9.

             

H:

In

 

\

guss-

 

ERSI

   

 

F.

,
5'“.

  

  

 

Bérf-V

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
  
    

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 

. J 11.... .1...» 1...:

”11111111111111 1 11111111111111

~. 79010

1
l
1
i
1
I

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
A STUDY OF CAPTPUS PROTECTIVE AND ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES
presented bg

Robert F . Etheridge

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

fidegree in Counseling & Guidance

/Cé[/[7 f 23/41/72 /’]’/~’1/1fl4‘?\,

Major profess.”

 

Walter F. Johnson
Date May 16, 1958

 

0-169

 

 

I

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF CAMPUS PROTECTIVE AND ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES IN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES

by

Robert Files Etheridge

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in
partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

 

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

 

Department of Administrative and Educational Services

 

Year 1958

’ // c . \..:E
K--. - " 7.4] \\
Approved ’ r ’
L

2/

 

NS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF CAMPUS PROTECTIVE AND ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES IN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES
by
Robert Files Etheridge

Michigan State Unive r s ity

The purpose of the investigation was to analyze the organization
and administration of campus protective and enforcement programs; to
determine the objectives and functions of these programs; to determine
and compare the relationships between these functions and the regulatory
functions of the student personnel programs; and to indicate trends in
the development of campus police programs.

The descriptive method of research seemed to be most adaptable
to this problem. The specific methods used were the structured
interview employing an interview outline, personal observation, and
analysis of printed materials including student handbooks and police
manuals. The information gained from personal visitations and
interviews with police and student personnel administrators was
Summarized. The study was limited to certain larger public universities
With comparable educational programs, similar geographic locations,
and analogous administrative organization.

Protective and enforcement agencies varying in size, organiza-

tional structure, and range of functions were found at each institution.

 

 

The greatest period of growth of the campus police agencies was con-
current with the increase in student enrollments and the number of
automobiles following World War II.

The campus police agencies were generally assigned to the
administrative area of the university responsible for business affairs.
The police administrators were selected primarily for their previous
police experience rather than for having acquired advanced education.

The non—professional nature of the campus police was evidenced
by the binding procurement practices involving the central personnel
offices, the minimal pre—induction educational and experiential require—
ments, the absence of recruit training programs, the utilization of civil
service disciplinary measures, and the low police salary schedules
found at a majority of the universities.

The police administrators tended to translate the operational
aspects of their work into objectives of service rather than to indicate
that the police agencies could contribute to the educational setting of
the campus and assist in the attainment of better citizenship.

The functions of the police agencies were diverse but there was

universal concern for the problems created by motor vehicles and their

 

 

use by staff, students, and non—university personnel. Lack of Space for

the accommodation of the Vehicles was cited as the most critical problem.

 
 

""-'-.__.___ ~__ _ _ '

There were trends toward the restriction of student parking in central
campus areas and the prohibition of use of vehicles by certain categories

of students .

 

 

 

 

The organization of facilities and personnel in the campus safety
and emergency programs was not uniform and in some cases was non-
existent.

The public relations programs of the police were not highly

 

organized; moreover, the police administrators had little opportunity to
present explanations concerning the police services offered by their
agencies.

In general, academically qualified disciplinary officials were
assigned to serve in a liaison capacity with the campus and municipal
police agencies at all the institutions. Referrals to the disciplinary
official were usually made by written incident reports.

The police made no contributions to the formulation of student
behavior regulations which were found to have originated from a
variety of policy—making groups. Greater uniformity existed in the
regulations relating to intoxicating beverages and general conduct than
in those relating to building usage, firearms, motor vehicles, and
group activity.

The university police were relied upon to conduct investigations
relating to incidents occuring on campus. Their police powers were

restricted to the bounds prescribed by state laws.

 

Some of the police did not realize that their manner of handling
violators was a source of conflict among students. Also, failure to
understand or approve of pertinent regulations had been generalized

into an area of police-student conflict.

 

 

4

It was recommended that (1) emphasis be given to the educational
implications of police-student relationships; (2) utilization of university
educational facilities be increased in the selection and training of police
officers; (3) attention be given to the improvement of the salary schedules
and the personality and educational requirements for police officers and
administrators; (4) units of study promoting understanding of campus
safety and law enforcement be included in graduate student personnel
training programs; (5) participation in organizations or workshops
relating to campus protective and enforcement problems be encouraged;
(6) maximum distribution be given to regulations affecting student
behavior; (7) coordination of campus emergency programs and facilities
with those of the municipalities be encouraged; and (8) utilization of

students in routine police work be considered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

A STUDY OF CAMPUS PROTECTIVE AND
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN

SELEC TED UNIVERSITIES

BY

Robert Files Etheridge

 

A THESIS

 

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Administrative and Educational Services

1958

 

 

 

 

-—.— .— .-

C 5’- 1.1.57“
. e 745/

Robert Files Etheridge
candidate for the degree of

Doc tor of Education

Final examination: May 14. 1958, 8:30 A. M., Room 17. Morrill Hall

. Dissertation: A Study of Campus Protective and Enforcement Agencies
in Selected Universities

Outline of Studies

Major Subject: Administrative and Educational Services (Guidance)
Minor Subjects: Sociology

Higher Education

Educational Psychology

Biographical Items
Born, May 13, 1925, Fairfield, Illinois

Undergraduate Studies, Milligan College, Milligan College,
Tennessee. (V-lZa), 1943-44,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Illinois, 1946-48.

Graduate Studies, Southern Illinois University, 1948—49.
University of Minnesota, S. S. 1951.
University of Colorado, S. S. 1953.
Michigan State University, 1955-57.

Experience: Military: United States Naval Aviation, 1943-45;
Education: Graduate Assistant, Southern Illinois
University, 1948-49; Counseling Assistant,
University of Minnesota, 5.5. 1951; Instructor
and Assistant Dean, Southern Illinois University,
1949 to present (excluding leave periods);
Graduate Assistant, Michigan State University.

1955-56; Resident Counselor, Michigan State
University, 5.5. 1956; Graduate Fellow,

Michigan State University, 1956-57.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses his sincere appreciation to the university
police administrators and student personnel administrators whose
assistance and contributions made this study possible.

To the present and past members of the Guidance Committee,
Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Chairman, Dr. Buford Stefflre, Dr. Harry
Sundwall, Dr.Archie Haller, Dr. John Useem, and Dr. Leighton
Johnson. the author wishes to express his gratitude for their criti-
cisms and suggestions. He is especially grateful to Dr. Johnson under
whose careful supervision and interest this thesis was written. The
author is indebted to Dean I. Clark Davis for encouragement to
undertake this investigation.

To his family, whose constant encouragement and patient
understanding enabled this study to be completed, he expresses his

deepest gratitude.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  
 

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . ...............
The problem. . . . . . .
Statement of the problem ..... '. . . . . . . .
Importance of the problem .........
Limitations and scope of the study.
Definitions of terms .

nnnnnnn

Research procedures ........

a z a J a :

 

Selection of participating universities . . . .. . . . . . 12
Preparation of the interview schedule . . _. . . . . . . 13
Procedure for the collection of the data . . . . . . . . l4 “
1
Organization of the study. . . . . ...... . . . . . . 15 1
II. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1
Background of university police programs . . . . . l7 :
Otherliterature... ..... 26 1
Summary..,....‘ ....... ..... 31

III. THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF

Introduction.................. ..... 33
History of the police departments . . . . . . . ..... 34

1

1

. 1

UNIVERSITY POLICE PROGRAMS .. . ..... . . . . 33 l
1

1

1

 

  

CHAPTER
Administrative relationships .

The police administration. .
Explanation of Table I

First police assistants ., ..
Explanation of Table II
Organizational arrangements .
Operational regulations. . . .
Disciplinary procedures.
”Disciplinary measures. . .
Dismissal action. . . .
Restriction of leisure time activities . .
Supervisory procedures . . . . . . . .

Staff morale factors .. .

Employment procedures. . . . . . .

Procurement and classification of personnel

Employment qualifications . . . . . . . . .

Explanation of Table IV .

Screening devices .. .. .. ..
Training programs . . . .

Recruit training.

In-service training . . . . . . . . . .

Police administration training programs

 

o o

a

-----

 

55

57

58

60

60

62

63

67

7O

70’

72

75

 

 

 

CHAPTER
Employment benefits. . . .
Salary schedule comparisons . .

Organization affiliation. .

Evaluation of police programs . . . .

 

Departmental evaluation . .....

a ........ 84:
Individual officer evaluation . . . . . ........ 85
Summary. . . . . .... ..... . ....... .. 87

 

IV. OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS OF UNIVERSITY
POLICEPROGRAMS.................. 92

Introduction. . . .

. . . . . ...... . ..... . . 92
Statements of objectives of university police as
indicated by police administrators and student
personnel administrators . . ........ . . . .. . 94

Analysis of the police administrator statements . . . . 98
Analysis of the student personnel administrator
statements.........................100
Analysis of police functions. ..... . . . . ..... 105
Campussafety................ ..... '.107
Security measures in relation to faculty . . . . . . . . 109
Offenses by staff and non-university personnel ..... 111

Policecoverage..... ..... ...........113

Policerecords.....;...............115

 

  

CHAPTER
Motor vehicle- re sponsibilitie s .

Control of parking

........

Vehicle registration. .

-----------

Motor vehicle accident responsibilities . . .

Police specialists

nnnnnnnn

Equipment survey.

Explanation of Table VII .

.....

Police relationships . . .

Police public relations. .

ooooo

Formal features ........
Public contacts involving motor-vehicle operators
Orientations to police programs . . .........
Summary.......... ..........
V. THE STUDENT REGULATORY PROGRAM AND
THE UNIVERSITY POLICE
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . .........
Personnel administrators with police liaison
responsibilities . . . . . . . . . ........
Explanation of Table VIII . . . . ...... I .' . .

Communications and relationships between the

police and student personnel programs .....

Communications with university police ' '

Communications with municipal police . . ......

 

121

122
124
125
128
130
131

133
134

136

142

142

145

147

152

153

154

 

I CHAPTER. ' PAGE
Social relationships with university police - . - . . . 156 .
Communications with parents of students

involved in serious accidents - ....... . . . . 157
Accessibility of student records . . . ..... . . . 158

Regulations affecting student behavior - . . - . . . . . 159

 

Plant security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Intoxicating beverages- - - . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Firearms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Automobile . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 167
General behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Assembly of student groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Regulation infractions involving police action . . . . 179

Police involvement in disciplinary and referral

procedures . . . . . . .* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Investigation of cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Disposition of cases . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . 183
Referral procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Limitations of police functions in relation to students . 185

Emergency procedures .. . . . . . . . . . . ..... 188
Utilization of police in student functions . . . . . . 189
190

Misunderstandings connect with police programs

SummarYo . a o a o a . a e t n o . o . 0 ° ° ' J ‘ ' ' . l 93

 

  

CHAPTER

 
    
  
    

Introduction .
Statement of the problem .
Importance of the problem
Methodology . .

Summary and conclusions

Recommendations .

General recommendations

BIBLIOGRAPHY -
APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Suggestions for further research . .

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

PAGE

200

200

200

200

201

202

209

209

212

217

224

225

 

 

 

 

LIS T OF TABLES

TABLE

1. Personal Information Relating to the
Police Administrator. . . . . . . . . .

II. Personal Information Relating to First
Police Assistants. . . . . . . . . ......

III. Disciplinary Measures Employed in
University Police Agencies.

IV. Qualifying Standards for University
Police Personnel. . . . . .

V. Comparative Annual Salaries of University
and Municipal Police. . . . . . . . .......

VI. Individual Police Officer Evaluation Criteria .....

VII. Inventoryof Equipment Available to University
Police................... .....

VIII. Personal InformationRelating to Personnel
Administrators with Liaison Responsibilities
with Police . . . . . . . . . ....

1X. Activities Involving Police Contact with Students
as Reported by Police and Student Personnel
Administrators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......

X. Sources of Misunderstanding of University Police.aS
Stated by Police and Student Personnel
Administrators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......

 

80

.8'6
.126

.148

 

  

 

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Orderly compliance with rules and regulations instituted to
.protect the citizens' welfare and to safeguard the campus community's
property is a requirement at American colleges and universities. The
importance of gaining an- appreciation and respect for others' rights
is considered vital along with the universally accepted value of

’

acquiring a knowledge of the technical and vocational aspects of our
culture.

Laws are traditionally designed to facilitate harmonious
relationships among the members of the society in their observance
of the rights of others. This facet of enculturation logically should
occur at all levels of the educational system; consequently, higher
education should not be expected to evidence any appreciable change
in its occurrance.

Unique to the System of most post-high school educational
experiences is the feature of requiring students to leave their home
environs and to enter into a new community. In this new college
Community-greater emphasis is placed upon mature judgment and the
sense of personal responsibility in the observance of the established

limits of appropriate conduct.

 

The responsibility for the students’ welfare is commonly
assigned to the area of student personnel administration. The security
of the physical facilities and grounds is generally the responsibility
of the university police.

To orient students to the established rules and regulations,
to assist in their adjustment to them, and to enforce their observance
of them, if necessary, are considered functions of the student person-
nel program. The disciplinary program of an institution encompasses
a broad range of functions. A comparatively restricted, but important,
area of the entire program is the actual implementation toward securing
observance of the rules and regulations. This is effected on some
campuses by the cooperative relationships established between student
Personnel and campus police programs. It is in this particular frame-
work that student personnel services and campus protective and en-
forcement agencies become mutually involved.

Police programs have become an acceptable agency in the
societal complex and their services have greatly expanded. The
installation of the police program on the college campus reflects an
acceptance and need for police services in the minds of those responsi-
ble for the conduct of the affairs of the institution.

The increased utilization and expansion of campus physical
facilities to accommodate the enlarged numbers of students who

manifest an interest in securing a higher education augments the

 

 

necessity for protective services. In addition, these same numbers
bring many diverse contributions to the total behavior patterns of the
student body. The disruptive elements existing in civil communities
also exist, but to a lesser degree. in the campus community. Thus,
if the campus community is to function in an efficient and orderly
manner, and, if the police are to assist in this process it becomes

vital to analyze the nature of their contributions.

The Problem

Statement if 95 problem. The purpose of this investigation,
conducted in selected midwe stern universities, 1 was (1) to analyze
the organization and administration of campus protective and en-
forcement programs; (2) to determine the objectives and functions
of these programs; (3) to determine and compare the relationships
between these functions and the regulatory functions of the student
personnel programs; and (4) to indicate trends in the development of
campus police programs.

Importance o_f t_13_e problem. During the past decade college
enrollments have increased from approximately 2, 300, 000 students
to approximately 3, 100,000 students (26:76). This increase is
eSPecially apparent in the larger institutions of higher learning. The
trend toward expanded enrollments is predicted to continue for several

M

1Infra., p. 12

 

4
years to come. This is indicated in studies conducted by Thompson (54).
Wolfle (63), and the President's Committee on Training Beyond High
School (15).

As campuses grow they tend to become more complex. This
growth is manifest in the administrative organization, academic
offerings, physical facilities, residential population, behavioral
incidents, and traffic hazards. The campuses become. in a very
real sense, self-contained communities and inherit some of the
problems existent in their community counterparts—~the average
municipalities. An expansion of the campus protective and enforce-
ment programs is apparent in the growing college communities.
Many of the same functions performed by municipal police organi-
zations are also executed by similar campus organizations.

Although similar in many respects to a community, a college
campus has unique objectives which call for equally unique functions
and activities to realize the prescribed goals. Any organization
existing on a campus should have objectives which are consistent
with the environment. However, there is little research or literature
available to indicate the nature of the objectives or to delineate the
functions of the police organizations on the university scene. To
investigate several campus police agencies, to examine their scope
of activities, and to ascertain if the adaptations from municipal
Procedures are in accord with the purposes of the campus community

is important.

 

 

The conditions which warrant police assistance are not equally
present on all campuses. The factor of size alone dictates the methods
utilized to alleviate problems of concern to a particular locale. While
the problems may be as severe on smaller campuses they are not
compounded by magnitude. For example, the traffic problems of a
major institution, because of the amount of activities and the numbers
of people involved, create a greater need for well—defined procedures ‘
and personnel to execute them if there is to be a minimum of hazard 1
and a. maximum utilization of facilities. To meet this problem traffic
enforcement agencies are necessary on the campus.

The larger institutions develop increasingly complex operations 1
to handle the problems brought about by growth. Gaining an awareness
of the formulation, extent, and manner of execution of police duties in
the larger universities is important in order to assist in meeting the
problems of other institutions projecting significant increases in their
campus population figures.

Newspaper articles and other public communications media
give an indication of the involvement of the police in many phases of
community activity. In most instances, the information relating to the
police is of a laudatory nature, especially if the function is performed
in full view of the public and if the reasons for the action are com—
municated and understood. If there are no apparent reasons for certain

actions, or, if there is a lack of understanding, criticism or skepticism

is often forthcoming. An analysis of the contributions of the police,
especially as they affect the student body, is considered to be helpful
in appreciating their position in the campus community.

Elements of the disciplinary program are present in most of
the personnel functions of an institution. These elements include
consideration of the activities program, intramurals, orientation,
communications, counseling, housing, and administrative actions.
All of these functions are designed to establish a desirable and
stimulating campus setting. The critical phase of the disciplinary
program is in the prevention of those acts which bring discredit to
the student and affect his status in the academic community.

The student personnel director, in fulfilling his disciplinary
responsibilities, often receives assistance from the campus security
organization. The significance of this relationship lies in the fact
that both agencies should be working toward the same ultimate end
with respect to the student body. The goal, in this case, is the gradu-
ation of effective citizens who have received realistic training in
citizenship education while in the campus community. The ”climate“
that exists should be developed by the joint efforts of the student body,
the personnel staff, and the police. The appropriate development of
policy should give the students ample opportunities for self-direction
and minimal apprehensiveness toward those responsible for the regu-

lation of student behavior. Examination of the policy-making relationships

 

 

 

betWI

i grou

I C0111

 

 

-.._- ...--.:....,.....,.

-——-'?-_h WI,“- '- _'_ . _

between the police and the student personnel programs, on a specific
group of campuses, to determine uniformity of procedures merits
conside ration.

Developments in municipal police organizations tend to move
in the direction of specialization. To expect that an accommodation
of the activities and personnel peculiar to a university requires a
degree of specialization on the part of the police department, similar
to the practice in the student personnel and academic areas, seems
plausible. Attention is directed toward ascertaining if such trends
are in existence or are contemplated.

In summary, research into university police work, especially
as it affected the operation of the student personnel program is needed.
No research indicating the objectives, functions, or scope of police
work in a campus setting is available. Study of the problem is restricted
in the present investigation to major institutions where the development
of the police programs is considered to be most advanced. The extent
of cooperation between police and student personnel staffs is deemed
important and merits consideration. Further, an examination of the
trends in the development of campus police programs to determine

their relevancy to their environment needs to be undertaken.

Limitations and Scope of the Study
In this investigation information was collected relating to

campus protective and enforcement programs and those areas of

 

~m*-—"

—‘—- - -h
—___.-

 

 

 

 

 

student personnel programs concerned with the regulatory aspects of
student behavior. The opinions of police administrators, student
personnel directors, and other staff members were collected in order

to ascertain the policies and procedures that were concerned with the

 

functioning of the regulatory features of the campus. In addition,
printed materials relating to this problem were collected to serve
as a supplementary source of information. A descriptive study of the
administrative organization and functional operations of the police

agency as well as the relationship with the student personnel program

 

was prepared.
Since the primary purpose of this study was to determine the
salient features of university police programs as a whole rather than

to elaborate upon the features of individual departments, it was decided

 

to present the findings in summary form. Moreover, the desire to
respect the confidential nature of the interviews was an additional

reason for presenting the findings in summary form. Although this

 

manner of presentation retained the anonymity of the respondents and
the university agencies any university police group could be compared 1

with the standards established by the study.

a
—q__._._

The study sought to investigate the implementation features of
the program for regulation of student conduct in a selected group of

universities. These were publicly supported major institutions located

in midwestern United States.2‘ They were selected because of their
similarity in educational objectives, size, student bodies, and ad-
ministrative organization. The restrictions of this study should
preclude generalizations to other types of institutions.

There was no attempt to examine the specialized functions of
police work such as ballistics, microphotography, and evidence
collection. This investigation was limited to a study of the adminis—
trative aspects of the campus protective and enforcement program
as well as the established relationships between this agency and the
disciplinary program. Functioning together, they comprised the
campus regulatory system. Since the broad dimensions of the disci-
plinary programs had been investigated previously by Truitt (55) and
Conway (10) no attempt was made to study this area.

In the case of any research study, findings are necessarily
limited by the methods of investigation employed. The limitations
inherent in the method employed in the present investigation are

outlined in the discussion of research procedures.

Definitions of Terms

Esciplinary program. This term, used by Truitt in his study,

 

refers to "all procedures, techniques, policies, administrative actions,

21nfra., p. 12

 

 

-—-————-—-—-————-——————.—- w -——

wa— _.

10
follow-up services, processes of orientation and communications, and
systems of records employed by the university to assist in the pre-
vention of unacceptable student behavior; to regulate and redirect
student conduct which is in violation of any university or public law"
(55:10).

Disciplinary official. This term designates the individual in

 

the student personnel program who is assigned the responsibilities of
maintaining relationships with the university police department and of

serving as a referral or remedial agent in the disciplinary program.

 

Regulatory program. This term designates a restricted area
of the disciplinary program. It refers particularly to the methods
employed by the police department and the student personnel program
which are designed to keep or establish order among the student body
and to maintain observance of pertinent regulations. Consideration
of the regulatory aspects of the academic area is precluded by this
term.

Police administrator. This term refers to the individual charged

 

with the responsibility of the campus protective and enforcement agency.
He might not necessarily be engaged in the immediate direction of that
body.

Chief of police. This term is applied to the individual who is

 

responsible for the immediate direction of the campus police program.

 

 

 

.p—. h._ __ _--a

11

Research Procedures

The purpose of this investigation was to analyze university
police programs from the point of view of their objectives, functions,
and trends and to determine the relationships which exist between the
police programs and the student personnel programs. Since this
project was both quantitative and qualitative in nature, adaptations
of the descriptive or normative—survey method of research seemed
most applicable.(20:259). The specific methods used were those of
(1) the structured interview and (2) personal observation and analysis
of printed materials .

.The structured interview technique seemed to be the most
effective technique to use. The structured interview schedule offered
the advantage of obtaining both fact and opinion about a Specific topic
in a consistent and uniform manner; furthermore, it was possible to
clarify issues and to evoke elaborative comments in particular areas.

In using this technique certain considerations perhaps should
be recognized as limitative factors. The extent to which replies given
were true in nature; the completeness of the information given; and
the degree of understanding of the terms employed might be considered
limitations. There might not have been a sufficient number of
interviews to gain adequate information. In addition, the inadvertent
omission of interviews with other significant staff members should

be considered possible limitations of the study.

.—a

 

 

12

The mailed questionnaire, although offering opportunities for
a comprehensive survey, did not seem appropriate because of the
lack of uniformity of the programs to be investigated. In addition, the
possibility of lack of understanding and personal interpretation of the
items by the respondents further contributed to the inadvisability of
this approach.

Attempting to understand the various problems which confront
the personnel involved in this study without the advantage of examining
physical facilities, arrangements and other conditions would have been
extremely difficult; therefore, it seemed imperative to make a personal
visit to each campus, observe the situation, and substantiate data
gathered from the interviews. Further, this approach permitted
discussion of the problem with others not directly involved to gain
additional persPective.

Published materials such as student handbooks, codes for
student life, traffic regulations, and other forms used in the regulatory
program were examined to gain a better understanding of the systems
involved. Pertinent information from these sources was embodied
in the study.

Selection c_>_f participating universities. It was indicated
earlier in this chapter that development of police programs would
probably be more highly advanced in larger universities. Since no

information was available to substantiate this opinion, the decision

 

 

 

1
1
-_-.-A...-_— --..- -31.qu 1

 

 

was 1.
writ:
pub]
dec

enf

fur

111‘

CI

 

 

was made to investigate major institutions readily accessible to the

writer. Further, limitation of the study to those schools which were
publicly supported seemed appropriate. The justification for this
decision was based upon the historical precedent and support of law
enforcement agencies from monies appropriated from public revenue
funds. Protective services rendered to private agencies have no such
precedents or similar methods of support.

The nine universities3 selected for this study were located in
contiguous geographic regions with comparable educational programs.
These institutions were larger than the majority of other higher
education centers; moreover, their administrative patterns were
somewhat analogous. For these reasons, evaluation of the programs
in the study was facilitated.

Preparation of th__e interview schedule. The items of the inter—
view schedule were evolved from information gained by reading in the
fields of personnel work and police administration. Those problems
found in police science literature were adapted to the conditions to be
found in a campus situation. In addition, discussions with personnel

administrators and campus police officials contributed other items.

 

3'The universities selected were: University of Illinois,
Indiana University, State University of Iowa, University of Michigan,
Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, The Ohio State
University, Purdue University, and University of Wisconsin.

14

 

The first draft of the outline was prepared and submitted to

i the chairman of the writer's Guidance Committee for criticism and
suggestions. A revised instrument was formulated which incorporated
those changes suggested by the chairman. Each member of the
Guidance Committee was then asked to criticize the format and

1 terminology and to comment upon the adequacy of the device.

The final form of the interview schedule was developed after a
pilot study involving a sample of police and student personnel adminis—
trators to test further its suitability to the problem. Additional
changes were embodied in a final outline which was submitted to the
Guidance Committee for approval. 4

Procedure £31: th_e collection o_f the (135.3” In preparation for
undertaking this topic the author solicited the opinion of the Secretary
of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators5 as

1 to the merits of the project and as to the willingness of selected student
1 personnel administrators to cooperate. After receiving a positive

reply from this administrator, the author, through the Dean of Students6
of the institution he was attending at the time, requested permission

to engage in this study from the appropriate administrators at the

4See Appendix B for complete interview schedule.

Dr. Fred Turner, Dean of Students, University of Illinois.

6Mr. Tom King, Michigan State University.

15
1956 convention of the National Association of Student Personnel

7 In October of 1956, at the Midwestern Deans

Administrator 3.
Conference, 8 the writer personally confirmed their affirmative
decisions to cooperate in this study. Letters were sent in January,
1957, to each cooperating school requesting the assistance of the
police administrators. Re5ponses indicating their willingness to

cooperate were received that same month.

A request was made to spend two days at each campus for

 

purposes of gathering data. Accompanying the arrangement corre-
spondence were copies of the interview schedule to enable appropriate

administrators to become familiar with the contents prior to the visit.

 

 

 

At the time of the interview, each interviewee had a copy of the
schedule to follow. The visits were made to the universities during
the months of March and April, 1957.

Information gained from interviews and observations as well
as other materials and data obtained from each institution were placed

in individual folders for further study.

Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into six chapters. Chapter One,

Introduction, includes a statement of the problem and its importance,

 

7The conference was held at Berkeley, California.

8The conference was held at Allerton Park, University cf Illinois.

  

definition of terms, limitations of the study, research procedures,

and plan of organization.

Chapter two presents a survey of the literature relating to '
police administration and organization.

Chapter Three is concerned with the internal organization of
the campus protective and enforcement agencies as well as their
relationships within the university. Organizational regulations,
disciplinary procedures, employment methods and benefits, training
programs, and agency evaluation techniques are also presented.

Chapter Four discusses the objectives and functions of the

campus police organization in detail. Elements of the safety, security,

and traffic programs are described.

Chapter Five discusses the relationships between the functions
of the campus police and the student personnel program. The referral
and communication procedures of the two organizations are outlined.
The implementation of the behavioral regulations also are discussed.

Chapter Six presents the summary, conclusions, recommenda—

tions and implications for further research.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER II
SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE

Background of University Police Programs

There was no definite period of time that would date the
The responsi-

appearance of a policeman on the college campus scene.
bility for the safekeeping of university property was vested in the
president in early colonial times just as were the functions of the
registrar, the personnel deans, and the academic deans (33:55). As
property holdings became more extensive, as the student bodies began
to increase, and as the activities became more numerous it became
necessary for the presidents to relinquish some of their concern for

the physical security of the campus.
As campus restrictions became less severe and greater freedom

was granted to the students, pranks and other activities designed to
stimulate or satisfy emotions became a problem. Early accounts
indicated that police had to be called to preserve the peace and restore

order (33:59). The problem of preserving the peace on the campus
seemed to be one of long standing duration and was discussed at

greater length by Cowley (44:152—156).
It would be difficult to find the first instance in which personnel

were employed to insure the nocturnal security of the college campus.

 

 

18

   

Since fires were such extreme hazards in earlier times probably the
The problem

 

first watchmen were hired to check for such hazards.

of thefts during the early years of college activity was probably much

less than today. The seats of learning were held in greater awe and

respect than seemed to be the current trend. The security procedures

of the early colleges were controlled largely by a philosophy of trust.

This same philosophy seemed to be operative currently on college

campuses where a minimum of rigid protective regulations was in effect
The methods employed to investigate thefts and other dis-

turbances on the campuses prior to the establishment of an organized

It might be presumed that

 

university police force were not discussed.
this responsibility was a function of the student personnel office.

The most comprehensive statement found relating to the his-
torical problems of staffing or organizing a campus police agency was

. given by McVey and Hughes, They stated that:

In the early days very few institutions had night watchmen,
and none of them had a police system. The automobile, to-
gether with the increasing size of the student bodies, larger

campuses and buildings has turned what was once a minor
Watchmen must be

problem into a very difficult situation.
chosen after much thought, given clocks, and required to
cover certain stations and to make a daily report on temper-

atures, on open windows, on unlocked doors, and on other.
matters seemingly unimportant but nevertheless indicative

Of what is going on during the dark hours.
In the daytime, the grounds police have to deal with traffic
There are strangers to be directed with courte—

and parking.

ous comment. Meantime the Superintendent must study his
road and walk scheme hoping that he can make improvements
that will reduce the noise or traffic and keep motor cars

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

concentrated at two or three points. The faculty may rule that
students are not to have automobiles, but this law seldom solves
the traffic problem. The superintendent has the traffic before
him all the time. One campus differs from another so that the
solution in an individual case does not help much in solving the
problem elsewhere. To expect a seventy—five dollar a month
man to be a good night watchmen and the ordinary laborer to
become a day policeman is to expect the impossible. Modern
living conditions have loaded a police problem on the college,
and the wise superintendent recognizes it as such, trusting
that his president may understand and make suitable provision

in the budget (382119-120).

Accounts of the handling of student group assembly problems

 

 

1 of personnel deans in the years before the turn of the century gave no
indication of any assistance being rendered by members of a campus
enforcement body. Proceedings of the National Association of Student

Personnel Administrators of the last fifteen years gave little indication

of the problems which merited police attention. In 1956 the meeting

was addressed by MacCormick (44:213-235) who discussed the

 

problems brought about by group disturbances known as ”panty raids. "

Perusal of the publications in the business areas of the university
similarly gave little indication of the existence of university police.
It was indicated by Browne (5:24) that in 1931 the Association of

Physical Plant Administrators specified that costs of janitorial service
should include both janitors and police or nightwatchmen. A scheme

indicating the number of custodians or nightwatchmen required for each

thousand cubic feet in relation to the total cubic feet of space on the

There was no indication of additional factors

campus was presented.
The proceedings of the

which would influence the need for policemen.

 

20

   
   
  
  
 
   
   
   
   
   

annual meetings of the Association for Physical Plant Administrators
in recent years have produced limited information to serve as a guide
for the planning of adequate protective services.

Examination of the publication College a_n:d_. University Business

 

for the years since World War II revealed little information concerning
the problem of adequate coverage. Fowler stated that:

The organization of campus police is a matter a university
must handle. The location of the campus and its relationship
to city police authorities may influence the exact type of
organization and the number of police required. Campus
police may be deputized or commissioned by the adjacent
pdlice authority but generally are limited to service within
the campus boundaries (17:27).

Problems of communication and cooperation with the campus
and local enforcement agencies were summarized by Truitt who stated:

Communications between the office of the head disciplinary
official and the local enforcement agencies usually are facili—
tated through the campus police department. A competent
campus police department tends to cooperate well with the
local law enforcement agencies.

One source of conflict between law enforcement agencies
and the university disciplinary office regarding communications
stems from a difference in philosophy regarding disposition of

students who are apprehended by local law enforcement agencies
(56:102).

Examination of the bibliographical materials on university dis-
ciplinary problems and programs compiled by Truitt (562151—153)
failed to reveal any mention of the university police. Other published
articles in the area of university discipline similarly have not discussed

the problem .

 

 

__.-_-

 

 

 

 

21

Examination of the existing procedures manuals of the police
organizations in this study offered the most comprehensive descriptions
of the services performed by university police. It was apparent that
there were some areas in which there was little uniformity of pro-
cedures; but taken as a group, it was possible to gain some insight
into general operational procedures. It also was discernible that the
development of the organization and the complexity of the service were
dependent upon the situation and location of the school.

Related problems in the area of campus safety and the con-
tributions of the police were discussed by Morris who indicated that:
Others on the campus also make notable contributions
in other aspects of safety. . . . The director of protection
and safety (the campus police force) controls automobiles

and pedestrian traffic and the campus fire and security
watch service (41:14).

Morris, in a later discussion of safety on the college campus
indicated that a safety program should be concerned with the areas of
catastroPhe hazard, residence hall fire safety, shop and laboratory
Safeth work operations, radiation and industrial health, and student
activities. He stated that:

The direction or coordination of such a diversified safety
Program. . . requires the full time of an experienced safety
Specialist in the large university, or of a sincere and ener—
getic faculty member who might have it as a collateral interest
in the small college. The question arises on where the safety
function should be placed in the organization chart of the
institution. There is a tendency, particularly in the small or

middle-sized organization to assign safety to an operating
department, or to put in into an already crowded police or

 

 

   
 
   
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
  

22

security program. These are provisional patterns. no doubt,
' and are generally not favorable to development of the safety

program nor fair to the department charged with the safety
responsibility (40:132-133).

DeMent discussed the precautions which should be undertaken
.1 1n preparing for special events and stressed the role of the campus

police in handling traffic, Spotting trouble—makers, and controlling

the crowd (13) .

The many perplexing problems of traffic and parking control on

the university campus were discussed by Hannum (25:36) The role

of the police in the enforcement process was discussed It was noted

that regardless of the system of control for parking areas, i e , signs,

attendants, decal windshield stickers, mechanically controlled gates,

and meters, it was necessary to have police services to prevent

excessive violations .

Material relating to the contributions of the campus police in

the realm of morale and discipline was unavailable In connection with

the perennial problem of parking and automobile control Fowler
suggested that "lax handling of enforcement or appeals can cause
considerable loss of morale in the police force and can breed con-
siderable disrespect for the institution as a whole” (17:27).
Considerable emphasis was expressed in behalf of a remedial
approach to discipline of the university campus. The use of the police

force as an extension of the disciplinary responsibilities of the student

personnel program was a questionable practice according to Arbuckle,

 

23

who drew these conclusions with respect to the relationships between

campus police and discipline:

When disciplinary action is taken the basic approach will be
considered to be remedial rather than punitive. This will be
emphasized by action rather than by the traditional "this is for
your own good" attitude which is nearly always shared only by
those who are being disciplined. This obviously means that the
whole question of campus discipline becomes the problem of
professional personnel workers who are skilled students of
human behavior rather than being taken over by campus police—
men, who sometimes are too ineffective to hold any other type
position. If discipline is to be used it will be a carefully thought
out part of a total job of remedial treatment rather than an ill—
considered punishment to protect the good name of the institution
In Such a situation, personnel workers will remember that be-
havior is not an overnight affair, and while punishment may
prevent the immediate display of frowned-upon behavior. it is
’unlikely that it will have any other effect.

