i

EXPLORING PARTICIPATORY METHODS AND SURVEYS THROUGH A

CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE IN LA MESA’S CHILD-FRIENDLY CITIES PROJECT

A Master’s Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of

San Diego State University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Geography

Phevee Paderes

Spring 2023
 ii

Copyright © 2023
by
Phevee Paderes
All Rights Reserved
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables v

List of Acronyms v

Abstract 1

Acknowledgements 2

Introduction 3

Chapter One: 7
The Convention on the Rights of a Child…………………………………...7
Safety and Well-being………………………………………………………10
UNICEF’s CFCi framework………………….…………………………….12
Critical perspective …………………………………………………………17
Chapter Two: 23
History of La Mesa, California……………………………………………...23
General Demographics of La Mesa……………………………....................25
La Mesa’s CFC Project (data prior to thesis research) ………….………….27
COVID-19 Pandemic………………………………………………….……29
BLM Movement ……………………………………………………………31
Data for Community Assessment……………..…………………………….32
Chapter Three: 34
Data Collection for Safety Club focus groups ……………………..………34
Data Analysis…………………………………………………….…………39
Coding Concepts and Themes……..……………………………….40
Displaying Qualitative Data……………..…………………………40
Limitations of Meetings……………………………………………………41
Methods for Community Police Oversight Board Surveys……….……….42
Limitations of Surveys……………………………………………………..43
Summary of Methods………………………………………………………44
Chapter Four: 45
 iv

Identity………………………………………………………………………45
Feeling Safe…………………………………………………………………46
Events and Reactions……………………………………………………….48
Public Spaces……………………………………………………………….53
Chapter Five: 58
Demographics of participants………………………………………………58
Overall Attitude Towards the LMPD……………………………………….59
Disaggregated data………………………………………………………….62
Identity’s role in LMPD interactions……………………………………….66
Chapter Six: 70
Creating a safe Space to increase young people’s participation……………72
Identities…………………………………………………………….72
Adults’ Reactions…………………………………………………...73
Relationship and Trust……………………………………………...73
Convenience………………………………………………………..74
Act of Refusal………………………………………………………74
“Centering in the Margins” ………………………………………………...75
Future Research and Policy Recommendations………………………….…78
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….79
References 81

Appendix 89
 v

LIST OF FIGURES

01. A concept map of my research questions and methods

02. Map of the Kumeyaay territory and location of study area
03. La Mesa’s population and young people’s population disaggregated by race
04. Community resource map for young people and their families created by SDSU graduate students
05. A concept graph edited by UNICEF researcher Pamela Wridt
06. La Mesa’s Police Department’s “beat” map that divides La Mesa into 4 categories.
07. This concept map demonstrates the purpose of each meeting and the desired outcome from our focus
group discussions.
08. PRM activity results.
09. Summarizes the type of environment and people that Safety Club members (SCMs) feel safe around.
10. Summarizes the relationship between the places, events, and reaction from adults that they have
experienced that made them feel unsafe.
11. Frequency for each statement showing the distribution of the different degrees of agreement.
12. The different distribution of means between age groups
13. Displays the mean distribution between race and ethnicity and by sex and gender identity.
14. Demonstrates the distribution of how participants responded to statement 5a regarding the implicit bias
in police officers based on their race and ethnicity.
15. Displays the distribution of agreements for statement 5b based on race and ethnicity
16. Summary of lessons learned and how it can contribute to future research.

LIST OF TABLES

01. CFCi’s framework in relation to the articles from the CRC and other goals of UNICEF
02. The County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency, Public Health Services, Community
Health Statistics Unit complied cumulative reports for the east region for each sub-regional areas.
03. The different ways members of the Safety Club described themselves
04. A list of issues and concerns organized into themes
05. Demographics from the CPOB survey participants
06. Statements with the average score from young people, adults, and all
07. A comparison of the average scores, minimum, and maximum scores
08. ANOVA test results showed statistical significance in Age (when disaggregated into 8 categories),
Race and/ or ethnicity, and Sex/gender.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BIPOC Black, Indigenous, Person of Color

BLM Black Lives Matter
CFC Child-Friendly City
CFCi Child-Friendly-Cities Initiative
CRC Convention on the Rights of a Child
CPOB Community Police Oversight Board
IBM International Business Machines Corporation
IRB Institutional Review Board
LGBTQIA+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/ or Questioning, Asexual/Agender, Plus
LMPD La Mesa Police Department
SDSU San Diego State University
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Fund
YESS Young People’s Environments, Society, and Space
 1

ABSTRACT

This research expands on La Mesa’s Child Friendly City (CFC) project. As a

community project, it utilizes UNICEF USA’s Child Friendly Cities initiative (CFCi)
framework reworked specifically for La Mesa, California. Previous research has shown a
lack of data in children’s participation in school and community involvement and disparities
in health and safety. My research project aims to explore the different ways young people
feel safe by asking the following questions: 1) How is safety defined and perceived by young
people? 2) What activities or projects would young people prioritize to improve their well-
being and feelings of safety? 3) What is the perception of young people regarding the La
Mesa Police Department (LMPD)? I take a critical perspective by incorporating
decolonization and critical race theories in my participatory methods and analysis. Analysis
from focus groups with students and Community Police Oversight Board (CPOB) surveys
have indicated that most students were more willing to participate in places which they were
familiar with and at a time that was convenient for them; negative reactions from adults and
authority figures during events and situations created feelings of guilt, shame and apathy. In
our participatory activities young people demonstrate how their experiences in La Mesa
provide important insight on how to improve safety on public transportation, and within
schools, and other public spaces. CPOB surveys respondents demonstrated an overall
positive attitude towards the LMPD but disaggregated data display disparities between race/
ethnicity and gender expression. Data from this research can be included in La Mesa’s CFC
research team’s situational analysis report and create platforms for young people to
participate in community projects and designs. Further research in young people’s perception
of safety should reach out to young people who are part of low-income households, part of
the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/ or Questioning, Asexual/Agender, Plus
(LGBTQIA+) community, Black, Indigenous, and/ or Person of Color (BIPOC), the migrant
community and young people living with a disability.
 2

ACKOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my adviser Amy Quandt for her patience and kindness
since the beginning of my graduate school journey. I contribute most of my motivation to
her. Even when I chose to switch research topics, she chose to continue being my adviser and
continued to guide me through graduate school.

I would also like to give thanks to my other adviser, Stuart Aitken. He gave me the
opportunity to work on this amazing community project, the La Mesa Child-Friendly Cities
project. For anyone, who might not know me, my happy place is when I am working with
people to create positive change at the local level. This opportunity allowed me to meet a
plethora of wonderful people in La Mesa, who shared the same passion as me.

With that said, words cannot express how thankful I am to the community members
of La Mesa and the students that participated in the project. My research thesis would not
exist without them. Thank you to Benjamin, Odette, Janet, Scott, Dani, Rhonda, Tammie,
Steve, and Mark.

I was fortunate to have wonderful interns. I would like to thank them for giving their
time and dedication to La Mesa’s CFC project. I would also like to express my gratitude to
the members of UNICEF USA’s CFCi Collaborative team who allowed La Mesa to utilize
their CFCi framework.

Finally, I would like to give special thanks to my mom and sister. I would not be here
today without their love, compassion, and sacrifice throughout my childhood and parts of my
adulthood. They are always there supporting and cheering me on. It is not easy immigrating
to another country but having a community of friends and family members can make places
feel less lonely and scary. This love that is created from working with community is what
fuels my passion. I feel privileged to be a part of multiple communities that continue to
support one another through the different circumstances we may encounter.
 3

INTRODUCTION

It may be argued that the image of a child has been socially constructed over time, by
different cultures and events. In the past, young people have been viewed as objects and
properties of parents, “not yets”, and incompetent to participate in decisions (Verhellen,
2015). Critical researchers have advocated to have children be considered as individuals with
their own human rights where “we, adults, only have to recognize that they are bearers of
rights and ensure that the necessary tools to enforce them are available to all” (Verhellen,
2015, p 46). Human geographers, such as Stuart Aitken and Pamela Wridt, have years of
experience working with young people and illustrating how events can impact young
people’s relationships, views, and how they live (Aitken, 2001; Aitken, 2009; Aitken, 2014;
Aitken, 2018; Aitken, 2021; Wridt, 2010; Wridt et al., 2015). Young people are active actors
in public spaces. As a human geographer, I approached this research project with a critical
perspective in hopes that the results from this project might “lead to action to reduce the
problems caused by oppression” (Rubin and Rubin, 2012, pg.21). Young people do not have
to wait until they are the age of 18 to participate in decisions that affect them if we can create
platforms and spaces for them to participate.

With the permission of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) USA’s Child-
Friendly Cities initiative (CFCi) collaborative team, the La Mesa’s Hope Alliance and San
Diego State University’s Young People’s Environments, Society and Space (YESS)
Research Center have been utilizing UNICEF’s CFCi framework to illustrate which areas of
the city we can improve on for young people and their families. La Mesa’s Hope Alliance
consists of community leaders that work in La Mesa and Spring Valley, such as La Mesa’s
mayor, chief of police, school principals, church pastors and non-profit directors. By using
the CFCi framework we found concerns and gaps in La Mesa’s infrastructure, such as lack of
children’s inclusion and participation in community and governmental projects and concerns
on safety in school and community. My research project attempts to address some of these
 4

issues by inviting young people to be a part of the research design and having their peers’
participation in activities to address their views on safety on how events such as the
pandemic lockdown and Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests have impacted them.

Spreading awareness and monitoring a city’s progress to be more inclusive to young

people has been the main driver of UNICEF’s CFCi. Although working with young people is
part of the CFCi process, some cities are struggling to find young participants. To increase
participation in research design and community projects, I reached out to students from
Safety Club. In 2021, students from a school in La Mesa created the Safety Club to provide a
safe space for their peers and raise awareness on child abuse. Two officers from the Safety
Club became part of La Mesa’s research team around November 2021 and assisted in the
method design of my research project. I also explored the methods of survey distribution by
La Mesa’s Community Police Oversight Board (CPOB); which was administered through
schools and so received a larger number of young participants compared to adults. In both
analyses, I attempt to highlight the different ways young people feel safe and how their
experiences can provide valuable input in community projects and urban planning.

As outlined in Figure 1, my main research question is: Do young people feel safe
around their community? The following sub questions were used (Figure 1):

1) How is safety defined and perceived by young people?

2) What activities or projects would young people prioritize to improve their well-
being and feelings of safety?

3) What is the perception of young people regarding the La Mesa Police Department?
 5

Main research question:

Do young people feel safe in their
community?

What issues or concerns Do they feel safe with the

Ask them what makes
would they prioritize in their LMPD? (sub question 3)
them feel safe and
school/ community
unsafe (sub question1)

Method: Focus Method: La Mesa’s

groups with Method: CPOB surveys
Safety Club Participatory risk from residents and
mapping with students
Safety Club

Figure 01. A concept map of my research questions and methods

Through a critical perspective, I explored how decolonizing methods and critical race
theory helped shape my interactions with young people. My research design included young
people and recognized intersectional identities within this group. I utilized focus groups to
explore sub-question 1 and I used ethnopoetics to demonstrate results from Safety Club’s
discussions (Bosco and Herman, 2009; Aitken, 2014; Bernard, 2018). Ethnopoetics is a
method used by researchers to capture oral traditions in writing (Stanlaw. 2006; Kataoka,
2012; Aitken 2014). I attempted to explore sub-question 2 through a method called
Participatory Risk Mapping (PRM). This is a method used by researchers where participants
list and rank their issues and concerns (Smith, 2000; Baird et al., 2009; Bunting et al.,
2013). This PRM activity provides a space for participants to share issues that may be
overlooked by researchers (Smith, 2000). La Mesa CPOB shared their surveys with me, and I
analyzed the results using International Business Machines Corporation’s (IBM) Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program to explore sub-question 3 (Bernard, 2018).
 6

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC) defines children as
people ages 0-18 years. Throughout my writing I use the term child and children when
referencing other scholars who used this term themselves. I personally use the term young
people to identify people who are 18 years and younger to showcase that they are more than
just passive children but active agents in shaping society.

The concept of safety is reflected in the CRC where they use the term ‘protection’ as
a right to live in an environment that is safe and away from harm (Verhellen, 2015). I also
utilize the term safety to describe how young people feel protected by individuals and to
describe physical spaces that create a safe environment for them. Young people went into
depth defining safety as a feeling they get when they have the freedom to be themselves
around individuals they trust.

The first two chapters of my thesis cover the background around child rights and the
policies and projects from the international and local levels that have expanded its awareness.
Chapter One summarizes the CRC and how UNICEF’s CFCi counters the universal ideals of
the CRC to focus on the subjective and uniqueness of the well-being of young people in
different cities. I used the critical perspective to highlight the power relations involved when
working with young people. Chapter Two provides background information of the study area
and the community’s involvement in the CFC project. Chapter Three reviews the methods
used in data collection and analyses. Chapter Four explores how young people define safety
and what elements, events, type of people made them feel safe or unsafe. Young people
recalled their experiences and discussed their priorities and concerns in their school campus
and public spaces. Chapter Five elaborates on the survey results conducted by La Mesa’s
CPOB. In the last chapter, I discuss and analyze the results from the focus groups and CPOB
surveys and suggest some future recommendations.
 7

CHAPTER ONE

Literature Review

This chapter gives an overview of young people’s well-being, safety, and child rights
at the international, national, and local level. I highlight a critical perspective of child rights
and how UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Cities initiative’s (CFCi) framework provides a space at
the local level to incorporate decolonizing methods and critical race theories into research
designs. I explore the power dynamics between researchers and participants and adults and
young people. I provide examples of how centering young people’s experiences can provide
insight and that can be beneficial to research and community projects.

The contents from the United Nations CRC simplifies child rights under the 3 P’s:
provision, protection, and participation where all three are interrelated (Verhellen, 2015). For
example, creating a space for young people to participate and share their experiences can
assist researchers, urban planners, and resource aid organizations to create safer public spaces
for young people and provide insight on different types of provisions young people and their
families have access to. Critiques of the CRC’s universalism and colonial underpinnings
have allowed critical researchers to create frameworks that are more contextual to the
cultural and geographical spaces.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC)

On November 20, 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC). Its 54 articles are broken down into three parts:
1) the rights guaranteed by the CRC, 2) monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the
CRC, 3) the formal provisions (Verhellen, 2015). The CRC highlights the importance of
children’s access to provisions (ex. Health care services and standards of living), protection
against violence, and participation (ex. to express one’s opinion on decisions that affect
them). This is also known as the 3 P’s (provision, protection, and participation). Protection is
often related to the idea of safety. However, there are still grey areas in how to protect
 8

children from dangerous situations while also still having systems in place that discipline
them if needed.

Save the Children released a report with a compilation of stories on how the United
Nations CRC improved the lives of young people in Togo, Afghanistan, Latin America,
Vietnam, Sudan, Moldova, Bangladesh, Thailand, Yemen, Sweden, and Zambia (Bhandari,
2009). In Thailand, young people that went attended tsunami-affected school learned how to
create risk and resources maps to help prepare and keep themselves safe during a tsunami.

Just because countries have signed and ratified the CRC, it does not necessarily
guarantee that a country will be successful at achieving child rights. For example, UCLA
Fielding School of Public Health compiled a report that included all the countries that ratified
the CRC and their progress. They found that about 50% of them continue to have young
people work in hazardous conditions, about 24% still charge tuition for early education, 49%
allow child marriage only with parental consent, and only 19% have specific laws that
protect young people with disabilities (WORLD Policy Analysis Center, 2014).

In comparison, the United States has signed the CRC but the senate has not ratified it.
There is no clear reason to why the United States has not ratified the CRC but there have
been some organizations that have openly opposed and campaigned against the ratification of
the CRC. The ParentalRights.org and the Parental Rights Foundation believes the CRC could
threaten parental rights and fears “children could choose their own religion, that children
would have a legally enforceable right to leisure, that nations would have to spend more on
children’s welfare than national defense, and that a child’s right to be heard could trigger a
governmental review of any decision a parent made that a child didn’t like” (Attiah, 2014,
para. 9). They believe that decisions on a child’s upbringing should only be made by parents
and that Americans should be governed by state laws not by international law.

When it comes to protecting young people, the United States has made some
progress. To protect young people with disabilities, the United States has passed Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act (1973); Americans with Disabilities Act (1990); Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (2004). To protect young people from bullying each state has
either passed a law, a policy or both to prevent and respond to bullying incidents. In
 9

California, Education Code section 48900 defines bullying and cyber bullying to protect
students from harm in the school environment. However, like many other countries, even
though there have been federal and state laws to protect young people there is still room for
improvement. For example, those who have given birth are allowed to have 12 weeks unpaid
leave without getting fired. Although they are safe from getting fired, parents and caretakers
in lower income households may struggle financially during their leave. America can
improve the lives of families and young people by having guaranteed paid leave for parents
and caretakers of newborns.

In a comparative analysis UNICEF scored each “wealthy” country based on material

well-being, health and safety, education, behaviors and risks, and housing and environment.
America was ranked 26 out of 29 countries in children’s well-being (UNICEF Office of
Research, 2013). According to Human Rights Watch (2022), 43 states still allow child
marriage, only 2 states prohibit corporal punishment in schools, and 25 states can still
sentence a young person to life in prison without parole. Even though African Americans are
only 14% of the youth population in the United States, they are disproportionately arrested
and convicted, making up sixty-two percent of juveniles that are sentenced to life without
parole (Human Rights Watch, 2022). Clearly, the United States has the opportunity to
improve the well-being of young people.

