

Table 37. Phase Three Legal Review (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
9. Engage in a thorough review of the
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
between USC (DPS) and the city of Los
Angeles (LAPD) to ensure that the MOU
reflects the ONE USC community safety
vision.
X X X X X

5 62.5
11. Review of the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between USC
(DPS) and the city of Los Angeles
(LAPD), at least every three years to
ensure that the relationships are clear,
that the terms of the MOU sufficiently
X X

X

X 4 50.0

92
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
incorporate new practices, technology,
experience, and changes in the law, and
that the MOU reflects the goals and
values of USC.
45. Should review statewide policies and
procedures to ensure that its data
reporting practices are in alignment with
the applicable state laws. These laws
include Senate Bill 1421, enacted as an
amendment of the California Penal Code
Section 832.7, and Assembly Bill 953,
enacted as an amendment to the
California Government Code Section
12525.5.
X X

X 3 37.5
Total X X X X X

X 6 75.0

Theme: DPS Recruitment
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items. One
additional action item for the theme of DPS recruitment was identified, and is displayed in Table
38, increasing the total number of action items from one to two. After analyzing the newly added
statement, the researcher determined the theme increased in factor satisfaction rate from 37.5%
in Phase 2 analysis to 50.0% in Phase 3, an increase of 12.5%.

Table 38. Phase Three DPS Recruitment (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
23. Needs to modify its recruitment and
hiring practices to ensure that DPS
officers are best suited to be members of
a campus community as part of a service
organization.
X X

X 1 12.5
We propose a top-to-bottom re-
envisioning of safety that allows the
university and its neighbors to follow
successful models like that of Camden,
New Jersey, to identify and recruit the
X X

X

2 25.0

93
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
best candidates to serve as officers and
to re-design DPS to focus on protecting
us from the most violent crimes. (p. 10)
Total X X

X

X 4 50.0

Note. As a cluster, this meets two factors (an increase of one after adding the body of the report).

Theme: DPS Mission
The researcher reviewed the body of the report to identify additional action items.
However, no additional action items for the theme of DPS Mission were identified. Thus, there
were no changes to that theme from Phase 2 to Phase 3. This theme remained at a factor
satisfaction rate of 62.5% (see Table 39).

Table 39. Phase Three DPS Mission (Sponsor: DPS)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Total %
31. Should review, re-imagine, and
clearly publicize its mission, which
should include providing a safe and
secure campus environment that allows
students, faculty, staff, and campus
visitors to realize their academic and
social pursuits.
X X X

X

X

5 62.5
Total X X X

X

X

5 62.5

Phase Three Analysis Results
In Chapter 4, the researcher completed an initial analysis to answer the question: Is the
USC DPS CAB report plan reflective of best practices for implementation? After the first
analysis of the USC DPS CAB report recommendations, the researcher determined individual
recommendations and action items alone were not sufficient for organizational change

94
implementation, given the framework of best practices. The obstacle was found in readers
potentially viewing each recommendation and action items as siloed given the presentation of the
report. As standalone pieces of information, the recommendations and action items did not
perform well and averaged only a 45% satisfaction rate of best practices. Upon a detailed review
of the report in its entirety, the researcher identified a way in which the implementation obstacle
could potentially be overcome or at minimum, significantly reduced.
After analyzing each recommendation and action item individually, it quickly became
clear that some pieces of information shared commonalities with others. Once that realization
was made, the researcher opted to view them as sets rather than viewing them individually. If
they are grouped or clustered, they align better with best practices for implementation. In doing
so, the alignment with best practices rose from 45.0% to 60.23%, an increase of 15.23. Simply
by changing the way one views at the data, the implementation probabilities rose—no changes to
the data itself were necessary. This finding led the researcher to carefully review each sentence
in the body of the text. In doing so, an additional 23 action items were identified. Thus, an
important finding of this research is that by overlooking the body of the report and focusing on
only its conclusion, one can miss important pieces that may aid in the implementation process.
The additional 20 action items found in the body of the text in the report added valuable
information to the theme clusters, increasing the likelihood of implementation by an additional
13.63% between Phase 2 and Phase 3 and 28.86% overall (see Tables 40 and 41).