A police force may always be needed on a college campus,
but surely the sort of education being experienced by a college
community cannot be too effective if that community needs a
larger police force, proportionately speaking, than does a
similar sized non-college community. It is a function of all
college personnel workers, including teachers, to do every-
thing possible to help students to become responsible citizens
who are capable of self—government without the aid of a police
force. Even if punitive action must be taken with some students
no personnel worker can take such action without a feeling of
failure. Such action may be necessary to protect the community
but in the history of mankind there is no evidence to indicate
that the recipient of the punishment becomes a better citizen
because of that punishment. Prevention first, remedial action

if necessary. and. when that has failed punitive action as a
last resort (11262-263).

Concern for the lack of respect for law enforcement officers
among college students and those in professional occupations was
brought to light by Gourley. In a survey conducted among the citizens

of Los Angeles an attempt was made to determine the nature, intensity,

Z4

and to some extent, the causes of public attitudes toward the police.

These summary statements were made:

The strongest supporters of the police are the skilled and
unskilled laborers--and not the professional and other higher
income groups as generally believed. There is a tendency
on the part of people with the least formal education to look
most favorably upon the police; and for those with the most
formal education to look upon the police with the least favor.

Women, particularly are lacking in information regarding
the true performance of their police.

This is especially true
of school teachers and housewives .

Students are inclined to look upon the police with less than

average enthusiasm. This is especially true at the college
level (24:105-107).

An effort was made to discover any possible source of infor-
mation relating to the ideal type of organization of campus police
programs; the principles of administration of a university security
agency; the purposes for which institutional enforcement agencies
exist; the nature of appr0priate protective functions; and the relationships
established between police agencies and student personnel offices.

A

comprehensive search was made of the available publications which

might have offered some information in these areas. The periodicals

inspected were: American City, Annals 2f {133 American Academy
9_f_Political and Social Sciences, College 33.1.51 University. College and

University Business, Higher Education, Journal 2f Criminology,

 

 

Criminal Law and Police Science, Ernal 3f Educational Research,
Journal .gf Higher Education, Personnel and Guidance Journal, Person-

ggl-O-Gram, Police Journal and Safety Education.

-—.-%

also

stud

me:

qua

ll -III- Ic'llll

ll ell-1" ‘Iuil .

 

 

 

 

25

No additional articles were found which related to the topic. It
also was apparent that the literature cited, with the exception of the
study by Gourley, had not been substantiated by research. The state-
ments of opinion were offered by capable administrators who were
qualified by experience and position to make such statements.

Communications with authorities in university police adminis-
tration training departments, state peace officer training programs,
police associations, safety organizations, and student personnel
organizations were initiated in an additional attempt to secure
information. 1

A model plan for the control of the use of motor vehicles by
college and university students was secured from the Central Auto—
mobile Safety Committee of the Kemper insurance Company. The plan
was the result of a survey of 700 colleges and universities. It was
found that only 39 schools prohibited student driving. It was empha-
sized that an integral part of the program was the enforcement of the
regulations by the campus police (48). The remainder of the corre—
spondence, along with the interviews with the police and student
personnel administrators of the institutions in the study, failed to

bring forth any additional published information.

 

1See Appendix A for list of personnel.

 

 

 

 

2.6

Other Literature

Countless hundreds of articles and books have been written
describing all phases of police work. Television and movies also
have contributed heavily to the concepts which the public has of the
services rendered by law enforcement officials. A brief survey of
some of the literature containing concepts of general administrative
practice, policy, and background which could be related to university
police work is appropriate.

Comprehensive histories of both European (15) and American
(14) police systems were presented by Fosdick. He discussed the
Anglo—Saxon origins of law enforcement and related them to the
American system.

Parker (45:370), Gourley (24:6), and Smith (52:1) indicated that
great strides have been made in the improvement of the techniques and
mechanics of police work but that advancement has been lacking in the
social problems of policing. Smith stressed that lack of uniform
developments have been caused by the extreme diversity of demands
placed on police agencies (53:23).

Attempts to professionalize the police services in municipalities
had their greatest emphasis in the 1930's. Bellman introduced ”A
Police Service Rating Scale” in an effort to reduce police services to

measurable categories (3). Parrott also contributed a scale to

 

Z7
measure police effectiveness (46), Smith (53), Leonard (34), and
Vollmer (57), and other police administrators sought to analyze several
municipal departments. Their critical surveys pointed to the need for

training programs both for the rank and file of police officers as well

 

as the administrators. Kreml (32), Day (12) and Sloane (51) indicated
that the problem of adequate training was still of major consideration

in modern police departments.

_..__ .—

During this period of critical evaluation of police departments

the University of California, San Jose State College, the State College

 

of Washington, Michigan State University and a few other institutions
of higher learning installed departments of police administration (36). 1
These agencies not only trained personnel in degree programs but also
rendered valuable services in the form of consultations, institutes,
and short term training programs for all types of law enforcement
agencies (4:564). The Federal Bureau of Investigation, during this
period of time, experienced a considerable change in stature and
began to make contributions to the field of training professional police
personnel and to assist municipalities in sponsoring short term
training programs for their personnel (221232).
During the last decade and a half several books have been
written in the realm of police administration and general public relations
which appear to have gained wide acceptance as standard references.

There are other publications which have made significant contributions

.---—- ~--H.-‘, q.-.

28
to police science and criminology but are not pertinent to the purposes
of this study. The following list of books and authors, while by no
means an exhaustive listing, is recommended for providing a better

understanding of the principles of police administration.

Ashenhurst, Paul H., Police and the People
Clift, R. E., Guide to Modern Poii'é‘e Thinking
Gocke, B. W. , Polic—e Sergeants' Manual
Gourley, S. Douglas, Public Relations and the Police
Holcomb, Richard L. , The Police and the Public
Kooken, Don, Ethics in Police Service——
Leonard, V. A., Poli—c—t—e Organization and Administration
Perkins, Rollin, Elements of Police chience
Smith, Bruce (ed), New Goa—ls- in Police Management
.. Police Systems in the United State;
Vollmer, August, The Polio—gala Modern Society
Wilson. 0. W. (ed), Municipal Police Administration
Police Administration
., Police Planning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the standard references cited, other articles
contributed to an understanding of general problems encountered in
police work. Wilson (632847) discussed pertinent objectives of per-
sonnel administration and stressed the need for a merit system based
on achievement and leadership. He also described the essentials of
satisfactory police service and weaknesses in police deparments
contributing to unsatisfactory service (59:102-104).

Kelley (28) proposed psychiatric examinations as an ideal tool
for personnel selection. Frost (181142) reported the results of a
survey of selection methods for police recruits and stressed the im-

portance of good character as a primary qualification.

 

 

 

29

The importance of police discipline was discussed by Gourley

 

(23:96). He emphasized the need for the positive type of discipline and
the use of treatment to fit the offender. Gocke (19) outlined features

of police programs conducive to the sustenance of high morale.

 

The purpose, origin, and application of a personal evaluation
scale in which thirty—one qualities were listed and ranked was des-
cribed by Mingle (39).

An extensive administrative check—list composed of 300 items
with the headings: organization, patrol, detective division, traffic

division, vice division, juvenile division, records, dispatching, jail,

 

laboratory, headquarters equipment, district stations personnel,

    
   
 
  
   
 
   
  
  

 

public relations, and planning was contributed by Wilson (612513-528). l
Consideration of the questions in this comprehensive list provided an
indication of the scope of police work.

Simon (50:370) indicated that a section of the police department
devoted to planning and research offered great assistance to the
administrator. The most valuable result of such a section was to be
found in the improvement of personnel utilization procedures.

Lack of competent instructors was listed by Gourley (222238)
as the major difficulty in improving the quality of instruction in training
programs. Cogshall (91100-103) proposed a list of standards to assist
in the selection of police instructors which included educational and

experiential qualifications. It was emphasized by Snyder (541603) that

 

30

  

police work was lacking in professionalism because of a lack of pre-
education and post-entry training, an organized body of knowledge, and
a cogent code of ethics.

The problem of protecting a conscientious officer from abuse in
the fulfillment of his responsibilities in arresting violators was analyzed
by Schrotel (491590-591) He outlined a procedure not only for protecting
capable officers but also for detecting the inefficient.

A set of rules for police conduct applicable to most aspects of
public administration was outlined by Kooken (31). A discussion of
the ethical pressures in police work was presented.-

Consideration of the human relations approach in police activities
was stressed by Kenney (30) and McManus (37: 107). The central
thesis stressed by McManus was that the police should give concerted
study to the composition of the public with whom contacts were made;
their aspirations, background, and culture were important considera-
tions.

Parker (45:37 6) maintained that the most important elements of
an effective community relations program were: the training of officers,
including training through discipline; the public information program;
and efficient line police work. He also emphasized it was more im—
portant to control society as a means of safe living rather than to
attempt correction as a means of peaceful living. . Clift (8:669)

stressed that there were many agencies with which the police agency

 

- -——-—‘-—I--:-s—" ‘—._ _"'fl'R-I“

 

31
must be concerned in its public relations program and with whom
common-understanding must be reached.

Christman (6:120-121) listed several purposes of a complete
system of offense reports and records and stressed the importance of
maintaining such a program. It was emphasized that a system of
records was vital in most of the relationships experienced by the
police agency as well as being vital for research and planning purposes.

The problem of internal police communications was summarized

by Kenney (29:553). He stated that administrators could not be effective

 

unless an unobstructed flow of communication was present throughout

the department. Elements which tended to create resistance were:

use of language, departmental status system, differences in backgrounds
of individual officers, attitudes and behavior of the top police executives,

and the size and structure of the department.

Summary

Literature pertaining to methods of organizing university police
departments apparently was unavailable in published form. The
references to the services rendered by the campus enforcement agencies
primarily related to the problem of motor vehicle control or crowd
control for special events. Possibly the concept of protective services
for physical facilities was taken for granted or perhaps the problem
was not of such magnitude as to warrent attention. Some mention was

made of the use of the police in the institutional safety programs. The

 

 

 

 

 

- --—‘e 'Wr-

_. --—--—_ . ..

32
police role and contributions in the campus student regulatory system
were not defined and‘were discussed only briefly.

Other literature relating to police systems and services was
plentiful. No attempt was made to survey the literature in the areas
of scientific police techniques or Criminology. Consideration of the
published literature resulted in a list of books recommended for their
value in providing an understanding of the principles of police adminis-
tration.

Articles relating to some specific police program areas of
administration, personnel training and selection, public relations,
research, and communications indicated the existence of divergent
viewpoints and the need for improvement of the police programs.
Selection of the literature surveyed assumed that several of the sugges-

tions and problems were applicable to university police services.

 

CHAPTER III

THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF

UNIVERSITY POLICE PROGRAMS '

Introduction

The size of the student body, the number of faculty and employees,
the number of students and others who were in residence on the campus,
the regulations pertaining to student life, the motor vehicle regulations,
the size of the physical plant, the differences in charter arrangements
for the administration of the university, and the university objectives
had an influence on the number and scope of activities engaged in by
the police program of each institution.

The institutions in this study were located in communities
which ranged from a large metropolitan center to a smaller city with
preclominant agricultural and university interests.

The objective of the population of the university campuses was
to engage in the maximum development of individuals to function
effectively in an enlightened. cooperative, and free society. If this
objective permeated the practices of an institution, different demands
on the police agencies would be created.

With the variations in the composition and responsibilities of

the universities, as well as in the size of the communities in which

 

 

——
.-.-

34

they were located, it was predicted that the influences upon the organi-
zation and administrative practices of the police agencies were many.

The staff-line relationships between the security departments
and other administrative units, as well as general descriptions of the
departments themselves, were of concern. Items such as employment
conditions and benefits, and other features designed to enhance the
effectiveness of the agencies involved also were to be considered.

A discussion of the organization of the municipal police agencies
was beyond the realm of this study and was not presented. For purposes
of comparison, the pay scales of each university police agency and its
municipal counterpart were presented.

The importance of the role of the chief administrator of any
organization was deserving of study. Therefore, a discussion of the
qualifications and experience backgrounds of the head police adminis-

trators and their assistants was undertaken. .

History of the Police Department
The police organizations in this country have increased in size
and complexity in the past thirty years. The emphasis in municipal
work shifted from services primarily designed to "watch over" the
physical features of the city to that of traffic control and crime preven-
tion..
This change, in a large measure, became necessary because

of the increase in the number of automobiles and the resultant traffic.

 

 

 

 

II-lll Illllll

 

 

 

 

35
and social problems. The facet of police work dealing with control and
regulation of traffic required a major portion of the total staff time of
many civil police departments.

A majority of the police programs of the universities in this
study reflected a similar change in emphasis. The most common
modifications listed by the college police administrators were: (1)
increasing the size of the force and changing the organization from one
concerned with watch services to a complex police system, and (2)
equipping the force with automobiles and radio equipment thereby
making more extensive coverage possible. Other changes mentioned
less frequently related to complete twenty-four hour police protection
for the campus and to practices brought about by increased concern for
traffic control.

The most significant change which took place was the assignment
of the direction of the police program to a specific person with desig-
nated areas of administrative responsibilities. In more than half of the
schools, the change in organizational structure, created by these
specific administrative assignments, was cited as the beginning of
the system in operation at the time of the study.

Examination of the dates of establishment of the original campus
protective organizations indicated that with but one exception this type
of agency was of fairly recent origin. Only one organization had a

history of over forty years as a distinct organization. Apparently the

 

 

-' — "In. --" —""'— ——‘W-I

36

advent of some of the organizations was so gradual that no definite date
of establishment could be given. Most of the police organizations in
their present form dated from the years immediately following World
War II and coincided with the rapid increase in the college p0pulation.

The nomenclature employed in the titles designating the campus
enforcement agencies was divided evenly between the terms police,
safety, and protection and/or security. No information was secured
as to the rationale used for designating the agencies involved.

The charter arrangements of the institutions determined the
legal basis of the enforcement agencies. Several of the schools in this
study were land grant universities. The state legislatures, in accepting
the land grants, gave the trustees the authority to formulate the neces-
sary procedures to protect and maintain the school. In those instances
where the schools were not of the land grant type the legislatures also
had granted the governing body of the colleges the authority to initiate
the statutes necessary for operation of the institution. Three of the
universities were incorporated as separate constitutional bodies in
their states and the boards were clearly empowered to promulgate rules
and regulations for the protection of the property under their jurisdiction.
While the position of the police department in the administrative arrange-
ments of each institution was different final responsibility was consistent
from school to school. The ultimate source of police authority was in

eachinstance granted to the governing body of the institution concerned.

 

 

 

37

Administrative Relationships

The administrative structure of the police department at each
university was examined to determine the relationships which existed
between it and the other major administrative units. In none of the
universities were there any relationships between the public relations,
area services, or related activities. Similarly, there was no direct
relationship between the office responsible for the instructional activities
of the university and the agency responsible for the enforcement and
protection features of the campus. This statement would not imply
that there was no contact between the area of instruction and the area
of enforcement, but rather that there were no arrangements of a specific
nature for reciprocal responsibilities.

In only one institution was the police department directly
responsible to the president of the university. Predominantly, the
direct responsibility was to the director of the physical plant or to
the business manager or vice president for business affairs. .

Two departments had joint responsibilities to the dean of students
and to the director of the physical plant. In one of these instances, the
police agency had a more pronounced responsibility to the student
personnel office as well as a greater scope of activity. The police
administrator was included one-half time in the budget of the student

personnel office and one-half time in the budget of the physical plant.

 

 

 

38

At the other institution the police function was concerned almost
exclusively with enforcement of the motor vehicle regulations and was
under the general direction of the office of the student personnel
administrator. General campus building security was assigned to an
agency composed of watchmen . This agency was responsible to the
physical plant director. There seemed to be no direct working
relationship between these two agencies.

Only one institution had not developed a structured departmental
arrangement in terms of function. In addition, the channels of responsi—
bility for this agency were not clearly defined. The result of this
arrangement was evidenced by a lack of communication with the police

force and within the agency.

The Police Administrator

There were few, if any, published articles or research relating
to theposition of the chief enforcement officer in the university setting.
The environment in which the university was located determined the
type of agency required and. in turn, the attributes of the person
selected to administer the enforcement program. Examination of the
data relating to the history of the police departments indicated that the
recency of establishment of these agencies was a possible factor in the
lack of data concerning the attributes for a chief police administrator.

Formerly the enforcement agencies were primarily concerned

with the security of buildings and other watch services. The changes in

 

”1:.“

--, .

..- -__

 

39
function on the several campuses made it difficult to present a compre-
hensive picture of the changing demands placed on the administrator.
The chief police administrator and his first assistant were
interviewed at each institution and characteristics of the positions
were collected. This information, relating primarily to qualifications.
experience, and administrative position, is summarized in Table I.
Explanation (if T3213}. For a clearer understanding of the
personnel who serve as police administrators an explanation of Table I l
is indicated. It should be noted that there are ten administrators due
to the separation of. police functions at one school.
The first column indicates the title of the police administrator.
The second column indicates the number of years which the
police administrator has served in this position.
The third column indicates the number of years of formal
training beyond the high school level attained by the police administrator.
The fourth column indicates the degree(s) attained by the police '
administrator. J
l
The fifth column indicates the other training the police adminis- :
trator has had in addition to formal education training.
The sixth column indicates the number of years and the type
of activity which constitute other appropriate police experience for the

police administrator .

The seventh column indicates the committee membership(s) held

by the police administrator.

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

40
TABLEI
PERSONALINFORMATKDIRELATDK}
TO THE POLICE ADMINISTRATOR
Years in Higher
School Title Position Education Degree(s) Majg;
A Supervisor, 8 2 None Electrical
Traffic and Engineering
Safety .
Director,
Motor Vehicle
Division
B Director of 1% 4 A B History
Safety
C Superintendent, 12 4 B.S. Civil Engineering.
Maintenance
and Operation
D' Assistant Dean 5 ‘ 4 B.A. Speech
of Men
Chief Security 4% 0 None None
Officer
E Director, 11 5 B.S. Police Adminis~
Department of_ tration
Public Safety = Public Adminis—
tration
F Director, 11 5 None Business Adminis-
Department of tration
Protection
and Safety
.G Traffic and l 3 None Civil Engineering
Safety Engineer .
H Safety Engineer 8 6 B.S. Fire Protection
Engineering
Certificate Aerology
-1 Director, 4 5 B.S. Police Adminis—

Department of tration
Protection and
Security

3

 

TABLE I— - Continued

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Committee
School Other Training Experience (Years) Assignmgnts
A, Police schools 8, state Traffic and Parking Board,
State Police 1, educational Motor Vehicle, Police
Traffic Institute* Training Board
B State Police 20, state Parking, Safety, Student—
Police schools 4, military Faculty Appeal
C None None Parking, Materials,
Religious Affairs
D Master's work None None
Police schools 28, municipal None
E Traffic Institute* 4, municipal Sanitation and Safety,
Police schools 4, military Building
F Traffic Institute* 8, municipal None
Police schools 11, educational
G None 6, municipal University Cabinet on Traffic
10, state
H None 2, industrial Auto and Traffic, Faculty \
4, military Safety :
2, state ‘
I None 4, state Safety, Parking ‘

*Northwestern University Traffic Institute

 

 

 

 

 

42

Six administrators had acquired at least a baccalaureate degree;
one of these had a master’s degree. However, all but one had attained
two or more years of training beyond the high school level.

The undergraduate majors of these administrative officials
included: four majors in engineering, two in police administration.
one in speech, one in business administration, and one in history. The
graduate academic major of the single official with the master's degree
was in public administration. In addition, one other had had extensive
training in .a-e rology .

Half of the administrators had considerable training in police
schools and three of these five had been in training at the same
specialized school.

While an advanced academic degree was not an important
criterion for the position of police administrator, previous police or
related experience along with some academic training apparently was
an important prerequisite. The average length of police experience
prior to taking the present administrative position was found to be
fourteen years for the eight persons who had had prior experience. The
range of experience extended from four years to twenty-eight. The
average total police experience for those with prior experience was
found to be twenty years. The range extended from eight years to thirty-
tWO. The remaining two persons who had no previous police experience

had served in their present capacities for periods of five and twelve years.

 

43
Seven of the administrators served on university committees.

The nature of these committees indicated that the police administrator

 

was limited in his contributions to the total university programs as far
as committee actions were concerned. The committees were concerned
only with those areas relating to traffic, parking or safety. Incidentally,

it was noteworthy that only one of the administrators served on a uni-

 

versity-wide policy-making body. Thus, the university police were
not directly involved in the formulation of university policy.-

11; By way of other information, one of the administrators had
teaching responsibilities; the remainder devoted their full time to the
area of police work. Also, only two police administrators had faculty
rank. One was director of an academic training unit while the other

was designated as an administrative officer.

" First Police Assistants
This category included those officials who were responsible

. primarily for the operational aspects of the enforcement program.

 

These were the first-line level of protective officers and served as the
executive police officer in the absence of the police administrator.
As a group, none of the first assistants held academic rank or

Served on any university policy—making bodies.. Only two had appoint—

     
 

ments to university committees; as might be expected. these committees

were concerned with motor vehicle matters. One of these two also

served on a radio-isotopes committee.

 

 

 

 

44

Explanation ‘lf 39:132. At this level one institution had two
first assistants because of the administrative arrangements. Ten
first assistants therefore were considered in this discussion.

.The first column indicates the title of the first police assistant
at each university studied.

The second column indicates the number of years that the first
police assistant has occupied the current position.

The third column indicates the number of years of formal
education beyond high school attained by the first police assistant.

The fourth column indicates the academic degree(s) acquired
by the first police assistant.

The fifth column indicates the undergraduate major(s) pursued
by the first police assistant.

The sixth column indicates the other formal training engaged in
by the first police assistant.

The seventh column indicates the number of years and type of
police experience of the first police assistant prior to the present
position.

Education beyond high school had been pursued by only four
of the ten assistants with three of this number attaining the baccalaure-
ate degree. The undergraduate majors were distributed evenly between
economics, general education, police administration, and physics. Six

0f the assistants had been to special police schools sponsored by

 

M-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homfi>uoasm
ouoz osoz osoz onoz osoz o nosnopmz H
5
4. oomaom
nonsmosow ms Hoonow obese ocoz wooz osoz H msmsoo .mofiso m
oofiflom
QOfiwmonow .w. ocoz ocoz osoz osoz MH wsasmo .mofinu w
avowem
one coewoopoum
wsoz mHoonom ooflaom mommaxm .m.< e N uowooufio psowmfimwt m
sumpfiafis _ m wHoonow ooflaom wood>uom
HdQfiUfiESE a m wmeSOU EOfivaHuv m>unnvovquHnH
oompwosoo . s w.uopmoz lmfiefiso< wofiaom .m.m m H Howooufla psewmflwm< m
susoaaas . m , smuacco ssausoom
Hmdfiofisss .mo mHoonow ounaom oeoz osoz osoz ma moflsu soapwflww< a
compoo
osoz osoz 13pm Hmuosow wooz m Om :mswuom U
mHoonom oofiflom
ssmooo< .H.m.m
modem .mm mofiaom modem wcoz osoz oeoz ma Hopewewmo>sH m
sOfiwfi>fiQ
wHUfino> uowoz
suuwfiafls Nm ocoz weroooom .m.m e m .Howfi>uodow
Hes0fiwwosoo “NH wHoozow oofiHom msoz osoz osoz o sampddo <
Amumowv oocofiuodxm mnfisfimufi Home: Amvowumon mmfiwmosom soapfiwom ofiwfiH Hooaom
oomHom Honeo . nozmflm GM wuss»

 

 

 

mBZ<Hmem< MOHAOnH Bmfifim

OH. UZHHANQHM ZOHEEMOMZH .HAVZOMNHNH

HHHAN<H

 

 

 

46
universities, municipalities, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Recent appointments to the position of first assistant seemed
to be typical as all but three had been appointed to the position within
the last two years. The remaining three had been assistants for four,
six, and thirty years. Seven of the assistants had prior experience
before assuming their present position with experience ranging from
three to twenty-five years.

As a group, the first police assistants had less police training
than their chief administrators. In addition, they had been appointed
to their present positions more recently than their superior officers.
As might be expected, they served on no university policy-making
bodies and had significantly feWer committee assignments. On the
whole, the assistants had less formal education than did their chief
administrators. If one assumed that this position was one from which
the administrator's successor would be chosen, it would seem that ad-
vanced education was not necessarily a criteria for the initial choice

as first assistant.

Organizational Arrangements
It was necessary for the university police agency, similar to
any administrative agency, to be organizaed in a manner insuring the
most effective direction, coordination. and control of its members.

In the accomplishment of the tasks assigned to the chief administrator

 

 

.. -_,, .

—_ __—,—-—-——._ i...

47

it was essential that a number of officers be assigned to the department.
Each officer had specific responsibilities and duties. The regular
assignment of duties to a single police officer or a group of officers

was advantageous.

In the complex municipal police program the efforts of the
members of the force were most successful when the force was
organized to facilitate the assignment and performance 'of tasks on the
basis of types of duties and of the time and place of performance. For
example, an organization of a police force by function would have
reference to such divisions as vice control division, traffic division.
or-juvenile division. Each functional unit was in turn, divided into
shifts or platoons according to the time of day when the numbers were
to work. A further division in an organizational framework was that
of the territorial distribution of the force. In a large metropolitan
force there were many complex divisions and subdivisions under each
function.

An analysis of the police organizations on university campuses
indicated that the size of the force, the relative restriction of enforce-
ment problems, and the limited geographical area precluded such a
complex organization as was found in a metropolitan police force. A
distinction should be made, on the university campuses, of the types
of duties performed by members of the protective and enforcement

agencies. Only two of the nine schools in this study had all of the

 

 

48

protective and enforcement functions assigned to police officers in
contrast to the personnel commonly classified as watchmen. The
differences in titles or ranks aSSigned to watchmen made comparisons
between schools difficult.

Upon investigation, it was found that the personnel classified
as watchmen generally operated after the close of the academic day
and were not readily recognized or classified as police by the student
body. In most instances personnel classified as watchmen were at
a lower level in the organizational structure than were the personnel
classified as patrolmen. There was no consistency in the structures
of the various schools in the placement of the watchmen under the
jurisdiction of patrolmen in any of the shift divisions. The duties of
watchman involved the responsibilities of checking for fires, locking
and opening doors, turning off sprinkler systems, and a variety of
other jobs. A description of the police functions on university campuses
in terms of the re5ponsibilities assigned to watchmen would make a
minutely complex listing. Therefore, it seemed logical to omit a
more detailed consideration of that position.

In all of the agencies studied, the number of men was sufficiently
large and the organization sufficiently complex in arrangements that
the police administrator did not have immediate supervisory responsi-
bilities for any of the three shifts. All of the universities investigated

had twenty-four hour protection, arranged in three shifts. The number

 

49
of men employed in each shift varied because of the nature of the
_ demands. There were no more than two schools observing the same
shift periods. For example, only two had the shifts arranged from
7:30 A. M. to 3:30 P. M. , two had the shifts arranged from 7:00 A.M.
to 3:00 P.M. . and one had a shift from 6:00A. M. to 2:00 P.M.

In. spite of the fact that there was little consistency in the times
of the shift periods it was appropriate to describe the organization of
university police programs in terms of the time of performance of
duties. The limits imposed by restricted geographical boundaries did
not justify a description of the organizations by place of duties, nor was
a description by type of duties appropriate.

Examination of the various ranks within the police forces
studied revealed that only five of the nine schools had personnel in
the sergeant category. Three of the schools had persons occupying
an equivalent rank of lieutenant and four schools had the equivalent

rank of captain. This description of the ranks above the patrolmen
indicated the developmental level of the various police forces in terms
of complexity. It was significant that a greater number of organizatioml
titles occured in those institutions where the largest proportion of the
protective and enforcement agencies were classified as patrolmen or
police as contrasted to watchmen.

The greatest concentration of police officers was generally

found in the daytime shift. In only one institution was it found that

 

 

50

there was a greater number of police officers in the late afternoon
and evening shifts than on themorning and early afternoon shifts.

There was no consistent pattern apparent for supervision of the
police officers by an executive officer. In those institutions having
officer ranks above the patrolman the shifts were supervised by either
sergeants, lieutenants or captains. In those institutions lacking
comparable officer ranks no indication was given as to whether an
immediate supervisor was in existence or whether one of the patrol-
men had been delegated or given the leadership responsibility for the
shift. Only at those five institutions which had police officers with the
rank of sergeant was immediate supervision given to the duty shift.

Operational Regulations

To insure the consistency of the conduct of the members of
the police force, in the absence of immediate supervision, it was
customary in municipal police departments to keep a current listing
of all the regulations that applied to the police personnel. These
regulations were generally embodied into a volume called the duty
manual. In practice, a regulation was made effective by a general order
to the force and was then incorporated into the duty manual as revisions
were made. The manual then became a booklet which described the
procedures of the department as'well as the duties of the various officers.

Most of the university police duty manuals examined consisted

of permanent orders issued by the police administrator. These orders

 

 

51
did not relate to Specific circumstances but presented rules that
affected the entire force. Departmental regulations were either in
published form or were in the process of being published in six of the
nine institutions studied. The responsibility for the maintenance of such
a manual was assumed by the chief administrator in four of those six
institutions which had such a manual. In the remaining two institutions
this responsibility was delegated to the first police assistant.

In those institutions in which specific ordinances had been

established it was also explicit that the police were responsible for

 

the enforcement of them. Among the ordinances posted at several
universities were those relating to smoking. student conduct, bicycles,
control of peddlers, traffic, parking, abandoned property. book removal,
and grounds protection. In addition, some institutions had delegated to

the police agencies the responsibility for enforcing state or municipal

 

ordinances on traffic. In some of the police department regulations,
the ordinances to be enforced were specifically listed. In others, the
manual wording was rather general, e. g., "enforce university regula-
tions as applicable. " and ”enforce all rules and regulations of the
regents plus statutes. ”

Most of the police administrators observed that there had been

 

few significant changes in jurisdiction in the past five years. However,
a trend was noticed that the police agencies were being given more

specific traffic or motor vehicle ordinances to enforce, which left

 

 

 

52

less room for judgmental decisions on the part of the patrolmen.

Disciplinary Procedures

As in any organization, subject to the scrutiny of the public and
to the pressures of prevention of unlawful acts. the maintenance of
effective intradepartmental discipline was essential. Without discipline,
efficient and satisfactory attainment of police objectives would be
impossible. Discipline could be a device for constructive leadership
of the force and seldom should be interpreted as a negative force.
Judicious application of disciplinary procedures should lead to uniform
and consistent action on the part of the police force. Members of any
unit lacking in discipline generally would be expected to have low
morale; consequently, their work, their reputation, and the public they 1
served would suffer.

Disciplinary4measures. All of the schools investigated had

 

some means of administering disciplinary measures. It was antici-
pated that these measures would be administered by a board or a
committee. However, in all of the nine schools either the police
administrator had the authority for administering disciplinary measures,
or the police administrator in conjunction with the director of personnel
administered the measures.

Table III lists the various measures utilized by police adminis-

trators for intradepartmental discipline.

53

TAB LE III

DISCIPLINARY MEASURES EMPLOYED IN

UNIVERSITY POLICE AGENCIES

  

Measure Frequency

Reprimand.
Dismissal .

Days off
Suspension. . . .
Demotion

Pay reduction .
Raise cancellation.

"Hv-wrlsxoxo

In several of the schools the limitations of the measures were
defined by civil service regulations and consequently the actions
taken were only slightly different from those applicable to other civil
service employees. The ultimate disciplinary measure to be taken in
case of an employee's violation was dismissal from the force. This
was true in all the police departments. In all of the institutions
there was a consistent pattern with reference to warnings or reprimands;
however, the procedure of using personal or written reprimands varied
from one institution to another.

The next most common restrictive measure involved either days
off without pay, working without pay, or some other arrangement
involving loss of pay in lieu of more severe disciplinary action. There
seemed to be a distinction between the procedures involved in a
temporary suspension and days off without pay. Days off was apparently

anything from one to seven days while suspension implied removal from

 

 

 

 

54
the payroll for a set period of time and of a longer duration.

Other types of measures less frequently mentioned were those -
of demotion in rank, reduction in pay, and cancellation of pay increases.
There was no mention of some measures used by municipal police
. organizations, e. g., money fines, loss of leave, or special reading
assignments.

This description of disciplinary measures has noted the punitive
aspects of discipline and it should not be inferred that non-punitive
actions could not have taken place. Non-punitive actions would include
all the efforts by the police administrator to correct a deficiency or a
weakness of an individual officer not involving some sort of personal

punishment. ObviOusly, this form of discipline would take place at
all levels and would not necessarily be confined to the police adminis-
trator.

Dismissal 3.32211. Examination of the causes for dismissal
from the various police agencies resulted in some reasons being men-
tioned more often than others. The most common reason given for the
suspension or dismissal from the police agency was misconduct. Those
acts which constituted misconduct were not clarified, but it was indicated
that if dismissal action were taken that the specific charge generally
would be "conduct unbecoming a police officer and detrimental to the

service. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

The next most frequently mentioned violation or offense which
would cause removal from active service was neglect of duty, closely
followed by falsification, drinking, and disloyalty. Abusiveness,
insubordination, misuse of equipment, failure to pay just debts, and
flagrant violations of civil law were listed as other actions justifying
the most severe penalty. A manual of procedures for one of the agencies
listed thirty-seven offenses which might result in dismissal from the
police force.

In those cases in which dismissal action had been decided as
the only reasonable means to preserve the efficiency and Well-being
of the force, with but one exception, the chief administrator had the
responsibility of communicating directly with the person discharged. In
that one exception the state bureau of personnel had the responsibility
for administering the dismissal action.

Information relating to disciplinary actions taken by the university
officials generally was not released to the public or to other parties.
The only release of this information was in the form of a report placed
in the personnel folder of the individual. It was indicated by a few of
the administrators that if such information were released it would be
done through the university news service facilities and then only after
clearance from the administrator involved.

Restriction of leisure time activities. The control of officers

 

in their leisure time activities was less specific than were the

 

 

 

aw. —.—y '-
Man»-.-

 

 

 

 

‘ ‘A awry? "

56
restrictions upon the performance of duty. Several of the police
administrators indicated that there were no formal restrictions on the
leisure time activities of the officers on their force. This was true in
two of the institutions studied. There were three restrictions, placed
on officers in their non—duty periods, which were mentioned an equal
number of times. Police officers were urged not to incur debts or to
refuse to pay just debts. Drinking of alcoholic beverages was mentioned
at three institutions as being a restriction upon the social activities of
the officers. Two of the drinking restrictions, however, were tempered.
At one school it was stated that there should be no drinking two hours
before duty while at the other it was directed that drinking should not
be done in public. The third restriction was the suggestion that the
officer‘s should maintain standards of conduct which would reflect
favorably upon the department and the university. Other restrictions
mentioned were that there should be no political activity on the part of
police officers and that police officers should be available for duty
twenty-four hours a day.

