Summary of UGA Safety/Security Enhancements

February 18, 2025

The University of Georgia reports spending $25 million over the last 9 years on new safety and security initiatives. Except for the UGASafe app, the Lyft rideshare discount program, increase in the number of sworn officers on campus, and possibly some new cameras, most identifiable measures came in response to the murder of Laken Riley on a UGA campus running trail, on Feb 22, 2024. We do not question UGA’s committment to keep the campus safe. As UGA Police Chief Clark stated: “Safety and security have always been our priority…. At the University of Georgia. These recent enhancements will enable us to create an even more secure learning environment for students, faculty, and staff members.”. However, we must ask: Are these improvements truly comprehensive, strategically planned, and sufficient to meet the evolving security needs of the UGA community?

Below we talk about each category of investment and the timeframe for which that investment was made, giving UGA a grade relative to its effectiveness. We have done due diligence to understand all initiatives—in our descriptions if any inaccuracies are identified, please contact at contact@safedathens.org. We always strive for accurate information and welcome input. We have big concerns relative to UGA public safety policies, procedures and decision making processes.

The Reactive responses of UGA to Laken’s murder: Summarized and Graded

Call Boxes:

Immediately after Laken’s murder, UGA announced roughly $7.3 million in enhancements to include installation of emergency call stations. In this round, 23 call boxes were installed to include the Intramural Fields and the Veterinarian Complex. In the most recent round of $1.7 million it was announced that 50 more stations will be installed. Compare these numbers to Georgia Tech having 555 blue light emergency phones on their campus - half the size of UGA property (Georgia Tech spans 400 acres versus UGA’s 760-acre campus).

It is important to note that these emergency call stations are the result of a UGA student lead petition, reacting to Laken’s murder, signed by over 25,000 students, asking to bring back these stations. Note in 2021, UGA students proactively petitioned to bring back emergency call stations but were denied. UGA was one of the first universities to have emergency phones on campus but as technology changed, UGA claimed this older technology was not used. The old call boxes were removed and replaced with the mobile UGASafe app. Most universities, like Georgia Tech, now have similar apps available in addition to emergency call boxes.

Emergency call stations serve two purposes: they can provide an immediate lifeline in an emergency and also act as a highly visible deterrent. The newer technology includes Wi-Fi so they can facilitate calls using the internet, important if cell tower coverage is lacking. In UGA’s case, they are cross connected with the PAWS secure wireless network. This is the UGA secure wireless network and is the preferred connection for faculty, staff, and students. This requires a MYID and password to access while on campus.

Nearly 20,000 students and parents (less than half the student population) have downloaded the UGASafe app which allows users to call the UGA Police and share their location in real-time. This is one useful security layer but safety calls for many strategic layers to mitigate risks. When a phone is lost, stolen, or out-of-battery, UGASafe is rendered useless for emergencies. Also, in critical moments, its reliance on multiple steps to access emergency services creates unnecessary and possibly fatal delays.

With the promised completion of 73 emergency call stations or just 13% of Georgia Tech’s capacity, UGA is continuing to lag behind in security infrastructure. We give them a grade of “D” or (below average) in this category. Why is a university the size of UGA, with plenty of resources, still failing to prioritize basic safety infrastructure that other institutions within the University of Georgia System recognize as essential?

UGA Police Staffing:

Most agencies in recent years including the UGA Police Department have experienced vacancies. UGA sworn officer staffing seems to be stable now following a 21% increase in its police force. Increased staffing has been an ongoing effort for many years, before and after Laken’s murder. Looking at their webpage, the department appears to be fully staffed now with officers and seems primarily focused on hiring security ambassadors acting as security guards–without weapons.

