1. In New Brunswick
Author: Anish Patel, ​Intern,​ New Brunswick Law Department
Advised by: TK Shamy, ​City Attorney​ , New Brunswick Law Department

2. 1
Acknowledgements
The author of this report would like to thank the following people and institutions for
their assistance.
City of New Brunswick, New Jersey
TK Shamy, ​City Attorney,
Russell Marchetta, ​Assistant Business Administrator
Maria Cody, ​Rent Control Coordinator
Alex Adkins, ​Director of Housing Inspections
Rutgers University Off -Campus Living and Community Partnerships
Kerri Willson, ​Director
Barbara Blackwell, ​Program Coordinator
Rutgers University Police Department
Marlise Correa​, Officer, Rutgers University Police Department
University of Colorado Boulder Office of Off-Campus Housing & Neighborhood
Relations
Jeremy Moore, ​Coordinator
Susan Barkman, ​Coordinator
University of Colorado Boulder Office of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution
Daniel Easton, ​Sen. Conduct Coordinator, U. Colorado-Boulder Off. of Student Conduct
City of Boulder, Colorado
Jim Wise, ​Probation Officer, Boulder Municipal Court

3. 2
Abstract
This report covers the current status of students living in the area surrounding the
campuses of Rutgers University -New Brunswick, (termed off-campus students) and their
relationships to the community of New Brunswick. The transient student population
typically is perceived to have a negative relationship with the more permanent
community. Residents in areas that are popular locations for college students often face
reductions in quality of life. This report will dissect some of the relationships between the
off-campus student population and elements in the community in a legal context. It will
consider some of solutions applied in other communities and areas. It will propose
recommendations and modifications to the current system.
This report will research the restorative justice model and its application to off-campus
student populations.
Studentification
Overview
“Studentification” is defined as an “influx of students within privately-rented
accommodation in particular neighborhoods” . This phenomenon was heavily1
documented in the United Kingdom when the student population dramatically increased
in size, from 520,000 in 1997 to 1,678,000 in 2007. This demand for housing was2
unanticipated and resulted in a mass movement into off-campus communities. The
consequences of this rapid change are explored in social, legal, and economic contexts in
many research papers. The rapid movement off-campus took place in many varied
locales in different settings, but mostly in an urban setting.
Studentification comes with different consequences and implications for different
stakeholders in the community. In some cases students intensify existing problems in the
community, and they also have issues unique to their status.
1
Smith D, 2005, “​Studentification and ‘Apprentice’ Gentrifiers within Britain's Provincial Towns and Cities:
Extending the Meaning of Gentrification” ​Environment and Planning
2
​Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2007, “Provision of higher education study by location 2006-7”

4. 3
Consequences of Studentification
Housing
Housing is the area likely most affected by studentification. Students generally pursue
high-occupancy rental properties. The high demand creates a seller’s market favoring the
landlords. Local rent control policies can be effective, but tax exemptions,
misinformation and lack of effective enforcement curtail its effectiveness. As the rental
market expands, the number of owner-occupied homes decreases. This has been noted
to lead to “physical changes including generally unkempt properties, squalor and
dereliction” in the community.3
However, there is a hidden housing consequence in many long-term studentification
processes. Studentification can be a contributor to gentrification. Studentification does
not only change the demand in housing, it also alters the supply. While family homes are
usually converted to student rentals very quickly, there is also an increase in
purpose-built multi unit structures that house large numbers of students. These are
most generally seen in the form of apartment buildings.
Economic
The changes brought by studentification often have one major economic consequences:
lower property values. Student neighborhoods are much less desirable living areas
especially for families. Homeowners in this area suffer from decreasing property values
as the market expands around them.
The purpose-built multi unit structures usually replace several houses or abandoned lots.
Their purpose-built nature means they include extra amenities. Students have been
found to generally seek the cultural and aesthetic values that encourage gentrification.
When applied to housing choices, they will often choose the urban dwelling theme. This
is exploited by investors who form property management companies consisting of many
properties.4
Social
Studentification is often accompanied by increases in crime and quality of life concerns.
Students are heavy contributors to littering, garbage accumulation, late night noise, and
petty vandalism. They add extra pressure to the parking system by dramatically
3
​Universities UK Magazine 2006
4
Webber R, 2007, “The metropolitan habitus: its manifestations, locations and consumption profiles”
​Environment and Planning