Table 40. Phase Three Analysis Results
Theme % Sponsor
Re-envision public safety 62.5 Unknown
Create an independent oversight body 100.0 Unknown

95
Theme % Sponsor
Theme: DPS uniforms 87.5 DPS
Theme: DPS data 87.5 DPS
Theme: Community engagement 75.0 USC Civic Engagement as primary,
DPS with input from USC
Communications as secondary
Theme: Wellness 62.5 Unknown
Theme: DPS communication 87.5 DPS
Theme: DPS training and policies 62.5 DPS
Theme: Legal review 75.0 DPS
Theme: DPS recruitment 50.0 DPS
Theme: DPS mission 62.5 DPS
Average 73.86

Table 41. Phases 1-3 Analysis Results Comparison
Analysis phase Analysis description Average factor
satisfaction rate
Added value
% %
1 Individual action items 45.00
2 Thematic clusters 60.23 15.23
3 Clusters and text analysis of body of
CAB report
73.86 13.63

To identify additional ways to increase the likelihood of implementation, the researcher
accounted for each time a factor was met in the phase three. The results are shown in Table 42.

Table 42. Phase Three Individual Factor Results
Factor Number of times
factor was met
%
1. Ensure the need 66 100.00
2. Provide a plan 66 100.00
3. Internal support 10 15.15
4. Top management support 8 12.12

96
Factor Number of times
factor was met
%
5. External support 23 34.84
6. Provide resources 30 45.45
7. Communications plan 19 28.78
8. Lasting change 31 46.96

This information allowed the researcher to make additional recommendations. At only
12.12%, the factor of top management support was the factor least likely to be met in the
recommendations and action items as an individual piece of information or even in a group. At
15.15%, the factor of internal support was a close second. Equipped with knowledge of the
institution tasked with implementing the findings of the USC DPS CAB report and its method of
operating, the researcher can make the following recommendation: Sponsors of each theme
cluster should work to expand the plan of implementation with the clusters in mind. In doing so,
sponsors can identify cluster-specific resource needs, an appropriate communication plan for
change, internal support, opportunities for synergy, and possible changes to already existing
policies, ultimately creating the opportunity for lasting change. The cluster sponsors should take
ownership and responsibility for a transformational leadership plan that aims to increase buy-in
and internal support of those who need to be involved in or will be affected by the
implementation process. DPS administrators should be particularly mindful of the internal
support factor and work diligently to overcome any potential obstacles, because many of the
proposed changes require the support of DPS personnel. As stated in the literature review of this
research, officer’s views and opinions are more closely related to their agency’s culture than
their occupation or characteristics” (Cordner, 2017). A threat to the department culture may
cause delays, setbacks, or impede implementation altogether.

97
Once the cluster-specific proposals are complete, the clusters have the potential of
increasing the number of implementation factors they meet because they will provide a detailed
explanation of what each cluster needs to be successfully implemented. Each proposal should be
submitted to the oversight body for approval (see Figure 10). Once all cluster proposals are
approved, they will meet the criteria for the factor of top management support and have an
increased likelihood of internal support. More importantly, the CAB’s primary goal of re-
envisioning public safety can move forward to the implementation phase.

