Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

February 2008, NCJ 219374

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

By Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D. 

BJS Statistician

During the 2004-05 school year, 74% of the 750 law 

enforcement agencies serving 4-year universities and 

colleges with 2,500 or more students employed sworn law 

enforcement officers. These officers had full arrest powers 

granted by a state or local government. The remainder 

employed nonsworn security officers only. Nearly all public 

campuses (93%) used sworn officers compared to less 

than half of private campuses (42%).

Two-thirds (67%) of campus law enforcement agencies surveyed used armed patrol officers during the 2004-05 school 

year. Armed patrol officers were used at nearly 9 in 10 

agencies that employed sworn officers and at nearly 1 in 10 

agencies that relied on nonsworn officers only. 

These findings come from the first survey of campus law 

enforcement agencies conducted by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics since the 1994-95 school year. Among agencies 

included in both the 1994-95 and 2004-05 surveys, the percentage using sworn officers increased from 78% to 79% 

and the percentage using armed patrol officers increased 

from 66% to 72%. 

On campuses with 5,000 or more students, private campuses had a higher ratio of law enforcement employees to 

students than public campuses. Between the 1994-95 and 

2004-05 surveys, comparable agencies increased their 

collective staffing levels from 2.8 full-time employees per 

1,000 students to 3 per 1,000. 

Almost all campus agencies using sworn officers conducted 

criminal record checks, reference checks, background 

investigations, and driving record checks of applicants 

for sworn positions. About 80% of agencies used these 

preemployment screening methods when hiring nonsworn 

officers. Most agencies also used additional screening 

methods—such as psychological evaluations, written aptitude tests, physical agility tests, and medical exams—when 

hiring sworn officers. 

More than 9 in 10 agencies had a written emergency preparedness plan. During the 2004-05 school year, 58% of 

agencies participated in emergency preparedness exercises. Most agencies also used designated personnel to 

address a variety of crime and safety-related issues through 

prevention and education programs.

During the 2004 calendar year, campus law enforcement 

agencies received on average 62 reports of serious violent 

crime per 100,000 students and 1,625 reports of serious 

property crime. Violent crime rates for private campuses 

were about twice that of public campuses; property crime 

rates were 48% higher. Between 1994 and 2004, campus 

crime rates decreased by 9% for violent crime and by 30% 

for property crime. 

About three-quarters (74%) of 4-year colleges and 

universities with 2,500 or more students were served by a 

campus law enforcement agency with sworn personnel

Figure 1

Armed

Percent of agencies

2,500-4,999

5,000-9,999

10,000-14,999

15,000 or more

Private

2,500-4,999

5,000-9,999

10,000-14,999

15,000 or more

Public

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

Sworn

All campuses

Data by campus type and size and other detailed information 

are available in the Appendix tables on the BJS Website at 

<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cle0405.pdf>.
2 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

Three-quarters of campus law enforcement agencies 

used sworn officers with full arrest powers

During the 2004-05 school year, 74% of campus law 

enforcement agencies serving 4-year campuses with 2,500 

or more students employed sworn personnel with full arrest 

powers (table 1). Nearly 9 in 10 agencies that employed 

sworn personnel used armed patrol officers, accounting for 

65% of all agencies. Less than 1 in 10 agencies that relied 

only on nonsworn officers used armed patrol officers, 

accounting for 2% of all agencies. 

Among agencies included in both the 1994-95 and 2004-05 

surveys, the percentage of agencies that used armed patrol 

officers increased from 66% to 72%. The use of sworn personnel by campuses included in both surveys increased 

slightly, from 78% to 79% (figure 2).

Ten campus law enforcement agencies had at least 155 

full-time employees

New York University had the largest agency with 345 fulltime employees, followed by the University of Texas Health 

Science Center (Houston), Temple University (Philadelphia), and Howard University (Washington, D.C.). 

Largest sworn campus agency had 166 full-time 

officers

The largest sworn campus law enforcement agency served 

Howard University, with 166 full-time officers, followed by 

Temple University (Philadelphia), University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), University of Medicine and Dentistry of 

New Jersey (Newark), and George Washington University 

(GWU) (Washington, D.C.). Of the ten largest sworn campus agencies, GWU was the only agency that used 

unarmed patrol officers. 

Other large campuses patrolled by unarmed sworn officers 

included the University of Iowa (Iowa City), Iowa State University (Ames), Portland State University (Portland, OR), 

University of Oregon (Eugene), and Oregon State University (Corvallis) (not shown in table).

New York University was the largest campus—with more 

than 39,000 students—to use nonsworn officers only. 

Other large 4-year campuses that used nonsworn officers 

only included the University of Southern California (Los 

Angeles), DePaul University (Chicago), and Columbia 

University (New York) (appendix table 2). 

Typically campus law enforcement agencies have working 

relationships with local law enforcement and draw on their 

resources when needed. Depending on the type of campus 

agency, examples of local support may include arresting 

suspects, investigating crimes, providing armed support in 

dangerous situations, or operating a police sub-station on 

campus. 

Campus served

Full-time 

employees

New York University 345

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 235

Temple University 202

Howard University 200

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 194

University of Southern California 190

Michigan State University 180

University of Alabama - Birmingham 170

George Washington University 156

University of Florida 155

Campus served

Full-time sworn 

officers 

Howard University 166

Temple University 119

University of Pennsylvania 100

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 97

George Washington University 95

University of Florida 86

Georgia State University 79

Yale University 78

University of Maryland - College Park 76

Vanderbilt University 76

Table 1. Sworn, nonsworn, and armed campus law 

enforcement by type and size of 4-year campus, 2004-05

Percent of agencies using —

Type and size 

of 4-year campus

Number of 

agencies

Sworn police

Nonsworn 

security only

Total Armed Total Armed

All campuses 750 74% 65% 26% 2%

Public 465 93% 86% 7% 0%

15,000 or more 152 98 91 2 0

10,000-14,999 82 93 87 7 0

5,000-9,999 144 93 82 7 0

2,500-4,999 87 86 82 14 0

Private 285 42% 30% 58% 6%

15,000 or more 20 65 55 35 5

10,000-14,999 29 66 59 34 10

5,000-9,999 74 42 27 58 8

2,500-4,999 162 35 24 65 5

Between 1994-95 and 2004-05, the percentage of agencies 

using armed patrol officers increased

Figure 2

Armed

Percent of agencies

1994-95

2004-05

Private

1994-95

2004-05

Public

1994-95

2004-05

All campuses

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

Armed Sworn
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 3

Among schools with 5,000 or more students, private 

campuses had more law enforcement employees per 

capita than public campuses

During the 2004-05 school year, the 750 agencies 

surveyed had more than 25,000 full-time employees, 

including about 13,000 sworn personnel. These agencies 

served more than 8 million students. The average number 

of full-time employees was 34, with a range of 96 on the 

largest private campuses to fewer than 20 on the smallest 

campuses (table 2). 

Campuses had on average 3.8 full-time campus law 

enforcement employees per 1,000 students. Private campuses averaged 4.7 officers per 1,000 students compared 

to 3.3 per 1,000 on public campuses. Among schools with 

5,000 or more students, private campuses had more law 

enforcement employees per capita than public campuses.

Campuses using sworn officers employed on average 2.3 

full-time officers per 1,000 students. Private campuses 

averaged 3 sworn officers per 1,000 students compared to 

2.1 sworn officers per 1,000 students on public campuses. 

On campuses of 5,000 or more students, private campuses had a higher ratio of sworn officers to students than 

public campuses.

Full-time agency employees increased from 2.8 to 3 

per 1,000 students between 1994-95 and 2004-05 

Campus law enforcement agencies included in both 

surveys increased the ratio of full-time employees to 

students between the 1994-95 and 2004-05 school years. 

The overall law enforcement staffing ratio increased from 

2.8 per 1,000 students to 3 per 1,000 students (figure 3). 

