U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Campus Law Enforcement

Agencies, 1995

General crime prevention

Date rape prevention

Stranger rape prevention

Student security patrol

Alcohol education

Drug education

Self-defense training

Victim assistance

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of students at 4-year U.S. 

campuses with 2,500 or more students.

g y p g yp p p g

At the Nation's 4-year universities and colleges with an enrollment of 2,500 or more, 

most students have access to special crime reduction programs 

provided by their campus law enforcement agency

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Page 28 revised 12/12/96.

Pages 10, 20, 29, 35, 

and 38 revised 12/18/96.
Campus Law Enforcement

Agencies, 1995

By 

Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D.

Andrew L. Goldberg

BJS Statisticians 

December 1996, NCJ-161137

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

This report was written by Brian 

Reaves and Andrew Goldberg. 

Louise van der Does assisted with

verification. Max L. Bromley, University of South Florida, assisted with the

development of the survey instrument.

The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators

assisted with review of the survey instrument and with the data collection .

BJS staff conducted the data collection. Tom Hester edited and produced

the report. Yvonne Boston produced

the version for print. Marilyn Marbrook

supervised publication.

Data analyzed for this report may be

obtained from the National Archive of

Criminal Justice Data, Box 1248, Ann

Arbor, MI 48106 (800-999-0690). 

The dataset name is 1995 Survey of

Campus Law Enforcement Agencies.

The NACJD catalog number is 6846.

The BJS Internet site 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

 offers an electronic version of 

this report, the data presented in

the graphs and tables, and the data

from the original survey. Users may 

also find other reports and data 

describing U.S. law enforcement

agencies.

Contents

Highlights iii

The 1995 Survey of Campus 

Law Enforcement Agencies 1

Descriptive information 1

Considerations for categorizing 

and comparing campuses 4

Personnel 5

The largest law enforcement 

agencies serving 4-year campuses

in the United States, 1995 5

Expenditures and pay 10

Operations 13

A brief history of campus 

law enforcement in the United

States 16

Equipment 19

Computers and information 

systems 23

Policies and programs 26

Campus crime and the Student

Right-to-Know Act 28

Appendixes 29

Questionnaire 37

ii Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 
During 1995 about three-fourths of the

campus law enforcement agencies

serving U.S. 4-year colleges and universities with 2,500 or more students

employed sworn police officers with

general arrest powers granted by a

State or local government. The remainder relied on nonsworn security

personnel. 

As of March 15, 1995, these agencies

employed about 20,000 persons full

time, including nearly 11,000 full-time

sworn officers. Campuses with 15,000

or more students accounted for more

than 40% of these employment totals. 

This information comes from the 1995

Survey of Campus Law Enforcement

Agencies, the largest study of police

and security services at institutions of

higher education ever conducted. The

eight-page, mail survey asked about

wide range of topics including agency

functions, hiring practices, employee

characteristics, types of equipment

used, computers and information systems, expenditures, salaries, policies,

and special programs.

Other selected findings from the

survey include 

 Larger institutions and those under

public control were the most likely to

use sworn officers. About 98% of the

agencies serving a campus of 20,000

or more students used sworn officers,

compared to 78% of those serving a

campus of 5,000 to 9,999 students and

54% of those serving a campus of

2,500 to 4,999 students. 

 Overall, 93% of the agencies serving

public institutions used sworn officers,

including all of those serving a campus

of 25,000 or more students. Less than

half of private institutions (43%) used

sworn officers, although nearly threefourths of those with 10,000 or more

students did so. 

 Most sworn campus police officers

were armed, and 64% of all agencies

used armed officers. Over 95% of the

agencies serving a campus of 20,000

or more students used armed officers

compared to 42% of those serving a

campus of 2,500 to 4,999 students.

 Overall, 81% of public campuses

had armed officers, compared to 34%

of private campuses. Among campuses with 10,000 or more students,

89% of the public campuses had

armed officers compared to 59% of

the private campuses. 

 Among all 4-year campuses of 2,500

or more students, about two-thirds of

the law enforcement employees

worked at public institutions. However, private institutions had nearly

twice as many law enforcement employees per 1,000 students (4.5 versus

2.4). Both types of campuses had

about 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000

students. 

 About a fourth of all campuses used

some contract personnel, but just 3% 

outsourced all law enforcement services. Private security firms (69%)

were the most common source of contract personnel, followed by local law

enforcement agencies (26%). 

Requirements for new officers

 Nearly all (98%) agencies with sworn

personnel conducted background 

investigations and criminal record

checks of applicants for sworn positions. About 80% of the agencies 

hiring nonsworn security officers 

used these screening devices.

 Combined field and classroom training requirements for new officers

ranged from an average of more than

900 hours on campuses of 20,000 or

more students to less than 400 on the

smallest campuses. About 4 times as

much training was required of sworn

as of nonsworn officers.

Highlights

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 iii

Full-time employees in campus law enforcement agencies serving 

4-year colleges and universities with 2,500 or more students, by size 

of campus enrollment, 1995

Number of full-time employees

Campus

enrollment

Number of

agencies

All employees Sworn Nonsworn

Total Median Total Median Total Median 

 Total 680 20,067 21 10,651 12 9,416 8

30,000 or more 27 2,525 72 1,258 42 1,267 22

25,000-29,999 30 1,867 52 1,210 35 657 18

20,000-24,999 33 1,663 43 1,092 29 571 17

15,000-19,999 52 2,205 33 1,371 22 834 10

10,000-14,999 108 4,122 30 2,196 18 1,921 10

5,000-9,999 210 4,630 19 2,410 11 2,220 6

2,500-4,999 220 3,060 11 1,114 2 1,946 5

Type of institution

and enrollment

Percent of U.S. agencies

Private

institutions

Percent of campus law enforcement 

agencies using sworn or 

armed officers, 1995 

All sizes

10,000+

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

All sizes

10,000+

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Armed

Sworn

Public

institutions
 About 30% of all agencies required

new officers to have some college

education, including 11% that required

a 2-year degree, and 2% that required

a 4-year degree. Nearly half of the

agencies serving the largest campuses

required some college education of

new officers. About a fourth required

a degree, including 11% with a 4-year

degree requirement. 

Expenditures and pay

 For fiscal 1994, average operating

expenditures for campus law enforcement agencies ranged from $4.3 million on campuses with an enrollment

of 30,000 or more to $481,000 on

campuses with an enrollment of 2,500

to 4,999. 

 Nationwide, campus law enforcement operating expenditures averaged

$109 per student. Consistent with

their higher per capita employment,

private institutions spent nearly twice

as much per student ($181) as those

under public control ($94). 

 By region, per student expenditures

by campus law enforcement agencies

were highest in the Middle Atlantic

($179) and New England ($146) regions and lowest in the Mountain ($57)

region. 

 Entry-level salaries for officers

started at about $27,200 on the largest

campuses compared to about $18,600

on the smallest. Overall, sworn campus police officers earned an average

base starting salary of $22,435, compared to $17,906 for nonsworn security officers. 

 Chiefs and directors of campus law

enforcement agencies started at an

average salary of $45,100, ranging

from $59,400 on campuses with

30,000 or more students to $37,900 

on those with 2,500 to 4,999. 

Agency functions

Patrol and response

 All agencies reported they provided

routine patrol services. Ninety-six 

percent provided their campus with

24-hour patrol coverage at all times,

including all agencies serving a campus with 10,000 or more students. 

 Nearly all agencies used automobile

patrol, about three-fourths used officers on foot patrol, and about a third

used bicycle patrol. A majority of the

agencies serving a campus with

25,000 or more students had bike patrol units. 

 About two-thirds of all agencies 

participated in an emergency 911 

telephone system, including 96% 

of the agencies serving a campus 

with 30,000 or more students.

 About two-fifths of campus 911 systems were enhanced ones, capable of

pinpointing the location of a caller

automatically. Nearly two-thirds of the

agencies on campuses with an enrollment of 30,000 or more had enhanced

911.