Figure 10. Proposed Process for Oversight Body Presentation

98
Chapter 6: Discussion
Many administrators of campus safety departments in institutions of higher learning are
faced with the task of transforming their departments into one that is reflective of stakeholder
feedback and their needs. In the case of USC, stakeholders came together as a CAB and
expressed their needs in a recommendation report. Shortly after the DPS CAB report was made
publicly available, this research report arose from the idea of possible opportunities and
roadblocks in implementing those changes. Having a vested interest in the success of USC as an
institution, its DPS, and more importantly, the surrounding community, the researcher completed
this research as a contribution to practice to ensure this report did not become part of the
estimated 70% of program implementation failures (Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Todnem,
2005). As stated earlier in this report, research suggests the high failure rates in program or
change implementation may be due to the lack of a valid framework of how to implement the
change (Burnes, 2004), thus, an emphasis was placed on identifying an appropriate framework
and concluding with implementation recommendations.
This research indicates that the process of identifying stakeholders through proper
analysis and later creating an advisory board was in alignment with Kennon et al.’s (2009)
stakeholder analysis tool. Furthermore, the CAB had “[two] team champions who [drove] the
process” (DPS CAB, 2021, p. 8)—a process attempted through different methods and that failed
only 5 years earlier. This time, the CAB used a broad community model (Morin et al., 2003),
also in alignment with best practices. From the report, readers can conclude that CAB members
proceeded with a recommended first order of business, creating “a shared mission” (Gonzalez-
Guarda et al., 2017, p. 288). Their shared mission was: “focusing its attention on two
complementary definitions of safety. A safe life that is free from experiencing crime and a safe

99
experience navigating the campus and its surrounding locations free of being falsely targeted as
suspicious, threatening or not belonging to [the] community” (DPS CAB, 2021, p. 9).
Through this report, the researcher accomplished the goal of identifying relevant
frameworks that assisted in leading to recommendations to successfully implement the CAB
report. Although this research is not necessarily a step-by-step guide, it can serve as a general
outline of where and how to begin the implementation process. Although the researcher used the
USC DPS CAB report to test the implementation framework, the results and recommendations
are not exclusive to USC. The goal of the researcher is for this body of work to serve as a guide
for institutions such as Harvard University, Stanford University, and others, which also
published CAB reports in 2021.
Limitations
The researcher utilized already existing and publicly available data only. This research
could have perhaps benefited from interviews with both CAB members and a randomly selected
group of DPS officers. Interviewing DPS officers could have been an opportunity to test for
internal support of the CAB recommendations.
Recommendations for Future Research
As of the date of study, to the researcher’s knowledge, none of the action items or
recommendations provided in the USC DPS CAB report have been implemented. Thus, the
validity of the recommendations made in this report rests on the success of future
implementation attempts. Thus, the researcher recommends that future research include a
postimplementation regression analysis. “Regression analysis is a way of mathematically sorting
out which [variables had] an impact” (Gallo, 2015, para. 4). Even a regression analysis, however,
would be limited to one report of one university’s DPS CAB. A larger study may better test the

100
validity of the recommendations made through this research. Thus, the researcher recommends a
systematic review and meta-analysis inclusive of multiple institutions that meet the preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis checklist and flow chart for systematic
reviews (see Figure 11).
A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and
explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to
collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. (Moher et al.,
2009, p. 1006).
“Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the
results of included studies” (Moher et al., 2009, p. 1007).

101
Figure 11. Flow of Information through the Different Phases of a Systematic Review

Note. Adopted from Moher et al. (2009, p. 1009).

Conclusion and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to analyze the USC DPS CAB report from an insider’s
perspective while applying relevant frameworks to identify best practices for implementation. In
doing so, the researcher created a framework using two existing models and applied them to the
USC DPS CAB report analysis to make recommendations for increasing the likelihood of

102
implementation. The researcher found that individual recommendations and action items were
not sufficient for successful organizational change implementation, given the framework of best
practices. Specifically, the researcher found the following answers to this report’s research
questions.
Research Question 1: Is the USC DPS CAB report plan reflective of best practices for
implementation?
Result: When analyzing the data in three phases, the researcher identified opportunities to
increase the likelihood of implementation from 45.00% in Phase 1 to 73.86% in Phase 3, a total
added value of 28.86%. The USC DPS CAB report can be reflective of best practices for
implementation, with a potential success rate of 73.86%, when properly analyzed and organized.
Research Question 2a: What are the expected obstacles to implementation?
Result: There is the potential for missed opportunities if efforts to implement the
recommendations in the USC DPS CAB report take place based on the first phase of analysis
only.
Research Question 2b: Based on best practices, how can those obstacles be overcome?
Result: There is value in identifying opportunities for synergy in the recommendations.
However, even with the 73.86% rate achieved in Phase 3, there is still room for improvement.
Additional steps should be taken to increase the percentage of factors met. Thus, the following
recommendation should be considered: Organizational change implementation should be treated
as a system consisting of multiple phases (see Figure 12).
• Phase 1: Identify commonalities in recommendations and group into clusters
• Phase 2: Identify appropriate sponsors or implementation project managers for each
cluster
• Phase 3: Sponsors should identify resource needs, an appropriate communication plan
for change, internal support, and opportunities for synergy and propose new policies
or changes to existing policies to ensure lasting change