5. 4
increasing the number of cars per home, forcing competition for spots. This further leads
to increased accidents and eventually insurance costs in the area.5
The construction projects require relaxation of noise ordinances and changes in parking
regulations, causing a burden to residents in the area, especially in long-term owner
occupied homes. These construction projects also might require road closures, further
affecting homeowners.
These individual negative perceptions of students cause a negative perception of
students and possibly even the host university. Students tend to self-segregate​5​
, often
enjoying the amenities of the university but not the local area. Many might be involved in
the university community, however might not invest themselves in their residential
community. This breeds animosity with homeowners and permanent residents, who only
experience the negative consequences of studentification.
Public Safety
Studentification is often accompanied by increases in petty crime, violations of local
ordinances, and in some cases, increases in violent crime. Residents often cite increased
amounts of burglary. Students can be found walking outside at night, increasing the risk
of muggings. By nature they contribute to underage drinking, and subsequently drug use
and abuse. Distribution networks for these items form and can transform into organized
crime if met by high enough demand.
Health
Many city ordinances that are often broken by students involve health and wellness
consequences. Garbage left out by students can accumulate pests and other animals.
Students themselves are a high risk population due to many factors and can bring
disease into the community as well as spread it.
Overall
Students cause a general decline in the quality of life for permanent residents and
homeowners. This is accompanied by declining property values which force residents to
make a tough decision: staying in their homes, or selling their homes at lower prices.
5
Phillip Hubbard, 2009 “Geographies of Studentification and Purpose-Built Student Accommodation: Leading
Separate Lives?`” ​Environment and Planning.

6. 5
Studentification in New Brunswick
Off-Campus Students
The population of "off-campus" students is ill-defined in the Rutgers -New Brunswick
community. As defined by the Task Force for Off Campus Issues and Concerns in their
report off-campus students are6
1. Students who rent properties in the area surrounding campus and can commute
to campus by walking
2. Students who live at their familial home in the area surrounding campus and can
commute to campus by walking
3. Students who live in their familial homes who must commute to campus with
vehicles or mass transit
The first population is by far the largest, consisting of undergraduate and graduate
students. Exact figures are unknown, but there are an estimated 10,000​6​
undergraduates
in the off-campus area in New Brunswick, primarily in Wards 5 and 6.
Enrollment in both graduate and undergraduate programs at Rutgers University -New
Brunswick has increased nearly 30% since 2006 increasing from 28,432 to 47,720
students in 2016. However, the amount of beds offered on campus has only been
increased 18%, contributing to the demand for off-campus housing. Currently the
University operates approximately 16,500 beds for a local enrollment of nearly 50,000.7
Purpose-built student accommodation has been increasing however is notably more
expensive, a higher cost that some students are willing to pay. However about 43% of
students at Rutgers -New Brunswick use federal need-based aid to attend school, many
demonstrating a need for cheaper housing. These students are likely the source of the
recent expansion of student housing.
Students in New Brunswick reside mostly surrounding the College Avenue and Douglass
Campuses (see next page ). Student growth has long been confined to the areas of8
Easton Avenue, Buccleuch Park, and Hamilton Street along with the connected smaller
streets. However students have an increasing presence in Ward 2 and downtown New
Brunswick. They are also moving further into Wards 5 and 6.
6
Newman A. et. al. 2013, “Final Report and Recommendations of Task Force on Off-Campus Issues”
7
Rutgers University Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning, “2006-7 Factbook” and
“2014-15 Factbook”
8
Maps provided by Google maps, data on addresses courtesy of Off-Campus Living and Community
Partnerships