In What Happened to You? Conversations on Trauma Resilience and Healing

Analysis, Dr. Bruce Perry, a trauma expert, and Oprah Winfrey discussed how young
people’s experience in childhood impacts our outlook on life (2021). Winfrey frames the
question “did you get what you needed to thrive?” Perry replies with “Love, given and felt, is
dependent upon the ability to be present, attentive, attuned, and responsive to another human
being. This glue of humanity has been essential to the survival of our species—and to the
health and happiness of the individual. And this ability is based upon what happened to you,
primarily as a young child” (Perry and Winfrey, 2021). Their conversation is rooted in
understanding people by reflecting on how they were treated as children. If a child is
neglected by their parents because they had to work multiple jobs and that parent is unable to
be there emotionally for them it can impact their mental, physical, and social health
(Ferguson, 2011; Huppert and So, 2011; Coburn and Gormally, 2018; Perry and Winfrey,
 10

2021; Cavazzoni et al, 2023). This is one of the reasons why many experts utilize young
people’s well-being as an indicator of the overall well-beings in a community (UNICEF
Office of Research, 2013; UNICEF, 2018; Cavazzoni et al, 2023).

The CRC is seen as a universal document that laid out the fundamental rights of
young people to have protection, access to provisions and participation in decisions that
affect them. Even though it is known to be “the most widely ratified human rights treaty in
the world” (Congressional Research Service, 2015), the framework does not guarantee that
the young people living in countries that ratified the CRC would have all their rights met.
This doesn’t mean America shouldn’t ratify the CRC but recognizing the components of it
would be a step in a direction that can create a safer environment for young people.

Some of the major critiques of the UNs’ CRC is the colonial underpinnings and the
policy’s attempt to be a solution for all. The CRC was developed and written by the global
north and may fail to consider the difficulties other countries and cities may encounter. Since
each country, state and local municipality has unique communities with different experiences
it is difficult to create a solution for all. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
attempts to remedy this by designing the Child-Friendly Cities initiative (CFCi) framework.

Well-being and Safety

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s website “well-being
can be described as judging life positively and feeling good” (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2018, para. 1). Researchers utilizing the concept of well-being explore
individuals and groups based on the physical and mental health, their economic status, and
their social interactions (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018; Huppert and So,
2011). Different experts in various fields have expanded and used well-being as a conceptual
framework and indicator of progress (Huppert and So, 2011; Ferguson, 2011; Armitge et al.,
2012; UNICEF Office of Research, 2013; Coburn and Gormally, 2018; UNICEF, 2018;
Carazzoni et al, 2023).

Additionally, Armitage et al. (2012) utilizes a social-ecological resilience perspective

and advises researchers to explore the material (income, wealth, assets, or physical health,
and ecosystem services from the physical environment), relational (social interactions,
 11

collective actions and relationships), and subjective (cultural values, norms, belief systems,
self-esteem, fears, hopes, and levels of satisfaction of life) dimensions of social well-being.
Resilience studies have also advocated for measuring and exploring the concepts of well-
being to enable “us to engage directly with power relations, differentiated access to
resources, and issues of inequality that might otherwise be lost in resilience approaches”
(Tanner et al., 2015, pg. 2). Coburn and Gormally (2018) explore well-being under a
transformative paradigm, which centers the lived experiences of traditionally marginalized
groups. Cavazzoni et al. (2023) argue that a child’s well-being and health is dependent upon
the child’s “gender, cognitive competencies, age, family, neighborhood, society and culture”
(pg. 3). Given that individuals’ lives are complex, measuring and choosing indicators will
depend on the type of framework the researcher chooses.

Having a high level of well-being is associated with positive emotions, feeling safe
and secure, and having supportive relationships with others (Coburn and Gormally, 2018;
Ferguson, 2011; Huppert and So, 2011; Armitge et al., 2012; Cavazzoni et al, 2023).
Individuals who demonstrated high levels of well-being also had “a range of positive
outcomes including effective learning, productivity and creativity, good relationships, pro-
social behavior, and good health” (Huppert and So, 2011, pg. 838).

In terms of well-being, feeling safe and secure are important elements to consider.
Plunkett and Plunkett (2022) define safety as the absence from harm. The CRC uses the term
protection from harm (people and hazardous environments) in their major 3 P’s (Verhellen,
2015). Thus, in this study I utilize safety as a major indicator of the well-being of young
people.

Moore and McArthur (2017) emphasized how certain strategies to mitigate risks for
children and young people come from the adults’ perspective and might not fully capture
what children and young people need to feel safe. Understanding how children and young
people define safety can help adults respond to safety concerns and create effective programs
and spaces to improve their well-being. Young people interviewed by Moore and McArthur
(2017) defined safety as “the absence of unsafe people, things, and experiences” (pg. 209)
and used the term “protection” and “security.” Their perception of safety related to how they
felt in certain surroundings. In children’s ‘risk landscapes’ literature, Christensen and
 12

Mikkelsen (2008) highlight the how parental concerns for children’s health and safety have
created the desire to overprotect and limit the experiences of young people as a form of
protection. This form of protection then results in adults controlling and limiting young
people’s participation in public life (Harden, 2000). Christensen and Mikkelsen (2008) argue
that everyday encounters with risk are important for their development in decision making
and becoming an active participant in society. Van der Burgt, (2015) demonstrates how
young people are active actors in risk management, as they negotiate everyday risk that can
affect them and their peers. For example, high school students from Australia believed they
were capable of looking after themselves and weighing the risks without the help of an adult.

In some cases, feeling safe and being safe is a privilege. Marginalized groups who
have experienced police brutality or discrimination firsthand may have a harder time feeling
safe. Cavazzoni et al. (2023) found that high levels of “political violence experienced during
childhood development leads to the emergence of a wide range of negative outcomes in
terms of mental health (psychological stress, behavioral problems, post-traumatic stress
syndrome)” (pg. 2). These conditions are often exacerbated if the young person is also
experiencing financial hardships, unsafe living spaces, marginalization, and stress from
parents/ caretakers (Cavazzoni et al. 2023). Exposure to violence can create a distrust in
government or social institutions that then prevents young people and families from
accepting resources, support and protection (Cavazzoni et al. 2023).

In the context of BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, unhoused individuals and migrant

communities in America, some groups have developed a distrust in police departments and
school faculty workers due to the discrimination and violence from the past and present
news. In San Diego, surveys given to unhoused participants demonstrated “high rates of
police contact, but also frequent lack of respect, overt racism, sexism, and homophobia; and
failure to offer basic services during these encounters” (Carroll et al., 2022, pg. 2). Whose
well-being is being measured and who are experiencing unsafe interactions in public spaces
should also be considered in well-being frameworks.

UNICEF CFCI

To assist cities in acknowledging the rights of a child UNICEF launched their Child-
Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCi) in 1996 (UNICEF, 2018). The CFCi framework has helped
 13

practitioners, policy makers, and child rights advocates by creating toolkits and guides to
improve the city through the inclusion of young people. Unlike the CRC, which is seen as a
universal solution, the CFCi, focuses on contextual data and local solutions.

The CFCi’s overall goals are to expand safety and inclusion (children’s protection
and children’s social participation), children’s participation (children’s civic participation and
quality of children’s participation), equitable social services (equitable access to essential
services and quality of essential services), safe living environment (children’s right to
housing and children’s right to healthy environments), and play and leisure (play and leisure
opportunities and young people’s independent mobility). These goals are linked to the CRC,
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), and UNICEF’s global goals for children (see
Table 1).
 14

Table 1 CFCi’s framework in relation to the articles from the CRC and other goals of UNICEF (UNICEF, 2018).

CFCI CRC SDG UNICEF’s Global

Goals

Goal 1: Safety and Inclusion Article 2: The right to non-discrimination Goal 5: Achieve gender equality Every child is protected
Every child and young person is valued, Article 23: The rights of children with and empower all women and girls from violence and
respected and treated fairly within their disabilities Goal 10: Reduce inequality exploitation
communities and by local authorities Article 30: The right to belong to ethnic, within and among countries
religious, or linguistic minority groups Goal 11: Make cities inclusive,
Article: 19, 34, 40: Protection against safe, resilient and sustainable
maltreatment, abuse and sexual violations

Goal 2: Children’s Participation Article 13, 17,42: The right to information Goal 16: Promote just, peaceful Every child has an
Every child and young person has their voice, Article 12, 14, 15: The right to be heard, and inclusive societies equitable chance in life
needs and priorities heard and taken into freedom of expression and association
account in public laws, policies, budgets,
programmes and decisions that affect them

Goal 3: Equitable Social Services Article 24, 25: The right to health care Goal 1: End poverty in al its form Every child survives and
Every child and young person has access to services Goal 2: End hunger thrives
quality essential social services Article 27: The right to a standard of Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and
living adequate for the child’s development promote wellbeing for all Every child learns
Article 28, 29, 30: The right to education Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and
quality education for all

Goal 4: Safe Living Environments Article 3, 4, 6, 27, 29: Goal 6: Ensure availability of Every child lives in a
Every child and young person lives in a safe, Children’s right to housing and to safety water and sanitation safe and clean
secure and clean environment from pollution and hazards Goal 11: Make cities inclusive, environment
safe, resilient and sustainable

Goal 5: Play and Leisure Article 5, 27, 36: The right to family life Goal 3: Ensure healthier lives and Every child survives and
Every child and young person has opportunities Article 15, 23, 31: The right to play and promote wellbeing for all thrives
to enjoy family life, play and leisure leisure
 15

The CFCi framework suggests collaborating with local governments, young people,
researchers, and local stakeholders who work with young people and families (UNICEF,
2018). Prior to the 2020 global pandemic, there were no cities in the Untied States that were
part of UNICEF’s CFCi. In 2019, UNICEF USA invited La Mesa and other cities to a
conference in Jacksonville, Florida. After several meetings 5 cities became pilot cities and
the rest of the cities became pipeline cities. All pipeline and pilot cities became part of
UNICEF USA’s collaborative team to provide support to cities and feedback on ways to
improve the CFCi process. La Mesa is currently a pipeline city.

The CFCi guide outlines a step-by-step process for pipeline and pilot cities to follow
in order to be recognized as a Child-Friendly City by UNICEF. The initial step starts with the
signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a contract or legal agreement between
parties. This is followed by conducting a situational analysis (comprised of measurable data
to compare over a period of time) and creating an action plan from the situational analysis
results. If a city has not signed a MOU with UNICEF USA, they are considered a pipeline
city. They have permission to utilize the CFCi framework and toolkits. However, legally they
are prohibited from saying they are a CFCi city and should not be using the acronyms
“CFCi” in any documents or say they are representing UNICEF. If a city has signed an MOU
with UNICEF USA, they are considered a pilot city and have permission to use the acronyms
CFCi in their documents and consent forms.

The situational analysis serves as a baseline to gauge the well-being of the city or
municipality’s families and young people. This analysis is made up of two components: the
government assessment and the community assessment.

The governmental assessment identifies which data are easily accessible to the public
and reveals areas that the local government could improve on. The CFCi framework gives
practitioners options for what type of data they can use as indicators for each of the goal
areas. For example, if the research team was looking at goal area one (Safety and Inclusion),
they can attempt to evaluate juvenile justice by looking at the admission of juvenile detention
(disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity). If the research team wanted to evaluate
children’s inclusion, the toolkit suggests they look at the number and types of services
 16

funded by the local government for children with disabilities, developmental delays or
learning difficulties; the number of local stakeholder and children participating in programs
on combating discrimination/ social exclusion; and number of programs/ campaigns on
combating discrimination/ social exclusion. Not every city will have all of these data
accessible to the public so the toolkit gives a variety of options. Cities can also choose their
own indicators to monitor.

The second part of the situational analysis requires a community assessment.

UNICEF USA encourages project managers to capture the experiences of children, young
people, and their families in their communities. They provide practitioners with a variety of
different approaches to collect this data depending on the target group. If the target group are
ages 0-5, practitioners can reach out to organizations and programs that work with parents
and caretakers of newborns. If the target group is young people ages 5-17 years, practitioners
are encouraged to work with schools and programs that interact with the target group. The
toolkit provides Likert-scale surveys that can be used and modified, as well as other
participatory activities to work with specific target communities.

Once a city has compiled their results and analyzed their data they present an action
plan to the city and UNICEF. They state their baseline findings and areas they will be
improving on. After four years, they reassess the city again to determine if they reached their
stated goals from the action plan. UNICEF then determines and recognizes them as a Child-
Friendly City.

Cities and municipalities who are part of the CFCi have created outlets for young
people to participate in planning and decision-making. As a result, they have seen
improvements in their city. In Israel, young people were involved in the re-development of
their outdoor play areas, which improved the accessibility of outdoor spaces for young
people with disabilities in the city (UNICEF, 2022). Houston, Texas, one of the pilot cities
for the CFCi, became the first city in America to be recognized by UNICEF as a child
friendly city in August 2022. By signing on to the initiative, the city provided resources to
ensure the success of the program. Their findings indicated a need for “mental health
trainings, where over 460 service providers, educators, community members and parents
 17

were trained in Youth Mental Health Aid and the impact of trauma and adverse childhood
experiences” (City of Houston, 2022).

This initiative provides cities, like La Mesa, San Francisco, and Houston, with
resources on child’s rights instead of waiting for America to ratify the CRC. It allows
different municipalities and cities to explore their own communities and uniqueness,
highlighting which areas they can improve on. I argue that in addition to the CFCi protocols,
decolonizing and critical race theories can help improve researchers’ and practitioners’
project designs by considering who is participating and who is being represented in surveys
and projects. Being a young person is just one identity. Their family’s financial situation, and
how they are perceived in society will also affect their experience and level of well-being in
their community.

Critical perspective

The critical paradigm focuses on the inequalities that exist in society by examining
the relationships of those in power (LeCompte et al., 2010). In this section, I highlight
examples of the power dynamics between young people and adults, as well as participants
and researchers. The purpose of this section is to identify the lens as to the decisions made
while designing the research project and analyzing the data. Rubin and Rubin (2012) argue
the critical perspective is subjective, action-based, and the purpose “should be discovery and
remediation of society problems” (pg. 20). I highlight examples of how decolonizing
methods and critical race theories from BIPOC activist and scholars are important in creating
inclusive spaces for young people.

There is a clear power dynamic between adults and young people. Most decisions are
made by adults, parents, and caretakers of young people. This is done with the intention of
keeping young people safe. In the space of research, institutional structures, like the
Institutional Review Board (IRB), have strict guidelines to protect young people from
physical and emotional harm. There must be consent from the parents, as well, for young
people to participate. However, this can prevent young people from participating in research
or community projects (Skelton, 2008; Archard & Skivenes, 2009). Skelton (2008) criticizes
ethical institutions, like the IRB, for being “adult-focused,” colonial and not incorporating
 18

CRC articles that give young people the right to be a part of decision-making processes. The
choice and power of participation is given to adults, who might choose to have their child opt
out even if the child themselves would want to.

Archard and Skivenes (2009) investigate the power dynamics between social workers
and the children they work with. Although, social workers are equipped with the tools to
interact with young people, Archard and Skivenes (2009) urge adults that work with young
people to hear them not only for the purpose of “securing information or evidence that
facilitates the making of a decision,” but to also see them as people “having a basic
entitlement to express a view and to be involved, as the source of a view about their own
interests, in the decision-making process” (pg. 398). This is like other critical researchers
who view young people as active actors and believe that young people should be part of the
design processes (Reynaert et al. 2015, Aitken, 2018). Including young people in the
beginning of the project and/ or research design can assist in creating surveys or questions
that are tailored to their understanding of the world (Fine et al., 2018).

The power relations between researchers and participants of a research project have
also been critiqued by various scholars when what is prioritized in a community are chosen
by those that hold the most power, leaving marginalized groups a space where they are
forced to move or adapt to the change that are enacted upon them (Garmany and Richmond,
2020; Barbosa and Coates, 2021, Walley, 2004). In some cases, results from government
research were turned into policies that have displaced marginalized groups to give more
space for the privileged (Smith, 2012; Garmany and Richmond, 2020; Barbosa and Coates,
2021).

Surveys have been a helpful tool in research, but they are created with assumptions,
usually by an outsider who might hold a different definition or understanding of words. I use
the term “outsiders” to describe how researchers working for a university, a non-profit
organization, or governmental institution gathering data might be seen from the perspective
of someone living in the study area. In certain cases, researchers were there to collect data,
analyze, interpret, and create solutions based on their own research questions. But who are
these solutions benefiting and who is being left out? Who is choosing the indicators and
categories? There is power in who is defining the research objectives, questions, categories,
 19

and interpretation of the data. Those who check boxes on surveys can sometimes be left
feeling unseen and powerless. Sometimes the categories we use to identify participants do
not always align with how they view themselves (Aitken, 2001; Fine et al., 2018).
Categorizing and generalizing results of surveys can also be harmful to communities if the
purpose of the research is to benefit those in power.

Thomas (2022) warns that “ignoring the existence of systemic inequality and
privilege only leads to denial, which allows unjust systems to flourish” (pg. 80). We can
learn from past mistakes by recognizing how research can be harmful to marginalized groups
and adjusting our designs to be more inclusive. In order, to create a space of inclusion, we
need to start asking how can we, activist researchers, create a space for them to actively
participate if they have been ignored and exploited in the past? Do they feel safe? Do they
have the resources and time? What is their reason for not participating? Exploring ways to
decolonize our thoughts and actions and exploring the importance of intersectionality and
critical race theory can help us better understand the needs of marginalized groups.

The term decolonize has been utilized by scholars who reflect on how the space they
are researching has been affected by colonization (Mosse, 2005; Aitken, 2009; Smith, 2012;
Simpson, 2014; Mirchandani et al., 2018; Parrenas, 2018; Bejarano et al., 2019; Harjant Gill,
2020). In Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2012), Linda
Tuhiwai Smith attempts to share the stories and experiences of the indigenous communities
and their interactions with researchers. From these perspectives, she highlights how the
colonization of space and knowledge has affected their experiences and created injustices.
The power to define, interpret and utilize the data from research are usually in the hands of
the researchers who come from western institutions. Smith (2012) suggest centering
indigenous perspectives in community research projects instead of utilizing frameworks
where the objective is to recreate a community in the image of the Western culture.

