A Call to Arms

A wave of campus crime three years ago has yielded major changes in the way the University relates to the community. Three years ago this weekend, Patrick Leroy, then a College senior, was walking home from Smokey Joe's Tavern. Just minutes after he left, he was shot in the back during an attempted robbery. The very next day, the issue of campus safety at the University of Pennsylvania exploded. Though Leroy eventually recovered, his shooting came on the heels of an unprecedented number of armed robberies that September, resulting in a public outcry -- and panic. One simple statement can capture the feeling at Penn three years ago today: People were afraid to go outside at night. Members of this year's senior class are the only remaining students who witnessed the events of that turbulent semester. They were freshmen then, and a robbery spree was their welcome to West Philadelphia. Today, everyone in the Penn community -- whether aware of it or not -- is witnessing the results of that fall, which, to this day, continue to play a role in nearly every decision the University makes. Almost everything -- from the construction of Sansom Common to the flood lights on top of the high rises, to seeing an extra police officer while walking home on 40th Street late at night -- is, at least in some way, attributable to that fall. Indeed, the crime wave did more than just convince administrators that they needed to beef up security -- it told them they needed to change the way they operated an urban campus. 'Hysteria' Leroy's shooting was the rock bottom of an already dismal situation. Armed robberies had become an almost-routine part of campus life. Walking in groups and not straying from campus -- two of Penn's most frequently suggested safety tips -- were, for all practical purposes, worthless. It was not uncommon for a group of people to be held up near Locust Walk. "Hysteria. Really hysteria," Seamon says when reflecting on the early part of the 1996 school year. "People obviously had a reason to be concerned." "It was a horrendous situation," University Police Chief Maureen Rush echoed. In response to Leroy's shooting and the rash of robberies that preceded it, several hundred students and community members staged a nighttime rally on College Green, demanding more safety on and around campus. University President Judith Rodin called a town meeting to discuss the issue -- an event she says she remembers "vividly." At the meeting, Rodin faced a barrage of questions and criticisms regarding the issue of campus safety. News of the crime wave eventually surfaced in The New York Times, casting a national spotlight on the problem. Not coincidentally, the admissions office saw a 10 percent drop in early applications that year. Rush noted that concern did not just come from people on campus -- officials at Public Safety became accustomed to fielding dozens of phone calls from parents every day. "They were just hysterical," Rush said. "They wanted to pull their kids out of school." 'We've got to move' Executive Vice President John Fry, to whom the Division of Public Safety ultimately reports, acknowledged that there was panic on campus during that fall. But, he said, the administration remained calm and instead chose to use the crime wave as an "impetus to make the environment better." He noted that many of Penn's economic, community and Public Safety improvements were in the planning stages long before the fall of 1996. The crime wave simply served as a "wake-up call" -- a reminder that the University had a lot of work to do, quickly. So how much did the events of 1996 speed things up? "Very substantially," Fry said. "I think what happened to us was that we realized there was no longer the luxury of time.? We had to respond. We had to respond aggressively and we had to respond substantively." 'The first prong of activity' Naturally, Public Safety was the first area targeted -- part of what Fry calls "the first prong of activity." The day after Leroy was shot, Rodin announced eight new initiatives designed to immediately improve campus safety. Among other things, the plans included the hiring of 10 new police officers, the formation of a special police response team and the addition of 102 emergency blue-light phones. In the months following the crime wave, Public Safety continued to make progress. Staffing increased. Campus security contracts were consolidated, as Spectaguard took the place of five individual vendors. Public Safety also began construction on a state-of-the-art headquarters at 4040 Chestnut Street. At the time, it was estimated that Public Safety's initiatives would cost the University an additional $7 million in the years following the shooting. Prior to that, Penn allocated roughly $15 million to Public Safety each year. Another piece of the first wave of improvements was the formation of the University City District -- a special services district designed to tackle neighborhood cleanup and security, along with other quality-of-life issues. Penn provides nearly a third of the UCD's $4.3 million endowment and Fry serves as its chairperson. UCD Executive Director Paul Steinke explained that while blue prints for the organization were being drawn prior to the fall of 1996, the crime wave did serve as an important final push. "The crime patterns provided the final impetus and sped things up," Steinke noted. Though success continued in the wake of the crime wave, officials across the University realized that economic and retail development were keys to maintaining a safe community. 'Active streets are safe streets' Fry recalled a conversation he had with Seamon during the winter of 1995, a few months after Seamon was hired. In discussing long-term strategies for safety, Fry said Seamon stressed the importance of street activity -- which could be made possible through economic and retail development -- in addition to security initiatives. "What I think clicked for me then," Fry said, "was that if we don't also make parallel attempts in activating the streets and activating the neighborhoods with other uses? you can hire a thousand cops and it's not going to make a difference. 'Active streets are safe streets' is I think how he put it." And so a long-term strategy of bringing economic vitality to the area was mixed with the short-term security measures. The building of Sansom Common was the first phase of a retail development master plan. The complex opened in July 1998 to rave reviews. On the west end of campus -- the area where many of the 1996 robberies took place -- construction has begun on a movie theater, as well as a fresh foods market and parking garage. By developing 40th Street and the area around it and attempting to make it a Philadelphia night spot, University officials hope to attract a flow of people that will bring increased safety to the neighborhood. The crime wave of 1996 also created a common focus for both the University and the surrounding community -- two groups that have had an often rocky relationship over the years. "Looking back retrospectively, I think those events brought the University and the community closer," said Glenn Bryan, Penn's director of community relations and a West Philadelphia native. "We found common ground in terms of dealing with a rash of violence." Bryan cited UC Brite -- a residential lighting initiative spearheaded by Rodin not long after the crime wave -- as an example of University and community teamwork. 'We have to be relentless' The Penn of three years ago is remarkably different than the one we see today. The numbers are indisputable: Since September 1996, robberies reported by University Police are down almost 70 percent. Seamon explained that while having more people on the streets may make the campus feel safer, it also presents "more opportunities for crime." And there is the constant concern that incidents like last November's knife attack in Steinberg-Dietrich Hall can make people forget all about the strides the University has made. "In some respects, I feel on edge like I felt back then because I truly believe that while we have achieved a lot? I don't think we're ever far from going back there again," Fry said. "I think we have to be relentless in our efforts to improve this neighborhood." Nonetheless, Seamon said, the steps taken between fall 1996 and today have had a strong impact. "We all wish that crime was zero but we know it won't be," he explained. "So I think when incidents happen, although people are very concerned, we don't get that hysteria anymore."