U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995
December 1996, NCJ 161137
The full text of this report is available through:
* the BJS Clearinghouse, 1 800-732-3277
* on the Internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
* on the BJS gopher:
gopher://www.ojp.usdoj.gov:70/11/bjs/
* on the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service Electronic
Bulletin Board (set at 8-N-1, call 301-738-8895,
select BJS).
-------------------------------------------------
The 1995 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies
--------------------------------------------------
In 1995, to determine the nature of law enforcement services
provided on campus, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
surveyed 4-year institutions of higher education in the United
States with 2,500 or more students. Of the 682 campuses meeting
the requirements for inclusion in the survey, 680 had some type
of organized police or security agency.
This report presents data describing nearly 600 of these campus
law enforcement agencies in terms of their personnel,
expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and
information systems, policies, and special programs.
The 1995 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies was mailed to
the campus law enforcement agency at each U.S. 4-year
university or college that had 2,500 or more students. The U.S.
military academies, graduate or professional schools, and
schools operating on a for-profit basis were excluded. This was
the first BJS survey of campus law enforcement agencies and is
by all accounts the most comprehensive such survey ever
conducted in both subject areas covered and number of
respondents.
The survey is based on the BJS Law Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) program, which collected
similar data from a national sample of State and local law
enforcement agencies in 1987, 1990, and 1993. It is scheduled
to be repeated in 1997. A special survey on campus policing was
deemed necessary because LEMAS includes only a small number of
agencies serving public colleges and universities in its sample
and does not include any of those at private institutions.
Of the 680 campus law enforcement agencies within the core
survey group, 581, or 85%, completed the 8-page survey
questionnaire, including 91% of the agencies at public
institutions and 76% of those at private institutions. Among
agencies serving campuses with 10,000 or more students, 91%
responded, including 92% of those serving public institutions
and 85% of those at private institutions. (See appendix tables
B and C for more detailed data on agency response rates).
The campuses served by survey respondents enrolled
approximately 6.3 million students for the 1993 fall semester,
accounting for 89% of the students enrolled nationwide at the
4-year institutions within the scope of the survey.
In addition to the extensive data provided by survey
respondents, limited data were obtained from the 99
nonrespondents through a telephone follow-up survey. These data
included number of sworn and nonsworn personnel, officer arrest
jurisdiction, use of sidearms, and use of contract services.
(See appendix table D for response rates for individual data
elements.)
In addition to the data collected from the core survey group,
completed surveys were received from campus law enforcement
agencies at 112 U.S. 4-year institutions with at least 1,000 but
fewer than 2,500 students, 90 U.S. 2-year colleges, 32 U.S.
graduate and professional schools, and 31 Canadian 4-year
colleges and universities.
These respondents were all members of the International
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA)
who volunteered to participate in the survey. Summaries of the
data collected from these supplemental groups are presented in
appendix table E.
------------------------
Descriptive information
------------------------
During 1995 three-fourths of the agencies providing law
enforcement services on 4-year campuses in the United States
with an enrollment of 2,500 or more used sworn officers granted
general arrest powers by a State or local government (table 1).
*************************************************
Table 1. Use of officers with arrest
authority and armed officers
on 4- year campuses with 2,500
or more students, by size of
campus enrollment, 1995
Percent of
campuses using
Officers
with Armed
Campus Number arrest officers
enrollment of campuses authority patrol
Total 680 75 64
30,000 or more 27 96 96
25,000- 29,999 30 100 97
20,000- 24,999 33 97 94
15,000- 19,999 52 90 75
10,000- 14,999 108 88 79
5,000- 9,999 210 78 65
2,500- 4,999 222 54 42
Note: Arrest authority is defined as that
granted by a State or local government.
*************************************************
The remainder relied on nonsworn security officers whose
authority was typically limited to the temporary detention of a
suspect until his or her arrest by a sworn officer from a State
or local law enforcement agency.
The use of sworn campus police officers increased with
enrollment size. More than 95% of the campuses with 20,000 or
more students, and almost 90% of those with 10,000 to 19,999
students used sworn officers, compared to 54% of the campuses
with 2,500 to 4,999 students.
About 5 in 6 agencies with sworn officers and 64% of all
agencies used armed patrol officers. Well over 90% of the
agencies serving campuses with more than 20,000 students used
armed officers, compared to 42% of those with 2,500 to 4,999
students.
In addition to being more common on campuses with larger
enrollments, sworn and armed officers were also more likely to
be found at institutions under public rather than private
control (figure 1).
*************************************************
Figure 1. Use of sworn officers and armed officers by campus law
enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment and type of
institution, 1995
Percent of campus law enforcement agencies using sworn or armed
officers, 1995
Sworn Armed
All campuses officers officers
All sizes 64% 11%
10,000 or more 84 8
5,000-9,000 65 13
2,500-4,999 42 12
Public
All sizes 81% 12%
10,000 or more 89 7
5,000-9,999 76 16
2,500-4,999 67 17
Private
All sizes 34% 9%
10,000 or more 59 12
5,000-9,999 39 6
2,500-4,999 24 10
***********************************************
Overall, 93% of the agencies serving public institutions used
sworn officers, and 81% used armed patrol officers, compared to
43% and 34% respectively among private institutions.
Nearly all of the public campuses with 10,000 or more students
(96%) used sworn officers, and 89% had armed patrol officers.
Among private campuses in this size range, 71% used sworn
officers, and 59% used armed officers. Among campuses with 5,000
to 9,999 students, those under public control were about twice
as likely as private institutions to use sworn (92% versus 45%),
or armed (76% versus 39%) officers. Among the smallest
campuses, those under public control were more than twice as
likely as private campuses to use officers who were sworn (84%
versus 34%) or armed (67% versus 24%).
The arrest jurisdiction of sworn campus police officers was
limited to the campus served in about half of all agencies. This
was more likely to be the case at institutions under private
(67%) rather than public (47%) control, and on campuses with
smaller enrollments. For example, sworn officers serving
public institutions were limited to on-campus arrests at about
60% of the campuses with fewer than 5,000 students, compared to
just 30% of those with 20,000 or more students.
When broader arrest jurisdictions were granted campus police
officers it was sometimes limited to a defined area around the
campus, but usually extended to the entire municipality, county,
or State.
As of March 15, 1995, the 680 campus law enforcement agencies
serving U.S. 4-year campuses of 2,500 or more students employed
approximately 20,000 persons full-time (table 2).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 2. Employment by campus law enforcement agencies serving
4-year colleges and universities with 2,500 or more students, by
size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Number of employees: National total and average per campus
---------------------------------------------------
Full-time Part-time
-------------------- ------------------------
Campus Number Non- Non-
enrollment of agencies Total Sworn Sworn Total Sworn Sworn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Total 680 20,067 10,651 9,416 8,901 855 8,046
30,000
or more 27 2,525 1,258 1,267 943 42 901
25,000-
29,999 30 1,867 1,210 657 1,090 72 1,018
20,000-
24,999 33 1,663 1,092 571 670 54 616
15,000-
19,999 52 2,205 1,371 834 1,024 137 887
10,000-
14,999 108 4,117 2,196 1,921 1,785 226 1,559
5,000-
9,999 210 4,630 2,410 2,220 1,768 132 1,636
2,500-
4,999 220 3,060 1,114 1,946 1,621 192 1,429
Average
per campus
Total 30 16 14 13 1 12
30,000 or more 94 47 47 35 2 33
25,000-29,999 62 40 22 36 2 34
20,000-24,999 50 33 17 20 2 19
15,000-19,999 42 26 16 20 3 17
10,000-14,999 38 20 18 17 2 14
5,000-9,999 22 12 11 9 1 8
2,500-4,999 14 5 9 7 1 6
-------------------------------------------------
Note: Data are for the pay period that included March 15, 1995.
Detail does not add to total because of rounding.
-------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
This included nearly 11,000 full-time sworn campus police
officers. Campuses with 15,000 or more students accounted for
more than 40% of both the full-time and part-time employment
totals.
As expected, agency size varied greatly depending on the
enrollment of the institution. On campuses with 30,000 or more
students, there were an average of 94 full-time campus law
enforcement employees. These agencies also employed an average
of 35 part-time personnel, nearly all of whom were nonsworn.
Agencies on the smallest campuses, those with 2,500 to 4,999
students, reported an average of 14 full-time employees
including 5 full-time sworn officers. These agencies had an
average of 7 part-time employees, including 6 nonsworn personnel.
Overall, law enforcement agencies services campuses of 2,500 or
more students, had an average of 3.3 full-time employees for
every 1,000 students enrolled (table 3).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 3. Average number of full-time employees of campus law
enforcement agencies per 1,000 students, by size of campus
enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Average number
of full-time
employees per
1,000 students
-------------------------------------------------
All agencies, Agencies using sworn officers
Campus all employees ------------------
enrollment Total Sworn
------------------------------------------------------
Total 3.3 3.1 2.1
30,000
or more 2.6 2.5 1.3
25,000-
29,999 2.3 2.3 1.5
20,000-
24,999 2.2 2.2 1.5
15,000-
19,999 2.4 2.6 1.7
10,000-
14,999 3.2 3.1 2.0
5,000-
9,999 3.1 3.2 2.1
2,500-
4,999 4.0 3.9 2.7
*************************************************
The smallest campuses had the highest ratio, 4 employees per
1,000 students, compared to fewer than 3 per 1,000 on campuses
of 15,000 or more students.
When just agencies using sworn officers are considered, the
overall average decreased to 3.1 employees per 1,000 students.
The smallest campuses had about twice as many sworn officers per
1,000 students (2.7) as the largest ones (1.3), with an overall
average of 2.1 sworn campus police officers per 1,000 students.
Among all 4-year campuses in the United States with 2,500 or
more students, private institutions (4.5) collectively had
nearly twice as many full-time campus law enforcement employees
per 1,000 students as public campuses (2.4) (figure 2).
*************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Figure 2. Number of full-time campus law enforcement employees per 1,000
students, by size of campus enrollment and type of institution,
1995
--------------------------------------------------
Type of institution
and campus enrollment Sworn Total
Public
All sizes 1.5 2.4
10,000 or more 1.4 2.3
5,000-9,999 1.7 2.6
2,500-4,999 2.0 3.0
Private
All sizes 1.6 4.5
10,000 or more 2.2 4.7
5,000-9,999 1.4 4.2
2,500-4,999 1.0 4.6
*************************************************
Overall, the ratio of sworn officers to students was about the
same for the two types of campuses, but private campuses had
about 3 times as many nonsworn employees per student. Private
campuses had more nonsworn law enforcement employees per student
in all enrollment categories, and more sworn officers per
student on campuses with 10,000 or more students.
A large majority of the law enforcement services on 4-year
campuses with 2,500 or more students were performed by employees
of the university or college; however, 25% of the campuses did
outsource, or contract out, for some portion of such services
(table 4).
************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 4. Outsourcing of services by campus law enforcement
agencies serving 4-year colleges and universities with 2,500 or
more students, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Proportion of services outsourced
At least
Total At least a fourth, Less
Campus with half, but but less than
enrollment outsourcing All not all than half a fourth
Total 25% 3% 4% 2% 15%
30,000 or more 15% 0% 0% 0% 15%
25,000-29,999 33 0 3 0 30
20,000-24,999 24 3 0 3 18
15,000-19,999 22 0 6 4 10
10,000-14,999 29 3 6 1 19
5,000-9,999 23 3 3 2 14
2,500-4,999 27 6 4 2 14
--------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not to total because of rounding.
--------------------------------------------
************************************************
Most campuses that outsourced did so for less than a fourth of
law enforcement services, and just 3% outsourced all such
services.