Decolonizing work is also “intertwined with struggles against racism, poverty, police
violence, war and occupation, violence against women and environmental justice” (Walia,
2012, para. 3). The concept of centering indigenous knowledge in research frameworks is
similar to critical race theory’s “centering in the margins” (Ford and Airhihenbuwa, 2010, pg.
1391). Sometimes researchers and data analysts will focus on the mainstream survey results
 20

and sometimes ignore the outliers. Ford and Airhihenbuwa argues to also analyze the
margins of the mainstream and identify who is having a different experience than the main
group? This process focuses on the problems and barriers marginalized groups experience to
reduce the possibility of perspective imbalances (Ford and Airhihenbuwa, 2010). Anti-racist,
abolitionist, and feminist scholars and activists center the stories and experiences of
marginalized groups to present ways to remove social and health barriers and create equitable
spaces (Ford and Airhihenbuwa, 2010; Gonzalez-Sobrino and Goss, 2018; Kendi, 2018;
Thomas, 2022; Davis et al., 2022). Decolonizing methods can also help recognize the harm
and lack of representation of previous research methods conducted and move towards
creating a space where people feel included and safe. Fine et al. (2018) highlighted one of
their participant’s views on representation:

Junot Diaz: You know how vampires have no reflections in the mirror? If you want
to make a human being a monster, deny them, at the cultural level, any reflection of
themselves. [G]rowing up, I felt like a monster in some ways. I didn’t see myself
reflected at all. I was like, ‘Yo, is something wrong with me?’ That the whole society
seems to think that people like me don’t exist? And part of what inspired me was the
deep desire, that before I died, I would make a couple of mirrors. That I would make
some mirrors, so that kids like me might see themselves reflected back and might not
feel so monstrous for it (p14).
Diaz’s words demonstrate the importance of the impact society has on representation.
This representation can create a feeling of acceptance to people who might not feel like they
belong. When it comes to participating, marginalized groups probably don’t want to be the
only person there that identifies differently. It can make someone feel unsafe or
uncomfortable to share their experiences.

The term intersectionality was coined by Kimerle Williams Crenshaw in 1989 and is
defined as “the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of
discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect
especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups” (Thomas, 2022, pg. 26).
When exploring the experiences of young people, we must also consider the other identities
(i.e., race, gender, income, sexuality, immigration status) that contribute to their experiences
in society. One of the critiques of the CRC is the universal idea of “the child” and lacks
 21

representation of the different ways a young person is perceived and treated in different
geographical contexts due to their intersectional identities.

When young people participate in research, the power relation and imbalance can feel
multiplied by their intersectional identities. Traditionally, adults have designed the research,
adults decide whether a young person can participate, and adults interpret the results.
Researchers who have worked with young people remedy this power imbalance by including
them in the design processes of research and presentations (Fine et al., 2018; Kennelley
2018; Tuck and Del Vecchio, 2018; Mirchandani et al., 2018; Pendersen et al., 2020).

Penderson et al. (2020) worked with Inuit youth in incorporating Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (indigenous knowledge, customs and values in Nunavut) in research
designs. They provided recommendations for future researchers on how to approach and
work with indigenous communities before, during and after the research project. Fine et al.
(2018) and Goldstein et al. (2018) designed surveys and performances to present research
findings with young people and parents that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer,
plus and gender nonconforming (LGBTQ+ & GNC). When you give the power to
individuals to self-identify it can be messy, and result in more categories than intended (Fine
at al., 2018). However, it also allows individuals to feel accepted and gives researchers new
terms of how individuals identify instead of creating terms that others might find offensive.

Who are we representing and how are we representing participants are important
questions for researchers to reflect on. Art and media have been useful to many social science
researchers to demonstrate the experiences of marginalized groups (Aitken and Wingate,
1993). Tuck and Del Vecchio (2018) worked with the migrant youth in photo-making
activities that gave them the power to mark-up and “assert ownership” to their own photos.
Tuck and Del Vecchio (2018) also incorporate Audra Simpson’s (2014) concept of “refusal”
in their methods. This meant accepting that participants do not have to share everything.
They can share with only what they are comfortable with. The concept of refusal also
expands to move towards a “collective agency” instead of just one view of the expert’s voice
(Tuck and Del Vecchio, 2018). Similar to trans and queer youth, the idea of being seen can
have negative outcomes. Tuck and Del Vecchio (2018) advise presenting within their own
communities to avoid external gaze and fear. This allows for vulnerable groups to share their
 22

stories and experiences in a safe space and hold conversations of solutions. These stories can
then be presented collectively so as to not target an individual. Goldstein et al. (2018) utilizes
their interviews with LGBTQ+ and BIPOC families to create performances for the public.
These performances integrate the stories and struggles experienced by families while also
keeping them anonymous.

UNICEF’s CFCi framework creates a space for researchers and practitioners to utilize
concepts from decolonizing methods and critical race theory. In my research, I explore the
dynamics between young people and the adults they have encountered in their day-to-day
experiences and events that they brought up during and post the pandemic lockdown. I also
reflect on the intersectionality of young people since experiences vary depending on how the
young person identifies or is identified by society.
 23

CHAPTER TWO

Study Area: History, Demographics, and CFC project

In this chapter, I highlight historical events that have led to the creation of the city of
La Mesa and the demographics of the people living in the community. As a pipeline city, La
Mesa has continued to utilize UNICEF’s CFCi framework to analyze the well-being of
young people and their families in their community. For legal purposes, I have labeled it La
Mesa’s Child-Friendly Cities (CFC) project and not a UNICEF CFCi project. After
compiling data for the government assessment, our next step was to find ways to include
young people for the community assessment. Part of the main goal of the community
assessment is to get young people involved and capture their lived experiences in their
community.

Data compiled from La Mesa’s CFC government assessment demonstrated positive

improvements in the lives of young people over the years. However, there were gaps in data
for participation and concerns regarding safety. There was little data on young people with
disabilities and lack of provisions for families living under the poverty level. There were also
concerns for young people’s safety in regard to their mental health and experience with being
bullied. Global events, such as the BLM movement and the COVID-19 pandemic, also raised
concerns for young people’s safety.

History of La Mesa, California

La Mesa is a city in San Diego County and located on Kumeyaay land (see Figure 2).
Before the Spanish colonization and urbanization of the area, the Kumeyaay clans occupied
the land for thousands of years (Gamble and Zepeda, 2002). They had their own governing
system, ways of obtaining food, ways of trading resources, values and traditions that allowed
them and their environment to thrive for years. In 1769, Spanish missionaries, built missions
 24

and attempted to impose “the Spanish colonial policy of reducción in which California
Indians were taken into missions in order to teach them Catholicism, European-style
agriculture, leatherwork, and textile production” (Gamble and Zepeda, 2002, pg.73).
Attempts were made to convert the Kumeyaay to Catholicism and were forced into labor.
Some tried to resist the Spanish through violence or fleeing east. To this day, the history of
violence committed to the Kumeyaay is often left out of modern history. In La Mesa’s
historical website, the earliest event mentioned is the Spanish colonization followed by the
war with Mexico and then the purchase of land for agriculture (La Mesa History Center,
2022). Although, there is no evidence of the Kumeyaay settlements in La Mesa, I believe it is
still important to acknowledge their history, territory, and present existence.

Figure 2 Map of the Kumeyaay territory and location of study area created on
ArcGIS by Camille Cuyugan. This map concept was influenced by Gamble and
Zepeda (2002) and Native Land Digital (2023).
New buyers of the land arrived with the completion of San Diego’s railroad in 1885
(La Mesa History Center, 2022). The land was transformed into streets with shops and acres
of citrus farms. In 1912, La Mesa Springs became the City of La Mesa and housed 700
 25

community members. By 1940, the population increased to 3, 925 followed by the

construction of new schools to accommodate the growing population (City of La Mesa, 2021;
La Mesa History Center, 2022). Today, La Mesa continues to attract more residents and
businesses around San Diego.

General Demographics of La Mesa

There are approximately 61,121 people currently living in La Mesa with about 27%
of households having one or more people under 18 years (US Census Bureau, 2021). Figure
3 reveals the disaggregated data of La Mesa’s population. Young people make up about 21%
of La Mesa’s population. About 4.2% of young people in La Mesa have a disability. The
medium income is about $90,000 for households that have young people. About 13.8% of
those households that have young people are living below the poverty level. Poverty levels
are measured and determined by the total family income of a household and compared to
their poverty threshold. If the household’s income is greater than the threshold, they are
considered to be above the poverty level (US Census Bureau, 2023). In a married-couple
household with young people 5.6% of La Mesans live below the poverty level. In a single-
family household where the head of the household is male it is doubled to 13.4% that are
living in poverty. In a single-family household with the head of the household is female,
about 36.5% have an income level below poverty (US Census Bureau, 2021). About 19.3 %
of La Mesan family households had assistance from Supplementary Security Income (SSI),
cash public assistance income, or Food Stamps/ SNAP benefits. When comparing the
different types of households in La Mesa: 13.8% of married couples were on public
assistance, 40.2% of single male households and 27.4% of single female households were on
public assistance (US Census Bureau, 2021).
 26

POPULATION OF LA MESA
66.2
51.3

44.3

29.8
25.8

13.4
7.7

6.9
5.9

7
0.5
0.4

0.4
0
WHITE BLACK OR AMERICAN ASIAN NATIVE HISPANIC OR TWO OR
AFRICAN INDIAN AND HAWAIIAN LATINO MORE RACES
AMERICAN ALASKA AND OTHER
NATIVE PACIFIC
ISLANDER

La Mesa's total population La Mesa's young people population

Figure 3 La Mesa’s population disaggregated by race. The data is also separated by

the race of the total population in La Mesa and the race of just young people living in
La Mesa. Young People is defined as people under the age of 18. Source: US Census
Bureau (2021).
La Mesa has about 8,550 young people in the age range of 3 to 17 that are enrolled in
school; of which 83.7% are enrolled in public school and 16.3% are enrolled in private
school (US Census Bureau, 2021). There is a total of 7 elementary schools, 2 middle schools,
and 2 high schools located in La Mesa. The city manages about 15 public parks and
organizes events for young people and families to enjoy every year. These events include
movies in the park, summer concerts, environmental awareness events, and safety fairs
(example: bike safety).

Some of La Mesa’s “Ongoing initiatives include a policy prohibiting smoking and

tobacco use in parks, a Sidewalk Master Plan, a Park Master Plan and the recently approved
Health and Wellness Element of the General Plan” (City of La Mesa, 2021). La Mesa is
currently participating in Live Well San Diego, an initiative that is focused on creating
healthy and safe communities for all ages. Although these initiatives share similar goals with
CFCi, there is no space in these policies for young people to share their perspectives.

La Mesa’s Child-Friendly Cities project (data prior to thesis research)

 27

In 2020, the research team used prior data from a community resource map (Figure 4)
that was created by San Diego State University’s graduate students from the Department of
Geography. They worked with San Diego 211 workers and La Mesa’s Hope Alliance to map
out all the different resources for young people in La Mesa and Spring Valley. Our CFC
research team used this resource map to network and compile further data for the government
assessment. The government assessment, which provided preliminary data on young people
and their families, identified areas needing improvement regarding young people’s
participation. The data also displayed disparities in young people that identified as a BIPOC
and/ or identified as a LGBTQIA+. The statistics in the following paragraphs are from the
government assessments.

Figure 4 Community resource map for young people and their families created by
SDSU graduate students. Source:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=b3db3fc321534bfc933
a440660f26199&extent=-117.2962,32.5805,-116.4873,32.9247

When the research team searched for data on young people’s participation in
community projects and decision-making processes, we found that La Mesa had a Youth
Advisory Committee with students that serve as advisors to the city council and provide input
on community projects, programs, and issues involving young people in their community.
However, this was the only form of participation we could find and only represented a small
group of individuals that were interested in policy. We had lists of some clubs from high
 28

school websites, but it was difficult to gather the types of involvement or types of
participation young people were involved in. Since members of the Youth Advisory
Committee are appointed by the mayor, there is no data on whether those members will bring
concerns experienced by students who come from a low-income household, have a disability,
a BIPOC, 28iffer28ntt, a LGBTQIA+, or youth experiencing homelessness.

Another disparity that was highlighted in the government assessment was mental
health concerns. Surveys from Grossmont Union High School District demonstrated that
female students were twice as likely to feel depressed and students who identified as part of
the LGBTQ+ Community had 3 times a higher rate of suicide ideation than those that
identified as straight (kidsdata.org, 2020). According to surveys from kidsdata.org, 34.9% of
young people who identified as Asian American reported being bullied at school, while 27.6
% White/ Caucasian students, 27.8% African American/ Black students, 26.8 % Hispanic/
Latinx and 21.6% Native American students also reported getting bullied in school
(kidsdata.org, 2020).

The juvenile justice data for jurisdictions in San Diego County, which included La
Mesa, were retrieved from a report created by the Criminal Justice Clearinghouse and
released by SANDAG (2020). Arrest rates include felony, misdemeanor, and offense arrests.
The total number of juvenile (ages 10-17) arrests per year decreased by 57% from 23.5 (per
1,000) in 2014 to 10 (per 1,000) in 2018. However, the arrest rates for adults and juveniles
that identified as Black were still higher than rates compared to those that identified as
White, Hispanic, and Other. The juvenile arrest rates in 2018 for individuals that identified as
Black was 37.7 (per 1,000), for Hispanics it was 11.1, for Whites it was 7.6 and for Other it
was 4.5. Juveniles that were Black still had a higher arrest rate than adults that were White
with an arrest rate of 30.2. Adults who identified as Black had a rate of arrest of 111 in 2014
and 121.7 in 2018. They were the only category that experienced an increase in arrest rates
from 2014 to 2018.

These were all statistics prior to the pandemic lockdown. Since then, researchers
believe that the pandemic can and has exacerbated these discrepancies (Aitken 2021). Pamela
Wridt, a researcher for UNICEF, adapted this concept graph (Figure 5) on how trigger events
(such as the pandemic lockdown and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement triggered by
 29

police brutality) can create futher dispartites between young people in low income
households and young people in higher income households (Aitken, 2021).

Figure 5 A concept graph edited by UNICEF researcher Pamela Wridt (Aitken,

2021). This graph shows the relationship between the “deterioration in situation of
children” with the timeline of emergency responses.

COVID-19 Pandemic

From the start of the pandemic to January 2021, there was a cumulative rate of 3316
cases (per 100,000 residents) of young people (ages 0-19) tested positive for COVID-19 in
La Mesa (San Diego East County, 2021). Table 2 highlights the cumulative COVID-19 rate
(per 100,000 residents) for young people ages 0-19 years. East County San Diego (2023)
defines the rate as “ the number of cases divided by the population, usually multiplied by a
constant (100,000). For example, 987 cases, divided by a population of 654,321, would be a
rate of 150.8 per 100,000 population. This means for every 100,000 people, 510-151 cases
would be expected” (pg. 2). Even though La Mesa’s demographics show a high percentage of
individuals that identify as white, the rate of positive COVID cases were much higher for
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander. The last updated COVID dashboard for East County San
Diego (2023) demonstrates how those that identify as Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islanders
 30

have the highest rates in La Mesa at a rate of 31,885 per 100,000 residents. The cumulative
COVID-19 rate among those that identified as Black was at 16,730 per 100,000 residents;
American Indian/ Alaska Native at 14,314 per 100,000 residents; Asians at 12,593 per
100,000 residents; Whites at 11,254 per 100,000 residents; and Hispanics at 10,883 per
100,000 residents.

Table 2 COVID-19 rates for La Mesa’s young people population (San Diego East
County, 2023).
Dates I accessed Rate of COVID in La Mesa for ages
the reports 0-19 (per 100,000 residents)

January 2021 3,316 cases

November 2021 14,297 cases

August 2022 38,715 cases

December 2022 23,931 cases

There were debates on whether reopening schools during a pandemic would have
been better for children and their families’ well-being. Controversies arose in La Mesa when
a council member spoke against sending children back to school (Taketa, 2021). In San
Diego and La Mesa, marginalized groups were more likely to contract COVID (San Diego
County Communicable Disease Registry, 2021). Charda Bell-Fontenot, a board member for
La Mesa-Spring Valley school district, was asked to resign after they questioned their
colleagues’ decision to reopen the schools (Pena, 2021). Their colleagues used a survey to
demonstrate that 70-80% of parents were in favor of opening up schools again. Bell-Fontenot
brought up the question “Who are the 70-80% and where are they? Which school site?
Which language group?” (TD, 2021, para. 4). These issues of representation in surveys
reflect the struggles of marginalized groups, like low-income families, people of color,
immigrants, and children. Even though surveys were distributed and answered it does not
always reflect the opinions of marginalized groups. To add to Bell-Fontenot’s concerns, there
should have been a survey for students, as well.
 31

During the pandemic lockdown, young people had no voice in decisions about school
and how staying home would affect them emotionally. When schools opened again in 2021,
students were still left out of the decision-making process. While there were parents
protesting against the vaccine and mask mandates, there were students also protesting
because they felt unsafe going back to school (Shivaram, 2021; Meckler and Natanson,
2022). High School students from California, New York, Michigan, and Chicago all led
petitions and walks out due to the rise of COVID cases in their schools and their school’s
districts’ lack of concern for them (Meckler and Natanson, 2022). Petitions varied from
providing access to N95 masks, vaccines on school campuses, and the option for remote
learning. These events and petitions led by students are examples of why it is important to
have them included in decisions that affect them.