Among campus agencies using sworn officers, the overall 

ratio of officers to students increased from 1.7 to 1.8 

per 1,000.

In addition to total student enrollment, the number and 

type of employees in campus law enforcement agencies 

may be influenced by other factors such as campus land 

area, number of buildings, type of facilities (e.g., medical 

centers, stadiums, and arenas), number of full-time 

students, number of campus residents, number of school 

employees, characteristics of surrounding city and neighborhoods, and legislative statutes. 

Agencies served on average 11,000 students and 

campuses of 485 acres and 89 buildings

On average, campuses included in this survey enrolled 

about 11,000 students and covered nearly 500 acres in 

land area (table 3). In terms of both average enrollment 

and average land area, public campuses were about twice 

as large as private campuses and included 37 more buildings on average. Private campuses (32%) had a higher 

percentage of students living on campus than public 

campuses (21%), a pattern that existed in all campus 

size categories. 

Table 2. Average full-time employment by campus law 

enforcement agencies, 2004-05

All agencies

Agencies employing 

sworn officers

Type and size 

of 4-year campus

Full-time 

employees

Per 1,000 

students Full-time 

Per 1,000 

students

All campuses 34 3.8 23 2.3

Public 35 3.3 23 2.1

15,000 or more 59 2.3 37 1.5

10,000-14,999 31 2.6 21 1.8

5,000-9,999 23 3.4 15 2.2

2,500-4,999 19 5.4 12 3.4

Private 31 4.7 22 3.0

15,000 or more 96 3.9 50 2.3

10,000-14,999 61 5.0 45 3.9

5,000-9,999 33 4.7 18 2.8

2,500-4,999 16 4.7 11 3.0

Table 3. Selected characteristics of 4-year campuses 

with 2,500 or more students, 2004-05

Average number of—

Type and size 

of 4-year campus Students

Student 

residents Acres Buildings

All campuses 10,874 2,560 485 89

Public 13,413 2,838 614 103

15,000 or more 25,627 4,730 1,104 195

10,000-14,999 12,224 2,508 454 81

5,000-9,999 7,080 1,782 355 49

2,500-4,999 3,676 1,191 316 49

Private 6,730 2,130 272 66

15,000 or more 23,293 5,796 678 223

10,000-14,999 12,368 3,690 609 107

5,000-9,999 6,929 2,174 187 63

2,500-4,999 3,585 1,384 204 40

Between 1994-95 and 2004-05, the ratio of full-time 

campus law enforcement employees per student 

increased slightly 

Figure 3

1994-95

2004-05

Private

1994-95

2004-05

Public

1994-95

2004-05

All campuses

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Full-time employees per 1,000 students

Sworn* Total

*Excludes agencies using nonsworn officers only
4 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

Table 4. Campuses with 24-hour patrol and emergency 

telephone access to law enforcement, 2004-05

Type and size of 

4-year campus

24-hour

patrol 

coverage

3-digit 

emergency

number

Blue-light 

emergency 

phones

All campuses 98% 95% 91%

Public 97% 94% 92%

15,000 or more 100 94 97

10,000-14,999 100 94 95

5,000-9,999 96 95 90

2,500-4,999 92 94 80

Private 99% 95% 90%

15,000 or more 100 100 100

10,000-14,999 100 100 92

5,000-9,999 100 95 96

2,500-4,999 97 94 85

Nearly all campuses had 24-hour patrol, a 3-digit 

emergency number, and emergency blue-light phones 

All agencies serving public campuses with 10,000 or more 

students and those serving private campuses with 5,000 

or more students reported having 24-hour patrol services 

(table 4). Overall 99% of private campus law enforcement 

agencies and 97% of public agencies provided 24-hour 

patrol services. 

Nearly all campuses had a 3-digit emergency phone number through a 6-1-1 on-campus system or a local 9-1-1 system. Most campuses (91%) also had blue-light emergency 

campus phones that provided direct access to campus law 

enforcement. 

More than 9 in 10 public and private campuses with 5,000 

or more students had blue-light emergency phones compared to about 8 in 10 campuses with less than 5,000 

students. Among campuses with a blue-light phone system, 

the average number of blue-light phones increased from 

8 per 2,500 students in 1994-95 to 13 in 2004-05. Private 

campuses had 17 blue-light phones per 2,500 students 

compared to 12 for public campuses (not shown in table).

Campus law enforcement agencies performed a wide 

range of functions

Overall agencies serving the 100 largest campuses performed more of the functions asked about in the survey 

than agencies serving the 100 smallest campuses (See 

appendix table 1 for functions). More than 4 in 5 campus 

law enforcement agencies performed functions related to 

special events security (98%), dispatching calls for service 

(92%), traffic enforcement (89%), property crime investigation (86%), building lockup (85%), parking enforcement 

(84%), and violent crime investigation (81%) (table 5).

Functions performed by a majority of agencies serving the 

smallest campuses, but not by a majority of agencies serving the largest campuses, included parking administration 

(87%), vehicle registration (84%), key control (60%), and 

fire prevention education (52%) (appendix table 1).

Nearly half of the agencies serving large public 

campuses used in-field computers

Overall about 1 in 4 (27%) campus law enforcement 

agencies used in-field computers during the 2004-05 school 

year (table 6). Nearly half (45%) of agencies serving public 

campuses with 15,000 or more students reported using 

in-field computers.

The majority of agencies with in-field computers reported 

that patrol officers had in-field access to motor vehicle 

records (61%) and driving records (54%) (not shown in 

table). Less than half reported that patrol officers used 

in-field computers to access criminal history information 

(37%), calls-for-service records (24%), or linked files for 

crime analysis (13%). A majority of agencies reported that 

patrol officers had fixed-site computer access to various 

types of records and other information. 

Table 6. Campus law enforcement agencies using in-field 

computers, 2004-05

Type and size 

of 4-year campus

Percent of agencies 

using in-field computers

All campuses 27%

Public 31%

15,000 or more 45

10,000-14,999 33

5,000-9,999 24

2,500-4,999 13

Private 21%

15,000 or more 27

10,000-14,999 20

5,000-9,999 26

2,500-4,999 17

Table 5. Selected functions performed by campus law 

enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Selected function

All 4-year

campuses Public Private

Special event security 98% 99% 98%

Dispatching calls 92 90 95

Traffic enforcement 89 92 79

Property crime investigation 86 94 70

Building lockup/unlock 85 81 93

Parking/vehicle enforcement 84 81 89

Violent crime investigation 81% 92% 62%

Central alarm monitoring 77 78 77

Access control 75 72 83

Surveillance camera monitoring 69 64 77

Parking administration 67 62 78

Vehicle registration 55 47 70
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 5

A sixth of sworn campus officers were women

During the 2004-05 school year, 31% of sworn campus 

officers were a racial or ethnic minority. A sixth (17%) of 

officers were women. 

Among agencies included in both the 1994-95 and 2004-

05 surveys, women increased from 14% to 17% of officers 

(figure 4). Minorities—blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and 

other minorities—increased from 27% to 30%; Hispanics 

increased from 4.4% to 6%. 

Since 1994-95, starting salaries were up 5% for sworn 

officers but were unchanged for nonsworn officers 

Starting salaries for entry-level sworn officers averaged 

$30,600 for the 2004-05 school year, 5% more than in 

1994-95 after adjusting for inflation (table 7). Average 

starting salaries ($22,300) for nonsworn officers were 

unchanged after adjusting for inflation. During 2004-05, 

starting salaries in agencies with collective bargaining 

rights, compared to those without, were 25% higher for 

sworn officers and 16% higher for nonsworn officers 

(not shown in table). 

About 1 in 6 agencies required new officers to have 

a college degree 

More than a quarter (28%) of all campus law enforcement 

agencies had some type of college education requirement 

for new officers. About 1 in 6 agencies required a 2-year 

(13%) or 4-year (3%) college degree.