Acomparison of the restrictions upon the leisure time activity
and the reasons for dismissal from the force indicated certain simi-
larities. Non-conformance with appropriate standards of conduct
would logically result in misconduct and subsequent dismissal from the
force. Drinking would also lead to dismissal. However, the other

causes for dismissal were, in effect, those infractions incurred while

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

57
on duty and would not necessarily be related to leisure time conduct.

Supervisory procedures. Several of the chief administrators

 

indicated that proper supervisory procedures brought about smoothness
and stardardization of daily working operations and contributed much
to the lack of disciplinary problems. In most instances, the supervisory
procedures used by the various agencies were in the form of personal
observations. daily bulletins, checking of the daily logs or daily reports
submitted by the force, inspection, review of reports, personal con-
tacts, and analysis of special reports of an investigatory nature sub-
mitted by the officers.

The supervisory responsibilities when mentioned were

assumed either by the first police assistants or by the sergeants. The

' supervision was carried on by the sergeants only in those agencies

which had a rather highly structured organization. In those systems
in which the sergeants had been given supervisory responsibility there

was every reason to believe that the other executive officers shared

this responsibility but only in a less personal manner. In those less

formally structured organizations the chief administrative officer had

' the responsibility not only for formulation of the policy and the coordina-

tion of the program but also for the immediate supervisory responsi-
bilities at the operational level. This, of course, created considerable
demands upon the time of the chief administrator and perhaps hindered

the overall development of the police agency.

 

 

58

Sig morale factors. The difficulties in staff problems
encountered by the police officers were not those which could ordin-
arily be solved solely by the administrator in the direction of the police
program. The most commonly mentioned problem at seven schools
was the factor of low pay, insufficient pay, or pay not comparable to
the officers in the surrounding municipalities.

The next most common cause for staff discontentment was the
necessity of working hours in excess of the regular working period.

It was interesting to note that in those institutions where overtime
work was compensated for by payment of time-and—a-half wages that
this problem was not mentioned.

Morale problems mentioned with singular frequency were the
desire for a change in promotional policy, dislike for working conditions,
personality differences, the lack of supervision, dislike for being
diplomatic to offenders, and the lack of support on violation notices
which had been written.

The most frequent reasons for low staff morale in the police
agencies investigated seemed to be beyond the realm of deficiencies in
personnel management and could be classed as problems brought about
by budgetary considerations. It was not surprising, then, that only
one of the police agencies investigated had a formal grievance com—
mittee. This grievance committee was composed of one sergeant,

and two patrolmen who reported directly to the director or the assistant

 

 

 

 

59
director if the director were not available. One other agency employed
a suggestion box as a means of determining the sources of dissatis-
faction or changes that might be desirable.

Employment on a university police force was apparently a
desirable and worthwhile activity. Retirement was the most commonly
given reason fOr leaving the police service and was the main reason
in seven of the nine schools surveyed in this study. Lack of pay was
listed in three instances. Single mention was made of such items as
desire for better pension plan: desire for administrative experience,
desire to better oneself, and desire for prestige. -The administrators
of seven of the nine schools indicated that their agencies were extremely
stable. It was suggested by some that this was perhaps a hindrance to
the development of a dynamic efficient police service since retirement
seemed to be the only pleasant and uncomplicated means of changing
personnel.

The areas of employment obtained by persons leaving the force
were evenly divided between joining other police forces and entering into
their own or private business.

The most common reasons for leaving, among the watchmen,
were not those which related to prestige or status factors, but rather
were objections to the physical conditions under which they had to work,
e. g. , having to climb stairs, walking great distances and being involved

in night work.

-..-._t-

 

_ _.—__,_....

60

Employment Procedures

The management of the personnel in a police organization was
perhaps one of the most important aspects contributing to the success
of the force. In this process the staffing or the securing of personnel
was important. To maintain the efficiency and to improve the quality
of the force, the best man should be selected and should continue to work
at peak efficiency in the system. Any doubt that might exist in the
minds of those in the selection process should be resolved in favor of
the department involved.

Procurement and classification of personnel. Examination of

 

 

the employment practices indicated that there was a great degree of
consistency in the procedures which were followed. All but one
institution worked very closely with the personnel office 'in the recruit-
ment and eventual selection of potential members of the force. In that
one instance the applications were made directly to the administrator
of the agency. Seven of the schools accepted applications only through
the personnel office. Atone school it was indicated that applications
were acceptable either through the police department or through the
personnel office and at the remaining school applications were accepted
only through the police department.

The process of announcing vacancies and examinations to be

held, if required, was the responsibility of the personnel office in five

 

 

 

 

 

61
of the schools studied. Three police agencies preferred that their
recruitment be done by word of mouth from within the department.

One agency indicated that they recruited their personnel by use of
public announcements but that they had an extensive backlog from
which to draw.

The classification of personnel for employment usually brought
about very close cooperation between the police department and the
personnel office. Five of the schools indicated that classification was

a joint process. Two indicated that the classification was done in the

V personnel office. The classification was the responsibility of the

police department in the two remaining schools.

The policy for determination of the pay scale for police officers
was another indication of the cooperation between the personnel office
and the police force. Joint determination of the pay scale was practiced
by four of the institutions. The civil service law dictated the salary
to be paid in three of the institutions. In one school, the board of
trustees passed on all pay classifications, and, in the other it was
strictly a personnel office function. In two of the schools, bound by
civil service pay standards, the pay scale was determined by the
prevailing scale of the municipality in which the institution was located.

Each of the administrators indicated that they felt it was
important for the police department to have the final authority in

making the decision for employment of an individual. In fact, in seven

 

 

 

 

62
of the institutions the police department had the responsibility for
making the final decision to employ the individual. Six institutions,
included in the seven above, employed a screening board to assist
the administrator in the final selection of new officers. The personnel
office had final authority in one of the remaining schools while in the
other the director of the physical plant retained this prerogative. Even
though the initial procurement of personnel and the determining of
classification status as well as the determination of pay was left largely
to a joint process, it would appear that the police departments them-
‘selves assumed the re5ponsibility for their own staffing and resultant
expansion since they retained the final decision to employ the applicants.

Employment qualifications. The establishment of qualifying

 

requirements for final selection was an important function in the
employment process. The primary utilization of manpower in the
agencies under consideration was in the area of patrol. It was
important. therefore. that the new university police officer qualify in
those areas normally desired for a municipal police officer. He should
be physically fit; be of appropriate physical stature to command resPect;
have adequate physical energy; enjoy working with people; have reason-
, ably high intelligence in order that he may observe, learn, retain, and
reason well, as well as adapt himself to situations. It was expected,
also, that he should have a high degree of social poise and be of out—

standing moral character .

63

Examination of the requirements for employment revealed

  
 

that none of the considerations listed above were implicit or outlined
in the list of qualifying requirements for selection as a university
police officer. Presumably, many of these attributes were taken into
consideration somewhere in the selection process. It can be readily
understood that the attributes of loyalty would be an important criteria.
However, this was not listed in any of the qualifying requirements. It

should be noted that none of the institutions required any experience 5,;

prior to entering the employment of the universities under consideration.
At one institution it was indicated that previous police experience was
preferred but that it was-not required. Also, none of the institutions
demanded or indicated a preference for training prior to an applicant's
being considered for employment.

Explanation of T_a_l_3_l.e_l_\_f_. The qualifying requirements for
employment as a university police officer, as obtained from the police

administrators, are included in Table IV.

 

 

* Column one indicates the lower and upper age limits which are
é listed for the beginning class of officers.

1 Column two indicates the amount of formal education which is
t either required or preferred.

Column three indicates the necessity for previous employment

experience prior to the consideration for the police position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HfiD<
ooHmean wpfisfiH own oeuamm Umuw3UwH seepfiomoo pswflawoxmm
nouuwmoud mesHH ems v noufisomu mweznmuw
is: emu “was: $33 . . om mmm Hoofim is: 8. 238,33 9.5325 mocomfldfifia
owufinku Hoo ow .
vsvsoumzvmu wosvpawounanQMfi: noufisvou oofi>uow nyamoz Umuuwmwua
. .H n< msoz .weswm >n Hw>oudm< Hoonow Ema: moIHm H
omufisoou moa>umm nwfisom ouasvou
ouwosmww m I . p .
v: fies wnwfiom msoz .>pfisoo >9 Hw>ouda< Hoozow swam mmlHN I
momuuwmmun
osoz onoz wsoz msoz Hoonom nwfim vosoz o
pmufisoou mos>uom spasm: Umnuomoud .
osoz meoz .owawm so Hm>ounn< .Hoosow swam mmsoz m
«swans Honoum oos>nom my me wuaswou
wowsoufl m . H I p .
.scmu COfivmosoo omfidm :o_m I v:Mfiom wcoz >n Hm>ound< moonom swam 0mlam m
Umuuommud
wsoz wcoz msoz osoz Hoonom nmdm oeram a
nouuumoud omuuomoud
wcoz msoz .>wcsoo msoz .Hoonow awe: oelam U
owufisvou Hoonow awe:
w cos
p oufiszu Hmofiwwnm wowumdp pouuwuoun oofi>uow nvfisom pwuuwmmum
pumpswww a: nosipnwfio: osoz .>ws:ou >D Hm>oudn< .Hoonom swam omIHN m
mvH I «anew; poufisoou mofi>uom :mew: woufiswwu
myswswufinwou conundb :w.m I wnwfiom .swusoo sn Hm>ound< .Hoonom swam mmxHN <
sense moswofimom . sofiwflnsoo scepMosom wwfisfiq Hoonom
amoewsam wm<

 

 

AHZZOWMMFH HUHAOnH WhHmmmerH/HD

MOM mQquQEBm UZHVLHHA<DO

 

 

 

 

65

Column four indicates the health standards as listed by the
various agencies.

Column five indicates the previous training required or pre-
ferred for the entering class.

Column six indicates the demands made for residency by the
entering class.

Column seven indicates any other qualifying requirements not
covered in the previous columns.

Column eight indicates suggested changes in the qualifying
requirements as given by the police administrator.

All of the institutions required the attainment of majority age
before applicants could be considered for police officers. It should
be noted also that two of the institutions had no age limits but they

preferred age limits of twenty-five to thirty and twenty—one to forty.

 

There was little consistency in the matter of required age limits at any
of the remaining institutions.

The formal education required of entering recruits showed some
consistency. Six of the institutions preferred a high school diploma
as a prerequisite but did not demand that it be attained. One of the

Preceeding institutions required only that the applicant be able to read

and write. Three of ,the institutions had higher educational requirements

since a high school diploma was demanded.

 

i?

,
p

.wé‘fifi

-n-u."'—‘. '-.". '.I '—

.,=.:-—-r

"_.F

 

 

 

 

i
I
I
.
..
.
‘-

66
There were no actual or stated physical requirements listed in
the employment standards. Six of the institutions requested or required
Only that the applicants be approved by the university health service. In

one of these agencies the administrator emphasized that the applicant

 

must be in excellent health; but, this also—was to be determined by the
university health service. Three of the institutions required no physical
or health examinations.

There seemed to be no consistent pattern with respect to ,‘g'.
residency requirements.’ Two institutions required state residence,
two institutions required county residence, two institutions indicated
a preference for county residence, and three indicated no residence
requirements whatsoever.

Other qualifying requirements not included in the previous
columns indicated that one institution demanded a security clearance
before a recruit could be employed by the university; one, indicated
a five-foot nine minimum height standard with appropriate weight
distribution; and one, indicated that a primary attribute would be the
ability to deal with students. It should be indicated that one of the
institutions in this survey, at the time of the study, was in the process
of completing a survey of several schools. Based upon the findings
of that survey certain changes would be' recommended within'the
police department.

Of the changes suggested for improving or strengthening the

 

 

 

67
force, the most commonly mentioned was that of raising the education
requirement. This was mentioned by three institutions. Requirement
of a definite height—weight standard was indicated as desirable by two

schools. Other changes proposed were the desire for more rigid

 

physical requirements, the utilization of trained personnel to a

greater extent, the changing of the application process, the abandon-

ment of the residence requirement, and the lowering of the upper age

limits. 1;?

Screening devices. After applicants had passed the initial quali-
fying requirements and had processed most of the necessary papers it
became increasingly important that proper selection be made from the
remaining personnel. It was important, then, to give consideration to
other screening or selective procedures employed by the schools in
this investigation.

Every school, as would be expected, screened the application
papers very closely and checked them for any discrepancies or any
deficiencies that might have existed. lnvariably, this was done
initially by the personnel office and in some instances in cooperation
with the police director concerned. However, at all of the schools
investigated it was indicated that it was the responsibility of the
personnel office to make the preliminary screening.

Psychiatric procedures were employed in none of the institutions

in further determining the fitness of the individual applicants.

68

Psychological examinations, however, were used in the selective
process in four of the institutions. Six examinations were given by the
counseling center of one school; two tests were given by the counseling

center at another institution; one test was administered by the police

 

department at a third school; and the personnel office administered one
testat the remaining school. The examinations which were reported as

being used were as follows: California Mental Maturity Test, Cressey

 

 

,and Cressey Speed Test, Kuder Preference Record, Minnesota Multi-I

 

phasic Personality Inventory. .O'Rourke Police General Classification

 

 

_——_————_——-—_-.___—___—___—.___.__.__—_——

Adaptability Test, Thurston Temperament Test, and the Wesson

 

 

Intelligence Test.

With but one exception, all of the departments or schools
processed complete arrest checks on each of the applicants who had
it applied to the department. Similarly, the same eight institutions
i processed a complete check on the past community records‘of the
individual, e. g. , school records, employment records, and credit
ratings. While arrests and past community records were checked

almost unanimously by the departments. three of the departments did

 

not process fingerprint checks on their applicants. It was indicated by
two of the three, however, that such a procedure would have been
followed if the applicants had not been known by the department.

In an attempt to gain the opinion of more than one person in the

 

69

later phases of the hiring process, six of the nine institutions employed
a board interview process. This board usually was composed of the
executive officers or of persons on the staff or in the community who,

by their positions in the police profession, were well qualified to render

 

 

judgments upon the qualifications of an interviewee. Three of the agen-

cies under examination in this study did not employ the board interview.

 

It was indicated, however, by two of those three agency heads that
‘ f intensive interviewing was done by the director of the agency.

Other screening devices were mentioned but were not covered
by the questions in the interview schedule. One agency checked the

applicant with the department personnel to ascertain if any of the officers

 

currently employed knew of any negative factors relating to the new i

recruit. At one institution, a departmental examination, developed

v-‘_v_,_‘

within the agency and consisting generally of reaction responses to
police situations, was administered to prospective officers. At two of
the institutions it was indicated that a recruit who had been accepted

either by a police agency of known standards or by the state police would

i
i

be accepted without screening and that no further check would be made
upon their records. At one institution, where classified or govern— _
mental research was being conducted, an additional security check of
the guards or watchmen, who had the protective responsibility of the‘
area containing research facilities, was demanded by a federal security

agency.

 

70

Training Programs

 

Police service, in the same manner as any occupation involving

_ people, was made stronger with special training. The purpose of police
training was to insure the performance of tasks in keeping with the
responsibilities assigned to a particular department. Training should
develop uniform reactions to situations within the department. It
should instill some knowledge of the background of the purposes of the

. particular agency, acquaint the officer with situations he may encounter,

i and assist him in making appropriate decisions. Policemen should

know how to handle people either as individuals or in crowds. He

should know proper use of weapons and when to use them. He should
also have a knowledge of the laws of :arrest, and miscellaneous legal
restrictions.

Recruit training. Five of the agencies included in this problem

 

did not have an organized recruit training program. One apparently I

had formalized the training program to the degree that the chief was

 

aware that there were certain tasks and items which needed to be
learned. He routinely placed the recruit on the various jobs within the
department and offered verbal comments upon the progress that the
recruit was making.

The remaining three institutions had a rather comprehensive

 

training program. Two of the recruit training programs were under

 

 

 

 

71
the direction of the police administrator and one was the responsibility
of one of the senior sergeants of the force. .One program of training
was for an indefinite period of time while the other two were for one
month and thirteen weeks. respectively.

One program contained instruction on the community's civil
ordinances, the procedures manual, the state vehicle code, state
liquor laws, concealed weapons and firearms laws, and other depart-
mental memoranda. In addition, on—the-job experiences were afforded

the recruit to learn more at the operational level.

 

In the program requiring one month of training, the new recruit
was required to accompany watchmen for a period of one week and to
accompany the squad car members for a period of three weeks. In this

period of time the recruit was given no offic'al authority but was expected

 

to respond as situations arose. By close observation the chief was able
6 to check the progress of the individual.

In the third program, the recruits were sent either to the local
municipal training school or the state school sponsored jointly by the I
Federal Bureau of Investigation program covered and the published
rules of the regents or the governing board. In addition, the recruit
was required to accompany watchmen for a three month period. The
patrolman could not serve on patrol until after attending the state or
municipal school.

Police executives at seven of the institutions indicated that before

 

 

 

72
any recruit or entering class officer could be considered as a full
member of the force he must have rendered satisfactory service during
a probation period. Three of the institutions had a three-month
probationary period; two, a six-month probationary period; and two,

a one-year probationary period. The remaining two schools had no
stated probationary period.

In-service training. Misunderstanding existed at the point of
differentiating between recruit training and in-service training. It was
indicated in the previous di5cussion that only four agencies had programs
relating to recruit training. Upon examination of the in-service training
programs it was found that six of the departments had given considerable
thought to an in- service training. It was noted that some of the pro-
grams which were included in the in-service training category were
highly similar to those some of the institutions used in their programs
of recruit training. In four of the six institutions the head police
administrator was responsible for the direction of the program. In
the remaining two the assistant director was responsible for the direc-
tion of the training program.

There was no indication of the exact length of any particular
phase of the programs. One institution used the recruit school of the

municipality plus giving its own weapons instruction. Another had a
planned program of sending their officers through the state police

school as well as to any Federal Bureau of Investigation seminars in

my.

73

the surrounding area. In addition, one officer was assigned to give
firearms instruction and one was assigned to offer first aid instruction.

In a third institution, where considerable emphasis was placed
upon conferences, the men were encouraged to go to such schools as the
command officers school, the juvenile officers school, and a basic
police training institute. Other instruction was given in first aid,
highway traffic safety, and driver training. In addition to utilizing
facets of the various programs available on campus, visiting speakers
and professional police officers were invited to speak to the group.

At a fourth institution, extensive uSe also was made of visiting
lecturers. Any man new to the force was given considerable time by
the shift sergeant who assisted him as much as possible. This one
institution employed the leisure time at special events to offer instruc-
tion in weapons and in first aid techniques.

In the fifth institution, the junior officers were sent to schools
sponored periodically by the police administration department for the
various types of law enforcement groups, such as city police and
conservation officers. At the sixth school, recruits were sent to the
police training institute sponsored by the university as well as to the
neighboring Federal Bureau of Investigation schools regardless of the
subject being taught. In addition, firearms instruction, first aid, and
files and records systems were taught as part of the in-service program.

It was apparent that personnel, other than the police staffs, used

 

 

 

74
for instructional purposes in the in—service training programs came
from sources external to the universities. Among the personnel used
were judges, professional police educators, heads of various large
municipal police bureaus, state police personnel, and Federal Bureau
of Investigation agents.

Little use was made of the student personnel staffs in the in—
service training programs. It was indicatedat one school that, if they
were used, they would be asked to speak on techniques of approaching 1.5;,
students. One other administrator indicated that student personnel
consultants gave lectures on methods of handling psychological cases.
The director of the police agencyrin a third school indicated that he
engaged in informal discussion with the members of the personnel staff
to understand student problems. . When asked if there were other ways
in which members of the student personnel staffs might be utilized in
the in-service training programs, the remainder of the administrators
repetitiously indicated that the most important use that might be made of
such personnel would be in the form of lectures in the areas of student
contacts, student behavior, and student relations.

Programs stressing attendance at school or campus classes not
related to police work were not discussed. This was an area that might
well have been investigated in terms of credit being given for self-
improvement. Courses in criminology, social sciences, public adminis-

tration, criminal law. psychology. English, or public speaking might

75

well have been considered training that would contribute to the general

 

background of knowledge and would be useful in the police profession.

Police administration training programs. Three of the

 

institutions in this study had a police administration program. However,

one of the institutions offered only short course and periodic instruc-

 

 

tional programs in this area and was not formalized to the extent of
i offering a degree. In the remaining two schools both offered a bachelor's
degree and one offered a master's degree.

For purposes of comparison. certain facets of the police ad—
ministration programs of the two schools were explored. It seemed

important to determine the contributions of the police administration to

 

the training programlof the campus policeagency.

The administrator from the first institution indicated that the
counseling and testing service of the university gave assistance in the
selection of trainees for the police administration program. The
administrator of the second institution indicated that such services
were not utilized.

Guest lecturers from the first school's police administration
staff were used in the recruit training program as well as the in-
service training program while in the second school the only time they
were used was in the in—service training program.» In additiOn, the
police administration staff members played an important part in a

review board which was used in the police promotion process of the

 

 

 

76

first institution.

The head of the police department of the first school indicated
that fifteen of its personnel had degrees or were obtaining degrees,
with the majority of the academic courses being taken in the police
administration program; the second institution was unable to secure
recruits from the police administration program because they could
not be offered enough pay.

Both administrators indicated that the police trainees were
utilized for special events and supplemental police service. Only the
first institution, however, .was able to offer on—the-job experiences,
but this experience was limited to observation. patrol, and office
practices.

The problem of employing students or utilizing students in
campus police agencies was thought to be of enough significance to be
investigated. It was found that only four institutions used students to
any extent. One administrator indicated that they were used only in a
service capacity for parking lots with no citation powers; while another
indicated they were used as student car investigators to determine those
students who possessed cars illegally. At both schools students were
recommended by the central student employment office.

The two other police chiefs, who stated that students were used,
indicated they were primarily used for traffic control or general labor

around the department. They were non-uniformed but did receive arm

 

   

 

 

77

bands for purposes of identification. In those instances where students
were used a special point was made to provide them with orientation
sessions and to give general instructions relating to their responsibilities.
As to the efficacy of using students in traffic direction one
administrator indicated that he had heard nothing derogatory from the
students concerning this practice. The other chief indicated his experi-
ence had been that they were able to get better service from full-time

personnel.

Employment Benefits

In surveying the various welfare aspects of employment in the

. police agencies, it was found that a considerable amount of uniformity

was in evidence. With respect to promotional policy, five of the
organizations explored had a merit promotional policy in which advance-
ments were usually made on the basis of competitive examinations. An
interesting situation at one of the above institutions was that the civil
service regulations did not provide a means for the executive officers
to succeed the chief administrator. In two of the systems studied, the
only promotion that was available to members of the police personnel
was from watchman category to the police category and in one of these
it was possible to advance only after three years of watchman service.
Two agencies had no provisions established for promotions.

In four of the institutions there was no provision for tenure or

permanency of employment. In the remaining five schools tenure rights

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

Were governed by the civil service law of the state; dismissal could

' be affected by due cause with the person discharged having the right

of appeal.

There was an opportunity for participation in some type of
pension plan at all of the universities. The pension plans were
either parts of a statewide university retirement system, a state
employees pension plan, a state employees retirement plan, or a

state teachers insurance program. Similarly, provisions were made

 

for all members of the police agencies to participate in hospitalization
benefit programs. Eight of the nine schools provided voluntary group
insurance plans, the ninth school had compulsory group insurance.

Additional welfare benefits were exhibited in the realm of

l
J
l
I
l
\

uniform allowances for personnel of the police force. In all instances
the major items of clothing and equipment were furnished to the officers.
In some instances shoes, ties, and shirts were not furnished. At one
school overcoats were not furnished. One institution paid the police-
men a $200. 00 annual allowance from which uniforms were to be
purchased and maintained.

Leaves, sick leaves particularly, were provided in varying
amounts, ranging from thirty days sick leave per year to one day per
month per year. There was no consistent pattern except that in no
instance was any person given less than twelve days per year for sick
leave purposes. The range for vacations was from twelve working days

\

 

 

 

 

79"
of vacation per year to four weeks. The process of accumulating
additional vacation time in excess of two weeks generally was dependent
upon the number of years employed. For example, one institution
granted two weeks vacation for one to five years of service, three
weeks for six to fifteen years of service, and four weeks for sixteen

years and over.

Salary Schedule Comparisons

One of the reasons for personnel leaving the police forces was,
an inadequate salary schedule. Table V gives a salary comparison
between those paid to the university police and thos'e'pai'd to the munici-
pal police based upon a maximum yearly salary for the' classifications
under discussion. Some of the-municipal salaries have two figures.
These figures indicate that two municipalities are adjacent to the
university. Included in this table is the differential between watchmen -
and policemen, where applicable. For those schools reporting such
procedures, the amounts usually earned by overtime compensation are
indicated in parentheses above the regular salary.

Many of the university personnel supplemented their salary to a
considerable degree by overtime employment. In most instances this
overtime pay placed the salary level at a comparable or even more
favorable level than the corresponding rank in the municipal area in
Which the university was located. No information was secured in the

area of overtime payment policy for the muncipalities under consideration.

 

i

 

.'_‘

. mofiwfissssou

one wovdofiosfi osfia powwow one o>one snow?“ may use mmwonosoHed as ousmam >9 own.

Heap. #sooenom sun Used sudden
mesons one. mwsosfima memwuorwots

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,
i
one III- .88 -III $9. {II 8? “WWW 9.3 H
I Immmm I Ammmw I Iwmmm I Amwwwv I Iwmmm I Amwmme I Immmm I Ammmmo 9.3 m
omms IIII vmme III. 3% IIII is. 88 $8 0
I Ivmmm I I Iemem I IIII I Immmm 03m 05m owes
or... 9.3 seen I 883 I IomNm I 882 News a
I IMMIW I come I Immm I 88 I Immm I 82 I Iwmwm I 88 III m
some IIII 30m IIII mmmm IIII 8? 8s. 83. a
29. IIII mm? IIII moi. IIII ow? owwm IIII u
om? oooe IIII IIII oswm omen ooem 8mm 8% m
I Iopow I oooo I Iommm I comm I Iomom I 8% I Iomew I 83. IIII e
oooo 82$ 82 3%.: ooon 8st cos. Semi

 

 

 

 

 

damages: mfimuwfiub Hsmfluassz auwwuoifisb financing: hefimuocfisb Heavens: zpfimuocfinb >pfiwum>fi5 Hoonuw
sampaeu assswvzofiq pswomuom sesaoupem sassuvez

 

 

 

 

 

HUHAOnH inHHUHZDSI. erw MIBHmammerH/HD .mO MHHdeIH/Vm J<DZHZI<I HIPHHI‘VMJNAHEOU

> Hflmdxh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”at“ I»..- I

81
It was significant to note that in only two instances was the
beginning pay for a patrolman equal to the pay received by the counter—
part in the municipal organization. In the seven remaining schools

the amount earned was significantly lower. In the sergeant's classi—

 

fication only two of the five organizations with the rank of sergeant
provided a salary comparable to or exceeding the salary of the
corresponding municipality.
The rank of lieutenant was found in three police agencies and in:
only two exceeded or matched the corresponding city salary. At the
captain's level, however, there was a reversal in the trend. The
salary for all four of the officers with the comparable rank of captain
equaled or exceeded the salary for the municipal counterpart. No
attempt was made to compare the salaries of the university police
administrator or the police administrator of the municipality in which

the university was located.

Organization Affiliation
There was no effort on the part of the administration of the uni-
versities to prohibit membership in professional organizations related 1
to police work. In seven of the nine schools the police administrator H

belonged to some form of a police organization ranging from national

honorary societies to county law enforcement associations. Several

nigh!- "

82

police administrators belonged to more than one organization. The

 

organizations represented were: Alpha Phi Sigma (national police
honorary), National Fire Protective Association, National Safety

Council, Fraternal Order of Police, Association of Communication

 

Officers, International Association of Police Chiefs, American Academy
for Scientific Interrogation, American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
Police and Peace Officers Association, American Society for Advanced

Criminology, American Society for Industrial Security, International

 

Association of Arson Investigators, National Academy Association (an

i association of Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy graduates),

 

and various associations of county, state, and regional law enforcement
officers. I‘
This listing represented a wide range of interests and profes-
sional affiliation on the part of the police administrators. In most
instances, the membership qualifications were met by the nature of
the position in which the officer was employed.
Among the reasons given for affiliating with such organizations
were: to keep abreast of regulations and procedures in the field; to
be aware of equipment advances; to become aware of new legislation
in the field; to make the publications of the various organizations
available for use in the in-service training programs; to have the
opportunity for the exchange of professional ideas in order to understand

problems and solutions; and to have an opportunity to assist in other

 

 

 

 

 

 

83
police institutes on an instructional basis. The reasons most generally
given were those of having the opportunity to become familiar with
other officers, to make contacts, and to establish liaison relationships

with municipal and other police authorities.

Evaluation of Police Programs

Success or failure in the operation of the police agencies was
to a large measure dependent upon continued acceptance of the services
rendered by the agency and its component elements. Evaluation of the
effectiveness of an organization was dependent upon the standards of
performance established for the organization and for its individual
members. It was expected that these standards would vary from one
university situation to another in proportion to the complexity of
requirements placed upon the police agency. It was important to know
how effectively these demands or requirements were met by the agency
and the individual officer. The methods of determining departmental
effectiveness were examined.

The problem of determining the value of an individual officer
was difficult to assess. Assessment of the propensities of the individual
Was basic to the improvement of the police agency since the officer on
duty represented the university and its best interests. Any action to
the detriment of the institution often could have far-reaching implica—

tions; therefore, everything possible to alleviate this risk should be

i’ "The“?

 

 

  

 

 

84
considered. Evaluation of the individual officer provided a basis not
only for the improvement of operating procedures but also for the
promotion of the individual concerned. The leadership traits deemed
important by the police administrators were explored to determine the

degree of uniformity.

 

Departmental evaluation. A small majority of the police adminis—

trators indicated that the effectiveness of the department was assessed
by the number of complaints received. The index of cases closed and
those remaining unsolved or open was mentioned by an equal number of
departments, five. One administrator stated that sixty-two per cent of
the cases involving his department were listed as closed as compared
to the national average of forty-two per cent.

Use of the indexes of number of complaints and number of cases
open and closed along with the other measures subsequently mentioned
tended to be reasonably objective. Other criteria of effectiveness
listed along with the frequency of mention were as follows: The number
of thefts or losses, three; the number of accidents, two; the number of
arrests, two; and the number of complaints, one. It would seem that
Such measures would be limited to the assessment of the individual
agencies and would be lacking in applicability for comparative purposes
between departments. The differences in demands, personnel and
environment would acc0unt for the lack of applicability of such devices

for assessing the relative effectiveness of the departments studied.

 

 

 

 

 

85

Such devices, however, would be valuable to determine the internal
effectiveness of a department from year to year and could serve as a I
basis for improvement in or changing of procedures.

In addition to tabulation of incidents as a basis of determining

departmental effectiveness certain subjective methods were mentioned
by the police administrators. Observation of the force in action and
analysis of reports were listed four times as an efficiency rating
procedure. Consideration of student opinion toward the enforcement :E'li
unit and estimations of the amount of staff and student cooperation were
also enumerated as evaluative methods. L
The successful use of the methods of observation and analysis
of reports would be dependent on the ability, training, and judgment of
the supervisors of the agencies and consequently subject to error. {
However, they would appear to be the most flexible devices to use
generallyin the diverse situations in which the university police find
themselves operating.
Individual cif_i_c_e_r evaluation. The methods used to assess the
effectiveness of the individual members were more subjective than
those employed in the assessment of departmental effectiveness, The
most frequently mentioned manner of appraisal of the individual officer
was the technique of observation. Seven of the administrators specified
this method of appraisal. Mentioned by four police directors were the

evaluative methods of the number of complaints lodged against an

 

 

 

86

individual officer and analysis of the type of reports submitted by the

officer. Analysis of the number and types of tickets written or arrests

made, scrutiny of clockwork for regularity, and preparation of regular
ratings on prescribed forms were each mentioned two times by the
police administrators as evaluation devices employed. One director
indicated that public opinion often was used to determine individual
effectiveness.
The utilization of the technique of observation by the majority ,it‘
of the police administrators indicated the subjective nature of appraising
the individual officer. Examination of the items used in the appraisal of
the individual further emphasized the subjectivity of the procedures.

The criteria used in this process are listed in Table VI along with the

 

frequency of mention.

INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICER EVALUATION CRITERIA

Trait Frequency .Trait Frequency
Appearance 7 Familiarity with
Ability to maintain . police procedures 3
good relations 6 Courtesy 2
Judgment 6 Patience 2
Loyalty to depart- Interest or
ment and/or enthusiasm 2
university 5 Bearing and
Willingness to demeanor 2
accept and Understanding of
perform duties 5 students 1
Dependability 4 Alertness 1
Understanding of Honesty 1
rules and Fitness for work 1
regulations 3 Ingenuity I

TABLE VI

 

 

 

--..=.a--

87

Summary
The most significant changes which have taken place in most
of the campus protective and enforcement agencies have occurred since

the termination of World War II. The police agencies have increased

 

in size and their scope of activities have changed from a primary
emphasis for providing watch services to pr0viding a wide range of
services in traffic regulation, investigation and other areas of
normal police service.

The delegation of the responsibility to one administrator to
devote full time to the direction of the campus police program marked
the date of establishment of the present programs. The police powers
of the protective agencies were authorized by governing bodies of all

institutions. However, the final police authority remained with the

 

governing bodies.
There were no administrative relationships between university I
police and those areas of the university responsible for academic

affairs or public services. All but three police agencies were contained

I
in the business affairs section of the universities. One agency was E
I
responsible to the office of._ the president. A section of one agency I
I was responsible to the student personnel administrator; the director !

I

of the remaining agency was on the budgets of both the physical plant I‘

and the student personnel office. I

88
The police administrators, as a group, were not assigned to

academic ranks or to policy making bodies and their service on com-

 

i
l
I

Ii mittees was restricted to those dealing with motor vehicle matters.
Previous police experience apparently was a more important criterion

for appointment to the position of police administrator than advanced

 

educational expe rience s .

_,i...,...

The first police assistants were lacking in academic training
and experience in comparison with the police administrators. Their

I‘ appointments to the position generally had been made within the last

 

six years.

‘Three police agencies had all their personnel classified as
police officers in contrast to the remaining departments which contained
both officers and watchmen.