We provide a comparison of police department staffing of UGA vs Georgia Tech for context. The University of Georgia Police Department (UGA PD) has roughly 96 sworn law enforcement officers, 15 communications officers and additional support staff, bringing the total number of agency personnel to around 125. In contrast, the Georgia Tech Police Department (GTPD), located in downtown Atlanta claims to have over 100 full-time sworn and civilian employees. Thus, law enforcement staff capacities are almost identical. However, Georgia Tech’s campus spans only 400 acres while UGA property in Athens covers 760 acres. This difference in campus geography allows Georgia Tech to provide denser coverage within a more compact area. Also, Georgia Tech uses the FUSUS platform to integrate cameras, and other state-of-the-art infrastructure which acts as a force multiplier aiding efficient resource deployment.

With being fully staffed, offering enhanced pay scales and benefits, we give UGA a grade of “B” (above average). However (detailed further down), we see issues with the limited safety ambassador program and lack of camera integration with ACCPD to proactively enhance officer responses to security needs.

Campus Safety Ambassadors:

12 Campus Safety Ambassadors (licensed security guards reporting to UGA police, no weapons) were funded within the $7.3 million announced immediately after Laken’s murder. Some are now on patrol and offer escorts on campus from 7pm to 3am. An escort to off campus housing within the 500 yard UGA police jurisdiction is NOT offered. Students report the program is poorly promoted and most are unaware of available campus escorts late at night. UGASafe users can request an escort by a campus safety ambassador or a student can call UGA Police. Unlike the Block by Block ambassador program we recommended to the Board of Regents (BOR) and UGA, as a proactive measure several years ago (before Laken’s murder), UGA ambassadors are solely ‘eyes and ears' and used for escorting on campus. Previously, it was noted by UGA that these ambassadors would be located near highly populated student gathering places, such as the Miller Learning Center. This approach excludes more remote areas of campus which are security concerns. Mobility is crucial to cover all territory. Also, they do not have the expertise to serve as outreach to the homeless population which comes and goes on and off campus regularly, sometimes affecting the wellbeing of students, staff and other visitors.

Because of limited functionality confined to campus with limited mobility, we easily give UGA a “D” (below average) in this category. More versatile Block by Block ambassador programs are being used successfully across the country within city districts adjacent to universities and campus neighborhoods. Block by Block security ambassadors are employed directly by Ohio State University in adjacent student neighborhoods patrolling on bicycles.

There is still critical work ahead within this category. UGA would do well to revisit our Block by Block proposal from 2023 to consider a pilot program offering more overall effective layering of security. Our 2023 proposal for a $1.5 million pilot program was given to both the BOR and UGA. Again, it offered a highly adaptable approach to campus safety, integrating multiple transportation modes–including biking, walking, and vehicle use–while leveraging the SMART System App (in addition to radio use) to log real-time incidents and generate reports. This system enhances response times and overall security efficiency.

Because UGA properties extend throughout Athens-Clarke County (ACC), a collaborative effort between the university and the city is crucial to ensure safety. This need was addressed with a second downtown Block by Block pilot proposal to ACC for safety and homeless outreach. A blended BBB program between UGA and ACC would provide a proactive and comprehensive approach to better layered campus security.

As mentioned, BBB can offer real-time homeless engagement and tracking by employing specialized Outreach Ambassadors who log engagements, locations, incidents, etc. within the SMART System. ACC has a transient homeless population that frequents campus coming & going and many times arrested for loitering and prowling. The safety/security considerations of this have yet to be addressed by the university in any meaningful way, other than to limit library hours and upper floors to the public at large.