Agencies serving the largest public campuses 

required about 1,100 hours of training for new officers

Agencies required on average more than 800 hours of 

training for new officers, including about 500 hours of 

academy training (table 8). Training requirements ranged 

from about 1,100 hours at the largest public campuses 

to about 400 at the smallest private campuses. Some of 

this variation was attributable to the use of sworn versus 

nonsworn officers.

Characteristic

Percent of full-time 

sworn personnel

Male 83.3%

Female 16.7

White, non-Hispanic 69.4%

Black, non-Hispanic 21.0

Hispanic 6.5

Other race* 3.1

*Other race includes American Indians, Asians, Native Hawaiians, 

other Pacific Islanders, and persons identifying two or more races. 

Minimum education requirement 

for new officers Percent of agencies 

With college requirement 28%

Any degree 16

 4-year degree 3

 2-year degree 13

Some college 12

Without college requirement 72

Table 8. Average training hours required for new campus 

law enforcement officers, 2004-05

Type and size 

of 4-year campus

All agencies

Agencies using 

sworn officers

Academy Field Academy Field

All campuses 509 hrs. 305 hrs. 582 hrs. 357 hrs.

Public 568 hrs. 362 hrs. 584 hrs. 376 hrs.

15,000 or more 624 477 627 487

10,000-14,999 582 357 601 351

5,000-9,999 533 251 547 261

2,500-4,999 497 259 536 296

Private 355 hrs. 183 hrs. 569 hrs. 277 hrs.

15,000 or more 524 303 620 415

10,000-14,999 485 216 576 220

5,000-9,999 381 225 586 296

2,500-4,999 268 129 536 242

Note: Computation of average training requirement excludes 

agencies that did not require training of that type.

Minority and female full-time sworn personnel in campus 

law enforcement agencies, 1994-95 and 2004-05 

Figure 4

1994-95

2004-05

All minorities

Female

Other

Asian

Hispanic

Black

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percent of full-time sworn personnel

2004-05

1994-95

Table 7. Average base starting salary for selected positions 

in campus law enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Type and size 

of 4-year campus

Average base starting salary 

Entry-level

nonsworn 

Entry-level

sworn 

Chief or 

director

All campuses $22,300 $30,600 $61,700

Public $21,500 $30,700 $63,300

15,000 or more 21,800 33,500 74,800

10,000-14,999 20,900 30,000 62,900

5,000-9,999 22,100 28,900 55,400

2,500-4,999 20,100 27,300 52,900

Private $23,200 $30,300 $58,000

15,000 or more 32,700 36,000 79,900

10,000-14,999 23,400 30,200 72,300

5,000-9,999 25,000 30,300 63,600

2,500-4,999 21,500 28,700 49,500

Note: Rounded to nearest hundred.
6 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

Training and education requirements were more 

stringent for sworn officers 

On average, agencies required sworn officers to complete 

more than 900 hours of training compared to about 200 

hours for nonsworn officers. 

Education requirements were also more stringent for 

sworn officers, with 30% of agencies requiring newly hired 

sworn officers to have at least some college compared to 

21% for nonsworn officers. About 1 in 6 agencies required 

sworn officers to have at least a 2-year degree, compared 

to about 1 in 10 agencies for nonsworn officers (not 

shown in table). 

Sworn officers were subjected to a wider range of 

preemployment screening methods

Preemployment screening methods—background screening, personal screening, and physical screening—were 

used more frequently when hiring sworn officers than 

nonsworn officers (figures 5, 6, and 7). Most agencies 

conducted criminal record checks, background investigations, driving record checks, and personal interviews 

when hiring nonsworn officers while less than half used 

the other screening methods.

Nonsworn agencies were more likely to handle 

building security and parking-related duties 

Nearly all agencies provided routine patrol services, security for special events, and dispatch services. More than 9 

in 10 agencies with sworn personnel also had primary 

responsibility for crime investigations. Nonsworn agencies were more likely than sworn agencies to handle functions related to building security and parking; a majority of 

sworn agencies also performed these functions. 

Nonsworn patrol officers were less likely than sworn 

officers to carry firearms, pepper spray, or batons

Nearly 9 in 10 agencies with sworn officers (87%) used 

armed patrol officers compared to about 1 in 10 agencies 

using nonsworn officers only (9%). About 9 in 10 agencies also authorized sworn officers to carry pepper spray 

(92%) and batons (91%). Among agencies using nonsworn officers, about three-fifths authorized officers to 

carry pepper spray (61%), and about half, batons (49%). 

About 1 in 5 agencies authorized sworn officers to carry 

hand-held conducted energy devices such as Tasers or 

stun guns (20%). About 1 in 4 agencies authorized such 

devices for nonsworn officers (24%) (not shown in table). 

Average number of training hours required for new 

officers

Type of officer Total Academy Field

Sworn police 937 580 357

Nonsworn security 203 93 110

Percent of campus law enforcement agencies performing selected 

functions by type of officers employed, 2004-05

Sworn police Nonsworn security only 

90% 

or more

Routine patrol

Special event security

Violent crime investigation

Property crime investigation

Traffic enforcement

Dispatching calls 

Routine patrol

Building lockup/unlock

Special event security

Parking enforcement

Dispatching calls

80%-89% Arson investigation

Building lockup/unlock

Parking enforcement

Arena event security

Access control 

Parking administration

Monitor surveillance cameras

70%-79% Central alarm monitoring

Stadium event security

Access control

Arena event security

Central alarm monitoring

Vehicle registration

50%-69% Drug enforcement

Homicide investigation

Monitor surveillance cameras

Parking administration

Key control

Traffic enforcement

Fire prevention education

Stadium event security

Property crime investigation

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Percent of agencies

Nonsworn

Sworn

Criminal record

 check

Background

investigation

Driving record

 check

Credit history

 check

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Background screening

Percent of agencies

Nonsworn

Sworn

Personal screening

Psychological

 evaluation

Interview

Written aptitude

 test

Polygraph exam

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Physical screening

Percent of agencies

Nonsworn

Sworn Physical agility

 test

Medical exam

Drug test

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 7

Community policing activities were more prevalent 

on public campuses than on private campuses

About two-thirds (69%) of campus law enforcement 

agencies had incorporated community policing into their 

campus security policy (table 9). Most agencies (59%) 

assigned patrol officers to specific geographic areas on 

campus. About half had upgraded technology to support 

community policing efforts (51%) and collaborated with 

citizen groups, using their feedback to support community 

policing strategies (47%). 

Public campuses were more likely than private campuses 

to have implemented most of the community policing 

activities asked about in the survey. The largest differences were for student ride-a-long programs (49% public 

versus 22% private) and officer problem-solving projects 

(39% versus 23%). 

More than 80% of agencies met regularly with faculty, 

staff, and student groups

Regular meetings with various groups played an important 

role in campus community policing efforts. During the 

2004-05 school year, more than 80% of agencies serving 

public and private campuses met regularly with other law 

enforcement agencies (88%) and with on- and off-campus 

groups and organizations—such as student housing 

groups (86%), faculty/staff organizations (84%), and 

student organizations (83%)—to discuss crime and safetyrelated problems on campus (table 10). 

Agencies serving public campuses were more likely than 

those serving private campuses to meet regularly with 

fraternity and sorority groups, advocacy groups, and 

domestic violence groups to discuss crime and safetyrelated issues. In comparison agencies serving private 

campuses were more likely to meet regularly with neighborhood associations and religious groups to discuss 

crime-related issues on campus. 

About two-thirds of agencies had a written terrorism 

response plan

About 9 in 10 campus law enforcement agencies had 

a written emergency preparedness plan (94%) and had 

met with campus administrators regarding emergency 

preparedness issues (89%) during the 2004-05 school 

year (table 11). Nearly 7 in 10 agencies had disseminated 

emergency preparedness information to the campus community (67%) and had a written plan on how to respond in 

the event of a terrorist attack (66%). 