7. 6

8. 7
Methodology
To identify the consequences of studentification in New Brunswick, semistructured
interviews were conducted covering all of the consequences of studentification. A sample
of subjects (n=20) was identified from different stakeholder groups from around the New
Brunswick Community. All subjects shared several common attributes, all had lived in
New Brunswick at some point for more than 10 years, all had worked in or for the city,
and all have lived in areas which have been studentified. Interviewees were selected from
local law enforcement (n=4), city administrators and support staff (n=4), landlords in the
community (n=4), University administrators (n=4) and local residents (n=4).
The interviews asked questions regarding the established consequences of
studentification as laid out by literature, which included economic, social, housing,
health, labor, and public safety concerns. Later the interviews were coded to compare to
examples in the literature.
In regards to the second charge of the project, a case study of a model used at the
University of Colorado-Boulder was conducted. This case study compared the status of
student-neighborhood relations in both communities and then went step by step
through a restorative justice model that the University of Colorado-Boulder employs with
its local municipal courts and police department. This model was then discussed with the
same stakeholders in the New Brunswick and Rutgers community to determine changes
necessary and overall potential efficacy.
Consequences of Studentification in New Brunswick
Housing
Studentification has transformed Ward 6 from a historically owner-occupied residential
community into a primarily rental economy. The studentification of the housing market
has set in motion a revolving door of carelessness.
“[students] ​trash the houses, and the landlords have to clean it up. They get fed
up and they start to cut corners. Students come in and trash them again, and
the cycle continues until it gets so bad that they
-A New Brunswick city employee
The rise of purpose built housing has had consequences on the market as well. These
large-occupancy homes bring many students into a compact area. Many of them are on
the more expensive side, prohibiting low-income students to live there. Because many of

9. 8
these structures replace older, cheaper to rent housing, they force students to move
farther away from campus. Since these units are so dense with students, some of the
consequences of studentification are intensified by the purpose-built nature of the
facilities. The student desire to engage in risky behavior is not averted by purpose built
housing.
“they treat the apartments just like they treat the homes, sometimes worse.
People who don’t live there get let in all the time, they break rules and
regulations, they have parties and put too many people inside the smaller
rooms”
-A New Brunswick landlord
Purpose built housing has mitigated against the studentification of the housing market.
The high demand for off-campus housing placed strain on the market by creating many
lucrative opportunities. Investor-owned homes are much more profitable than
owner-occupied homes. This discrepancy has contributed to the domination of the9
market by rental homes and given rise to the purpose-built housing movement.
However, the rise of purpose-built housing erodes the existing supply of low-income
student housing. This effect has forced students to search for cheaper housing in other
areas of the city, or commute. As commuter populations increase, further strain is put on
the transportation system. However those students that choose to live deeper into the
community, in areas that are not studentified. They move into these communities that
usually contain higher levels of residents. The arrival of students create conflict with the
homeowners in the new areas. This is very similar to the process that studentified much
of the 6th ward, more students enter a neighborhood, which causes consequences with
the local residents, and also attracting investors resulting in the erosion of
homeownership. This expansion of student housing has long been cited by the City has a
pressing threat to an affordable housing market.10
Economic
The off-campus area in New Brunswick has had notable influences on economic data
collected by the City of New Brunswick. Figures on poverty, rent, housing, and income are
heavily influenced by the extreme conditions of being a student which normally include
higher rent and lower income. The data collected, in some cases, reveals a far worse
depiction of conditions in New Brunswick.
9
City of New Brunswick, 2015, Consolidated Plan on Community Development 2015-2019
10
City of New Brunswick, 2004, Master Plan

