Emily Merz: OCHC and Residential Life must work to provide student-driven programming

The scariest part of the Hill may not be its annual Haunted Hill, but rather its massive covert programming budget.

It’s not cheap to live on the Hill. At about $15,000 on average for room and board, UCLA is among the most expensive universities to live at in the country. But housing at UCLA doesn’t have to be quite as expensive as it is now.

That’s because the On-Campus Housing Council, a council on the Hill made up of students who represent residents, and Residential Life, which manages programming on the Hill, have tens of thousands of dollars in their yearly budgets for events. These organizations book events on the Hill, such as movie screenings, Sustainival and Prom on the Hill. Yet many students don’t attend these events, even though they’re partially footing the bill through their room and board fees.

On top of that, Residential Life and OCHC do not publicly disclose how much these events cost and do not solicit student feedback outside of OCHC and Residential Life’s programming board to see if residents even want these events. In other words, many residents are paying fees for events and programs they most likely won’t attend, and have no idea whether their money is worth the cost.

OCHC and Residential Life need to better inform residents about where their room and board bills are going. These organizations need to evaluate which types of events get less attendance to eliminate them from their programming calendars. OCHC and Residential Life need to also publicize their budget and attendance for events at least once a year to be more transparent to the Hill community.

Residential Life and OCHC’s records have a couple of holes when determining which events to host. Some events have high attendance, such as Haunted Hill, which hosted about 1,300 students last year. But Residential Life also hosts much smaller events that get lower-than-anticipated attendance, said Jenny Byrd, assistant director of programming and arts engagement, which Residential Life hasn’t publicized statistics on.

Taylor Thomas, a second-year political science student who lives in Canyon Point, thinks some of the programming could be useful in getting students involved on the Hill, but many students do not take advantage of these programs.

“The events are definitely valuable – it’s just difficult to get people to care enough to come out unless they personally have a stake in the event,” Thomas said.

On the other hand, Ben Sachrison, a second-year political science student, said he does not think the Hill’s events are relevant to residents because not many attend them.

“Not many people go to (the Hill’s events), except some freshmen who go once and then learn they are no longer worth going to,” Sachrison said.

Byrd and Josh O’Connor, assistant director of UCLA Office of Residential Life, said event costs vary and are tough to calculate. Byrd said the programming sector of Residential Life operated on a roughly $11,000 budget in 2016-2017 to organize 67 events.

She added, however, this amount doesn’t represent the full cost of these events, as Residential Life sometimes partners with other groups on campus that can help pay for part of an event.

The $11,000 sum also doesn’t show how much is going toward technicians, as well as set up and break down of the events, Byrd said. That is to say, Residential Life doesn’t seem to know how much its events cost, and it does not release any budget to the public.

OCHC, on the other hand, has a hefty budget of $50,000 for programming and advocacy. The council can use these funds for events similar to those hosted by Residential Life, but it can also use them for what it terms student advocacy – a rather vague category. OCHC also plays a role in determining which events Residential Life decides to host, as the directors rely on the council’s representatives to decide what sort of events to host.

This vagueness in budget expenditures is problematic. The Hill puts on some events with relatively high attendance, but the fact that OCHC and Residential Life continue to put on events that have low attendance or aren’t well-advertised, shows they themselves are unclear if residents care or want all the programs they put on. Because the budget is coming from their pockets, residents should at least have a more direct means to provide input about the events they’re helping to fund.

As such, Residential Life should conduct surveys to gauge student interest in events on the Hill, while regularly releasing transparency reports detailing its budget to residents. These surveys should quantify student interest in each type of event, be it movie screenings, prom nights or other programs to take place on the Hill.

Residential Life and OCHC should also make their budgets more accessible to the Hill community. They should be able to give cost estimates and attendance levels for each event, and aim to provide annual budgets that document how much each event costs, the estimated attendance level and the comparative attendance levels from prior years.

This isn’t to say that Residential Life and OCHC shouldn’t host events on the Hill. But with 67 events in one year and a murky understanding of how events are chosen and how much they cost, there is a real transparency problem. As the voice of student interests on the Hill, OCHC and Residential Life need to have a concrete way to evaluate what events students want.

After all, students struggling to pay for room and board deserve to know what their fees are financing.