On campuses where contract officers were used, they were
typically employees of a private security firm. Overall, 69% of
the campuses with contractual law enforcement services used
private security officers, while 22% used local police officers,
4% sheriffs' deputies, and 2% State police officers. In many
instances where contract officers were used, it was in
conjunction with security needs for special events occurring on
campus.
--------------------------------------------------
Considerations for categorizing and comparing campuses
-------------------------------------------------
The enrollment categories used in this report are based on
student head counts for the Fall 1993 semester. In most cases,
these categories will serve as an appropriate standard for
comparing campuses. However, there are many other factors that
influence the need for law enforcement services on a given
campus. Those discussed here are limited to characteristics of
the campus itself, but the characteristics of the surrounding
area are also important to consider.
The nature of the student population is one area to consider.
For example, about 30% of the students on the campuses served by
survey respondents were part-time. On campuses with a much
higher or lower percentage of part-time students, the full-time
equivalent enrollment may differ enough from other campuses in a
given enrollment category to justify comparison with campuses in
another enrollment category.
Another factor is the number of campus residents. On the
largest campuses served by respondents, about 22% of the
students resided on campus. On average, these campuses had in
excess of 11,000 persons residing on campus. About 9,800, or
87%, of these residents were students. On the smallest
campuses, about 30% of students typically lived on campus.
These campuses had an average of slightly more than 1,000 campus
residents, 96% of them students.
In addition to students, employees of the college or university
form an important segment of the population served by campus law
enforcement agencies. If counts for campus employees are added
to those for students, the average population served by campus
law enforcement agencies increases by 20% overall and by 35% on
the largest campuses. The average total campus population served
by respondents ranged from an average of about 50,000 on
campuses with the largest enrollments to about 4,000 on the
smallest campuses.
Some campuses, such as those with extensive medical facilities,
will likely have a higher ratio of employees to students than
campuses without such facilities. This may change the
enrollment category most appropriate for making comparisons.
The type and number of facilities located on campus also affect
the number of visitors and attendees at special events on
campus. Although counts of these groups were not obtained in
the BJS survey, their presence does increase the need for law
enforcement services.
Physical characteristics of a campus, such as number of
buildings, land area, and miles of roads, are also variables to
consider when comparing agencies. The largest campuses had an
average of nearly 300 buildings spread over an average of 1,500
acres. The smallest campuses averaged about 40 buildings on
nearly 300 acres. The average number of miles of roads ranged
from about 20 on campuses with 20,000 or more students to about
5 on those with an enrollment of less than 10,000.
-------------------------------------------------
Box table. Selected characteristics of U.S. 4-year campuses with 2,500
or more students, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Average population served
Students and employees Students only Physical
Acres Full- Full- characteristics
time time Average number--
equi- Living equi- Living Miles
Head va- on Head va- on Build- of
count lent* campus count lent* campus Acres ings roads
Total 12,903 11,024 2,538 10,763 9,145 2,367 490 87 8
30,000 or
more 50,301 37,791 11,354 37,166 32,482 9,842 1,542 286 18
25,000-
29,999 34,044 28,859 6,544 26,838 22,670 6,217 779 154 20
20,000-
24,999 29,011 24,857 3,804 22,668 19,180 3,573 836 207 18
15,000-
19,999 21,482 18,261 4,080 17,177 14,859 3,824 997 133 4
10,000-
14,999 15,119 12,951 2,629 12,171 10,304 2,475 489 100 7
5,000-
9,999 8,279 6,996 1,647 7,987 5,963 1,588 292 52 6
2,500-
4,999 4,193 3,537 1,058 3,529 2,962 1,015 289 39 4
*Full-time equivalent figures were calculated by weighting
part-time totals by 0.5 and adding them to full-time totals.
-------------------------------------------------
----------
Personnel
----------
Job function
----------
Nearly 7 in 8 full-time sworn campus law enforcement personnel
were assigned to the area of field operations (table 5).
**************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 5. Primary job function of campus law enforcement
personnel, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of
full-time employees
Job function Non-
category Total Sworn sworn
Total 100% 100% 100%
Administration 9% 10% 8%
Field operations 65 87 36
Technical support 12 3 25
Other 13 -- 31
--------------------------------------------------
Note: Excludes agencies with fewer than 10 personnel. "Other"
category includes building security officers, parking monitors,
and other personnel not categorized elsewhere.
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
--Less than 0.5%.
-------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
A large majority of those working in field operations, and 78%
of all full-time sworn personnel, were uniformed officers whose
regularly assigned duties included responding to calls for
service. Investigative personnel accounted for 8% of all
full-time sworn personnel.
Ten percent of full-time sworn personnel worked in an
administrative capacity, while 3% primarily performed duties
related to technical support services such as training, fleet
management, communications, and crime prevention education.
Among nonsworn personnel, just over a third worked in field
operations, and nearly a third performed "other" functions such
as building security or parking enforcement. About a fourth
provided technical support services.
For sworn personnel, the distribution by job function was
consistent across enrollment categories. Nonsworn personnel
were much more likely to be categorized under field operations
on the smallest campuses, where they were more likely to be
used for all services provided.
-------------------------------------------------
The largest law enforcement agencies serving 4-year campuses in
the United States, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
As of March 15, 1995, 19 law enforcement agencies with 100 or
more full-time employees served 4-year campuses. The largest,
at Philadelphia's Temple University, had 227 full-time
employees, 96 of whom were sworn. The next largest, at New York
University, had 215 full-time employees, all nonsworn. The
University of California at Berkeley (188), the University of
Southern California (180), and the University of Texas at
Austin (166) completed the top 5.
Overall, 22 agencies employed60 or more full-time sworn
officers. Columbia University had the largest number of
full-time sworn personnel (100) followed by Temple, the
University of Pennsylvania (93), St. John's University (87), and
the University of Florida (80).
--------------------------------------------------
Campus law enforcement agencies with 100 or more full-time
employees, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Campus Served Full-time employees
Temple University 227
New York University/a 215
University of California-Berkeley 188
University of Southern California 180
University of Texas-Austin 166
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 165
Columbia University 150
Duke University 143
Harvard University 139
Rutgers University-New Brunswick 139
University of Florida 139
Saint Louis University 134
Fordham Universitya 130
City Univ. of New York-City College 123
College of Charleston/b 117
University of Pennsylvania 110
Texas A & M Univ.-College Station 110
St. John's University 104
Thomas Jefferson University 101
------------------------------------------------
aDoes not employ sworn personnel.
bArea served includes Medical University of South Carolina.
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Campus law enforcement agencies with 60 or more full-time sworn
personnel, 1995
--------------------------------------------------
Campus served Full-
time sworn officers
Columbia University 100
Temple University 96
University of Pennsylvania 93
St. John's University 87
University of Florida 80
Yale University 75
College of Charleston* 72
University of California-Berkeley 72
University of South Carolina-Columbia 72
Duke University 70
Howard University 70
University of Pittsburgh 69
Georgia State University 68
George Washington University 67
University of Southern California 67
Vanderbilt University 67
University of Georgia 66
University of Texas-Austin 66
University of Maryland-College Park 65
Harvard University 63
Rutgers University-New Brunswick 63
Virginia Commonwealth University 63
--------------------------------------------------
*Area served includes Medical University of South Carolina.
*************************************************
-------------
Sex and race
-------------
As of March 15, 1995, about 6 in 7 full-time sworn campus law
enforcement personnel were male (table 6).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 6. Sex of full-time personnel in campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Campus Percent of full-time Percent of full-time
enrollment sworn employees nonsworn employees
Total Male Female Total Male Female
Total 100% 85.6% 14.4% 100% 64.0% 36.0%
30,000
or more 100% 82.9% 17.1% 100% 66.1% 33.9%
25,000
-29,999 100 85.4 14.6 100 56.9 43.1
20,000
-24,999 100 85.7 14.3 100 47.0 53.0
15,000
-19,999 100 85.3 14.7 100 61.7 38.3
10,000
-14,999 100 86.2 13.8 100 64.3 35.7
5,000
-9,999 100 86.5 13.5 100 62.2 37.8
2,500
-4,999 100 86.7 13.3 100 74.8 25.2
*************************************************
The highest percentage of female campus police officers was
found on campuses with 30,000 or more students (17%). The
percentage of female officers was more than 14% on campuses with
15,000 to 29,999 students, and more than 13% on campuses with at
least 2,500 students but fewer than 15,000.
Among nonsworn campus law enforcement employees, 36% were
female. The percentage of nonsworn employees who were female
ranged from 53% on campuses with 20,000 to 24,999 students to
25% on campuses with 2,500 to 4,999 students.
More than a fourth of the full-time sworn campus police
personnel on campuses with 2,500 or more students were members
of a racial or ethnic minority (27%) (table 7).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 7. Race and ethnicity of full-time personnel in campus
law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Campus
enrollment Percent of employees
Native
Total White Black Hispanic Asian American
Total (sworn) 100% 73.2% 20.8% 4.3% .9% .7%
(nonsworn) 100% 64.1% 26.8% 7.0% 1.6% .5%
30,000
or more (sworn) 100% 77.5% 13.3% 5.9% 2.1% 1.1%
(nonsworn) 100% 63.7% 26.3% 8.3% 1.3% .3%
25,000
-29,999 (sworn) 100 78.7 14.1 4.7 1.8 .8
(nonsworn) 100 62.8 25.8 7.8 2.7 .9
20,000
-24,999 (sworn) 100 73.6 20.4 4.6 .6 .9
(nonsworn) 100 70.2 18.7 5.2 5.2 .7
15,000
-19,999 (sworn) 100 73.1 18.5 6.5 1.1 .8
(nonsworn) 100 63.4 22.4 11.8 1.6 .8
10,000
-14,999 (sworn) 100 70.9 23.7 4.7 .4 .3
(nonsworn) 100 56.9 34.0 8.2 .5 .5
5,000
-9,999 (sworn) 100 71.0 25.8 2.1 .4 .7
(nonsworn) 100 65.2 28.5 4.2 1.8 .3
2,500
-4,999 (sworn) 100 70.7 24.4 3.4 .3 1.2
(nonsworn) 100 71.0 21.8 5.7 1.0 .5
--------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. White
and black categories exclude Hispanics. Hispanic category may
include any race. Asian category includes Asians and Pacific
Islanders. Native American category includes American Indians
and Alaskan Natives.
-------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
The percentage of minority officers ranged from about 29% on
campuses with fewer than 15,000 students to about 22% on
campuses with an enrollment of 25,000 or more. According to
U.S. Department of Education data for the fall 1994 semester,
22% of U.S. residents attending 4-year colleges and universities
were members of a racial or ethnic minority.
Blacks accounted for about a fifth of sworn personnel, ranging
from about 1 in 4 officers on campuses with fewer than 15,000
students, to about 1 in 7 officers on campuses with 25,000 or
more students. Nationwide, about 1 in 10 U.S. students
attending 4-year institutions during the fall 1994 semester were
black.
Hispanics comprised about 4% of sworn campus police personnel,
while those of an Asian or Native American heritage accounted
for just under 1% each. Among 4-year U.S. students enrolled for
the fall 1994 semester, person of an Hispanic or Asian ethnicity
accounted for 5.5% each, and Native Americans for 0.7%.
Among nonsworn personnel in campus law enforcement agencies,
about 36% were members of a racial or ethnic minority. By
enrollment category, the percentage of nonsworn personnel
represented by minorities ranged from about 43% on campuses with
10,000 to 14,999 students to just under 30% on campuses with
20,000 to 24,999 students, or 2,500 to 4,999 students.
About 27% of nonsworn campus law enforcement personnel were
black, while 7% were Hispanic. Asians accounted for just under
2%, while Native Americans comprised less than 1% of all
nonsworn personnel.