10. 9
In one instance, students heavily contribute to the population of 0-30% Average Median
Income (AMI) of caucasians in New Brunswick. This population is one of the two
socioeconomic populations in which more than 5% of its members have trouble paying
for housing.​7
Students have also heavily contributed to the overcrowding of housing. Anecdotal
evidence has shown overcrowding to be an issue in home inspections, especially among
students. The average household size in New Brunswick has increased almost 35% since
1990. The average number of people in each household in New Brunswick has risen to
3.23 persons per household. This is compared to census data that shows that the same11
statistic in Middlesex County is 2.83 persons per household, with 2.72 in the rest of the
State.
Social
There is notable animosity between students, homeowners, and landlords. Students
present a troublesome population for locals. Tending to be active at later hours. Many of
the complaints come as a consequence of parties. Parties in the off-campus areas are a
desirable activity for college students, including those on-campus. These parties
concentrate in the off-campus area around the College Avenue Campus, in Ward 6.
Students see the option for cheap alcohol and collect in large numbers.​6​
The bus system
allows for easy transport to and These can be remedied in the short term by noise
complaints, however residents cite the frequency of late-night noise to be a burden
“You call one night, you call another night, you call the third night, pretty much
every Thursday, Friday, Saturday. You call so much you don’t wanna call
anymore, because it’s not gonna stop”
-A New Brunswick Resident on Guilden Street
The recurring nature of the problem does incite a sense of hopelessness. Weekend after
weekend, year after year, late-night noise has presented a challenge to homeowners in
New Brunswick. Instances from the other categories of consequences perpetuate the
social animosity between residents and students. Crime, noise, and garbage create a
trifecta that drastically lowers the quality of life in Ward 6.
The perception of studentified communities communities also changes. Ward 6 has
suffered notable decline in its residential reputation and property values. The issues of
stability and community involvement also present a challenge. Many students tend to
move from place to place between their years, rather than staying in the same location
11
US Census data 1990, 2000, 2010

11. 10
for the entirety of their off-campus residence. This is driven by costs, social factors, and
relationships between roommates.
Public Safety
Crime in student areas in New Brunswick have contributed to crime. The largest category
of crimes occur at night, especially closer to the weekend. Many of these instances
involve alcohol consumption. Crime ranges from instances of petty vandalism to
aggravated and sexual assaults. Crimes involve students, residents, and members
outside the Rutgers or New Brunswick communities.
Most student-driven crime occurs at night, especially on higher-risk party weekends.
Much of the crime is in direct relation to parties. Common violations that occur in
tandem with parties include underage consumption of alcohol, theft, and petty
vandalism. Many of these instances are fuelled by alcohol.
“I had a wreath on my door, a 4-foot wreath, cause it was around
Christmastime. I came home one day, and it was gone. A couple weeks later, I
came home and [students] ​took the Virgin Mary out of the Nativity scene on my
front lawn and put it on their own. I don’t know if there’s a faster way to go to
Hell”
-A former longtime New Brunswick resident
This student driven crime is not stable. As students move around from place to place,
they bring their behavior and personalities with them. This causes crime to move from
place to place every year, again presenting an enforcement issue.
“We used to have a lot of problems on Ray Street, this year, it’s completely quiet.
But at the same time, the amount of complaints and issues on Guilden and the
area behind Easton Avenue. That area has always been a problem, but this year
it has been worse”
-An RUPD Officer
Problems with public safety escalated in April 2011 during Rutgersfest, an annual concert event
in Piscataway. The event brought traffic, trash, noise, vandalism, and excessive drinking into the
community. In addition, there was a shooting that occurred adjacent to campus. While the
shooting did not involve Rutgers University students, the incident caused concern over student
behavior off­campus and the University’s role in enforcing standards.

12. 11
Health
One notable violation that occurs frequently in New Brunswick is the use of indoor
furniture in outside areas such as porches and decks. These pieces of furniture present
the issue of vermin which can carry disease.
“They don’t know that leaving that couch out there brings rats and bugs, and
when they notice the animals, they leave that couch in front of somebody else’s
home. We can’t see that, we can’t enforce it”
-A New Brunswick Housing Inspector
Currently Rutgers -New Brunswick there is a Meningitis B outbreak that has necessitated
the vaccination of the student population. There is potential for diseases such as
meningitis to come to the area because of student behavior which erodes their immune
health.
Positives
While there are many negative effects of studentification, there are several ways in which
the City of New Brunswick. Students routinely assist in the city several ways. The
University itself brings guests and prominent figures to the city, which provides business.
Rutgers students often intern with the city government and local stakeholders in the
administration of the city.
Priorities of Rutgers University
The priorities of Rutgers University were taken from the Final Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on
Off-Campus Issues.
University Strategic Plan
There are two goals in the University Strategic Plan that are relevant to the off-campus
student population:​6,12
1. Transforming the Student Experience:
Students living on-campus have a host of programs and services at their disposal.
Students living off-campus or commuting from home do not share the same
depth of programs and services. We can better connect students to the Rutgers
12
Rutgers University Strategic plan was adopted in February of 2014 and can be accessed at
http://universitystrategy.rutgers.edu