103
• Phase 4: Implement and assess

Figure 12. Organizational Change Implementation System

When using this method, Phase 3 allows for the opportunity to increase the likelihood of
clusters meeting additional key implementation factors. The DPS CAB report was instrumental
in showing that the work of Phase 3 of this proposed framework should occur only after
recommendations have been properly categorized into clusters. To skip to Phase 3 without
considering recommendations and action items individually and then clustering them may result
in the loss of opportunities for a synergic approach at early stages of the implementation process.
Phase 4 provides an opportunity to assess and ultimately honor the definition of change
management: “continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to
serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers” (Moran & Brightman, 2001, p.
111). Additionally, Phase 4 allows for the integration of the final two factors in the framework
Phase 1: Identify
commonalities in
recommendations
and group into
clusters
Phase 2: Identify
appropriate
sponsors or
implementation
project managers
for each cluster
Phase 3:
Sponsors should
identify resource
needs, an
appropriate
communication
plan for change,
internal support,
opportunities for
synergy, and
propose new
policies or
changes to
existing policies
to ensure a
lasting change
Phase 4:
Implement and
assess

104
developed by Mento et al. (2002). In this research, those factors were marked as
postimplementation opportunities (see Figure 13).

Figure 13. Process of Identifying Post-Implementation

As of the date of this report, the researcher found there were no public announcements of
a plan for USC DPS CAB member succession. To conclude this report, the researcher makes a
final recommendation of continuously working with the current USC DPS CAB for three
reasons: (a) to maintain stakeholder input and support throughout the implementation process,
(b) to keep open lines of communication with the CAB members and ensure the implementation
result embodies their recommendation, and finally, (c) to maintain momentum. As Kotter (1995)
suggested, a critical factor in implementation failure is the loss of momentum.

105
References
Abramson, M. A., & Lawrence, P. R. (2001). Lessons learned about revitalizing organizations.
In Transforming organizations (pp. 1–10). Rowman & Littlefield.
Allen, A. N. (2017). Do campus police ruin college students’ fun? Deviant Behavior, 38(3), 334–
344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1197005
Allen, A. (2021). Are campus police “real” police? Students’ perceptions of campus versus
municipal Police. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 94(2), 102–121.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258x20906859
Allen, W. D. (2021). Crime, universities and campus police. Applied Economics, 53(37), 4276–
4291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1899117
Anderson, M. D. (2015, September 28). Are campus police forces really keeping college students
safe? The Atlantic. http://theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/college-campus-
policing/407659/
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and
research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500303
Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring strategic change (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Boyer, E. J., Van Slyke, D. M., & Rogers, J. D. (2015). An empirical examination of public
involvement in public-private partnerships: Qualifying the benefits of public involvement
in PPPs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 45–61.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv008
Brennan, C. (2017, July 18,). Ohio cop Ray Tensing who shot and killed Sam Dubose will not be
re-tried after two mistrials. New York Daily News.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ohio-shot-killed-sam-dubose-not-re-tried-
article-1.3335585
Brieland, D. (1971). Community advisory boards and maximum feasible participation. American
Journal of Public Health, 61(2), 292–296. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.61.2.292
Bryson, J. M., & Anderson, S. R. (2000). Applying large-group interaction methods in the
planning and implementation of major change efforts. Public Administration Review,
60(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00073