 During 1995, 77% of all agencies

equipped their campus with special

emergency phones, often called blue

light phones, that connect directly with

the campus police when picked up. All

campuses with 25,000 or more students had such a system.

Criminal investigation and enforcement

 About 3 in 5 agencies had primary

responsibility for homicide investigations, and 3 in 4 handled the investigation of other serious violent crimes

such as rape, robbery, and assault.

About 4 in 5 investigated major property crimes such as burglary and motor vehicle theft. On campuses of

20,000 or more students, nearly 9 in

10 agencies handled homicide investigations, and nearly all, the primary 

investigation of other serious crimes. 

 Eighty-four percent of all agencies

had responsibility for the enforcement

of drug laws on campus, including

over 95% of those serving a campus

of 20,000 or more students. Fifteen

percent of all agencies participated in

a multi-agency drug enforcement task

force, and 15% had receipts from a

drug asset forfeiture program.

iv Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

Alarm monitoring

Building lockup

Investigation of serious crimes

Medical center security

Nuclear facility security

Personal safety escorts

Parking enforcement

Stadium/arena events

Traffic enforcement

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All

50 largest

Selected responsibilities of campus law enforcement agencies 

serving U.S. 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students, 1995

Percent of agencies

with primary responsibility
Traffic and parking-related duties

 A large majority of campus law enforcement agencies performed trafficrelated duties such as traffic direction

and control (89%), accident investigation (88%), and enforcement of traffic

laws (84%).

 Eighty-five percent of all agencies

were responsible for parking enforcement, and 72% handled parking administration. Agencies serving the

smallest campuses were the most

likely to have parking-related

responsibilities. 

Security for buildings and facilities

 Over 80% of all agencies were responsible for the locking and unlocking

of campus buildings. Agencies on the

smallest campuses (96%) were twice

as likely as those on the largest campuses (48%) to perform this function.

 About 80% of agencies were responsible for central alarm monitoring, 

including more than 90% of the agencies serving a campus of 10,000 

or more students. 

 About 8 in 10 agencies handled security for stadium or arena events, including nearly all of those serving a

campus with an enrollment of 25,000

or more. 

 About an eighth of all agencies provided security for a medical center or

hospital located on campus, including

about half of the agencies serving a

campus with 30,000 or more students

(52%). 

 Seven percent of campus law enforcement agencies provided security

for a nuclear facility, including nearly

half of those on campuses with 30,000

or more students (48%). 

Special public safety functions

 Campus fire inspection was a responsibility for nearly a third of all

agencies, and about a fifth provided

emergency fire services. Fire-related

duties were most common among

agencies serving smaller campuses. 

 Other special public safety functions

that were performed by more than a

fourth of all agencies included emergency medical services (36%), animal

control (35%), and search and rescue

(29%).

Number of reported crimes

 Agencies serving 4-year campuses

with 2,500 or more students received

an average of about 7 reports of serious violent crimes each during 1994,

ranging from 25 on the largest campuses to 3 on the smallest. 

 For every violent crime reported to

agencies during 1994, there were

more than 30 property crimes

reported-an average of more than 250

per campus. The average number of

reported property crimes ranged from

about 1,000 on the largest campuses

to 71 on the smallest.

Special programs 

 Eighty-five percent of all agencies

operated a general crime prevention

unit or program designed to educate

students and employees on how to reduce their chances of becoming a

crime victim. All agencies serving a

campus with 25,000 or more students

had such a program. 

 About two-thirds of all agencies had

a program designed specifically toward date rape prevention, and 3 in 5

had one for stranger rape prevention.

 About 2 in 5 agencies offered a selfdefense training program for students

and campus employees.

 About half of all agencies operated

programs aimed at preventing alcohol

and drug abuse on campus, including

about two-thirds of the agencies serving a campus with an enrollment of

30,000 or more. 

 More than a third of all agencies had

a special unit or program for victim assistance. A majority of the agencies

serving a campus with 25,000 or more

students had this type of program.

 

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 v

General crime prevention

Date rape prevention

Stranger rape prevention

Student security patrol

Alcohol education

Drug education

Self-defense training

Victim assistance

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of students at 4-year U.S. 

campuses with 2,500 or more students.

Percent of students attending 4-year campuses served by a law 

enforcement agency operating selected types of special units or programs
iv Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995
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 serving 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 followup 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). 

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. 

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 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 

Campus

enrollment 

Number

of campuses

Officers 

with 

arrest 

authority

Armed 

patrol

officers

 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

2,500-4,999 220 54 42

Note: Arrest authority is defined as that

granted by a State or local government.
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). 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). This included nearly 11,000 fulltime 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 

2 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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 

Campus

enrollment

Number 

of agencies

Full-time Part-time

Total Sworn

Nonsworn Total SwornNonsworn

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 may not add to total because of rounding.

All

institutions

Percent of campus law 

enforcement agencies using 

sworn or armed officers, 1995 

Type of institution

and campus enrollment

Percent of agencies

All sizes

10,000+

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

All sizes

10,000+

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

All sizes

10,000+

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Armed

Sworn

Public

Private 

Figure 1
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

serving campuses of 2,500 or more

students, had an average of 3.3 

full-time employees for every 1,000

students enrolled (table 3). 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). 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). 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.

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 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

Campus 

enrollment

All agencies, all

employees

Agencies using

sworn officers

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

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

Campus 

enrollment

Total

with 

outsourcing All 

At least 

half, but

not all

At least a

fourth, but

less than

half

Less 

than

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.

All sizes

10,000 or more

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

All sizes

10,000 or more

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

0123456

Sworn Total

Private

Public

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

Number of full-time campus law enforcement 

employees per 1,000 students

Figure 2

Revised 12/18/96
4 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

Considerations for categorizing

and comparing campuses 

The enrollment categories used in

this report are based on student head

counts for the fall semester of 1993.

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 fulltime 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 about

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.

Selected characteristics of U.S. 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students, by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Average population served Physical characteristics 

Students and employees Students only Average number of 

Campus

enrollment

Head 

count

Full-time 

equivalent*

Living on

campus

Head 

count

Full-time

equivalent* 

Living on

campus Acres Buildings 

Miles of

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 14

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.
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. 

Personnel 

Job function

Nearly 7 in 8 full-time sworn campus

law enforcement personnel were assigned to the area of field operations

(table 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. 

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 5

Table 5. Primary job function of

campus law enforcement personnel,

1995

Percent of

full-time employees

Job function

category Total Sworn

Nonsworn

 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%.

As of March 15, 1995, 19 law enforcement agencies with 100 or more fulltime 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 employed 60 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). 

The largest law enforcement agencies serving 

4-year campuses in the United States, 1995

Campus law enforcement agencies

with 100 or more full-time 

employees, 1995

Campus served

Full-time

employees

Temple University 227

New York Universitya 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 Charlestonb 117

University of Pennsylvania 110

Texas A & M Univ.-College Station 110

St. John's University 104

Thomas Jefferson University 101

a

Does not employ sworn personnel.

b

Area served includes Medical University of

South Carolina.

Campus law enforcement agencies 

with 60 or more full-time sworn

personnel, 1995

Campus served

Fulltime

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).

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). 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.

6 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

Table 7. Race and ethnicity of full-time personnel in campus law enforcement agencies, 

by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Campus

enrollment

Percent of full-time sworn employees Percent of full-time nonsworn employees 

Total White Black Hispanic Asian

Native

American Total White Black Hispanic Asian

Native

American

 Total 100% 73.2% 20.8% 4.3% .9% .7% 100% 64.1% 26.8% 7.0% 1.6% .5% 

30,000 or more 100% 77.5% 13.3% 5.9% 2.1% 1.1% 100% 63.7% 26.3% 8.3% 1.3% .3% 

25,000-29,999 100 78.7 14.1 4.7 1.8 .8 100 62.8 25.8 7.8 2.7 .9

20,000-24,999 100 73.6 20.4 4.6 .6 .9 100 70.2 18.7 5.2 5.2 .7

15,000-19,999 100 73.1 18.5 6.5 1.1 .8 100 63.4 22.4 11.8 1.6 .8

10,000-14,999 100 70.9 23.7 4.7 .4 .3 100 56.9 34.0 8.2 .5 .5

5,000-9,999 100 71.0 25.8 2.1 .4 .7 100 65.2 28.5 4.2 1.8 .3

2,500-4,999 100 70.7 24.4 3.4 .3 1.2 100 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. 