13. 12
experience by developing and improving needed programs and services.
2. Collaborations and Partnerships:
Rutgers University and the city of New Brunswick are intertwined. Positive working
relationships need to be strengthened between the city and the university.
Negative perceptions of student behavior and the perception of a lack of response
from the university regarding student issues can strain that relationship and
inhibit potential partnerships. Recognizing that Rutgers bears some responsibility
for off-campus student issues can help us begin the process of addressing
identified problems. Rutgers can continue to create valuable community building
by proactively addressing the off campus student experience.
Report on Off Campus Issues
The main goals of the Task Force on Off Campus Issues include:
1. Creating better communication between the City of New Brunswick and Rutgers
University in regards to off campus student living and behavior
2. Creating standards and expectations for off campus student behavior
3. Developing proactive educational responses to student and community issues and
concerns
4. Determining ways to better meet the living, learning, and developmental needs of
our off campus students
5. Compiling a list of resources necessary to serve the off campus student
population
The three sub-committees on the task force were:
1. Educational initiatives and outreach
recommendations for proactive programs and services that can be put in place to
help with identified problems and concerns
2. Enforcement
recommendations regarding initiatives that use enforcement to address problems
and concerns
3. Communication/structure
recommendations for better communication and a structure to address issues
between off campus students, local community members, and Rutgers University
A few relevant specific recommendations:
● Provide proactive education to Rutgers University students before and after they
move off-campus

14. 13
● Educate students about off-campus expectations
● Impose targeted enforcement that includes consequences for students
● Consider the creation of a Campus and Community Coalition
● Create stronger communication lines with New Brunswick officials and community
members
Current Initiatives:
Department of Off-Campus Living and Community Partnerships13
Rutgers Off-Campus Living and Community Partnerships is the central resource for
students in the community- off-campus living, volunteering and spiritual exploration. We
prepare students for life off-campus by assisting them with their housing search,
including educational workshops focused on legal issues, safety, security and respect. We
connect with community partners and faith-based leaders to offer all students
opportunities to engage with ongoing community service and multifaith programs. The
department interacts with students, parents, property owners, residents, local
businesses, Chaplains, and city officials to establish priorities and create student
programming that is reflective of community interests and concerns.
Services offered by OCLCP:
● Online rental listing directory
● Off-Campus address registry
● Educational workshops and programs
● Distribution of home security devices
Priorities of the City of New Brunswick
The priorities of the City of New Brunswick were collected from the Master Plan and from the the Community
Development Consolidated Plan.
Housing
Affordable housing is a priority in New Brunswick. Students present a threat because of
their effects on the housing market, which include attracting investors, forcing residents
to relocate, and lower property values due to nuisance. This trifecta has effectively made
most of the 6th ward a student centered area.
13
Information collected from ruoffcampus.rutgers.edu

15. 14
Community Development
New Brunswick emphasizes the need for stable and involved communities.​7​
The social
consequences of studentification are challenges to these priorities. Students can often
cause conflict with residents. Student behavior can be disruptive to the community.
Often this behavior is a result of negligence of the laws and policies that apply to their
residencies. Curtailing this negligence and educating students on community
memberships and involvement can mitigate the social consequences. Educating students
can also reduce public safety concerns.
Case Study: U. Colorado Boulder
Comparison
Rutgers University New
Brunswick
University of Colorado
Boulder
Total
Undergraduates
33,130 27,010
Total
Postgraduates
8,435 5,191
Total Off-Campus
Undergraduates
~16,200* 24,818
Total Off-Campus
Postgraduates
~4,700* 4,954
Off-Campus
Department
Off-Campus Living and
Community Partnerships
Off-Campus Housing and
Neighborhood Relations
*RU Numbers are based off estimates made by Task Force for Off-Campus Issues. Colorado numbers
provided by Off-Campus Housing and Neighborhood Relations