BLM Movement

During the 2020 pandemic, George Floyd’s death re-ignited the Black Lives Matter
movement. Police Departments all over America were criticized for racial profiling followed
by accounts and experiences of individuals that exposed the systemic racism rooted in
American institutions and structures (Kendi, 2019; Davis et al., 2022). In La Mesa, video
footage of Amaurie Johnson’s encounter with LMPD fueled tensions between the public and
the LMPD. The emotions manifested during the pandemic mixed with police violence and
BLM protests transformed a peaceful protest in La Mesa into a destructive event led by
agitators who burned down banks and vandalized buildings in La Mesa. A La Mesa resident
who attended La Mesa’s Town Hall meeting recalls the event:

“In August, there was a protest in La Mesa. A group of counter-protestors

showed up, some of whom were armed with clubs and knives. Despite that, nearly all
of the officers stood with their backs to the armed counter-protestors and faced the
unarmed protestors. I applaud the police for protecting free speech rights and
attempting to keep the groups separate. But no matter the issue, the police should
appear neutral.”
-LM resident, male, age 35-44, white

As a response to these events, the city quickly moved forward with their plans to form
a Community Police Oversight Board. Residents of La Mesa had the opportunity to apply to
be a part of this board. The police department has La Mesa separated into four divisions or
 32

“beats” (see figure 6). They had 11 positions available: a resident from each of the four
police beats, residents that represent business, faith community, social services youth (18-30
years old), and elder (62+ years of age), and representatives from Helix Charter High School
and La Mesa-Spring Valley School District. From July to August 2020, LMPD and the
CPOB held forums for each beat, and one forum was held by the La Mesa Community
Relations and Veterans Commission, La Mesa Police Department and La Mesa
Conversations. Citizens were able to voice their comments and concerns with La Mesa’s
Police Chief and were given CPOB surveys to get a general overview of the public’s
perception of the LMPD.

Figure 6. La Mesa’s Police Department’s “beat” map that divides La Mesa into 4
categories.

Since the turnout was low, CPOB reached out to a local school to include young
people’s perceptions of LMPD. They shared this data with SDSU’s YESS research center.
These are the surveys I will also be using to answer my research sub-question 3 (Do young
people feel safe with the LMPD?).
 33

Data for the Community Assessment

To complete La Mesa’s situational analysis, La Mesa’s CFC research team needs to

compile a community assessment to capture the lived experiences of young people and their
families. One of the challenges La Mesa’s CFC research team has faced is finding
participants for the community assessments to explore young people’s well-being in La
Mesa. Depending on the young person’s situation and identity, the following can be potential
barriers and obstacles that prevent them from participating in community projects even if
they wanted to: household incomes, bullying, mental health, and COVID related concerns.
Some young people may not have the time or energy after working part-time to help their
families financially. Some of them may feel unsafe participating in person due to health risks
they have seen family members go through. Some may not feel safe participating at all.

My research questions explore how young people define safety and what areas in the
community can we improve to create safer environments. Results from my research
questions can be used as part of the community assessment and be shared with La Mesa’s
Hope Alliance, La Mesa’s city council, and UNICEF USA’s CFCi collaborative team.
 34

CHAPTER THREE

Methods

In this thesis, I integrate the lessons learned from previous researchers who have
worked with young people (Kendrick, 2008; Skelton, 2008, 2010; Fine et al., 2018; Tuck and
Del Vecchio, 2018; Kennelly, 2018; Aitken, 2014, 2018) and the guidance from indigenous
and person of color scholars to create an environment where young people feel comfortable
to share their stories (Smith, 2001; Simpson, 2014; Leah, 2022). In this chapter I describe the
participatory methods used during the data collection to explore my sub-questions 1 and 2
(What makes them feel safe and unsafe? What issues or concerns would they prioritize in
their community?). I also provide details on the methods used by La Mesa’s Community
Police Oversight Board (CPOB) to get feedback from residents and students.

To keep the students, school faculty workers, government workers, and community
members anonymous, I have changed their name or left descriptions out that could possibly
link it back to individuals.

Data Collection for Safety Club Focus Groups

I became a research affiliate at SDSU’s YESS research center in 2020 during the
pandemic and was asked to create a situational analysis for the CFC project. Part of the
situational analysis requires a community assessment portion that includes the participation
of youth, their family, and stakeholders to analyze the current well-being of children and
their families. La Mesa’s Hope Alliance community members helped connect us to schools
and stakeholders that could potentially participate in the community assessments. One of the
community members in Hope Alliance was also the Director of City Hope, an organization
that works with first responders and schools on trauma informed care for victims. I attended
training to become a City Hope volunteer and visit schools around La Mesa. Though we had
 35

access to UNICEF’s survey tool kits with premade surveys, we wanted to recruit young
people as part of the research team to expand young people’s participation and create a
platform for them and their peers to be a part of the research process.

I went through the IRB process and my research project was exempt. The IRB viewed
this as a collaborative project with the community organizations from La Mesa and students
from Safety Club.

The Safety Club was a student-led organization, created by a student who saw their
friends and peers struggling during the pandemic lockdown in 2020. When they returned to
school, they wanted to create an environment where their friends and peers felt safe. The
Safety Club’s main goal was to spread awareness of abuse (what is defined as abuse, what to
do if you are experiencing it, and what happens when you talk about it) among their peers
and provide resources to students and other young people. The president of the club wanted
to create pamphlets that would provide details of the definition of abuse and what could
possibly happen if they told adults. Many were unaware that teachers and certain adults are
mandated reporters. According to Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act: Penal Code
sections 11164-11174.31, adults that work with young people must report the abuse if the
young person specifically describes the abuse, the abuser, and the victim. Since I was
working as a City Hope volunteer for the CFC project, we were mandated reporters.

The Safety Club consisted of 30+ members but on average the lunch meetings would
have around 10-20 students. Only one student showed up at one of the after-school meetings.
During these meetings, pizza and water bottles were provided to the club members using club
funds and my own funds. The main reason for this was to give us more time with the students
instead of waiting for the students who must stand in line to receive lunch.

After the CFC’s research team presented the idea of UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Cities
project to the Safety Club, we were invited again to present opportunities for them to be
involved in the project. I gave the members the options to be involved in editing / getting
feedback on our online Likert-scale survey with statements created by UNICEF USA
practitioners, getting feedback and editing our youth resources community map created by
previous SDSU students (see figure 4), and being involved in research for the CFC and
spreading child rights awareness by visiting other schools. Some of them were more
 36

interested in participating in discussions for research and outreach than being involved in
surveys and map edits.

After consultation and discussion with Safety Club members we ended up utilizing
focus group discussions and participatory activities during Safety Club lunch meetings for
data collection. Figure 7 below exemplifies what was discussed in each meeting and how it
can potentially increase participation for young people in La Mesa. My intentions for these
focus groups were to explore sub questions 1 and 2 to assess what type of environment would
create a safe space for young people to participate in community projects, research projects,
and government funded platforms with youth participation. Before we started focus groups
discussions, we visited the Safety Club during lunch and after school to introduce the Child-
Friendly Project and share potential ways the students could get involved. We also invited
the Safety Club members to be a part of our CFC research team and participate in our
meetings with UNICEF USA and La Mesa’s Hope Alliance every month.

Meeting 1 & 2 Meeting 3

(Sub-question 1) (Sub-question 2)
Defining “safe space” Expanding “safe spaces”
-what experiences have made them What parts of their home, school,
feel safe and community would they prioritize
-what experiences have made them to create safer spaces for their peers
feel unsafe

Help create these environments for Share their experiences and

them to increase participation: solutions with:
-faculty members at their school
-in community projects (like the CFC) -La Mesa’s Hope Alliance
-involvement in decision making -La Mesa City Council
(youth advisory council and CPOB) -UNICEF USA
in research projects

Figure 7 This concept map demonstrates the purpose of each meeting and the desired
outcome from our focus group discussions.
Perez (2019) believes the key to a successful focus group requires having a group that
has a strong relationship with the topic of our research. Since the Safety Club’s purpose was
to create a safe space for their peers, it aligned with our goal of creating a safe space for
 37

young people to be a part of the CFC project. DeWalt and DeWalt (2011) also highlight the
importance of building trust and rapport in order to have a successful focus group. Bosco and
Herman (2009) view focus groups as “one of the most engaging research methods available
to geographers working in qualitative data and approaching geographic questions from a
critical perspective” (p193). Focus groups give us the space to conduct participatory
activities to generate conversations. Although it was advised to have focus groups with about
6-8 participants (Bosco and Herman, 2009; Bernard, 2017), Safety Club officers that were
part of our research team spoke on their peers’ behalf and wanted to have our discussions
during their lunch meetings where there were usually 10-20 students with about 10 students
participating in the activity and about 5-6 students participating in discussions. We also held
after-school meetings for those that were unable to make it to lunch meetings. We had one
Safety Club officer and one club member attend that meeting. Thus, I made the decision to
put the students’ comfort first when working with the Safety Club. They felt more
comfortable in this set-up without feeling the pressure of commitment to a research project.
The environment felt like a casual club meeting where we discussed topics of safety.

I chose to do group discussions because it gave participants more freedom and

flexibility to share and expand on stories and experiences (Tamas, 2019; Speer, 2019). Speer
(2019) reinforces the “emotional power of storytelling [for its ability to] draw connections
across different experiences, and between individual and collective realities” (pg.329).
Instead of creating a survey of boxes for them to check (Fine et al., 2018), I wanted to take
the opportunity to have those that feel comfortable to share their stories and feel heard by
their peers. Tamas (2019) believes “using stories to foster a state of engagement is a
decolonizing practice, because it creates the affective conditions in which we are most open
to change” (pg. 383). She uses storytelling in her academic career to engage and connect with
her students. This was also a way for me to understand the point of view of young people as
they reflected on events that made them feel unsafe in their school, home, and community.

I had myself, one graduate student and an undergraduate student from SDSU’s
Department of Geography facilitate the first discussion. I asked the students that were present
during the lunch meeting if I could record our discussions. Many said they were okay with it.
There were some students who stayed quiet throughout the discussion. One of them got
 38

scared when another student used their first name. I assured them that their names would stay
out of the transcription and analysis. Prior to the meeting I wrote four questions on each
index card: Write three adjectives to describe you, do you live in La Mesa, what does safety
mean to you, and what makes you feel safe? During this meeting 14 students responded on
the index card. This gave them anonymity. 7 students spoke and shared their answers and
stories of their interactions with other students, faculty members, family members, and their
encounters with strangers in public spaces (Tamas, 2019; Speer, 2019).

The following week the CFC team, now consisting of two new members from the
Safety Club, discussed the first meeting and how we would conduct the next activities. They
mentioned how they got positive feedback from the students, and they enjoyed being listened
to. They suggested adding another discussion question before going to the Participatory Risk
Mapping (PRM) activity. Many of the students wanted to share experiences that made them
feel unsafe in their community.

For the second visit, I facilitated the discussions, took verbal and written consent, and
voice recorded the lunch meeting. There were about 11 students that participated and
answered the questions:

1) Do you live in La Mesa

2) Were there any events or experiences that made you feel unsafe in La
Mesa?

Similar to the first meeting, we had a discussion during lunch. That day we also gave
students the opportunity to show up during 7th period in the library to continue the
discussions. Unfortunately, many students had sports and other activities to attend after class.
One club member that was unable to attend the lunch meetings did show up and we were
able to discuss what safety meant to them.

The third visit required a different set-up inspired by a PRM method (Smith et al.,
2000). This subjective approach allowed participants to identify issues they have encountered
and rank them (Smith et al., 2000; Baird et al. 2009; Bunting et al., 2013). I asked them what
activities or projects they would prioritize to improve their feelings of safety and well-being
and gave them five blank index cards to write on and have them rank it. Before conducting
 39

this activity, I had spoken with the Safety Club officers and discussed different ways to make
a more comfortable environment for their peers to participate (Penderson et al. 2020). One of
my main concerns was that my presence, as a mandated reporter, might be preventing
students from sharing their stories. We also discussed how the voice recorder might be
preventing some of them from speaking up. I went over the activity with them before their
club meeting and created a PowerPoint to explain the concept of the activity. The following
activity was led by Safety Club officers with no voice recording. I provided them with all the
materials (index card, tape, poster, and a gift card to buy pizza) and instructions. Each
person was given 5 index cards. I had written letters on them to identify each participant. For
example, there would be 5 index cards with the letter “A” on the bottom corner, 5 index
cards with the letter “B”, and so on. The next day I picked up the poster with their priority
lists and discussed how the meeting went with the president of the club. They mentioned how
some of the students were a little confused with the ranking, but they did write down 3-5 of
their main concerns for the community (see figure 8).

Figure 8. PRM activity results.

Some of the students ranked their issues and concerns by writing down the number on
their card. Others left it out. I respected the facilitator’s decision not to voice record the
meeting. This allowed them to have discussions with their own peers without the fear of
adults listening in on their conversations.
 40

Data Analysis

During the analysis phase I used Nvivo, an analysis software for qualitative data to
organize the themes and concepts of our discussions (Moore and McArthur, 2017; Bernard,
2018) and used ethnopoetics to display the results (Stanlaw, 2006; Kataoka, 2012; Aitken,
2014; Rivera, 2017).

Coding Concepts and Themes The discussions from the first two meetings were
voice-recorded and transcribed into a Microsoft Word document. I inputted everything the
students wrote down on the notecards from all three activities into Microsoft Word and
Excel. I uploaded the transcripts from the first two meetings and the statements from the
notecards into Nvivo (Bernard, 2018). I started coding for the concept of safety and the
themes of what made them feel safe (places, friends, family, and personality). I then coded
for themes that made them feel unsafe (public places, school campus, and adult’s reactions).

Displaying Qualitative Data I chose to display some of the themes and experiences
the members had using ethnopoetics. Stanlaw (2006) defines poetics as “the study of the
aesthetics of verbal art and performance, and ethno-poetics is the study of this aesthetics in
its cultural context” (pg. 121). Ethnopoetics has been used in anthropology, linguistics, and
geography (Kataoka, 2012; Stanlaw, 2006; Rivera, 2017; Aitken, 2014). The method of
ethnopoetics has been utilized by Jerome Rothenberg who studied communities that had no
form of written language (Aitken, 2014). Linguistic anthropologist Dell Hymes also used
ethnopoetics to transfer oral traditions (narratives, songs, and speeches) to paper in the form
of writing. Hymes uses the original language of participants instead of altering and
translating the whole stories (Stanlaw, 2006). I utilized ethnopoetics in a similar way, so as
to not to alter what was said verbatim.

In a poetic structure a single word can be used like an icon to create an image in our
mind or convey emotions. Kataoke (2012) argued that one word or phrase can capture “the
entire episode or event with cultural significance” (pg. 681). Aitken (2014) used
ethnopoetics to capture the emotions felt by young people during certain events in their lives
and emphasizes that emotions matter. He recognized that “there is a poetic to space that is
highlighted when we are willing to take notice of emotions and affect” (Aitken, 2014, p7). I
took phrases that were both written down on the index cards and phrases that were discussed
 41

in the meetings to create poems for the different concepts and themes that were brought up
by the Safety Club members. By combining their words together, I try to create anonymity
for individuals in the group who might have felt uneasy about sharing their experiences
(Goldstein et al., 2018).

Limitations of Discussions

One of the main limitations we encountered was finding a day and time to meet to
plan our activities. All of us were students from different levels and worked part-time.
Finding a time that was convenient for everyone often pushed back the dates of the activities.
In the end, we were unable to conduct the emotional mapping activity since the school year
and semester was coming to an end. Even though it took us longer to plan out activities it
was more important to have the students involved during the research design process. They
provided insight on how their peers felt about certain methods and tools that we (researchers
and practitioners) utilize.

Another limitation was my positionality as an adult, graduate student, researcher,

program manager for the CFC project, and a City Hope volunteer. Even though there were
many students who wanted to share their experiences, some of them held back in fear of the
data I was collecting and for whom. After speaking to some of the Safety Club officers, some
of them mentioned how they were a little intimidated by college students. Being a mandated
reporter also prevented some students from sharing information. Before every meeting, I
reminded them that they would stay anonymous and if there was anything they wanted me to
leave out during the discussion, I can do so. I reminded them that they had the power to
choose.

One obstacle that paused the project was the issue on consent forms and permission
slips. My lack of experience with working with young people in the research field created
confusion in terms of what consent forms should look like. After receiving advice from
professors and discussing concerns with Safety Club members, we went over the consent
verbally and they signed a form for each activity they participated in that day.

My overall discussions with the Safety Club explored the components of what made
them feel safe and unsafe. This also allowed the Safety Club officers to help design and
 42

facilitate research activities. Although the PRM activity did not go as perfectly as planned,
there was still valuable information to be shared from their experiences.

Similar to some concerns with the CPOB surveys, these discussions and activities did
not represent the opinions of all young people in La Mesa. This is a small representation of
the population. However, these results may be used to help guide future facilitators of CFC
projects working with young people.

Methods of Community Police Oversight Board (CPOB) Surveys

I decided to include CPOB surveys to compliment my research question: Do young

people feel safe in their community? And more specifically, what are the different
perceptions towards the La Mesa Police Department? La Mesa’s CPOB demonstrates how
the city is attempting to create more inclusive spaces for young people to participate in
community activities. These surveys were distributed to residents during Town Hall meetings
and to students during classes from July to August in 2021. How, where, and when these
surveys were distributed affects the amount of participation among young people. Younger
people were able to participate in this survey when it was distributed at a time that was
convenient for them.

LMPD and CPOB first held forums for each “beat” (Quadrants 1-4) in La Mesa (see
figure 6). The first quadrant had 11 participants. The second quadrant had 35 participants.
The third quadrant had 10 participants and the fourth quadrant had 10 participants. During
these forums only 2 participants that identified as a young person (under the age of 18) filled
out the survey. The turnout rate for young people and minority groups was low in the public
forums but was high when CPOB had educators facilitate the surveys in their classroom
during class time. They had 177 students fill out the survey. This brought the total number of
surveys to 261.