Table 6. Sex of full-time personnel in campus law enforcement

agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Campus 

enrollment

Percent of full-time 

sworn employees

Percent of full-time 

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
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 officer positions (table 8). 

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). 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%. 

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 7

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

Campus 

enrollment

Personal 

interview

Background

investigation

Criminal 

record

check

 Medical

 exam

Board 

interview 

Psychological

screening 

Written

aptitude

test

Physical 

agility test

Polygraph

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

Figure 3

Type of screening device

Percent of agencies

Background investigation

Criminal record check

Medical exam

Physical agility test

Psychological screen

Written aptitude test

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nonsworn security

Sworn police

Screening devices used by campus law enforcem ent agencies for hiring officers, 

by type of officers hired, 1995
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). 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 sworn 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 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). 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 fulltime 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.

8 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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 

Campus

enrollment

Total with

requirement

4-year

college

degree

2-year

college

degree

Some

college*

High

school

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. 

Table 10. Training requirements 

for new officer recruits in campus

law enforcement agencies, by size 

of campus enrollment, 1995

Percent 

of agencies requiring

training

Average number

of hours required

Campus

enrollment

Classroom 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.
On campuses with 10,000 or more

students, agencies hiring sworn police

officers required about 4 times as

many training hours of new recruits as

agencies hiring nonsworn security officers (figure 4). 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). 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. 

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 9

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

Personnel category 

and campus enrollment

Any type 

of program

Mandatory 

(all are tested)

Random 

selection

Suspected

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

Figure 4

10,000 or more

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Average number of hours of training required

Sworn

police

Nonsworn security

Campus enrollment

Hours of training required for new officer recruits in 

campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus 

enrollment and type of officer, 1995
Expenditures and pay

Operating expenditures

For fiscal 1994, 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). 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). Overall, per student

expenditures ranged from $179 in the

Middle Atlantic region to $57 in the

Mountain region. 

10 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

Table 12. Operating expenditures of campus law enforcement 

agencies, by size of campus enrollment, fiscal 1994

Operating expenditures, fiscal 1994

Campus 

enrollment Per agency

Per agency

employee Per student

Per student 

or campus 

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 fiscal 1994 or the most recent fiscal year completed. 

Figures 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. 

All regions

Middle Atlantic

New England

South Atlantic

Pacific

East North Central

East South Central

West South Central

West North Central

Mountain

$0 $40 $80 $120 $160 $200

All institutions

Private

Public

Note: See appendix table B for which States belong to the regions.

Annual operating expenditure per student by campus 

law enforcement agencies, by type of institution for the Nation 

and by region for all institutions, fiscal year 1994

FY94 operating expenditure per student

Figure 5
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).

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). 

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 for 

local 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. 

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 11

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:

Campus 

enrollment

 Entry-

 level 

 officer Sergeant Lieutenant Captain

Assistant 

Chief/ 

Director

Chief/

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.

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

Average base starting salary

All regions

Pacific

East North Central

Middle Atlantic

New England

Mountain

West North Central

South Atlantic

West South Central

East South Central

Nonsworn security 

Sworn police

Note: See appendix table B for which States belong to the regions.

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

Figure 6
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).

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 fulltime 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). 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). Nearly twothirds of those serving a campus with

25,000 or more students authorized

police association membership, as 

did a majority in every other category 

except that of 20,000 to 24,999 (45%).

Forty-six percent of all agencies with

sworn personnel authorized membership 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.

12 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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 

Campus 

enrollment

Police

association Police

 union

 Non-

 police

 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

Table 15. Campus law enforcement agencies authorizing collective bargaining, by size of campus 

enrollment, 1995

Percent of agencies 

authorizing collective 

bargaining for 

Campus 

enrollment

Sworn 

employees

Nonsworn

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

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:

Campus

enrollment

Shift 

differential Merit

Education

incentive

 Haz-

 ard- 

 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
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). 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).

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. 

Nearly 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). 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

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 13

Table 17. Selected types of patrol units used by campus law enforcement

agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Campus

enrollment

 Percent of agencies 

 using each type of patrol

Percent of all patrol 

 units deployed

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.

Table 18. Communication functions

of campus law enforcement 

agencies, by size of campus 

enrollment, 1995

Percent of agencies with 

primary responsibility for 

Campus

enrollment

Dispatching 

calls for

service

Campus

switchboard

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

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 

Campus 

enrollment 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. 

Revised 12/18/96
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).

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). 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

(94%) 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 (80% versus 68%), 

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.

14 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

Table 20. Campus law enforcement agencies operating 

a blue light emergency phone system or equivalent, 

by size of campus enrollment, 1995 

Campus 

enrollment

Percent of 

agencies 

operating a 

blue light system 

Average

number of

phones in

system

Average number

of phones per 

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

10,000 or more

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

10,000 or more

5,000-9,999

2,500-4,999

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

911 system

Public

Private

Percent of agencies with 

emergency response systems

Blue light 

phone system

Emergency response systems of campus law enforcement agencies, 

by size of campus enrollment and type of institution, 1995

Campus enrollment

Figure 7
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). 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). 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 to

24,999 (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 of the agencies

serving a campus with 20,000 or more

students had asset forfeiture receipts

compared to fewer than 1 in 10 of

those 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). Agencies

serving a campus with 2,500 to 4,999

students (40%) were the least likely to

have vice enforcement duties.

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 15

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

enrollment

Violent crimes Property crimes

 Homicidea Otherb Arson Otherc

 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 76

5,000-9,999 58 80 65 83

2,500-4,999 43 59 50 65

a

Includes murder and manslaughter.

b

Includes rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

c

Includes burglary, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft.

Table 22. Drug enforcement activities of campus law 

enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Percent of agencies

Campus 

enrollment

With primary

responsibility

for enforcing

drug laws 

Participating 

in a multi-agency

drug enforcement

task force

With receipts 

from a drug 

asset forfeiture

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

Table 23. Vice enforcement by 

campus law enforcement agencies,

by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Campus 

enrollment

Percent of agencies 

with primary responsibility 

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
16 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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 townspeople, 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.
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). 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).

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). 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 building

lockup 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 Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 17

Table 24. Traffic-related functions

of campus law enforcement 

agencies, by size of campus 

enrollment, 1995 

Percent of agencies with

primary responsibility for

Campus 

enrollment

Enforcement of

traffic

laws

Accident

investigation

Traffic

direction 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

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 

enrollment

Parking

enforcement

Parking

administration

Campus

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

Table 26. Building security functions

of campus law enforcement 

agencies, by size of campus 

enrollment, 1995

Percent of agencies with 

primary responsibility for 

Campus 

enrollment

Building

lockup/ 

unlock

Central

alarm

monitoring

Key

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
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). 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). 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. 

18 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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

center/

hospital

 

 Nuclear

 facility

Campus 

enrollment

Either

type Stadium Arena

 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

Building lockup

Central alarm monitoring

Investigation of serious crimes

Medical center security

Nuclear facility security

Personal safety escorts

Parking enforcement

Stadium/arena event security

Traffic enforcement

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of agencies with primary responsibility

Type of function

50 smallest

50 largest

Selected responsibilities of campus law enforcement agencies

serving the 50 largest and 50 smallest campuses, 1995

Figure 8
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 twofifths of those serving a campus with

fewer than 10,000 students (table 28).

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. Fortysix 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). 

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.

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 19

Table 28. Special public safety functions of campus law enforcement 

agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Percent of agencies with primary responsibility for:

Campus

enrollment

Emergency

medical 

services

 Animal

 control

 Fire

 inspection

 Search 

 and 

 rescue

Environmental 

health and 

safety

Emergency

fire 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

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 

enrollment

Semi-automatic Revolver

 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. 
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). 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). 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). 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 (26%) were

the least likely to supply armor. Five

percent of agencies provided a cash

allowance for the purchase of armor,

including 11% of those serving a campus with 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). 