16. 15
Background
University of Colorado -Boulder has had a reputation for being a party school. In fact it
has been named one of the “top party schools” of the decade citing its off-campus
atmosphere and frequent recreational use of marijuana. This reputation has had
negative consequences for the University. In the past there have been riots causing14
hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.
Most students live in the University Hill neighborhood, which is very close to campus,
similar to New Brunswick.
The red outlines the University Hill neighborhood. It is in proximity to the University’s main campus. Maps courtesy of
Google Maps
However due to crackdowns and measures focused on highlighting the positive sides of
U. Colorado -Boulder have moved the University off the list of top party schools. The
University’s Be Boulder campaign has helped to cultivate a positive image. This campaign
also shares similar elements to the “be revolutionary” campaign at Rutgers University.
14
News Briefs, 1997, “CU Students Riot Over Underage Drinking Crackdown

17. 16
CU-RJ
Background
The University of Colorado Restorative Justice program (CURJ) provides a forum for15
student offenders, victims, and affected community members to meet and identify the
harms that were caused by a student’s actions and determine the best method for
repairing those harms.
In 1998, members from the University attended an informational session about
restorative justice presented by a local police department. Afterwards they began a pilot
program out of the Office of Judicial Affairs, as an alternative to the traditional
sanctioning which employs retributive justice. These sanctions were only used in cases of
university discipline, and off-campus students were still to go through the normal
criminal justice process for nuisance violations, misdemeanors, and other offenses.
From 1999-2004, the CURJ program was coordinated by a graduate assistant intern who
worked with a CURJ Work Group made up of members in the community, specifically
community stakeholders who were affected by studentification. The model brings
victims, offenders, support persons, and community members to discuss studentification
and its effects.
In 2004, the CURJ program began a landmark relationship with the Boulder Municipal
Court and Boulder City Attorney to refer cases of CU students who broke the municipal
code. The cases consisted of quality of life and nuisance violations, as well as
low-intensity violence and alcohol violations.
Restorative Justice and Conferences
The CU-RJ model emphasizes restorative justice over retributive justice. Retributive
justice focuses on punishment and discipline, whereas restorative justice focuses on the
harm the offense or infraction caused and how the community can be repaired. All
students participating in CURJ to fulfill a Court Requirement must pay a $135 program fee
that is assessed through the student account. The University may impose additional
sanctions as well depending on the incident. Students are allowed to participate in CURJ
once, the second time, they enter the normal sanctioning process in the Boulder
Municipal Court system, albeit with a second offense, rather than a first. Students who
enter CURJ but are disruptive, or do not fully participate can be removed at will by the
University and subject to the Municipal Court.
15
Information on restorative justice theory and CURJ provided by the Office of Student Conduct and
Conflict Resolution

18. 17
There are two restorative justice conferences that the University of Colorado:
1. Community Accountability Board conference (CAB)
The CAB covers quality of life violations such as:
a. Brawling
b. Making a False Report
c. Public Urination
d. Obstructing a Peace Officer
e. Resisting Arrest
f. Using/possessing Fraudulent Identification
g. Unreasonable noise
h. Disrupting Quiet Enjoyment of the Home
i. Nuisance Party
The goals of the CAB are to repair any harm exacted on the community. The
conference emphasize education and not discipline. CABs are run by volunteer
members from the community and held three nights a week. Each group that
meets creates a Reparative Agreement that all parties will sign and adhere to.
Group conferences are used when student violate as a group of people, for
example all of the tenants in a house that was cited for a loud party. These cases
are often referred by the Boulder Municipal Court or District Court.
2. Victim-Offender Conference (VOC)
VOCs are sued when a specific person or people have been harmed by an
offense. The most common instances of this conference occur in response to
Damage for Property, and Assault in the Third Degree. The VOC focuses on
repairing the harm caused to the victim. There is a Mutual Responsibility
Conference (MRC) for when the lines between victim and offender might be blurry,
or there are multiple people involved, most commonly found with Brawling.
Process
The process for CURJ goes:
1. A student commits an offense
2. A police officer (municipal or University) cites the student, noting the individual’s
student status
3. The student is informed that they can either appear on the court date or pay the
ticket, or alternatively, complete the CURJ program
4. The student completes the CURJ program
5. The student supplies the court with proof of completion of the program
6. The court-date or fine is vacated