Security Fencing:

Fencing used as a deterrent to crime was only installed after Laken’s murder at the graduate student housing parallel to Rogers Road. 4,000 feet or 1,333 yards of fencing with key card gates was funded in the original $7.3 million immediately after Laken’s murder. Fencing now runs along Rogers Road in front of the graduate student housing extending to the outer Loop 10 before stopping. This fencing serves as a barrier to the apartments along Rogers Road and along the cement trail which extends to Loop 10. There are also wide-angle cameras attached to gates with lighting. The newly relocated bus stop outside the fencing (Jose Ibarra was identified in court standing next to the old bus stop location) lacks dedicated lighting, making it very dark at night (as observed firsthand with a local news reporter). It is unclear if the area behind the apartments adjacent to the railroad tracks has been fenced. The parking is not gated and anyone can walk through to the various apartment buildings. This is a prime example of a piecemeal approach to security rather than having a complete proactive strategy formulated, after assessing security gaps. More fencing at the Health Science Campus on Oglethorpe has been announced (home to UGA’s new Medical School). Its’ purpose is unclear, as there exists fencing now along the perimeter of the site.

Because the gates are key entry with cameras, fencing is high, and at least extends the length of Rogers road, we give UGA a “C” (average) in this category. Security barriers behind the apartments need further investigation.

Added Cameras:

UGA has invested millions in camera infrastructure over the years. More money was within the $7.3 million security funding announced immediately following Laken’s murder. However the university has been remarkably opaque about the total number of cameras currently in use. In a most recent article, UGA discloses that it now has “more than 600 camera views.” within its Campus Safety Camera System (CSCS). UGA claimed over 500 existing cameras in their previous announcement of $7.3 million in security enhancements. With this latest $1.7 million of funding, 20 Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) were added to the inventory. The Flock brand of ALPRs are almost always used for this application. ALPRs are used strategically to capture license plates of cars traveling in and out of communities, in this case the UGA campus. We believe this is the first time UGA has deployed this type of technology. It can be used for both reactive crime investigation and proactive suspect detection.

With the addition of 73 cameras attached to new emergency call stations and those attached to security fencing gates, we get to over 600 camera views within the CSCS. Add to that the additional 20 ALPRs. It is important to note that with this expansion, from 500 to over 600 cameras, it appears that no new cameras have been added to buildings or other existing infrastructure as part of a long-standing robust network. Perhaps there are plans. We believe there could be older buildings unequipped or have minimal camera infrastructure. Again, UGA does not offer much generalized information on camera infrastructure.

Compare these numbers to Georgia Tech who proudly states they have over 1,700 cameras on a smaller 400-acre campus. With security and student safety being critical priorities, UGA must provide clarity on the density of campus camera coverage, generalized locations, and how they are integrated to ensure a genuine comprehensive safety network. Mere camera additions cannot mask any underlying gaps in coverage or suggest a robust, well-implemented security system. Why is a university the size of UGA, with plenty of resources, still failing to prioritize basic safety infrastructure that other institutions within the University of Georgia System recognize as essential?

Given the isolated use of UGA’s CSCS and reported low camera density on campus relative to Georgia Tech, and questionable strategic camera placements we give UGA a “D” (below average) in this category.

Lighting Improvements:

Lighting improvements were announced within the $7.3 million in security funding after Laken’s murder. While hundreds of upgrades have been made, large areas of campus remain poorly lit–even with more than 650 lights installed or converted to LED technology. As one can imagine, 650 lights is minimal compared to the size of the UGA campus.

Historically in 2019 UGA announced that over the next two years $2 million was to be invested in lighting and security improvements aimed at improving safety on campus. SGA was involved in pushing for improvements. This was the start of replacing light bulbs with LEDs which UGA continues to talk about even today, 6 years later.

As UGA stated, “These upgrades also include a focus on lighting for more crosswalks, particularly near residence halls with high foot traffic, supplementing the university’s ongoing efforts to evaluate lighting across campus.” What about areas with less foot traffic and off roads? These significant gaps leave students vulnerable. For example, take a walk near the Redcoat practice field after dark or along the sidewalks adjacent to the music building–both remain inadequately lit. What about the trail walkways leading away from campus to off campus parking? What about surface parking lots spread throughout campus adjacent to buildings and stairs between buildings? As of the beginning of the current school year these areas remained dark.