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.

20 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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.

Table 30. Supply of sidearms 

in campus law enforcement

agencies, by size of campus 

enrollment, 1995

Campus

enrollment

Percent of agencies

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.

Table 32. Supply of or 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
In addition to batons, the only other

type of nonlethal weapon authorized

by a majority of agencies was pepper

spray (56%) (table 34). 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). 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.

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 21

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-24Traditional 

 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

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:

Campus

enrollment

 Pepper

 spray

Tear

gas,

personal

 Tear 

 gas,

 large

 volume

Carotid

hold

Choke

hold

 Stun 

 gun

Flash/ 

bang 

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

Any type

Baton

Pepper spray

Tear gas

Choke/carotid hold

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sworn police

Nonsworn security

Type of nonlethal weapon

Nonlethal weapons authorized for use by sworn police officers and 

nonsworn security officers in campus law enforcement agencies, 1995

Percent of agencies 

Figure 9
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). Ninety-one percent of agencies operated marked

cars, and 64% used unmarked cars. 

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. 

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). 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 nearly

all of those on smaller campuses, 

reported their officers used portable

radios (table 37). About 9 in 10 agencies used base station radios, including all of those agencies serving a

campus of 20,000 to 24,999 students.

Mobile vehicle radios were used by

80% of all agencies, 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.

22 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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

 Un-

 marked

 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

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

enrollment Vans

Golf

carts

Motorcycles 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

Table 37. Selected types of communication equipment

used by campus law enforcement agencies, 

by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Percent of agencies using 

Campus 

enrollment

Portable

radios

Base 

stations 

radios

Mobile 

vehicle 

radios

 

Cellular 

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

Campus

enrollment 

Average number 

of cars operated 

 

 Total 6

30,000 or more 15

25,000-29,999 11

20,000-24,999 10

15,000-19,999 9

10,000-14,999 6

5,000-9,999 4

2,500-4,999 3

Revised 12/18/96
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). 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). 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%).

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 23

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

Campus

enrollment

 Mobile digital terminal

 Any 

 type

 Per- 

 sonal

 Main-

 frame LAN Laptop Mini

Either 

type

CarmountedHandheld

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

Table 39. Selected functions of computers in campus law enforcement 

agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1995

Percent of agencies using computers for 

Campus 

enrollment

Recordkeeping

Research/

statistics

Budgeting

Criminal

investigationsCrime

analysis Dispatch

Manpower

allocation

 Fleet 

 manage-

 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
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). 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).

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.

24 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

Table 40. Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (AFIS) 

capabilities of campus law 

enforcement agencies, by size 

of campus enrollment, 1995

 Percent of agencies with 

Campus 

enrollment

Ownership

of an AFIS

system 

Use of remote

access AFIS 

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.

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  Campus 

enrollment Arrests

Vehicle

registration

 Calls for 

 service Alarms

 Traffic 

 citations

 UCR

 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
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). 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). 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.

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 25

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 files on

Campus

enrollment

 Stolen

 property

Agency

personnel

Criminal 

 histories

Traffic 

accidents

UCR 

incidentbased Inventory Payroll

Driver's

license 

information Evidence Warrants

 Sum-

 monses

 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

Percent of agencies

Criminal investigation

Dispatch

Crime analysis

Fleet management

Manpower allocation

Arrests

Calls for service

Criminal history

Stolen property

Traffic citations

UCR Incident-Based

Vehicle registration

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Campus

Local

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

Computer

functions

Computerized

files

Figure 10
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). 

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%), student judicial officers

(55%), and victim services (52%).

Agencies in the 10,000 to 14,999 enrollment category were the least likely

to have directives 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). 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. 

26 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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 

Campus

enrollment

Code of

conduct

Deadly 

force

Other

enforcement 

agencies

Citizen 

complaints Pursuit

 driving

Off-duty

employment JuvenilesDomestic

disputes

Residence

life

officials

Student

judicial 

officers

Victim

services

Mentally

ill

persons

Employee

counseling

 Total 94% 81% 70% 70% 69% 63% 60% 58% 56% 55% 52% 51% 50%

30,000 or more 100% 100% 78% 96% 89% 85% 96% 78% 52% 59% 59% 78% 44%

25,000-29,999 100 100 82 89 93 89 96 86 64 64 50 79 75

20,000-24,999 97 97 87 83 90 80 87 80 50 50 47 73 47

15,000-19,999 100 87 80 89 89 80 82 78 60 60 67 67 64

10,000-14,999 94 87 66 78 68 65 63 61 47 49 45 51 54

5,000-9,999 92 80 65 60 70 59 55 51 56 54 52 45 50

2,500-4,999 91 68 68 60 52 50 40 47 60 57 51 41 43
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 twothirds 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).

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 Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 27

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

Campus

enrollment

Crime

prevention

Date rape

prevention

Stranger

rape

prevention

Student 

security 

patrol

Alcohol

education

Drug

education

 Self-

 defense 

 training

Victim

assistance

 Hate 

 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

Type of special unit or program

Percent of all students

General crime prevention

Date rape prevention

Stranger rape prevention

Student security patrol

Alcohol education

Drug education

Self-defense training

Victim assistance

Hate crimes

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Public

Private

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

Figure 11
28 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

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.

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 2,500 or

more received reports of 65 violent

crimes and 2,141 property crimes

during 1994. FBI statistics for the

Nation indicate there were 714

violent crimes and 4,707 property

crimes reported per 100,000 U.S.

residents in 1994.

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

Average number of serious crimes reported to campus law enforcement agencies, by size of campus enrollment, 1994 

Violent crimes Property crimes

Campus

enrollment Total Murder

Forcible

sex 

offense

Robbery

Aggravated

assault Total

Burglary

Larceny/ 

theft

Motor

vehicle

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. 

Revised 12/12/96
 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 29

Appendix table A. Number of full-time employees and number of full-time sworn officers in campus 

law enforcement agencies serving the 50 largest 4-year campuses in the United States, 1995

Full-time campus law enforcement employees, 1995

All employees Sworn officers

 