I took the data collected from the paper surveys and transferred it into IBM’s SPSS, a
statistical software. I explored the statements from CPOB surveys that were distributed to
attendees of the public forums and classrooms in the summer and fall of 2021. I used the
software to conduct summary statistics about who participated in the survey. I created a
composite score to calculate the overall attitude of each participant towards the LMPD. I
 43

went to the transform tab on SPSS and chose the option to compute variable. I used
“mean(s1, s2, s3, s4, s5b, s6, s8)” for the numeric expression. This composite score function
in SPSS averaged out each participant’s attitude towards the LMPD. If a participant
disagreed with most of the statements, they would have a low average score. Once the
average mean for the participants’ attitude towards LMPD was calculated, I ran ANOVA and
independent sample tests to test differences between age groups, sex/gender, race and
ethnicity (Bernard, 2018). ANOVA tests only demonstrate the presence of a mean difference
and do not display which of the categories in that group have different means. I then ran an
independent sample test to find statistical differences between two specific categories of the
same group. For example, for those that identified as Black/ African American, I tested if
there was a mean difference (or attitude) between males and females, and between young
people and adults. I ran the same test for those that identified as White.

To display the results, I used some of the bar graphs created on SPSS. To create the
other tables and charts I used Microsoft Excel and Word. In my analysis, I attempt to also
highlight the frequency of those that chose to leave the statements unanswered as a form of
refusal and highlight the attitude and experiences of minority groups.

Limitations for Surveys

The main limitation of the surveys is that it was a physical survey and participants
had to fill them out in the presence of an authority. This method could create an
uncomfortable environment for certain groups that have felt threatened by police presence.
While the overall results of the surveys show that most participants have a positive attitude
towards the LMPD, it does not mean that everyone shares the same views or had positive
experiences. Similar to Bell-Fontenot’s concerns towards survey results, these results might
only reflect the attitude of a certain group and lack the opinions of other marginalized groups
(Pena, 2021; TD, 2021; Taketa, 2021).

The issues of categorizations can also be seen in the sex/gender question. Gender
expression is different from sex identification and was placed in the same categories. There
were only a few participants that self-identified as non-binary or other and I think it is still
important to note that their mean score was low meaning they had a negative attitude towards
the police department.
 44

Another limitation to the surveys was the annual income data. Some students filled
out this information and it was difficult to analyze whether this was the income of their
parents or their income if they were working part-time.

Summary of Methods

My main research question was seperated into three sub-questions regrading safety.
The focus groups explored the different ways young people defined safety and shared
experiences that had made them feel unsafe. The PRM activity allowed them to discuss
issues and concerns they had around the school campus and public spaces. The CPOB
surveys demonstrates the different perspectives young people had towards the LMPD. The
young people who participated in these activities have shown their ability to be active
participants in decision planning around their community while creating spaces for them and
their peers to feel heard and included.

I attempted to utilize method techniques from BIPOC scholars and researchers who
have worked with young people. When it came to designing and participating in these
activities, students from Safety Club made decisions on the time, place, what reources were
needed for the students to participate, and what information they chose to share. These
methods and results can be used as part of the community assessment for La Mesa’s CFC
project. The results demonstrate young people’s capacity to be active participants in decision
planning around their community and creating spaces for them to feel heard and included.
 45

CHAPTER FOUR

Discussions on Safety

This chapter displays and discusses the results from my interaction with the Safety
Club and explores sub-question 1 (How is safety defined and perceived by young people?)
and sub-question 2 (What activities or projects would young people prioritize to improve
their well-being and feelings of safety?). Safety Club members identifies and defines what
safety means to them and what elements create a feeling of safety. This activity helped them
recall events that made them feel unsafe in school and in the community. The second
activity, which was led by Safety Club officers, displayed what issues and concerns they
prioritized at home, in school, and in their community.

The results from our discussions demonstrates how young people self-identify, the
importance of relationship (peer and family support), how young people are perceived by
adults (feeling of judgment and apathy), the importance of having a clean space in school
(lunch areas and restrooms), and feeling safe in public areas (parking lots, transit, shopping
malls, streets without bike lanes).

Identity

Instead of creating checkboxes or “forced choice” identities (Fine et al., 2018), I gave
Safety Club members the opportunity to identify themselves using three words. The way they
self-identified (Table 3) illustrates how they see themselves and how they want to present
themselves to their peers. Interestingly, there were more individuals that used positive
personality traits to describe themselves compared to individuals that used physical and other
traits. About 50% of the members that participated described themselves as caring and kind
individuals, which reflects the core ideals of the club. Many of the students who join all share
similar values and desire to create a safe space for their friends and classmates.
 46

Table 3. The different ways members of Safety Club described themselves.

Words used by Safety Club Members

to describe themselves
Personality Traits caring, kind, generous, nice
cool
adept
charismatic
creative
funny
intelligent, studious, problem-solver
intuitive
patient
strong
Gender Male
Female
Race/ Ethnicity Caucasian
Asian-American
Black
White
Age 17
18
Class Status Senior
Other Physical Appearances Tall
Religion Christian

Feeling safe

The first part of our series of discussions revealed elements of what it meant to them
to feel safe and what tangible and non-tangible elements (within the spaces they live) would
create those feelings of safety. After establishing what type of environment facilitates that
feeling of safety, we held another discussion focusing on what changes they would want to
see in the spaces where they live and how they can create a safer feeling for themselves and
their peers.

One of the questions we discussed revolved around how they defined safety. To many
of them, to “be safe” meant they had the freedom to express themselves without feeling
judged. I used ethnopoetics to display the different elements of what safety meant to Safety
Club members. Each poem consists of sentences and phrases shared on notecards and in our
discussions. Feeling safe means:
 47

The ability to be yourself

Comfortable with who and where you are
When somebody listens
And genuinely cares

Expressing your emotions without being judged

Without fear of being rejected or attacked
Being equals
Not stressed by others
Mental state of clarity

Out of harms way

100% comfortable in any and every environment
Walk somewhere alone without feeling scared or concerned for my life
More awareness in school
Posting yellow signs for kids crossing

Our lunch and after school discussions that day highlighted how safety relates to how
they feel around their friends, family, and faculty in their school (Figure 9). Feeling safe
often meant that they were surrounded by people who listened to them and responded in
ways that did not feel hostile. Many expressed how feeling safe meant they felt comfortable
in that environment. The following poem highlights elements that they mentioned that
described those comfortable environments for them to feel safe:

Close friends
My parents
My family
People who care for me
People that support you
People I trust
Friendly vibes
Not stressed or worried about your surroundings
Not worrying about anything
My home
Clean spaces
 48

Figure 9 Summarizes the type of environment and people that Safety Club members
(SCMs) feel safe around. Safe environments composed of physical spaces, the
cleanliness, and the feeling of not being stressed. Within those spaces they listed the
people they felt safe around and the characteristics of those people that made them
feel safe.
In both poems, in order to feel safe with individuals and have open communication, it
required a trust in that relationship that the person they are with would not judge them. I
believe one of the main reasons why many of them felt open to sharing their stories with me
is due to their relationships with the Safety Club officers. Many of them were friends and
wanted to be there for each other.

Events and Reactions

We spoke of the importance of having a clean space to feel safe. Safety Club
members expressed their frustration with their peers for the trash around their school and the
vandalism of their bathrooms. Some felt like they were being punished by adults for
something they had no control over.

Trash:
School could use some cleanliness
People just drop their trash
And walk away
 49

Anywhere people eat

No one has come by to clean it

Bathrooms:
Ripped the toilet outta the room
They took off the whole hinge of the door
Everyone’s wrecking the bathroom
When you go into the bathroom
All the toilets are broken
No toilet paper
Stalls are destroyed
All written on
Pee everywhere
They [custodians] can’t keep up with the mess so they shut it down
One room for fifteen kids

Some of the Safety Club members shared conversations they had with adults that
made them feel unwanted, judged, and undeserving of a clean space. One student recalled a
comment they heard from a faculty worker on campus:

SCM4: “I forget about this place when I leave.”

Other Safety Club members, understood that the adults were tired and tried to
sympathize and understand the frustration faculty workers face:

SCM 5: But then again you don’t want to blame [them] either cause you can’t expect
them to clean up between people who are 14 and 18[…]. First of all why would you
write on the bathroom? The bathroom is to go pee and get out. It’s common sense
Another member recalls how their bathroom situation has affected their ability to go
during certain classes:
SCM 6:[One] teacher said we aren’t allowed to use the bathroom […] anymore or
she’ll take points off our grade if we take so long because people peeing down there
are all the way across the school. And then it creates the situation: what do we do if
we really need to go? And she’s like ‘Well it’s your guys’ fault that the bathrooms are
closed.
The Safety Club members are aware they are being punished by adults for someone
else’s actions. They try to rationalize adult judgements, but it does not fix the issue. The
situation created by their peers and exacerbated by adults’ reaction creates an unsafe space
 50

for them to use the bathroom. Some students end up holding the urge to use the bathroom at
school and wait until they get home.

When it was time to discuss events or experiences that made them feel unsafe, their
views on how adults handled the situation were similar to how they felt about the cleanliness
situation. Some Safety Club members felt there was a lack of care with the way certain adults
handled situations. The first event they shared was the BLM protest in La Mesa that
happened in 2020 and incidents and accidents that have occurred on the streets near their
school. The second event occurred after school near campus.

Safety Club members who lived in La Mesa during the pandemic shared how they felt
when the BLM movement reached La Mesa.

Riots:
People breaking in
Destroying public and private property
that happened to burn the banks down
the people that robbed the stores
Vons on fire
burning down of downtown
the vandalism of the police station

Peacefully Protesting:
then they started teargassing
shooting people with rubber bullets,
or like paint balls
flash bangs
I need to get out of here
They didn’t handle the situation correctly
The police
Warnings that we might have to leave our own homes
No place to go

The riot poem displays the fear some students felt that was created by people who
burned and vandalized buildings and robbed the stores. The peaceful protest poem is from a
different perspective from a student who viewed those local authorities mistreating protestors
exacerbated the situation. The students that lived close to where the event took place felt
scared that if they were evacuated, they would be displaced with nowhere to go. I asked if
 51

there was an evacuation or emergency plan for families who would have to evacuate but they
said they were not told to go anywhere, just to get out.

The second event involved three members from the Safety Club and how they felt
like adults that worked in the office were apathetic to students. The three friends were
hanging out after school in the parking lot when a car full of other young adults drove by and
started to shoot frozen Orbeez at them. Orbeez are similar to BB gun pellets but instead of
metal spheres they are made of gel. But since they were frozen, they bruised the students’
skin. I had asked if they were okay and if they told any faculty members. One of them went
straight to the office knowing the school had surveillance cameras. They attempted to ask the
faculty worker at the office questions of what to do but all the only response they got was
that they would follow-up with them. This opened a conversation of who do they turn to
when they feel unsafe:

SCM2: bother them. Bother them constantly

SCM3: bother them? [multiple students start to speak]
SCM7: yeah if you don’t the office will let this go. [students start to speak over each
other]
Safety Club member 7 further describes the pattern they have noticed when students report
incidents to faculty workers. Below is one of our conversations (PP = the researcher):
SCM7: It’s happened to this girl before because she like…well…she had these boys
walked up to her and literally fuckin- sorry
PP: no it’s fine
SCM7: literally got in her face for no reason AT ALL. And we went to the office to
report it and they were like oh so sorry to hear that and they didn’t do anything about
it. They knew who the boys were, they knew who they looked like, they had the
[incoherent, students speaking over] THEY KNEW WHO THE BOYS WERE. But
they didn’t do anything, no one suspended or expelled.
PP: They didn’t even pull them aside to talk to him?
SCM7: no.
SCM3: That’s another safety thing. Sometimes the school isn’t as proactive as they
should be.
 52

Some of the realities that students have faced relates to feeling ignored by adults.
They are motivated to help others and file a report against people who have harmed them and
their friends but the adults at their school have showed that it does not lead to any results or
comfort for the victims. I became concerned and asked them if there were any teachers, they
felt comfortable around that can advocate for them on campus.

SCM8: When you report something you don’t report it to[the principal], you report it
to the VP or the front desk lady. And they have to decide if it’s important enough to
take to [the principal].
Safety Club member 7 shares their story and advice to their peers of who to go to if
they want to make a report and see results:
SCM7: Well, I’m saying if you really want something to happen just go straight to
the principle […]When my sister had a problem with actually one of the nurse out
here, my mom took it straight up to [the principle] and [they]…instead of like not
doing anything about it [they] warned her. Like “hey if you harass her one more time
you’re gonna be fired like that’s not okay”. Like [they] actually [do] something
because [of their position]. But the VP and the front desk lady, all them, they don’t
know nothing.
It is important to note the power dynamics young people are faced with. In most cases,
students have a difficult time navigating through systems where they are deprived of
decision-making. And when they bring up issues of safety with adults they are left with the
impression that they are being judged or simply ignored. SCM 7 is lucky that their family has
a connection with a faculty member at the school, but what about the other students that lack
the same type of privilege? Who do they turn to? Who listens to them? Do they need the
support of adults to create change?

Finding adults that you can trust can sometimes feel frustrating especially if you want
that to be your parents. Each student is going to have a different dynamic with their parents
and this student in particular felt misunderstood:

SCM 9: you never know how they’re gonna react and like, yeah. It’s a good idea to
include some parents, some to join [safety] club like if they hear us or something. But
some parents…like I know that my parents are gonna misunderstand this, about
[safety] club. Like they know I come to this club. I tell them I come to help other kids
but like sometimes my parents misunderstand. They think oh maybe like we’re
learning like bad things like being more depressed more like you know what I mean?
 53

She continues to talk about her experience with her parents. She wants to trust them but their
reaction from the past and how they judge people has hindered them from having that open
communication.

SCM 9: You know I regret when I tell my mom stuff. Like I wanna trust her, I wanna
trust my parents. I wanna tell them everything, where I go or something like, but their
reaction. It’s like too much. Like they don’t understand what we’re going through.
We know they care, we know they love us. We already have things on our mind and
we’re like that’s not fair, honestly. Like I’m dealing with a lot of stuff right now with
school work, with my friend, with everything in life, and yeah like…I feel like mostly
parents are not understanding. Like I talk to you like any person I see and feel
comfortable with I tell them how I feel. I trust them. But like when it comes to
parents, I don’t.
When young people are unable to find adults that can help them with their situations,
most turn to their friends and peers:

SCM3: I think that’s why our peers are here, because we are equal here.

Unlike their interactions with teachers and administration workers at school, Safety Club and
other clubs in school, are spaces where young people can gather with their friends and talk
about issues they have encountered in their life. Many of them felt comfortable enough to
share their stories because they had their friends present to support them and adults that they
knew would not judge them.

Public spaces
Public spaces were a prevalent topic for each meeting and in the priority listing
activity conducted by Safety Club officers. Most Safety Club members wrote down three to
four issues and/ or concerns they wanted to prioritize. Since only a couple of them ranked
their priorities, I was unable to create a participatory risk map. Instead, I organized them by
theme and listed what each individual wrote down (Table 4). Even though I was unable to
rank their list of issues and concerns around their community, their list still provides areas
where Safety Club members would want to see improvements.
After these activities, I came back to the Safety Club to discuss how it went and if
there were any further topics they wanted to emphasize. One of the main topics we discussed
that day revolved around public safety on the streets and parking lots. One Safety Club
member mentioned how there were no designated walk areas for students to walk through in
 54

parking lots. They had suggested the school create safe walkways within the parking lot
structure. Another Safety Club member who biked to school every day suggested the city
should also invest in biking lane infrastructure, similar to the bike lanes near Downtown San
Diego and Coronado Island. These bike lanes are separated from pedestrian walkways and
had a barrier to keep them safe from oncoming cars and trucks.
Table 4. A list of issues and concerns from PRM activity organized into themes. Each
color represents a different participant.
Themes Issues and Concerns
Road/ streets Safer streets
Sidewalks San Diego “skid row”
Logan Heights at night
Under bridge in El Cajon past Home Depot (El Cajon’s
“skid row”)
Cleaner and safer sidewalks, many are extremely damaged
or just unwalkable
Cleaner streets/ roadways
safer driving
safer roads
Downtown
Downtown
Emotional support Feeling heard
Public transportation The trolley
Trolley Station
Stores Parkway (school/ mall)
(store)7/11
More small businesses
Walmart
Walmart
People experiencing Homeless problem and safety outside
homelessness Homelessness
Homelessness
Homelessness
School Security cameras
School parking lots
School
Recreation Cleaner parks and playgrounds

Community Cleanliness
parking lots

About 7 students mentioned streets and roads as one of the issues and concerns they
would prioritize. Safety Club members’ experiences in these public spaces exemplifies how
 55

important it is to include young people in urban planning decisions. Most adults that have
their driver license have the privilege to drive around San Diego. Students that are unable to
drive will usually bike, walk, or take public transportation to navigate in and out of La Mesa.

In previous discussions, many voiced their concerns and shared their experiences of
accidentlly being hit by a car while they were riding a bike or their encounters with people
experiencing homelessness at transit stops. Since the Safety Club was a safe space for them
to share their stories, many of them discussed how they felt in public spaces they encounter
frequently, like parking lots, sidewalks, bike lanes, trolley stations, and stores.