A majority of agencies also conducted emergency 

preparedness exercises (58%), maintained intelligence 

sharing agreements with other law enforcement agencies 

(56%), and held campus meetings on emergency preparedness (55%). Nearly two-thirds of the agencies on 

public campuses had engaged in these activities compared to less than half of those on private campuses. 

Nearly half of all agencies had formed partnerships with 

culturally diverse organizations on- and off-campus to 

address emergency preparedness on campus (45%). 

About a fifth of agencies had conducted a campus antifear campaign (21%). 

Table 9. Community policing activities of campus law 

enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Type of activity

All 4-year

campuses* Public Private

Included in campus security policy 69% 73% 63%

Geographic patrol assignments 59 59 61

Upgraded technology 51 53 47

Partnered with citizen groups 47 51 40

Student ride-along program 40 49 22

Written community policing plan 34 38 26

Officer problem-solving projects 33 39 23

Environmental crime analysis 32 36 25

Campus police academy 23 22 25

*See appendix table 3 for percentages by type and size of 4-year 

campuses.

Table 10. Groups that campus law enforcement agencies 

met with regularly to discuss crime-related problems, 

2004-05

Type of group

All 4-year 

campuses* Public Private

Other law enforcement agencies 88% 89% 86%

Student housing groups 86 86 86

Faculty/staff organizations 84 83 84

Student organizations 83 83 85

Fraternity/sorority groups 57 64 43

Advocacy groups 47 52 36

Domestic violence groups 43 52 28

Local public agencies 40 44 33

Neighborhood associations 39 37 44

Business groups 27 30 21

Religious groups 20 17 25

*See appendix table 4 for percentages by type and size of 4-year 

campuses.

Table 11. Emergency preparedness activities of campus 

law enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Type of activity

All 4-year

campuses* Public Private

Emergency preparedness plan 94% 94% 95%

Met with campus administrators 89 91 86

Disseminated information 67 71 60

Terrorism response plan 66 70 60

Emergency preparedness exercises 58 63 49

Intelligence-sharing agreements 56 65 41

Held campus meetings 55 61 42

Culturally diverse partnerships 45 48 39

Campus anti-fear campaign 21 25 15

*See appendix table 5 for percentages by type and size of 4-year 

campuses.
8 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

Most students were served by campus law enforcement 

agencies with special programs or designated 

personnel to address specific problems and issues 

Figure 8

Student security patrol

Bias/hate crime

Cybercrime

Victim assistance

Stalking

Community policing

Alcohol education

Self-defense training

Drug education

Rape prevention

Crime prevention

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

Percent of students 

Problem or issue

Agencies serving private campuses were more likely to 

have written policies related to student judicial officers 

and residence life officials

More than 9 in 10 campus law enforcement agencies had 

written policies and procedures regarding officer code-ofconduct (96%) and use of non-lethal force (91%) (table 12). 

About 8 in 10 had policies on handling citizen complaints 

(82%) and working with other law enforcement agencies 

(79%). 

Agencies serving public campuses were more likely to 

have written policies to address areas such as domestic 

disputes, off-duty employment, mentally ill persons, and 

racial profiling. Agencies serving private campuses were 

more likely to have written policies pertaining to student 

judicial officers and residence life officials. 

Agencies serving public campuses were more likely to 

have designated personnel to address specific campus 

crime and safety-related issues

A majority of campus law enforcement agencies had designated personnel to address specific crime-related issues. 

On some campuses these personnel were assigned fulltime to a specialized unit. About 8 in 10 agencies offered 

general crime prevention (83%) and rape prevention (78%) 

programs or had designated personnel to address these 

issues (table 13).

About 7 in 10 agencies had designated personnel for selfdefense training programs (69%) while a similar proportion 

offered drug (73%) and alcohol (67%) education programs. 

About 6 in 10 agencies had personnel to deal with victim 

assistance (62%) and stalking (60%). More than half had 

designated personnel to address cybercrime (54%) and 

hate crime (51%).

Agencies serving public campuses were more likely than 

those on private campuses to have programs or designated 

personnel for each problem or task included in the survey. 

The largest differences between public and private campuses were in the areas of alcohol education, community 

policing, stalking, and cybercrime. 

Nearly all students at 4-year schools with 2,500 or more 

students had access to crime prevention programs 

Nearly 9 in 10 students were enrolled on a campus where 

campus law enforcement provided general crime prevention and rape prevention programs (figure 8). Forty percent 

of students were enrolled on a campus with a full-time dedicated crime prevention unit (not shown in figure). For each 

problem or task identified in the survey, 60% or more of all 

students were enrolled on a campus where personnel were 

designated to work at least part-time on that issue. 

Table 12. Written policies and procedures of campus law 

enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Policy area

All 4-year

campuses* Public Private

Code of conduct/appearance 96% 97% 94%

Non-lethal force 91 95 85

Citizen complaints 82 87 72

Other law enforcement agencies 79 84 71

Domestic disputes 72 80 57

Juveniles 72 81 52

Employee counseling assistance 70 70 72

Off-duty employment 70 83 48

Mentally ill persons 68 76 55

Victim services 63 63 63

Racial profiling 57 67 39

Student judicial officers 55 51 63

Residence life officials 54 47 66

Homeless persons 27 30 23

*See appendix table 6 for percentages by type and size of 4-year 

campuses.

Table 13. Problems and issues addressed by special 

programs or designated personnel in campus law 

enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Problem/issue addressed

All 4-year

campuses* Public Private

Crime prevention 83% 88% 74%

Rape prevention 78 85 66

Drug education 73 79 60

Self-defense training 69 75 57

Alcohol education 67 75 53

Community policing 63 71 49

Victim assistance 62 67 54

Stalking 60 68 46

Cybercrime 54 62 40

Student security patrol 52 55 46

Bias/hate crimes 51 55 43

*See appendix table 7 for percentages by type and size of 4-year 

campuses.
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 9

Campus police were more likely than local police 

agencies to assess recruits’ community-relations 

skills prior to hiring

Campus law enforcement agencies with at least 10 but 

fewer than 100 full-time sworn officers were compared 

with local police departments in the same size range using 

data from the 2003 BJS Law Enforcement Management 

and Administrative Statistics Survey. Nearly all (96% or 

more) campus and local police agencies screened new 

officers through personal interviews, background investigations, reference checks, criminal record checks, and 

driving record checks (not shown in figures). 

A large majority of both local (86%) and campus (83%) 

police agencies required psychological evaluations of 

applicants (figure 9). Nearly two-thirds of local police 

(64%) required a written aptitude test compared to about 

half of campus police (52%). Local police were more likely 

than campus police to conduct physical screening of 

recruits, including medical exams (97% versus 85%), drug 

tests (86% versus 76%), and physical agility tests (65% 

versus 57%) (figure 10). 

Campus police were more likely than local police to 

assess recruits’ community-relations skills (figure 11). This 

included assessments of analytical problem-solving skills 

(58% versus 37%), understanding of cultural diversity 

(57% versus 16%), and assessment of skills related to 

mediation and conflict management (42% versus 11%).

Campus police were more likely than local police to 

have a college degree requirement for new officers

Campus police were more likely to have a college education requirement for new officers. Campus police (91%) 

were also more likely than local police (57%) to have 

tuition waivers or reimbursements. While campus police 

required more education, local police required 11% more 

training, 1,092 hours versus 981 on average (not shown in 

table). 

Starting salaries for campus police officers were 6% 

lower than starting salaries for local police

Starting salaries for entry-level campus law enforcement 

officers ($31,200) were 6% lower on average than for local 

police ($32,900) in similar size agencies. Starting salaries 

for campus police chiefs averaged $65,800, about 2% 

higher than for local police chiefs ($64,700) (not shown in 

table). 