A piecemeal approach to assessing lighting is reactive rather than strategic. A comprehensive Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) analysis is essential to evaluate the entirety of campus safety. It should include not only lighting but also camera density and placement, landscaping, walking paths, parking locations, building access, human resources, and more. Without a full-scale security assessment to determine gaps, UGA risks overlooking critical vulnerabilities–lighting is just one security layer of many with potential gaps still remaining that must be addressed to create a truly secure campus environment.

In our parent survey last year, lighting was a major concern. In fact, close to 90% said the campus was not well lit at night and in comments specified certain locations. Students avoid campus at night because they do not feel safe coming and going. Because of many dimly lit remote areas on campus, the piecemeal approach to enhanced lighting, and the refusal to incorporate CPTED analysis into assessments we give UGA a “D” (below average) in this category.

Safety and Security Responses of UGA Prior to Laken’s Murder: Summarized and Graded:

Over the last several years these included the Lyft Discount Program and the UGASafe app for mobile phones. The UGASafe app was discussed above relative to the use of emergency call stations. Below we discuss current transportation options at UGA.

Transportation:

The Lyft rideshare discount program at UGA has been running since Dec 2021 somewhat in response to our group “UGA Parents for Safety and Security” demanding change. We have always called for a comprehensive SafeRide program. Unfortunately our requests were met with a program falling short of our expectations and of other university programs. UGA is proud that it has sponsored nearly 130,000 rides to students since the program started. Let’s look at the numbers–130,000 rides over 36 months is 3,600 rides per month since inception. Since there is a maximum of 4 rides per month per student–if all students who participated max’d out their rides at 4 per month–it would mean 900 students used this program or approximately 2-3% of the student body.

Not only are rides limited to 4 per month, the UGA Ride Smart program offers students a 50% discount on “qualifying rides” which can equate up to a discount maximum of $7.50 per ride. Let’s look at the numbers again–$7.50 max for a ride paid by UGA for 130,000 rides equates to less than $1 million–just a fraction of its $25 million spent on safety enhancements. Meanwhile, most new funding has gone toward filling police officer positions. For reference, UGA’s 21% increase in police staffing equates to roughly 20 new officers, each earning approximately $70,000 annually. With overhead costs (3x salary) factored in, this totals around $4.2 million per year–starkly contrasting the limited investment in student transportation.

“Qualifying rides” means the coverage areas are limited such that the Lyft ride would never exceed $15.00 ($7.50 for students–$7.50 funded by UGA). This makes it hard for off-campus students to benefit and students who work or do internships off campus. As described by local lyft drivers and parents, students at UGA often turn to Lyft for transportation between classes or from remote parking lots due to the inadequacy of on-campus transportation options.

In contrast, the Georgia Tech’s Singerette program offers free unlimited rides from 6pm to 7am, 7 days per week serving the campus and neighborhoods in between, providing students with safe, reliable late-night transportation. Georgia Tech has other transportation options as well. A 2013 map identifies Safe Ride Home punch cards that provide Stingerette rides from campus to student homes (10 rides for $20), the Tech trolley operating M-F 5:45am to 11pm with limited day service on the weekends, and the Midnight Rambler trolley operating from 9pm to 3am Sunday-Thursday with 3 stops–library, student center, and west campus housing. A shuttle to the nearby Publix was included as well–Sat-Sun 10am-6pm with one stop per hour. Many universities are offering free night time transportation to and from campus. On February 4, 2025, UGA transportation posted that bus schedules were being extended to 9pm weekdays. This is a greatly appreciated small step in the right direction.

We have many complaints from parents concerning the operation of UGA buses to include tardiness, and routes ended in process because bus driver shifts were over. Recently we received a report of a female student who stepped off a crowded bus to allow a fellow student off the bus—the door was shut on her hand trying to get back on the bus. She had to drop her umbrella and cell phone inside the bus in order to remove her hand as the bus pulled away. This is unacceptable.