 University Location

 Fall 1994

 enrollment Total 

 Per 1,000 

 students Total 

 Per 1,000 

 students

University of Minnesota Minneapolis (MN) 51,478 51 1.0 40 0.8

Ohio State University Columbus (OH) 49,452 60 1.2 49 1.0

University of Texas Austin (TX) 47,957 166 3.5 66 1.4

Arizona State University Tempe (AZ) 42,189 60 1.4 39 0.9

Texas A&M University College Station (TX) 42,018 110 2.6 42 1.0

Michigan State University East Lansing (MI) 40,254 86 2.1 52 1.3

University of Wisconsin Madison (WI) 39,361 96 2.4 41 1.0

University of Illinois Champaign (IL) 38,545 55 1.4 37 1.0

Pennsylvania State University State College (PA) 38,294 60 1.6 46 1.2

University of Florida Gainesville (FL) 38,277 139 3.6 80 2.1

University of Michigan Ann Arbor (MI) 36,543 165 4.5 41 1.1

Purdue University West Lafayette (IN) 36,172 44 1.2 38 1.1

University of South Florida Tampa (FL) 36,043 56 1.6 42 1.2

Indiana University Bloomington (IN) 35,594 52 1.5 43 1.2

New York University New York (NY) 35,425 215 6.1 0 0.0

University of Arizona Tucson (AZ) 35,306 71 2.0 42 1.2

University of California Los Angeles (CA) 35,110 79 2.3 51 1.5

University of Washington Seattle (WA) 33,719 72 2.1 50 1.5

Rutgers University New Brunswick (NJ) 33,464 139 4.2 63 1.9

Wayne State University Detroit (MI) 32,906 51 1.5 39 1.2

University of Maryland College Park (MD) 32,493 79 2.4 65 2.0

Brigham Young University Provo (UT) 31,511 37 1.2 25 0.8

University of Houston Houston (TX) 31,299 46 1.5 34 1.1

University of California Berkeley (CA) 29,634 188 6.3 72 2.4

Temple University Philadelphia (PA) 29,616 227 7.7 96 3.2

Florida State University Tallahassee (FL) 29,527 79 2.7 56 1.9

University of Georgia Athens (GA) 29,469 78 2.6 66 2.2

Boston University Boston (MA) 29,072 78 2.7 52 1.8

University of Cincinnati Cincinnati (OH) 28,758 86 3.0 48 1.7

San Diego State University San Diego (CA) 28,372 30 1.1 18 0.6

North Carolina State University Raleigh (NC) 28,223 49 1.7 34 1.2

University of Southern California Los Angeles (CA) 28,185 180 6.4 67 2.4

University of Colorado Boulder (CO) 27,862 50 1.8 35 1.3

University of Iowa Iowa City (IA) 27,671 48 1.7 26 0.9

Colorado State University Fort Collins (CO) 27,130 36 1.3 18 0.7

University of Utah Salt Lake City (UT) 26,906 74 2.8 35 1.3

Indiana University-Purdue Univ. Indianapolis (IN) 26,766 57 2.1 37 1.4

University of South Carolina Columbia (SC) 26,754 95 3.6 72 2.7

Florida International University Miami (FL) 26,547 58 2.2 35 1.3

University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh (PA) 26,328 91 3.5 69 2.6

San Jose State University San Jose (CA) 26,299 51 1.9 23 0.9

California State University Long Beach (CA) 26,277 21 0.8 21 0.8

San Francisco State University San Francisco (CA) 26,260 37 1.4 20 0.8

Louisiana State University Baton Rouge (LA) 26,010 61 2.3 59 2.3

University of Tennessee Knoxville (TN) 25,914 58 2.2 50 1.9

Virginia Tech University Blacksburg (VA) 25,842 48 1.9 33 1.3

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo (MI) 25,673 32 1.2 22 0.9

University of North Texas Denton (TX) 25,605 50 2.0 25 1.0

University of Central Florida Orlando (FL) 25,592 51 2.0 33 1.3

University of Kansas Lawrence (KS) 25,336 53 2.1 32 1.3

Note: Employee data are for the pay period that included March 15, 1995.

Source of enrollment data is the U.S. Department of Education. All agencies in

the table used officers with general arrest powers granted by a State or 

local authority except New York University, which employed only

nonsworn personnel. All agencies in the table used armed patrol

officers except New York University and the University of Iowa. 
30 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

Appendix table B. Response rates for 1995 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

by region and type of institution 

All institutions Public institutions Private institutions

Region and State Mailed Returned Rate Mailed Returned Rate Mailed Returned Rate

Northeast New England 59 49 83 % 22 22 100 % 37 27 73 %

Connecticut 12 8 67 5 5 100 7 3 43

Massachusetts 30 25 83 9 9 100 21 16 76

Maine 2 2 100 2 2 100 0 0 -- 

New Hampshire 6 6 100 3 3 100 3 3 10

Rhode Island 7 6 86 2 2 100 5 4 80

Vermont 2 2 100 1 1 100 1 1 100

Middle Atlantic 122 95 78 % 59 52 88 % 63 43 68 %

New Jersey 21 17 81 13 11 85 8 6 75

New York 64 47 73 28 25 89 36 22 61

Pennsylvania 37 31 84 18 16 89 19 15 79

Midwest East North Central 109 93 85 % 65 59 91 % 44 34 77 %

Illinois 26 24 92 11 11 100 15 13 87

Indiana 18 15 83 13 11 85 5 4 80

Michigan 25 22 88 15 14 93 10 8 80

Ohio 24 16 67 13 10 77 11 6 55

Wisconsin 16 16 100 13 13 100 3 3 100

West North Central 56 53 95 % 43 40 93 % 13 13 100 %

Iowa 4 4 100 3 3 100 1 1 100

Kansas 7 6 86 7 6 86 0 0 -- 

Minnesota 13 12 92 9 8 89 4 4 100

Missouri 19 19 100 12 12 100 7 7 100

North Dakota 3 3 100 3 3 100 0 0 -- 

Nebraska 6 5 83 5 4 80 1 1 100

South Dakota 4 4 100 4 4 100 0 0 -- 

South South Atlantic 112 100 89 % 83 77 93 % 29 23 79 %

Delaware 2 2 100 2 2 100 0 0 -- 

District of Columbia 6 6 100 1 1 100 5 5 100

Florida 17 15 88 9 8 89 8 7 88

Georgia 19 18 95 16 16 100 3 2 67

Maryland 11 10 91 8 8 100 3 2 67

North Carolina 18 14 78 14 11 79 4 3 75

South Carolina 13 11 85 11 10 91 2 1 50

Virginia 17 16 94 13 13 100 4 3 75

West Virginia 9 8 89 9 8 89 0 0 -- 

East South Central 42 41 98 % 36 36 100 % 6 5 83 %

Alabama 15 15 100 13 13 100 2 2 100

Kentucky 8 8 100 7 7 100 1 1 100

Mississippi 8 7 88 7 7 100 1 0 0

Tennessee 11 11 100 9 9 100 2 2 100

West South Central 76 60 79 % 58 48 83 % 18 12 67 %

Arkansas 9 9 100 8 8 100 1 1 100

Louisiana 16 11 69 13 8 62 3 3 100

Oklahoma 12 9 75 9 8 89 3 1 33

Texas 39 31 79 28 24 86 11 7 64

West Mountain 34 30 88 % 31 28 90 % 3 2 67 %

Arizona 3 3 100 3 3 100 0 0 -- 

Colorado 12 10 83 10 9 90 2 1 50

Idaho 4 3 75 4 3 75 0 0 -- 

Montana 3 3 100 3 3 100 0 0 -- 

Nevada 2 2 100 2 2 100 0 0 -- 

New Mexico 4 3 75 4 3 75 0 0 -- 

Utah 5 5 100 4 4 100 1 1 100

Wyoming 1 1 100 1 1 100 0 0 -- 

Pacific 70 60 86 % 45 39 87 % 25 21 84 %

Alaska 3 3 100 3 3 100 0 0 -- 

California 44 39 89 28 26 93 16 13 81

Hawaii 3 3 100 2 2 100 1 1 100

Oregon 9 6 67 6 3 50 3 3 100

Washington 11 9 82 6 5 83 5 4 80
 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 31

Appendix table C. Response rates for 1995 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

by size of campus enrollment and type of institution 

Type of institution

All institutions Public institutions Private institutions

Size of campus

enrollment

 Number of surveys

Mailed Returned

 Response

 rate

 Number of surveys

Mailed Returned

 Response

 rate

 Number of surveys

Mailed Returned

 Response

 rate

Total 680 581 85% 442 401 91% 238 180 76%

30,000 or more 27 27 100 25 25 100 2 2 100

25,000-29,999 30 28 93 27 26 96 3 2 67

20,000-24,999 33 30 91 32 29 91 1 1 100

15,000-19,999 52 45 87 45 40 89 7 5 71

10,000-14,999 108 98 91 80 73 91 28 25 89

5,000-9,999 210 174 83 144 129 90 66 45 68

2,500-4,999 220 179 81 89 79 89 131 100 76

Note: The survey excluded campuses operating primarily as a graduate or professional school and 

those operating on a for-profit basis. The United States military academies were also excluded.