Walking down the street

Places next to the gas station,
There’s a lot of homeless
Oh the trolleys,
Full of crazies sometimes
Naked homeless person walking around
Pee in a cup and then continued to drink it
People on some sort of drug
Dirty needles
El cajon late at night…its not safe at all

Trolley stations,
At Grossmont Center
A mall
The trolley station
With stairs
cigarettes laid out
Foiled paper
Kinda like associated with drugs
Like some type of meth and stuff
People there all the time who will shoot up
Can’t use the elevator
Or go down the stairs
Amaya Drive, Trolley station
Every time I have to take the bus
Or walk home at night
Or anytime of the day really

The events that young people experienced, in combination with their interactions with
adults and how adults react, have affected some of the students in the club with feelings of
 56

feeling unsafe (see Figure 10). These events and interactions resulted in feeling judged,
guilty, scared, unseen/unheard, and some cases getting physically hurt.
 57

Figure 10. Summarizes the relationship between the places, events, and
reaction from adults that they have experienced that made them feel unsafe.
The color grey symbolizes physical places, green symbolizes events, orange
represents the people the interacted with, and blue represents the emotions
they felt based on adults reactions to those events.
 58

CHAPTER FIVE

Results from La Mesa’s CPOB surveys

This chapter explores sub-question 3 (Do young people feel safe in the presence of
LMPD?) by utilizing La Mesa’s Community Police Oversight Board Surveys. I provide a
general overview of the demographics that showed up in the survey and tested for mean
differences between different groups (age, race/ethnicity, and sex/ gender expression). I
created a composite score that calculated the average scores of each participant derived from
the Likert-scale questions. The combined results from the public forums and school
demonstrated that most participants had a positive attitude towards the LMPD. However,
when the data were disaggregated, those that had a lower mean score, meaning they held a
more negative attitude towards LMPD, were participants that identified as Black/ African
American and young people that identified as non-binary or other.

Demographics of participants

Overall, there were 261 survey participants. About 75 participants attended the public
forums and 186 participants were from a school in La Mesa (see Table 5). Since CPOB
members went directly to young people’s classes, there was a high turnout rate of young
people. About 69% were young people (under 18 years old) and 31% were adults. About
56% of participants lived in La Mesa. 65% were from families who owned homes, 31% were
renters, and 4% were unhoused individuals. I kept the adult’s demographic and perspectives
as a control group that can be compared to young people’s perspectives. These results
explore the differences and similarities between different groups in La Mesa in regard to their
attitude towards LMPD.
 59

Table 5. Demographics from the CPOB survey participants.

Demographic Percentage (and number of respondents)

Public School Campus Public Forums and
Forums School Campus
Female 52% (39) 53.2% (99) 48.9% (138)
Male 45.3% (34) 37.6% (70) 36.9% (104)
Non-Binary - 2.7% (5) 1.8% (5)
Other - 1.6 (3) 1.1% (3)
Decline to - 3.8% (7) 2.5% (7)
Answer

White 73.3% (55) 16.7% (31) 30.5% (86)

Black or African 9.3% (7) 29% (54) 21.6% (61)
American
Hispanic or 9.3% (7) 20.4% (38) 16% (45)
Latino
American Indian 0% 0.5% (1) 0.4% (1)
Asian/ Pacific 1.3% (1) 8.6% (16) 6% (17)
Islander
Other 2.7% (2) 2.7% (5) 2.5% (7)
Two or More 4% (3) 21% (39) 14.9% (42)
Race

Overall Attitude Towards the LMPD

Figure 11 Frequency for each statement showing the distribution of the different
degrees of agreement.
 60

The CPOB surveys used a six-point Likert-scale to gain insight on La Mesa’s

perception of the LMPD. Each participant could choose to strongly disagree, disagree,
somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree to each statement. Out of the
261 participants, about 86% answered each statement, with about 14% either left the column
blank or marked it N/A. A rating of 1 meant they strongly disagreed and a rating of 6 meant
they strongly agreed with the statements (see Figure 11). I took the average score of each
statement (see Table 6). Statements that scored higher than a 3.5 average, meant there were
more people agreeing with that statement. Statement 5a held the highest average score of
4.35, meaning most participants agreed that their identity is a factor in how they will be
treated by LMP officers. Statement 7 held the lowest average score, meaning most
participants did not know where and how to file a complaint with the LMPD. Young people
had a slightly lower average score than adults for most statements except for statement 5a.

Table 6 Statements with the average score and sample size from young people,
adults, and all.
Statements Young Adult All
People

1 I believe LMP officers listen to all residents fairly 3.54 (140) 4.03 (79) 3.70
(n=222)

2 I believe LMP officers treat everyone with respect 3.58 (146) 4.09 (80) 3.75
(n=229)

3 I believe most officers in La Mesa will react 3.63 (149) 4.27 (79) 3.85
appropriately to a situation (n=231)

4 I believe residents will be treated fairly by the law 3.55 (146) 3.97 (78) 3.69
enforcement system (n=227)

5a I believe my identity is a factor in how I am treated by 4.47 (142) 4.13 (78) 4.35
LMP officers (n=223)

5b I believe most officers in LM will treat community 3.51 (150) 3.7 (80) 3.55
members equitably regardless of their identity (n=233)

6 I believe that in La Mesa, police officers are held 3.79 (149) 3.82 (79) 3.80
accountable for their actions if they do something wrong
(n=231)

7 I know where and how to file a complaint with the 2.98 (141) 3.97 (75) 3.32
LMPD (n=219)

8 I believe if my friends or I made a serious complaint 3.40 (144) 3.95 (77) 3.59
about LMPD it would be addressed fairly and in
accordance with the law (n=223)
 61

On the back of each survey, the CPOB asks residents if there were any stories they
wanted to share based on their interactions with LMPD. I have created pseudonyms for
officers and other residents’ names mentioned to keep it anonymous. Some residents shared
their positive experience with LMP officers:

I’ve only had positive experiences w/ LMPD. I appreciate all of the risk
officers go through to protect and serve our community, and I know their jobs
are not easy.
-LM resident, age 45-64, female, white

Officer [A] drove up to my home and over the microphone, he started singing
“Happy Birthday” to me. My husband knows him & he saw on his Facebook
page that it was my birthday. Made a good impression in the neighborhood.
-LM resident, age 65-74, female, white

All my encounters with LAPD have been positive. Not so with RSVP [retired
senior volunteer patrol]. Not a friendly adjunct to the police dept.
-LM resident, 65-74, male, white

A few years ago I had the opportunity to participate in the LMPD citizens
academy. This was an outstanding experience and I gained a great deal of
insight into the department. The subsequent ride along I did past citizens
academy provided me a greater respect for the job done by LMPD officers
and the professionalism exhibited by the men & women who represent
LMPD.
-LM resident, 45-54, male, white

Very proud of our police dept.

-LM resident, 65-74, male, white

Some residents gave a mix review of the LMP department. Recalling both the positive and
negative interactions with police officers:
 62

I’ve encountered officers on power trips and others who are decent human
beings. Most seem to be good people but the ones with insecurities discredit
the reputation of the entire force. This is unfortunate and must change
-LM resident, no age provided, female Hispanic/Latino

I attended the citizens Police Academy a few years ago & really enjoyed it. At
an LMPD “open house” one of the white male officers kept appealing to my
husband about macho & manly stuff & it was disconcerting. I like knowing
when I call for help an officer will actually show up.

-age 45-54, female, white

Disaggregated data

I looked at statements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5b, 6, and 8 and created a composite score of the

average score for each participant. I decided to remove statements 5a and 7 since having a
higher score didn’t imply a positive attitude towards the La Mesa Police Department. The
closer their value was to 6 meant they had a positive view of the police department. If it was
closer to a 1 that meant they held a negative view towards the police. Table 7 compares the
attitudes between young people and adults.

Table 7 A comparison of the average scores (with sample size), minimum, and
maximum scores of participants based on their sex/ gender expression, their race/
ethnicity, and their age. YP=young people (under the age of 18 years) A= Adult (18
years and older)
Demographic Average attitude towards Min Max
the LMPD
YP A YP A YP A
Female 3.26 (97) 3.87 (40) 1 1 5.86 6
Male 4.06 (67) 4.04 (37) 1.29 1 6 6
Non-Binary 1.95 (4) 2.71 (1) 1.57 2.71 2.33 2.71
Decline to Answer 2.72 (2) 3.71 (1) 1 3.71 4.33 3.71
other 2.29 (6) - 2.29 - 2.29 -

White 3.81 (29) 4.25 (57) 2 1 6 6

Black or African American 2.89 (52) 2.47 (8) 1 1 5 4.57
Hispanic or Latino 4.14 (37) 3.54 (8) 2.14 1.71 5.57 5.86
American Indian - 3 (1) - 3 - 3
Asian/ Pacific Islander 4.17 (14) 4.36 (2) 3.67 3.71 4.83 5
Other 4.45 (5) 4.58 (2) 4.33 3.14 4.57 6
Two or More Race 3.90 (39) 3.97 (3) 1 1 6 6
 63

When the data were disaggregated by race/ethnicity, participants that identified as

Black or African American had the lowest mean score of 2.89 (young people) and 2.47
(adult). When the data was disaggregated by sex and gender expression, those that identified
as non-binary had the lowest mean scores of 1.95 (young people) and 2.71 (adult).

I ran ANOVA tests to see if there was a difference in means between different
groups. There was a difference in means within group in Age, Race/ Ethnicity, and gender
(Table 8). When age was disaggregated into 8 categories there was a difference in means.
This was most likely due to the two participants age 25-34 who had a mean of 1.4 (which
statistically is not a meaningful sample size). When we divided the surveys between 17 years
and under with 18 years and older, the ANOVA test resulted in no difference between means
(Figure 12). ANOVA results also demonstrated a difference between means within sex/
gender and race/ethnicity groups.

Table 8 ANOVA test results showed statistical significance in Age (when

disaggregated into 8 categories), Race and/ or ethnicity, and Sex/gender.
Demographics ANOVA
Significance (95%
Confidence level)

Age (broken up into 8 categories) .021

Age (broken up into 2 categories) .073

Race and/or Ethnicity <.001

Sex and gender .001

 64

Figure A:

Figure B:

Figure 12 Demonstrates the different distribution of means between age groups.

Figure A is disaggregated into 8 categories while the Figure B one was disaggregated
into 2 categories (young people: ages 17 and younger; adults: ages 18 and older).

Those that identified as Asian had the highest average mean score of 4.18 followed
by White with a mean score of 4.1 (positive attitude towards the police department). Those
that identified as Black or African American had the lowest mean score of 2.96. Males
scored the highest average of 4.09 and females scored a 3.53 (Figure 13). The difference in
means could have been from participants that identified as non-binary (2.39) and other
(2.81). But since the sample size is too small, it also means that it is not a meaningful sample
size.
 65

Figure A:

Figure B:

Figure 13 Displays the mean distribution between race and ethnicity (Figure A) and
by sex and gender identity (Figure B).
ANOVA tests only reveal if there is a significant statistical difference of means
between groups, but it does not display which groups are different. Since the ANOVA test
showed a significant statistical difference between race/ ethnicity, I ran an independent
sample test between those that identified as White and those that identified as Black/ African
American. There was a significant difference in attitude towards the police between
individuals that identified Black or African American and individuals that identified as white,
t(140) = 5.17 , p =< 0.001.
 66

Within the group of those who identified as Black or African American, 40 were
female and 20 were male. The ANOVA test displayed no statistical significance between
male and females and no statistical significance between young people and adults. I ran
another independent sample test that displayed statistical significance between males and
females, t(58) = -1.792, p = 0.039; and no statistical significance between young people and
adults, t(58) = 1.137, p = 0.13. For participants that identified as Black or African American,
there were no difference in means regarding age. Both young people and adults had low
mean scores.

I ran the same test for those that identified as White (132 were female and 101 were
male). The ANOVA results showed no statistical significance in age but statistical
significance in sex. Independent sample test displayed statistical significance between male
and females, t(231) = -3.207, p = < 0.001.

Identity’s role in LMPD interactions

For statement 5a (I believe my identity is a factor in how I am treated by La Mesa

Police officers), 59% of residents did believe their identity was a factor in how they would be
treated by police officers, while 19.5% disagreed (Figure 14). 71% of the participants that
identify as white, 81% of those that identify as Black or African American, and 78% of those
that identify as Hispanic or Latino all agreed to some degree (somewhat agree, agree, and
strongly agree) that police officers would treat them differently due to their identity.
 67

100
Whites (86)
90 Black or African American (60)
80 Hispanic or Latino (45)
American Indian (1)
70 Asian/ Pacific Islander (17)
Other (6)
Percentage
60
Two or more races (42)
50 TOTAL (257)
40
30
20
10
0
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree N/A
Disagree Disagree Agree

I believe my identity is a factor in how I am treated by LMP officers

Figure 14 Demonstrates the distribution of how participants responded to

statement 5a regarding the implicit bias in police officers based on their race
and ethnicity.
Most participants believed their skin color, race and ethnicity did affect the way
police officers would approach them. According to statement 5b (I believe most officers in
LM will treat community members equitably regardless of their identity), participants
generally leaned more towards “somewhat agrees”. However, disaggregated data displayed
that those that generally agreed that LMP officers treated community members equitably
were those that identified as white but those that “strongly disagree” identified as Black or
African American (Figure 15).
 68

100
90 Whites (86)
Black or African American (60)
80 Hispanic or Latino (45)
70 American Indian (1)
Percentage

60 Asian/ Pacific Islander (17)

Other (6)
50 Two or more races (42)
40
30
20
10
0
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly N/A
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

"I believe most officers in LM will treat community members equitably

regardless of their identity"

Figure 15 Displays the distribution of agreements for statement 5b based on

race and ethnicity by percentages.
Some participants wanted to raise awareness to the implicit bias that some officers might
hold and suggested more training:

I think most people are going to be judged by their appearances. I won’t have
this problem as a white woman but POC individuals are often targeted and I
don’t think that’s fair.
-High school student, La Mesa resident, female, white

Most officers in LMPD are wonderful people. However, I believe

additional training to support the BIPOC and LGBTQ+ people is needed.
-La Mesa resident, age 35-44, male, white

La Mesa community members and high school students that identified as BIPOC
shared their interactions with police officers and how they felt about certain officers:

My dad was stopped while searching for a tire shop. This was before
smartphones. The officers reasoning was he looked suspicious. Only when my
dad told him what he was doing did the officer bring up his tires. My dad, for
reference, is a brown man w/ a strong Afghan accent. My dad’s a smart ass, so
he gave a little attitude. The cop then forcefully grabbed my dad, ripped off
 69

his seatbelt. My dad was forced out of the car. He got a ticket and was able to
leave. He had scratch marks on his chest and arms.
Last year during the August protest, a known pedophile and white supremist
threatened to shoot me for saying Jesus was brown. Multiple officers watch
and laughed while doing nothing to help.
-age 25-34, female, Asian/Pacific Islander

I don’t like what La Mesa Police Officer [B] did to Amaurie Johnson. He
should go to jail! Leslie Farcron was shot in the head and no officer was
arrested and put in jail.
-age 45-54, male, Black or African American

A couple of high school students provided suggestions also:

If there is a latino/a that doesn’t know the language and is involved into an
accident they should give them an opportunity to speak to somebody that can
understand their part of the story.
-high school student, female, Hispanic/Latino

Reform the entire system then we can talk

-high school student, male, White and Hispanic/Latino

These suggestions from high school students are examples of their awareness to bigger
societal problems. What are the protocols for drivers who can’t speak English? Or drivers
who use American Sign Language? Can reforming an entire system heal the trauma caused
by police officers?

When everyone’s opinions are clumped together, the overall results show a positive
attitude towards LMPD. However, when the survey data is disaggregated it reveals that not
everyone is comfortable with the presence of LMPD. There was no statistically significant
difference between young people and adults but there were statistical differences in means
between those that identified as Black or African American compared to those that identified
as White. There was also a difference between those that identified as male compared to
those that identified as female.
 70

CHAPTER SIX

Discussions, Future Recommendations, and Conclusion

Do young people feel safe in their community? To answer this question, I explored
how young people defined safety and identified safe and unsafe events and places in La
Mesa, California. The results demonstrated the complex ways young people felt safe and
unsafe. Similar to Moore and McArthur’s (2017) participants, young people in La Mesa felt
safe, secured, and protected, when they were surrounded by people they trusted. Although
the students Identified spaces (school and home), the state of the spaces (clean) where they
felt safe, and their relationships with people that occupied those spaces, many students went
more into depth sharing experiences and events that made them feel unsafe. My intention of
sharing these stories is not to place blame or shame on adults but should be taken as ways we
can improve these living spaces and communication with young people.

Since police departments are institutions responsible for keeping residents safe, I
analyzed surveys from La Mesa’s CPOB to determine if their presence created a safe space
for young people. CPOB’s method of collecting data displayed high turnout rates for young
people by choosing a time and place that was convenient for them. The analysis displayed
that there was an overall positive attitude towards the LMPD. The average attitude between
young people and adults had no statistical significance. However, participants that belonged
to historically marginalized groups had a more negative attitude than others towards the
LMPD or lacked representation in the data.

The United Nations CRC identifies young people’s right to participate in articles 12,
13,14,15, 17, and 42 (see table 1). UNICEF’s CFCi framework creates a space for
researchers, practitioners, community leaders, and young people to reflect whether young
people have these opportunities to be included in decisions that affect them. Prior to my
research, there was a lack of data on young people’s participation in community projects in
 71

La Mesa. In my research methods, I attempted to create opportunities for Safety Club

members to participate, while respecting their choices to alter activities to make their peers
more comfortable. Safety Club members created this space of participation for their peers.
Within this space we were able to explore their views on safety. Harden (2000) and
Christensen and Mikkelsen (2008) highlight the young people’s agency and capacity to
manage everyday risk. In Safety Club, young people described the risk they take when riding
a bike to school or hanging out with their friends in public spaces. Their experiences of
unsafe encounters in these spaces demonstrate the importance of including them in urban
planning projects.