Campus police agencies were more likely than local police 

agencies to provide shift differential, merit, and hazardous 

duty pay for sworn personnel. Local police were more than 

twice as likely as campus police to offer education incentive pay. 

Campus police were more likely to use computers for 

management functions; local police had more in-field 

computer capabilities

Campus police agencies were more likely than local police 

agencies to use computers for management functions 

related to investigations, dispatch, interagency information 

sharing, resource allocation, fleet management, and crime 

mapping. 

Use of in-field computers was more prevalent among local 

police agencies than campus police agencies. Local 

police were more than twice as likely to provide officers 

in-field computer access to information such as motor 

vehicle records (51% versus 22%), driving records (47% 

versus 20%), criminal history records (29% versus 12%), 

and calls-for-service histories (26% versus 9%) (not 

shown in table).

Education requirement Campus police Local police 

With college requirement 30% 20%

Degree, any type 16 11

 4-year degree 3 1

 2-year degree 13 10

Some college 14 9

Special pay categories Campus police Local police 

Shift differential 56% 33%

Merit pay 47 29

Education incentive 24 54

Hazardous duty 11 6

Computer functions Campus police Local police 

Investigations 92% 63%

Dispatch 74 59

Information sharing 64 40

Resource allocation 45 16

Fleet management 36 32

Crime mapping 34 26

Figure 9

Percent of agencies

Campus

Local

Personal screening

Psychological

evaluation

Written

aptitude test

Polygraph

exam

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Figure 10

Percent of agencies

Campus

Local

Physical screening

Drug test

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Medical

exam

agility test

Physical

Figure 11

Percent of agencies

Campus management skills Local

Problem-solving

Understanding of

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Community relations screening

ability

cultural diversity

Conflict
10 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

The Clery Act and the reporting of campus crime

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security 

Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act was signed 

into law in 1990. It requires institutions of higher 

education that participate in federal financial aid 

programs to keep and disclose information about 

crime on and near campus. The U.S. Department of 

Education monitors compliance. Violations can result 

in penalties of up to $27,500 per infraction and 

suspension from federal student financial aid 

programs. The Clery Act’s major requirements include:

• An annual campus security report must be published 

and distributed to current and prospective students 

and employees by October 1. 

• The campus police or security department must 

maintain a public log of all crimes reported or otherwise known to campus law enforcement officials.

• Institutions must give timely warning of crimes that 

represent a threat to student or employee safety. 

• Institutions must maintain statistics for the most 

recent three years for crimes committed on campus, 

in institutional facilities, in non-campus buildings, and 

on public property. 

Campuses must submit an annual report to the U.S. 

Department of Education. The report should include 

statistics on criminal homicide, sex offenses, robbery, 

aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and 

arson. The Clery Act does not require the reporting of 

larceny/theft data. The report must identify incidents 

believed to have been hate crimes. The reports must 

also include arrests and disciplinary referrals for liquor 

law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons 

possession. Clery Act statistics are available at <http://

ope.ed.gov/security/index.asp>.

Violent crimes accounted for 4% of the serious crimes 

reported to law enforcement agencies serving 4-year 

campuses with 2,500 or more students during 2004, 

compared to 12% of all serious crimes reported 

nationwide (table 14). Murder on campus was rare, 

with a total of 16 reported, 0.1% of all murders 

nationwide (not shown in table).

During 2004 campus law enforcement agencies 

received reports of 62 violent crimes per 100,000 

students (figure 12). The violent crime rate was higher 

among private campuses (100) than public campuses 

(51), a pattern that existed in all campus size 

categories. Violent crime rates on campuses were 

far lower than the U.S. violent crime rate of 466 per 

100,000 residents. Between the 1994 and 2004, 

violent crime rates on campuses decreased by 9%.

Campus law enforcement agencies received reports of 

1,625 property crimes per 100,000 students during 

2004. Similar to violent crimes, the overall property 

crime rate per 100,000 students was higher on private 

campuses (2,212) than public campuses (1,493). This 

pattern was consistent across all size categories. 

Nationwide, the rate for reported serious property 

crimes was 3,517 per 100,000 residents. Compared to 

1994, campus property crime rates were 30% lower 

in 2004. 

Table 14. Average number of serious crimes reported to campus law enforcement agencies, 2004

Violent crimes Property crimes

Type and size 

of campus Total Murder

Forcible

sex offense Robbery

Aggravated 

assault Total Burglary

Larceny/

theft

Motor 

vehicle theft Arson

All campuses 7 -- 2 2 3 191 24 158 6 1

Public 7 -- 2 2 3 208 25 174 7 1

15,000 or more 12 -- 3 4 6 393 46 331 16 1

10,000-14,999 5 -- 2 1 2 156 19 131 5 1

5,000-9,999 4 0 1 1 2 102 14 84 3 1

2,500-4,999 3 0 1 1 1 71 9 59 2 1

Private 7 -- 2 2 2 153 23 122 5 1

15,000 or more 25 -- 7 11 7 469 81 378 12 1

10,000-14,999 12 0 4 5 4 309 37 259 9 1

5,000-9,999 7 -- 2 2 3 147 20 120 6 1

2,500-4,999 3 -- 1 1 1 75 15 54 3 1

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

-- Less than 0.5

Figure 1 (12)

Figure 12

Private

Public

All campuses

0 25 50 75 100 125

Number of reported violent crimes per 100,000 students

1994

2004
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 11

Methodology

This report presents data covering the 2004-05 school 

year. Agencies serving 4-year U.S. universities and 

colleges with a fall 2004 enrollment of 2,500 or more, and 

those serving 2-year public colleges with a fall 2004 

enrollment of 10,000 or more were surveyed. U.S. military 

academies and for-profit institutions were excluded. 

Data were collected in conjunction with the 2004 BJS 

Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. 

The survey instrument was patterned after the BJS Law 

Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics 

survey. Data were collected describing campus law 

enforcement agencies, including personnel, expenditures 

and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, policies, and special programs. 

BJS conducted an earlier survey of campus law enforcement agencies, covering the 1994-95 school year. The 

1994-95 survey report, Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995, is available at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

abstract/clea95.htm>. 

Both the 1994-95 and 2004-05 reports focus primarily on 

4-year campuses with some summary data describing 

2-year campuses presented in appendix tables.

The 2004-05 survey was initially conducted as a web-only 

data collection. Follow-up efforts provided agencies with 

fax and mail-in response options. The final response rate 

was 82%, with 749 of 913 potential respondents participating in the survey (tables 15 and 16). Nearly two-thirds 

(65%) of responses were received electronically through 

the survey website. The remainder were received by mail 

or fax. 

Among 4-year institutions, 606 of 750 agencies responded 

to the full survey, for a response rate of 81%. Among 2-year 

institutions, 143 of 163 agencies responded to the full survey, for a response rate of 88%. 

For agencies not responding to the full survey, an abbreviated survey instrument was used, giving agencies the 

opportunity to provide data on type and number of personnel, use of sworn officers, use of armed officers, physical 

campus characteristics, and number of crimes reported to 

campus law enforcement authorities. All non-respondents 

provided at least some of this information.

Campus crime statistics were compiled using data from the 

BJS survey, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, and the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Campus Security Statistics 

Website at <http://ope.ed.gov/security/index.asp>.

Table 15. Response rates for agencies serving public and private campuses, by type and size of institution, 2004-05

Type and size

of 4-year campus

Total Public Private

Surveyed Responded Rate Surveyed Responded Rate Surveyed Responded Rate

All campuses 913 749 82 % 628 536 85 % 285 213 75 %

4-year campuses 750 606 81 % 465 393 85 % 285 213 75 %

15,000 or more 172 157 91 152 141 93 20 16 80

10,000 - 14,999 111 93 84 82 67 82 29 26 90

5,000 - 9,999 218 173 79 144 118 82 74 55 74

2,500 - 4,999 249 183 73 87 67 77 162 116 72

2-year campuses 163 143 88 % 163 143 88 % 0 0 ~

~ Not applicable.