Appendix table D. Number and percentage of campus law enforcement agencies

providing data for each table 

Table

number Subject 

Responding agencies

 Number Percent

Table

number Subject

Responding agencies

 Number Percent

1 Type of officers 680 100.0% 23 Vice enforcement 581 100.0%

2 Total number of employees 678 99.7 24 Traffic-related functions 581 100.0

3 Outsourcing of services 675 99.3 25 Parking-related functions 581 100.0

4 Mean number of employees 678 99.7 26 Building security functions 581 100.0

5 Employee job function 577 99.3 27 Special security functions 581 100.0

6 Sex of employees 562 96.7 28 Public safety functions 581 100.0

7 Race of employees 559 96.2 29 Types of sidearms 389 99.7

8 Screening devices 576 99.1 30 Supply of sidearms 390 100.0

9 Education requirements 578 99.5 31 Body armor requirements 576 99.1

10 Training requirements 545 93.8 32 Supply of body armor 578 99.5

11 Employee drug testing 559 96.2 33 Types of batons 572 98.4

12 Operating expenditures 454 78.1 34 Other nonlethal weapons 572 98.4

13 Starting salaries 534 91.9 35 Automobiles 577 99.3

14 Special pay 442 97.8 36 Other motorized vehicles 577 99.3

15 Collective bargaining 553 95.2 37 Communications equipment 581 100.0

16 Membership organizations 444 98.2 38 Types of computers 578 99.5

17 Types of patrol units 576 99.1 39 Computer functions 577 99.3

18 Communication functions 581 100.0 40 AFIS facilities 562 96.7

19 911 system 581 100.0 41 Computerized files 577 99.3

20 Blue light system 542 93.3 42 Computerized files 577 99.3

21 Crime investigation 574 98.8 43 Written policy directives 574 98.8

22 Drug enforcement 562 96.7 44 Special units and programs 567 97.6

Note: The number of agencies used to calculate response 

rates varies by table because certain questions were asked 

only of agencies using armed or sworn officers. 

Tables 1 through 4 include data obtained by telephone 

from 99 nonrespondents in addition to the 581 survey

respondents.

Revised 12/18/96
Appendix table E. Summary data for supplemental groups of campus law enforcement agencies, 1995

Type of campus served by agency

Item description

U.S. 4-year 

college with

1,000- 2,499

students

(n=112) 

U.S. 2-year 

community

college 

(n=83) 

U.S.

graduate/ 

professional

school 

(n=32)

Canadian 

4-year 

institution

(n=31)

Personnel

Type of officers used

Percent of agencies using officers with arrest authority: 38% 65% 65% 45%

Percent of agencies using armed patrol officers: 25 45 56 0

Average number of employees 

Full-time employees 10 15 40 31

Part-time employees 11 11 2 15

Percent of agencies outsourcing services:

Using any contract services 15% 35% 31% 48%

Outsourcing all services 2 4 13 18

Types of outsourcing used by agencies:

Private security 53% 72% 100% 50%

Local police 33 14 0 0

Sheriff 13 14 0 0

Other 0 0 0 50

Screening methods used for hiring new officers:

Background investigation 84% 90% 100% 79%

Board interview 43 57 52 48

Criminal record check 80 91 93 90

Drug screening 15 33 38 3

Medical exam 35 54 62 45

Personal interview 100 93 88 90

Physical agility test 7 30 31 21

Polygraph exam 4 10 24 0

Psychological screening 27 41 62 10

Written aptitude test 13 25 52 21

Percent of agencies with college requirement for new officers:

4-year college degree 2% 2% 3% 4%

2-year college degree 6 16 31 8

Nondegree college requirement 12 14 14 14

Percent of agencies with training for new officers:

With training requirement 92% 89% 96% 83%

Operating own training academy 9 7 9 3

Average training requirement for new officers:

Classroom training hours 81 163 359 83

Field training hours 96 129 148 185

Percent of agencies with a drug testing program for: 

Applicants for sworn positions:

Mandatory testing requirement 12% 33% 33% 0

Random selection process 2 4 4 0

When use is suspected 7 10 7 0

Regular field/patrol officers:

Mandatory testing requirement 5% 12% 15% 0

Random selection process 3 9 7 0

When use is suspected 13 15 19 0

Nonsworn employees:

Mandatory testing requirement 3% 6% 27% 0

Random selection process 1 0 12 0

When use is suspected 14 19 19 0

32 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995
Appendix table E - continued

Type of campus served by agency

Item description

U.S. 4-year 

college with

1,000-2,499

students

U.S. 2-year

community

college

U.S. 

graduate/ 

professional

school

Canadian

4-year 

institution

Expenditures and pay

Average fiscal 1995 operating expenditure per:

Agency $330,648 $614,087 $1,931,989 $1,297,459

Agency employee 38,035 53,425 38,847 46,072

Student 216 67 1,507 68

Student or campus employee served 152 62 356 60

Average base starting salary for:

Chief or director $33,333 $39,768 $47,821 $52,583

Entry-level officer 17,255 20,629 20,572 24,816

Percent of agencies authorizing special pay 

for full-time sworn officers:

Hazardous duty pay 0% 3% 4% 0%

Shift differential pay 15 33 42 23

Educational incentive pay 7 21 7 6

Merit pay 12 21 30 10

Percent of agencies authorizing collective bargaining and 

membership organizations for full-time sworn officers:

Collective bargaining by employees 9% 19% 23% 31%

Officer membership in nonpolice union 5 14 21 10

Officer membership in police union 6 10 14 7

Officer membership in police association 7 12 18 3

Operations

Percent agencies using selected types of patrols

Automobile patrol 79% 81% 78% 90%

Foot patrol 81 75 84 90

Bicycle patrol 14 19 16 39

Percent of agencies performing communication functions:

Dispatching calls for service 81% 81% 78% 94%

Operating campus switchboard 36 29 16 32

Percent of agencies participating in a 911 emergency system:

Total 54% 59% 41% 52%

Enhanced 911 17 26 3 26

Basic 911 37 33 38 26

Percent of agencies operating a blue light emergency 

phone system

Blue light system 68% 57% 53% 87%

Average number of phones in system 42 10 16 49

Percent of agencies with primary responsibility 

for investigating serious crimes:

Homicide 22% 41% 48% 13%

Rape, robbery, or aggravated assault 78 55 52 87

Arson 30 45 48 31

Burglary, larceny/theft, or motor vehicle theft 40 57 52 38

Percent of agencies with primary responsibility 

for drug and vice enforcement: 

Drug enforcement 64% 75% 81% 30%

Vice enforcement 21 31 28 23

Drug task force and asset forfeiture participation

Participation in a multi-agency drug task force 6% 7% 0% 0

Participation in a drug asset forfeiture program 3 4 3 0

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 33
Appendix table E - continued

Type of campus served by agency

Item description

U.S. 4-year 

college with

1,000-2,499

students

U.S. 2-year

community

college

U.S. 

graduate/ 

professional

school

Canadian

4-year 

institution

Operations (continued)

Percent of agencies with primary responsibility 

for traffic- and parking-related functions:

Accident investigation 71% 84% 88% 81%

Campus transportation system 38 16 28 10

Parking administration 92 87 47 71

Parking enforcement 97 99 84 87

Traffic direction and control 82 86 63 77

Traffic enforcement 63 77 53 74

Percent of agencies with primary responsibility 

for security-related functions:

Arena event security 56% 39% 6% 32%

Building lockup/unlock 99 93 97 87

Central alarm monitoring 59 63 78 84

Key control 57 65 66 77

Medical center/hospital security 7 1 53 13

Nuclear facility security 3 1 6 13

Stadium event security 59 34 6 45

Percent of agencies with primary responsibility 

for special public safety functions: 

Animal control 40% 45% 22% 23%

Emergency medical services 43 47 16 52

Environmental health and safety 41 45 13 32

Fire services 33 34 28 29

Fire inspection 58 46 34 48

Search and rescue 19 29 19 26

Equipment

Percent of agencies authorizing semiautomatic 

sidearms for use by officers:

Any type 15% 34% 44% 0

 .380 2 4 6 0

 .40 5 13 6 0

 .45 3 13 6 0

 9mm 12 31 41 0

 10mm 1 5 0 0

Percent of agencies requiring that body armor be worn by:

All regular field officers 6% 12% 16% 6%

Some regular field officers 0 9 6 3

Percent of agencies authorizing the use of nonlethal weapons:

Baton 30% 52% 66% 23%

Tear gas 10 14 13 0

Pepper spray 35 51 25 3

Choke/carotid hold 7 7 0 3

Percent of agencies using:

Portable radios 97% 95% 94% 97%

Base station radios 56 60 56 74

Mobile vehicle radios 44 59 66 74

Cellular phones 72 83 81 87

Percent of agencies operating motorized vehicles:

