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 or programs operated by campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment , 1995 -------------------------------------------------- Percent of agencies operating a special unit or program for_ Stu- Stran- dent Date ger se Alco- Self Crime rape rap cur- hol Drug de- pre- pre- pre- ity edu- edu- fense Victim Campus ven- ven- ven- pa- ca- ca- train- assis- Hate enrollment tion tion tion trol tion tion ing tance crimes Total 85% 68% 60% 60% 53% 50% 40% 37% 23% 30,000 or more 100% 81% 78% 85% 63% 67% 59% 52% 37% 25,000-29,999 100 100 100 75 68 54 79 54 50 20,000-24,999 90 80 77 63 53 50 57 43 30 15,000-19,999 91 80 80 69 56 56 40 38 31 10,000-14,999 90 61 54 63 46 38 39 34 20 5,000-9,999 85 67 58 58 55 50 36 39 22 2,500-4,999 75 61 48 49 49 51 32 31 16 ************************************************** This included all of the agencies serving a campus with 25,000 or more students, and about 90% of those serving a campus with 10,000 to 24,999 students. About two-thirds of all agencies operated rape prevention programs, with slightly more having programs for preventing date rape (68%) than stranger rape (60%). All agencies serving a campus with 25,000 to 29,999 students had both types of programs, as did about 80% of the agencies in other enrollment categories of 15,000 or more. More than 60% of the agencies on campuses with an enrollment under 15,000 had a date rape prevention program, and a majority of those on campuses with 5,000 to 14,999 students had a stranger rape prevention program. Three-fifths of all agencies operated a student security patrol program, including a majority in each enrollment category of 5,000 or more. Agencies serving a campus with 30,000 or more students (85%) were the most likely to have such a program. Just over half (53%) of all agencies had an education program designed to combat alcohol abuse. At least 46% of the agencies in every enrollment category had such a program, including more than 60% of those on campuses with 25,000 or more students. Half of all agencies operated a drug education program, including two-thirds of those serving a campus with 30,000 or more students. At least half of the agencies in every enrollment category operated a drug education program with the exception of those in the 10,000 to 14,999 category (38%). A majority of the agencies on campuses with 20,000 or students operated a self-defense training program, including 79% of the agencies serving a campus with an enrollment of 25,000 to 29,999. More than a third of all agencies had a program or unit that provided special assistance to crime victims (37%), including a majority of the agencies serving a campus with 25,000 or more students. Nearly a fourth of all agencies had a special unit or program for the prevention and/or investigation of hate crimes, including half of the agencies serving a campus with 25,000 to 29,999 students. Of the 6.3 million students enrolled on campuses served by survey respondents, similar percentages of those attending public (91%) or private (89%) campuses were served by a law enforcement agency operating a general crime prevention program (figure 11). ************************************************* -------------------------------------------------- Figure 11. Students attending 4-year campuses with selected types of special units or programs operated by a campus law enforcement agency, by type of institution, 1995 -------------------------------------------------- Percent of all students Type of special unit or program Public Private General crime prevention 91 89 Date rape prevention 77 67 Stranger rape prevention 73 57 Student security patrol 69 57 Alcohol education 59 43 Drug education 55 39 Self-defense training 50 41 Victim assistance 42 43 Hate crimes 29 33 ************************************************** Larger differences existed for programs aimed specifically at stranger rape prevention (73% for public, 57% for private) and date rape prevention (77% for public, 67% for private). This pattern was also found for student security patrol (69% versus 57%), alcohol education (59% versus 43%) and drug education (55% versus 39%) programs. Programs for victim assistance and hate crimes, however, covered slightly more of the students at private than at public institutions. -------------------------------------------------- Campus crime and the Student Right-to-Know Act ************************************************ The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, also known as the Student Right-to-Know Act, was enacted by Congress to ensure that students and employees of institutions of higher education are aware of the incidence of crime, as well as policies and procedures to prevent crime or to report crimes occurring on their campus. The Act requires, as a condition of participating in Federal student aid programs, that each institution "prepare, publish, and distribute," to current students and employees, and to applicants for enrollment or employment upon request, an annual campus crime report containing such information. The Act and its subsequent amendments require publication of the number of murders, sex offenses, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts reported to have occurred on campus during the three most recent calendar years. Nearly all (95%) of the agencies responding to the 1995 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies reported they had responsibility for their institution's compliance with the Campus Security Act. This included a minimum of 89% of the agencies in each enrollment category. The Campus Security Act has created readily available campus crime statistics. Therefore, the 1995 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies asked participating agencies to provide the number of reported 1994 occurrences of each crime covered by the Act, as well as larceny/theft and arson. ------------------------------------------------- Campus law enforcement agencies with primary responsibility for Campus Security Act compliance, by size of campus enrollment, 1995 ------------------------------------------------- Campus enrollment Percent of agencies Total 95% 30,000 or more 96% 25,000-29,999 89 20,000-24,999 97 15,000-19,999 98 10,000-14,999 95 5,000-9,999 98 2,500-4,999 93 -------------------------------------------------- During 1994 about 4,000 serious violent crimes were reported to the 581 agencies that responded to the BJS survey. This was an average of about 7 each, including 1 forcible sex offense, 2 robberies, and 4 aggravated assaults. Fourteen homicides occurred on the campuses served by these agencies. Agencies serving a campus with 25,000 or more students each received an average of over 20 violent crime reports, including 4 forcible sex offenses, 7 robberies, and 12 aggravated assaults. Overall, agencies that responded to the BJS survey received more than 134,000 property crime reports _ more than 30 for every violent crime reported. This was an average of more than 250 property crimes reported per campus, ranging from about 1,000 on the largest campuses to 71 on the smallest. About 85% of the reported property crimes were larceny/thefts. Agencies serving the largest campuses received an average of 846 such crime reports, compared to 58 on the smallest campuses. Agencies received reports of an average of 29 burglaries each, ranging from 113 on the largest campuses to 10 on the smallest. An average of 8 reports of motor vehicle theft were received, ranging from an average of 34 on the largest campuses to 2 on the smallest. Overall, agencies received an average of about 1 arson report each during 1994, with agencies serving a campus with an enrollment of 30,000 or more receiving an average of 6 such reports. For every 100,000 students enrolled, the agencies serving 4 year campuses with an enrollment of 2,5000 or more received reports of 65 violent crimes and 2,141 property crimes during 1994. FBI statistics for the Nation indicate there were 716 violent crimes and 4,656 property crimes reported per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1994. -------------------------------------------------- Average number of serious crimes reported to campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995 Violent crimes Property crimes Motor Forcible Aggra- Lar- ve- Campus sex Rob- vated Burg-ceny/ hicle enrollment Total Murder offense bery assault Total lary theft theft Arson Total 7 -- 1 2 4 256 29 218 8 1 30,000 or more 25 -- 4 7 13 999 113 846 34 6 25,000-29,999 22 -- 4 7 11 636 78 528 26 4 20,000-24,999 13 0 2 4 7 593 62 511 17 3 15,000-19,999 8 0 1 2 5 421 37 366 16 2 10,000-14,999 7 -- 2 2 3 263 30 224 8 1 5,000-9,999 5 -- 1 1 3 139 16 118 4 1 2,500-4,999 3 0 1 1 2 71 10 58 2 1 -------------------------------------------------- Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. --Less than 0.5. ----------------------------------------------- Appendix tables A-E, as well as the data points for the graphical figures are available in spreadsheets at-- http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/