Table 16. Response rates for agencies serving 4-year and 2-year campuses, by region, 2004-05

Total 4-year campuses 2-year campuses

Regions Surveyed Responded Rate Surveyed Responded Rate Surveyed Responded Rate

All campuses 913 749 82 % 750 606 81 % 163 143 88 %

South Atlantic 153 127 81 % 129 106 82 % 24 21 88 %

East North Central 152 128 79 121 100 83 31 28 90

Mid-Atlantic 151 113 91 133 96 72 18 17 94

Pacific 125 106 73 73 62 85 52 44 85

West South Central 105 89 85 86 72 84 19 17 89

West North Central 69 58 84 66 55 83 3 3 100

New England 63 51 91 62 50 81 1 1 100

East South Central 50 39 84 47 38 81 3 1 33

Mountain 45 38 73 33 27 82 12 11 92

Notes: Represents regions of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. South Atlantic Region includes District of 

Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. East North Central Region includes 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Mid-Atlantic Region includes New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Pacific Region includes 

Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. West South Central Region includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. West 

North Central Region includes Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. New England Region includes 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. East South Region Central includes Alabama, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, and Tennessee. Mountain Region includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

*NCJ~219374*

12 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of 

the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is 

director.

This Special Report was written by Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D. 

Lynn Langton and Thomas H. Cohen, Ph.D., verified the 

report. Georgette M. Walsh edited the report, Tina Dorsey 

produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared 

the report for final printing, under the supervision of 

Doris J. James.

February 2008, NCJ 219374

This report in portable document format and in 

ASCII and its related statistical data and tables 

are available at the BJS World Wide Web 

Internet site: <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

abstract/cle0405.htm>. 

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 13

Appendix table 1. Functions performed by campus law enforcement agencies, 2004-05

By size of enrollment By type of officers employed

Type of function

All 4-year 

campuses

100 

largest

100 

smallest Sworn police

Nonsworn 

security only

Building security

Building lockup/unlock 85% 67% 100% 82% 96%

Access control 75 59 83 72 86

Central alarm monitoring 77 90 72 79 74

Surveillance camera monitoring 69 62 63 65 81

Key control 42 26 60 37 58

Communications

Dispatching calls for service 92% 93% 91% 91% 93%

Campus switchboard operation 25 10 49 21 38

Crime investigation

Property crime, any type 86% 98% 74% 97% 50%

Violent crime, any type 81 98 66 95 38

Drug sales 73 93 51 88 26

Arson 69 88 47 82 28

Cybercrime 69 93 45 82 25

Homicide 51 77 27 64 9

Drug/vice enforcement

Drug law enforcement 55% 76% 34% 69% 13%

Drug task force participation 26 46 10 34 2

Vice enforcement 24 41 10 30 3

Detention (temporary)

Temporary holding cell 17% 40% 5% 21% 6%

Temporary lockup facility 13 9 17 11 19

Special operations

Search and rescue 17% 23% 9% 20% 7%

Tactical operations (SWAT) 9 26 0 12 0

Bomb/explosives disposal 3 11 0 4 0

Underwater recovery 1 3 0 2 0

Special public safety 

Fire prevention education 35% 23% 52% 28% 57%

Emergency medical services 31 26 39 27 44

Fire inspection 28 20 41 22 45

Environmental health/safety 24 11 30 20 37

Animal control 20 18 33 21 19

Emergency fire services 15 14 20 13 24

Special security

Special events 98% 99% 96% 99% 97%

Stadium 68 84 56 74 51

Arena 83 92 72 85 76

Hospital/medical facility 14 30 11 14 11

Nuclear facility 6 19 3 8 1

Traffic-related functions

Traffic direction/control 89% 91% 79% 92% 76%

Accident investigation 88 94 75 94 67

Traffic law enforcement 84 93 75 91 57

Vehicle-related functions

Parking administration 67% 30% 87% 63% 83%

Parking enforcement 84 58 95 82 91

Vehicle registration 55 23 84 49 73

Campus transportation system 31 22 30 27 43
14 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

Appendix table 2. Campus law enforcement agencies serving the 100 largest enrollments in the U.S., 2004-05

Total employees Sworn personnel

4-year campus Location

Fall 2004, 

enrollment

 FulltimeParttimePer 1,000 

students

 FulltimeParttimePer 1,000 

students

Ohio State University Columbus (OH) 50,995 103 0 20 51 0 10

University of Minnesota -Twin Cities Minneapolis (MN) 50,954 101 80 28 43 20 10

University of Texas at Austin Austin (TX) 50,377 127 2 25 65 0 13

Arizona State University Tempe (AZ) 49,171 91 15 20 55 0 11

University of Florida Gainesville (FL) 47,993 155 30 35 86 5 18

Auraria Higher Education Center* Denver (CO) 46,645 59 0 13 25 0 5

Michigan State University East Lansing (MI) 44,836 180 80 49 62 0 14

Texas A & M University College Station (TX) 44,435 121 1 27 54 0 12

University of Central Florida Orlando (FL) 42,465 69 12 18 44 0 10

University of South Florida Tampa (FL) 42,238 57 0 13 40 0 9

Pennsylvania State University University Park (PA) 41,289 53 127 28 44 0 11

University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Champaign (IL) 40,687 70 13 19 55 0 14

University of Wisconsin - Madison Madison (WI) 40,455 112 5 28 62 0 15

Purdue University West Lafayette (IN) 40,108 50 0 12 39 0 10

University of Michigan Ann Arbor (MI) 39,533 96 3 25 54 0 14

New York University New York (NY) 39,408 345 10 89 0 0 0

University of Washington Seattle (WA) 39,199 73 0 19 46 0 12

Florida State University Tallahassee (FL) 38,431 85 5 23 62 1 16

Indiana University-Bloomington Bloomington (IN) 37,821 57 75 25 45 43 18

University of Arizona Tucson (AZ) 36,932 66 0 18 52 0 14

University of California - Los Angeles Los Angeles (CA) 35,966 94 0 26 56 0 16

University of Houston Houston (TX) 35,180 44 0 13 44 0 13

University of Maryland College Park (MD) 34,933 115 100 47 76 0 22

Florida International University Miami (FL) 34,865 64 1 18 45 0 13

Rutgers University New Brunswick (NJ) 34,696 112 0 32 56 0 16

Brigham Young University Provo (UT) 34,347 40 125 30 28 12 10

Temple University Philadelphia (PA) 33,551 202 0 60 119 0 35

California State University Long Beach (CA) 33,479 35 15 13 27 0 8

University of Georgia Athens (GA) 33,405 79 11 25 62 0 19

University of California-Berkeley Berkeley (CA) 32,803 116 65 45 64 0 20

California State University - Fullerton Fullerton (CA) 32,744 28 32 13 21 0 6

Wayne State University Detroit (MI) 32,386 54 26 21 39 0 12

University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder (CO) 32,362 59 0 18 37 0 11

Louisiana State University Baton Rouge (LA) 32,241 67 1 21 65 0 20

University of Southern California Los Angeles (CA) 32,160 190 0 59 0 0 0

San Diego State University San Diego (CA) 32,043 45 37 20 29 0 9

California State University - Northridge Northridge (CA) 31,341 55 19 21 25 0 8

University of North Texas Denton (TX) 31,155 58 4 19 46 0 15

North Carolina State University Raleigh (NC) 29,957 71 0 24 54 0 18

Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis (IN) 29,953 51 10 19 34 7 13

Boston University Boston (MA) 29,596 57 0 19 50 0 17

University of California - Davis Davis (CA) 29,210 73 2 25 42 0 14

San Jose State University San Jose (CA) 29,044 66 6 24 32 1 11

University of Utah Salt Lake City (UT) 28,933 100 9 36 32 1 11

George Mason University Fairfax (VA) 28,874 62 12 24 49 0 17

San Francisco State University San Francisco (CA) 28,804 37 13 15 20 0 7

University of Iowa Iowa City (IA) 28,442 49 13 20 28 0 10

Texas Tech University Lubbock (TX) 28,325 79 5 29 49 5 18

Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond (VA) 28,303 128 37 52 71 0 25

Colorado State University Fort Collins (CO) 27,973 51 20 22 35 0 13

Note: Per-student ratios were calculated using a weight of 0.5 for part-time employees. 