106
Bunn, M. D., Savage, G. T. & Holloway, B. B. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for multi-sector
innovations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(2–3), 181–203.
https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620210419808
Burbidge, S. (2005). The governance deficit: Reflections on the future of public and private
policing in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 47(1), 63–
86. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.47.1.63
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics (4th
ed.). Prentice Hall.
Camera, L. (2017, April 14). Virginia Tech 10 years later: When campus safety changed forever.
U.S. & World Report News. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-
04-14/virginia-tech-10-years-later-whats-changed-on-campuses-since-the-2007-shooting
Cameron, B. G., Crawley, E. F., Loureiro, G., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2008). Value flow mapping:
Using networks to inform stakeholder analysis. Acta Astronautica, 62(4–5), 324–333.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2007.10.001
Chancellor’s Independent Advisory Board. (2020). Chancellor’s independent advisory board on
police accountability and community safety: Annual report (2019-2020).
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/iab_annual_report_2019-20_final-2.pdf
City of Santa Monica Office of Emergency Management. (2013). City of Santa Monica June 7th,
2013 shooting incident.
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OEM/Video_Archive/Santa%20Mon
ica%20Shooting%20Experience%20verFeb%202014.pdf
Cordner, G. (2017). Police culture: Individual and organizational differences in police officer
perspectives. Policing, 40(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2016-0116
Cox, L. E., Rouff, J. R., Svendsen, K. H., Markowitz, M., & Abrams, D. I. (1998). Community
advisory boards: Their role in AIDS clinical trials. Health & Social Work, 23(4), 290–
297. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/23.4.290
Croft, J. (2017, June 21). Philando Castile shooting: Dashcam video shows rapid event. CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/us/philando-castile-shooting-dashcam/index.html
Cyril, S., Smith, B. J., Possamai-Inesedy, A., & Renzaho, A. M. N. (2015). Exploring the role of
community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: A
systematic review. Global Health Action, 8(1), Article 29842.
https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v8.29842
Davey, M., & Bosman, J. (2014, November 24). Protests flare after Ferguson police officer is
not indicted. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/ferguson-
darren-wilson-shooting-michael-brown-grand-jury.html
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a

107
codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional
development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136–155.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x10388468
Delve. (2021). Deductive and inductive approaches to coding.
https://delvetool.com/blog/deductiveinductive
Department of Public Safety Community Advisory Board. (2021). One USC: A vision of
community safety for all. https://dps.usc.edu/files/2021/07/2021_CAB_Report.pdf
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00570.x
Fisher, B., & Sloan, J. J. (2007). Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (2nd ed.).
Charles C. Thomas.
Flay, S. (2016, April 14). USC forms advisory board to fight discrimination. USC Annenberg
Media. https://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2016/04/14/usc-forms-advisory-board-to-
fight-discrimination/
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. The Academy of Management Review,
24(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.2307/259074
Gallo, A. (2015, November 4). A refresher on regression analysis. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2015/11/a-refresher-on-regression-analysis
Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work.
Harvard Business School Press.
Gehrand, K. A. (2008). Higher education policing: The new millennium. International
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.
Gonzalez-Guarda, R. M., Jones, E. J., Gillespie, G. L., & Bowen, F. (2017). Advancing nursing
science through community advisory boards. Advances in Nursing Science, 40(3), 280–
290. https://doi.org/10.1097/ans.0000000000000167
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly,
1(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857592
Heidrich, O., Harvey, J. & Tollin, N. (2009). Stakeholder analysis for industrial waste
management systems. Waste Management, 29(2), 965–973.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.013
Hill, E., Tiefenthaler, A., Triebert, C., Jordan, D., Willis, H., & Stein, R. (2020, May 31). How
George Floyd was killed in police custody. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html