All the universities were under twenty-four hour police pro-

i tection with the greatest emphasis for police services generally being

I found during the daytime periods. The direct supervision of the shifts

 

was definitely assigned only in those agencies with officers above the ,
rank of patrolman. 1‘
Six of the police agencies had provided their officers with police
duty manuals. The responsibility for the maintenance of the manuals
was assigned to the police administrator or the first police assistants.
The disciplinary measures most often employed in the case of

officers who were performing services at an unsatisfactory level were:

 

Fr-

 

89
written or verbal reprimands, days off or suspension, and dismissal.
The reasons most commonly given for dismissal actions were: mis—
conduct, neglect of duty, falsification, and disloyalty. The police
administrator was assigned the responsibility for communicating with
the person discharged. Control of the officers leisure time activities
was primarily restricted to: insistence upon payment of debts, pro-
hibition of public drinking, and maintenance of favorable standards of
conduct.

The police agencies were characterized as being extremely
stable in terms of manpower turnover. The most common causes for
staff discontentment were the factors of low pay and working in excess
of the regular forty-hour working period.

The police administrators and the university personnel offices
worked in a cooperative manner in the areas of staff procurement,
classification, pay scales, and screening procedures. None of the
institutions required previous police training or experience and only
three required the attainment of a high school education. Residency
requirements were not consistent and physical condition standards were
not explicit. Psychological examinations were used as a screening
device at four institutions, while all but one of the agencies processed
complete arrest and community records investigations.

Three protective and enforcement agencies had rather compre-

hensive recruit training programs and seven schools had a probationary

 

90

period for the entering class of officers. Greater consistency was

 

found in the in—service training programs since six agencies had
attempted this type of training. There was considerable utilization of
personnel and training facilities from the surrounding municipal
agencies for the in—service training programs. There was, however,
little use made of the other educational facilities on the campus. The
services of the police administration training programs were used

extensively at the two schools where the programs were in existence.

 

The provisions of tenure were governed by civil service regula- ‘
tions at five institutions. A merit promotional policy was also found 1
at five schools. There was an opportunity for participation in some
type of pension plan and medical benefits plan at all the schoolso Major
items of the uniforms similarly were provided at all the universities.
There was no consistent pattern for the provision of sick leaves.

The élabs for university police officers were found to be
significantly lower than the salaries paid to the officers in the surround-
ing municipalities. Only at the upper levels of classification were
the salaries found to be comparable.

The police administrators were affiliated with a large variety of
organizations that were related to the police field. The reasons most
generally given for affiliation were: to have the opportunity to become
familiar with other officers, to make contacts, and to establish liaison

relationships with other police authorities.

 

91

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the police departments was
effected by objective and subjective devices. Use of the indexes of
number of complaints and the number of cases open and closed were
examples of the former method. Subjective methods included observa-
tion of the force in action and analysis of reports. It was difficult to
find a universally adaptable device because of the differences in demands
at the various institutions.

Individual officer evaluation devices and criteria were also
found to be subjective in nature. The criteria most commonly
mentioned were: appearance, ability to maintain good relations.
judgment, loyalty, willingness to accept and perform duties, and

dependability.

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS OF

UNIVERSI TY POLICE PROGRAMS

Introduction
The generally accepted purpose for the existence of police
departments was to protect life and property against criminal attack
and to preserve the peace. In addition, protection against the harmful
acts, both wilful and inadvertent, of the non-criminal as well as the
criminal group was provided. The enforcement of a wide variety of
local laws, ordinances. and regulations was also a responsibility of

; police departments .

 

These general statements of the purposes of police departments
were probably applicable to and descriptive of any police department.
The objectives of university police departments included the above
purposes; however, the distinctive nature of the university campus
community tended to cause the establishment of additional purposes,
These objectives reflected the educational purposes for which the
university campus existed and often were concerned more with the
long range or less tangible objectives than with the more immediate

operational objectives expressed so often by most police departments.

 

93

There were certain areas in which the regulatory features of
the student personnel program and the police program became related.
The disciplinary officials were concerned with those students who were
destructive, disturbed the peace, committed reckless acts, or violated
routine traffic regulations of the campus. The police were involved in
apprehending such violators. This role of the police in dealing with
students of the campus community was of such importance as to justify
a Survey of the purpose of the police departments in this study. The
statements of objectives were given by both the student personnel
administrators and the police administrators. Their similarities and
differences were analyzed.

Additional consideration was given to the functions, duties, or
activities carried on by the several police departments to determine
the scope, similarities, and differences in relation to the statements
of objectives.

Student personnel administrators occasionally came into contact
with civil police authorities when students became involved in difficulties
which were sufficiently grave as to warrant the attention of the civil
authorities. The university police were called upon on more frequent
occasions to provide assistance to the civil authorities in problems
involving students. In order to determine if there were any standard
or common procedures for communication or contact between campus

police staffs and municipal officals, these relationships were investigated.

 

94

Statements of Objectives of University Police
as Indicated by Police Administrators and
Student Personnel Administrators
The responses from the individual administrators were
analyzed with a view toward determining consistency or similarity of
content and further to indicate views which were in great variance to
those commonly expressed. The following responses, listed in random
order by institutions, were obtained when the police administrators and
student personnel administrators were asked the question, ”What do
you consider to be the objectives of the police department at your
university?" The first statement of objectives for each institution
was made by police administrators and the second statement by student
persormel administrators. The statements were presented together
for the additional purpose of determining the amount of internal
agreement or disagreement at each institution.
I. Objectives of the Police Department
A. Police Administrator

To preserve the peace.

To enforce the law.

To protect life and property.

To prevent and detect crimes.

To arrest violators of the law.

B. Student Personnel Administrator
To function as a service organization.
To enforce ordinances set up by the university and to

be concerned only with the service they should
provide.

 

 

95

To realize that, because of the nature of the community,
the most important function is to help young people
to accept the necessity for ordinances and laws in
any community.

To have the police be ”personnel minded" since they are
dealing with young persons in the ”growing up" process.

II. Objectives of the Police Department

A.

B.

Police Administrator

To carry out and maintain the spirit of the student
conduct regulations, specifically the automobile
driving rule.

To protect university buildings and property and to
maintain safe and secure conditions for the
university students.

Student Personnel Administrator

To protect property.

To maintain reasonable and proper respect for university
regulations.

To enable the university to handle cases of minor
misconduct internally.

III. Objectives of the Police Department

A0

 

Police Administrator

To provide good, honest, and efficient police service.

To protect university buildings, equipment, and personnel.

To be aware that the personnel relationships require
extreme diplomacy and finesse,

Student Personnel Administrator

To head off violent student reactions or minimize by
redirecting, toning down, or confining; to apprehend
the student leaders.

To help minimize theft in housing areas and on other
university property.

To act as a self-contained service agency in areas of
traffic control and other problems peculiar to an
educational institution.

To assist inthe recovery of lost or stolen property.

 

L-

96
IV. Objectives of the Police Department

A. Police Administrator
To protect persons and property related to the
university.

B. Student Personnel Administrator

To support the administration in providing a campus
atmosphere which is most conducive to the develop-
ment of a total educational program for faculty, staff,
and students with particular emphasis on protection
of physical facilities of the campus as well as its

. total personnel.

To enforce the rules and regulations which may fall
within the jurisdiction of the university.

To coordinate their own program with the programs
of the other law enforcement agencies in the
environs of the university.

V. Objectives of the Police Department

A. Police Administrator
To serve as the enforcement agency of the campus.
To control traffic and to ensure free movement and

adequate parking.

To investigate misconduct of all types.
To cooperate with various university departments.
To render protective service.
To recover stolen property.

 

B. Student Personnel Administrator

To contribute where possible to a better university
community. ,

To assist by direct or indirect suggestion in the
attainment of better citizenship on the part of students.

To serve in the preventive role rather than a corrective
role.

To provide proper enforcement of university regulations
using the method of treating students as human beings
and as members of an organized society.

VI. Objectives of the Police Department

A. Police Administrator
To establish and maintain orderly traffic procedures.

w ' ".I'

 

97

To function as a service organization; to render help
or assistance to the university, individuals, or
visitors in any way possible.

To protect life and property and to investigate crimes.

B. Student Personnel Administrator
To maintain law and order.
To protect property.
To keep in mind the interests of the students and the
university in the enforcement of civil laws.

VII. Objectives of the Police Department

A. Police Administrator
To maintain the peace and security of the university
community in order to enhance the character and
reputation of the university.
To insure the safety of staff, students. and visitors.

B. Student Personnel Administrator

To attempt to contribute to smooth and trouble-free
student life commensurate with standards of good
citizenship, conduct. and morality.

To serve in a training and supervisory role for develop-
ment of good citizenship standards for later life among
the student body, i. e. , help develop a proper attitude
for law and order.

VIII. Objectives of the Police Department

A. Police Administrator

To be cognizant of responsibilities placed on the
department by higher authorities and to carry them
out to the absolute limit of department ability.

To constantly evaluate those responsibilities or duties
which may or ought to be added to the department
and suggest their adoption.

To bear in mind that the department is a public service
organization and the administration of department
functions can bring either credit or discredit to the
university.

B. Student Personnel Administrator
To enforce university regulations as determined by the
board of trustees and the administrative officers and
outlined in the Code of Student Affairs.

 

 

98

To report to suitable university authorities deviations
from standard procedure.

To be alert to contribute suggestions to needed areas of
regulation and enforcement and to be confident of
their adoption if worthwhile. '

To maintain good public relations.

IX. Objectives of the Police Department

A. Police Administrator
To protect life and property including persons within
the jurisdiction of the department.
To further the public relations of the university.

B. Student Personnel Administrator

To protect public property entrusted to the university by
the people of the state.

To be responsible for maintenance of order.

To prevent harm to persons or property.

To carry out police functions of apprehension and arrest
of any violators who are endangering life or property
on campus.

To serve as first representative of university to visitors
from the non-university community.

 

Analysis of the objectives, as stated, indicated a degree of con-
sistency in the purposes of university police departments. While
agreement existed in a major portion of the statements, the lists
provided by the student personnel administrators were of greater length
and contained elaboration beyond the objectives which were stated.

Analysis fifth—e police administrator statements. The most common

 

objective of police departments, listed by the police administrators,
was the protection of life and property. This statement was listed by
eight of the nine police administrators. Second, in terms ofrfrequency

0f mention, was the objective of providing police and/or public services.

 

99
The police administrators translated the operational aspects of their
work into objectives of service.

The enforcement of laws and regulations and the preservation of
the peace were listed an equal number of times, three, by the police
administrators as the purposes for which their departments existed.
Prevention of crime, service in a public relations capacity, control of
traffic, and service as investigators were the next most commonly
mentioned objectives of the departments as indicated by the police
administrators. Finally, apprehension of violators,_ recovery of lost
or stolen property, and upgrading the department, or evaluation and
improvement of the department, were mentioned at least once.

Those categories listed most numerously, i. e., protection
of life and property, enforcement of laws or regulations, and preserva-
tion of the peace, were analyzed as broad objectives while those men—
tioned with less frequency, i. e. , apprehension of violators and recovery
of stolen property, were specific and operational in scope. There was
close agreement among the police administrators with respect to their
serving in a protective capacity and to a similar degree their serving
as enforcers of the law and preservers of the peace; however, beyond
that there existed a great lack of uniformity and even a certain amount
of confusion. The police departments tended to see themselves in roles
in relation to those duties they were most commonly called upon to

perform on their own individual campuses. Therefore, the various

 

 

_ P “l

100
‘ police departments existed for different purposes throughout the schools
studied.

Examination of the various elaborative statements made by the

administrators indicated a greater number on the part of the university

 

student personnel administrators. The only elaboration on the part of
the police program might be different due to the uniqueness of the
situation was a statement by one police administrator that ”personnel
relationships require finesse and diplomacy. ” One police official t'i'l'i
indicated that an objective was to perform "good, honest service. ”

This was the only instance in which there was any statement about the

standard of performance involved. Two police administrators indicated

that many of the actions carried on by the police enhanced the character i
and reputation of the university as well as bring credit or discredit to

the university... This attitude of working public relations was significant.

Analysis of the student personnel administrator statements.

 

Among student personnel administrators the most important objective
listed for university police departments was that of the enforcement of
laws and regulations. This was mentioned by six of the administrators
who were interviewed. Mentioned four times each by the separate
administrators were the objectives of protection of life and property,
prevention of crime, and providing the educational basis for students
to accept the necessity for law and order. Mentioned by three of the

administrators was the objective of preservation of the peace. One

 

101
administrator indicated an objective of the university police was to
control student groups. Two administrators each indicated that the
purpose for the existence of the university police force was to serve
in a public relations capacity, to apprehend violators and to render
_police services. One each mentioned the objective of the control of
traffic, recovery of lost or stolen property; coordination of the campus
police program with other police programs, improvement of the depart-
ment, thorough analysis of situations for appropriate expansion of the
department, and provision for a framework to handle cases of minor
conduct internally.

The student personnel administrators placed more emphasis
upon the enforcement of laws and regulations and the prevention of
crime or criminal activities than upon the protection of life and property.
Admittedly, a large number of the student personnel administrators
indicated that this was an objective of the department but the "protection
of life and property" did not receive the emphasis that the enforcement
aspects did.

Probably the most significant area in which the student personnel
administrators expressed an opinion was that of the objective of assisting
students to aCcept the necessity for law and order. As was indicated,
this was mentioned by at least four of the administrators but it was not
indicated by any of the police administrators. The police administrators

did not perceive this as an appropriate role for their departments. This

 

 

 

 

102
difference in perception of the role of police might be a basis for mis-
understanding on the part of the two agencies concerned. No mention
was made by the student personnel administrators that an appropriate
objective of the law enforcement and protective programs was the
investigation of crimes and investigation of behavioral incidents. From
conversations with the agencies in the study it was indicated that this
was a common practice in which the police participated.

Analysis of the elaborative comments contained in the objectives
of university police programs listed by. student personnel administrators
indicated concern for a more specific type of police activity adapted to
an unique community situation. This was in contrast to the statements
of objectives by the police administrators. The police did not amplify
their objectives beyond the operational objectives which were applicable
to almost any police situation. One police administrator, however,
indicated that "personnel relationships require finesse and diplomacy”
compared to three personnel administrators who similarly stressed
that the police should be ”personnel-minded since they are dealing with
young persons in a growing-up process"; that the police should use "the
method of treating students as human beings and as members of an
organized society”; and that the police should ”keep in mind the interests
of the students and the university in the enforcement of civil laws. ” This
would suggest that the environment in which university police were

employed was one in which there was more than the normal responsibility

 

-7rp.—rv

 

 

for the welfare of the public with which the police came in contact.

A more speCific examination of the police objectives as
interpreted by the student personnel administrators revealed that they
expected the police to contribute to the total educational setting of the
campus. This attitude was typified by such statements as ”contribute
. . . to a better university community"; ”provide a campus atmosphere
which is more conducive to the development of a total educational
program for faculty, staff, and students"; "assist by direct or indirect
suggestion in the attainment of better citizenship on the part of students”;
and ”serve in a training and supervisory role for development of good
citizenship standards for later life among the student body. ”

These statements by the personnel administrators indicated
that the police were expected to function in a different role than the
police envisioned themselves. Undoubtedly, the police in their daily
activities did fulfill an educational role but it seemed esPecially signifi-
cant that it was not discussed by any of the police administrators as
a particular objective of the police department. Further discussion
of this area with all of the administrators, both police and personnel,
would probably have brought about an evolvement of this purpose but
the immediate responses which were given seemed to be indicative of
attitutdes or expectancies and would thus retain their significance.

Other expansive areas expressed by the student personnel

administrators indicated that the police should "report deviations from

 

 

 

d

"t".

1Q4
standard procedure” and should "head off violent student reactions or
minimize by redirecting, toning down, or confining. ” These expressions
of the role of the police along with the attitude that the police should
enforce the regulations indicated an expectancy more toward enforce-
ment than prevention. It must be repeated, however, that a significant
number of personnel administrators indicated that the police should
serve in a preventive role. A _,

Inspection of the objectives as given by the administrators at
the individual institutions indicated that there was in no case total
agreement but neither were there any attitudes expressed which would
seem to be mutually antithetical. There was some agreement among all
the schools and in some cases on as many as two stated objectives.

In summary, the police have followed the more traditional line
of police objectives without indicating the differences in role which were
probably brought about by the unique educational features of the com-
munity served. On the other hand, the student personnel administrators
tended to agree, with the educational aspects of police work and their
contribution to the total environment of the campus community. In
addition to this trainingrole, there seemed to be a contradictory attitude
in existence which indicated that the police should primarily serve as

an enforcement agency.

 

 

 

105

Analysis of Police Functions

A detailed analysis of the many functions cited by the police
agencies, in the study, would result in a listing which would reflect
major and uniform functions as well as other activities mentioned with
singular frequency and would show no consistency from one university to
another. A listing of each function cited by each agency was not con-
sidered to be significant in the discussion of the regulatory features of ._-'-‘
the campus community. The functions are listed below. in the order “a
.most frequently mentioned. ‘It should not be construed that. the list is
all-inclusive or that each function is listed by each institutional agency
in the study. The functions were as follows: (1) control of parking,
(2.) control of traffic, (3) enforcement of campus regulations, (4)
security of buildings, (5) provision of public services, (6) investigation
of crimes, (7) security of grounds, (8) apprehension of violators,
(9) inspection for fires. (10) delivery of university movies, (11) main-
tenance of records system, (12) registration of automobiles, (l3)
provision of lost and found services, (14) collection of motor vehicle
assessments, and (15) other miscellaneous services.

A comparison of the police functions and the police objectives.
showed no well-defined distinction between some of the categories. For
example, both the student personnel administrators and the police ad-

ministrators indicated that a very important objective of the police was

i.
E
E.

 

_ 106

to enforce the rules, laws, or regulations. This would seem to be a
means rather than the end toward which the police agency was striving.
Several of the police agencies indicated that this action of enforcement
was a function of their unit. It would seem that one of the approaches
which would aid in the development of the police organizations would be
to study the purposes for which they existed. Often the means appeared
to be the ends in themselves.

Other examples which had a dual placement in both the function 111
and objective categories were control ‘of traffic, rendering of police
service, apprehension of violators, and investigation of crimes. All
these functions were appropriate police duties but to have them mentioned
as objectives would seem to represent a restricted contribution by the
police to the total objectives of the institutions involved. The resolution
of this problem was beyond the intent of this survey but it did indicate
the need for clarification and further study.

The items in the interview schedule were intended to give a
general indication of the scope of the activities of the. regulatory agen—
cies but the listing of activities obtained by the interviews was more
comprehensive than anticipated. The procedures involved in the
fulfillment of the functions would be interesting to report but it was
decided to expand only those operational situations originally included
in the interview schedule. Elements of the functions as listed previously

were inherent in several of the regulatory situations to be examined.

---_-—.-_l-uup'hfl

107

Campus Safety
It was difficult to determine the aspects of the safety programs
of a university campus which were considered to be in the province of
the regulatory agency. The many areas involving safety education,
with respect to institutions of higher learning, have been receiving

increased emphasis in recent years. A special section of the National

131

Safety Council, the Campus Safety Conference established in 1954, was
organized because of the concern for emphasis in the area of safety
education and accident prevention. It was the intent of this section of
the study to examine the involvement relationships of regulatory agency
to the campus safety program.

Six of the institutions were operating under conditions in which
the entire campus safety program was centralized. The remaining three
institutions were concerned with the problems involving safety but had
no one position or agency responsible for the supervision of the program.
In all but one of the centralized safety agencies the police administrator
was also the coordinator of the safey program. In the exceptional
instance it was the responsibility of the director of the physical plant
to coordinate the program.

In four institutions which had centralized direction of the campus
safety program, the regulatory agency played an integral role in the

responsibilities relating to safety. The control of traffic, crowds,

--.-II-'.-.

108
and transportation; the provision of first aid services; the inspections
for laboratory and industrial hazards; the inspections for fire preven-
tion; and other related services constituted the involvement of the
police agenices with the safety programs. In the remainder of the
institutions in which the regulatory agency did not have the responsi-
bility for the direction of the safety program, the police force was
considered a primary agent in the services necessary to insure safety
measures. The greatest area of concern encountered by the non-
centralized regulatory forces in the safety programs was that of the
orderly flow and control of traffic. Undoubtedly this was a problem
for all centralized programs but it seemed significant enough to have
been mentioned readily by all of the non-centralized agencies.

Examination of the working arrangements of the police agencies
with some of the more specific safety programs such as fire, sanitation,
and others revealed that the relationships were not clearly defined. It
seemed that specific safety programs in areas other than in the regula—
tory areas did not rely upon the police to perform inspections as much
as might have been anticipated. The contributions of the police, except
in a few instances, were confined to making recommendations for
correction, if hazards were observed; or to enforcing regulations
instituted for the safety and welfare of the citizens of the campus

c ommunity .

Pr'h'"

 

109

Security Measures in Relation
to the Faculty
As the major institutions, along with those included in this
study, have become more involved in research projects financed by
agencies of the federal government there appeared to be a tendency
toward declaring the research methods and the results as ”classified. ”a .1

Perhaps this practice was not as widespread as popularly believed. It

“q...

seemed important, however, to determine the extent of involvement
of the regulatory agency of the campus in providing security measures
not routinely applied.

Assignment of specific responsibility for the protection of
classified research projects or data was not given to any of the agen-
cies in the study. The method of insuring the security of classified
research was evenly divided between two methods. One measure
employed was the normal building security maintained by routine watch
services and inspections, Five administrators indicated that this-
method, in most instances, would provide the necessary security. The
remainder of the police administrators accomplished the security
measures required by a rigid lock-control system. It would seem likely
that the agencies studied would employ both techniques, or at least be
concerned about them in the security process but that the mention of

having control of the lock system had added significance. It would be

rowi- a,

110
inferred that another agency, perhaps the physical plant, would retain
the control of the locking system. This practice could result in
operational problems at those institutions in which the locking procedure
was not specifically mentioned.

Investigation of the character, loyalty, and other qualities of
the faculty engaged in classified research was specifically assigned to
a single person on two of the campuses in the study,- In these instances
the reports on faculty members were made only upon request. The ”W
police administrator had the responsibility for this function at one of
the schools and reported the findings to the president. In the other
instance, the investigations were conducted by a trained investigator
who made the reports available to the agency requesting them or to
the provost of the university. One other police administrator had the
occasional responsibility to conduct investigations for the purpose of
approving travel visas. It should be clarified that the bulk of the in-
vestigative responsibilities relating to the faculty were in connection
with the issuance of travel visas. At two other institutions it was
indicated that there were special agencies, unrelated to the police, on
the campus which conducted investigations of the faculty before they
entered into classified research. A single administrator pointed out
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the faculty investi-
gations on his campus.

It was probable that the Federal Bureau of Investigation or

111

other federal investigatory agencies would be involved in faculty
investigations from time to time at the other institutions. Several of
the administrators indicated that cooperative procedures would be

employed if these agencies were conducting investigations.

Offenses by Staff and
Non-University Personnel

An important police re5ponsibi1ity often overlooked when
considering regulatory practices on the university campus was that of
the relationships with staff members and non-university personnel.
While most of the police administrators indicatedithat a major part of
their time was spent in services directed toward the student body, they
also stated that a significant amount of their time was devoted to other
segments of the community populations which had occasion to come in
contact with the university. Much of the time Spent was in a service-
type function with the non-student population but there was reason to
believe that there was considerable time devoted to dealing with
violations of local campus regulations or civil and state laws.

Traffic and/or parking violations and thefts by university
staff members were the most commonly mentioned violations of
statutes or regulations requiring attention by the campus enforcement
agencies. The motor vehicle problem was mentioned unanimously

while seven of the agencies mentioned thefts as an area of concern.

.9...”

112
Sexual misbehavior and misconduct or disorderly behavior were listed
by three departments as offenses constituting a basis for action. Build-
ing security violations, smoking, and property damages were mentioned
once each.

The motor vehicle situation was also the most common cause
for police contact with non-university personnel; it, too, was listed at
each agency studied. Problems involving thefts were mentioned by five
administrators; drunkenness by three; sexual misbehavior by two; iii
disorderly conduct and property damage by one each.

Incidents were handled differently with respect to the person
committing the violation. At every institution non-university individuals
were referred to an appropriate court of law for adjudication of a
traffic offense. Staff members were sent to an appropriate court by
six schools. They were listed with the university administration in
two instances and they paid fines internally at one institution.

Non-university personnel apprehended for thefts were referred
to the courts for disposition in all instances. A report was sent to a
higher administrative level for staff offenses involving thefts in five of
the seven schools reporting it as a problem. In the remaining two
institutions the incident report was sent to the department or unit
immediately affected by the theft.

For the remaining problem areas all cases of violations by

non-staff members were reported to appropriate courts for adjudication.

" ‘ ‘-".'*=r‘:u guy-'- 9!

P*'*"'

113

Disorderly conduct by a staff member, at each school listing it as a
problem area, was reported to a higher administrative level as were
cases of sexual misbehavior. Violations of building security were
referred to the responsible unit head for disposition.

Cases involving thefts by staff members were given different
consideration than were parking or traffic violations. Thefts were
handled internally, while in a majority of instances, traffic violations ;
were referred to appr0priate civil courts. However, the rationale for El
sending staff violators of the university motor vehicle regulations to
civil courts was not explained. Serious cases of larceny involving

staff members were referred to civil courts.

Police Coverage

Some of the institutions in the study had extensiveland holdings
in the areas of the state a great distance from the central campus.
Since the responsibilities involved in the Operation of these detached
areas did not demand an elaborate police system, it was not pertinent
to this study to include these areas. The primary concern at the de-
centralized locations was for general security and prevention of damage.
Local law enforcement agencies were called upon to offer these services
to supplement the precautionary efforts of the caretakers and tenants.

At four of the institutions in the study, the services of the

proteCtive and enforcement agency of the central campus were required

114
in the immediate outlying areas. These areas were serviced by watch-
men who, in most instances, were unarmed. Golf courses, airports,
research farms, and student or staff housing were the types of areas
given coverage by watchmen. This service generally was confined to
nighttime duty.

All campuses had police protection for twenty-four hour
periods. The normal working day for the officers was eight hours; i:
however, the work week at two institutions extended beyond forty iii
hours. The standard week for one institution consisted of forty-eight
hours and the other forty-four hours. The administrators indicated
that the trend toward placing the police on a weekly requirement of forty
hours was considered helpful in securing personnel.

Related to the problem of the length of the work week were the
practices for compensating for the overtime employment necessitated
by special events, including athletic contests. Three of the institutions .
indicated that their officers received one -half their base pay in addition
to the normal rate. The administrators observed that this arrangement
made the positions desirable. The procedure of giving released time
for service beyond the normal working period was utilized by one
institution. The remaining five universities compensated for working
overtime periods by paying the base hourly rate.

No single period of the day was labeled uniformly as the

time placing the greatest demand on the police department. The

 

 

. —m"T.—.-U

115
periods during which most of the students and staff came to and from
the campus were listed at four institutions as the periods of greatest
strain on the university police. The late evening and night hours also
required maximum effort on the part of four security agencies. Some
of the same schools listed additional daytime stress periods, indicating
that the hours during the day were generally most crucial insofar as
police services were concerned. At one school the weekend was f

specifically listed as the most difficult time for the police force. .i'd

Police Records

The Operation of a regulatory agency required the utilizing
and the keeping of accurate records relating to the responsibilities of
the agency.

Examination of the nature and the extent of the records main—
tained by the agencies in the study revealed consistent practices only
in given areas. Routine records kept for internal business purposes
included such items as inventories, time sheets, budget reports,
correspondence, and personnel folders maintained by the departments.

The most consistent pattern, discernible in the areas covered
by this study, was the practice followed by all agencies of keeping files
on motor vehicle violations. Seven of the police groups maintained the
listings of the motor vehicles registered with their university. A like

number of departments had accident report forms on file in their offices.

116
In addition, seven regulatory agencies had on file the conduct reports
compiled as a result of disruptive actions by members of the student
body. Cross references were maintained for conduct incidents at a
few institutions. Six agencies reported that a file of pictures relating
to principals involved in serious incidents was maintained.

There was little consistency beyond the practices mentioned
above. Other records maintained with less regularity were fingerprints
of principals, complaints, thefts, arrests, hazard reports, and results
of actions taken on incident reports submitted.

Four agencies indicated records were maintained which
categorized offenses by type while none made any attempt to classify
the offenses by the sex of the individual involved. Only one agency
made an attempt to maintain complete records to the extent that they
could cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the sub-
mission of Uniform Crime Reports. One other agency sent reports to
an organization outside the university; the reports were concerned only
with larcenies and were submitted to the municipal police agency.
Records maintained by three departments enabled the agency to analyze
the percentage of time used for various departmental activities, e. g. ,
traffic, patrol, special events, and investigation.

The distribution of regular reports concerning the activities of
the department were generally confined to internal distribution. Two

agencies submitted reports to external police agencies as well as

 

 

117
reports to their supervisory offices. Five of the remaining agencies
also submitted reports to offices to which they were responsible. Only
two department administrators indicated that no reports were distributed

to any offic e .

Motor Vehicle Responsibilities

Probably the greatest single concern of university regulatory
agencies was the use of motor vehicles on the campus and in the sur-
rounding community. This problem was directly related to the increase
in the number of automobiles in the country as a whole. The police
administrators indicated that there had been a steady increase in the
number of automobiles on the university campuses during the years
immediately following World War II. The full impact of this problem
had received no adequate exploration and as: a result no conclusions
were forthcoming as to the appropriate role the use of an auomobile
should play in the life of the student. The problem has been discussed
in meetings of personnel deans and safety officers but no policies of
a uniform nature have resulted from these conferences.

The police agencies did not play a significant role in the im-
provement of the campus traffic problems. Only three agencies were
considered to be a direct part of the traffic engineering programs of
the schools. Cooperation with the planning group in the form of

analysis of accidents, participation as committee members, or

.- __, -.
.- _
-3 -
-fl’.» .

118
assistance in the preparation of reports were some of the roles
described by four of the schools. The remaining two schools indicated
that their roles in the traffic planning program were of a very minor
nature.

Control of parking. The problem of motor vehicles has been
a matter of concern in other areas of the universities. The expense
involved in providing parking areas was a matter of concern. Many 3
of the institutions were forced to acquire private property holdings at 3,?“
considerable expense in order to provide Space for automobiles. Con-
struction of permanent parking facilities placed an additional strain
upon the finances of the institution, sometimes to the detriment of
expendituresof funds for educational equipment, staff, or facilities.
Several police administrators questioned that the universities had a
responsibility to provide spaces for automobiles in view of the curtail-
ments which occurredin other areas of deveIOpment.

The motor vehicle problem had implications for the university
regulatory agencies from the point of view of the premium aspects of
parking spaces. Regulation had become a necessity to insure space
on an equitable basis for those with greatest need for using motor
vehicles. Lack of adequate streets or parking space was cited as a
, common problem for all the universities in the study. Lack of space
on campus created problems in the community where the schools were

located. The overflow of cars onto public streets and storage or

 

 

 

W“-

119
overnight parking often necessitated civil regulations causing mis-
understandings and tension on the part of students, the administration,
and community residents.

The police administrators gave no clearecut definition of
adequate parking space. It was observed that the ratio of the total
number of student and staff automobiles registered to the number of
spaces available was somewhere between two to one and three to one.
It must be clarified that the ratio, when applied to legal users of the fl
spaces, would be considerably lower.

On some of the campusesstudent vehicles were permitted to
park only at night, while on others they were not permitted to park
any time, and on others they were permitted to park only in specified
areas. It should be emphasized that seven of the institutions studied
did not permit student parking during the day in the central or premium
area of the campus. It was because of these differences in practices
that it was difficult to determine the nature of adequate spaces. One
problem of enforcement was that of insuring that legal cars were in
the appropriate spaces.

In addition to the restriction of student parking in the central
areas of the campus there were other parking arrangements which were
mentioned as approaches to the parking problem. One institution
prohibited overnight student parking in an area extending five to eight

blocks from the campus and designated this area as an emergency zone.

120
This procedure enabled the university to use the streets for daily
commuter parking and at the same time relieve traffic congestion in
the event of an emergency.

Parking gates, with admission by a pass card, were utilized
by two schools for specific areas surrounding the university hospitals.
Three institutions installed multiple level parking facilities with space
available for rent on both a daily and yearly basis. One of these three
schools permitted staff and student parking in the garages as well as on
controlled parking areas while space was reserved only for staff at
the other two schools.

One institution had developed peripheral parking areas at a
reduced charge to the vehicle operator and provided bus service every
ten minute 5‘. There was no charge for holders of annual permits and a
ten cent charge for all others. In addition, this latter school had the
entrances to the campus guarded by police which reduced the number
of vehicles using campus drives with a resultant reductiOn in violations.

Vehicle registration. The procedures for registration of

 

vehicles provided some understanding of the methods used in the
identification of the authorized automobiles. Primarily, students were
provided the opportunity to register their vehicles during the registra-
tion process. A majority of the schools permitted registration of the
vehicles as they were acquired by students. All the schools requiring

registration of vehicles requested that the changes in address, license

'—

121

numbers, and vehicles be registered within specified periods of time
ranging from forty—eight hours to five days. Staff members ordinarily
were permitted to register their vehicles by a mail process and
ordinarily only once per year.

Information regarding the vehicle registrations was retained
by the police department in all but two instances. At one school the
information was retained in the office of the personnel dean while in
the other school no records were kept. At the other school, the
enforcement of regulations was a cooperative municipal and university
arrangement.

Identification of the motor vehicles was uniform. Information
about vehicles by license plate and make of car was on file in the
locations indicated above. In addition, all but three institutions required
the di5play of decals as a means of identifying legal student automobiles.
State laws prohibited the display of decals at one university; but staff
vehicles were identified by decals. In these latter two instances the
problem of identifying the student vehicles was facilitated by reducing
the number of cars necessitating identification. The remaining institu-
tion had no particular problem in the area of identification since all

violators were issued municipal violation notices.

 

Motor vehicle accident responsibilities. In the event of an
accident on university property there were several common procedures

followed by the enforcement agency personnel upon arrival at the scene

 

 

of the accident. A listing of these activities in the order of frequency

of mention was as follows:

1.

6.

An analysis of these duties indicated the service nature of 1

 

122

Take command of the situation.
Secure pertinent data for report forms.

Arrest the violator if the incident merits such action,

 

Secure necessary assistance to handle the situation.
Advise the participants of their responsibilities in
completing the necessary report forms. .-.

Determine the party at fault in the incident.

the functions performed by the police. Only one of the above list of

functions was concerned with the apprehensive phase of police work.

The reports prepared as a result of the participation of the

police at the accident scene were primarily those sent to the state

police. Four agencies indicated they prepared such forms for sub-

mission while three indicated they prepared accident reports for

internal use. Two agencies indicated that no reports were prepared;

the administrators relied upon municipal police assistance and did not

require submission of reports as standard operating procedure.

Police Specialists

If the conditions on university campuses were different from

those to be found in ordinary municipalities, officers with specialized

123
training or qualifications would be necessary. Information obtained
from the police administrators seemed to indicate that the specialization
among the officers was less than that found in municipal forces of
comparable size.

Individual officers were encouraged to acquire special skills
during their off-duty periods or were sent to Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation schools to acquire these skills. The practice of promoting the
acquisition of skills was followed by three departments. The skills
mentioned were those of photography, fingerprinting, records,
weapons, traffic control, polygraph operation, handwriting analysis,
and minor chemical analysis. Three agencies had trained investigators
on their staffs; one agency reported having a trained female officer on
its staff.

The conditions which necessitated the use of specialists were
not present on all the university campuses. Three schools indicated
that the specialized services offered by the state ormunicipal police
adequately served their needs. One administrator stated that the
specialists on his staff were used largely to assist smaller units
throughout the state and that they were seldom used on internal cases.
The services of a trained specialist were employed more for cases
requiring special investigation than for any other condition.

The use of plainclothesmen was found to be a prevailing

practice. This type of officer was different from the usual concept

 

124

of a university policeman who directed traffic or issued violation
notices. The use of a plainclothesman, according to the adminis—
trators, enabled the police to work on cases without creating disruptions
among the persons concerned. Seven of the institutions concerned
employed plainclothesmen at one time or another in their work. The
area of use most commonly mentioned was that of serving as an
investigator. Specific types of investigative work were those concerned
with sex or theft cases. Surveillance activities also were mentioned as :1
a type of duty performed by non—uniformed personnel. All of the police
administrators employing the services of plainclothesmen expressed
favorable attitudes toward their use and indicated that they believed
them to be effective.

There were no significant changes in the practice of using
specialists in recent years, however, functional changes were reflected
in the increased time devoted to investigations, and to the need for more

trained investigators .

Equipment Survey
A detailed discussion of police equipment as such would have
a limited value since no attempt was made to determine the extent of
usage. The availability of the equipment rather than the usage was
important to consider. In addition to the equipment categories listed

in Table VII it was found that there were no detention facilities on any

 

125
of the campuses. Also, only: two institutions had devices used to
determine the speed of cars.

Explanation of T_ab_l_e V_I_I. The equipment is listed in Table
VII in order that comparisons between institutions might be more
readily made.

Column one lists the motor vehicles available to the police
departments for patrol and other departmental functions. Unless
otherwise specified the vehicles were patrol cars.

Column two indicates the amount of radio transmitting and
receiving equipment in the offices and in the patrol vehicles, portable
transmitters, and public address systems available to each department.

I Column three gives the number of weapons available for use
by the police officers.

Column four denotes the amount of photographic equipment
available to the various departments.

Column five describes the availability of laboratory facilities
for use by the enforcement agencies. I 1

Column six lists the location of first aid equipment available
for use by the departments.

Column seven lists municipal equipment being used regularly
or available for use by the university police agencies.

Column eight lists other equipment or devices retained for

use in the performance of departmental activities.

IPTVEHQTCMKY'(IF.ECIULPLAEPJT.AALAIIJXBIJE

 

TABLE VII

TO UNIVERSITY POLICE

 

126

 

 

Patrol

 

Radio
School Vehicles Eguipmgpt__fi Weapons Cameras
A 2, marked Central control Individual 4 x 5 press
1, 3—whee1 3—way auto 2, shotguns
1, portable radio 2, rifles
Public address 24, target pistols
system
B 2, marked Central control Individual 4 x 5 press
1, unmarked 3—way auto
1, 3-whee1 1, public address
system
C 2, marked ' None None None
1, 3—whee1
D 1, marked l—way auto Individual 4 x 5 press
1, unmarked '
E 3, marked Central control Individual 4 x 5 press
3, unmarked 2—way auto 1, shotgun
4, portable radios 1, gas gun
1, public address 1, rifle
system
F 4, marked Central control Individual 4 x 5 press
1, 3-whee1 2—way auto 1, gas gun 35 mm .
4, portable radios 2, Polar01d
3, other
G 1, marked Central control Individual None
' 2-way auto '
H 2, marked Central control Individual 4 x 5 press
2—way auto .
1, portable radio
I 3. marked Central control Individual None
1, plain 2-way auto
1, 3-whee1 1, public address

system

 

 

TABLE VII- - Continued

127

 

 

First—Aid
Facilities

External
Equipment

 

Laboratory
School Equipment
A None, use city
facilities

B Use police ad—
ministration
facilities

_C Use police
training
facilities

D None, use city
facilities

E Use police ad-
ministration
facilities

F 3, polygraphs
1, alcohol content
device

G None, use city

facilities

H None, use city
facilities

I None, use state
facilities

Cars, Office,
Health Service

Office, Health
Service

Cars, Health
Service

Health Service

Cars, Health
Service

Cars, Health
Service

Health Service

Cars, Health
Service

Cars, Health
Service

Radio coordina—
tign with
C1 y

Monitor city
radio

Safety patrol
vehicles

Radio coordina—
tion with
sheriff

Extensive
interchange
of facili—
ties

Radio coordina—
tion with ‘
city

Radio coordina—
tion with
state

Radio coordina—
tion with
city

Radio coordina—
tion with
city

Other

Civil Defense
radio

Ultra—violet ray

light

None

None

Conelrad System
Monitor state
radio

None

None

None

Monitor city,
state, and
county radios

128

Police Relationships

A critical phase of university police work was the interaction
between the campus agency and the municipal or other police agencies.
Obviously, acts of misconduct by students and staff were committed not
only on university property but also in the surrounding communities
where such actions required the attention of civil authorities. The
preservation of friendly, understanding, and cooperative attitudes
between the two police agencies was important not only in the enforce—
ment of the regulations of the appropriate areas but also in the uni-
formity of services rendered to the public. The establishment of
mutual respect between the two agencies had the reciprocal benefit of
lessening the concern for the protection or security of areas not under
the jurisdiction of the agency concerned. When the responsibility for
the campus area was assumed the university police force provided
a valuable service to the municipal police.

The university police, in their contacts with their municipal
associates, performed a valuable liaison service not only in the area
of student or staff violations but also in the realm of general public
relations for the entire university. Cooperative efforts in controlling
traffic for special events, as well as everyday traffic, increased the
effectiveness of such control. It was important to examine the

relationships which existed between the university police agencies and

the other police agencies.

“-5

W—

 

 

129

The responsibilities or committments of university police to
federal police bodies was largely on a cooperative basis. This rela-
tionship was similar to that existing between a federal agency and any
local police force. The cooperation usually consisted of supplying
information pertaining to personnel involved with government contracts.
There were substantially no significant arrangements in this area of
police relationships .

The cooperation found between the university police and
agencies at the state and county level was more meaningful. Six of
the institutions had the policy of securing deputy sheriff commissions
for most of their officers. The officers in the remaining three insti-
tutions were granted city commissions. As deputies, the officers were
able to enforce certain violations of the state code when their actions
without such powers would have been subject to question. One
administrator indicated that the state police were called upon to
enforce violations of the state code on university property; another
indicated that the state police were called upon to protect state
property on several occasions. Large numbers of visitors, brought
to the area by special events, necessitated heavy reliance upon the
state police for assistance with the planning for and directing of traffic.

As the police relationships became more local in nature it
was apparent that a greater amount of cooperative effort took place.

The feeling that the community and county police agencies could be

130
counted upon for assistance, when necessary, was prevalent among
the police administrators who were interviewed. Almost without
exception, the most significant relationship which existed between
the university police and external enforcement bodies was the mutual
assistance rendered by officers and equipment in such areas as traffic
control, investigations, and automobile records.

The position of the person responsible for communication with
city police or other police agencies was rather rigidly defined. The “i
arrangement was flexible in only. one institution and this was explained
by the fact that the university police patrolled a portion of the munici-
pal area and had several occasions to come into contact with the
municipal agency. In the remaining eight schools the police adminis-
trator or his first assistant was the only officer expected to make

official contacts with the municipal police.

Police Public Relations
The cultivation of a favorable public attitude toward police
services was a responsibility of every person connected with the
police agency. Public support was molded by the experiences every
policeman had with the people with whom he came into contact. The
philosophy of the administrator might be well-intentioned and his
program ideal if implemented according to his philosophy; however,

the attitude, habits, and approaches to students of an individual officer

131
could destroy the goodwill intended by the administrator.

The support of the university public was vital to the efficient
operation of the departments. In addition to the impressions created
by the individual officers, the program of keeping the public informed
constituted an important segment of the administrative responsibilities
of the police executive. Releasing information to the student news-
papers about the functions of the department, appearing before student
groups in explanatory sessions, assisting with activities on the campus
were some of the methods used to gain public support. Antagonism
toward the department brought about by misunderstandings and
misconceptions tended to create an uncooperative public and to hinder
the attainment of the objectives of the best planned police program.

It was important to view that segment of the police work which attempted
to gain the support of the personnel in the university community.

Formal features. Evidence indicating that the majority of the
police programs were operating under a planned program of public rela-
tions was not found. In those instances where there was a feeling that
a program existed, the police administrator was responsible for the
direction of the program. While the placement of responsibility for the
direction of the program was understood, it was doubtful that there
avere any strictly defined or planned programs of public relations in
operation. However, there appeared to be cognizance of the aspects

3f Such programs and there was an awareness of the need to foster

 

 

 

 

 

 

132
favorable opinions in contacts with the university community.

Manuals outlining Operational procedures seemed to be'the
best evidence of a public relations program for those agencies indi-
cating a program was in existence. In addition to the procedures
manuals, other program features were those of carefully planned
annual reports, meetings with guest authorities to discuss appropriate
public relations, and close scrutiny of officers by the executive per-
sonnel to observe the existence of desirable and undesirable activities.

The impressions created by the use of the telephone were
considered to be important by the police administrators. There were
no highly Specific restrictions on the content of phone conversations
but there was concern and control over such items as the method of
original contact, the language and diction used, the courtesy displayed,
the concern for gathering complete information, and, in general, the
attitude of sincerity conveyed by the conversation. In most instances,
the telephone calls were handled by the officer operating the depart-
mental desk equipment. Closer observation and control of the
situation by the administrator was made possible by this arrangement. '

In the matter of appearance, it was the responsibility of the
individual officer to present a favorable impression as consistently
as possible. Instructions were given to the members of all the
departments covered in this study to be esPecially careful of personal

appearances. Most of the administrators indicated that the use of

133
insPections and personal observation was an effective method in
encouraging the spirit of their directives. The practice .of supplying
uniforms to the police personnel was indicative of the importance
placed on this facet of public relations.

Public contacts involving motor vehicles Operators. Each

 

police administrator instructed the officers to operate the departmental
vehicles in accordance with the regulations of the university and in a
manner exemplifying courteous driving practices. Practices such as
driving at excessive speeds, using the flashing red police light. and
activating the siren were considered out of order by the police adminis—
trators. There was no restriction on these actions in times of emer-
gencies or in pursuit of violators of regulations.

The area in which most contacts with the public were made
was in connection with violators of some form of motor vehicle
regulations, Since they were obligated to point out to the offenders
that they were violators of the regulations this was an especially diffi-
cult area for the police.

Each administrator interviewed acknowledged that it was
difficult for the police to be courteous at all times in restrictive
circumstances but that the officers were instructed either by memo-
randa or in special explanatory sessions to be courteous at all times.

" All the agency heads indicated that they tried to be especially careful

in instructing their subordinates in the appropriate manner of approach-

134
ing violators, It was emphasized that each violator detained should
receive an explanation of the reason for detention and be given an
indication Of the action to be taken. Officers were instructed not to
argue with the violator.

Police officers ordinarily would not appear at sessions of
student courts according to the administrators in the study. They
indicated that they would appear if requested to do so but that the use
of the incident report form usually was accepted as sufficient testi- 3
mony. In those instances where officers were requested to appear
in court they were instructed to employ the same courtroom procedures
which were acceptable in civil courts.

Orientation to police programs. The police administrators

 

 

had few opportunities to explain the purposes of their agencies to the
people with whom the officers were likely to be involved. All agency
heads indicated they would welcome the Opportunity to explain their
functions and to answer any questions involving their work. Occasions
mentioned as appropriate times to discuss the police programs were:
new student week or orientation activities, meetings of student govern-
ment groups, meetings of various housing groups, and. events for the
purpose of explaining university life to parents.

Relationships either with school newspapers or with other
newspapers were consistent within each department studied. In

every school the chief police administrator assumed the responsibility

135
for releasing news from the department either to the school newspaper
or through the university news service. One administrator made a '
special effort to supply the university paper with written statements
upon request or in those instances when it seemed important to have
the information published.

According to their Spokesmen the police groups preferred to
be thought Of as service agencies rather than as enforcement agencies.
Most Of the police executives indicated that they made concerted efforts
to be considered in a non-regulatory role. This concern was consistent
with the stated Objective of performing in a public relations capacity for
the university. Supplying information to students, staff, and visitors
was the most commonly mentioned public service. Other activities
listed were: use of patrol cars for emergency calls, Operation of a
lost and found department, assistants tO conference groups, and con-
trol of pests and animals. A director Of one agency stated that his
staff handled as many as three hundred calls per month which could
be classified as public services.

Objective attempts tO determine the extent of acceptance of
police work by the students and staff of the universities were relatively
non-existent. The assessment Of satisfaction with the services being
performed by the police was generally made only on internal basis by
the Officers in charge. One department had utilized an opinion survey,

circulated among the student body, to analyze the status of the

 

 

136
department. No information was given as to the results obtained.
Four agencies indicated that, while there were no advisory committees
associated with the police department, they did have Opportunities to
discuss certain problems with student judiciary groups or representa-
tives. These discussions, according to the police executives, served

in lieu Of advisory groups.

Summary

Analysis of the Objectives Of the police departments as stated
by police and student personnel administrators indicated that there was
generally agreement between the two groups. There was a tendency
for the police administrators to state the purposes Of the departments
in Operational rather than philosophical terms. The most commonly
mentioned Objectives by the police administrators were: to protect
life and pr0perty, to provide police and/or public services, to enforce
laws and regulations, to prevent crime, to control traffic, and to
serve as investigators.

Since they were not personally involved the student personnel
administrators stated objectives which were more elaborative and
educationally oriented. There was, however, a tendency for the per-
sonnel administrators to place more emphasis upon the enforcement
Of laws and the prevention of crime than was the case with the uni-

versity police. The Objectives listed were: to protect life and property,

 

137

to provide the educational basis for students to accept the necessity of

 

law and order, to preserve the peace, to serve in a public relations
capacity, and to apprehend violators.

There seemed to be an. indication that the personnel adminis-
trators were concerned with a type Of police activity adapted to an
unique community situation since some Of them expected the police to
actively contribute to the total educational setting of the campus. The
police apparently did not envision themselves in this role.

The functions of university police indicated they were expected
to perform a wide variety of tasks. They were expected: to control
parking, to control traffic, to enforce campus regulations, to provide
public services, to investigate crimes, to provide grounds protection,
to apprehend violators, and to register motor vehicles. Many of the
functions listed were similar to the objectives indicating that a clear-
cut differentiation was not made by the police or the personnel .. deans.

Six of the universities were operating under a centralized
campus safety program. The police administrator was generally the
coordinator Of the centralized safety programs, therefore, police
agencies were an integral part Of the centralized programs. The police
agencies served less prominently in the decentralized safety programs.
The relationships between the police agencies and other misty programs
such as fire and sanitation were not clearly defined.

Generally the police agencies were not Specifically responsible

138
for the security of classified research projects. Only four of the police I
administrators were designated as being responsible for the lock system
of the campuses.

Investigations into the character of faculty members were
confined to four schools with the bulk of the investigations being con-
cerned with clearance for travel visas.

Offenses by staff and non-university personnel were responsi-

ble for a considerable expenditure of time by the university police.

I

 

The most common’ staff offenses were: traffic and/or parking violations,
thefts, misconduct, sexual deviation, and building security violations.
Among the non-university personnel the most common offenses were:
motor vehicle violations, thefts, drunkenness, sexual deviation, and
building damages. Non—university personnel were sent to an appropri-
ate civil court for adjudication of their offenses. With the exception
Of traffic violations, routine violations by staff members were con-
sidered internal problems and incident reports were sent to the
departments concerned. Cases of gross misconduct or other serious
offenses by staff members would result in arrests and would be referred
to civil courts for disposition.

The normal working period for police Officers was eight hours
per day and forty hours per week. Only two agencies expected the
officers to work more than forty hours. At three institutions the

Officers received one-half their base pay in addition to the normal

 

139
rate. It was found that the periods during the day generally created
the greatest demands upon the police agencies.

Rather elaborate records were maintained by the police agen-
cies. All the agencies kept files Of motor vehicle violations. Seven
maintained motor vehicle registration listings and student conduct
reports. Six maintained a file of picutres Of principals involved in
serious incidents. Other records kept were: fingerprints, hazard
reports, and complaints. One agency COOperated with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in the submission of Uniform Crime Reports.

The problems created by motor vehicles were a cause for
greater concern than any other area. The police usually were not in
a position to influence the formulation Of motor vehicle regulations or
the improvement of traffic problems. Lack. Of adequate space was the
most common difficulty in providing for motor vehicles. The premium
aspects of Space resulted in enforcement of regulations to insure that
legal vehicles were using the spaces. More rigid controls were
exercised over the registration of student vehicles than staff vehicles.
Six institutions required the display of decals for identification purposes.
The parking of student vehicles was either prohibited or restricted
during certain hours in the premium parking areas of seven institutions.

The university police followed uniform procedures in the realm
of motor vehicle accidents. Seven police agencies were required to

prepare accident reports either for forwarding to the state or for

140
internal use.

The use of police specialists on the university campuses was
restricted to the employment of regular officers as plainclothesmen.
Three agencies attempted to provide specialized training in several
areas of police science. One institution had a trained female officer
for use in the investigation of Offenses involving female students.
SatisfactiOn was expressed with the use of plainclothesmen for
investigative and surveillance.

All but one of the police agencies had radio facilities for the
patrol vehicles, weapons for the individual officers, and coordination
of the radio Systems with either city or county law enforcement agencies.

Cooperative relationships with federal and state police agencies
were maintained but the relationships were more meaningful at the
county and municipal level. Three of the agencies' officers were com-
missioned by the municipalities in which the universities were located
and the officers of the remaining agencies were deputized. The police
administrator or his first assistant typically were responsible for
maintaining contact with cooperating police agencies.

Manuals outlining operational procedures seemed to be the
best evidence of the existence Of a public relations program. It was
found that these manuals were explicit in describing the appropriate
manner Of approaching the public, especially motor vehicle operators.

It was found however, that an organized public relations program was

141

not in existence in most of the police agencies.

. The police had little Opportunity to explain the functions of
their program to university groups and there was no research evidence
indicating the degree of acceptance of the agencies among the population

of the university communities.

CHAP TER V

THE STUDENT REGULATORY PROGRAM

AND THE UNIVERSITY POLICE

Introduction

Aspects of the disciplinary program were present in many
phases of the university program. The student disciplinary program
contained those portions of the total educational program which had the
objective of instilling in the student the practices of self—reliance,
self-restraint, and self-responsibility. Much emphasis was placed upon
the preventive approach to student discipline. The creation and per-
petuation of a wholesome and positive environment might be thought
of as being preventive. Included in this concept were those programs
oriented toward the direction of and/or the dissipation of student
energies as well as the development of the individual. Intramural and
varsity athletics, student government programs, social activities,
and scholastic groups were a few examples of the preventive approach
to discipline.

Consideration of the environment in which students ate, Slept,
relaxed and studied were also important phases of the preventive ap-
proach to discipline. Painstaking and elaborate efforts were put forth

to make the student's life as pleasant and meaningful as possible in the

143

form of student unions, residence halls, libraries and classroooms.
The process Of instruction also was constantly under study in an effort
to make it more effective and valuable for the students. Services were
available for students with academic, social, financial, or personal
difficulties in the form of counseling centers or bureaus.

All of this activity and concern was predicated upon the
development of the individual to the fullest extent of his potentialities
and was intended to contribute to a satisfying educational experience. :i
Most students were satisfied with the campus conditions and COOperated
willingly in the best interests of the university. HOwever, there were
some students who chose to Operate outside the established code of
mature behavior or of regulations designed to protect the welfare of
the majority of the students.

Historically the campus community's regulatory processes
evolved from those student regulations which were originated,
enforced, and adjudicated by the president in the early colleges and
universities. Gradually more Of the responsibility for the formulation.
of the regulations, along with the enforcement and adjudication, was
delegated to the faculty. Student participation in establishing appropri-
ate standards was the next deve10pment. Enforcement and adjudication
also became a joint responsibility. The university police were responsi-
ble for enforcement in many instances.

A violation of the regulations, if observed or detected, resulted

144
in the student's being referred to another area of the disciplinary
program. This area might be described as the ameliorative or remedial
phase of discipline. Genuine consideration of the individual, his
attitudes, potential, and background as well as the act committed
normally result in a disposition of the situation in a manner most
meaningful and theoretically beneficial to the student. The disposition
may be in the form Of psychiatric Observation, counseling, reprimand,
probation, suspension, or expulsion. The latter four actions formed
the last resort of a disciplinary program—-the punitive approach.

The preventive approach to discipline has been described
and discussed by many groups and individuals. Similarly, the
techniques and procedures involved in the remedial, educative, and
punitive approaches to discipline have been explored. There has been
a minimum of exploration of the process involved in the transition of
the student from the point of the committment Of an act, in violation
of the regulations, to the point of the di3position of the case. It is
with this process of transition or possible transition that this chapter
was concerned.

Relatively few students became personally involved in what
might be called the student regulatory program. All the students, Of
course, were subject to the rules which were formulated with
regulation as an Objective. The students also were liable for failure

to Observe the regulations. Failure to observe the regulations resulted

 

 

145
in apprehension and a relative restriction of freedom. It was suggested
that this one aspect, the restriction of freedom of a few individuals,
was responsible for much of the negative criticism of the campus
regulatory systems. In addition to the restrictive features, it was
important to consider the handling of a student or a situation up to the
point of disposition. - The methods used did much to engender either
favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward the enforcement agency.

In conclusion, the campus regulatory program was that area
of student life, non-academic in nature, which was concerned with the
Operational aspects of campus, civil, and state regulations. It was
basically concerned with the regulatory standards, the failure to
Observe these regulations, and the process of referral to the agencies
designated for disposition of the cases. The university police force

was an integral part of this system.

Personnel Administrators With
Police Liaison Responsibilities
Most institutions of higher learning had staff members
designated to receive reports concerning violations of student regula-
tions and to serve as a referral agent to the remedial agencies of the
disciplinary program. This person was not always the head disci-
plinary official or the chief student personnel administrator. In the

universities in this study this disciplinary official was designated to

 

146

maintain contacts with the campus police and to receive the incident

 

reports pertaining to students.

The responsibilities of the student personnel administrators
to the university police were loosely defined except in one instance.
In that one instance, the official indicated that he was responsible for
investigating and following up police reports, coordinating police
reports for placement in the student record files, and assisting the
police at incidents and accidents. The remaining eight personnel
administrators stated that their relationships With the police were of
a cooperative nature; three indicated, further, that they served in a
liaison capacity with the campus and municipal police for the university.
A detailed exploration of the functional phases Of the cooperative
relationship was not given by the administrators.

The disciplinary officials, in this area of investigation, were
either directly responsible to the head student personnel administrator
or were serving as the head administrator. Seven officials were
directly responsible to the head administrator while two were serving
in the capacity of chief administrator. Only one of the disciplinary
Officials served in a dual responsibility capacity with both the police
department and the student personnel administrator.

For a clearer understanding of the personnel who have been
assigned liaison responsibilities with the police, information concerning

them is presented in Table VIII.

 

 

 

147

Explanation if @1112. Column one indicates the title
of the official with the liaison responsibility.

Column two denotes the academic rank to which the liaison
official has been assigned.

Column three indicates the date of establishment of the
position of the referral agent.

Column four indicates the number of years the incumbent
disciplinary official has held the position.

Column five indicates the amount of education beyond high
school of the present disciplinary Official.

Column Six indicates the academic degree(s) earned by the
disciplinary official.

Column seven indicates the undergraduate and graduate
major(s) of the disciplinary Official.

Column eight indicates other formal preparation of the
disciplinary official.

Column nine describes the experience background of the
disciplinary official.

The administrative titles used for the disciplinary Officials
conformed to the historical designations for personnel positions. Only
two of the designators gave an indication of the disciplinary responsi-
bilities of the individual. The titles of SeCurity Officer and Director

of the Disciplinary Counseling Office left little doubt as to the functions

Tw—

 

 

TABLE VIII

m

148

PERSONALINFORMATKEJRELATDK}TO

PERSONNEL ADMINIS TRATORS WITH

LIAISON RESPONSIBILITIES WITH. POLICE

 

 

 

Date
Academic of Years Higher
1001 Title Rank Position Served Education
A Security Officer Associate 1947 2 5
Professor
B Associate Dean Instructor 1946 1 6
of students
C Dean of Students Administrative 1941 1 5
Officer
D Assistant Dean Lecturer 1953 4 7
of men
E Director, Men's Administrative 1932 3 7
Division Officer
F Director, Assistant 1943 3 7
Disciplinary Professor
Counseling
Office
G Dean of Men Administrative 1927 5 6
Officer
H Dean of Men Professor 1952 2 7
1’ Dean of Men Administrative 1917 4 7

Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

149
TABLE VIII- - Continued
Other Experience
fchool Degree(s) Major Training Background (Years)
A B.A Physical Educa- F.B.I. Academy 3. F.B.I ;
tion Master's courses 3, high school ‘
3, military '
B B.A. French Business 21, higher education
M.A. French Administration
C B.A. Psychology F.B.I. Academy 3, F.B.I.
M.A. Psychology 3, high school
5, business
7, higher education
D B.A. English None 5, industry
M.A. History 10, higher education
Ph.D History
E B.S. General Education None 5, military
M.Ed. Guidance 1, business
Ed.D. Guidance 3, high school
F B.A. Psychology None 5, high school
M.A. Psychology 8, higher education
P .D. Psychology
G. B.S. Physical Educa- Doctoral courses 16, high school
tion 2%, military
M.A School Adminis— 5, higher education
tration
H B.A. Biology Doctoral courses 12, high school
M.S. Guidance 3, industry
8, higher education
I A.B. English ASTP (military) 6, business
LL.B. Law 7, law

4, military
4, higher education

150
to be performed by the respective individuals. The most common title
used by the disciplinary officials was that of Dean of Men. It was used
by three of the individuals in the study. The other titles used in single

instances were: Associate Dean of Students, Dean of Students,

 

Assistant Dean Of Men, and Director of the Men's Division.

All of the disciplinary officials were assigned to an academic
rank or an administrative classification. 1 NO attempt was made to
determine the tenure rights of the individuals or to describe the terms a
of their appointments. Four of the disciplinary Officials had an
administrative Officer classification, one was a full professor, one
an assOciate professor, one a lecturer, and one an instructor.

The position of the disciplinary Officials in the study was
firmly established on most of the campuses. The number of years
elapsing since the establishment of the position ranged from forty to
four years. Five of the nine positions were established prior to World
War II. The remaining four positions were established within the
past eleven years. The average historical Span of the positions was
slightly over seventeen years.

The occupancy of the position of the disciplinary offical was
one which experienced a high rate Of change. This was indicated by
the number of years the incumbents had been in the position of liaison
re sponsibilities.with the police and/or with other administrative

responsibilities. The longest period that any of the disciplinary officials

151

had been in their current position was five years. The distribution of
years in the position by officials who were in the positions were: five
years, one; four years, two; three years, two; two years, two; and
one year, two.

The administrators in the disciplinary positions were typified
by their advanced degrees. All but one of the Officials had acquired at
least one academic or professional degree beyond the baccalaureate
level, and three had received the doctoral degree. The professional
degree, acquired by one Official, was a Bachelor of Laws. Five of
the disciplinarians had attended institutions beyond the high school
level for seven years; two had attended for five years.

The undergraduate preparational areas of the referral agents
were varied. Two each had had preparation in physical education,
psychology, and English. One each had their under—graduate majors
in biological sciences, French, and general education.

The graduate majors of the administrators showed a variation
similar to that found in the undergraduate experiences. Two each had
majored at the master's level in psychology and guidance. One each
had acquired the master's degree in French, history, and School
admini s tra tion .

The trend of variability was continued at the doctoral level.
The graduate majors were evenly distributed between psychology,

guidance, and history.

 

 

152

There was no pattern of other training among the personnel
administrators. Two of the disciplinary officials were graduates Of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy; of these two, one had
completed the master's degree and one was working toward the
completion of that degree. Three of the remaining Officials had
studied at the doctoral level. One personnel official considered his
training in the Army Specialized Training Program significant and
helpful.

Several common characteristics were evident in the experi-
ence backgrounds of the disciplinary officials. Six of the officials
had taught at the secondary school level for periods of time ranging
from three years to sixteen years. Experience in business or industry
had been acquired by five administrators; previous experience in
administration at the higher education level also had been secured by
five administrators. Four of the officials indicated they were veterans
of the military services; two had experiences as college teachers; two
had served as agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and one

had practiced law for an extended periodlof time.

Communications and Relationships Between the
Police and Student Personnel Agencies
Incidents involving police action generally were reported to

some agency at the university especially in those cases involving

 

153
arrests or actions by civil courts. Lack of COOperation on the part of
the municipal or campus police agencies in contacting university
Officials could be embarrassing to the university as well as detri-
mental to the best interests of the student involved. For example,
an unusual delay in contacting the parents of minor students who were
involved in serious incidents tended to create negative impressions
toward ability of the university officials to discharge their responsi—
bilities. The nature of the lines Of communications in such involve-
ments were important in understanding the student regulatory system.

Communications with university police. The responsibility

 

for establishing and maintaining communications between the university
police and the student personnel program generally was assigned. In
six of the institutions the responsibility had been definitely assigned;
while in the others the arrangements we re found to be flexible. In the
three institutions where flexible arrangements were found there was,
however, a person designated to be contacted when communications took
place.

The position charged with the responsibility for communications
between the two agencies was consistent. The position was the Same as
discussed earlier in this chapter. The disciplinary officials designated
as liaison Officials with the university police were the primary source
Of contact in the student personnel organization. The head police

administrator or his first assistant were the personnel in the police

 

154
department who generally contacted the disciplinary officials.

Communications with municipal police. The pattern for

 

making contacts with municipal police authorities also was consistent
in the student personnel programs. The disciplinary official who was
assigned as the primary contact agent for the student personnel section
with the university police also was responsible for communications
with the municipal police. The exceptions to this procedure were in
those instances in which policy was being formulated or discussed; in
those instances the head student personnel administrator was involved.
At one institution the student personnel contacts with municipal police
agencies were made through the university police department rather
than directly to the municipal agency. It was not indicated in any of the
agencies contacted that the communications arrangements were rigid
and inflexible. On the contrary, several administrators related that
other student personnel officials were available for service in the
event that the assigned Official was not present.

University police department relationships with municipal
police agencies were generally maintained by the police administrators
or their first assistants. In those agencies with complex police
personnel titles the executive officers made the contacts with municipal
police agencies. At one institution the nature of the cooperative
working relationships permitted any Officer to maintain contact with

the municipal authorities.

 

 

 

155

The methods of reporting civil offenses committed by students
were divided between a written report form prepared by the police and
a verbal report over the telephone. Four municipalities transmitted

a police report form to the universities and four sent verbal reports.

 

One city police agency reported routine incidents involving students
on a weekly summary form; felonious incidents were reported immedi-
ately.

At all but one university the disciplinary officials received the 3.“
incident reports from the municipal police departments. At the
remaining institution, the university police agency was the depository
for the city police report forms. This agency transferred all reports
to the disciplinary official.

There was no indication that the universities in the study
assumed any responsibility for providing legal counsel for students
involved in civil offenses. It was indicated, however, that some of
the administrators assumed the responsibility of advising students
that they should retain counsel. It was found that legal as sistance,
in the form of legal aid clinics or bureaus, was more readily
available at those institutions with schools of law.

University disciplinary officials also indicated that they
generally were not expected to be present at the adjudication processes
for civil offenses. Only one official indicated that an attempt was made

for a university official to be present at the civil trials of students.

156

M relationships fluniversity £03333. Aside from the
realm of business contacts with the university police few student
personnel agencies had other contacts with the police. Only two
student personnel departments met with the police personnel on social
occasions such as for luncheons or for coffee. Three disciplinary
officials indicated that they attempted to maintain informal contacts
with the police personnel on a personal basis.

The same lack of social contact with police also was apparent
in the student personnel relationships with the municipal police agencies.
Again, only the same two student personnel agencies were involved in
social relationships with the community police. At one institution a
formal meeting with the community police was held on an annual basis
to discuss the problems of law enforcement brought *about by the activi-
ties of the taverns in the community. At four institutions an attempt
was made by the disciplinary officials to maintain friendly relations
with the community policebut only on an informal basis.

Student groups and especially student government bodies had
less occasion to become acquainted with the university police than did
the student personnel staffs. No organized social activities were in
evidence between student groups and university police; however, it
was indicated that attempts were sometimes made at three institutions
to promote understanding between the two groups by informal meetings.

A majority of the administrators of the student personnel

 

 

157
programs stated that meetings with the police groups by staff members
and student government members would be of some value. Only two
personnel administrators reacted negatively to the possibilities to be
found in such meetings.

Communications with parents of students involved in serious

 

 

accidents. The gravity of situations involving the death of a student
or serious injury to students were discussed with the student per-
sonnel administrators because of the usual involvement of police
personnel in such situations. It was found that in no instance were
the university police responsible for the notification of the parents

of students who were injured or deceased. In five instances the
director of the university health service had the responsibility for
notifying the parents of students in cases involving deaths. This was

especially true if the death occured at the health service facilities.

In the event that the death occured outside the health service facilities,

two of the head student personnel administrators had the responsibility

of notifying the parents instead of the health service director.

At three institutions the student personnel administrator had
the responsibility for notifying parents regardless of the scene of the
student's death. At one institution it was indicated that the county

coroner was expected to notify the parents of deceased students.

In incidents involving serious injuries to students the student

personnel administrator was called upon most often to report such

 

158
incidents to the parents. The directors of university health services
also were utilized in this notification process. In those instances in
which the personnel administrator had no responsibility for the notifica-
tion of parents they did have the resPonsibility for serving in a ”follow—
up" capacity to see that allnecessary contacts had been made.

The responsibility for issuing news releases in the event of
student injuries or deaths was assumed by the head student personnel
administrator in all of the universities. However. the actual release of
such information was processed through the news service agencies
at every institution.

Accessibility of student records. Personnel records main-

 

tained for a student were useful for guidance and other purposes not
only during the period of the student's academic career but also in the
years following graduation. Incidents involving a student, called to
the attention of the university police, were also maintained as a part
of the current police files as well as in the inactive records. Mutual
accessibility of such records were helpful to agencies involved in the
regulatory program.

All the police departments of the institutions in the survey
maintained records of varying completeness pertaining to students.
The extensiveness of these records was discussed in Chapter IV. It
was indicated by all the police executives that their student records

were available tovthe head student personnel administrators or their

 

 

 

159
designated disciplinary official. Similarly, the records relating to
criminal incidents were available to other police agencies. At one
institution the records also were available to the offices of business
manager and the registrar.

The records maintained by the student personnel office gener—
ally were available to the university police agencies. Only two adminis-
trators indicated that the student records were not available to the
campus police agencies.

Two personnel officials elaborated on the practice of per—
mitting police access to the student records by stating that the records
were available for investigative purposes only, and. even then, the
extent of availability was dependent upon the confidence placed with the
investigative official. It was stated by two personnel officials that the
records were available only within the realm of normal ethical
practices.

One personnel administrator indicated that the records
maintained as a result of counseling relationships were unavailable.

It was taken for granted that this practice was observed in all the
institutions even though specific references to the practice were not

made .

Regulations Affecting Student Behavior

At most institutions of higher learning certain standards of

160
behavior were expected of all students. Most students were never
involved in incidents which cast doubt on the propriety of their actions.
A few students committed acts, however, which made it necessary to
establish regulations of a restrictive nature to control such activities.
Primarily the established regulations published by student personnel
offices existed as a guide for facilitating appropriate conduct. At the
point of infraction of these regulations the university police often had
the responsibility for drawing the violation to the attention of the stu-
dent(s) involved. The nature of these regulations and the police
involvement in the formulation and enforcement were analyzed.

_P_1_a_.'n_t security. The nature of the use of academic buildings,
the hours of use, and the regulations concerning damages to the
buildings were not consistent at the institutions covered by this study.
Probably specific building usage regulations were formulated and
understood by the agencies responsible for their formulation; however,
these specific regulations were not in evidence in the rules and
regulations distributed to the students. It was indicated that use of
buildings after the termination of the normal academic day generally
was restricted to bona fide student organizations desiring the use of

such facilities for business or non-social purposes.

There was no uniform closing time for the academic buildings;

however, at four institutions the specific closing time was listed as

10:00 P... M. It was stated at three institutions that there was no

.

 

 

161
universal closing time for the buildings since the use of the buildings
determined the hours of usage. At one of these three schools it was
indicated that, in general, the hours governing the closing of buildings
were determined by the closing hours. of the university library and the
residence halls. For the remaining two universities the closing hour
at one was 5:00 p.m., unless otherwise approved by the Office of the
President, and at the other the hour was 11:00 p.m.

The responsibility for the formulation of the regulations
applying to the specific buildings was not typified by a general pattern.
The academic unit normally associated with the use of the building was
responsible for determining the, hours and nature of usage of the build—
ings at four institutions. The business area or, specifically, the
physical plant administrators designated the hours and nature of use
of the buildings at three schools. The head student personnel

administrator issued the closing hour regulations at one institution;
at the remaining university the governing body of the institution
established the regulations.

The protective and enforcement agencies did not have the
responsibility for establishing the building regulations nor did they
contribute much to the formulation process. The nature of the position
of the head police administrator at one institution made it possible for
the police department to contribute to the formulation of policy. Five

police administrators stated that they were able to make recommendation

162
to or give advice concerning building usage regulations to the policy-
making groups at their institutions. The police departments at the
remaining universities were reported as having little or no responsi-
bilities in the formulation of general building security regulations.

The police departments were not given authority to grant
exceptions to the regulations concerning building usage. In general,
those agencies responsible for the statements of regulations retained
the responsibility for granting exceptions to the building regulations.
These exceptions were provided for by individually prepared letters
from the academic units, by individual passes, or by the issuance of
keys to the building. In the absence of evidence supporting the neces—
sity of the presence of an individual in the building the police were ex-
pected to enforce the regulations.

Even though the office of the student personnel administrator
had little or nothing to do with the formulation of regulations relating
to building security, the ultimate disposition of offenders was generally
left to the discretion of that office. Seven personnel administrators
stated that they received the information from the police when cases
of misconduct or building damages occurred in the academic buildings.
In one of the preceding instances, the incident report was directed to
the graduate school if the student were a graduate student; in another
instance the report was directed to the head of the appropriate academic

unit if the violation was only in conflict of the posted hours for building

 

 

163
use. If the violation consisted only of the presence of an individual
after closing hours, at the remaining two schools, the police were
expected to remove the individual and to transmit the name to the
appropriate academic department. It was indicated by all the police
administrators that if individuals committed felonious acts in the
buildings they would be arrested.

Intoxicating beverages. The regulations seeking to control

 

the use of intoxicants by students were highly similar. The use 'or
possession of liquor in student residences either on or off campus was
prohibited at all of the‘ universities in the study, although one institution
permitted the consumption of beer of low alcoholic content in student
housing. The ban against the serving of intoxicating beverages at
student social functions was observed at six institutions. Similarly,
intoxicants were not permitted on or about the property of six of the
universities. At two schools the students were instructed to observe
all the state statutes pertaining to the use, possession, or disPensing
of liquors. Conviction of drunken driving was regarded as an automatic
suspension offense at two universities. At one institution students
were especially warned not to use intoxicants as a group at athletic
contests.

The regulations restricting the use of intoxicating beverages
originated in a variety of policy-making areas. The governing bodies

of five of the institutions figured in the formulation of the liquor policy,

164
although only two boards were identified as having originally established '
the regulations. Two governing boards set forth their own liquor regula—
tions as well as to remind students of pertinent state laws. One board
of trustees approved the recommendation of a committee on student life
as the standard intoxicant regulation for the university.

_The head student personnel administrator at one of the
remaining four universities formulated the polices pertaining to

alcoholic beverages; state laws were cited as the governing regulations

 

at one school; and policies set forth by a committee on student conduct
were observed at the remaining schools.

The university law enforcement agencies made no contributions
to the formulation of the intoxicating beverage regulations. In addition,
it was emphasized that there were to be no exceptions in the observance
of the regulations. The police officers were expected to report all
violations of the regulations to the proper authorities.

At all institutions the offender eventually had the same
referral point, i.e., the office of the disciplinary official. The
disposition of offenders prior to referral was the same at four insti-
tutions; the police were instructed to arrest violators of the liquor
regulations and to report such actions to the student personnel office.
It was inferred that arrests were not the usual occurrence at the other
five schools unless the offender could be classed as being disorderly

or de struc tive .

 

165

Firearms. The problem of possession of firearms by student 5
was considered to be important by the student personnel administrators.
Regulations at six of the universities prohibited the possession of
firearms in housing units occupied by students. Students living in
university housing at two schools were required to register their
firearms and to store the weapons in a non—operating condition.

In addition to the regulations covering the possession of
firearms in residence facilities, two personnel administrators stated
the students could not purchase firearms in the university community
without prior approval from the student personnel office. Firearms
were specifically prohibited from university property at’three
institutions except when being used for police, military, or educational
purposes.

The formulation of the regulations concerning firearms was
initiated in the student personnel section of a majority of the universities.
At two schools the regulations reflected a policy statement by the head
student personnel administrator; at one other the policy was issued
jointly by the personnel administrator and the provost. The residence
halls directors were responsible for the existence of the firearms
regulations of three universities. The board of governing officials
were responsible for the firearms policy at the remaining three schools.

University police agencies generally did not contribute to the

establishment of policies pertaining to firearms. One personnel

166
official stated that the policy in existence at his institution was brought
about by the request of the police department. In the remainder of the
schools the only contributions by the police in the formulation of
policies was in the form of recommendations or suggestions.

There appeared to be no uniformity in the regulations defining
the appropriate use of firearms by the students. No provisions for
usage were stated at three schools; at four schools firearms could be
used only in connection with the military porgrams; and at the other
two schools recreational usage was permitted.

Campus storage facilities for weapons were provided at only
two universities. The storage space in both instances was in the
armory facilities of the campus military programs. A private
business establishment adjacent to one campus provided storage ser-
vices for student firearms. In the remainder of the schools no
provisions were made or were apparent for the safe keeping of lethal
weapons.

The student personnel office invariably received an incident
report in the event of police action taken as a result of a violation of
the firearms regulations. In the six instances where only report forms
were processed there was no indication as to whether the weapons were
confiscated while in the three schools where arrests were standard
procedure it was emphasized that the weapons were confiscated. It

may be assumed, however, that in all instances of overt and dangerous

 

 

167
brandishment of weapons that the first procedure would be to remove
the weapon from the individual.

Automobiles. The regulations concerning the operation of

 

motor vehicles by students were uniform in some areas. and were
widely divergent in other areas. The regulations examined were
varied in form, length, complexity, and content. Some regulations
were presented as a series of ordinances passed by- the governing
board and others gave’only a few general statements of policy. Analysis
of the regulations revealed that the students in all but one of the
institutions were required to register their motor vehicles. At seven
institutions either portions of the central campus area were closed to
student parking or no student parking was permitted on the campus.
Aside from the general requirements of vehicle registration
and restricted parking areas there were few uniform regulations
observed in the motor vehicle materials surveyed. At five institutions
the possession of motor vehicles was denied certain groups of students.
Freshmen were not permitted to possess automobiles at three schools,
possession by freshmen and sophomores was barred at one school,
and students under twenty-one at another school were denied vehicle
possession privileges. Students on academic probation, at the four
schools restricting possession of motor vehicles by freshmen, also
were denied the use or possession of motor vehicles.

Standard exceptions to the freshman vehicle restriction

 

168
regulation were found to exist. The most commonly mentioned excep—
tions were those granted to residents of the community, the physically
handicapped students, married students, commuting students, or those
students who needed their automobiles to satisfy employment require-
ments.

The typical motor vehicle regulations under which the
universities were operating were generally determined by committee
action. The boards of trustees of five institutions, after taking into

consideration the recommendations of the motor vehicle committees,

 

assumed the responsibility for the statement of policies relating to
motor vehicle use. Committees appointed by the university adminis-
tration were responsible for the formulation of the regulations at two
schools.

The remaining two universities did not have a similar approach
to the formulation of policy relating to traffic and motor vehicles. One
school was operating under policies established by the head student
personnel administrator and the university police. The final school
under consideration was located in a large metropolitan area and
applied the traffic ordinances of the city council to control motor
vehicle parking and traffic.

At the majority of the schools the university police did not
play an active part in the establishment or the revisions of the motor

vehicle regulations. The police agencies were represented by voting

169‘
members on only three of the policy formulation committees. At the
remaining six institutions the police served either in an advisory or
recommending capacity or had nothing to do with the formulation of the
vehicular policy.

Consistency of procedures was found in the request for
exceptions to the regulations. Requests were directed to an adminis-
tratively appointed committee for action at one university. At another
school the only exceptions to the regulations were found in the adjudi-
cative process since all violators were expected to appear in the
municipal courts. At the remaining seven schools the requests for
exceptions were considered by the student personnel office.

Most student personnel administrators indicated that they
operated under the assumption that the motor vehicle violation notices
issued to the students were correct but that appellate procedures were
available. Each campus, with the exception of two, had appellate
bodies composed of students. One of these committees had the
authority to hear appeals after action had been taken by the student
personnel office.

Normal municipal violation procedures were in effect at one
institution since all motor vehicle violation notices were sent to the
municipal court for adjudication. At the remaining school which did
not have a student appellate body all appeals Were directed to the

student per sonnel offic e.

 

 

170

The issuance of violation notices and adjudication procedures
relating to the processing of violation notices were uniform but there
was a wide divergency in the amount of assessments made for initial
and repeated violations. Failure to comply with the vehicle registration
regulations brought a more severe penalty for the first infraction than
did a routine violation. Loss of vehicle privileges was automatic with
the first violation at some schools; three violations were necessary
at other schools for this penalty. Usually the assessments of disci-
plinary measures employed after the third violation were sufficiently
severe to discourage flagrant abuses of the regulations.

The locations of the assessment payment areas were varied.

In four instances the assessments were paid in the offices of the areas
issuing the original violation notices. At three universities the violation
assessments were paid at the business office or the office of the bursar.
One student personnel office was the location for assessment payments.
while at the final school the assessments were paid in the municipal
courts.

The methods of controlling violations were consistent at all
but one university. At this institution reliance upon municipal assis- 3
tance and adherence to municipal regulations contributed to the differ- A}
ences in control methods. At all the remaining schools, motor vehicles
were registered with the university, violation notices were issued for

infractions of the vehicle regulations, assessments were made for the

171
violations, disciplinary actions were taken for repeated violations, and
some areas of the campus were unavailable for student parking. Dis-
play of decals was mandatory at seven universities. One other
technique employed for controlling the abuses of the regulations was
the use of paid student investigators to detect cases of illegal
possession.

General behavior. The area of university regulations most

commonly cited in the disposition of cases of misconduct was those --

general regulations referring to appropriate student conduct. Each
institution listed at least two statements relating to the area of
student conduct. These regulations were found to be rather nebulous
and subject to a wide range of interpretation. In only a few instances
did the regulations cite specific examples of misconduct sufficiently
grave to merit disciplinary action.

The regulation most commonly listed as the standard of
appropriate conduct was stated similarly at five institutions. Although
the wording was not precisely the same in each instance the following
statement seemed to include the essential meanings intended by the
separate institutions. It was indicated that the students were ”expected
to conduct themselves in accordance with good taste and to observe the
regulations of the university and the laws of the city, state, or Federal
government applying to matters of personal conduct. " This statement

was thought to be adequate and to cover most cases of inappropriate

 

172.
behavior. It also appeared to be less likely to cause confusion on the
part of the agencies responsible for enforcement and adjudication.

It was indicated, in effect, that the "student body is responsi-
ble for the standards of student conduct" at four institutions. This
statement was more an indication of the expectation of the university
in the area of student responsibility and self—control rather than a
specific regulation to be cited in the event of a violation.

Two statements in the area of student conduct had similar
meanings although stated in a different manner. The statement that the
university reserved the right to exclude at any time students whose
conduct was deemed ”undesirable, injurious, or prejudicial to the
best interests of the university community" was listed in the student
regulations of two universities. At three other institutions it was
emphasized that students should ”conduct themselves individually and
in groups in such a manner as to be a credit to themselves and to the
university." Two of these three institutions stated further that if a
student should conduct himself in a "manner making it apparent that
he is not a desirable member of part of the university he shall be liable
to disciplinary action. ” The similarity of the preceding statements
came in the emphasis upon preserving the reputation and best interests
of the university even though one of the statements was negative and the
other a positive statement. These statements were more difficult for

the enforcement and adjudicative agencies to interpret because of their

 

 

173
lack of specificity.

Two other statements of student conduct requirements were
similar in content. They were: (1) student conduct should conform
to the "practices and usage of a good society”; and (2) appropriate
conduct ”requires respect for good order, morality, integrity, and
the rights of others. "

Specific misconduct activities listed were: misappropriation
of funds, moral turpitude, intoxication, disorderly conduct, and
scholastic dishonesty. The difficulty of interpretation was lessened
in these instances but it would be extremely difficult to list all the
specific items of misconduct which would result in disciplinary action.
The range of these items of misconduct was emphasized by Truitt.
He also found that the severity of each item was subject to wide
variation in interpretation (55: 180-185).

In conclusion, the regulations pertaining to student conduct
standards could be categorized into three groups. They were:

(1) conduct constituting an infraction of laws, (2) conduct bringing
discredit to the university community, and (3) conduct violating the
standards of good taste.

The agencies responsible for the formulation of the general
student conduct regulation varied in the institutions in this study.
The office of the student personnel dean was directly involved with the

policy statements at five of the institutions. At one of these five

 

 

 

174
schools the office was solely responsible while at the remaining four
schools the statement was formulated, approved, or revised in con—
junction with an appropriate student-faculty committee. At two
universities the university policy making body, e. g. , the university
senate or the faculty council. formulated the conduct regulations. At
the two remaining schools the regulations were prepared by a student—
faculty committee operating in conjunction with the student govern-
mental agency of the school.

It was found that the university police made no contributions
to the formulation of the regulations pertaining to appropriate student
conduct. Their sole influence in this area was found in their inter—
pretation of the regulations and their actions as a result of the

interpretation.

 

The practice of allowing exceptions to the general conduct
regulation primarily was left up to the discretion of the office of the
student dean or to a committee concerned with student life or conduct
on which students were represented. However, it was emphasized
that no general rule could be given for exceptions to the regulations
since each case was considered on its individual merits.

The police practice of sending incident reports to the student
personnel office was uniform at all the schools in the study. The
report method varied in form but primarily the reports were written.

Assembly 2_f_student groups. Historically, there have been

 

175
student riots or outbreaks of great severity, but a student group activity
that has gained much publicity in recent years has been the phenomenon
known as the ”pantyoraid. " Few activities have had such profound
implications upon student life and manners as have this type of ”Spring-
outburst. .” The police involvement was more noticeable in this area
because of the detailed accounts, appearing in newspapers, describing
the activities of the police in their attempts to control the groups.

The attempts to control the assembly of groups by regulatory
statements was not uniform. Three universities had specific state—
ments. pertaining to the assembly of student groups. These statements
were as follows:

1. Any student found guilty of inciting to action or

willfully participating in action resulting in de-
struc tion of property or in unauthorized group
activities, i.e., raids on women's residence

halls, that may or may not be destructive will
be subject to dismissal. ‘

 

2. Suspension shall be recommended for men or
women participating in or observing general
student disturbances including raids on student
residences.

3. Organized class strife, gang wars, or raids are
forbidden.

Two universities indicated that existing state laws of unlawful
assembly were cited in the event of violations. One university inter-
preted group actions of this type as a violation of the general conduct

code pertaining to disorderly conduct.

176

It was stated by the administrators of the three remaining
schools that there was a general understanding with students that raids
or similar activities were undesirable even though there were no
specific regulations indicating the consequences of such activities. It
was the practice at one of these schools to send a letter to students
and parents indicating the inadvisability of participation in these
activities. Participation in raids or riots was considered to be an act
unbecoming a university student at a second school. At the third
school, with no stated prohibitive group regulations. it was emphasized
that such conduct would be considered as a lack of good judgment on
the part of the individual student.

The formulation of the student group assembly regulations
paralleled the practices employed at the various institutions. Obvi-
ously, the use of state laws pertaining to unlawful assembly at two
schools was a transposition to the university campus of existing civil
regulations. At the three institutions with the specific regulations and
at the one describing participation as a disorderly act the policy
statements were prepared by a committee on student life or conduct.

At the remaining three universities the precedent of disciplinary
actions by the personnel dean indicated that the office of the personnel
dean had formulated the policy.

The university police were found to have made no contributions

to the formulation of policy pertaining to unlawful assembly of student

 

 

177
groups. However, inthose instances in which state laws were employed
to control student raids it was found that the university police had
recommended the application of the state law and that their recom-
mendations had been accepted by the university administrative officials.

Uniformity in the authority to make decisions permitting
exceptions to the group assembly regulations was not found. Sub-
jective judgment of individual cases seemed to be the practice at
those institutions with no specific regulations. It was indicated that
there were no exceptions allowed at those institutions employing state
_laws once the decision had been reached to cite students as violators.
Students cited as violators of specific university regulations prohibiting
student raids or riots were referred without exception to appropriate
disciplinary agencies.

The use of the powers of arrest by the university police was
mentioned in this area of student group behavior with greater frequency
than in the previous areas of student behavior. In the other areas,
student violators generally were identified and listed on an incident
report form. It was considered appropriate to arrest violent or
unruly students without hesitation at five of the institutions. At the
remaining schools, the procedure involved identifying the individuals
and listing them on the incident report form sent to the disciplinary
officials.

There was no consistent pattern found in the methods

178
employed to handle riotous student groups. The differences in housing
facilities, campus locations, and issues causing student unrest made
it unlikely that uniformity would be found. A few procedures were
mentioned with greater frequency than others. It was indicated at seven
universities that the university police attempted to keep the student
groups concentrated and on the move in as near an orderly fashion as
possible. They did not resort to suppressive tactics. but rather
attempted to keep the group in a non—belligerent mood while trying
to disperse the gathering of students.

It was indicated that all available police agencies and uni-
versity personnel were summoned in the event of a student riot at four
schools. At one school the police role was undefined while at another
it was indicated that members of the senior honor society and not the
university police were to be used to disperse student groups. At two
schools it was the practice of the university police to take pictures of
of the groups to be used as a means of subsequent identification.

It was indicated in three instances that the members of the
student personnel staffs were expected to report to the probable
destinations of the groups and to assist in dispersing the groups.

General identification of students and apprehension of the
group leaders were mentioned twice each as devices used to control
such gatherings of students. At one. school the residence halls counse-

lors were to accompany the groups to assist in the identification and

179
dispersion process. A sound truck was used as a means of communi-
cating with the groups in the dispersion attempts at another school.

Probably some or all of the elements or devices mentioned
were used in handling riotous student groups at several of the schools.
However, some apparently were considered to be more practicable or
adaptable for the specific institutions at which they were employed.

The disPosition of cases involving social or organized groups
participating in disorderly or illegal gatherings was found to be uni-
form in nature while the methods used to disband the groups differed
greatly. It was the general practice to request the officers of groups
engaged in disorderly parties to report to the disciplinary officials
for disposition of the violations.

The university police and municipal police were expected to
cooperate in disbanding group parties at three institutions. The
municipal police were requested by university officials to disband
disorderly groups at three schools. At the remaining schools, the
university .police merely submitted incident reports relating to past
illegal gatherings of groups since it was indicated that previous
knowledge of the parties was generally not available.

Regulation infractions involving police action. There were

 

wide variety of activities on the university campuses involving the
attention of university police. These activities could be categorized

under headings having similar meanings for either the police or the

180

student personnel office. They are presented in Table IX.

TABLE IX
ACTIVITIES* INVOLVING POLICE CONTACT
WITH STUDENTS AS REPORTED BY POLICE

AND STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

Police Personnel
ACtiVitY Administrator Administrator
Parking or traffic 8 8
Mi 5 c onduc t 6 8 .‘
Theft 4 4 .
Drunkenness l 5
Group misconduct 0 2
Investigation 2 1
Building usage 2 0
Civil Cases 0 2
Forgeries l O
Accidents 0 1

*By frequency mentione d

An analysis of the incidents involving the restriction of stu-
dents revealed uniformity in the three areas of motor vehicle use or
parking, misconduct, and thefts. Eight police administrators indicated
that violations in the use of motor vehicles consituted the most common
contact with students in an enforcement capacity. Similarly, the
student personnel administrators of the same eight schools stated that
motor vehicle violations were a primary cause for police action.

Student misconduct was cited as the next most common

activity involving the university police. This category was listed by

181
six police administrators and eight student deans and was listed as
a common problem by the student personnel and police administrators
on six of the campuses in the study. Misconduct was not defined but
three of the police administrators included sexual deviation in the
category of misconduct.

I Thefts were listed as a common problem on two of the
campuses. However, larcenous acts were cited by four police
administrators and four personnel administrators as an undesirable
activity necessitating police attention.

Drunkenness or incidents relating to the use of intoxicating
beverages were cause for concern for five student personnel adminis—
trators. Only one police executive indicated that student drinking was
a common concern on his campus.

Other scattered police-student contacts mentioned by the
police were forgery cases, contacts in conducting investigations, and.
building use violations. The less frequently mentioned police-student
contacts listed by the personnel staff members were group misconduct
cases, contacts in conducting investigations, accidents, and arrests

for civil violations .

Police Involvement in DiSCiplinary
and Referral Procedures

In many instances violations of regulations were committed

182
by unknown students and many hours of investigation and interrogation
were undertaken before the violators were identified. Formerly the
members of student personnel staffs were called upon to collect the
facts relating to the violations before taking disciplinary action. In
many instances the disciplinary official served in the dual role of
investigator and adjudicator.

The development of university police programs offered a
possibility for the separation of the functions of investigation and
adjudication. This separation enabled the disciplinary official to
consider the facts in the case in a more objective manner and increase
the likelihood that the actions taken would be remedial, rather than
punitive in nature.

Investigation of cases. The use of police in the investigative

 

 

phases of the regulatory program was a common practice among the

schools in the study. At eight of the schools the police department

was called upon to investigate offenses committed on university '

preperty. At the ninth school the disciplinary official with police

liaison re5ponsibilities was assigned the task of conducting investigations.
At some of the schools the investigative responsibilities were

assigned only to the first police assistant rather than to any officer on

the force. At one of the schools, the state police were called in to

investigate cases involving the theft of state property.

The investigation of offenses committed by students in

 

183
off—campus areas generally was-not assigned to the university police.
Most disciplinary investigations were conducted by the municipal

police who forwarded the reports to appropriate university officials.

At three schools, there was no reliance upon municipal authorities

for conducting investigations of off—campus violations. At two of these
schools, university police officers were requested to serve as off-
campus investigators, while at the third school the campus disciplinary
official served in this capacity.

There was no standard method of reporting the results of the
investigations to the disciplinary officials. Six of the disciplinary
officials received written reports from the university police agencies
while three officials received a verbal communication either by phone
or in person.

Disposition_o_f_ cases. The process of the actual disposition
of disciplinary cases generally was carried on with no contributions
from the university police. The only times that the police were involved
were in those instances in which they were called upon to serve as
witnesses. In addition, they were recalled to check on information
previously submitted or they sometimes were present at preliminary
hearings in a case.

The reciprocal relationships between the police agency and
the disciplinary agency were not consistent in the various situations.

Five personnel administrators indicated that the police agency was

184
notified as a matter of courtesy of any action taken on cases in which
the police had been involved. At the remaining institutions no attempt
was made to notify the campus police of the actions taken unless such
information was Specifically requested.

The municipal police agencies usually were not sent the
information relating to the disciplinary actions taken by the universities
as a result of previous civil action taken againststudents in the
municipal courts. Some personnel administrators indicated that
information of this type might be sent to the municipal agencies if it
were requested; but they added that it was seldom done.

Referral procedures. Additional information relating to

 

students in difficulty or in need of assistance was gained from the
police logs or summaries of action. It was indicated that the summary
of university police activities was sent to the office of the personnel
dean at one institution for scrutiny and analysis. From these sum-
maries the dean was able to keep informed of the activities on the
campus after the end of the academic day.

At two institutions the police were requested to examine the
records of the local civil agencies and to report to the dean any names
of students who had been involved in civil court proceedings. One
school, with a motor vehicle prohibition situation, received a weekly
summary of traffic violations involving students from the municipal

police. At the remaining schools no scrutiny was made of police

 

m

185
records to locate students with behavioral difficulties. It was assumed
by the personnel officials that if the situation merited a report that
a report would be written.

Deviant or inappropriate behavior below the level of an infrac-
tion of the regulations was reported to the personnel officer by the
university police. The method of reporting the incidents was effected
by a phone call or by personal conversation by five police adminis-
trators. A written report served as the referral method at the other
four schools.

Information relating to the treatment of those students with
deviant behavior patterns was transmitted to the university police at
five schools. However the information was sent only if the individuals
had originally been referred by the police agency. At the other four
schools no information was returned to the police agency making the

referral.

Limitations of Police Functions
in Relation to Students
A general concern of students and others was the restriction
of personal freedom in their everyday activities. The campus
regulatory system presented a restrictive setting to many students.
The university police were symbolic of the perceived threat to

personal freedom. It was important to examine the extent of authority

186
retained by the university police with respect to the student population
of the campus.

In the performance of their duties the campus enforcement
agencies were empowered to remove students from their classes.

This was the procedure at all of the schools. However, it was
emphasized that the preferred method of removing the student from
class was to secure the permission and assistance of the classroom
instructor in doing so. Some police agencies employed only plain-
clothesmen for this type of duty.

The authority to'remove students from their campus resi—
dences was also granted to the police at each school. As in the class-
room removal circumstances, it was indicated that the preferred
method was to secure the cooperation of the resident counselor in taking
the student into custody either for arrest or for questioning.

In the event that student violators were fleeing from the campus
after the infraction of a law, the university police officers were
empowered to leave the campus pr0perty for purposes of apprehending
the violator. It was indicated that the laws of fresh pursuit were
applicable in the same manner as employed by municipal police in
their pursuit of individuals fleeing from the scene of a crime.

After detecting and apprehending student violators the police
also were empowered to interrogate them within the bounds dictated

by state law. The only condition imposed on the police at four

187
institutions was that female offenders could not be interrogated after
a preliminary questioning session without the presence of a female
staff member. At one school a policewoman on the university police
staff was permitted to interrogate female offenders or suspects without
the presence of other female staff members.

The means of apprehension or arrest of students who had
committed acts of felony or misdemeanor was controlled by the laws
of the state in which the universities were located. This restriction
was cited by all the police administrators.

The police at seven of the universities were deputized by the
counties in which the university was located. The police at the remain-
ing schools were commissioned by the surrounding community. With
these police powers and the powers inherent by the nature of the charter
arrangements of the institutions, the police were fully empowered to
arrest and serve summonses on violators of the law. Further, they
could forcibly detain and transport offenders to appropriate detention
facilities.

It was permissible for the police to secure and retain the
university student identification cards in cases involving student
infractions of regulations. This identification was returned to the
student after he had reported to the disciplinary official or appr0pri-
ate court. This procedure was standard at seven of the institutions in

the s tudy .

 

 

188

Emergency Procedures

The advent of the threat of surprise attacks by enemy forces
along with .the ever—lasting threats of catastrophe by the forces of
nature has brought concern to the college campuses for organizations
to meet emergency situations. The universities in this study have not
approached this problem in a similar manner.

Five of the universities had no organized routine to rely upon
in the event of an emergency of major proportions. The role of the
student personnel staffs, in the event of an extreme situation involving
the welfare of students, similarly was not defined at these five insti-
tutions. The campus police were expected to report to the scene of
the emergency at the same five institutions but their duties were not
defined nor were the methods of contacting the police listed.

At two of the four remaining institutions, with formalized
emergency procedures, the direction of the program was the responsi-
bility of the university protective agency. At the other two the
direction of the program was the responsibility of a committee
appointed by the university administration.

The role of the student personnel staffs in emergency situations
at the latter four schools was to be on the scene of the disaster and to
assist in the communications process with students and parents of

students. Similarly, the police were expected to report to the scene

189
and by means of their radio facilities to serve as the coordination
agency for work conducted at the scene of the disaster. The universal
method of contacting the campus police was through the telephone

switchboard at the institution.

Utilization of Police in Student
Functions

Situations involving large numbers of pe0ple or activities with
a high interest level created a need for orderly procedures. Examples
of such activities were the events in connection with homecoming, the
lines created for securing tickets for games or concerts, and the
affairs associated with the beginning of school. The presence of the
police at these activities contributed to the orderliness desired.

The procedures for requesting the assistance of the police at
social events were varied. It was in order for the group desiring the
c00peration of the university police to assume the responsibility for
calling them at two schools. At three institutions the police services
were secured during the scheduling process at a central scheduling
center. At the other four institutions the police were expected to
examine the forthcoming schedules, determine the needs, and assign
personnel as needed.

Police assistance with unexpected long lines at events was
secured by a phone call from the person in charge at four schools.

The police at one school were expected to anticipate the demand; the p

190

student personnel office was expected to call at one school; and at
three schools it was indicated that lines were in little evidence and that
police were seldom needed for line patrol purposes.

The use of the university police during orientation periods was
not extensive. Five’ police agencies were not utilized as sources of
information during these periods of time when many new students were
attempting to secure information. At four schools it was indicated
that this type of information service was especially helpful at night
and could be secured easily either by phone or by personal contact
with the officers on duty.

At the four institutions where the police were utilized for
information services the personnel administrators indicated that their
services were appreciated and that the police cooperation was at a high

level. No opinion was rendered at the other five schools.

Misunderstandings Connected
With the Police Programs
The university police were sometimes the subject of criticism

by students and faculty alike. It was difficult for the police officers to
remain above the critical attitudes of a public trained to be critical or
analytical. It was important to examine the framework established for
receiving criticisms of the police and to analyze the nature of the
misunderstandings. The information relating to these misunderstand-

ings is presented in Table X.

191

The disciplinary officials at all the schools indicated that they
served as one medium through which complaints concerning the police
departments were channelled. There was no attempt made to deter-

mine the channels through which faculty complaints were sent.

TABLE X
SOURCES* OF MISUNDERSTANDING
OF UNIVERSITY POLICE AS STATED BY

POLICE AND STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

Police Personnel
Problem _ Administrators Administrators
Traffic or parking ' 2 6
Conflict with regulations 4 O
Unfamiliarity with police role 3 4
Manner of handling violators l 5
Lack of communication 1 0

*By frequency mentioned

According to the student personnel administrators the most
commonly mentioned student misunderstanding or source of concern
with the campus police was in the area dealing with traffic, parking,
or general motor vehicle control. The next most frequently mentioned
item of conflict was the manner in which the police handled personal
contact situations involving students, e. g., issuance of violation notices
or apprehension for infractions of law. Almost as frequently mentioned
was the lack of understanding of the range of jurisdiction of the campus

‘

' police or the failure to understand the role and authority of the police.

'1.

192

Four personnel deans indicated that the conflict most difficult
to overcome was the manner of handling restrictive situations by the
police. Three administrators thought that the emotions connected with
traffic involvements would be less susceptible to change. The remain-
ing two administrators thought that the students would have most
difficulty in gaining an appreciation or understanding of the police role
or function.

The police administrators indicated that the most difficult
thing to overcome by the way of reaching an understanding with students
was the fact that students did not understand or particularly like the
regulations which the police were called upon to enforce. Secondly,
according to the enforcement officers, the students did not understand
the function or the role of the police agencies. Traffic enforcement
also, created sources of conflict along the manner of enforcement of
the regulations.

There were some areas of common understanding on the part
of the personnel and police administrators. Both recognized that
proper orientation had not been given to the role of the police on the
university campus. The problems created by the enforcement of the
motor vehicle regulations were also a matter of joint concern.

It was significant to note that an area stated by the police
administrators as a source of conflict was not mentioned by any of the

personnel administrators. This source of concern was that students

 

 

 

193
did not fully understand or like the regulations that the police agencies
were expected to enforce. Similarly, only one police administrator
recognized that the manner in which students were treated at the time

of calling attention to a violation was a source of conflict.

Summary

The campus regulatory system was that area of student life,
non-academic in nature concerned with the operational aspects of
campus, civil, and state regulations. It was concerned with the
regulatory standards, the failure to observe these regulations, and
the process of referral to the agencies designated for di3position of
such cases.

A disciplinary official, who served as a referral agent or who
had liaison responsibilities with the police, was designated at each
university. Seven of these officials were responsible to the chief
student personnel administrator and two were serving as the adminis-
trator. The position of the disciplinary official was firmly established
on most campuses. The average historical span of the positions was
slightly over seventeen years. The occupancy of the position, however,
was one which experienced a high rate of change. The longest period
that any of the disciplinary officials had been in their current positions
was five years.

All but one of the disciplinary officials had acquired at least

 

 

 

 

194
one academic or professional degree beyond the baccalaureate level;
three had received the doctoral degree. There was no pattern for the
academic major areas of the individuals involved. Six of the officials
had taught at the secondary school level; five had business experience,
and five had other higher education experience.

The disciplinary official was responsible for maintaining rela-
tionships with the university police and other police agencies except at
one school. At that school the contacts were maintained only with the
university police who in turn maintained relationships with other police
agencies. Civil offenses were reported to the universities by phone
in four instances and by a written report in five instances.

University disciplinary officials indicated that no responsibility
was assumed for providing legal counsel to students involved in civil
offenses. Similarly, only one official indicated that an attempt was
made for a university representative to be present at a civil trial,

The police and student personnel administrator seldom had an
opportunity to discuss mutual problems in a social relationship. Neither
was there an opportunity to meet with student leaders. The majority
of the personnel administrators indicated that such meetings would be
of some value.

The university police were not responsible for the notification
of the parents of students who had been injured or were deceased. This

responsibility was assumed either by the director of the university

195

health service or by the student personnel administrator.

The records, relating to students, maintained by the campus
police agencies were accessible to the disciplinary officials at all the
schools. The student records, with the exception of counseling records,
were available within the limits of ethical practice to the police
administrators in all but two institutions.

The police generally were called upon to enforce university
regulations in the areas of: (1) plant security, (2) intoxicating
beverages, (3) firearms, (4) automobiles, (5) general behavior, and
(6) assembly of student groups.

The formulation of building use regulations and the regulations
themselves did not follow a consistent pattern nor did the police con-
tribute directly to their formulation. The police were directed to
report violators of the regulations to the student personnel office at
seven of the schools.

The regulations seeking to control the use of intoxicants were
highly similar even though they originated in a variety of sources. The
use or possession of liquor in student residences either on or off the
campus was prohibited at all universities. The police did not con-
tribute to the formulation of the regulations; however, they were
instructed to make no exceptions in the observance of the regulations
and to report violators to the disciplinary official.

The formulation of the regulations relating to firearms usually

 

196
originated in the student personnel section of those eight schools with
specific regulations. In one instance the police contributed directly
to the policy of prohibiting firearms. The police were expected to
report all incidents of violations of the firearms regulations to the
disciplinary official.

Aside from the general requirements of.motor vehicle registra-
tion and restricted parking areas (the motor vehicle regulations were
not uniform in content. By the nature of the regulations freshmen were
not permitted to possess motor vehicles at five schools. The motor
vehicle regulations, as a rule, were the result of committee action.
The police administrators were voting members on three of these
committees. They served in an advisory capacity to the remainder
of the committees. Requests for exceptions to the regulations were
directed to the student personnel office at seven of the schools. Seven
of the schools had motor vehicle appellate bodies composed of students,
to consider violations. The methods of controlling violations were
consistent. Devices such as violation notices, display of decals,
vehicle registration, assessments, disciplinary action and restricted
parking areas were employed.

The regulations pertaining to student conduct could be cate-
gorized as: conduct constituting an infraction of laws, conduct bringing
discredit to the university community, and conduct violating the

standards of good taste. The police made no contributions to the

 

 

197
establishment of the conduct regulations; the policies were made either
by committees on student life or by the student personnel office. It
was a standard practice for the police to send incident reports to the
student personnel office when cases of misconduct occurred.

Three universities had specific regulations pertaining to the
assembly of student groups. At the remaining schools individual
behavior regulations or state laws were cited to control "spring-
outbursts. " It was at the suggestion of the police that state laws
were cited for conditions involving unlawful assembly. Violators of the
regulations were sent to the disciplinary officials except when arrests
were made. There was no uniform method employed to control
student groups except that an attempt was made to contain the students
and keep them moving in an orderly fashion if possible. Suppressive
tactics generally were not employed.

When organized social group parties became disorderly the
methods used to disband such groups were divergent while the dis-
position of the cases were uniform. It was expected that the officers
of the group would be responsible for the actions of the groups.

The most common student regulation infractions necessitating
police action were reported as being: parking or traffic violations,
misconduct, theft, and drunkenness.

The use of police in the investigative phases of the regulatory

program was a common practice for infractions incurred on campus.

 

 

198
The off-campus investigations usually were not conducted by the
university police. Five personnel administrators indicated that the
police received information relating to the disposition of cases in
which the campus police were involved. The municipal police agencies
usually were not sent information of the disciplinary actions taken by
the universities.

Police used phone calls or written reports to refer individuals
in the need of psychological assistance. Again, the information
relating to the treatment of students was sent to five campus police
agencies if the agencies had made the referral.

The police on all campuses had the authority to remove students
from classrooms and places of residence, to pursue fleeing violators,
to apprehend misdemeanants and felons, to retain identification cards,
and to make initial interrogations within the bounds of state laws.

Only four institutions had organized emergency procedures for
use during catastrophes brought aboutby enemy attacks or forces of
nature. The police generally were expected to use their radio facilities
for coordination purposes in such emergencies.

The most common student misunderstandings of the police
programs were concerned with: the traffic or parking regulations,
conflict with general university regulations, unfamiliarity with the
police role, and the manner employed by the police on the handling

of violators. It was significant that the police were generally unaware

 

 

199
of the conflicts created by their methods of handling violators and the
personnel administrators had afparently failed to see that the com-

munication pertinent to student regulations had been unsatisfactory.

 

 

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

)

Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this investiga-

 

tion: (I) to analyze the organization and administration of campus
protective and enforcement programs; (2) to determine the objectives
and functions of these programs; (3) to determine and compare the
relationships between these functions and the regulatory functions of
the student personnel programs; and (4) to indicate trends in the
development of campus police programs.

Importance _qf the problem.‘ :It has been predicted that university

 

 

enrollments will continue to increase during the next decade as a
result of a growing demand for the type of training offered by institu-
tions of higher education. It has also been indicated that the physical
facilities will have to be‘utilized to their greatest capacity to accom~
modate this influx of students.

As the universities have expanded they have become more
complex and have experienced increases in the residence population,
the number of motor vehicles, and the amount of campus activities.
In order to insure a minimum of hazard and a maximum utilization of
facilities it became necessary to expand the services of the campus

protec tive and enforc ement agencie s .

 

 

201

There has been little research to indicate the nature and extent
of the services provided by the university police agencies. In addition,
there has been little written describing the appropriate or desirable
contributions of the police agencies to the general regulatory features
of the universities. Analysis of the administrative relationships and
the organizational framework of the protective services similarly has
not been attempted.

This study was designed to provide information concerning campus
protective and enforcement agencies which would assist university
administrators and directors of police agencies in becoming more
familiar with the general field of university police work as well as to
serve as a basis for comparing their own police programs with those
in the study. Further there was a need to establish the current status
of selected university police agencies to serve as a basis for additional
research.

Methddology. Since this study was concerned with the quanitative

 

and qualitative asPects of campus protective and enforcement agencies
adaptations of the descriptive method of research were employed. The
specific methods used in this study were: (1) structured interview
employing an interview outline, (2) personal observation, and (3) analysis
of printed mate rials including student handbooks and police manuals.

An interview schedule was prepared in consultation with police

and student personnel administrators and from literature in the field of

202

police administration. The interview schedule was submitted to the
members of the Guidance Committee for their criticism. At the 1956
convention of the National Association of Student Personnel Adminis-
trators permission was requested from a representative of each
university to make a study of the regulatory program at his institution.
In addition, permission was secured from the police administrator of
each university to make such a study. Letters were sent to appropriate
officials requesting an appointment for a visit; a visit was made to
each campus; the police and student personnel administrators were
interviewed.

The decision was made to delimit the study to certain larger
public universities with comparable educational programs, similar
geographic locations, and analogous administrative organization. The
nine institutions located in the north central region of the country
generally satisfied these requirements. Analysis of the campus police

agencies was facilitated by these similarities.

Summary and Conclusions
Through personal visitation of each university and extended
interviews with each police administrator and student personnel
administrator, facts and Opinions were collected regarding the organiza-
tion and operation of the campus protective and enforcement agencies.

In addition, the relationships with the student regulatory program were

 

203

explored. A summary of the general findings and conclusions were
presented.

The presence of organized university police programs on all the
campuses indicated that the services provided by such agencies were
necessary and contributed to the general well-being of the university
community. Since World War II there has been a significant expansion
in the agencies both in terms of personnel and functions performed.

The majority of the police administrators were assigned to the
business affairs division of the university which indicated that the
primary emphasis of the agency was to protect the physical features of ‘
the campus. Education beyond the baccalaureate level apparently was
not a criterion for selection of either the police administrator or the
first police assistant; however, police experience prior to appointment
to the position was an important requirement.

The police agencies provided daily twenty-four hour protection
at all of the universities and generally required a forty-hour week from
the officers. The usual disciplinary measures of reprimands, days off,
and dismissal were employed to maintain the efficiency of the depart-
ments. Employmentbenefits available to general civil service employees
were also available to police personnel. The failure to provide salaries
comparable to those paid to police in adjacent communities constituted
a, morale factor in most of the agencies. .

Close cooperation in the process of procurement and eventual

 

 

 

204

employment of police officers was apparent between the police depart-
ments and the personnel offices. Routine screening devices were
employed and some use was made of psychological instruments to
determine the fitness of candidates. Since six of the agencies did not
require a secondary school education the minimum educational require-
ment was generally low.

Organized training programs for personnel new to the force
were not typical in the agencies in the study; however, there were
attempts made in at least six of the agencies to provide in-service
training programs of varying intensity.

Devices comparable to those employed in municipal police
agencies were utilized in the campus police agencies in assessing
departmental and individual effectiveness. Most of the devices
employed were subjective in nature and were dependent upon the skill
and astuteness of the observer.

The objectives of most of the university police departments
listed by police administrators and some personnel administrators were
similar to those of most law enforcement agencies and did not reflect
the uniqueness of the campus community. On the whole the police
administrators tended to translate the operational aspects of their
work into objectives of service. At the same time, however, other
disciplinary officials indicated that the police should contribute to the

total educational setting of the campus and assist in the attainment of

 

 

205
better citizenship on the part of students. .

The police functions on the campuses were found to be as widely
diverse as those found in communities of comparable size. However,
the amount of attention devoted to incidents relating to major crimes
andviolence were found to be significantly less. The most commonly
mentioned activities on the part of staff members and non—university
personnel, involving police attention were found to be: traffic and
parking violations, misconduct, thefts, drunkenness, and sexual devia—
tion. The police records maintained at a few of the schools were very
comprehensive and organized to the extent that an analysis of activities
was readily available.

The campus safety programs were centralized at six institutions
with the police administrator responsible for the coordination of the
program at five of the schools. The nature of the relationships of the
police agencies to other safety areas in the decentralized programs
was not defined.

The universal problem of the campus protective and enforcement
agencies were the situations created by motor vehicles. Other adminis~
trative areas of the universities were also concerned with feasible solu-
tions to the traffic and parking problems. Premium parking spaces
were denied for use as daytime parking areas for students on all but
two campuses. In addition, Over half of the schools denied freshmen

the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. There were other uniform

’ 206

regulations but none of the administrators indicated that their program
was completely satisfactory.

Most Of the police administrators used plainclothesmen for
investigative and surveillance purposes and expressed satisfaction with
their effectiveness. All but one of the police agencies had radio equipped
patrol vehicles and coordination with the radio system of an adjacent
law enforcement agency. Cooperation between police agencies was
most apparent at the local level. In addition to the police authority
granted by the governing board, the officers of six agencies were
deputized by the county and the remainder had been commissioned by
the city.

Organized public relations programs were not found among the
agencies studied although evidence of the elements of such programs
were found in the procedures manuals of a few of the agencies. The
' opportunities to explain the purposes and role of the police programs
generally were not available. In addition there were few occasions of a
social nature by which the police could become better acquainted with
their associates among students and staff members.

The university police were an integral part of the student
regulatory program. This program was basically concerned with
regulatory standards, the failure to observe these regulations, and the
process of referral to the agency designated for disposition of such cases.

In all of the institutions a disciplinary official had been designated

207
to maintain relationships with the campus police departments as well
as with adjacent law enforcement agencies. The position of the disci—
plinary official had been firmly established but there was a high rate of
turnover in the position. The officials generally were academically
qualified for the administrative responsibilities delegated. Previous
experience in teaching or administrative positions and business was
typical.

The usual method employed by the police in reporting incidents
to the disciplinary official was by written incident reports. Under normal
circumstances the responsibility to provide legal counsel to students or
to appear at civil trials of students was not assumed by any of the
universities.

As a rule there was reciprocal accessibility of student records
maintained by the police agencies and the student deans. Counseling
records were not included in this-cooperative relationship.

The sources of formulation of the regulations affecting student
behavior were varied. It was found that the police made few or no
contributions to the regulatory standards. In general the regulations
originated from the governing bodies of the institutions, the offices of
the student personnel administrators, or from committees on student
life or conduct. It was difficult for police to know all the regulations
they were expected to enforce.

There was less uniformity fOund in the regulations relating to

208
firearms and building usage than in those relating to intoxicating
beverages and general conduct. Intoxicating beverages were prohibited
in student housing areas of all the universities. Infractions of the
conduct regulations could be categorized as: conduct constituting
infraction of laws, conduct bringing discredit to the university, and
conduct violating standards of good taste.

Specific regulations forbidding participation in student "raids"
were published by three institutions. State laws and individual miscon-
duct regulations were cited as the prohibitive regulations at the remain-
ing schools. Police tactics for controlling riotous group activity were
varied but it was emphasized that suppressive tactics were to be
employed only as a last resort.

Parking or traffic violations, misconduct, thefts, and drunken-
ness constituted the major activities involving police action with students.
The use of university police to conduct investigations into
appropriate student activities was a prevalent practice; the investigative

efforts were largely confined to the offenses committed on university
property. Slightly more than half of the police agencies were notified
as to the actions taken in cases referred by the police to the disciplinary
official.

The police on all campuses had the authority to remove students
from classrooms and places of residence, to pursue fleeing violators,

to apprehend misdemeanants and felons, to retain identification cards,

 

209

and to make initial interrogations within the bounds of state law.

The police administrator and student personnel administrators
agreed on the most common student misunderstandings of the police
departments. The police generally did not realize their manner of
handling violators was causing conflicts among the students. Similarly,
the personnel administrators had not realized that the failure to under—
stand or approve of pertinent regulations had been‘ generalized into

an area of conflict with the police.

Recommendations
One of the purposes of this study was to ascertain developments
in campus protective and enforcement agencies. From the visits made
to each university and from the interviews with the police and student
personnel administrators several recommendations became apparent.
These recommendations are presented in two sections: general recom-
mendations and suggestions for further research.

General recommendations. It was recommended that:

 

(1) Personnel officials'and Other university officials, by actively
Supporting‘and stressing the service features of the police programs,
should encourage the campus protective and enforcement agencies in the
delicate tasks they perform for the students and the university.

(2) Encouragement should be given to efforts to develop greater

understanding between the police and students, staff, and personnel

 

210
officials.

(3) Personnel officials should cooperate with the police and stress
the educational implications of police-student relationships. For
example, the police administrator should be given an opportunity to
present the purposes and a description of the services of the police
agency to new students during the orientation period.

(4) Greater effort should be put forth to assist the campus police

in becoming better acquainted with the unique nature of the community

which they serve. Committees on student life should solicit the opinions

of and offer assistance to the police in the problem areas of student-
police relationships.

(5) The facilities of the university should be utilized to a greater
extent to assist in the selection, training, and improvement of the
police officers. As an example, the officers should be encouraged to
participate in academic classes related to the field of the behavioral
sciences or police work.

(6) Efforts should be made to increase the salaries of the police
officers equal to or exceeding the amount paid to personnel in adjacent
police agencies. An increase in salaries should enable the pre-induction
educational requirements to be increased.

(7) Consideration should be given to the advantages of requiring
a master's degree or its equivalent as a minimum educational require-

ment for the police administrator.

 

49-»

211

(8) More attention should be given to the desirable personality
characteristics for police officers; psychological instruments should be
utilized in determining the presence of such attributes.

(9) The post—induction training period for officers should be
increased or made mandatory and, where applicable, the, civil service
codes should be revised to enable such programs to be undertaken.

(10) Graduate programs in student personnel training should
include a unit, not necessarily a course, to serve as an orientation
to the general problems of campus safety, security, and law enforce-
ment.

(11) Campus planners should consult with personnel performing at
the operational level to determine physical features that would provide
greater safety and security.

(12.) University police administrators and officers should be
encouraged to participate in meetings or workshops on a regional or
state—wide basis to attempt to find solutions to mutual problems.

(13) Regulations which students are expected to observe and
which the police are expected to enforce should receive the greatest
possible distribution.

(14) Emergency procedures of the campuses should be examined
and evaluated in terms of desirable organization, flexibility, and
comprehensiveness. Consideration should be given to coordination of

the campus programs with the community programs.

 

 

212.

(15) The re5ponsibilities of the police in other areas of campus
safety should be outlined on those campuses with decentralized programs.
The channels through which ideas or recommendations are made should
be clarified.

(16) Careful consideration should be given to greater utilization of
student workers, to perform routine, non-hazardous, and clerical
tasks for the police agencies.

(17) The benefits to be derived from transferring information
compiled by the police agencies to the permanent student records should
be explored.

Suggestions for further research. This study was undertaken

 

because of the need to describe the status of campus protective and
enforcement agencies. Additional research should be undertaken to
describe the operations of police agencies at smaller schools, and at
private schools. From such studies certain common characteristics
should become apparent and consequently be helpful to those involved
in planning or improving police services.

As a result of this study, some other problems were found that
should receive the attention of research. These problems are listed
below:

(1) What constitutes an adequate campus police force in small,
medium-sized, and large institutions of higher learning? Are the ‘

needs of privately supported institutions different than those of the

 

 

 

 

213
publicly supported schools? Could greater reliance be placed upon
the services of municipal agencies? Could such findings be synthesized
into a manual describing the essential characteristics of protective and
enforcement agencies? Could check-lists in such areas as public
relations be prepared?

(2) What is the most effective way to organize the safety and
protective services of a campus? Should they be centralized? Should
they be decentralized? What are the advantages of each type of
organization? Should all the police be classed as patrolmen? Are 1'
watchmen effective ?

(3) What are the attitudes of the administrators at the higher
levels toward the university police? Do they consider the police as
contributors to the general objectives of the university? Would they
increase or decrease the emphasis upon police services?

(4) What are the attitudes of the students and staff toward the
police ? Do generalizations of the restrictive aspects of police work
affect their attitude toward the university? What areas of police activity
create the greatest conflict?

(5) How do the university police feel about the disposition of cases
that have been referred to disciplinary officials? What is the effect
upon the morale of the police when student appellate courts adjudicate
violation notices ?

(6) What are the requisites of an effective university policeman?

 

214
Who should determine them? How can they be ascertained? Can new
evaluative devices be employed to determine the effectiveness of police
programs ? Of individual officers?

(7) What is the soundest method of investigating behavioral
incidents in preparation for referral to the disciplinary official? Should
police investigators be employed? Should personnel officials serve
as investigators? What are the advantages and disadvantages of a
joint appointment? Are signed statements a deterrent to a counseling
situation?

(8) What is the legal status of university police agencies at each
campus? Are their powers adequately defined? Is their enforcement
of certain statutes of questionable legality?

(9) What are the implications brought about by the increased
dependency upon private motor vehicle transportation? What are the
socio-psychological implications ? What are the financial and planning
implications? What effect do they have upon campus recreational
activities? Are motor vehicles a deterrent to academic excellency?
Are there sound bases for the regulation of the motor vehicles other
than for Space and safety considerations ?

Each of the above are as appears deserving of further research.
Investigation of these areas should contribute to a better understanding
of the campus regulatory and disciplinary programs. Some of the

areas have been explored on individual campuses and inferences could

 

 

 

215
be made from related research; however, further research into the
total influences of campus protective and enforcement agencies would
be a worthwhile contribution to the area of behavioral sciences and of

value to participants in higher education.

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

 

Z.

10.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arbuckle, Dugald. Student Personnel Services in Higher
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book—Co., 1953.

 

Ashenhurst, Paul H. Police and the People. Springfield,

Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1957.

Bellman, Arthur. I'A Police Service Rating Scale, ” Journal
3f Criminal Law. Criminology, 9.111 Police Science, 26:
74-114, May. 1935.

Brandstatter, A. F. "The School of Police Administration and
Public Safety, Michigan State University, ” Journal of
Criminal Ifl, Criminology, and Police Science, 4f3z—564—
566, January-February 1958. —

Browne, L. L. ”Pattern of Organization of Physical Plant, ”
College a_n_d University Business, 17: 23-26, August,
1954.

Christman, Glen. ”Reporting on Offenses in Police Departments,
Journal 9_f Criminal Law, Criminolog , and Police Science,
39: 667—674, January-February, 1948.

Clift, Raymond E. A Guide to Modern Police Thinking.

.__.——._.._._._.—-_______

Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson Co., 1956.

"Police Press and Public Relations, " Journal qf
Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 39:
667—674, January-February, 1949.

Cogshall, Fred J. "Standards in the Selection of Police
Instructors, " Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and
Police Science. 39: 99-103, May-June, 1948.

E. C., Davis, 1. Clark, and Lentz, E. G. ”Shall

Coleman, . .
Joe's Car Go To College?" American Assoc1ation3f_

University Professors Bulletin, 43: 263-265, June, 1957.

 

 

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

218

Conway, Margaret 1. "The Role of Disciplinary Action in Higher
Education, " The North Central Association Quarterly,
29: 351-359. April, 1955. W

 

Day, Frank. "Police Administrative Training, " Journal o_f
Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science. 47:
253-256. July-August. 1956.

 

De Ment, C. W. "Crowds Take Careful Handling, ” C‘olle e
and University Business. 19: 30-33, November. 1955.

 

Fosdick, Raymond B. American Police Systems. New York:
Century Publishing Company, 1920.

 

 

European Police Systems. New York: Century

 

 

Publishing Company, 1915.

Foster, Charles A. ”Education Beyond the High School: Second
Report of the President's Committee, " Higher Education,
14: 7-9, September, 1957.

 

Fowler, Charles F. "Well Designed Parking Areas, " College
and University Business, 17: 24-27 December, 1954.

 

 

Frost, Thomas M. ”Selection Methods for Police Recruits, "
' Journal 2f Criminal Law, Criminology. a_n_d Police
Science. 46: 135-145, May-June, 1955.

 

 

 

Gocke, B. W. "Morale in a Police Department, ” Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 36:
215—219, September-October, 1945.

 

 

 

Gocke, B. W., and Stallings, H. L. The Police Sergeants Manual.
Los Angeles: 0. W. Smith, Publisher, 1955.

 

Good, Carter V., and Scates, Douglas E. Methods of Research.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954.

Gourley G. Douglas. "In-Service Training of Policemen by
Universities and Colleges, " Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, 445—229-238, July-
August, 1953.

 

 

 

"Police Discipline, " Journal giCriminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, 41: 85-100, May-June, 1950.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

219

. Public Relations and t_he Police. Springfield, Illinois:
Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1953.

Hannum, Paul C. "The Cars that Come to the Campus, ”
College and University Business, 22: 33-36, February,
1957.

Holcomb, Richard L. The Police and the Public. Springfield,

Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1954.

 

Johnson, M. Clemens, and Fenton, Anne J. ”1957 Opening (Fall)
College Enrollment, " Higher Education, 14: 73—77,
December, 1957.

Kelley, Douglas M. "Psychiatry in Police Recruitment, " The
Police Yearbook, 1953. Washington, D. C.: International ‘
Association of Chiefs of Police, 1953.

 

Kenney, John P. "Internal Police Communications, " Journal
of Criminal Law. Criminology, a___nd Police Science,
46: 547- 553, November— December, 1955.

”Police and Human Relations in Management, “
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology,” and Police Science.
45: 226- 228, July—August, 1954.

 

 

Kooken, Don. Ethics 13 Police Service. Springfield, Illinois;
Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1957.

 

 

Kreml, F. M. ”What Types of Training or Educational Opportun—
ities Are Essential to Provide Police Officers with the
Knowledge and Skill Expected of Them?", Traffic Digest
a_IEReview, April. L953, pp. 6-10.

Leonard, Eugenie An'druse. Origins o_f Personnel Services a.
American Higher Education, Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1956.

 

Leonard, V. A. Police Oxfitnization and Management. Brooklyn:
The Foundation Press, Inc., 1951.

 

 

Lloyd-Jones, Esther, and Smith, Margaret Ruth (eds. ). Student
Personnel Work a_s Deeper Teaching. New York: Harper
Brothers, 1954.

 

 

 

36:

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

2.20

MacNamara, Donal E. J. "Higher Police Training at the
University Level, ” Journal 2f Criminal Law, Criminology,
and Police Science. 40: 657-665, January—February, 1950.

McManus, George. "Human Relations Training for Police, ”
Journal of Criminal L_a__w, Criminolog , a__nd P__olice Science,
46:105-111,May- June, 1955.

 

McVey, Frank L. , and Hughes, Raymond. Problemsg College
and University Administration. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa
State College Press, 1952.

 

 

Mingle, George. "Police Personnel Evaluation and Development, ”
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science,
36: 277- 289, November- December, 194?.

 

Morris, John. ”Safety in the College Environment, " Higher
Education, 14: 130-133, April 1958.

”Take Proven Concepts, “ Safety Education, 36:

12-14, October, 1956.

Mueller, Kate Hevner ”Sex Differences in Campus Regulations,"
T_he Personnel and Guidance Journal, 32: 528-532, May,
1954.

"Theory for Campus Discipline, ” 'I;h_e Personnel and

Guidance Journal, 36: 302-309, January, 1958.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Proceedings _o_f_Thirty-Eighth Anniversary Conference.
Berkeley, California: University of California, 1955-56.

 

Parker, W. H. ”The Police Role in Community Relations. ”

—.———_..~_._____.__._—___~_._

47: 368- 379, September- -October. 1956.

 

Parratt, Spencer D. "A Scale to Measure Effectiveness of Police ‘
Functioning," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and

Police Science, 28: 739-756, January—February, 1938.

Perkins, Rollin. Elements _ofPolice Science. Chicago: The
Foundation Press, 1942.

 

 

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

221

_——.———.———.—.————————.—_—.—.——_.—_

and University Students. A Report prepared by the Central
Automobile Safety Committee. Chicago: Kemper Insurance
Company, 1954.

Schrotel, Stanley R. ”Supervising the Use of Police Authority, ”
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, a_n_d Police Science.

_..__

47: 589392. January-February, 1957.

Simon, Richard. "The Planning and Research Division of the Los
Angeles Police Department, " Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology, a_n_d Police Science, 44: 365-373, SepTe‘r—nber-
October, 1953.

Sloane, Charles F. "Police Professionalization, " Journal o_f
Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 45: 77-79,
May-June. 1954.

Smith, Bruce (ed. ). New Goals i_n Police Management. Phila-
delphia: The American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 1954.

 

Police Systems _i_r_1_t_h_e United States. New York:

 

Harper Brothers, 1949.

Snyder, W. J. ”The Association for Professional Law Enforce~
ment, ” Journal _o_f Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police

Science. 47: 601-605, January-February.

Thompson, Ronald B. The Impending Tidal Wave gf_Students.
Columbus, Ohio: American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1954.

 

 

Truitt, John W. ”A Study of Student Disciplinary Programs in Ten
Selected Universities. ” Unpublished Ed. D, dissertation,
School for Advanced Graduate Studies, Michigan State
University, 1955.

Vollmer, August, The Police and Modern Society. Berkeley:
The University of California Press, 1936.

 

 

Williamson, E. G., and Foley, J. D. Counseling a_n_dDiscipline,
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1949.

 

 

 

222.

59. Wilson, 0. W. "Can the State Help City Police Departments?",
Journal 9_f_ Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police
Science. 45: 102-109, May-June, 1954.

60. (ed. ). Municipal Police Administration. 4th ed.
Chicago: Institute for Training in Municipal Administration,
1954.

 

61. . Police Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. , 1950.

62. . Police Planning. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C.
Thomas, Publisher, 1952.

 

63. . "Problems in Police Personnel Administration, ”
Journal o_f_Crimina1 Law, Criminology, and Police Science,
43: 840-847, March-April, 1953.

 

 

64. Wolfle, Dael L. "Education and New Approaches to Manpower, ”
Teachers College Record, 57: 290-294, February. 1956.

 

65. Wrenn, C. Gilbert. Student Personnel Work in College. New

m._______——~—-—_

York: The Ronald Press Co., 1951.

APPENDIX A

 

 

    

PERSONNEL CONTACTED FOR

UNIVERSITY POLI CE BIB LI OGRAPHI CAL MATERIALS

Gerald S. Arenberg, Executive Secretary
National Police Officers Association
Chicago, Illinois

Herman Ayres
Department of Police Administration
Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana

Frank M. Boolsen, Chairman
Department of Criminology
Fresno State College

Fresno. California

Arthur Brandstetter, Director
Department of Public Safety
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

. Chairman
Education Committee
International Association of Police Chiefs

Frank D. Day, Assistant to Director
Southern Police Institute
Louisville, Kentucky

A.F. Gallistel, Secretary

National Association of Physical Plant
Administrators of Universities and Colleges

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

Ordway Hilton, Editor
Police Science Section .
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Sc1ence

New York City. New York

 

 

 

J .

Richard C. Holcomb
Institute of Public Affairs
State University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

W. G. Kemper. President
Kemper Insurance Company
Chicago. Illinois

V. A. Leonard. Professor
Police Science and Administration
The State College of Washington
Pullman, Washington

. Editor
Police Science Series and Police
Thomas Publishing Company
Springfield, Illinois

 

H. H. Langsdorf

Peace Officers Training School
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas

John P. Peper. State Supervisor
Peace Officers Training

Sac ramento, California

Fred Turner, Secretary

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

University of Illinois
Urbana. Illinois

Daniel P. Webster

Staff Representative for Higher Education

National Safety Council
Chicago. Illinois

0. W. Wilson, Dean
School of Criminology
University of California
Berkeley, California

 

225

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

 

 

fl

 

 

226

A STUDY OF CAMPUS PROTECTIVE AND ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES IN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES

by

Robert P; Etheridge

Introduction 23 the Study

This project is being conducted as a part of the writer's .
doctoral program at Michigan State Univer31ty. The purpose of this
study is (l) to analyze the organization and administration of campus
protective and enforcement programs; (2) to determine the objectives
and functions of these programs; (3) to determine and compare the
relationships between these functions and the regulatory functions
of the student personnel programs; and (4) to indicate trends 1n

the development of campus police programs.

The cooperation and assistance rendered by police and stugegz
Personnel administrators of the participating universities milt.
invaluable-contributions to the final outcome of the investiga ion.
Any comments relating to the interview outline W111 be greatly

appreciated.

 

 

227
.A STUDY OP'CAMPUS PROTECTIVE AND ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES IN SELECTED mmviaasmss

I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Name of the University A“

B. University Population

1. NUmber of students

 

 

 

a. NUmber of men V - g
b. Number of women A; . kg
2. NUmber of faculty
3. meber of non-academic staff
4. Total Population . p
C. Campus Residential Population
1. Number in women's residence halls
2. Number in men's residence balls
3. Number in married student housing
4. Number in faculty housing _________
5. Total residential population _“_______,
D. Community Name
B. Community Information
1. Population ..__———~..
2. Number of police in line functions _________
3. Number in clerical functions (police) ,_________

4. Pay scale (per month)
Minimum W

I

a. Patrblman

l

b. Sergeant

c. Lieutenant

d. Others vw_ —J-

I

\HH

 

 

II. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT

A. Police Administrator

7.

Name

 

Title

 

Faculty rank or status

 

Number of years in position

 

Person to whom directly responsible (position)

 

Education
a. Number of years

W

b. Degree (5) held

 

c. Major area of study

 

d. Other training

 

Police experience

Number Duties or
of years titlg____
a. Federal

or state
b. Municipal

c. Industrial

 

d. Educational

 

e. Other
experience

 

Service on university-wide policy-making bodies

a. Names of groups

 

 

b. Basis of selection

 

 

 

 

—. .a-....-....

 

 

9.

10.

Service on policy-making councils or committees

a. Names of groups

 

 

b. Basis of appointment

 

 

General description of duties including teaching

responsibilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. First Police Assistant

5.

Title

 

Faculty rank or status

 

Number of years in position

 

W

 

 

 

Education
a. Number of years
b. Degree (5) held
c. Major area of study
d. Other training
Police experience

Number
of years

a. Federal
or state

b. Municipal

c. Industrial

Duties or
title

W
W
m

229

 

 

   

   

 

 

. .,,
,.... -n... ~~~ .4
t .. -~. '-
. ‘.i . ... .
-. .. .- .g 0—.»

   

n ...U....

 

 

x .
,. .. ... a” ..
. -. :- ‘.
ml... . ...,-
‘.~IQ-'»-. ~.- . .t
., .

H ..
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. ...
m .
u ‘ ‘I,
e . 1 ,
- - .
1 l' .

 

 

 

d. Educational

 

e. Other
experience

 

6. Committee service

 

 

7. General description of duties, including teaching
responsibilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. History of Police Department

H

. Name of department

 

N

. Date of the establishment of original police

system

 

(A)

. Date of the establishment of the present
system

m

4. Major modifications since establishment

 

 

 

 

5. Legal basis for the existence of the police system

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an.

 

 

 

M... o».

 

 

   

 

 

   

... ..» ..4
.. . . tum-yum...”

   

 

   

,$ " H , ‘
"- :.'

   

 

 

 

 

.._. -_:
.u r

 

 

 

 

 

-.,...

 

 

 

 

1.

 

 

 

 

....1
u
u, _

 

 

 

“m.

 

m...

 

 

 

 

 

I
r
x
I
|
u
.
u
r
l
. t

D. Administrative Relationships of Department

1, President

 

N

. Instructional officer

 

3. Business officer

 

4. Public Relations officer

 

, . L

U!

. Student Personnel offiCer

 

E‘ Organizational Arrangements

1. Internal arrangement of department beginning with
police administrator level, including number in
each position (diagram)

2. Main duties of each position

 

 

 

   

 

I
I
I
I
I
I
l
, . . . J :.- -.I r‘-‘
I" "
I_.'.' .1
., . A , M, W.,. _ ..,,_.,.__, w”... _. .,m.. V. \- ... mum-r. .. .
l
A, 1 v I. <7:.-'n~~-.~.»um...-I[- ..\ -. no Ir _. , , \I -~ ... I . .~ I I
I I _. . , > I. I
‘ i ‘ _ > , . . , . t ¢
.. - aw... .... ... ..,. I -

 

 

I
I
~ . I
. ‘ . .
a .. I
- . . .r... .
i', .:
f. .I. ..
.i ‘ -
-. ,. .
I
I
I
.I 4 .
I ~ I

 

 

 

 

F. Departmental Regulations

1. Maintenance of manual of departmental regulations
for guidance of officers

 

N

. Responsibility for maintenance

 

(A)

. Specific ordinances for which responsible

 

 

 

4. Significant changes in jurisdiction in past five years

 

 

 

 

G. Membership in Professional Organizations

H

. Departmental

a. Organizations

 

b. Qualifications

 

2; Police Administrator

a. Organizations

 

b. Qualifications

 

w

. Individual officers

a. Organizations

 

b. Qualifications

 

A

. Chief benefits derived or services rendered by the above
organizations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

   
   

 

 

 

...»a. - . . 4.... .-.. .. ..
....-..... . . . . .... ..... . . , . I .. .
. .............i , ..... V
”...... If . .. .. ...VD- V
.m». _ .. . . W.,... .,. . . . .. «. . u
- . 4 .. .. . - . --. . . .. \ “W.,... IO‘ -...----«
- . . .. ...i ..~.....-.....~.
‘ ' 3 .w. ' n‘
f..- -.-.. .. »
. I , .. r .
, . , . . . . . up...“ .. .
I...,~,.. ..a. . ”a, u.. ...... ~. '
.- . .1 '_ , - .
. r... , - ~1 ‘ . . o
.. . ~,H
. I a .. .. ‘_ .... . "
.. . 4...»... ".....mu. «...-......m ‘
a... . ,. emu" v. .. .. ..y. "
. '.‘ . .; 0
~- . ...I . ...“... ,__ ' z .
'---. -~- ....,I..».-..... '
| .
.-............ .., n. “A...“ . ‘ '
......H . . . .... , "

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

7 233

H. Employment Benefits

Promotional policy

Tenure rights

 

Pension funds

 

Leaves and absences

 

Vacations
Hospitalization insurance A;

Uniform allowances

 

Pay scale' (per month)

 

 

 

 

 

Minimum. Maximum
a. Patrolman
b. Sergeant
c. Lieutenant ~A_
d. Others _~_

 

 

I. Employment Procedures

1.

2.

Relationships with personnel office

 

—r

Application process

 

 

W

Responsibility for announcing vacancies and examinations
(if required) 4i

..f

Classification of personnel

 

1'

Responsibility for determination of pay scale

Responsibility for final decision to employ individuals

 

 

 

     

 

 

     

     

 

 

 
 

   
 

 
 
 

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

- . v"
I .- ...,,.....u,.. - . r V F
... . . - l'b'I-r ’ - I . . -
_ l e-v-tI-nIAw " ' ‘ I
’l‘l~llll‘l'l ' ‘ ' I
V -.--I ‘*-I' I ~ ‘ .
o.. .. ..4,.....‘. 'l .1." |.
., l
:I , ~ '.I. .,- '-
., , I -
I v ‘0'” .,-. z... .. .
_ ‘ I II I
.
, , -_ t ....-. “-..“...
.. .... .. u
.. I .-¢..Iu~ ‘ ' . I V
. ".‘IUIV ~..I V I ' . I
:1 \.-- ,‘HI‘. V '. -‘ ~. "
.,._.,,
... ... VJ“
. . -. . .._ ‘ ...“. .-_..
‘ ~ I ,
. __ ~_: II- - - '
‘I'I' -' l I 'V "'
‘ . I . t . a
l. x ‘ \ua..lxa ' .
I ~. III “"~‘ I v. I
h . ..Ir, ... ..
u - _.~. .I‘ ~ ~ '
“I l .p.. I . \' ‘ I .
. ...i , i
.. i. . ”-.....u...” . ..
_ b . I 4 I ‘
IA ‘ . .
~ ~ - m.~......

 

..-.-.

J. Qualifying Requirements for Selection

1.
2.

3.

Age limits

 

Education

 

Experience

 

Health (physical)

 

 

Pre-employment training

Residence

 

Others ___

 

Suggested changes to strengthen the force

 

K. Screening Techniques

1.

Application papers

 

Psychological examinations

 

a. Names of exams

M

 

b. Responsibility for administration
Personal investigation
a. Arrests
b. Fingerprint check ,
c. Community records
Interview by screening board

_________________________.__.__———————

Psychiatric examination

Other _______________________._————-—--"—’
_______________———-————-—"“’/

44

 

 

   

 

 

     

 
   
 

   
 
 
 

 
 

 
   

   

 

 

 

 

 
       

   

   

 
   

     

 

 

     

   
 

 
   

 

   

 

 
     

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
. ..--I ‘. ;
. .-.... .....-. . .
' I.
.m...,I.-.l.... .
" I I". I ,
._.,._..........‘_,_,__,_ m- a
. ..c. . ‘
.I... .. . . .. .,
..-.n ,... ..
.-,,..,.. .. 'z '
i ‘ ' - I ~. I: ,v .r , '
. ‘I .‘ I
. .. .... .. ..
" In” .' ‘ . '
I
- 4 I .
. ‘1
"‘ ‘l I.
. - o . ., o . . -
L... ”.--... I
. a, . I_. , .
.A. .m ..-
...n I. ”a“...
. ... ...“..n . ,
...r....... W... , ..
. -. . ._ ‘
' '~ 1.
4. .. .___.......---,. ..v...
.I ,-..-............
i . .u .....u
, .
. ‘ ’. .I .l '
I ‘ \ ‘
"-- ~I- -HMI.I...-..I.-....... .
' ~ ‘ ...».
I ' ‘ -. I ... ' .
‘ ' t" In 1,. ,
x . I .
I
I I ' I l . ‘
I I II ‘
' I
..-..... , U .....
- h I y " ~ ‘ "‘“""I-n1n~n-4. I l.>
o '-
' I . .
I "' ‘ ' - a...” ..y. ,
. ... . ""‘~'.~---I-»..
,~ I
. m ... .. I”... V ,4” ”am-‘
“...-.I... ......“ ...... .. ..-......,,,

L. Recruit Training Program
1. Position responsible for direction
M

2. Length of program

 

3. Syllabus content

 

 

 

4. Probationary period description

 

M. In—Service Training Program
1. Position responsible for direction

2. Phases of program and length of each phase

3. Materials and devices used

____._-

Source(s) of instructional personnel

_____——

5. Utilization of student personnel staff
student personnel staff might be

Ways in which
such is not the practice

utilized if

___.__—

 

N. Disciplinary Action (Police)
Means by which disciplinary measures are administered

 

 

 

 

 

1.
(board, committee, chief)
M
2. Description of disciplinary measures

______________________,____._————-———

1 from force _____________________

3. Causes for dismissa

//

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 
   

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

   

 

 

 
 

 
   

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 
 
 

   
     
 

   
 

   

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
     

 

 

     

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

     

. ...
r. -.'..'_~- - A . .' .. .>, ... .
g . A .--n . fivvrt‘nJlu' ..‘
‘ . .., ...,...........-......- _ .d .A
.. .. .
.‘ .. . ......n.» .. .. .
. ........,.,
....F.... ,. A w.
I . . " ‘.--t I
.. - .F _ ' , . .
. . W. .-.. ,.......¢...... ......h...» ...-. - , »
.. ... ... .. A ......,...‘..... ....
»- - u“... h.‘,.......,....,. ...-..'..
.. ...-.-...,.. .....‘ymm ...~,...., .‘ .....WV . ....
,4 - ' '. ~.» ~-(\ . - I‘
I ' ‘ I "“‘" t ‘w - I l ..I. V ~ I ,. _- ,1 “am—--
- ‘. ‘v‘ . .. - . ; .
- - , -.". H ' ‘ .~ ,1
. \ ‘
> . - ,g.‘ ‘. ”5» . ‘ . _.
v'.‘:1v-‘ ~.- :
' "‘ ~ . ~ w- .I-”'V.fl.un‘(,, _, I"l|‘ ‘1. ”l . . .. 1“ .
' " ... u‘ .. __ ._ ' _. .
'1 . 4‘ - A. , _‘
’ : ‘--. . ..
‘, . . .‘ ._:.,., .
- . -- .>,...... ' "‘ '~ ' ~ ‘1 ' » -
V . H". "' "““'" ~-' .p... u-nv- «...v‘ ‘ - .. .
'. -‘:’p .-"'l ; v.. ~. .
.. ”Hun” ...“. V.,-... "- - ~ . - . ‘
‘ .H- " "‘ "" I-vu.‘..-- ..

 

4-fi___

10 - 236 I

4. ReSponsibility for administering dismissal action

 

Information released relating to disciplinary actions

UI
O

 

6. Restrictions upon leisure time activities

 

q

. Supervisory procedures

 

 

. Supervisory responsibilities

00

 

 

. Most common cause for morale disruption

\D

 

10. Grievance committee

a. Composition

 

b. Position to whom responsible
0. Clerical Assistance
1. Number of clerks or clerk typists

2. Number of stenographers

 

3. Special requirements

 

 

P. ManpOWer

1. Stability of the police force, e.g., the rate of
turnover

 

 

2. Sources of employment for officers leaving the force

 

3. Reason most frequently given for leaving the force

 

 

 

   

 

.
. , .2”. ‘a .... u .
.. - . “...: MAM. - .
.
- a . ‘. “-..“... . . H ..., . .
. - I
. .

 

l
.4. ...t.. ..-~nw~.

 

 

 

     

       

 

 

 

       

   

   

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i
2'211“ '
..,,_,_., , . ..., ,W.
. .. ,.... ., . ...t ¢..,x........‘.... -. - --
. .. l. .‘ ...,. i .. ..4 u.-*-o‘-,-.V. " > ‘
,.
. I
V . ,..l 4‘ . ‘ '
- n v r-- ‘. ‘ A z
. .. . . t . .. . .~............. n , . _ . . .r .
“..-... ..-”, , , . ' ' ' ‘ ' ‘I‘
‘ -. 5--.. J -"
-| . ; . . ‘ u
”..., _. : _.cA . -
-, i. . ,- " :‘I'I" - I ' . J’ V
.. ,. .,...‘..,,. "'
. .e :1 . ... u. ‘ ' I
. .. .. - .V‘ .—......w-. '
‘” '-- '.At.. .i ~.- VI“ " I ‘ V!
. . .
. .... ”...-..n... . l. .
V
. _ ' r.
t = , I.
. . . {‘,. .. ,ru- _‘--';3 ._' _ .J 3 ‘
‘ ' ' . I I I
d .,, .u r
- -. .-.-. --¢- u.“ an...“ .‘. . . ' '
.,_. U... _
.V ..‘ ... .
. .
. ‘ ‘ \.

 

Q. Police Administration Program

H

O

N

w

o

4.

5.

6.

Extent of offerings

 

 

Assistance given by testing service in selection of
trainees

 

Name of department
Utilization of departmental staff members

\

\

a. Recruit training program

 

b. In~service training program 1

c. Employment interview boards

m

d. Promotion review boards

 

Utilization of graduates as sources of recruits

 

Opportunity for utilization of trainees
a. Supplemental police service

b. On—the-job experiences

 

R. Evaluation

1.

N

Evaluative methods used to assess the effectiveness
of the force

 

 

 

Evaluative methods used to assess the effectiveness
of individual members

 

 

 

Criteria of satisfactory performance for individual
members (List at least five)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- .... .. . -. . . .... -.- 1
I A II .
. . J . . y... , . . . _ .
v '4 . l . t n a nu nil-bu
.....‘.p.... ........._..a. .. ....... .
: ' . . .
. ». . -. “u... ...-.....u, . . .. .
, ,: . . .
‘ n t . . I. : ~
I
a - . . - I
.-... .. v .
~ -- u I" .1 I\'
. - ... u
., - . .
-| : '. - I . , . -
. . , . . I
.
m . . . .‘ .
. ' I. l
. .r.. ..n. 1 .
' ‘ - ' .- . ‘ . _... '
. . ' _' ... . ..- . . I
. .a....... . .. .-- .... . . ~-.~ .. .- .........- ~..... -.-'.-|-‘a
.
- I {'I- ' ' . . ‘I~ u.‘ : '.I
. . .- . .. . ... ' -:
.' . - ... ..' -.'.- _,
. ..-..- . . ...q...
' - . ; - - .. . . -_
--v----.¢.- .. ._.,.. , .
3 .' '
. . ...,‘I, ... '.- ...‘. . ~
' ' ' 'x' ~ . . . - — .. . I
: -.'. - '2 .
"I m.»- . ......n..¢.u..- .. ,. d, _ I . . I . .
.
" “'“““‘"" " ""‘ ‘ - - - a” .- -. -.—.|">‘l .......-......-.-~ u
- - ‘ .... ....4.... . .. - ., . ‘ .. 1 u .. ...... .. .-. ...J ..u-u-u-
' ‘ r '- .- .-‘
' I ~ . . .
' - . - .‘ , I .. .
. .
. -. . , . (2., -.~
. : -- . . . .. a. v
. ‘.I ‘fit'-'|.- .. I'd . I
I . h I ‘ "b'l'I "“ " '- "I- ~ -—..l v .. null '.‘I‘ld' ( |‘-q-thyluntlu:l.l . u .u.
I 'l "A ' ' I v u -.'4r 9
v- -- - wa-u. ...... ...... ... ..."... . -:«.~........... "nan-......"
' ;. . . \ . .
‘ " ~ 4.
I I . . . . ,3. . x . . . . -
‘ . -’ I . In: - l -.. . .. ‘
l ... u I.
'. . - . "‘ I" . . - '. ~
' "‘~- - -q---.. ,, . . .. ..
..'..,..... Jl-l .9. . ...... ,
‘ - e - ‘ ---- > .-- . -..«n- ‘—.. ...m- ..-.....\ . nu . ..... , ”...... ...
. . . ... .,.
. ~ " I""' '11- I -- .‘~ (n.- ‘rl.,."'.~...I’ .,'_‘l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—-. «-.._....____ _ _

12 238 I
III. OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS OF POLICE DEPARTMENT '

A. Objectives of the Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Functions of the Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Contact with Student Personnel Program

1. Most common incidents necessitating contact

 

 

 

2. Procedures involved

 

 

 

     

 

   

 

   

     

     

 

' ‘ .- l '
. I
.. . w. . . . -.: . .. .. . . . . ”...... ...... . ...u-I. ....-~. .u--u...- u- .-
. ... ........ .-..-...... ...“-.."1. .t.......... .
. a r ....... .. ... ..-........ ..... . .. .. ..- . .... ..,. .. .... .. _. .
' I
4 . . - . -- -.- «...-"...”... - »‘l'fl-‘tl- ; . .- .. ..... ... . -... . - \ .-
—--- - . h. - ...-:44 uh”... .... ...“...u . . ._ ,H. 1-.. V ... All i
l- -' ... -. -u-I- runway. .‘-..-...... - ..I . , .. . u. ur- -. I

     

     

     

     

 

 

     

       

     

 

 

 

   

     

   

       

   

   

     

     

-v-- - , - - ........».-.... . -. - : .4.n-~~i' -- -
... .- v. .n'....y...-,A..a-..-...In...-.. l-‘N-y -. :.- . ... u- —
. - > .
n - . ‘ . .. . . . . u .
- ‘.- . - u . ‘ \ --' . .
‘ - v- - . um nut-Ma'nrfl . . - n. .. . .. :1‘4. ,. .- -n-~ awn-w. u.-
- - ~..4-...—........-- ...... .. «laud-w: u-v-
- --‘ -. . .wnnnna. . .....w. «.....a..
-' - '- a. . Q ......-..~ ..-—4p... ...... . c at...” . .4... ..1 s
‘ " ' ' ‘ A' “ ->--->—-I . «no-a. a... __ .... -.. .u. «n». ..u.—....-..
- . .. .... ... t ,. .-.. . .... .. .- ....,.-.-u..q...----v.-‘
'r ' " " ' ‘ --- ~I-n~mu-ss..-. «...-.... .... .. l .- . . ......" .... 'y.fl.rn- .
' " ' I'm -- n.- .c I‘m-I. --'v- . ...... .... ., . . “Hug“... .
' -. . ' .' . .. . '. - .-
‘u .Ix- . ..I .. g-l-u
" - - - .-..|. ' - .' . . . -.
. .. . . , . I. | . .' J __ . .
' “' - ' - ~n.c~...-..-.... - . 1 .. .
* . .- . .. _
' | “' ‘ - . . . .
‘ .— . , . .
- - - 5. u . . .. . .
" -'|-‘--«.-. .. .. .. n.
' .. . _ , r .
n . . - 1 ..
' ..- .. . . _
- ... ..- .- -. ..
- .. I
v' . '- | uni--.." -. Luna. .. n. . - .- ..-
-' - .. .
- - - ... ... . , ,.
u ......-u.....___., . . A” ..

 

-—_..__l_.-.- _ _

13 239

D. Campus Safety
l. Responsibility for general campus safety

a. Centralized

 

b. Decentralized

 

Title of person responsible if centralized

N

Extent of imvolvement of police department with
general campus safety

(a)
e

 

 

4. Relationship to specific safety programs, e.g., fire,
sanitation, etc.

 

 

E. Security (Faculty)

1. Responsibility for classified research

 

2. Responsibility for investigation of faculty engaged
in classified research

 

 

3. Nature and disposition of investigative reports

 

F. Limitation of Duties-~University and Non-University
Personnel

1. Responsibility for dealing with faculty and staff
offenses

a. Examples

 

b. Procedures

 

 

2. Responsibility for dealing with non—university
personnel offenses

a. Examples

 

b. Procedures

 

 

 

 

 

inn.“

 

---.. ..

‘ .

-~ ......,..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

.c..., I
«(Jun :1
i
' 1. .
. . ‘

.I.I_ ..' .
.

”um... .-
. ‘

 

.‘r
x-.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

..
‘
,,' _
.
c ’.I
v J:
-v‘.‘
‘ ,,
1:.-
u
l
...
' .

 

14

G. Relationships with Other Police Agencies

1. Responsibilities or committments to the following
agencies

a. Federal

 

b. State

 

c. County

 

d. Municipal

 

2. Most significant relationships

 

 

3. Position responsible for communications

 

4. Policy on dual commissions
H. Records (General)

1. Nature and extent of records in general

 

2. Specific record content

a. Accident reports-~nature and location

 

b. Types of offenses~~vice, sex, larceny, etc.

 

c. Per cent of violations by sex

 

d. Per cent of time used for departmental activities,
e.g., traffic, patrol, special, etc.

 

 

e. Other

 

3. Cooperation with FBI in submission of Uniform Crime
Reports

 

 

4. Personnel records

 

240

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. a. ..r‘
, ...4...
.a-

I .
... .1 ...
n...
.... ,.

 

.

 

 

 

 

.
l :

sh, v “..Ii

.. .,..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Distribution or routing of reports

—-—————_——-—-

 

I. Hours of Employment

1. Length and arrangement of coverage

 

2. Average daily working period for officers

 

3. Length of working week

4. Peak demand periods

 

5. Special event requirements (overtime)

 

J. Outlying Campus Area Responsibilities

1. Nature of responsibilities

 

 

2. Nature of area to be covered

 

a. Size

 

b. Distance from campus _____, _____
K. Equipment or Facilities
1. Number of vehicles
a. Patrol
b. Service
2. Radio equipment
a. Centralized control

b. Two—way auto

 

c. Portable
d. Public address systems

3. Weapons

___._—

a. Individual

b, Departmental

  

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

‘ .. “.-.... ‘4'“:
.- . ....n.“ . .. .. . . - . A . A u .1 .. ,__., . .
.
~ . . | . I -
up»... . .. ..... M...
l I v I"
...wunv . u...‘ -~‘ r I \ - vv. ...-1 '
u ‘ ' .
. . .l.-..‘-.-. -. . - '
3, ; . -
.. h.,.. . . ...,. a .1 _
....)..-. ., _n_ .‘l , . . .. .. . . . A.
~. H _ y. r.
-. . -V ,
...”...w...‘ ..-.,... ,V‘ l, ._,4_ , ~-‘ ... '

 

       

.
f : '. > - .1. ~ .
v 4 .»
,__. :
. H; ,.... V...‘-.~.... ~ -
. -,..‘ ”way-...”- 4... \- - . .. ' i
. _. . . .- . ' ‘
. n. A“. .. . _ —-.-..- H 1 .. ._. , . ‘ .
H mum»-.. . , A " ~ |
.. .. .. , . .. '

   

 

     

 

 

     

   

   

 

     

   

 

   

- .-‘~«~-.-v“-...;,.t . 4
. ,. .. H -.. 1,.”J' . . ~ . _

       

 

10.

 

Radar equipment (speed control)

Photographic equipment

 

Laboratory facilities

a. Polygraph

 

b. Alcohol content devices

 

 

Detention quarters

First aid facilities

 

Availability of municipal equipment especially
communication equipment

 

Other

L. Police Specialists

H

N

3.

4}

 

Conditions necessitating use

Nature of specialists

 

 

Plainslothesmen

 

a. Areas requiring use

 

-__._..._.____i
b. Success of use

Significant changes in practices

”MM—~—

M. Traffic Supervision

1.

2.

Number of cars registered
a. Student

b. Staff ___~____.___,____.__

Method of registration

b. Location of records _

 

 

 

 

v
.u '
‘ ..
. a
.. l
u -""‘
._' ‘ ..n
v .
I
... fir.
. ..-
D
, .. .
...,
' .
O ' '
.a
v
. V ~

 

...v

.--1

"~pa

s.

. ,n

 

.

I
. .(
u
u.~~~ '
P'M'”
.
. ,~

 

 

N.

q

8

O

 

c. Means of identification

 

Improved parking areas
a. Student Spaces
b. Staff spaces

Issuance of violation notices

a. Student violations

M

 

b. Staff violations

 

Unique parking arrangements

 

 

General regulations

a. Auto

 

 

b. Bicycle

 

 

c. Pedestrian

Accident investigation

a. Responsibilities

 

b. Nature of reports

c. Distribution of reports

Most significant problems

_____________________..__.._——————————

Relations

hips to traffic engineering program

”_____________________._.__.._.—————.

Public Relations Program

Organized aspects

a. Responsibility for direction

b. Most significant features

__,________________._

 

   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

   

 

‘ ' .:" ,,. , I
- x. .
-. ,.
.. -‘ .
I - 1 Q . y
' . I - u
L .. .. . n—n.
. r . .
. ....\ .. .. . .. ., . .. 4.1 .-.. .
I
.
.aq'-
.. . v , -.. .l n .t . - .. .. W. . l.
‘.
' ' .. .... .7 ..-:...... I
.
' ' »: _~ V
1
I’ ', "l .
l . I»
I ... . ,
,
~ -. . \

 

 

2.

 

Public contact requirements

Telephone procedures

 

Appearance

 

Driving practices

 

Violations

 

Student newspaper reporters

Student courts

 

Other

 

 

Orientation to purposes of department

_____—

Emphasis upon non-regulatory aspects (service)

 

Utilization of opinion surveys

at

b.

Type #—

Results 4_____

 

Utilization of student advisory committees

a.

b.

Types _____________

 

Misunderstandings of the department

a.

b.

Most common cases __,

Efforts to resolve conflicts

MM—

 

 

 

 

 

.
| u u. ’ 'A: i
, ...-
...-..~...._...-..... .,
.
. , . ~....-, ' . I. ' . IA ‘
l
l
- n .u > I I -vn ~ ~ A I I II
.A I -
A . '~." v
u ' ‘
. town A .. v '
. ;. .,
..fl’v .. r.»~..,t - I I. . I I
I
. _ ...~.. . ..
.
‘ ' _ u l
”...“...-
., .
. .
...M ...n, ....
‘ , '7' ‘. - x... v-.. ' l '
av - A§~uli - .. ~.. - on - . .
. . ... 1.. '
- ., , , ‘ : V. ‘ .
. .- .. _.. .. ' -
o ~ . «.‘M'V I
- n .. .._. : '
.
‘ =. . - ‘1 ‘ - - '
" -u ... . ' ' ‘-
.,
..i

1V.

 

 

POLICE AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS

A.

B.

C.

Statement of the 0b' '
3ect1ves of the Police De rt
(By student personnel administrators) Pa ment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contacts with Campus Police Program

1.

Positions Involving Dual Respo
Responsibility of Working wit

1.

Most common incidents necessitat

ing contact

 

 

 

Procedures involved

Title

nsibilities or with Primary
h Campus Police

Faculty rank or status
Year position was established

Nature of responsi

 

Nature of responsibilities to s

bilities to police ___‘______‘_____

M

tudent personnel dean

M

 

 

......

 

”a,

 

 

 

 

   

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

. 4...". . . r .
..,.l .l. .. y...‘ .
>, .. . . .. , .....- l,
..-.~~ . ....... .. .. I- M»,1'- ......“ .
1';
‘ ' W A .. l .... 1..
- rt, \
. . . \" _ '.
.-.. .l .. H .. " . ‘ H .,

 

 

 

 

.... a.”-
.» , t K

 

... . . . mu.
‘ . ‘ . . 1
..- .. ,7 . .,.

. , . ‘
"‘ ..'- 'r
«...-4...“.

 

1 .
. ..u
m. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. . -. .... \

 

.. ,. u“

 

 

 

D.

6.

7.

Limitations of Police Functions in Relation to Students

1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 246 ;
Educational background of the incumbent ;
a. Number of years \
b. Degree (5) held ‘
c. Major area of study
d. Other training \
Experience background of the incumbent
Number of Duties or
Zears title
a. Police
b. Educational
c. Industrial

 

d. Other

1

 

Removal of students from classes

 

 

Removal of students from campus residence facilities

 

Pursuit of students after a campus violation

 

Interrogation of students

 

 

Apprehension for felonies

 

Apprehension for misdemeanors

 

Arrest for appropriate offenses

m

Discretionary powers in reporting inappropriate
behavior

 

Securing and retaining identification cards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

  

 

     

   

 

 

     

 

   

 

       

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

.
. '. .--, .. r I
.' h _ ' . -. r _
h! ....l.' 0‘..| l .
x, ; . ‘. . - .m' .
.. ‘ I - . ‘ -‘ ~
..u n,.. u
' . ‘ ' '. .-‘.- -
l- -. r ."r 'J u ~
. .
.- . .. n . . .
. , ,2 -, ~
. .;,. I . . I
. . ..... . . ....- -
. ~ . ‘ _ . ‘ _ .. -.: \' -
._ , . - ." I. ‘ ' '. a I
' l
l
‘ I
. ‘. x
I. - l
1- ....... l
' .1 . I l ‘
. . .......
' 1 " “.7 ' v -
. ... ..
l ‘.
. . ....~........
. p -.. ‘. . -‘ .” ..." g '. . 3
\'
. . . . p.~ , . . - ...
. , .. ~.’.'- . ‘- "- ' ‘ "
... . . .‘ -... .......u.a.. - 'Ir—n‘un -x~-L.n‘#‘
. .. - ' 4' .1 r '
‘ " --_‘ . , , .‘ ’ . - ’ .-' .- I.
. -..- .m- - ... ....-.... .... . , .. ... .- .. ..
. ~ - . lr- - .-. ’.'
' ' . ~ -. , . .'. ' u
.. .- .-............l....-
.. . _ .. ‘ -... ' :- ,
u, . _l . ..u_ . ,‘ ' ’.. c- _
...... u.
v .u... .,.- .. - m...“ .u. . . .auuuw: -'-. nun-- .uu- v:-\ u
. '. -. ‘ . , . , -.
“~. - .- .“‘ '. 3 . v. . ' . .-
-. .. ....
\'-~.- . ... - . ' .
I. . .. . '. . - 3 . ..
_ 1
. .
~ . -\ . 3 .. .,.. ”..., . . | ’. . . .
_ .. _ . - . - ,
v. - ._.. .. . ., . . . . . '
I n , _| _y . . . ,. .
. , 3
‘. |
N '
... ...-nu... «Jun-...”. unnamed.-.
. .ll.l ' .
n ' ‘ o
-‘- L| :. . I. . -
.- u... . ...”, ...”... .. ,

 

 

 

l
21 247 l
E. Regulations Affecting Student Behavior ‘

1. General regulations relating to building hours, use,
and damages

a. Summary of regulations

 

 

b. Responsibility for formulation

w

 

 

c. Police contributions to the formulation

 

d. Authority for exceptions to these regulations

 

e. Disposition of offenders by police

w

 

2. General regulations relating to liquor

a. Summary of regulations

 

 

b. Responsibility for formulation

M

 

c. Police contributions to the formulation

 

 

d. Authority for exceptions to these regulations

 

e. Disposition of offenders by police

m

 

3. General regulations relating to firearms

a. Summary of regulations

 

 

b. Responsibility for formulation

 

 

.n‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.-....- .. ‘
, . ‘

 

 

 

 

...- ..,

 

“.... ,. ,,

 

..., u ,.

 

 

 

 

 

...o a. ,~
.. . . .,
,' r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...».

 

 

.v-n',

 

q .
.. .,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

22 248 E 1
l

c. Police contributions to the formulation

 

d. Authority for use of weapons

m

 

e. Provisions for storage

 

 

 

f. Disposition of offenders by police

—-———————-—

 

4. General regulations relating to appropriate on-campus
behavior

a. Summary of regulations

 

 

0‘

. Responsibility for formulation

m

 

c. Police contributions to the formulation

 

d. Authority for exceptions to these regulations

 

e. Disposition of offenders by police

————-—-—-—

 

5. General regulations relating to use of automobiles

 

a. Summary of regulations

 

 

 

b. Fine schedule

 

 

c. Method of adjudication

 

 

 

 

'. -r
..e..
-‘
..-......

 

 

 

,. .
v
n .. .... ..
«\n - .
.n ...-.. .
. . .m.. -...
- -I .-~.
u
....

 

 

 

......- ...-
“-..-‘u
a -...

 

 

. .. ..
.,I I.
t
.y. ....

I

‘
.-..
... ... ...
.u .

..-...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1“. .. , .

 

   

 
 

 

. .‘
I , - '.
- ..
......u...‘
. - ._.
4.... . ..
.. . ~|v

 

.... gun-n .

. »

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

. .
J I'
.‘
'1‘
.', ')
...“
n
-.
..
.A.

 

......~.... . .._.,,,, .
-. . s , ~. ;. . . ..
- .1 l- . :
... .. -...... w“. .. ..
. ~ . ' a .
. .-t e ' ' ;
-. t ...l. ... ,.... ..
. ' ., .
. . .5 . >. -' a
.. .... .... .. ,. . ........
, . I . va1::.--
.. . ,.. ... ...-......
l ‘. I I . ' l
. , , . . -
. .. .‘ ... '.
. .............
...... .. .. .. ....
--.'n .u .
- .....t.....
... I a, - -
' ' ."I.

~- . a .u « unn- «...-u

 

 

 

v
a

 

   

 

 

 

$
23 249 .l
l
d. Responsibility for formulation

I
———————————

 

e. Police contributions to the formulation

 

f. Authority for exceptions to these regulations

 

g. Methods utilized to control violations

 

 

General regulations relating to assembly of student
groups

a. Summary of regulations

 

 

b. Responsibility for formulation

_——-———-——n

 

c. Police contributions to the formulation

 

d. Authority for exceptions to these regulations

 

e. Disposition of offenders by police

m

 

f. Procedures for handling riotous groups

 

 

 

g. Techniques employed in handling innappropriate
organized group activities, e.g., disorderly
parties

 

 

 

 

 

.....-uu - """

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
 

. . . ' " I.
u - ..-.............v
- .....-.-- .... .. I ,. , '. . . .I‘ I
~.. .I,__..... -
I ...
,. .... ~ -~'-‘ '
II . 4 '
.
, I .. . ..w.
_ .l ' ‘
.p . \- I
.I l'
.,_.- r ' H ’
I I ..
. a 1'
. III _.. ......
.. 1.... v “ V i ‘
_ . . “-..”...
I . ...»-
I I,.__... \..
I I\' . .,.
. .-
,.,.. .... --
_, -I|I'\' I "“
, .. . w

 

...—--.— — ...!

 

24
P. Disciplinary Procedures
1. Utilization of police to investigate offenses

a. Committed on university property

 

 

b. Committed off-campus

 

 

2. Nature and disposition of investigative reports

 

3. Role of police in adjudication process

 

4. Distribution of information relating to disciplinary
actions taken

a. Campus police

 

b. Municipal police (if civil offense)

G. Referrals

1. Utilization of police logs or summaries of action as
referral sources

 

 

2. Deviant or inappropriate behavior

a. Nature of referral procedures

 

 

b. Notification of police indicating action taken

 

H. Civil Action Offenses

1. Nature of offenses requiring civil action

 

2. University reSponsibility for providing legal counsel

 

3. Representation at adjudication process

 

250

 

 

 

 
   

   
       
 

 

       

 

     
 

 
   
 

   
 
 

 

‘~D‘—‘l|§‘l -.

 
 

 

   
   
   

 
   

 
 
 
 

     

       

 
 
 

 
     

   

 
 

   

     

       

 

 
     

       
 

 

 

 

 
     

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

I.
'I
u
., ‘
.. I‘I
. ‘ .
' . u-
-.
I
.. .
1..-
." I
'| ‘
I w
. 1'
I i
.. . .

a”; ,.

-u...-...-

 

 

 

25 251
I. Interdepartmental Communications
1. Campus police and student personnel communications

a. Assignment of responsibility

 

Mk__gl Al

 

b. Nature of position

 

 

2. Contacts with municipal authorities

a. Student personnel office

 

 

b. Campus police

 

 

3. Method of reporting civil offenses by governmental
authorities

a. Agency contacted

 

 

b. Type of report

 

J. Public Statements

1. Cases of death or serious injury to students

 

a. Responsibility for notification of parents

 

 

b. Responsibility for news releases

 

2. Policy relating to "no publicity"

 

K. Emergency Procedures (Examination of disaster regulations,
etc.) '

l. Extent of formalization of routine

 

 

 

 

 

36 252

2. Role of student personnel staff

M

 

3. Role of police

 

 

4. Procedures for contacting police

M

 

L. Police Relationships (Social)

1. Familiarization meetings with campus police

 

 

2. Familiarization meetings with municipal police

 

Student government familiarization meetings with
campus police

to

 

 

. Value of such meetings

A

 

M. Orientation

1. Police responsibility for dissemination of general
information

 

 

 

 

 

2. Extent of cooperation with police on this area

N. Complaints Concerning Police -
1. Framewark for handling faculty, and student complaints

 

 

 

 

2. Most common causes of misunderstanding

3. Most difficult misunderstandings to overcome

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

- '.\
'1“. . ,
1....

   

 

 

   

 

 

u.-...... '_

 

   

   

 

 
 

_ .
.. W...
- “...,
" ‘ « n . ..
..
”-...”. . ..
..._._‘ _

 

 

27 253

0. Social Activities

1.

2.

Channels for notification of police for assistance

 

Police Supervision

a. Lines for events

 

 

b. All-school events

P. Police Responsibilities in Student Residential Areas

y...

Married housing

 

 

 

Residence halls

of Students on Police Force

 

Methods of selection

Nature of use

Training and information given prior to duty

General reactions to the practice

 

R. Records, Student

1.

Types of records maintained by police department
which relate to students (Traffic, conduct, finger-

prints, pictures, etc.) ___________________________
‘ M

————v

__.____——-——————-—-—-"“"""'"—

Limits of availability .

Availability of student personnel records to police

Mfg/—

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

. . ,.
I. . . ..
. - . . . ’ '
_ .. ,I “I .— ,_ .... . .. . ,. ... ... ...... .......
.. .- r _.. .
. . . . .
. . . . ,
_ 1 . '.' ,._- I.
. .
_ . . . 3.. ..- . . I
_ . , .. _..... . . . ... . .
. . I
, . . . . . ..
... . . .
u u 4 '
. .
u~ -- - "-1 5 a I. ' .I I
I '.I x .. .
. .. . .... ~ - I.
I . I.- ' _ ., v
. . .I .. a”... .- .
- . u. . ' I
. ,.. . . . .
I .nl.,a-.-.| a , ' ‘ '
u I. ' l
. . l ‘ .
.' ., . ' - . ' " '
.... .» .. . . '4 . u I“ I
"‘ " " Iv - .u - nus-_- It 'I ‘
. . ... . . .. - .\.......-.-. . --
I I I _.... u..- . . .. . .. . -...
. _ -- I '
_ ~ .
I I . . ...-...... . .. .
. ,. .
- - . .. .
\ . .
- - . . .. , , .. .

 

 

 

.:- or". I

M—
_uu-

 

 

 

“8““ “SE “RH

29‘ «u! 5‘ II

APR I 7

 

‘.fi .
A,
f .
«‘.I.
'2‘»:
j:

 

 

 

 

....
m

 

 

 

 

 

 

V

“Mam:

1 my“

1