Automobiles 85% 89% 68% 74%

Motorcycles 2 2 0 0

Boats 2 0 0 0

Buses 0 0 6 3

Vans 18 16 42 42

Golf carts 23 21 10 10

34 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995
Appendix table E - continued

Type of campus served by agency

Item description

U.S. 4-year 

college with

1,000-2,499

students

U.S. 2-year

community

college

U.S. 

graduate/ 

professional

school

Canadian

4-year 

institution

Computers and information systems

Percent of agencies operating computers:

Mainframe 42% 62% 60% 74%

Mini 4 6 20 10

Personal 92 89 90 87

Laptop 7 11 30 26

Car-mounted digital terminal 0 2 3 3

Hand-held digital terminal 1 2 3 6

LAN system 7 16 33 32

Percent of agencies using computers for:

Budgeting 52% 57% 71% 70%

Crime analysis 30 37 45 50

Crime investigation 28 41 45 47

Dispatch 25 28 48 30

Fleet management 6 15 23 7

Manpower allocation 17 19 29 20

Record-keeping 80 88 84 67

Research/statistics 50 54 61 70

Percent of agencies with Automated Fingerprint Identification 

System (AFIS) facilities:

Exclusive ownership of an AFIS system 0% 0% 0% 0%

Shared ownership of an AFIS system 1 4 0 0

Terminal with access to a remote AFIS site 0 3 3 4

Percent of agencies maintaining computer files on:

Alarms 53% 38% 58% 63%

Arrests 35 42 45 43

Calls for service 36 41 35 40

Criminal histories 21 19 42 47

Departmental inventory 31 32 39 30

Driver's license information 19 16 29 13

Evidence 11 20 26 13

Fingerprints 1 2 0 0

Payroll 24 23 29 27

Personnel 37 43 58 33

Stolen property 28 35 39 60

Summonses 14 7 10 7

Traffic accidents 25 36 26 40

Traffic citations 57 42 32 43

Uniform Crime Reports-Incident-based 30 35 23 30

Uniform Crime Reports-Summary 30 40 39 23

Vehicle registration 80 38 45 33

Warrants 7 11 13 7

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 35
Appendix table E - continued

Type of campus served by agency

Item description

U.S. 4-year 

college with

1,000-2,499

students

U.S. 2-year

community

college

U.S. 

graduate/ 

professional

school

Canadian

4-year 

institution

Policies and programs

Percent of agencies with a written policy directive pertaining to:

Citizen complaints 47% 54% 57% 57%

Code of conduct and appearance 92 87 90 89

Deadly force 50 66 60 4

Domestic disputes 36 49 37 36

Employee counseling assistance 45 47 43 50

Homeless persons 10 13 23 4

Juveniles 37 38 47 21

Mentally ill persons 36% 42% 43% 25%

Off-duty employment of officers 27 51 53 18

Pursuit driving 33 47 53 21

Relations with judicial officers 60 42 27 39

Relations with other law enforcement agencies 56 59 50 46

Residence life 65 16 10 54

Victim counseling 50 49 23 54

Percent of agencies operating a special unit or program for:

Alcohol education 38% 38% 21% 38%

Bias-related crimes 19 28 24 14

Crime prevention 84 78 76 86

Date rape prevention 55 46 31 52

Drug education 35 42 28 14

Self-defense training 41 17 24 31

Stranger rape prevention 39 43 31 21

Student security patrol 64 49 17 72

Victim assistance 32 39 28 45

36 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995
 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 37

 1995 SURVEY OF CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics

As a recipient of this questionnaire, you are one of a select group of campus police/security directors chosen

to participate in this important survey. The estimated public reporting burden for this collection of information

is 3 hours, including the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain

the data needed, and complete and review the information collected. Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to

the Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20531; and to the Office

of Management and Budget, OMB number 1121-0128, Washington, DC 20503.

Section A DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION

1. What is the official name of your agency/office? (Note: This should be the agency/office 

 responsible for police/security services on campus.) ___________________________

2. What is the name and official title of the head of the agency named in #1 above? 

 Name ______________________ Title _____________________

3. What is the official title of the person to which the agency head in #2 above reports to? 

 (Be as specific as possible. For example, if "Vice-President" provide area (e.g. "Administration"). 

 Title _____________________________________

4. Are any campus police/security services outsourced (i.e. contracted out) to a private 

 security firm or State/local law enforcement agency? 

 Yes, If yes, enter agency name(s) of external provider(s) ___________________ No 

 and enter estimated percentage of services outsourced ____%.

5. Enter the number of students currently enrolled on the campus served by your agency.

 Enrollment data current as of __________ Undergraduate Graduate/Professional

 Full-time students (head count):

 Part-time students (head count):

6. Enter the number of employees working on the campus served by your agency.

 Employee data current as of ____________ Faculty Other employees

 Full-time non-student employees (head count):

 Part-time non-student employees (head count):

7. Enter the number of persons living on the campus served by your agency.

Resident data current as of _________________ Dormitories Other housing

 Number of student residents

 Number of non-student residents (e.g., spouses, dependents) 

8. What are the physical characteristics of the main campus served by your agency?

Number of buildings ______ Land area ________ Miles of roads ________
38 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995

Section B OPERATIONS

1. Mark (X) those functions for which your agency has PRIMARY responsibility.

 Traffic law enforcement Search and rescue Receiving calls for service 

 Central alarm monitoring Key control Campus switchboard operation

 Accident investigations Stadium event security Arena/coliseum event security

 Training academy operation Fire inspection Personal safety escorts

 Emergency fire services Parking enforcement Hospital/med. center security

 Environmental health & safety Building lockup/unlock Fire prevention education

 Fingerprint processing Vice enforcement Traffic direction and control

 Dispatching calls for service Animal control Campus transportation system

 Security for nuclear facility Parking administration Emergency medical services

 Timely notice of serious crimes in accord with Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act

2. For each UCR Index Crime listed below: Mark (X) the small box to the left of each crime 

type if your agency has PRIMARY investigative responsibility for that crime within its area 

of jurisdiction, and to the right enter the number reported to your agency during 1994. 

UCR Violent crimes 1994 total UCR Property crimes 1994 total

Murder/manslaughter Burglary offense

Forcible sex offenses Larceny/theft

Robbery Motor vehicle

Aggravated assault Arson

3. Does your agency participate in a operational 911 emergency telephone system or its 

equivalent (i.e. units can be dispatched as a result of a call? Mark (X) one box only.

 Yes-Basic 911 Yes-Expanded/Enhanced No

4. Does your agency operate an emergency phone (e.g. blue light) system on campus?

 Yes (enter number in operation ______) No

5. Enter the number of service calls received by your agency during 1994. Estimate if

necessary, but indicate any estimated figures with an asterisk (*).

Total service calls for 1994 Crime-related calls for 1994

6a. Do your agency's officers have arrest powers granted by a State or local authority?

 Yes, State Yes, local No arrest powers (skip to # 7)

 b. What are the jurisdictional limits of those arrest powers?

 On campus only Within municipality Statewide Other ____________

7a. Does your agency perform routine patrol functions? Yes No

 b. Does your agency provide the campus with 24-hour patrol coverage?

 Yes, at all times Yes, sometimes No
Section B OPERATIONS - continued

8. For the most recent week with typical campus activity (exclude special events, Spring break, etc.), 

 enter the number of each type of patrol units that were deployed on shifts of 7 hours or longer.

 Shifts with a starting time from 12:00 a.m. (midnight) to 11:59 p.m. on:

Wednesday Saturday

Patrol type 1-officer 2-officer Patrol Type 1-officer 2-officer

Auto Auto

Foot Foot

Bicycle Bicycle

Other_____ Other_____

Other_____ Other_____

Section C EQUIPMENT

1. Are your agency's patrol officers armed while on duty? Mark (X) one box only.

 Yes, armed at all times Yes, depends on assignment, hours, 

or other criteria. Specify _____________ 

 No, not armed at 

 any time (skip to #4)

2a. Does your agency SUPPLY sidearms to its regular field officers?