108
Indrayanto, A., Burgess, J., Dayaram, K., & Noermijati. (2014). A case study of transformational
leadership and para-police performance in Indonesia. Policing, 37(2), 373–388.
http://doi.10.1108/pijpsm-03-2013-0029
Jacobsen, S. K. (2015). Policing the ivory tower: Students’ perceptions of the legitimacy of
campus police officers. Deviant Behavior, 36(4), 310–329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.935653
Jick, T. (1991). Note on the recipients of change. Harvard Business School Press.
Joh, E. E. (2004). The paradox of private policing. The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 95(1), 49–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/3491382
Joh, E. E. (2006). The forgotten threat: Private policing and the state. Indiana Journal of Global
Legal Studies, 13(2), 357–389. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol13/iss2/2
Johnson, G., & Leavitt, W. (2001). Building on success: Transforming organizations through an
appreciative inquiry. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 129–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600103000111
Kennon, N., Howden, P., & Hartley, M. (2009). Who really matters? A stakeholder analysis tool.
Extension Farming Systems Journal, 5(2), 1–17.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
Kroll. (2015). Review and investigation of Officer Raymond M. Tensing’s use of deadly force on
July 19, 2015: University of Cincinnati Police Department: Summary of key findings.
https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/publicsafety-62/docs/reform/kroll-report-of-
investigation.pdf
Lawrence, C., & Stewart, K. (2016). The challenge of community representation: Lessons from
six HIV clinical research community advisory boards in Uganda. Journal of Empirical
Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(4), 311–321.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616665760
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R.,
Blanchard, L., & Trotter, R. T. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based
definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12),
1929–1938. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.91.12.1929
Manzo, J. (2010). How private security officers perceive themselves relative to police. Security
Journal, 23(3) 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2008.16
Mento, A., Jones, R., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in
both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45–59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/714042520

109
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Missonier, S., & Loufrani-Fedida, S. (2014). Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects:
From stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1108–1122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.010
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 62(10), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2001). Leading organizational change. Career Development
International, 6(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010316226
Morin, S. F., Maiorana, A., Koester, K. A., Sheon, N. M., & Richards, T. A. (2003). Community
consultation in HIV prevention research: A study of community advisory boards at 6
research sites. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 33(4), 513–520.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00126334-200308010-00013
Mwinga, A., & Moodley, K. (2015). Engaging with community advisory boards (CABs) in
Lusaka Zambia: Perspectives from the research team and CAB members. BMC Medical
Ethics, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0031-y
Nalla, M. K., & Hwang, E. (2006). Relations between police and private security officers in
South Korea. Policing, 29(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510610684719
Ortega, S., McAlvain, M. S., Briant, K. J., Hohl, S., & Thompson, B. (2018). Perspectives of
community advisory board members in a community-academic partnership. Journal of
Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 29(4), 1529–1543.
https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2018.0110
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on
transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. The Academy of Management
Review, 22(1), 80–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/259225
Peak, K. J., Barthe, E. P., & Garcia, A. (2008). Campus policing in America: A twenty-year
perspective. Police Quarterly, 11(2), 239–260.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611107306840
Perez, N. M., & Bromley, M. (2015). Comparing campus and city police human resource and
select community outreach policies and practices. Policing, 38(4), 664–674.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2015-0084

110
Powell, J. (1994). The beginning--Yale Campus Police Department--1894. Campus Law
Enforcement Journal, 24, 2–5.
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in
natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 22(6), 501–518.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802199202
Public Administration Review. (2015). PAR 75 most influential articles.
https://www.publicadministrationreview.com/par-75-most-influential-articles/
Reaves, B. A. (2008). Campus law enforcement, 2004-05. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Reaves, B. A. (2015). Campus law enforcement, 2011-12. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Russ, T. L. (2008). Communicating change: A review and critical analysis of programmatic and
participatory implementation approaches. Journal of Change Management, 8(3–4), 199–
211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010802594604
Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office. (2015). Isla Vista mass murder May 23, 2014: Investigative
summary. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1671822-isla-vista-investigative-
summary
Sloan, J. J. (1992). The modern campus police: An analysis of their evolution, structure, and
function. American Journal of Police, 11(2), 85–104.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313524680_The_modern_campus_police_An_a
nalysis_of_their_evolution_structure_and_function/link/5acccbaa4585154f3f3f0ea2/dow
nload
Sloan, J. J., Lanier, M. M., & Beer, D. L. (2000). Policing the contemporary college campus:
Challenging traditional organization models. Journal of Security Administration, 11(2),
1–20.
Stewart, J., & Kringas, P. (2003). Change management-strategy and values in six agencies from
the Australian Public Service. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 675–688.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00331
Straus, D. A. (2002). How to make collaboration work: Powerful ways to build consensus, solve
problems, and make decisions. Berrett-Koehler.
Thacker, P. D. (2006, November 17). Shock and anger at UCLA. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/17/shock-and-anger-ucla
Todnem, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change
Management, 5(4), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500359250