Providing a safe environment for young people sometimes meant protecting them
from harm. But these methods of protections are often adult-centered (Harden, 2000;
Skelton, 2008). The CFCi framework analyzes the different ways young people are protected
in their goals 1, 3,4, and 5 (see table 1) and centers young people’s experiences. Discussions
with Safety Club members revealed areas around their school campus and public spaces
where they felt they were in an unsafe environment. When students would bring up concerns
of feeling unsafe, some felt neglected by adults. Goal 1 states “every child and young person
is valued, respected and treated fairly within their communities and by local authorities”
(UNICEF, 2018). Students also shared how clean environments made them feel safe and on
campus they were faced with trash on lunch tables and broken bathroom stalls. Even though
these students were not the ones polluting or vandalizing bathrooms, they were shamed by
adults. These broken bathrooms led to faculty workers prohibiting the use of bathrooms
during class time. This can be seen as a lack in essential social services from CFCi’s goal 3
(see table1).

How people identify and how society treats people with certain identities can create
different feelings of safety. On one hand, it can make us feel accepted by others with similar
identities. On the other hand, it can be harmful towards certain groups. The CPOB surveys
demonstrated that a high percentage of participants believed their identity played a role in
how they have, are, and would be treated by LMP officers. Those that believed that that
would not be treated fairly were participants that identified as Black/African American. In
San Diego County police officers have also disproportionately arrested individuals that
 72

identify as Black (SANDAG, 2020). In interviews with people experiencing homelessness in

San Diego County, Corrall et al. (2022) highlighted the awareness people had based on their
intersectional identity and how police officers would use racist and homophobic slurs
towards them. Only about 13% of the participants (n=194) said they were offered resources
when encountering police officers (Corrall et al., 2022). When officers from San Diego were
asked about their own implicit biases, many of them denied racial profiling and believed
“systemic racism is not an issue in the department” (Welsh et al., 2021, pg. 379). These are
not isolated behaviors specific to La Mesa and San Diego County or just Police Departments.
These are systemic issues that BIPOC have experienced in the United States (Ford and
Airhihenbuwa, 2010; Perry and Winfrey, 2021; Thomas, 2022) and different places of the
world (Garmany and Richmond, 2020; Davis et al, 2022).

There was a lack of data on young people’s participation in La Mesa’s government

assessment section and concerns about young people’s mental health and safety. Results
from this research can be added to La Mesa’s CFC project under the community assessment
section and used as tips and guides for future practitioners working on CFC projects. Young
people generously shared their day-to-day experiences in school and around their community
in hopes to create safer spaces for their peers. Their experiences navigating from school to
home through different methods of transportation can be helpful in urban planning decisions.
The results from the CPOB surveys demonstrate the need to create safer spaces for
marginalized groups to participate in decision-making. I wanted to highlight different
approaches to consider to create safer spaces for young people’s participation in decision-
making, and “centering in the margins” to make sure we are not diluting experiences from
marginalized groups within the community of young people.

Creating a safe space to increase young people’s participation

Identities. Students who described themselves used their personality trait rather than
categories of gender expression, race and ethnicity, age, or average household income, which
researchers often use. To young people, specifically in this group of students, the type of
person they were (ex: being caring, generous, and patient) was more important to them. One
of the first suggestions brought by Inuit youth for researchers during the research phase was
“be a human first and researcher second. Introduce yourself as a person and not a set of
 73

credentials” (Penderson et al., 2020, pg. 14). When it comes to meeting and connecting with
young people many of them can feel intimidated by college students, older community
members, or just people that are not part of their safe spaces. Young people from Safety Club
felt safe around people who treated them like equals, listened without judgement, accepted
them, had “friendly vibes,” supported them and allowed them to be themselves even if they
acted weird.

Adults’ Reaction. How young people are identified in society and how they are
treated due to the category in which they have been placed can have effects on their self-
esteem1. Students from Safety Club shared their everyday experiences with scattered trash
and broken bathroom stalls on campus, incidents that occurred near their campus (bike
accidents and frozen Orbeez being shot at students), to public spaces and their encounters
with unhoused individuals. These stories and discussions highlighted adults’ reactions during
these experiences. There were some students who had adults they could turn to, but many felt
that there was not much that they could do in those situations. Some felt bitter towards their
own peers for trash and vandalism, sympathizing and trying to make sense of what adults
have told them. How adults reacted to the events and incidents that the students shared was
ingrained in their stories and expressed feelings of judgement, guilt, unheard, unseen, and
scared. These interactions play a role in young people’s development and decisions about
who they can trust and if they are being supported. If a young person experiences neglect
from adults, they can carry this belief with them and as a consequence, they do not seek help
(Cavazzoni et al. 2023).

1
In a 1939 study, children who became orphans were part of a stuttering experiment
(Tudor, 1939; Ambrose and Yairi, 2002). The purpose of the experiment was to prove that
stuttering in children was caused by anxious parents (Tudor, 1939). By the end of the
experiment, the children, who originally had normal speech but was labelled to have a stutter,
didn’t develop any stutter, but instead became self-conscious and spoke less (Tudor, 1939).
The results of this unethical experiment revealed the impact adults had on a young person's
self-esteem and well-being (Tudor, 1939; Ambrose and Yairi, 2002).
 74

Relationships and Trust. Young people felt safe around friends, family, and people
that they trusted. Adults play a huge role in how they affect young people’s perception.
Cavazzoni et al. (2023) argued how the mental health of a parent or caretaker and “positive
interactions between the child and parent have been identified as potential moderators of
children’s well-being” (pg. 3). By facilitating acceptance, trust and empathy, adults can
create safe spaces for young people to feel empowered to share their experiences.

In one interview, a Safety Club member talks about their complex relationship with
their parents. They feel safe with their parents’ presence, but they do not trust their parents
completely. There were times their parents would beg them to talk to them but this fear of
being judged and not knowing how their parents would react, prevented them from opening
up.

Although young people shared their frustrations with some of the adults and authority
figures they encountered, many of them shared that there were adults in their life whom they
felt safe around. I have met educators and parents that do want to create spaces for young
people to be a part of decision-making processes. More outreach to students is needed to
showcase to young people that there are groups of adults that do care for them and that their
opinions are valued.

Convenience. School is an important aspect of young people’s lives (Logdberg et al.,

2023). Most of their time is spent in school and after-school activities. To have young people
participate past those times might be asking too much. The public forums conducted by
CPOB and LMPD had little turnout rate for young people and marginalized groups. Of those
that attended 73% identified as White and over the age of 18. Only two participants identified
as young people (under the age of 18). The low turnout could be due to the time and place the
public forums were held. Young people may not have had the time or transportation means to
attend. La Mesa’s CPOB recognized the low turnout rate of young people and made the
decision to go to schools to distribute the surveys. This resulted in high turnout rates and a
more diverse demographic of young people.

Act of Refusal. Audra Simpson, a Kahnawake Mohawk scholar, coined the

ethnographic refusal (2014). The term ethnographic refusal described how interviewees
would make the conscience decision to leave out certain facts, stories, and explanations
 75

during interviews (Simpson, 2014). This concept has been utilized by other researchers
working with marginalized groups. Tuck and Del Vecchio (2018), who had worked with
migrant youth whom also practiced this act of refusal.

As a researcher, I accepted the idea that some participants may feel uncomfortable
sharing their opinions and stories with the presences of adults or peers they do not feel safe
around. This refusal was shown in our discussions, when Safety Club officers led the PRM
activity, and in the CPOB surveys. Instead of just leaving these inactions and diluting their
unmarked answers, I want to highlight these actions as their act of refusal. I did not want to
erase their opinions just because there were a few of them.

There were two young people that attended the public forums for the CPOB surveys.
One identified as mixed (White, Black or African American, and other) and marked N/A on
all the statements on the Likert-scale. The other young person identified as Black or African
American and marked N/A for the first two statements (I believe LMP officers listen to all
residents fairly and I believe LMP officers treat everyone with respect). They did provide an
answer for the rest of the statements. They shared that they believed their identity is a factor
in how they will be treated by LMP officers and disagreed to some level with the rest of the
survey statements. Even for some students that filled out the surveys in their classrooms,
marked N/A or left the boxes blank. These acts of refusal can be a way to keep themselves
safe from being targeted by authority figures. Location and privacy could have played a role
on whether they felt safe to answer these surveys. However, there is no way of knowing their
reasons until we ask the young people themselves and create a safe platform for us to ask
these questions.

“Centering in the Margins”

My research centered on young people and creating a space for them to feel safe in
participating in research and community projects. However, age is just one part of a person’s
identity (Thomas, 2022). Perry and Winfrey (2021) highlight how individuals experience
events differently and may be more traumatic for one individual compared to another. For
example, the BLM movement that occurred in La Mesa during the pandemic was seen by
some as a riot caused by outside agitators, while others viewed it as a peaceful protest until
the cops showed up. Some residents that had great relationships with LMPD had no issues
 76

with their presence. However, there were still some that did and recognized the implicit
biases that some officers may hold. Some residents that have had negative experiences and
encounter with these officers may see them as a threat. In the qualitative section of the CPOB
surveys those that shared positive experiences were individuals that identified as white and
the age range of 45-64 and 65- 74. Those that shared negative experiences were high school
students, and age range of 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54, and identified as a BIPOC. This does not
mean that that everyone who had these identities had similar experiences. These stories are
just examples. In San Diego County, those that identified as a BIPOC had a higher rate of
getting arrested (SANDAG, 2020). During the pandemic, unhoused individuals that
identified as a BIPOC experienced racialized policing (Carroll et al. 2022). Based on the
CPOB surveys even residents were in a level of agreement that LMP officers will treat you
differently based on your appearance.

The BLM movement shined a light on the black experience and the power dynamics
that occur during an encounter with police officers. Political violence can take the forms of
police shootings and police brutality and have an effect on young people’s well-being
(Cavazzoni et al. 2023; Logdberg et al., 2023). Even if they have not experienced the
violence themselves, they can still be also affected by their parents’ experiences (Cavazzoni
et al., 2023).

I urge future researchers and practitioners analyzing data to continue to “center in the
margins” (Ford and Airhihenbuwa, 2010, pg. 1391) and highlight the experiences of
marginalized groups. The composite scores that calculated the average of each participant’s
response from the CPOB surveys displayed that most participants had a positive attitude
towards the LMPD. However, the disaggregated results also showed that those that identified
as Black or African American and those that identified as a non-binary gender had a less
positive attitude towards the LMPD. Although, not all of them shared their experiences or
reasons to why they disagreed with most statements it could be due to trauma police officers
have caused towards BIPOC or LGBTQIA+ communities (Kendi, 2018; Davis et. al., 2022).
Previous data of San Diego County showed that adults who identify as Black
disproportionately have higher arrest rates than any other race and had no changes in arrest
rates from 2014-2018 (SANDAG, 2020). Even with the decline of juvenile arrest rates,
 77

young people who identify as a BIPOC will be growing up in a society where adults who do
identify as BIPOC has a higher rate of getting arrested.

Mutual aids and grassroot organizations from the BLM movement and abolitionist
over the years have argued that the solution to feel safer in communities does not require
more police presence or an increase in funding of police departments (Kendi, 2018; Stuart
and Beckett, 2021; Davis et. al., 2022). Some may argue providing funding for more training
and more officers only rewards and enables the behaviors. Many communities are creating
organizations that address social disorder without calling the police. In Seattle, Washington,
Let Everyone Advance with Dignity (LEAD) replaces police presence by responding to
disorder complaints and providing individuals with services and resources (Stuart and
Beckett, 2021). Funding grassroot organizations that provide resources and are better trained
in interacting with marginalized groups is an alternative solution to funding police
departments.

One event that I wanted to talk about with young people was their experiences during
and after the 2020 pandemic lockdown. Students who had parents lose their job, lose their
home, or had themselves or a family member hospitalized might have a hard time readjusting
back to school and being in public spaces if they didn’t have the resources they needed
(Aitken, 2020). Prior to the 2020 pandemic lockdown, school surveys also displayed students
experiencing suicidal thoughts. It was difficult for me to ask them questions about their
mental well-being, their family’s income, their housing situation, or if they identified as part
of the LGBTQIA+ community. I did not want them to feel like I was being intrusive with
their personal life. I used broad questions to guide the discussion and gave them the
opportunity to share what they felt comfortable sharing. I also made it known to them that I
was a mandated reporter and by law if they shared a story that revealed that they were in an
unsafe situation, I had to report it. This might have prevented certain stories from being
shared. The one thing I did not want to do was break the student’s trust.

Future Research and Policy Recommendations

Figure 16 below summarizes the lessons learned from my research and ways it can
influence future policy, projects, and young people’s well-being. My experience working
with the students from the Safety Club demonstrated that they are well aware of what they
 78

need to keep themselves safe. They shared their expert knowledge on public spaces in school
and in their community. Many of them were eager to talk about the issues they encountered,
and they wanted to be a part of positive change in their communities. Creating and co-
designing a participatory activity with young people that can highlight areas of where
incidents occurred should be prioritized to increase safety for young people. These activities
can provide insight for urban planners working for public transportation services like MTS
and SANDAG.

Figure 16 Summary of lessons learned and how it can contribute to future research.

For future researchers and practitioners, who wish to continue La Mesa’s CFC
project, or conduct similar projects elsewhere, I recommend continuing to reach out to school
clubs and educators. In this study, visiting young people at school during club meetings or
during class time was an effective way to include young people in research and community
activities. Many of them participate in sport and/ or work part-time so meeting outside the
hours of school is difficult. There are also some students who live outside of La Mesa but
still go to the parks, libraries, malls and take public transits in the area. For these students
they still consider themselves as part of the community and want to be part of projects but
lack the transportation means to get to meetings, especially if it is late at night.

Some of the stories that young people shared also demonstrated how adults reacted to
situations that made them feel guilty for situations they were not responsible for (broken
 79

bathroom stalls) or feeling like adults did not care or lacked understanding. However, there
were some students who had parents or faculty members they felt safe around. We discussed
creating presentations and inviting those individuals to further discuss issues and solutions
within the school.

Cavazzoni et al. (2023) urge researchers to “pay attention to all those protective
processes and resources that lead to positive adjustment, and hence promote positive
functioning” (pg. 2-3) to help young people build resilience. Based on previous data in La
Mesa and the CPOB surveys, most young people in the community are doing well and feel
safe. However, critical race and decolonizing theorists advise researchers to question who is
being represented in these data collections. Understanding what resources privileged young
people have can help us see what other young people need.

These definitions and perceptions of safety came from a small group of students and
do not represent all the young people in La Mesa. Other young people in La Mesa, and
elsewhere, may have different perspectives and experiences. I recommend continuing to start
conversations with young people about their own definitions of safety. These definitions and
stories will vary depending on the intersectionality of individuals. If community leaders in La
Mesa, and elsewhere, wish to reach out to marginalized groups, I recommend reaching out to
grassroots organizations that work specifically with BIPOC communities. Not everyone who
is part of those communities would be willing to sit in a room with police officers but there
could be specific people within those groups that are willing to be a liaison for the whole
group to voice their concerns and recommendations (Tuck and Del Vecchio, 2018).

Conclusion

David Harvey (2008) wrote “the question of what kind of city we want cannot be
divorced from that of what kind of social ties, relationships to nature, lifestyles, technologies
and aesthetic values we desire” (pg23). But whose vision and whose desires are taken into
consideration during the design or decision-making processes of these cities? Projects like
UNICEF’s CFCi can help cities bring in marginalized groups like young people to be a part
of designing and creating a city where they feel safe.
 80

Critical race theory and decolonizing methods influenced the way I navigated and co-
designed consent forms and participatory activities. The results from these participatory
activities and analysis of CPOB surveys showcase the variety of ways young people feel safe
in their communities and how adults that work and interact with young people can become
better resources and support systems for them. These findings can also be used by La Mesa’s
CFC research team.

Recognizing privilege is not something to feel ashamed of. It provides us the

opportunity to explore our own implicit biases and think about ways we can remove those
barriers for others. One social barrier that young people face is not having a say in decisions
that affect them. Other cities and municipalities, outside of America, have demonstrated that
providing a platform for young people can provide insightful solutions that not only improve
their well-being, but the overall well-being of the cities as well.