Historically and still today, UGA students ride ACC transit buses to/from campus from surrounding housing. UGA buses became ‘fare-free’ in 2020 and allow anyone to ride, similar to ACC transit. Within the ACC transit strategic plan (vote March 2025) it states that UGA and ACC will coordinate bus routes to minimize duplication. UGA receives 60% of regional federal transit funding, split with ACC. Unsheltered homeless individuals ride both transit systems. However, it is commonplace on ACC transit. In 2024, there were 20 incidents of homeless arrests at the Multi-Modal Bus Center on E Broad Street, resulting mostly from Aggravated Assault and Larceny. Recently (February 2025) an altercation took place at an ACC bus stop where a homeless man threatened a woman with a machete. It is not uncommon to read police incident reports involving a transit bus. The safety/security impact on UGA student riders of any route consolidations is unknown.

UGA uses Designated Dawgs, a student-run not for profit organization funded primarily by the Parent Leadership Council, to partly address transportation gaps. The mission of DD is to make the university and Athens community a safer place by being an aid to UGA and Athens-Clarke County Police Departments by preventing walking home, driving under the influence, and preventing crime overall. DD run rides Thursday and Friday late nights. This service costs UGA nothing. DD volunteers operate on limited and changing schedules due to resource constraints. While they do a commendable job running a not for profit service–have given 91,000 rides in over 20 years of service–380 rides per month on average (includes website/social media, scheduling taking on liability, renting cars, training, manning rotations of volunteers), UGA should invest like other universities, in a comprehensive and consistent program similar to the Stingerette at Georgia Tech.

Given UGA’s lack of transportation options, students on campus using Lyft for a 5 minute ride to get to their cars, students avoiding night classes as much as possible and campus in general late at night, we give UGA an “F” (failing grade) in this category.

Outstanding Concerns: Lack of Transparency, Unfulfilled Commitments, unclear policies:

Athens-Clarke County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC):

Prior to Laken’s murder, Athens-Clarke County Police Department (ACCPD) was working on establishing their RTCC to integrate all security cameras and other infrastructure to aid investigations, deter crime, and increase officer efficiency on scene. It has been somewhat slow going but since passage out of ACC government and with the help of residents deferring state taxes to the Police Foundation (close to $1 million has been donated toward RTCC infrastructure) its buildout is progressing nicely.

Early on we were pushing for UGA to integrate all their CSCS cameras into the new ACCPD RTCC and after Laken’s murder (February of 2024), UGA finally committed verbally in March of 2024 to doing so. A reactive decision? However, this commitment remains unfulfilled, with no transparency regarding its progress. Via open records, we asked UGA for a Memorandum of Understanding between UGA Police and ACCPD regarding participation within the ACCPD RTCC. UGA did not respond. This approach serves UGA more than it helps ACCPD and it is perplexing as to why they are not preparing to participate. Without this integration, all of law enforcement lacks real-time access to critical campus surveillance, delaying responses to potential threats.

We understand that UGA may be planning to build out their own RTCC independent of ACCPD which would aid only UGA properties, utilizing one of their existing suppliers– Genetec. ACCPD chose the Fusus platform for RTCC operations–the same system used by Georgia Tech and other Atlanta area counties. There are no other RTCCs in the area utilizing the Genetec platform.

While we believe the newly installed UGA Flock ALPR cameras (20 of them) are integrated into the ACCPD RTCC–given UGA’s historic cooperation with ACCPD. However, the more than 600 CSCS (as reported by UGA) cameras are not integrated. Simply sharing cameras at will does not equate to full real-time integration. UGA’s CSCS system remains entirely separate and functions independently of other applications. In contrast, the ACCPD’s Fusus platform allows seamless integration of most additional security applications from other vendors, such as ZeroEyes AI gun detection, which can analyze any connected camera in real-time to detect the presence of a weapon prior to its use, deterring mass shootings. In 2021 (4 years ago), Georgia Tech had System’s Indoor Gunshot Detection capabilities integrated into their Fusus Real-time Crime Center ecosystem that would trigger on-site cameras, emergency alerts and more. The Fusus platform also allows for residents, landlords, and businesses within Athens to integrate their camera security systems. The Mark (a large student housing complex near campus) has integrated all their cameras into the ACCPD RTCC.