-----------------------------------------------
Screening devices used in hiring new officers
-----------------------------------------------
During 1995 the large majority of campus law enforcement
agencies required officer applicants to pass through a wide range
of screening devices to determine his or her suitability. Nearly
all agencies conducted personal interviews (98%), background
investigations (95%), and criminal record checks (94%) of
applicants for office positions (table 8).
******************************************************
------------------------------------------------------
Table 8. Screening devices used by campus law enforcement
agencies for hiring of new officers, by size of campus
enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies screening officer applicants with_
Writ
Psy- ten Phy-
Per- inal logi- apt- sical
sonal Back- re- Med- Board cal ti agil Poly-
Inter-ground ord ical inter- screen-tude ity graph
view gation check exam view ing test test exam
Total 98% 95% 94% 69% 61% 56% 39% 36% 10%
30,000 or more 100% 100% 100% 93% 74% 93% 59% 48% 30%
25,000-29,999 100 100 96 93 89 89 82 79 11
20,000-24,999 100 100 100 97 87 77 57 60 20
15,000-19,999 100 98 98 84 80 76 60 56 18
10,000-14,999 100 97 98 80 63 68 47 44 15
5,000-9,999 97 95 95 64 64 52 31 28 6
2,500-4,999 97 91 89 52 42 32 25 23 5
*************************************************
Just over two-thirds of all agencies required applicants to
undergo a medical exam, including a large majority of the
agencies serving a campus of 10,000 or more students. More than
half of agencies serving smaller campuses also required a
medical exam of officer applicants.
A majority of all agencies required officer applicants to
undergo a psychological screening (56%). About 90% of the
agencies serving a campus of 25,000 or more students required a
psychological screening, compared to 32% of the agencies serving
a campus with 2,500 to 4,999 students.
A majority of the agencies serving a campus of 15,000 or more
students required officer applicants to pass a written aptitude
test, including 82% of those on campuses with 25,000 to 29,999
students. Overall, 39% of agencies used written exams.
Just over a third of all agencies required a physical agility
test of officer applicants. The proportion requiring a physical
agility test ranged from about four-fifths among agencies
serving a campus with 25,000 to 29,999 students, to about a
fourth among those serving a campus of fewer than 10,000
students.
Agencies using sworn officers typically required officer
applicants to pass through more screening devices than those
using only nonsworn security personnel (figure 3).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 3. Screening devices used by campus law enforcement
agencies for hiring officers, by type of officers hired,1995
--------------------------------------------------
Sworn Nonsworn
Type of screening device police security
Background investigation 98 85
Criminal record check 98 85
Medical exam 80 28
Physical agility test 44 8
Psychological screening 66 17
Written aptitude test 43 24
*************************************************
For example, while 85% of the agencies using nonsworn security
officers required a background investigation and 80% required a
criminal record check, 98% of the agencies hiring sworn officers
had these two requirements.
Larger differences were found in the use of other screening
devices. Medical exams were required by 80% of those using
sworn officers compared to 28% of the agencies using only
nonsworn personnel, psychological screening by 66% and 17%
respectively, and physical agility tests by 44% and 8%.
Education requirements for new officers
All agencies serving a campus of 15,000 or more students and 98%
of agencies overall had a formal education requirement for new
officers (table 9).
*************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 9. Minimum educational requirement for new officer
recruits in campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus
enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies requiring a minimum of _
Total 4-year 2-year
with col- col- High
require- lege lege Some school
ment degree degree college diploma
Total 98% 2% 11% 16% 68%
30,000
or more 100% 11% 15% 19% 56%
25,000
-29,999 100 0 11 21 68
20,000
-24,999 100 3 13 13 70
15,000
-19,999 100 0 16 17 67
10,000
-14,999 98 2 13 11 71
5,000
-9,999 98 2 9 19 67
2,500
-4,999 97 1 10 14 70
-------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
*Nondegree requirements.
------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
About 3 in 10 agencies required new officers to have some
education beyond high school. Nearly half of those with a
college requirement, 13% of all agencies, required a degree.
Agencies were much more likely to require a 2-year degree (11%)
than a 4-year degree (2%).
Among agencies serving a campus of 30,000 or more students,
about a fourth had a degree requirement for new officers, with
11% requiring a 4-year degree and 15% a 2-year degree. Overall,
nearly half of these agencies serving the largest campuses had
some type of college requirement for new officers (44%).
Agencies using nonsworn security officers (27%) were almost as
likely to have some type of college requirement as those using
sworn police officers (30%); however, the latter group was about
twice as likely to have a degree requirement (15% versus 7%).
While 3% of the agencies hiring sworn personnel required new
officers to have a 4-year degree, none of the agencies using
nonsworn officers had such a requirement.
Compared with data collected by BJS from local police in 1993,
campus police were more likely to have a college requirement of
some type for new sworn officers (30% versus 18%). This difference
is mainly attributable to the fact that campus police (16%) were
more likely than local police (6%) to have some type of a
nondegree college requirement. Similar percentages of local
(12%) and campus (14%) police departments had degree
requirements for new sworn officers, with 3% of each group
requiring a 4-year degree.
Given recent trends toward more law enforcement agencies having
a college education requirement, the percentage of local police
departments with a college requirement in 1995 was likely to
have been closer to that for campus police than the 1993 data
indicate.
---------------------------------------
Training requirements for new officers
---------------------------------------
All agencies serving a campus of 15,000 or more students
required new officer recruits to undergo training, and 96% of
agencies overall had a training requirement (table 10).
**************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 10. Training requirements for new officer recruits in campus
law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
--------------------------------------------------
Percent
of agen- Average number
cies re- of hours required
quiring Class-
training room Field
Total 96% 326 270
30,000
or more 100% 387 469
25,000-
29,999 100 520 472
20,000-
24,999 100 441 585
15,000-
19,999 100 373 320
10,000-
14,999 98 347 284
5,000-
9,999 97 322 238
2,500
-4,999 91 229 140
-------------------------------------------------
Note: Computation of average number of training hours required
excludes departments not requiring training.
-------------------------------------------------
************************************************
Nine percent of all agencies operated a training academy,
including 19% of those serving a campus with 30,000 or more
students. About 4% of the full-time sworn personnel in campus
law enforcement agencies worked at least part of the time as
training officers.
Overall, the average agency training requirement for new
officers was about 600 hours, with slightly morethan half of it
in the classroom. Training requirements varied considerably by
enrollment category, ranging from an average of about 370 total
hours on campuses with 2,500 to 4,999 students to about 1,000
hours on campuses of 20,000 to 29,999 students.
The differences in officer training requirements between
enrollment categories are attributable to some extent to the
greater use of nonsworn security officers on smaller campuses.
Such personnel typically had to complete substantially fewer
hours of training than sworn campus police officers.
On campuses with 10,000 or more students, agencies hiring sworn
police officers required more than 4 times as many training
hours of new recruits as agencies hiring nonsworn security
officers (figure 4).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Figrure 4. Hours of training required for new recurits in campus
law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment and type
of officer, 1995
--------------------------------------------------
Campus Sworn
enrollment police Nonsworn security
10,000 or more 807 183
5,000-9,999 634 193
2,500-4,999 529 165
*************************************************
On smaller campuses, the difference was more than threefold. Aside from
their initial training, sworn campus police officers also
received an average of more than 50 in-service training hours
each during 1995.
Comparing campus and local police agencies with at least 10 but
fewer than 100 full-time sworn officers, the total number of
training hours required of new officer recruits by campus police
agencies (743) was slightly less than that required by local
police (820). On the average, campus police agencies (356
hours) required about the same amount of field training as local
police (342), but about 90 hours less classroom training.
Applicant and employee drug testing
Just over half of the agencies with sworn officers had a drug
testing program for applicants for sworn positions (table 11).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 11. Drug testing of applicants and employees in campus
law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies with a drug testing program
Any type Mandatory Random Suspected
of program (all are tested) selection use of drugs
Applicants
for sworn
positions
Total 53% 46% 3% 7%
30,000 or more 81% 81% 0% 4%
25,000-29,999 62 54 4 0
20,000-24,999 69 62 3 3
15,000-19,999 59 54 2 12
10,000-14,999 56 51 3 14
5,000-9,999 47 41 1 6
2,500-4,999 39 28 4 4
Regular field/
patrol officers
(sworn only)
Total 34% 8% 7% 23%
30,000 or more 62% 12% 8% 46%
25,000-29,999 35 4 0 31
20,000-24,999 31 0 7 28
15,000-19,999 37 15 5 32
10,000-14,999 34 13 7 25
5,000-9,999 33 8 9 20
2,500-4,999 27 5 8 12
Nonsworn
personnel
Total 24% 6% 2% 18%
30,000 or more 56% 11% 7% 37%
25,000-29,999 27 8 0 23
20,000-24,999 20 3 0 20
15,000-19,999 27 14 2 23
10,000-14,999 27 9 4 20
5,000-9,999 23 5 2 18
2,500-4,999 19 4 2 12
*************************************************
In most of these agencies, and 46% of agencies overall, drug
testing of applicants was mandatory. Agencies serving the
largest campuses (81%) were about three times as likely to have
mandatory drug testing of applicants as those serving the
smallest campuses (28%).
About a third of the agencies with sworn personnel had a drug
testing program for regular field officers (34%), including 62%
of those serving the largest campuses. In all enrollment
categories, the majority of drug testing programs for regular
field officers were based on suspicion of illegal drug use.
Overall, 23% of agencies tested officers suspected of drug use.
About a fourth of all agencies had a drug testing program for
nonsworn personnel (24%). As with sworn employees, agencies
were more likely to test nonsworn employees suspected of drug
use (18%) than to have a mandatory (6%) or random selection (2%)
program. A majority of the agencies serving a campus with
30,000 or more students (56%) had a drug testing program for
nonsworn employees, with 37% testing those suspected of using
illegal drugs.
----------------------
Expenditures and pay
--------------------
Operating expenditures
***********************
For fiscal 1995, campus law enforcement agencies serving 4-year
U.S. campuses with an enrollment of 2,500 or more had an average
operating expenditure of nearly $1.3 million, ranging from about
$4.3 million on the largest campuses to about $481,000 on the
smallest (table 12).
*************************************************
----------------------------------------------
Table 12. Operating expenditures of campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-----------------------------------------------
Operating expenditures, fiscal 1995
Per student
Per agency or campus
Per agency employee Per student employee
Total $1,262,000 $32,400 $109 $85
30,000 or more $4,263,400 $37,500 $116 $82
25,000-29,999 2,712,800 33,800 101 81
20,000-24,999 1,861,500 31,200 82 64
15,000-19,999 1,642,400 32,500 95 69
10,000-14,999 1,495,700 32,200 123 97
5,000-9,999 767,100 30,900 108 86
2,500-4,999 480,800 27,300 135 111
Note: Figures are for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1995, or
the most recent fiscal year completed prior to that date. gures
do not include capital expenditures such as equipment purchases
or construction costs. Per agency employee costs were calculated
by assigning a weight of .5 to part-time employees.
*************************************************
In all enrollment categories, about 90% of campus law
enforcement agency operating expenditures went toward employee
salaries and benefits.
Operating expenditures per agency employee ranged from $37,500
on the largest campuses to $27,300 on the smallest. Overall,
agencies cost $32,400 per employee to operate for the year.
These figures exclude capital expenditures such as those for
equipment purchases or construction.
When annual expenditures are considered on a per student-served
basis, the agencies serving the smallest campuses ($135)
actually cost the most to operate, and those serving a campus
with 20,000 to 24,999 students ($82) cost the least. The
overall per student expenditure was $109.
When the total campus population of students and employees is
considered, agencies serving a campus of 2,500 to 4,999 students
had a per capita expenditure of $111. This was more than $40
above the expenditure for agencies in the 15,000 to 24,999
enrollment range. Overall, campus law enforcement agency
operating expenditures were $85 per student or campus employee
served.
Per student expenditures for campus law enforcement agencies
varied greatly by region; however, in all regions, per student
expenditures for law enforcement were greater at private
institutions than public ones. Overall, the agencies at
campuses under private control cost $181 per student to operate
for the year, nearly twice as much as those under public control
($94) (figure 5).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 5. Annual operating expenditure per student by campus law
enforcement agencies, by type of institution for the Nation and
by region for all institution, fiscal year 1995
--------------------------------------------------
All regions
Public $94
Private 181
All institutions
Middle Atlantic $179
New England 146
South Atlantic 117
Pacific 115
East North Central 97
East South Central 96
West South Central 72
West North Central 68
Mountain 57
*************************************************
Overall, per student expenditures ranged from $179 in the Middle
Atlantic region to $57 in the Mountain region.
----------
Salaries
----------
In 1995, the average starting salary for chiefs and directors of
campus law enforcement agencies serving 2,500 or more students
was $45,100, ranging from $59,400 on the largest campuses to
$37,900 on the smallest (table 13).
*************************************************
------------------------------------------------
Table 13. Average base starting salary for selected positions
in campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus
enrollment, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Average base starting salary for:
Entry Assistant
Campus level Lieu- Chief/ Chief/
enrollment officer Sergeant tenant Captain Director Director
Total $21,500 $27,000 $31,700 $35,400 $37,200 $45,100
30,000
or more $27,200 $35,800 $39,700 $46,100 $51,800 $59,400
25,000
-29,999 24,600 31,800 36,600 36,800 45,100 58,300
20,000
-24,999 23,400 29,200 32,800 36,600 40,000 50,300
15,000
-19,999 23,900 28,800 32,300 39,300 42,400 53,500
10,000
-14,999 22,700 28,100 32,200 33,500 37,600 49,400
5,000
-9,999 21,200 26,300 30,100 32,600 34,100 41,800
2,500
-4,999 18,600 22,100 25,900 29,600 30,400 37,900
--------------------------------------------------
Note: Salary figures have been rounded to the nearest $100.
Computation of average salary excludes departments with no
full-time employee in that position.
-------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
Chiefs and directors of agencies in each enrollment category of
10,000 or more had a higher average starting salary than the
overall average.
By enrollment category, starting salaries for assistant chiefs
and assistant directors ranged from an average of $30,400 on the
smallest campuses to $51,800 on the largest campuses with an
overall average of $37,200. Average starting salaries for
captain ranged from $29,600 to $46,100 with an overall average
of $35,400; for lieutenant, from $25,900 to $39,700 with an
overall average of $31,700; and for sergeant, from $22,100 to
$35,800 with an overall average of $27,000.
The average base starting salary for entry-level officers on
4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students during 1995 was
$21,500. Entry-level officers hired on the largest campuses
earned an average starting salary of $27,200, nearly 50% more
than their counterparts on the smallest campuses. This
difference is due in part to the greater use of sworn officers
on larger campuses. On average, sworn campus police officers
started at a salary of about $22,400, 25% higher than for
nonsworn security officers ($17,900) (figure 6).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 6. Average starting salary for entry-level sworn police officers
and nonsworn security officers in all campus law enforcement
agencies and for entry-level sworn officers, by region, 1995
------------------------------------------------
All regions
Sworn police $22,435
Nonsworn police 17,906
Pacific 31,468
East North Central 24,199
Middle Atlantic 23,983
New England 23,825
Mountain 23,239
West North Central 20,922
South Atlantic 20,279
West South Central 18,269
East South Central 16,912
*************************************************
Sworn officers started at an average salary of $31,500 in the
Pacific region, about 30% more than in any other region.
Starting salaries were lowest for sworn officers in the East
South Central ($16,900) and West South Central regions ($18,300).
Based on 1993 BJS salary data forlocal police agencies converted
into 1995 dollars, the average starting salary for entry-level
sworn campus police officers was about 10% lower than for local
police officers in agencies of comparable size.
Special pay
About half of the campus law enforcement agencies that used
sworn personnel offered shift differential pay (49%) to
full-time officers (table 14).
************************************************
Table 14. Campus law enforcement agencies authorizing special
pay for full-time sworn personnel, by size of campus enrollment,
1995
Percent of agencies
authorizing pay for:
Shift Merit Haz-
Campus differ- incen- Edu- ard-
enrollment ential tive cation ous duty
Total 49% 33% 19% 8%
30,000 or more 35% 35% 36% 16%
25,000-29,999 57 48 18 11
20,000-24,999 55 41 34 17
15,000-19,999 50 48 23 10
10,000-14,999 61 28 18 6
5,000-9,999 50 29 18 7
2,500-4,999 38 30 11 5
*************************************************
At least half of the agencies in each enrollment category except
the largest and smallest offered shift differential pay.
Slightly more than a third of the agencies on campuses of 30,000
or more students or 2,500 to 4,999 students had shift
differential pay.
A third of all agencies offered merit pay to qualifying
full-time officers. Merit pay was most frequently authorized by
agencies serving a campus with an enrollment of 25,000 to 29,999
or 15,000 to 19,999, where about half offered it. About 3 in 10
agencies serving a campus with fewer than 15,000 students
offered merit pay to full-time sworn officers.
Nearly a fifth of all agencies offered education incentive pay
(19%) to full-time officers. Education incentive pay was
offered by more than a third of the agencies serving a campus
with an enrollment of 30,000 or more or 20,000 to 24,999. Just
1 in 9 agencies serving the smallest campuses offered this type
of special pay.
Approximately 1 in 12 agencies offered special pay for hazardous
duty to full-time sworn officers. About a sixth of the agencies
on campuses with 30,000 or more students or 20,000 to 24,999
students offered hazardous duty pay. Less than a tenth of the
agencies serving a campus with fewer than 15,000 students did so.
------------------------------------------
Collective bargaining and officer membership organizations
-------------------------------------------
About two-fifths of the agencies with sworn personnel authorized
collective bargaining for officers (39%) (table 15).
************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 15. Campus law enforcement agencies authorizing
collective bargaining, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
--------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
authorizing collective
bargaining for _
Campus Nonsworn Sworn
enrollment employees employees
Total 39% 33%
30,000 or more 50% 59%
25,000-29,999 61 46
20,000-24,999 48 43
15,000-19,999 46 47
10,000-14,999 45 41
5,000-9,999 40 37
2,500-4,999 20 12
**********************************************************
Agencies serving a campus with 25,000 to 29,999 students (61%)
were the most likely to authorize collective bargaining for
sworn personnel, and agencies serving a campus with an
enrollment of 2,500 to 4,999 (20%) were the least likely.
In a comparison of agencies with at least 10 but fewer than 100
full-time sworn officers, local police (65% in 1993) were more
likely than campus police (43%) to authorize collective
bargaining for officers.
A third of campus law enforcement agencies authorized collective
bargaining for nonsworn employees, including a majority of those
serving the largest campuses (59%). More than 40% of the agencies on
campuses with an enrollment of at least 10,000 but less than
30,000 also authorized collective bargaining for nonsworn
personnel.
A majority of all agencies authorized sworn personnel to join a
police association (57%) (table 16).
*************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 16. Campus law enforcement agencies authorizing police
membership organizations, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies authorizing membership
by sworn personnel in _
Police Police Nonpolice
association union union
Total 57% 46% 23%
30,000 or more 65% 54% 15%
25,000-29,999 64 57 21
20,000-24,999 45 62 17
15,000-19,999 61 41 10
10,000-14,999 57 45 36
5,000-9,999 56 51 28
2,500-4,999 56 31 15
*************************************************
Nearly two-thirds of those serving a campus with 25,000 or more
students authorized police association membership, as did a
majority in other category except that of 20,000 to 24,999
(45%).
Forty-six percent of all agencies with sworn personnel
authorized mem-bership in a police union. Agencies in the
20,000 to 24,999 enrollment category (62%) were twice as likely
to authorize police union membership as those serving a campus
with an enrollment of 2,500 to 4,999 (31%).
Nearly a fourth of all agencies allowed sworn personnel to join
a nonpolice union (23%). Agencies serving a campus with an
enrollment of 10,000 to 14,999 (36%) were the most likely to
authorize nonpolice unions, and those serving a campus with an
enrollment of 15,000 to 19,999 (10%) were the least.
-----------
Operations
-----------
Patrol and response
*******************
All agencies reported they provided their campus with patrol
services. Nearly all (96%) agencies provided 24-hour patrol
coverage at all times, including all agencies serving a campus
with 10,000 or more students.
All agencies serving a campus with 20,000 or more students used
automobiles for patrol during the two 24-hour target periods
designated in the survey, as did over 90% of those serving
smaller campuses (table 17).
*************************************************
------------------------------------------------
Table 17. Selected types of patrol units used by campus law
enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies Percent of all patrol
Campus using each type of patrol units deployed
enrollment Auto Foot Bicycle Other* Auto Foot Bicycle Other*
Total 94% 72% 32% 14% 52% 36% 7% 5%
30,000 or more 100% 69% 77% 42% 59% 27% 10% 5%
25,000-29,999 100 67 67 15 62 23 10 5
20,000-24,999 100 67 47 10 66 23 8 3
15,000-19,999 93 69 49 16 46 39 9 6
10,000-14,999 98 63 38 12 50 39 6 5
5,000-9,999 93 72 25 11 48 40 6 5
2,500-4,999 91 81 14 16 50 40 4 7
--------------------------------------------------
Note: Table based on patrol units deployed during two 24-hour
periods covering a Wednesday and a Saturday during the most
recent week with normal patrol activity.
*Includes golf cart, motorcycle, and other patrol types not
specified elsewhere.
--------------------------------------------------
************************************************
Nearly 3 in 4 agencies used foot patrol (72%), including about 4
in 5 agencies serving the smallest campuses (81%).
Bicycle patrol (32%) was used by about a third of all agencies.
More than two-thirds of the agencies serving a campus of 25,000
or more students had patrol officers on bikes. In contrast,
just a fourth of the agencies serving a campus of 5,000 to 9,999
students, and a seventh of those serving a campus of 2,500 to
4,999 students used bicycle patrol.
On campuses with 20,000 or more students, nearly two-thirds of
the patrol units deployed were automobile units compared to
about half on smaller campuses. Foot patrol accounted for about
two-fifths of the units deployed on the campuses with fewer than
20,000 students, compared to about a fourth on larger campuses.
Bicycle units comprised 10% of the total patrol deployment on campuses with
25,000 or more students compared to 4% on the smallest campuses.
Regardless of the type of patrol, agencies were much more likely
to deploy one-officer units than two-officer units. For
example, 90% used one-officer automobile units, but just 20%
deployed two-officer automobile units. Similar preferences for
one-officer units were found for foot (65% versus 12%), and
bicycle (30% versus 1%) patrol.
Ninety percent of all agencies had primary responsibility for dispatching
calls for service to officers (table 18).
************************************************
------------------------------------------------
Table 18. Communication functions of campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-----------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies with
primary responsibility for _
Dispatch-
ing Campus
calls for switchboard
service operation
Total 90% 22%
30,000 or more 96% 4%
25,000-29,999 100 11
20,000-24,999 97 7
15,000-19,999 96 4
10,000-14,999 97 16
5,000-9,999 90 26
2,500-4,999 83 34
*************************************************
More than 95% of the agencies on campuses with 10,000 or more
students performed dispatch functions, including all agencies
serving a campus of 25,000 to 29,999 students.
For nearly a fourth of all agencies, including about a third of
those serving a campus with 2,500 to 4,999 students, their
communication-related duties extended to the operation of the general campus
switchboard.
------------------------------------
A brief history of campus law
enforcement in the United States
------------------------------------
By Max L. Bromley, Ed.D.
Department of Criminology
University of South Florida
In the mid-1600's, American colleges made long lists of rules
and relied on common law to govern student lives, but the
schools had not yet identified a position responsible for
enforcement. College presidents, faculty members, and even
janitors performed security or "policing" functions (Neal,
1980).
The early enforcement efforts at U.S. higher education
institutions tended to focus on "the avoidance of fires and the
protection of property from both straying animals and irate
townsfolk" (Gelber, 1972).
At some colleges, unmarried professors and tutors lived in the
undergraduate dormitories and acted as "spies, policemen, and
judges" (Rudolph, 1962). College faculty members also monitored
student behavior at mealtimes and in the dorms, as at the
University of Florida in the late 1800's (Proctor, 1958).
In the mid-1800's, some colleges tried to involve their students
in discipline and policing. For example, Amherst organized a
"house of students" and students at Hamilton Literary and
Theological Institute formed a student association "which was
permitted by the faculty to take over many of the functions of
policing the institution" (Brubacher and Willis, 1968).
Colleges like Princeton created the position of "proctor" to
assist in handling discipline and policing. Witsil (1979)
offers the following description: "the office of the Proctor,
our designation for university police officer, was instituted in
1870 by President McCosh to help discharge the disciplinary
duties of the University."
In the late 1800's, frequent, bloody confrontations between Yale
University students and Connecticut towns people, led to a more
formalized policing response to campus crime. An ad hoc
committee of university members and city residents recommended
that two New Haven police officers be stationed on the Yale
campus. Thus, the first official campus police force was formed
in 1894 at Yale (Powell, 1981).
In the early 20th century, the evolving role of campus police
combined in different measures, watchmen and deans of students
(Esposito and Stormer, 1989). Protection of property and
building security were predominant duties. In the late 1920's
and early 1930's, bootleg alcohol became a campus problem.
Later, during the 1940's and 1950's vandalism and other
disturbances were often found to be alcohol-related (Powell,
1981). By this time, campus police often had the dual roles of
monitoring student conduct and enforcing laws.
Dramatic changes in campus policing resulted from the increased
number of college students after World War II. Rapid increases
forced an expansion of campus boundaries and altered university
life. The accompanying problems of crowding and crime often
exceeded the capability of campus security agencies (Shoemaker, 1995).
By the 1950's and continuing into the early 1960's, campus law
enforcement agencies were making necessary upgrades to their
effectiveness. Many new campus officers were retired former
city or military police (Sloan, 1992). Professional
organizations, such as the International Association of College
and University Security Directors, now the International
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA)
were formed during the 1950's and 1960's (Gelber, 1972). During
this time, campus police departments were often organizationally
part of the physical plant division or the dean of students
office (Powell, 1981).
Legal, social, and international events in the 1960's and early
1970's dramatically changed the role of campus police. The 1961
landmark case of Dickson v. Alabama Board of Education brought
full adult rights and responsibilities for students, replacing
the legal concept of "in loco parentis" historically followed
by
colleges and universities. During the social upheavals of the
period, the duties of campus agencies began to mirror more
closely those of traditional law enforcement. Many campuses
developed their own police departments, and by the early 1970's
officers at State institutions typically had full arrest powers
granted by statute or through local deputization (Gelber, 1972).
Brubacher, J. and Willis R. (1968) Higher Education in
Transition. New York: Harper and Row.
Esposito, D. & Stormer, D. (1989) "The Multiple Roles of Campus
Law Enforcement." Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 19(3): 26-30.
Gelber, S. (1972) The Role of Campus Security in the College
Setting. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Neal, R. (1980) "A History of Campus Security-- Early Origins."
Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 10(6): 28-30.
Powell, J. (1971) "The History and Proper Role of Campus
Security." Security World, 8(4): 18.
Powell, J. (1981) Campus Security and Law Enforcement. Woburn,
MA: Butterworth , Inc.
Powell, J. (1994) "The Beginning -Yale Campus Police Department,
1894." Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 24(4): 2-5.
Proctor, S. (1958) "The University of Florida: Its Early
Years." Unpublished dissertation, University of Florida.
Rudolph, F. (1962) The American College and University: A
History. New York: Random House.
Shoemaker, E. (1995) "Non-Traditional Strategies for
Implementing Community-Oriented Policing." Community Policing
on Campus. IACLEA.
Sloan, J. (1992) "The Modern Campus Police: An Analysis of
Their Evolution, Structure, and Function." American Journal of
Police, 11(1): 85-104.
Witsil, J. (1979) "Security at Princeton is Low-Keyed." Campus
Law Enforcement Journal, 9(2): 6-7.
End of box
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About two-thirds of all agencies participated in an emergency
911 telephone system whereby one of their units could be
dispatched as a result of a call to 911 or its equivalent (table
19).
*************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 19. Campus law enforcement agencies participating
in a 911 emergency telephone system,
by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
participating in a 911
telephone system
Total Enhanced Basic
Total 64% 26% 38%
30,000 or more 96% 63% 33%
25,000-29,999 75 43 32
20,000-24,999 67 43 23
15,000-19,999 89 40 49
10,000-14,999 60 28 33
5,000-9,999 64 21 44
2,500-4,999 54 16 38
-------------------------------------------------
Note: Participation is defined as the capability to dispatch a
unit as the result of a call to a 911 system. Detail may not
add to total because of rounding.
--------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
Two-fifths of these systems were enhanced ones, capable of
pinpointing the location of a caller automatically.
The percentage of campus law enforcement agencies participating
in a 911 system ranged from 96% of those serving a campus of
30,000 or more students to 54% of those serving a campus of
2,500 to 4,999 students.
Nearly two-thirds of the agencies on campuses with an enrollment
of 30,000 or more (63%) had enhanced 911, as did nearly half of
those serving a campus with at least 20,000 but fewer than
30,000 students (43%).
In all enrollment categories, public institutions were more
likely than those under private control to have a campus law
enforcement agency that participated in a 911 system (figure 7).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 7. Emergency response system of campus law enforcement agencies,
by
size of campus enrollment and type of institution, 1995
--------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
911 system with emergency response system
Public Private
10,000 or more 76 57
5,000-9,999 66 60
2,500-4,999 56 52
Blue light phone system
10,000 or more 94 89
5,000-9,999 68 80
2,500-4,999 51 69
*************************************************
The difference was greatest on campuses with 10,000 or more
students, where 76% of the agencies serving public institutions
were 911 participants compared to 57% of those at private
institutions.
In addition to 911 capabilities, many campus law enforcement
agencies equipped their campus with special emergency phones,
often called blue light phones, that connect directly with the
campus police when picked up.
Blue light phone systems, or their equivalent, were in operation
on all campuses with 25,000 or more students during 1995 (table
20).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 20. Campus law enforcement agencies operating a blue
light emergency phone system or equivalent, by size of campus
enrollment, 1995
--------------------------------------------------
Percent of Average
agencies number Average number
operating phones in of phones per
blue light system system 2,500 students
Total 77% 34 8
30,000 or more 100% 70 4
25,000-29,999 100 74 8
20,000-24,999 90 52 5
15,000-19,999 96 45 6
10,000-14,999 89 38 7
5,000-9,999 71 23 8
2,500-4,999 61 13 10
*************************************************
About 9 in 10 campuses with 10,000 to 24,999 students, 7 in 10
with 5,000 to 9,999 students, and 6 in 10 with 2,500 to 4,999
students had blue light phone systems.
The average number of phones in campus blue light systems was
34, ranging from about 70 on campuses with 25,000 or more
students to 13 on campuses with 2,500 to 4,999 students. The
smallest campuses had an average of about 10 blue light phones
per 2,500 students, compared to about 4 per 2,500 on the largest
campuses. Overall, agencies operating a blue light phone system
had an average of about 8 phones per 2,500 students.
Among campuses with 10,000 or more students, those under public
control (95%) were slightly more likely to have a blue light
phone system than those under private control (89%) (figure 7).
Private institutions were more likely to have a blue light
system than public ones on campuses with 5,000 to 9,999 students
(82% versus 69%), and campuses with 2,500 to 4,999 students (69%
versus 51%). The blue light systems on private campuses had an
average of about 10 phones per 2,500 students, compared to about
5 on public campuses.
--------------------
Crime investigation
---------------------
A majority of all agencies had primary responsibility for the
investigation of homicides (58%) occurring on campus, including
about 90% of those serving a campus of 25,000 or more students
(table 21).
*************************************************
-----------------------------------------------
Table 21. Crime investigation by campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies with primary
responsibility for investigation of_
Campus Violent crimes Property crimes
enrollment Homicide/a Other/b Arson Other/c
Total 58% 75% 65% 78%
30,000 or more 93% 96% 96% 96%
25,000-29,999 89 96 96 96
20,000-24,999 80 93 87 100
15,000-19,999 62 78 71 80
10,000-14,999 58 76 66 74
5,000-9,999 58 80 65 83
2,500-4,999 43 59 50 64
aIncludes murder and manslaughter.
bIncludes rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
cIncludes burglary, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft.
*************************************************
Three-fourths of all agencies handled the investigation of other
serious violent crimes such as forcible sex offenses, robbery,
or aggravated assault. A majority of the agencies in each
enrollment category investigated these violent crimes, including
nearly all agencies serving a campus of 20,000 or more students.
About two-thirds of all agencies were responsible for arson
investigations (65%), including nearly all of those serving a
campus of 25,000 or more students. More than three-fourths
(78%) of all agencies investigated other major property crimes
like burglary, larceny, or motor vehicle theft. A majority of
the agencies in each enrollment category, including nearly all
of those on campuses of 20,000 students or more, had primary
investigative responsibility for these crimes.
In cases where the campus law enforcement agency was not the
primary investigative agency for a crime occurring on campus,
that responsibility was typically either deferred completely to
a local law enforcement agency, or handled jointly with that
agency.
---------------------------
Drug and vice enforcement
---------------------------
Eighty-four percent of all agencies had primary responsibility
for the enforcement of drug laws on campus (table 22).
************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 22. Drug enforcement activities of campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
With primary Participating With receipts
responsibility in a multi-agency from a drug
Campus for enforcing drug enforcement asset forfeiture
enrollment drug laws task force program
Total 84% 15% 15%
30,000 or more 96% 37% 44%
25,000-29,999 96 21 39
20,000-24,999 97 40 37
15,000-19,999 91 24 22
10,000-14,999 89 16 19
5,000-9,999 87 10 5
2,500-4,999 72 8 8
*************************************************
Nearly all of the agencies on campuses with an enrollment of
20,000 or more had drug enforcement responsibilities, as did
about 9 in 10 agencies serving a campus of 5,000 to 14,999 students.
Fifteen percent of all agencies participated in a multi-agency
drug enforcement task force during 1994. More than a third of
the agencies serving campuses with an enrollment of 30,000 or
more (37%) or 20,000 to24,999 (40%) participated in a drug task
force. Fifteen percent of all agencies received money or goods
from a drug asset forfeiture program during fiscal 1994. About
4 in 10 agencies serving a campus with 20,000 or more students
had asset forfeiture receipts compared to less than 10in 10
agencies serving a campus with fewer than 10,000 students.
A majority of all agencies (56%) were responsible for the
enforcement of vice laws, including 89% of those on campuses
with an enrollment of 30,000 or more (table 23).
*************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 23. Vice enforcement by campus law enforcement agencies,
by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
Campus with primary responsibility
enrollment for vice enforcement
Total 56%
30,000 or more 89%
25,000-29,999 68
20,000-24,999 73
15,000-19,999 69
10,000-14,999 60
5,000-9,999 56
2,500-4,999 40
************************************************
Agencies serving a campus with 2,500 to 4,999 students (40%)
were the least likely to have vice enforcement duties.
-------------------------
Traffic-related functions
-------------------------
A large majority of agencies performed traffic-related functions
including the enforcement of traffic laws (84%), investigation
of traffic accidents (88%) and traffic direction and control
(89%) (table 24).
**************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 24. Traffic-related functions of campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies with
primary responsibility for_
Campus Enforcement of Accident Traffic direc-
enrollment traffic laws investigation tion and control
Total 84% 88% 89%
30,000 or more 93% 96% 89%
25,000-29,999 86 93 93
20,000-24,999 100 93 93
15,000-19,999 82 87 82
10,000-14,999 86 91 90
5,000-9,999 84 91 91
2,500-4,999 79 80 85
*************************************************
At least 79% of the agencies in every enrollment category were
responsible for enforcing traffic laws, including all of those
serving a campus with an enrollment of 20,000 to 24,999. The
percentage of agencies with primary responsibility for
investigating traffic accidents ranged from 80% on the smallest
campuses to 96% on the largest. Traffic direction and control
functions were performed by 85% or more of the agencies in each
enrollment category, including 93% of those serving a campus of
20,000 to 29,999 students.
Vehicles on campus also create the need for parking-related
functions, and in many cases these are the responsibility of
campus law enforcement agencies. Eighty-five percent of all
agencies were responsible for parking enforcement on campus, and
72% were responsible for the administration of campus parking
services (table 25)
**************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 25. Parking and transportation functions of campus law
enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995.
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies with
primary responsibility for _
Campus Parking Parking Campus
enrollment enforcement administration transportation
Total 85% 72% 25%
30,000 or more 48% 15% 4%
25,000-29,999 57 39 21
20,000-24,999 67 43 13
15,000-19,999 56 44 24
10,000-14,999 84 64 22
5,000-9,999 92 83 28
2,500-4,999 98 90 29
*************************************************
In general, agencies serving smaller campuses were more likely
to have parking-related responsibilities than those on larger
campuses. More than 90% of the agencies serving a campus with
fewer than 10,000 students, and 84% of those serving a campus
with 10,000 to 14,999 students handled parking enforcement. In
contrast, less than half of the agencies serving a campus of
30,000 or more students (48%) had parking enforcement
responsibilities.
Likewise, 90% of the agencies serving a campus with 2,500 to
4,999 students, and 83% of those serving a campus with 5,000 to
9,999 students had primary responsibility for the administration of parking
services on campus. Less than half of the agencies serving a
campus of 15,000 or more students were responsible for parking
administration, including just 15% of those on campuses with an
enrollment of 30,000 or more.
A fourth of all agencies were responsible for the operation of a
campus transportation system, including nearly 30% of the
agencies serving a campus with fewer than 10,000 students. Just 4% of the
agencies serving a campus of 30,000 or more students operated a campus
transportation system.
-----------------------------------------
Security for buildings and facilities
-----------------------------------------
A large majority of campus law enforcement agencies were
responsible for the lockup and unlocking of campus buildings
(85%) (table 26).
**************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 26. Building security functions of campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies with
primary responsibility for _
Campus Building Central alarm Key
enrollment lock/unlock monitoring control
Total 85% 80% 38%
30,000 or more 48% 93% 22%
25,000-29,999 82 96 32
20,000-24,999 77 97 27
15,000-19,999 69 93 31
10,000-14,999 77 94 32
5,000-9,999 89 76 45
2,500-4,999 96 65 41
*************************************************
Agencies in the smallest enrollment category (96%) were twice as
likely to be responsible for providing building lockup services
as those on the largest campuses (48%). At least 69% of the
agencies in each of the other enrollment categories performed
buildinglockup services, including 89% of those serving a campus
with 5,000 to 9,999 students.
Eighty percent of all agencies, including nearly all of those
serving a campus with 10,000 or more students, were responsible
for central alarm monitoring. About three-fourths of the
agencies serving a campus with 5,000 to 9,999 students (76%),
and about two-thirds of those serving 2,500 to 4,999 students
(65%) were responsible for alarm monitoring.
More than 40% of the agencies on campuses with fewer than 10,000
students had primary responsibility for key control _ about
twice the percentage among agencies serving a campus with an
enrollment of 30,000 or more. Overall, 38% of agencies had
campus key control responsibilities.
In addition to providing security for standard campus buildings
used for instructional, administrative, and residential
purposes, 4 in 5 agencies had primary responsibility for
providing security for special events occurring at campus
stadiums (70%) or arenas (67%) (table 27).
**************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 27. Special security functions of campus law
enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies providing security for:
Special events Medical
Campus Either center/ Nuclear
enrollment type Stadium Arena hospital facility
Total 80% 70% 67% 12% 7%
30,000 or more 100% 93% 100% 52% 48%
25,000-29,999 96 96 96 29 18
20,000-24,999 93 83 87 23 7
15,000-19,999 80 80 76 16 4
10,000-14,999 79 69 65 15 7
5,000-9,999 82 69 67 6 4
2,500-4,999 72 59 54 4 1
********************************************
Nearly all of the agencies serving a campus of 20,000 or more
students provided security for stadium or arena events, as did
about four-fifths of those serving a campus with 5,000 to
14,999 students, and about three-fourths of those serving a
campus with 2,500 to 4,999 students.
While stadium and arena events create temporary needs for large
increases in security personnel, a medical facility on campus
creates the need for personnel to provide around-the-clock
security for these facilities and the accompanying large number
of employees, patients and visitors. During 1995, about 1 in 8
agencies serving 4-year campuses with an enrollment of 2,500 or
more provided security for a medical center or hospital located
on their campus.
Fifty-two percent of the agencies serving a campus of 30,000 or
more students provided security for a medical facility as did
29% of those serving a campus of 25,000 to 29,999 students, and
23% of those serving a campus with 20,000 to 24,999 students.
Just 5% of the agencies on campuses with fewer than 10,000
students provided security for a medical facility.
Nearly half of the agencies on campuses with 30,000 or more
students (48%) provided security for a nuclear reactor facility.
However, few agencies on campuses with an enrollment of less
than 25,000 were responsible for providing security at a nuclear
facility, and just 7% of all agencies performed this function.
Comparing agencies on the 50 largest and 50 smallest campuses
illustrates how agency responsibilities vary with enrollment
size (figure 8).
*************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Selected responsibilities of campus law enforcement agencies
serving the 50 largest and 50 smallest campuses in the survey.
1995
-------------------------------------------------
Type of
function fifty largest fifty smallest
Building lockup 69 10
Central alarm
monitoring 94 68
Investigation of
serious crimes 96 60
Medical center
security 40 6
Nuclear facility
security escorts 32 0
Personal safety
escorts 68 92
Parking enforcement 52 96
Stadium/arena event
security 98 64
Traffic enforcement 94 86
The agencies on the 50 largest campuses were more likely than
the smaller agencies to perform central alarm monitoring,
investigate serious crimes, and provide security for special
facilities and events. The agencies on the 50 smallest campuses
were more likely than those serving the largest campuses to be
responsible for building lockup, personal safety escorts, and
parking enforcement.
--------------------------------
Special public safety functions
--------------------------------
During 1995 many of the law enforcement agencies serving
campuses of 2,500 or more students performed special functions
related to public safety that went beyond the scope of
traditional law enforcement duties. For example, more than a
third were responsible for emergency medical services (36%),
including about two-fifths of those serving a campus with fewer
than 10,000 students (table 28).
************************************************
----------------------------------------------------
Table 28. Special public safety functions of campus law
enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies with primary responsibility for:
Environ-
mental Emer-
Emergency Search health gency
Campus medical Animal Fire and and fire
enrollment services control inspection rescue safety services
Total 36% 35% 30% 29% 25% 19%
30,000 or more 22% 37% 11% 37% 11% 4%
25,000-29,999 36 50 11 39 18 21
20,000-24,999 23 23 13 20 7 13
15,000-19,999 24 33 29 38 20 18
10,000-14,999 31 36 19 22 21 9
5,000-9,999 39 31 30 35 27 21
2,500-4,999 42 37 46 23 34 27
**************************************************
More than a third of all agencies were responsible for animal
control, including half of the agencies serving a campus with
25,000 to 29,999 students.
Campus fire inspection was a responsibility for 30% of all
agencies. Forty-six percent of the agencies serving a campus
with 2,500 to 4,999 students performed this function, compared
to 11% of the agencies serving a campus with 25,000 or more
students.
For 19% of all agencies, fire-related duties extended into the
area of emergency fire services. The percentage of agencies
providing emergency fire services ranged from 4% on the largest
campuses to 27% on the smallest.
Search-and-rescue operations were performed by 29% of all
agencies, and at least a fifth of the agencies in each
enrollment category had this responsibility.
Functions related to campus environmental health and safety were
a responsibility of a fourth of all agencies, including about a
third of those on the smallest campuses.
-----------
Equipment
-----------
Sidearms
*********
Sixty-four percent of the law enforcement agencies serving a
campus of 2,500 or more students used armed patrol officers
(table 1). In 83% of the agencies employing sworn personnel,
patrol officers were authorized to carry a sidearm. In
addition, 14, or 8%, of the agencies that used nonsworn security
officers reported their officers had received special State or
local certification to carry a sidearm.
Among the agencies using armed officers, 76% authorized the use
of an semiautomatic sidearm, including over 80% of those serving
a campus of 20,000 or more students (table 29).
**************************************************
------------------------------------------------
Table 29. Selected types of sidearms authorized for use by
officers in campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus
enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies authorizing _
Campus Semi-automatic Revolver
enrollment Any 9mm .40 .45 .380 10mm Any .38 .357
Total 76% 64% 34% 19% 14% 9% 65% 53% 44%
30,000 or more 85% 73% 35% 27% 27% 15% 58% 54% 23%
25,000-29,999 89 74 30 17 5 17 67 54 38
20,000-24,999 82 71 32 31 16 4 61 44 43
15,000-19,999 67 49 38 13 16 13 53 41 37
10,000-14,999 77 56 40 20 12 11 62 52 43
5,000-9,999 78 67 33 14 14 5 66 54 46
2,500-4,999 69 65 31 24 15 8 74 59 55
------------------------------------------------
Note: Table excludes agencies not using armed officers.
Specific calibers of sidearms
listed in table are limited to those which at least 9% of all
agencies authorized.
-------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
A comparison of campus police departments using armed officers
with local police departments of similar size shows that local
police (95% in 1993) were more likely to authorize the use of
semiautomatic sidearms than campus police (77%).
By far the type of semiautomatic sidearm most commonly
authorized for use by campus police officers during 1995, was
the 9mm (64%). Other semiautomatic weapons authorized by 9% or
more of all agencies included the .40, .45, .380, and 10mm
varieties.
Nearly two-thirds of campus law enforcement agencies using armed
officers authorized the use of revolvers. The types of
revolvers most commonly authorized were the .38 (53%) and the
.357 (44%).
Among agencies that used armed officers, 82% supplied their
officers' sidearms, including all agencies serving a campus with
30,000 or more students (table 30).
**************************************************
------------------------------------------------
Table 30. Supply of sidearms in campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Campus Percent of agencies
enrollment supplying sidearms
Total 82%
30,000 or more 100%
25,000-29,999 81
20,000-24,999 86
15,000-19,999 86
10,000-14,999 87
5,000-9,999 77
2,500-4,999 74
------------------------------------------------
Note: Table excludes agencies not using armed officers.
------------------------------------------------
**************************************************
More than 80% of the agencies serving a campus with 10,000 to
29,999 students supplied officer sidearms, as did more than 70%
of the agencies serving a campus with 2,500 to 9,999 students.
Body armor
************
About a fourth (27%) of all agencies required at least some of
their regular field officers to wear protective armor while on
duty (table 31).
******************************************************
------------------------------------------------------
Table 31. Body armor requirements for officers in campus law
enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies requiring regular field
officers to wear protective armor while on duty
Campus
enrollment Total All officers Some officers
Total 27% 20% 7%
30,000 or more 56% 37% 19%
25,000-29,999 36 32 4
20,000-24,999 37 23 13
15,000-19,999 29 18 11
10,000-14,999 37 23 14
5,000-9,999 26 21 5
2,500-4,999 14 12 2
--------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
-------------------------------------------------
**************************************************
This included 20% who required all regular field officers to
wear armor and 7% who applied this requirement to some officers
depending on assignment. A majority of the agencies on the
largest campuses (56%) had a body armor requirement, with 37% of
these agencies requiring all field officers to wear protective
armor.
About a third of the agencies serving a campus with 10,000 to
29,999 students required at least some officers to wear body
armor. Thirty-two percent of those on campuses with an
enrollment of 25,000 to 29,999 applied the requirement to all
field officers.
About 1 in 4 agencies serving a campus of 5,000 to 9,999
students, and 1 in 7 serving a campus with 2,500 to 4,999
students had some type of armor wear requirement. Like the agencies on
larger campuses, the requirement usually applied to all field officers.
Among agencies that did not require officers to wear body armor, 7%
required officers to sign a disclaimer.
Nearly half (47%) of all agencies supplied protective body armor
to their officers (table 32).
************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 32. Supply of/cash allowance for protective body armor in
campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment,
1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
supplying or providing
cash allowance for armor
Campus
enrollment Supplied Cash allowance
Total 47% 5%
30,000 or more 70% 11%
25,000-29,999 86 4
20,000-24,999 67 7
15,000-19,999 64 2
10,000-14,999 56 1
5,000-9,999 45 7
2,500-4,999 26 4
*************************************************
Five percent of agencies provided a cash allowance for the
purchase of amor. A majority of the agencies serving campuses
with 10,000 or more students supplied armor to officers, with
those serving a campus with an enrollment of 25,000 to 29,999
(86%) the most likely to do so. Agencies serving a campus of
2,500 to 4,999 students were the least likely to supply armor.
Including 11% of thoseserving a campus of 30,000 or more
students.
------------------
Nonlethal weapons
------------------
About 9 in 10 agencies serving a campus with 15,000 or more
students authorized their officers to use a baton as a nonlethal
weapon (table 33).
*****************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 33. Types of batons authorized for use by officers in
campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment,
1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies authorizing batons
Campus
enrollment Any type Collapsible PR-24 Traditional
Total 71% 45% 34% 30%
30,000 or more 89% 74% 37% 41%
25,000-29,999 93 61 50 46
20,000-24,999 90 57 47 40
15,000-19,999 87 62 47 31
10,000-14,999 80 47 40 35
5,000-9,999 68 43 28 30
2,500-4,999 55 31 29 20
*************************************************
About 8 in 10 agencies serving a campus of 10,000 to 14,999
students, and 7 in 10 agencies serving a campus of 5,000 to
9,999 students authorized batons. Overall, 71% of agencies
authorized batons, with the agencies serving the smallest
campuses (55%) the least likely to allow their use.
Collapsible batons (45%) were the type of baton most frequently
authorized, followed by the PR-24 (34%) and traditional (30%)
types. A majority of the agencies serving a campus of 15,000 or
more students authorized the use of collapsible batons,
including about three-fourths of those serving a campus with an
enrollment of 30,000 or more.
Although collapsible batons were the type most commonly
authorized regardless of enrollment category, about half of the
agencies serving a campus of 15,000 to 29,999 students
authorized PR-24 batons, and more than 40% of those serving a
campus of 25,000 or more students authorized traditional batons.
In addition to batons, the only other type of nonlethal weapon
authorized by a majority of agencies was pepper spray (56%)
(table 34).
**************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 34. Nonlethal weapons other than batons authorized for
use by officers in campus law enforcement agencies, by size of
campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies authorizing:
Tear Tear
gas, gas Flash/
Campus Pepper per- large Carotid Choke Stun bang
enrollment spray sonal volume hold hold gun grenade
Total 56% 11% 5% 5% 2% 2% 1%
30,000 or more 59% 26% 26% 11% 0% 15% 15%
25,000-29,999 71 32 18 14 7 4 4
20,000-24,999 70 10 10 3 0 3 0
15,000-19,999 64 2 4 11 4 0 0
10,000-14,999 62 12 1 6 2 3 0
5,000-9,999 55 9 2 3 1 1 1
2,500-4,999 46 10 3 3 2 1 0
*************************************************
About 7 in 10 agencies serving a campus with 20,000 to 29,999
students, and more than 6 in 10 serving a campus with 10,000 to
19,999 students authorized their officers to use pepper spray.
Only on the smallest campuses did less than half of the agencies
authorize the use of pepper spray.
About 1 in 8 agencies authorized the use of tear gas, with about
twice as many authorizing it in the personal issue size (11%) as
in the bulk form (5%). About a third of the agencies serving a
campus with 25,000 or more students authorized the use of tear
gas in some form.
Other nonlethal weapons authorized by small percentages of
campus law enforcement agencies included carotid holds (5%),
choke holds (2%), electric stun guns (2%), and flash/bang
grenades (1%). Fifteen percent of the agencies serving a campus
with 30,000 or more students authorized these latter two types
of weapons.
In 95% of the campus law enforcement agencies employing sworn
personnel, officers were authorized to use one or more types of nonlethal
weapons (figure 9).
************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 9. Nonlethal weapons authorized for use by sworn police officers
and nonsworn security officers in campus law enforcement
agencies, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
Type of Nonsworn
nonlethal weapon Sworn security
Any type 95 39
Baton 84 22
Pepper sray 64 28
Tear gas 13 8
Choke/carotid hold 7 2
************************************************
In contrast, just 39% of the agencies using nonsworn security
officers authorized them to use nonlethal weapons. In some cases
these policies were dictated by law.
A majority of the agencies using sworn officers authorized the
use of a baton (84%) or pepper spray (64%), compared to about a
fourth of those using nonsworn personnel. Sworn officers were
also more likely to be authorized to use tear gas or choke and
carotid holds, although only small percentages of campus
officers, sworn or nonsworn, were authorized to use these types
of nonlethal weapons.
---------
Vehicles
---------
Ninety-four percent of all agencies used automobiles as a part
of their daily operations, including all agencies serving a
campus of 20,000 or more students (table 35).
************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 35. Use of marked and unmarked cars by campus law
enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies operating cars
Campus
enrollment Either type Marked Unmarked
Total 94% 91% 64%
30,000 or more 100% 100% 96%
25,000-29,999 100 100 100
20,000-24,999 100 100 100
15,000-19,999 96 96 84
10,000-14,999 98 96 76
5,000-9,999 94 90 60
2,500-4,999 88 83 40
*************************************************
Nearly all agencies operated marked cars (91%), and about
two-thirds used unmarked cars (64%).
The average number of cars operated ranged from 15 on the
largest campuses to 3 on the smallest, with an overall
average of 6. About two-thirds of all cars were marked.
Campus Average number of
enrollment cars operated
Total 6
30,000 or more 15
25,000-29,999 11
20,000-24,000 10
15,000-19,999 9
10,000-14,999 6
5,000-9,999 4
2,500-4,999 3
About a third of all agencies operated vans (33%), including a
majority of the agencies on campuses with 20,000 or more
students (table 36).
************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 36. Types of motorized vehicles other than cars operated
by campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus
enrollment, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies operating _
Campus Golf Motor-
enrollment Vans carts cycles Buses Boats
Total 33% 18% 8% 7% 1%
30,000 or more 74% 19% 37% 0% 0%
25,000-29,999 64 18 21 7 7
20,000-24,999 63 10 7 13 0
15,000-19,999 42 18 13 11 4
10,000-14,999 38 15 10 8 0
5,000-9,999 24 14 3 9 2
2,500-4,999 21 24 4 3 1
************************************************
Golf carts were used by 18% of all agencies, including 24% of
the agencies in the smallest enrollment category.
Motorcycles were used by 8% of all agencies, with the agencies
on the largest campuses (37%) the most likely to use them.
Seven percent of all agencies used buses, and 1% operated boats,
although none of the agencies serving a campus with an
enrollment of 30,000 or more used these types of vehicles.
------------------------
Communications equipment
-------------------------
All agencies serving a campus of 10,000 or more students, and
almost all at smaller campuses, used portable radios (table 37).
******************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 37. Selected types of communication equipment used by
campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-----------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies using _
Radios
Campus Base Mobile Cellular
enrollment Portable station vehicle phones
Total 99% 91% 80% 60%
]30,000 or more 100% 96% 93% 89%
25,000-29,999 100 93 100 93
20,000-24,999 100 100 93 87
15,000-19,999 100 98 87 78
10,000-14,999 100 97 86 66
5,000-9,999 99 90 77 54
2,500-4,999 98 86 69 45
*************************************************
About 9 in 10 agencies used base station radios. Eighty-percent of all
agencies used mobile vehicle radios, including nearly all agencies
serving a campus with 20,000 or more students.
Sixty percent of all agencies used cellular phones, including a
majority of the agencies in each enrollment category of 5,000 or
more. About 90% of the agencies serving a campus with 20,000 or
more students used cellular phones.
--------------------------------
Computers and information systems
----------------------------------
Types of computers used
************************
Ninety-nine percent of all agencies were using 1 or more types
of computers during 1995, including all of those on campuses of
15,000 or more students (table 38).
************************************************
-----------------------------------------------
Table 38. Types of computers used by campus law enforcement
agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies using each type of computer
Mobile digital terminal
Campus Any Per- Main Either Car- Hand-
enrollment type sonal frame LAN Laptop Mini type mounted held
Total 99% 90% 62% 33% 22% 19% 8% 2% 6%
30,000 or more 100% 96% 37% 81% 56% 44% 26% 15% 11%
25,000-29,999 100 100 50 71 61 43 21 4 18
20,000-24,999 100 93 67 53 33 30 7 3 3
15,000-19,999 100 91 64 53 36 18 4 2 2
10,000-14,999 99 94 62 38 29 24 11 1 10
5,000-9,999 99 87 66 27 15 17 6 1 5
2,500-4,999 97 88 64 15 8 10 4 1 4
************************************************
Personal computers were used by 90% of all agencies, including
nearly all of those serving a campus of 10,000 or more students.
Sixty-two percent of all agencies used a mainframe. This type
of computer was most common among agencies serving a campus
with fewer than 25,000 students, where more than 60% in each
enrollment category were using them.
About a fifth of all agencies were using a mini-computer (19%),
including nearly half of those on campuses with 25,000 or more
students. A third of all agencies were hooked in to a local
area computer network, or LAN. This included a large majority
of the agencies on campuses with 25,000 or more students.
Nearly a fourth of all agencies were using laptop computers
(22%), including a majority of those serving a campus of 25,000
or more students. About a third of the agencies serving a
campus with 10,000 to 24,999 students were using laptops.