19. 18
Results
All four major stakeholders in the process, the Boulder Municipal Courts, the Boulder
Police Department, and the University Office of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution
all agree, ​the recidivism rate for student offenders in these categories has
drastically been lowered.
University officials report more positive perceptions of students and community
members report better interactions. CURJ is not alone in accomplishing this however. The
University has made strides to connect community members to students in a variety of
ways including off-campus cookouts/barbecues, town halls on community issues.
Community member participation in CURJ has also increased, and involved students and
community members report positive educational outcomes. Students report being better
informed of the rules in their community and how to be a courteous neighbor. The
University has been able to expand their program through increased funding and
increased involvement of the community. Because of its success, the University has
expanded CURJ to allow students to complete it a second time for a subsequent offense
in certain circumstances, such as if two years have elapsed between offenses.
Proposal
Purpose
To design and implement a program similar to CURJ for Rutgers University and the City of
New Brunswick
Goals
1. Decrease the amount of nuisance violations in student occupied areas
Ordinance violations and summons are a common occurrence and a common
experience to Rutgers University students. While the violations disrupt the
community, they also incur financial burden on students. As representatives of the
University community, student offenders detract from the reputation of the
University.
2. Educate at-risk students on the expectations of living in New Brunswick
While a general education approach to all students planning to live off-campus is
desirable, it is extremely difficult to ensure attendance without incentive. A
positive incentive would likely need to be costly if they are to be effective. Negative
incentives are difficult to impose due to the open free housing market. It is

20. 19
possible to regulate this market, but there are significant barriers.
3. Enhance the relationship between the University and New Brunswick
This proposal seeks to repair the relationships between students and the
community where possible, and improve the student’s acknowledgement of their
role in the residential community and its maintenance. This goal will necessitate
expansion on some of the positive relationships between the City and students,
rectify the negative relationships, and create new ideas to repair and strengthen
the bond between students and their home, New Brunswick.
Involved Agencies and Offices
City of New Brunswick
● New Brunswick Police Department (NBPD)
● Law Department
● Municipal Court
Rutgers University
● Office of Off-Campus Living and Community Partnerships (OCLCP)
● Office of Student Conduct (OSC)
● Rutgers University Police Department (RUPD)
Proposed Methods
Changes to ticketing system
One of the hallmarks of CURJ is that police officers are able to identify students to
recommend into the program. This is achieved through a space on the standard citation
(see image) where an officer can mark down if the individual in question is a student or
not. This can be determined through school ID, but in more vague cases, officers report
that they assume individuals are students and then can confirm that status with the
University later, as membership of a university is not privileged information under FERPA.

21. 20
A copy of a citation in Boulder, Colorado.
With this development, NBPD officers can provide the University with information on
student and their behavior off-campus, and recommend them for a restorative justice
sanction.
Alternative Sanctioning Process
Instead of the normal sanctioning process, students who are cited for off-campus
violations should be given the chance to participate in an alternative sanctioning
process. This process should be educational and restorative. Upon completion of these
sanctions students will be given documentation which they can then provide to the
courts to vacate their court date or fine.
Possible Sanctions Include
● Classes on living in a residential community
● Classes on local ordinances
● Classes on interacting with law enforcement officers
● Reparative agreements tailored to the specific offense
Classes can be taught by trained University facilitators and volunteers as well as law
enforcement officials.

22. 21
Emphasis on Restorative Justice
This alternative model should continue to emphasize education and community repair.
Volunteers should be solicited from the community to continually update the sanction
and conference guidelines.