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/