 Yes No (skip to #3)

 b. Which types of sidearms does your agency SUPPLY to its field officers? Mark (X) all that apply.

 Type/caliber .357 .38/.380 .40 .45 9mm 10mm Other

 Revolver

 Semi-automatic

 Other _____

3. Which sidearms are authorized, but not supplied by your agency, for use by its field officers? 

 Mark (X) all that apply.

 Type/caliber .357 .38/.380 .40 .45 9mm 10mm Other

 Revolver

 Semi-automatic

 Other ______

4. Does your agency supply or provide a cash allowance to officers for protective body armor? 

 Supplies armor Cash allowance No

5. Does your agency require any of its field/patrol officers to wear protective body armor ?

 Yes, all officers Yes, some officers No, disclaimer 

 required

 No, disclaimer 

 not required

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 39
Section C EQUIPMENT - continued

6. Which types of non-lethal weapons are authorized for use by your agency? Mark (X) all that apply.

 Traditional baton Tear gas-personal size Electrical stun gun

 PR-24 baton Tear gas-large volume Choke hold

 Collapsible baton Pepper fog/spray Carotid hold

 Soft projectile Tranquilizer dart Three-pole trip

 Rubber bullet Flash/bang grenade

7. Enter the number of each vehicle type operated by your agency. Include owned, leased, rented, and 

 confiscated vehicles.

Marked car Van Bicycle

Unmarked car Bus Boat

Motorcycle Golf cart Other _______

8. For each type of communications equipment, mark (X) if used by your agency. 

 Portable radios Mobile vehicle radios Cellular phones Base station radios

Section D COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

1. Does your agency have exclusive or shared ownership of an Automated Fingerprint 

 Identification System (AFIS) that includes a file of digitized prints? Mark (X) one box only.

 Yes-Exclusive ownership Yes-Shared ownership No

2. Does your agency utilize a terminal with access to a remote AFIS site? Yes No

3. For each type of computer systems listed below, mark (X) if used by your agency. 

 Exclude inquiries to NCIC, State identification bureaus, etc. 

 Mainframe computer Laptop computer Car-mounted digital terminal

 Mini-computer LAN system Hand-held digital terminal 

 Personal computer (PC) Other ________________

4. Mark (X) each function for which your agency uses computers and each type of computerized file 

 maintained by your agency. 

Computer functions Computerized files

 Dispatch Alarms Personnel 

 Criminal investigations Arrests Stolen property

 Crime analysis Calls for service Summonses

 Manpower allocation Criminal histories Traffic accidents

 Fleet management Department inventory Traffic citations

 Budgeting Drivers license registration UCR-Summary

 Record-keeping Evidence UCR-Incident-based

 Research/statistics Fingerprints Vehicle registration

 Other ____________ Payroll Warrants

40 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995
Section E PERSONNEL

1. Enter the number of full-time and part-time employees in your agency for the pay 

 period that included March 15, 1995.

Sworn personnel Nonsworn personnel

Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time

Total employees as of March 15, 1995

Administration-Chief of police, assistants and other personnel working in 

an administrative capacity. Include finance, personnel, and internal affairs. 

Field operations-Police officers, detectives, inspectors, supervisors, and

other personnel providing direct services. Include traffic, patrol, 

investigations, and special operations.

Technical support-Dispatchers, records clerks, data processors, and other

personnel providing support services. Include communications, fleet management, crime prevention, and training.

Other- (e.g. building security officers, parking monitors, etc.)

2. As of March 15, 1995, how many sworn employees were working in the following capacities? 

Full-time Part-time

Uniformed officers whose regular assigned duties included

responding to calls for service

Detectives/investigators

Crime prevention/education officers

Training officers

3. Enter the number of FULL-TIME agency employees by RACE and SEX during the pay period that 

 included March 15, 1995. 

Sworn personnel Nonsworn

Male Female Male Female

a. Total number of full-time employees (b+c+d+e+f)

b. White, not of Hispanic origin

c. Black, not of Hispanic origin

d. Hispanic origin*, any race (d1+d2)

d1. White, Hispanic origin

d2. Black, Hispanic origin

e. American Indian/Alaska Native

f. Asian/Pacific Islander

*Persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or 

 origin, excluding Brazilian, Jamaican, Haitian. 

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 41
Section F EXPENDITURE AND PAY

1. Enter the base starting annual salary for these full-time positions. (Enter "NA" if position doesn't exist)

Position (or equivalent) Starting salary Position (or equivalent) Starting salary

Chief/Director $ Lieutenant $

Asst. Chief/Asst. Director $ Sergeant $

Captain $ Entry-level officer $

2. Enter total overtime hours worked, total overtime monetary payment, and total compensatory hours 

 earned by FULL-TIME sworn personnel who worked overtime during the most recently completed 

 fiscal year. If data are not available, provide estimates and mark with an asterisk(*).

Total overtime hours worked hrs.

Total overtime monetary payment $

Total overtime compensatory hours earned hrs.

3. Does your agency provide any of the following types of special pay to sworn full-time personnel? 

Hazardous duty pay Yes No Education incentive pay Yes No

Shift differential pay Yes No Merit pay Yes No

4. Enter your agency's expenditures for the most recently completed fiscal year. If data are not available, 

 provide estimates and mark with an asterisk (*).

FY Expenditure

Gross salaries and wages $

Employer contributions to employee benefits $ 

Other operating expenditures (e.g., purchase of

supplies, food and contractual services)

$

Equipment (e.g., purchase of cars, radios, computers,

etc., with a life expectancy of 5 years or more)

$

Section G POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 

1. What is your agency's formal educational requirement for its new officer recruits? Mark(X) one. 

 Four-year college degree High school diploma or equivalent

 Two-year college degree Other requirement_____________________

 Some college, but no degree, required No education requirement

2. Does your agency require training of its new officer recruits? If Yes, enter hours required.

Classroom training: Yes _____ hours required None required

 Field training: Yes _____ hours required None required

3. What was your agency's total number of in-service officer training hours (excluding academy and 

 FTO) for 1994? ________ hours. If necessary, provide an estimate and mark with an asterisk (*). 

42 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995
Section G POLICIES AND PROGRAMS - continued

4. What is the primary source of academy training for your agency's new officer recruits?

Name of academy

Location (city, state/province)

5. Which of the following officer selection techniques are used by your agency? 

 Written aptitude test Criminal record check Polygraph exam

 Oral interview Physical agility test Drug screening

 Board interview Psychological screening Other ________________

 Background investigation Medical exam

6. Is collective bargaining authorized for your agency's employees?

Sworn employees: Yes No

Nonsworn employees: Yes No

7. Which of the following formalized police membership organizations are authorized for sworn officers 

 within your agency? Mark (X) all that apply.

 Local affiliate of national nonpolice union Local police association

 National police union (e.g., FOP) State/provincial police association

 Local police union Regional police association

 Local unaffiliated union Other _______________________

8. Does your agency operate special units/programs for the following? Mark (X) all that apply.

 Victim assistance Date rape prevention Alcohol education

 Crime prevention education Stranger rape prevention Drug education

 Bias-related (hate) crimes Self-defense training Other (specify _______________)

 Student security patrol

9. Does your agency have written policy directives for the following? Mark (X) all that apply.

 Use of deadly force/firearm discharge Code of conduct and appearance

 Handling juveniles Employee counseling assistance

 Handling the mentally ill Relationship with:

 Handling the homeless Other law enforcement agencies 

 Handling domestic disturbances Student judicial officers (e.g. Dean of Students)

 Citizen complaints Residence life officials

 Pursuit driving Victim/counseling services

 Off-duty employment of officers

10. Who is in charge of administrative (non-criminal) investigations of citizen complaints 

 pertaining to police use of excessive force? Mark (X) all that apply.

 Chief/Director of Police State/District Attorney or Prosecutor 

 Other agency personnel sworn Civilian complaint review board 

 Other agency personnel  nonsworn Other  specify _________________________

 College/University Attorney 

 Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995 43