The different frameworks of well-being have shown the importance of belonging in a

community to feel safe and secure (Coburn and Gormally, 2018; Ferguson, 2011; Huppert
and So, 2011; Armitage et al. (2012); Cavazzoni et al, 2023). Young people who are also part
of communities that are marginalized in society will encounter more barriers and lack of
resources that affect their overall well-being. It is important to make sure that their opinions
do not get diluted with the majority who have more privilege than them. BIPOC and
LGBTQIA+ individuals are part of La Mesa and their experiences and trauma are real. To
reiterate Perry and Winfrey (2022), “Marginalization is a fundamental trauma. This is why I
believe that a truly trauma-informed system is an anti-racist system. The destructive effects
of racial marginalizing are pervasive and severe.” If we want to work towards an anti-racist
and empathetic society, we need to make sure those that have been hurt by institutions and
authorities have a safe space to be included.
 81

REFERANCES

Aitken, S. C. (2001). Fielding diversity and moral integrity. Ethics, Place and Environment, 4(2),
125–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/713665936
Aitken, S (2009). ‘Throwntogetherness’: encounters with difference and diversity. In D. DeLyser, S.
Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, and L. McDowell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative
geography (46-68). SAGE.
Aitken, S. (2014). The Ethnopoetics of Space and Transformation: young people’s engagement,
activism, and aesthetics.Ashgate.
Aitken, S. (2018). Young people, rights and place: erasure, neoliberal politics and postchild ethics.
Routledge.
Aitken, S. C. (2021). Pandemic and protest: young people at the forefront of US Pandemonium.
Children’s Geographies, 0(0), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2021.1900542
Ambrose, N. G., & Yairi, E. (2002). The Tudor study: Data and ethics. American Journal of Speech
Pathology, 11, 190-203. Doi:1058-0360/02/1102/0190
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1990). https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/
Archard, D., & Skivenes, M. (2009). Hearing the child. Child and Family Social Work, 14(4), 391–
399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00606.x
Armitage, D., Béné, C., Charles, A. T., Johnson, D., & Allison, E. H. (2012). The interplay of well-
being and resilience in applying a social- ecological perspective. Ecology and Society, 17(4).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04940-170415
Attiah, K. (2014, November 21). Why won’t the U.S. ratify the U.N.’s child rights treaty? The
Washigton Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/21/why-
wont-the-u-s-ratify-the-u-n-s-child-rights-treaty/
Baird, T.D., Leslie, P.W., and McCabe J.T. (2009). The Effects of Wildlife Conservation on local
percpeptions of risk and behavioral response. Human Ecology, 37(4), 463-474.
Barbosa, L. M., & Coates, R. (2021). Resisting disaster chronopolitics: Favelas and forced
displacement in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
63(May). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102447
Bejarano, C.A., Juarez, L.L., Garcia, M.A.M., and Goldstein, D.M. (2019). Decolonizing
Ethnography: undocumented immigrants and new directions in social science. Duke
University Press.
Bernard, H.R. (2018). Research Methods in Anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches
(6th edition). Rowman and Littlefield.
Bhandari, Neha. (2009). Rights in real life How the uncrc has improved the situation for children.
Save the Children Sweden.
 82

Bosco, F. J., & Herman, T. (2009). Focus groups as collaborative research performances. The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Geography.193–207.
Bunting, E., Steele, J., Keys, E., Muyengwa, S., Child, B., & Southworth, J. (2013). Local
perception of risk to livelihoods in the semi-arid landscape of Southern Africa. Land, 2(2),
225–251. https://doi.org/10.3390/LAND2020225
Cavazzoni, F., Fiorini, A., & Veronese, G. (2023). Well-being and Life Satisfaction in Children
Living in Contexts of Political Violence: A Narrative Literature Review. Child and Youth
Care Forum, 52(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-022-09678-w
California Education Code, 2 U.S.C. § 48900 (2011).
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/edc/title-2/48900-48927/48900
Carroll, M., Flanigan, S. T., & Gutierrez, N. (2022). Black Lives Experiencing Homelessness
Matter: A Critical Conceptual Framework for Understanding How Policing Drives System
Avoidance among Vulnerable Populations. Public Integrity, 0(0), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2022.2090779
Christensen, P., & Mikkelsen, M. R. (2008). Jumping off and being careful: Children’s strategies of
risk management in everyday life. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30(1), 112–130.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01046.x
Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, California. Penal Code § 11164-11174.31
City of Housten. (2022). City of Houston becomes the first city in the United States to become a
candidate for the UNICEF Child Friendly Cities Initiative. www.houstontx.gov. Retrieved
February 25, 2023, from https://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/2022/houston-first-unicef-
child-friendly-city-candidate.html
City of La Mesa. (2021). Livable La Mesa. La Mesa, CA - Official Website | Official Website.
Retrieved February 28, 2023, from https://www.cityoflamesa.us/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018, October 31). Well-being concepts.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from
https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm
Coburn, A., & Gormally, S. (2018). Defining well-being in community development from the
ground up: A case study of participant and practitioner perspectives. Community
Development Journal, 55(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsy048
Congressional Research Service. (2015). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
https://crsreports.congress.gov R40484
Davis, A.Y., Dent, G., Meiners, E.R., Richie, B.E. (2022). Abolition. Feminism. Now. Haymarket
books.
 83

DeWalt, K. & DeWalt, B. (2011). Learning To Be a Participant Observer. Participant Observation:

A Guide for Fieldworkers, 2010, 1–18.
Fine, M., Torre, M.E., Frost, D., Cabana, A., and Avory, S. (2018). Refusing to check the box:
participatory inqueery at the radical rim. In K. Gallagher (Eds.), the methodological dilemma
revisted: creative, critical and collaborative approaches to qualitative research for a new
era (11-31). Routledge.
Ford, C. L., & Airhihenbuwa, C. O. (2010). The public health critical race methodology: Praxis for
antiracism research. Social Science and Medicine, 71(8), 1390–1398.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.030
Garmany, J., & Richmond, M. A. (2020). Hygienisation, Gentrification, and Urban Displacement in
Brazil. Antipode, 52(1), 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12584
Gamble, L. H., & Zepeda, I. C. (2002). Social differentiation and exchange among the Kumeyaay
Indians during the historic period in California. Historical Archaeology, 36(2), 71–91.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03374351
Gonzalez-Sobrino, B., & Goss, D. R. (2019). Exploring the mechanisms of racialization beyond the
black–white binary. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(4), 505–510.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2018.1444781
Gill, H. (2021). Decolonizing Visual Anthropology: Locating Transnational Diasporic Queers-of-
Color Voices in Ethnographic Cinema. American Anthropologist, 123, 36-
49. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13510
Goldstein, T., Salisbury, J., Hicks, B.L., Reid, K., Koecher, A., and Baer, P. (2018). Inviting startling
empathy through performed ethnography: a queer(ed) collective research project. In K.
Gallagher (Eds.), the methodological dilemma revisited: creative, critical and collaborative
approaches to qualitative research for a new era (171-191). Routledge.
Harden, J. (2000). There’s no place like home: the public/private distinction in children’s theorizing
of risk and safety. Childhood, 7(1), 43–59.
Human Rights Watch. (2022). How do US States measure up on Child Rights? Challenging US
States to meet international child rights standards for child marriage, corporal punishment,
child labor, and juvenile justice. Human Rights Watch.
https://www.hrw.org/feature/2022/09/13/how-do-states-measure-up-child-rights
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual
Framework for Defining Well-Being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1 U.S.C. § 101 (2004).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1350
 84

Kataoka, K. (2012). The “ body poetics”: Repeated rhythm as a cultural asset for Japanese life-
saving instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 680–704.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.019
Kendi, I.X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World Trade.
Kendrick, A., Steckley, L., & Lerpiniere, J. (2008). Ethical issues, research and vulnerability:
Gaining the views of children and young people in residential care andrew kendrick.
Children’s Geographies, 6(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280701791967
Kennelly, J. (2018). Troubling participatory action research: institutional constraints, neoliberal
individualism, and the limits of social change in participatory filmmaking with homeless
youth. In K. Gallagher (Eds.), the methodological dilemma revisited: creative, critical and
collaborative approaches to qualitative research for a new era (32-50). Routledge.
kidsdata.org. (2020). All data:La Mesa. Population Reference Bureau.
https://www.kidsdata.org/region/1210/la-mesa/results
La Mesa History Center. (2015, August 9). History. La Mesa History Center. Retrieved February 28,
2023, from https://lamesahistory.com/history/
LeCompte, M. D. M. D., & Schensul, J. J. J. (2010). Paradigms for framing the conduct of
ethnographic research. Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research, 55–85.
Lögdberg, U., Öhlander, M., & Nilsson, B. (2023). Everyday navigation between adaptation and
resistance: How young people negotiate their well-being in relation to assigned migrant
positions in school. PLoS ONE, 18(2 February), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279762
Luijten, M. A. J., van Muilekom, M. M., Teela, L., Polderman, T. J. C., Terwee, C. B., Zijlmans, J.,
Klaufus, L., Popma, A., Oostrom, K. J., van Oers, H. A., & Haverman, L. (2021). The impact
of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic on mental and social health of children and
adolescents. Quality of Life Research, 30(10), 2795–2804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-
021-02861-x
Meckler, L., & Natanson, H. (2022, January 14). Students, seeing lax coronavirus protocols, walk
out and call in sick to protest in-person classes. The Washington Post. Retrieved February
28, 2023, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/01/14/students-walkout-
covid-safety/
Mirchandani, K., Mukherjee, S., and Tambe, S. (2018). Researching the ambiguous global elite:
methodological reflections on the invisible realities and contradictory politics of neoliberal
globalization. In K. Gallagher (Eds.), the methodological dilemma revisited: creative, critical
and collaborative approaches to qualitative research for a new era (11-31). Routledge.
Moore, T., & McArthur, M. (2017). ‘You Feel It in Your Body’: How Australian Children and
Young People Think about and Experience Feeling and Being Safe. Children and Society,
31(3), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12183
 85

Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating Development: an ethnography of aid policy and practice. Pluto Press.
Native Land Digital . (2021, October 8). Native Land Digital. Native Land Digital . Retrieved
February 28, 2023, from https://native-land.ca/
Parrenas, J. (2018). Decolonizing Extinction: the work care in orangutan rehabilitation. Duke
University Press.
Pedersen, C., Otokiak, M., Koonoo, I., Milton, J., Maktar, E., Anaviapik, A., Milton, M., Porter, G.,
Scott, A., Newman, C., Porter, C., Aaluk, T., Tiriraniaq, B., Pedersen, A., Riffi, M.,
Solomon, E., and Elverum, S. (2020). ScIQ: an invitation and recommendations to combine
science and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit for meaningful engagement of Inuit communities in
research. Arctic Science, 6(3), 326-339. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2020-0015
Pena, Lindsey. “San Diego/ Parents Call for La Mesa-Spring Valley Schools Board Member to
Resign after Comments on Racism.” ABC 10 News, 5 Feb. 2021,
https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/east-county-news/parents-call-for-la-mesa-spring-
valley-schools-board-member-to-resign-after-comments-on-racism. Accessed 2022.
Perez, R. (2019). Focus groups in qualitative or mixed-methods research. Food culture, (101-111).
http://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvw04d9k.12
Perry, B.D. and Winfrey, O. (2021). What Happened to You? Conversations on Trauma, Resilience,
and Healing. Flatiron Books NewYork.
Plunkett, A., & Plunkett, E. (2022). Positive approaches to safety: Learning from what we do
well. Pediatric Anesthesia, 32(11), 1223–1229. https://doi-
org.libproxy.sdsu.edu/10.1111/pan.14509
Rehabilitation Act, 28 U.S.C. § 504 (1973).
https://www.dor.ca.gov/Home/RehabilitationAct#:~:text=Section%20504%20states%20that
%20%22no,or%20the%20United%20States%20Postal
Reynaert, D., Desmet, E., Lembrechts, S., and Vandenhole, W. (2015). Introduction: a critical
approach to children’s rights. In W. Vandenhole, E. Desmet, D. Reynaert, and S. Lembrechts
(Eds.), Routledge International Handbook Children’s Rights Studies (1-21). Routledge.
Rivera, M. (2017). Music, media, and the ethnopoetics of two Ebola songs in liberia. Africa Today,
63(3), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.2979/africatoday.63.3.05
Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: the art of hearing data (3rd edition).
Sage.
San Diego County Communicable Disease Registry. (2021). San Diego county cumulative COVID-
19 rate per 100,000 residents by east region sub-regional areas. County of San Diego,
Health and Human Service Agency, Public Health Services, Community Health Statistics
Unit.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/Epidemiology/COVID
19%20EAST%20Dashboard.pdf
 86

SANDAG. (2020). Arrests 2018: law enforcement response to crime in San Diego Region. Criminal
Justice Clearinghouse.
Shivaram, D. (2021, August 20). The topic of masks in schools is polarizing some parents to the
point of violence. NPR. Retrieved February 28, 2023, from
https://www.npr.org/sections/back-to-school-live-updates/2021/08/20/1028841279/mask-
mandates-school-protests-teachers
Simpson, A. (2014). Mohawk Interruptus: political life across the border of settler. Duke University
Press.
Skelton, T. (2008). Research with children and young people: Exploring the tensions between ethics,
competence and participation. Children’s Geographies, 6(1), 21–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280701791876
Skelton, T. (2010). Taking young people as political actors seriously: Opening the borders of
political geography. Area, 42(2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00891.x
Smith, K., Barrett, C. B., & Box, P. W. (2000). Participatory Risk Mapping for Targeting Research
and Assistance: With an Example from East African Pastoralists. World Development,
28(11), 1945–1959. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00053-X
Smith, L.T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: research and indigenous peoples (2nd edition). Zed
Books.
Speer, J. (2019). “A collection of stories, poetry and theories”: Homelessness, outsider memoirs, and
the rights to theorize. Geohumanities, 5(2), 326-341.
Stanlaw, W, J. (2006). The Mysterious Lives of Words, Sounds, and Images: Now I Only Know
This Far, Too… . Reviews in Anthropology, 35(2), 121–138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00938150600698245
Stuart, F., & Beckett, K. (2021). Addressing urban disorder without police: How Seattle’s LEAD
program responds to behavioral-health-related disruptions, resolves business complaints, and
reconfigures the field of public safety. Law and Policy, 43(4), 390–414.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12178
Tamas, S. (2019). Tricky stories: settler-academic reflections on anti-colonial teaching.
Geohumanities, 5(2), 376-385.
Tanner, T., Lewis, D., Wrathall, D., Bronen, R., Cradock-Henry, N., Huq, S., Lawless, C.,
Nawrotzki, R., Prasad, V., Rahman, M. A., Alaniz, R., King, K., McNamara, K.,
Nadiruzzaman, M., Henly-Shepard, S., & Thomalla, F. (2015). Livelihood resilience in the
face of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(1), 23–26.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2431
Td. (2021). School Board member claims reopening schools a "white supremacist" ideology:
Newsradio 600 kogo. The DeMaio Report with Carl DeMaio. Retrieved February 28, 2023,
 87

from https://kogo.iheart.com/featured/the-demaio-report/content/2021-02-24-school-board-
member-claims-reopening-schools-a-white-supremacist-ideology/
Thomas, L. (2022). The Intersectional Environmentalist: how to dismantle systems of oppression to
protect people + planet. Voracious Little, Brown, and Company.
Tuck, E. and Del Vecchio, D. (2018). Representing refusals: dilemmas in making photo-based
research with migrant youth. In K. Gallagher (Eds.), the methodological dilemma revisited:
creative, critical and collaborative approaches to qualitative research for a new era (76-90).
Routledge.
Tudor, M. (1939). An experiment of the effect of evaluative labeling on speech fluency. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Iowa.
UNICEF Office of Research. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: a comparative overview.
Innocenti Report Card, 11. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/683-child-well-being-in-
rich-countries-a-comparative-overview.html
UNICEF. (2018). Child Friendly Cities and Communities Handbook. UNICEF.
https://www.unicef.org/eap/reports/child-friendly-cities-and-communities-handbook
UNICEF. (2022). Israel. Child Friendly Cities Initiative. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from
https://childfriendlycities.org/israel/
UNICEF. (2022, May 18). Initiatives. Child Friendly Cities. https://childfriendlycities.org/initiatives/
U.S. Census Bureau (2021). Population Estimates Program (PEP), Population and Housing Unit
Estimates. The Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lamesacitycalifornia/POP010220
U.S Census Bureau (2023). How the Census Bureau Measure Poverty. The Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html
van der Burgt, D. (2015). Spatial avoidance or spatial confidence? Young people’s agency in the
active negotiation of risk and safety in public space. Children’s Geographies, 13(2), 181–
195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2013.828455
Verhellen, E. (2015). The Convention on the Rights of the Child: Reflections from a historical social
policy and educational perspective. In W. Vandenhole, E. Desmet, D. Reynaert, and S.
Lembrechts (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook Children’s Rights Studies (43-56).
Routledge.
Walia, H. (2012). Decolonizing together: moving beyond a politics of solidarity toward a practice of
decolonization. Wrong kind of green.
https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2013/08/13/decolonizing-together-moving-beyond-a-
politics-of-solidarity-toward-a-practice-of-decolonization/
Walley, C.J. (2004). Rough Waters: nature and development in an East African Marine Park.
Princeton University Press.
 88

Wridt, P. (2010). A qualitative gis approach to mapping urban neighborhoods with children to
promote physical activity and child-friendly community planning. Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design, 37(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35002
Wridt, P., Atmakur-Javdekar, S., and Hart, R. (2015). Spatializing Children’s Rights: A Comparison
of Two Case Studies from Urban India. Children, Youth and Environments, 25(2), 33.
https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.25.2.0033
WORLD Policy Analysis Center. (2014). Global report card: Are children better off than they were
25 years ago? UCLA Health. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/a-global-report-card-are-
children-better-off-than-they-were-25-years-ago
 89

APPENDIX

A copy of CPOB Survey:

For the statements below, please place an X in the box that best represents your response.
Strongly Disagree Somewh Somewh Agree Strongl N/A
Disagree at at y
Disagree Agree Agree
1.In general, I believe La Mesa police officers
listen to all residents fairly.
2. In general, I believe La Mesa police officers
treat everyone with respect.
3. I believe most officers in La Mesa will react
appropriately to a situation.
4. I believe that all citizens will be treated fairly
by the law enforcement system.
5a. I believe my identity is a factor in how I am
treated by La Mesa police officers
5b. I believe most officers in La Mesa will treat
people equitably regardless of their identity (for
example: race, religion, social status, sexual
identity).
6. I believe that in La Mesa, police officers are
held accountable for their actions if they do
something wrong.
7. I know where and how to file a complaint with
the La Mesa Police Dept.
8. I believe that if my friends or I made a serious
complaint about the La Mesa Police Dept. it
would be addressed fairly and in accordance with
the law.

For statistical purposes, please check or fill in the following information:

Your Age:
Under 18 25-34 45-54 65-74
18-24 35-44 55-64 75 and older
Zip Code of residence: ____________
Residence located in City of La Mesa yes no
Sex:
Female Non-Binary Decline to state
Male Other
Select one or more boxes for the race and/or ethnicity you identify with:
White American Indian
Black or African Asian/Pacific Islander
American Other
Hispanic or Latino
Shelter Status:
Renter Homeowner Unhoused Individual
 90

Annual income:
$0-$24,999 $75,000-$124,999 $175,000-above
$25,000-$74,999 $125,000-$174,999 decline to state

Is English your primary language? Yes____ No____

 ProQuest Number: 30523697

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2023 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA