Search results

At present there is little comparative information available regarding campus and municipal police agencies and their personnel. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to examine the similarities and differences between municipal and campus police agencies with respect to various human resource characteristics and policies. The following research question guided the analysis: how do municipal and campus police agencies compare regarding the following human resource characteristics and policies: the proportion of sworn personnel, gender and race of sworn officers, salaries and benefits, educational requirements, levels of training required, drug testing policies and the extent of collective bargaining/unionization. The database is nationwide in scope. The findings of this study support the general notion that city and campus police departments are similar at least with respect to the human resource characteristics identified. Many campus departments have advanced well beyond the watchman era of campus policing. In a number of human resource areas such as use of civilians, education and training requirements, the campus police have progressed very well based on the comparisons made.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which community policing within campus law enforcement agencies is influenced by the organizational structure, agency characteristics and campus characteristics.

This study utilizes ordinary least squares regression modeling to examine community policing implementation. Data were drawn from a sample of 242 US colleges and universities included in the 2011–2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies (SCLEA).

Findings show that within-campus law enforcement agencies, greater levels of community policing are associated with more formalization, larger numbers of employees, a higher task scope and higher rates of on-campus property crime.

Use of secondary data and reported crime rate limits the study. Future research should implement specialized surveys and qualitative methods to identify the specific needs and implementations of community policing.

This paper adds to the limited body of literature on the community policing in campus law enforcement through more recent data and the inclusion of campus community variables.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between emergency preparedness and community policing within campus law enforcement agencies, as well as agency and campus characteristics that impact the level of emergency preparedness activities.

Using data from the 2011–2012 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, this study employs ordinary least squares regression modeling to examine emergency preparedness and community policing relationships within 298 campus law enforcement agencies.

Community policing is the greatest predictor of emergency preparedness in campus law enforcement agencies. This finding refutes arguments that emergency preparedness and community policing are incompatible policing innovations.

This study is limited by the use of secondary data. Future research should utilize survey measures to better isolate the roles and functions of community policing and emergency preparedness.

The findings have implications for campus law enforcement agencies to view emergency preparedness and community policing activities as interrelated. Specifically, agency administration can benefit by taking a holistic approach to campus policing and preparedness.

This paper extends the current research in municipal policing to the campus police environment. This paper also adds to the limited body of literature on the relationships between community policing and emergency preparedness.

Stopping and questioning citizens is an important policing tactic. Prior research explores citizens’ perceptions of stop and question policing, or “SQP”, by municipal police, yet campus police also use this tactic. The purpose of this paper is to understand whether and why college students believe campus police should have the right to engage in SQP.

Data come from 73 in-depth interviews with students attending a university in metropolitan Atlanta, GA. The sample was obtained through convenience and purposive sampling methods. Data were analyzed using the ethnographic perspective.

Most participants said campus police should practice SQP for three reasons: it is their job; SQP is an effective crime fighting tactic; and SQP is useful given the features and functions of college campuses. Among participants who said campus police should not practice SQP, they were concerned that officers would use it in unwarranted situations.

Findings suggest that the police might be able to reduce resistance to SQP by clearly explaining to suspects why they are being stopped and also clarifying to the public the legal thresholds for stopping and questioning citizens.

This is the first study to consider perceptions of SQP by campus police. The findings also shed light on how campus and municipal police are (dis)similar in perceptions of their SQP practices.

The general characteristics of crimes occurring on American college and university campuses have changed, reflecting a much greater frequency and variety of criminal activities. Therefore, many campus police departments are considering alternative mechanisms aimed at crime control and diminishing the fear levels of constituents. While most municipal police agencies routinely arm themselves, traditionally, armed police forces have been uncharacteristic of campus law enforcement, especially at smaller, rural and suburban schools. The present research assesses campus constituency support and rationale for arming the police force at one university. Constituent status, gender, fear of crime, outcome of contact with an officer, and political ideology are among the variables discussed in relation to this contemporary issue.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the nature of campus police and city police in the areas of human resource and select community policing practices and policies. This comparison serves as an update to the work of Bromley and Reaves (1998a, b) and Bromley (2003).