*Includes University of Colorado at Denver, Metropolitan State College, and the Community College of Denver.
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 15

Appendix table 2 (continued). Campus law enforcement agencies serving the 100 largest enrollments 

in the U.S., 2004-05

Total employees Sworn personnel

4-year campus City

Fall 2004, 

enrollment

FulltimeParttimePer 1,000 

students

FulltimeParttimePer 1,000 

students

California State University - Sacramento Sacramento (CA) 27,972 46 30 22 16 30 11

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo (MI) 27,829 61 0 22 29 0 10

University of Tennessee Knoxville (TN) 27,792 53 20 23 50 0 18

Central Michigan University Mount Pleasant (MI) 27,683 30 0 11 21 0 8

Virginia Tech University Blacksburg (VA) 27,619 58 35 27 39 0 14

University of Oklahoma Norman (OK) 27,483 57 18 24 33 0 12

University of Nevada - Las Vegas Las Vegas (NV) 27,339 51 52 28 33 22 16

SUNY at Buffalo Buffalo (NY) 27,276 68 0 25 61 0 22

Georgia State University Atlanta (GA) 27,261 116 28 48 79 0 29

University of Cincinnati Cincinnati (OH) 27,178 143 0 53 69 0 25

University of Missouri Columbia (MO) 27,003 50 32 24 31 0 11

University of Kansas Lawrence (KS) 26,980 44 0 16 28 0 10

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill (NC) 26,878 80 69 43 45 21 21

University of Wisconsin - MIlwaukee Milwaukee (WI) 26,832 37 27 19 28 0 10

Texas State University San Marcos (TX) 26,783 68 0 25 31 0 12

University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh (PA) 26,731 130 0 49 74 0 28

Iowa State University Ames (IA) 26,380 47 116 40 33 0 13

University of New Mexico Albuquerque (NM) 26,242 59 0 22 34 0 13

University of Texas - San Antonio San Antonio (TX) 26,175 68 0 26 47 0 18

University of Kentucky Lexington (KY) 25,686 51 2 20 45 0 18

University of South Carolina Columbia (SC) 25,596 73 3 29 57 1 22

NOVA Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale (FL) 25,430 110 0 43 2 0 1

Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton (FL) 25,319 71 12 30 35 0 14

University of Texas - Arlington Arlington (TX) 25,297 80 12 34 33 0 13

West Virginia University Morgantown (WV) 25,255 57 0 23 47 0 19

University of Illinois - Chicago Chicago (IL) 24,865 113 23 50 68 0 27

Northern Illinois University Dekalb (IL) 24,820 72 1 29 46 1 19

University of California - San Diego La Jolla (CA) 24,663 83 56 45 30 0 12

Harvard University Cambridge (MA) 24,648 91 1 37 71 0 29

University of Massachusetts Amherst (MA) 24,646 98 0 40 57 0 23

Kent State University Kent (OH) 24,347 33 6 15 26 0 11

University of California - Irvine Irvine (CA) 24,344 38 2 16 27 0 11

Utah Valley State College Orem (UT) 24,149 8 27 9 6 20 7

George Washington University Washington (DC) 24,092 156 2 65 95 1 40

Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti (MI) 23,862 31 0 13 25 0 10

Oklahoma State University Stillwater (OK) 23,819 39 40 25 32 31 20

DePaul University Chicago (IL) 23,570 58 10 27 0 0 0

Portland State University Portland (OR) 23,444 22 8 11 14 0 6

University of Virginia Charlottesville (VA) 23,341 123 3 53 58 2 25

University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia (PA) 23,305 100 0 43 100 0 43

Washington State University Pullman (WA) 23,241 17 92 27 17 2 8

Kansas State University Manhattan (KS) 23,151 44 20 23 26 0 11

Northeastern University Boston (MA) 22,932 80 20 39 56 0 24

East Carolina University Greenville (NC) 22,767 71 12 34 52 12 25

University of Connecticut Storrs (CT) 22,694 81 3 36 62 0 27

Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro (TN) 22,322 30 18 17 26 0 12

Grand Valley State University Allendale (MI) 22,063 19 5 10 15 5 8

University of Nebraska Lincoln (NE) 21,792 50 8 25 29 0 13

Stony Brook University Stony Brook (NY) 21,685 95 0 44 58 0 27

Columbia University New York (NY) 21,648 140 0 65 0 0 0

Note: Per-student ratios were calculated using a weight of 0.5 for part-time employees. 
16 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

Appendix table 3. Community policing activities of campus law enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Type of community policing activity

Type and size of 

4-year campus

Included in 

campus 

security policy

Geographic 

areas for 

officers

Upgraded 

technology

Partnered 

with citizen 

groups

Student 

ride-a-long 

program

Written 

community 

policing plan

Problemsolving 

projects

Environmental 

crime analysis 

Campus police 

academy

All campuses 69% 59% 51% 47% 40% 34% 33% 32% 23%

Public 73% 59% 53% 51% 49% 38% 39% 36% 22%

15,000 or more 74 70 59 66 66 44 51 46 28

10,000-14,999 78 63 58 57 49 37 46 40 18

5,000-9,999 71 48 48 42 42 36 26 31 22

2,500-4,999 68 48 41 25 27 30 27 19 11

Private 63% 61% 47% 40% 22% 26% 23% 24% 25%

15,000 or more 87 60 47 53 53 33 47 53 27

10,000-14,999 64 72 52 60 52 28 24 38 36

5,000-9,999 65 70 50 44 17 26 28 28 19

2,500-4,999 58 53 44 30 12 24 16 15 25

Appendix table 4. Types of groups that campus law enforcement agencies met with regularly 

to discuss crime and safety-related issues, 2004-05

 Type of group

Type and size of 

4-year campus

Other law 

enforcement 

Student 

housing 

Faculty/

staff Student 

Fraternity/

sorority Advocacy 

Domestic 

violence 

Local public 

agencies 

Neighborhood Business Religious 

All campuses 88% 86% 84% 83% 57% 47% 43% 40% 39% 27% 20%

Public 89% 86% 83% 83% 64% 52% 52% 44% 37% 30% 17%

15,000 or more 90 92 87 91 80 64 55 61 54 41 30

10,000-14,999 90 89 83 83 68 60 54 38 46 27 13

5,000-9,999 88 82 83 80 56 44 51 39 22 24 11

2,500-4,999 84 79 78 70 38 33 44 21 17 19 6

Private 86% 86% 84% 85% 43% 36% 28% 33% 44% 21% 25%

15,000 or more 93 93 87 87 47 53 33 53 67 53 33

10,000-14,999 96 88 96 92 54 62 42 54 69 46 46

5,000-9,999 89 89 85 89 59 43 30 44 46 22 30

2,500-4,999 81 84 80 80 33 25 22 20 34 10 17

Appendix table 5. Emergency preparedness activities of campus law enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Type of emergency preparedness activity

Type and size of 

4-year campus

Emergency 

preparedness 

plan

Met with 

administrators 

Disseminated

information 

Terrorism 

response 

plan 

Preparedness

exercises

Intelligencesharing 

agreements 

Held 

campus 

meetings 

Culturally 

diverse 

partnerships

Campus 

anti-fear 

campaign

All campuses 94% 89% 67% 66% 58% 56% 55% 45% 21%

Public 94% 91% 71% 70% 63% 65% 61% 48% 25%

15,000 or more 95 95 79 77 81 76 70 64 36

10,000-14,999 92 91 74 63 54 63 58 54 26

5,000-9,999 92 88 64 70 60 60 56 35 17

2,500-4,999 95 87 65 60 40 49 54 27 14

Private 94% 86% 60% 60% 49% 41% 42% 39% 15%

15,000 or more 87 93 80 67 67 73 47 67 0

10,000-14,999 92 92 58 73 65 58 54 54 15

5,000-9,999 96 85 67 70 44 44 54 39 20

2,500-4,999 94 85 54 51 44 31 33 32 14
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 17

Appendix table 6. Written policies and procedures of campus law enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Percent of agencies with written policy pertaining to—

Type and size 

of 4-year campus Code of conduct Non-lethal force

Citizen 

complaints

Other law 

enforcement 

Domestic 

disputes Juveniles 

Employee 

counseling 

assistance

All campuses 96% 91% 82% 79% 72% 71% 70%

Public 97% 95% 87% 84% 80% 81% 70%

15,000 or more 99 98 95 90 83 92 79

10,000-14,999 97 98 89 78 78 79 65

5,000-9,999 96 93 84 83 82 79 69

2,500-4,999 97 89 74 79 74 65 63

Private 94% 83% 72% 71% 57% 52% 72%

15,000 or more 87 100 80 87 80 80 73

10,000-14,999 96 92 88 76 68 64 72

5,000-9,999 93 81 80 69 56 48 69

2,500-4,999 95 79 64 69 52 48 73

Appendix table 7. Selected crime and safety-related issues addressed by campus law enforcement agencies, 2004-05

Problems and tasks addressed with a full-time unit or specially designated personnel

Type and size 

of 4-year campus

Crime 

prevention

Rape 

prevention

Drug 

education

Selfdefense 

training

Alcohol 

education

Community 

policing

Victim 

assistance Stalking Cybercrime

Student 

security 

patrol

Bias/hate 

crime

All campuses 83% 78% 73% 69% 67% 63% 62% 60% 54% 52% 51%

Public 88% 85% 79% 75% 75% 71% 67% 68% 62% 55% 55%

15,000 or more 96 94 91 88 87 83 73 79 80 67 68

10,000-14,999 89 83 78 75 77 75 72 75 66 64 56

5,000-9,999 85 83 75 66 68 59 62 59 53 50 46

2,500-4,999 71 73 63 63 56 60 55 56 35 32 44

Private 74% 66% 60% 57% 53% 49% 54% 46% 40% 46% 43%

15,000 or more 100 73 67 73 67 87 80 73 73 67 67

10,000-14,999 76 72 68 56 60 56 56 52 56 48 52

5,000-9,999 80 70 56 67 52 50 54 46 44 48 37

2,500-4,999 66 61 59 49 50 42 49 40 28 42 40

Appendix table 6 (continued). Written policies and procedures of campus law enforcement agencies, 2004-05 

Percent of agencies with written policy pertaining to—

Type and size 

of 4-year campus

Off-duty 

employment

Mentally ill 

persons

Victim 

services

Racial 

profiling

Student judicial 

officers 

Residence life 

officials

Homeless 

persons

All campuses 70% 68% 63% 57% 55% 54% 27%

Public 83% 76% 63% 67% 51% 47% 30%

15,000 or more 92 87 65 82 51 45 34

10,000-14,999 86 68 60 65 48 49 32

5,000-9,999 75 71 67 62 46 42 28

2,500-4,999 74 66 56 47 61 56 21

Private 48% 55% 63% 39% 63% 66% 23%

15,000 or more 73 53 60 47 67 53 27

10,000-14,999 60 64 72 64 64 64 20

5,000-9,999 46 56 61 31 52 57 15

2,500-4,999 42 53 62 36 68 72 28
18 Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05

Appendix table 8. Selected characteristics of campus law enforcement agencies 

serving 2-year and 4-year public campuses with 10,000 or more students, 2004-05

Type of campus served

Characteristic 2-year 4-year

Total number of—

Agencies 163 234

Full-time employees 3,575 11,567

Full-time sworn personnel 1,516 7,149

Average number of—

Students enrolled 18,095 20,931

Campus buildings 31 155

Acres on campus 240 878

Percent of agencies using—

Sworn officers 67% 96%

Armed patrol officers 58 89

Average number of full-time employees

 Total 22 49

 Per 1,000 students 1.2 2.4

Average number of full-time sworn personnel

 Total 14 32

 Per 1,000 students 0.8 1.6

Percent of agencies with—

24-hour patrol coverage 79% 100%

3-digit emergency number 88 94

Emergency blue-light phones 72 96

Percent of agencies performing—

Special event security 98% 100%

Parking enforcement 97 70

Building lockup/unlock 92 75

Dispatching of calls 87 92

Access control 83 66

Traffic enforcement 77 88

Property crime investigation 75 95

Parking administration 72 45

Central alarm monitoring 71 86

Violent crime investigation 69 93

Surveillance camera monitoring 69 67

Vehicle registration 45 31

Percent of sworn personnel who were—

Female 15% 17%

White, non-Hispanic 59 71

Black, non-Hispanic 17 18

HIspanic, any race 19 8

Other, non-Hispanic 5 3

Percent of agencies with college requirement for new officers

4-year degree 2% 3%

2-year degree 8 13

Non-degree requirement 10 13

Average number of training hours required for officers

Academy 528 610

Field 309 441

Average base starting salary

Chief $56,000 $71,000

Entry-level sworn 33,900 32,400

Entry-level nonsworn 25,700 21,600
Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05 19

Appendix table 9. Selected activities, policies, and programs of campus law 

enforcement agencies serving 2-year and 4-year public campuses with 10,000 

or more students, 2004-05

Type of campus served

2-year 4-year

Percent of agencies engaging in community policing activities

Incorporated into campus security policy 57% 76%

Geographic patrol assignments 55 68

Upgraded technology 40 59

Officer problem-solving projects 29 50

Partnered with citizen groups 24 63

Written community policing plan 24 42

Environmental crime analysis 20 44

Student ride-along programs 20 61

Campus police academy 16 25

Percent of agencies meeting regularly with—

Faculty/staff organizations 89% 85%

Other law enforcement agencies 79 90

Student organizations 67 88

Advocacy groups 28 63

Local public agencies 25 54

Domestic violence groups 22 55

Neighborhood associations 18 52

Business groups 17 37

Religious groups 8 24

Fraternity/sorority groups 8 76

Student housing groups 8 91

Percent of agencies engaging in emergency preparedness activities

Emergency preparedness plan 91% 94%

Meetings with campus administrators 89 94

Disseminated information 63 77

Terrorism response plan 62 73

Emergency preparedness exercises 53 73

Campus meetings 53 67

Intelligence-sharing agreements 47 72

Culturally diverse partnerships 28 61

Campus anti-fear campaign 15 33

Percent of agencies with written policies pertaining to—

Code of conduct and appearance 93% 98%

Non-lethal force 81 98

Citizen complaints 79 93

Other law enforcement agencies 73 86

Juveniles 66 88

Domestic disputes 62 81

Employee counseling assistance 61 75

Victim services 61 64

Mentally ill persons 59 81

Off-duty employment 55 90

Student judicial officers 51 50

Racial profiling 50 77

Homeless persons 35 33

Residence life officials 3 46

Percent of agencies with programs or designated personnel for—

Crime prevention 62% 94%

Rape prevention 48 92

Self-defense training 48 84

Victim assistance 47 73

Stalking 42 77

Community policing 40 80

Student security patrol 39 66

Drug education 36 87

Cybercrime 35 75

Alcohol education 30 84

Bias/hate crime 28 64