About 1 in 12 agencies were using mobile digital terminals,
including about 1 in 4 agencies serving a campus of 25,000 or
more students. Overall, 3 times as many agencies were using
hand-held terminals as car-mounted ones; however, on the largest
campuses slightly more agencies used the car-mounted type.
---------------------
Computer functions
--------------------
Campus law enforcement agencies used computers for a wide
variety of management-related functions during 1995 (table 39).
**************************************************
-----------------------------------------------
Table 39. Selected functions of computers in campus law
enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies using computers for _
Crim-
Re inal Man-
Re- search/ in- power Fleet
cord sta- Bud ves- Crime al- man-
keep- tis- get ti- anal- Dis loca- age-
ing tics ing tions ysis patch tion ment
Total 83% 64% 62% 58% 52% 50% 25% 22%
30,000 or more 96% 89% 85% 93% 96% 78% 52% 56%
25,000-29,999 93 93 86 89 86 89 43 43
20,000-24,999 100 83 83 67 70 70 40 50
15,000-19,999 91 89 71 73 78 69 29 29
10,000-14,999 84 66 70 70 59 62 22 23
5,000-9,999 79 57 57 59 45 47 23 20
2,500-4,999 77 51 49 35 34 28 19 8
*************************************************
In general, agencies on campuses with 15,000 or more students
were the most computerized in terms of management functions, and
those serving a campus with fewer than 5,000 students the least.
A majority of the agencies in each enrollment category used
computers for record-keeping and for research and statistical
purposes. A majority in each enrollment category of 5,000 or
more used computers for budgeting and criminal investigation. A
majority in each enrollment category of 10,000 or more used
computers for crime analysis and dispatch.
On the largest campuses, agencies used computers for each of the
functions covered by the survey including record-keeping (96%),
crime analysis (96%), criminal investigations (93%), research
and statistics (89%), budgeting (85%), dispatch (78%), fleet
management (56%), and manpower allocation (52%).
On the smallest campuses, the only functions for which a
majority of the agencies used computers were record-keeping
(77%), and research and statistics (51%). Nearly half of these
agencies did use computers for budgeting (49%), and about a
third used them in conjunction with criminal investigations
(35%) and crime analysis (34%). Smaller percentages of these
agencies used computers for dispatch (28%), manpower allocation
(19%), or fleet management (8%).
-------------------------
Computerized information
-------------------------
Three percent of all agencies had exclusive or shared ownership
of an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) that
included a file of digitized prints (table 40).
*************************************************
------------------------------------------------
Table 40. Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)
capabilities of campus law enforcement agencies, by size of
campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
Owning Using a remote
Campus an AFIS access AFIS
enrollment system terminal
Total 3% 5%
30,000 or more 7% 8%
25,000-29,999 7 15
20,000-24,999 0 14
15,000-19,999 2 7
10,000-14,999 2 3
5,000-9,999 2 6
2,500-4,999 3 2
------------------------------------------------
Note: Ownership of AFIS system may be exclusive or shared.
--------------------------------------------------
**************************************************
Five percent used a terminal that provided remote access to an
AFIS system. Agencies serving a campus with 25,000 or more
students (7%) were the most likely to have ownership of an AFIS
system, while those serving a campus with 20,000 to 29,999
students were the most likely to have a remote access AFIS
terminal (14%).
Most campus law enforcement agencies serving larger campuses
maintained computerized files containing a wide range of
information (table 41)
.
**************************************************
------------------------------------------------
Table 41. Selected types of computerized information files
maintained by a majority of campus law enforcement agencies, by
size of campus enrollment, 1995
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies maintaining
computerized information files on _
Vehicle Calls
regis- for Traffic UCR
Arrests tration service Alarms citations summary
Total 62% 59% 56% 54% 53% 52%
30,000 or more 89% 48% 96% 85% 67% 89%
25,000-29,999 93 39 89 86 64 68
20,000-24,999 87 37 83 70 70 67
15,000-19,999 82 44 71 80 47 64
10,000-14,999 66 55 62 63 51 56
5,000-9,999 61 64 50 47 47 51
2,500-4,999 41 68 39 38 54 36
**************************************************
A majority of all agencies had computerized information on
arrests (62%), vehicle registration ((59%), calls for service
(56%), alarms (54%), traffic citations (53%), and the summary
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) (52%).
On the smallest campuses, vehicle registration and traffic
citations were the only types of information covered by the
survey that were maintained by a majority of the agencies.
A majority of the agencies in each enrollment category of 5,000
or more had computerized arrest files. This included more than
80% of those on campuses with an enrollment of 15,000 or more,
and more than 60% of those serving a campus of 5,000 to 14,999
students.
A majority of the agencies in each enrollment category of 5,000
or more also had computerized data for the summary UCR. About 9
in 10 agencies serving a campus of 30,000 or more students, and
about 2 in 3 agencies serving a campus of 15,000 to 29,999
students had computerized UCR summary statistics.
A majority of the agencies in each enrollment category of 10,000
or more had computerized information on calls for service and
alarms. Nearly all agencies serving a campus of 30,000 or more
students (96%) had computerized calls for service data, as did
more than 80% of those serving a campus of 20,000 to 29,999
students. More than 80% of the agencies serving a campus of
25,000 or more students had computerized alarm information.
About two-thirds of the agencies on campuses with 20,000 or more
students had computerized traffic citation files. About half of
those serving a campus with an enrollment of less than 20,000
also had this type of information computerized.
About two-thirds of the agencies serving a campus with fewer
than 10,000 students had computerized vehicle registration
information compared to less than half of those serving a campus
of 15,000 or more students. This was the only type of
computerized information covered by the survey that was
maintained by more agencies in the smallest enrollment category
than in the largest.
More than a third but less than half of all agencies had computerized files
pertaining to stolen property (49%), agency personnel (49%), criminal
histories (46%), traffic accidents (44%), UCR incident-based data (42%),
departmental inventory (37%), and payroll (35%) (table 42).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 42. Selected types of computerized information files
maintained by less than half of campus law enforcement agencies,
by size of campus enrollment, 1995
------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies maintaining computerized information
Dri-
ver's
A- Cri- li-
gen- mi- cense
Sto- cy nal Traf- UCR in-
len per- his- fic inci- In- for- Sum
pro- son- to acci- demt- ven Pay ma- Evi- War- mon-
perty nel ries dents based tory roll tion dence rants ses
Total 49% 49% 46% 44% 42% 37% 35% 28% 25% 25% 17%
30,000 or more 81% 81% 70% 70% 67% 67% 74% 44% 63% 59% 22%
25,000-29,999 75 64 75 57 71 68 68 36 54 50 32
20,000-24,999 83 60 60 63 57 53 37 30 57 37 20
15,000-19,999 69 53 64 53 51 56 53 31 33 44 18
10,000-14,999 56 51 50 49 44 39 46 36 28 34 19
5,000-9,999 47 44 44 40 37 34 26 28 21 22 17
2,500-4,999 28 41 29 34 32 23 20 19 10 9 12
**************************************************
Except for payroll, a majority of the agencies in each
enrollment category of 15,000 or more had these types of files,
and a majority in each category of 10,000 or more had stolen
property and agency personnel files in a computerized format.
Less than a third of all agencies had computerized files on
drivers' licenses (28%), evidence (25%), warrants (25%), or
summonses (17%). However, more than half of the agencies
serving a campus of 25,000 or more students had computerized
warrant information, and a majority of those serving a campus of 20,000
or more students had computerized evidence files.
A comparison of the 1995 campus police data with 1993 BJS data
on local police suggests both types of agencies utilize
computers to perform management functions and develop information systems
to
a similar degree (figure 10).
**************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Figure 10. Use of computers by campus police in 1995 and local police
in 1993, for agencies with at least 10 but fewer than 100 full-time
sworn personnel
-------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies
Computer functions Campus Local
Criminal investigation 70 64
Dispatch 63 52
Crime analysis 60 50
Fleet management 28 30
Manpower allocation 28 28
Computerized files
Arrests 73 81
Calls for service 66 72
Criminal history 57 54
Stolen property 59 61
Traffic citations 55 69
UCR incident-Based 47 29
Vehicle registration 57 28
*************************************************
Campus police agencies were somewhat more likely to use
computers to assist with criminal investigations, dispatch, and
crime analysis. They were also more likely to have
incident-based UCR data and vehicle registration information in
a computerized format.
-----------------------
Policies and programs
-----------------------
Written policy directives
************************
Campus law enforcement agencies maintained written policy
directives covering a wide range of subject areas during 1995.
Nearly all had a directive pertaining to an employee code of
conduct (94%), including all but one of the agencies serving a
campus with 15,000 or more students (table 43).
*************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
Table 43. Selected subject areas of written policy directives
maintained by campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus
enrollment, 1995
--------------------------------------------------
Percent of agencies maintaining a written policy directive
pertaining to _
Other
enforce- Citizen Off-duty
Campus Code of Deadly ment com- Pursuit employ-
enrollment conduct force agencies plaints driving ment Juveniles
Total 94% 81% 70% 70% 69% 63% 60%
30,000 or
more 100% 100% 78% 96% 89% 85% 96%
25,000
-29,999 100 100 82 89 93 89 96
20,000
-24,999 97 97 87 83 90 80 87
15,000
-19,999 100 87 80 89 89 80 82
10,000
-14,999 94 87 66 78 68 65 63
5,000
-9,999 92 80 65 60 70 59 55
2,500
-4,999 91 68 68 60 52 50 40
Percent of agencies maintaining a written policy directive
pertaining to _
Residence Student Mentally
Domestic life judicial Victim ill Employee
disputes officials officers services persons counseling
Total 58% 56% 55% 52% 51% 50%
30,000 or 78% 52% 59% 59% 78% 44%
more
25,000
-29,999 86 64 64 50 79 75
20,000
-24,999 80 50 50 47 73 47
15,000
-19,999 78 60 60 67 67 64
10,000
-14,999 61 47 49 45 51 54
5,000
-9,999 51 56 54 52 45 50
2,500
-4,999 47 60 57 51 41 43
*************************************************
All agencies serving a campus with an enrollment of 25,000 or
more had a policy directive regarding the use of deadly force
by officers. Overall, 81% of agencies had a deadly force
policy, including 97% of those with armed officers.
About 7 in 10 agencies had written policy directives pertaining
to relations with other law enforcement agencies (70%), handling
of citizen complaints (70%), and pursuit driving (69%). A
majority of the agencies in each enrollment category had these
types of policies, with those serving a campus with 15,000 or
more students the most likely to have them.
About 3 in 5 agencies had directives pertaining to off-duty
employment (63%), the handling of juveniles (60%), and domestic
disputes (58%).
Among agencies serving a campus with an enrollment of 15,000 or
greater, the proportion with such policies exceeded 4 in 5.
Ninety-six percent of the agencies serving a campus with 25,000
or more students had a policy on the handling of juveniles,
compared to 40% of those serving a campus with 2,500 to 4,999
students.
Just over half of all agencies had a policy on relations with
residence life officials (56%) and student judicial officers
(55%), and victim services (52%). Agencies in the 10,000 to
14,999 enrollment category were the least likely to
havedirectives on these topics.
Half of all agencies had a policy on employee counseling
assistance. Agencies serving a campus with an enrollment of
25,000 to 29,999 (75%), or 15,000 to 19,999 (64%) were the most
likely to have such a directive. Employee counseling was the
only topic included in the survey for which less than half of
the agencies serving a campus of 30,000 or more students had a
written policy directive.
Special units and programs
*************************
Many campus law enforcement agencies operated special units
and/or programs aimed at reducing crime, drug and alcohol abuse,
and other campus problems. For example, 85% of all agencies
operated a special program or unit for general crime prevention
(table 44).
*************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Table 44. Selected special units