This paper utilizes the Bureau of Justice Statistics Campus Police Reports from 2012 and the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Reports from 2007 and 2013 to provide a comparison between campus and city departments in matters of human resource and community outreach policies and practices, paying special attention to demographics, salary, education, training, pre-employment screening, collective bargaining, community-policing, and special programs utilized.

The data suggest that, while differences do exist between campus and city practices, there are a substantial number of similarities between the two. In some areas, such as workforce diversity, campus police are somewhat ahead of their city counterparts. These findings indicate that campus departments are a primary piece of the larger law enforcement community.

Overall, the comparisons continue to reinforce the notion that campus departments are part of the larger law enforcement community. This information may provide insights for both campus and city police executives, as well as to top-level executives at institutions of higher education.

The purpose of this paper is to examine a campus community’s knowledge and acceptance of their campus police as “real” police.

Using the liminality theoretical framework, this study surveyed students, faculty, staff, and administrators (n=1,484). Students were surveyed in-person, while staff, faculty, and administrators participated through an e-mail link to an online survey.

Results indicate that campus police are stuck in a liminal state. While 80 percent of the sample thought campus police should be armed, almost two-thirds (64 percent) did not know or were unsure of campus police officer tasks and three-quarters (75 percent) did not know or were unsure of campus police training requirements.

The participants come from one university campus, so the generalizability of the sample is limited.

This study provides more evidence of the marginalization of campus police. Specifically, this study highlights that a majority of participants could not or were unable to identify campus police officers’ training and duties. Instead of using small qualitative samples, this study utilized over 1,400 participants on one campus, which provides more explanatory power about the perception problems of the campus police. This study also continues to advance and expand liminal theory.

Campus crime and related issues have received considerable attention from the various legislative bodies, the media and social science researchers over the last two decades. Much of the attention has been focused on campus police with regard to their ability to protect the campus community. Civil liability lawsuits against campus police departments and their host institutions are not uncommon today. As campus policing has evolved from a watchman/security orientation to more of a full‐service model, it is incumbent that policies used to guide officers in high liability areas be comprehensive. Having comprehensive policies in the high liability areas may also aid in the defense of civil liability lawsuits. One such high liability area is vehicle pursuits. While the general policing literature has focused considerable attention on this topic, campus police guidelines have not been collected or systematically reviewed. The present study examines the content of the vehicle pursuit policies from 67 of the largest 100 campus police departments, serving communities with high student enrollments and often a substantial number of roadways throughout their boundaries. It is certainly foreseeable that from time to time campus police will become engaged in vehicle pursuits. While pursuits by campus police may be relatively infrequent events, policies governing officer decision making are none the less critical. A profile of these policies is developed for review by practitioners and researchers alike. It is believed to be the first such examination of this important policy area within the context of campus policing.

Descriptive analyses of campus police agencies reveal that agencies’ tactical and operational features are similar to those found in municipal agencies. The problem is that none of these studies have examined, using multivariate models, the structural characteristics of these organizations. Using LEMAS data collected in 1995, this study answered two main questions: what are the organizational characteristics of campus police agencies; and what factors, both internal and external, explain variation in the structural dimensions of the agencies. The results indicated that campus police agencies possess the same structural characteristics of municipal police agencies identified by 40 years of police organizational research, and internal agency characteristics were most important in explaining variation in the organizations’ structural dimensions. The degree to which campus agencies have adopted organizational structures that are similar to those of municipal police is discussed and framed within an institutional perspective.

Provides a profile of state laws pertaining to campus police. Reveals wide variations across the USA. Notes that statutes are often the state legislature’s ad hoc response to a problem. Many campuses require their police to be deputized by the local police authorities. Finds that the majority of states grant police authority to officers at public institutions and that it is usual for the governing body or chief executive officer to have appointing authority over campus police. Suggests elements for a model campus police statute.