UGA RTCC - A Redundant and Isolated System:

In announcing the $1.7 million additional funding for security improvements, listing more call stations and fencing—”software and technology upgrades for UGA Police Department” was discussed.

“Enhancements to the UGA 911 system” was also mentioned in the recent release. Currently all 911 calls are routed to ACCPD Dispatch. Any of these calls on UGA property are then immediately routed to UGA Police Dispatch. The only way an emergency call is routed directly to UGA Police is on campus through the UGASafe app. Is UGA considering further network isolation by taking 911 calls directly on UGA property, bypassing ACCPD dispatch? RTCCs not only unify cameras, they also unify CAD (computer aided dispatch) calls, ALPR, IoT devices and GIS (geographic information systems). A company called RapidSOS integrates a variety of data sources making them available to 911 dispatches through their RapidSOS Clearinghouse, including cell phone locations. ACC dispatch uses RapidSOS, as do many other communities (started in 2019). Here is an example of RapidSOS capability–in partnership with Apple, a phone with iOS 12 or later, automatically sends fast and accurate device location to dispatch through RapidSOS. This 911 function is built into the Apple operating system. Thus, any 911 center utilizing RapidSOS will get this data with any call-in.

Policy and procedures related to 911 calls also need evaluation which does not involve infrastructure funding. It is unclear if this additional $1.7 million in funding is mainly for an independent UGA RTCC utilizing a Genetec platform, and if its intended use includes dispatch of integrated campus 911 calls, entirely bypassing Athens-Clarke County dispatch? UGA is never transparent with their decision making. It would make sense if funding was for RTCC purposes.

We do not know the extent of their plans. UGA needs to be more transparent.

An independent UGA RTCC platform - A poor decision?

Wasted Resource and Fiscal Irresponsibility:

Instead of leveraging the ACCPD RTCC, UGA appears to be spending more money to create a redundant center that isolates their security response and does not take advantage of valuable information off campus.
Duplication diverts funding that could be used for more direct safety improvements like expanding a SafeRide program, introducing “free” late night rides.

Slower and Less Effective Emergency Response:

Laken Riley’s 911 call went to ACCPD dispatch, not UGA. If UGA cameras had been integrated, ACCPD law enforcement may have immediately accessed UGA’s camera footage to track her location in real-time in response to the 911 calls by both Laken and dispatch. This assumes UGA had cameras in place in the location.
A disconnected security system creates delays, and in emergencies, every second counts. In Laken’s case, she fought the suspect off for approximately 17 minutes.

Breakdown in Coordination:

Security is not just about what is on campus–students move between UGA and the surrounding Athens community.
By not integrating with ACCPD, UGA is making it hard for law enforcement agencies to work together. Criminals do not isolate themselves within one jurisdiction or another. ACCPD tracking a drug deal could easily detect the suspect traversing on campus by viewing UGA CSCS cameras in real-time. Jose Ibarra could have easily committed an offense off campus just to return on campus to offend again.
In a crisis, seamless communication between UGA and local law enforcement is critical. As technology progresses and more applications become available, city-wide integration may become imperative. Athens-Clarke County Fire Department and emergency services (ACCFES) is responsible for all UGA properties–integrated UGA cameras may become valuable in determining fire/emergency responses.

Urgent Need for an Independent Security Assessment to Determine Gaps on Campus:

No one agency or public safety department can possibly identify all gaps, regardless of expertise. Above we have outlined UGA’s piecemeal approach to lighting, cameras, fencing, ambassadors, certainly for transportation. A comprehensive, data-driven strategy is needed to propel security initiatives into the future, but unfortunately one is lacking. Other universities (who have lost students on campus) have told us, before you make any improvements get an independent security assessment to identify important gaps. This assessment must include CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, which is essentially formal use of security design best practices towards application of all the topics we have discussed. CPTED also includes best practice for landscaping so not to invite crime.

Why an Independent Security Assessment is Critical for UGA:

1. Lighting & Visibility Gaps - Remote sections of campus remain poorly lit increasing the risk of crime. CPTED best practices include proper lighting placement, sightlines, and personal visibility to deter threats. A campus-wide evaluation would identify and address hidden vulnerabilities.

2. Camera density and placement should be reviewed. Are all high risk areas covered? Are more rural environments such as the Intramural Fields (high traffic area) covered? Georgia Tech covers their geography with 1,700 cameras while UGA touts over 600 cameras in their CSCS covering twice the geography.

3. Lack of cohesive emergency infrastructure -– UGA will have 73 emergency call stations when the extra 50 are installed. Georgia Tech has 555 emergency call stations. Where should these limited number of stations be installed first–parking lots have been identified for installation. Should more remote areas where visibility is lacking get priority? All of this is addressed with CPTED analysis and gaps assessment.

4. Gaps in Overnight Transportation and Safety Escorts — UGA’s limited Lyft RideShare program is insufficient. Georgia Tech and many other universities see the safety value in offering free unlimited rides late at night 24/7 to and from nearby student housing. Students avoiding campus during night hours and students taking Lyft at night for a 5 minute ride to get to their parked car should suggest there is a transportation and parking safety concern.

5. Failure to Integrate Capabilities with Local Law Enforcement — An independent audit would address any concerns about integrating CSCS cameras into the ACCPD RTCC and could provide analysis as to whether an independent RTCC approach would be in the best interest of UGA safety and security. A complete assessment could also recommend solutions to improve emergency response times regardless of dispatch location.

6. Lack of transparency by UGA gives reasonable suspicion to efforts. An independent assessment would reassure the UGA community that security gaps are being identified and addressed. Compare UGA to Georgia Tech transparency by reviewing their website links below–they map emergency call boxes, even lighting. The 2019 article below describes their new building and technology with emphasis by their President and public safety team on significant transparency. GA Tech submits crime data to LexusNexis for mapping ON campus. This arms students with information to understand which areas on campus may be most vulnerable. While UGA tracks this data internally, mapping of crime locations is not public. Locations are only known to the public by building or street through their listing in the Daily Police Log.

UGA’s patchwork solutions as we have outlined here compared to Georgia Tech’s safety/security strategically layered infrastructure raises a critical question: How can two universities governed by the same Georgia Board of Regents have such vastly different safety/security implementations? Again, Georgia Tech has developed a robust safety infrastructure, including their 1,700 cameras, 555 emergency phones, free on-demand ride service all nights, a Fusus platform RTCC for Georgia Tech–the same system used by surrounding counties, campus lighting map, emergency phone map, even automated defibrillation equipment locations are mapped. Meanwhile despite recent safety announcements, UGA continues to fall short. As previously mentioned, lighting was to be addressed back in 2019, yet we still have lighting problems on campus today. Why? An independent third-party security assessment would give UGA a roadmap towards a lasting complete proactive security strategy, utilizing state-of-the-art technology with best practices. If our assessment of UGA enhancements seems harsh it is because UGA students deserve the best, certainly as strategically refined as Georgia Tech.

Sources:

8/2019: UGA invests in lighting

10/2021: UGA invests $8.5 million in safety

2/2025: New initiatives continue to enhance campus security at UGA

2/2024: UGA strengthens its ongoing commitment to public safety

Campus Safety Ambassador - University of Georgia

Who We Are | Georgia Tech Police Department

UGA Block by Block Proposal:

ACCGov Block by Block Presentation: blockbyblockslideshow

GA Tech map of emergency call boxes

GA Tech map of campus lighting

GA Tech map of automated external defibrillators