Students in need of a safe ride home at night this year may be
surprised to learn that the SAFE program has drastically reduced
some of its most frequently used services. The number of SAFErides
per student was cut from eight to four per month, and a later start
time for the services was implemented. Yet these changes had no
effect on the inefficient, lesser-used SAFEwalk program and were
made with little input from students. The changes did, however,
affect the popular SAFEride program.
These cuts do not seem to coincide with recent statistics. Last
year, 21,602 SAFErides were given, compared to only 1,170
SAFEwalks. SAFEride therefore accounted for 94.9 percent of all
SAFE-program usage during the 2002-03 year. The organizers of the
SAFE program must reorganize their priorities so the programs
students use are expanded while those they do not are trimmed.
One result of greater use for the late-night cab service in
recent years is increasing costs. According to SAFE’s Student
Services Finance Committee funding application, SAFE requested an
astounding 30 percent budget increase. The numbers in their budget
packet did not add up, but SSFC recognized the high usage of this
valuable service and granted SAFE services a 27 percent increase,
bringing their total budget to $242,863.
Following this increase, SAFE sent students an e-mail this
summer announcing a 50 percent reduction in SAFErides per month and
a 25 percent reduction in hours the service is available. How and
why reductions are made to a popular program after an increase in
its budget remains a mystery.
After the announcement of the cuts, SAFE sent a survey to
students asking for input on SAFE services usage. Why did they not
ask for this input before deciding on cuts to the service? If this
affects even only 5 percent of usage, that still means over 1,000
rides will be hurt by this sudden policy change.
We made our best efforts to determine the reasoning behind this
cut in services immediately after a large budget increase. We had a
meeting tentatively scheduled with Jane Goemans, director of SAFE
transportation services, to ask just this question. But once
Goemans was told of the specific issues we wanted to discuss, she
suddenly would not confirm our meeting, respond to our e-mails or
return our phone messages. Since the SAFE program has enacted a
radical cut to a popular service, Goemans must be willing and ready
to defend the decision to any student who inquires.
We do know this:
If cuts are necessary, they should be announced a year in
advance, so students do not make housing decisions dependent on
SAFErides home from the library or a late class eight nights a
month, only to find right after move- in that half of their rides
have been cancelled. Students should have a say in these issues
before, not after, a decision has been made.
Campus safety should be a major concern for everyone on campus,
including the administration, ASM, SAFE Services and every student.
Cutting safe alternatives to getting home, whether from a late
night of studying or a late night of drinking, is a mistake in and
of itself; particularly as this program was affordable, useful and
popular. But to do so with an increasing budget and without
explanation is intolerable.
Where are SAFE’s priorities? Is it funding programs that are
inefficient and expensive, like SAFEwalk? Or providing a meaningful
service to students that actually improves campus safety, like
SAFEride?