111
UCLA Campus Safety Task Force. (2016). Report and recommendations.
https://ucla.app.box.com/v/task-force-report
USC Undergraduate Student Government. (2020). Proposal: Building an equitable Department
of Public Safety for the wellbeing of the university community. https://gsg.usc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/Proposal-%E2%80%94-Building-an-Equitable-Department-of-
Public-Safety-for-the-Wellbeing-of-the-University-Community.pdf
Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B. S., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Implementing change in public
organizations: The relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change
in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 18(6), 842–865.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1045020
Varvasovsky, Z. & Brugha, R. (2000). How to do (or not to do) … a stakeholder analysis. Health
Policy and Planning, 15(3), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.338
Walker, G. B., & Daniels, S. E. (2019). Collaboration in environmental conflict management and
decision-making: Comparing best practices with insights from collaborative learning
work. Frontiers in Communication, 4, Article 2.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00002

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to contribute to the field of university campus safety by analyzing a community advisory board report of a university’s department of public safety and provide recommendations to increase the likelihood of successful implementation. In doing so, relevant frameworks to identify best practices for organizational change management and change implementation were reviewed. The researcher applied a mixed-methods research design, utilized publicly available secondary data, and created a change implementation framework using two existing models. Additionally, the researcher focused on identifying best practices for stakeholder analysis and selecting a community advisory board. This research aimed to accomplish three tasks: determine if a community advisory board report plan was reflective of best practices for implementation, identify expected obstacles, and provide recommendations to overcome these obstacles. Results indicate that individual recommendations and action items are not sufficient for successful organizational change implementation, given the framework of best practices. Thus, the process of organizational change implementation should be treated as a system consisting of multiple phases—in this case, a triple analysis of the data.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

A strategic talent management retention model: an effective way to shape the United States Space Force

PDF

A learning model of policy implementation: implementing technology in response to policy requirements

PDF

Cryptographic currency and economic security: threats, opportunities, and regulatory challenges

PDF

Transformation of governmental organizations: the case of the California Integrated Waste Management Board

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

A framework for evaluating urban policy and its impact on social determinants of health (SDoH)

PDF

Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports

PDF

Homegrown violent extremism: designing a community-based model to reduce the risk of recruitment and radicalization

PDF

A robust model for disaster risk and decision analysis

PDF

Improving graduation equity in community colleges: a study on California Assembly Bill 705 policy implementation

PDF

An examination of the law enforcement response to active shooter incidents in U.S. cities: findings and implications for improving future response efforts

PDF

An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness

PDF

A California community college's climate action plan: an evaluation study

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Gangs beyond borders: California and the fight against transnational crime - have recommendations become reality?

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

Municipal employee reactions to city council incivility: an exploratory data analysis

PDF

Critical factors in evaluating compliance to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540: developing a methodology for compliance evaluation

PDF

Choice neighborhoods: a spatial and exploratory analysis of Housing Authority City of Los Angeles public housing

Asset Metadata

Creator Carreño-Diaz, Elizabeth (author)

Core Title A stakeholder approach to reimagining private departments of public safety: the implementation of a community advisory board recommendation report

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Planning and Development,Policy

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 09/17/2022

Defense Date 08/05/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag change implementation,community advisory board,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,Public Safety,stakeholder analysis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Resh, William (committee chair), Southers, Erroll (committee member), Thomas, John (committee member)

Creator Email ecarreno@dps.usc.edu,ecarreno@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112002289

Unique identifier UC112002289

Legacy Identifier etd-CarreoDiaz-11220

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Carreño-Diaz, Elizabeth

Type texts

Source 20220919-usctheses-batch-982 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu