Campus Security Technology and University Crime: A Comparative Investigation

And Analysis

Dr. Diane Furno-Lamude, Associate Professor, The University of New Mexico

Dr. Estelle Zannes, Professor, The University of New Mexico

Abstract

Violent crimes and property crimes at our nation's colleges and universities are alarming. Collegian studies
estimate that between 25 percent to 35 percent of all college-aged women are sexually assaulted during
their four years of undergraduate studies. Aggravated assaults, robberies, burglaries, theft, arson and
vandalism are common problems occurring on campuses across the nation. Many college campuses in
suburban and rural areas are the high crime neighborhoods in their communities. Currently, higher-
education institutions are required to give students, parents, prospective students and employees annual
reports on the number of serious crimes on campus. Moreover, the Campus Security Act of 1990 requires
postsecondary institutions to publish and distribute an annual security report containing information about
campus security policies and crime statistics.

Campus security used to mean a security officer, a building alarm or a simple door lock on a residence-hall
room. All of that has changed with technology. Whether it is a card-access system or a call box, it has
become clear that universities and colleges need a combination of security systems to keep people and
facilities safe. Campuses all over the country realize that they cannot rely on one system all of the time
because there is too much room for error, particularly human error. Most security systems work better
when combined with another system. For example, call boxes require officers to respond, card access
requires monitors to make sure IDSbelong to the people using them.

This study surveyed and compared the crime statistics and security technology among small and large
campuses to ascertain if there was any association to levels of crime reported to the security technology
services provided. More specifically, this study investigated the crime statistics of small and large
campuses to the safety and security options available at campuses. This study reports on whether the
security hardware systems available at small and large educational institutions are similar or different qnd
whether any of the systems are integrated with another system for more thorough protection.

Background

The history of campus security is traced to the Yale Campus which established a police
department in 1894.' Their most important h c t i o n was to "protect the students, their property, and
University property."' This remains an apt description of the function of campus security today. However,
in the early 1900s there was little need for security forces on campus. It was in the 1920s and 1930s that
watchmen emerged out of the physical plant of campuses to protect college property. They walked a
regular watchman's clock tour at night to act as a fire watch, close and lock doors, tend the boilers, and
perform other maintenance tasks. But after the repeal of prohibition in the early 1930s, the watchmen
began to take on other hnctions including enforcement of student regulations. It was their duty to detect
violators of the curfew rules, ban drinking on campus, and regulate members of the opposite sex in
dormitory rooms. Few violators were reported because the watchmen did not tend to report student
violator^.^
In the 1950s some administrators realized the need for a police presence on campus. Retired
members of the local police department were hired at a number of schools, under the supervision of the
buildings and grounds director. To foster professionalism and the exchange of information the
Northeastern College and University Association was formed by a group of campus security administrators
in 1953.4Afew years later the National Association of College and University Traffic and Security
Directors was developed and changed its name in 1967 to the International Association of College and
University Security Directors. Since 1980 this group is referred to as the International Association of
Campus Law Enforcement Administrators and presently has hundreds of institutional members.

391 0 1999 IEEE

0-7803-5247-5/99/$10.00
With the mass student demonstrations in the 1960s and early 1970s when campus incidents involved
takeovers of buildings, disruptive "sit-ins" in the university president's office, vandalism, arson, and similar
circumstances, administrators realized the need for stronger measures to handle disruptive situations. The
condition culminated with the 1970 shooting of several students by the National Guard at Kent State
University in Ohio. After this incident several colleges and Universities hired consultants to study security
problems. Several changes in campus security occurred including an upgrading in security personnel and
security directors answered to the president or vice president of the university rather than the head of the
physical plant. In addition, police vehicles were purchased for patrol purposes and equipped with two-way
mobile radios. Security officers also carried modem, two-way FM radios. Many university departments
departed from the "police image" that was unacceptable and even distastehl to students and faculty.
Moreover, in this era police were commonly referred to by students as "pigs." Consequently, department
names were changed from police designations to titles like Department of Security Services or Department
of Safety and Security. Police titles of Chief or Captain changed to titles of director of Public Safety,
Security supervisor, or Security officer.'
After the problems of social and political unrest on campuses in the 1960s and 1970s universities
were confronted with new problems associated with crimes in the form of thefts, assaults, robberies, rapes,
and the selling of drugs and narcotics.

Crime on Campus
Within the past two decades several violent incidents have drawn a spotlight to college and
university campuses that have created the impression that academic environments are dangerous places.
For example, professors were slain at Stanford University and the University of Iowa, students were
murdered at several campuses, including serial killings at the Universities of Florida, Iowa, and Montreal.
Also numerous deaths have occurred from shootings and incidents of date rapes, stranger rapes, and
aggravated assaults have added to the fear of crime on campuses. One particular case launched the issues
of campus crime and lax security to the attention of Congress, state legislators, and students and their
parents. In 1986 a freshman by the name of Jeanne Ann Clery at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania was
brutally raped and strangled by a student while she slept in her dormitory room. After this incident Jeanne's
parents became two of the most influential advocates of awareness and prevention of campus crime. They
are responsible for passing the nation's first campus security reporting law (the Pennsylvania College and
University Security Information Act of 1988) and the federal Student-Right-to-Know and Campus Security
Act of 1990.6
The Campus Security Act requires reporting of only selected crimes known to school authorities,
ignoring theft, which several studies have shown is the most prevalent crime on campus. In a national
survey of 10,000 undergraduates, theft was reported as the most common crime, followed by vandalism,
fights or physical assaults, sexually related violence (i.e., date or acquaintance rape), and robbery.' Similar
findings were reported in a victimization survey among some 3,500 students. Threats of assault accounted
for 85 percent, representing the most prevalent victimization, followed closely by burglary (83%), verbal
harassment (60%), personal larceny without contact (43%), assaults (9%), and rape (4%).*
Campus crime statistics cannot be properly interpreted without reference to the characteristics of
the campus setting and the communities adjacent to campus. Research suggests that the size of the student
body, the proportion of students living in on-campus dormitories, the proportion of males enrolled, the
number of national fraternities and sororities on the campus, the cost of room and board, academic quality,
the type of school (public or private), the setting (urban-rural continuum), the number of buildings on
campus, and the number of acres composing the campus are a11 related to campus crime rates.'

Problems related to Campus Security Act

The reporting requirements of the Campus Security Act bring up several other concerns about
crime rates. Since 1993, DOE requires that statistics include both crime reported to the police and crime
reported to all officials with significant responsibility for student and campus activities. In other words,
campus officials who have significant counseling responsibilities are excluded, including deans, residence
hall directors, rape crisis advisers and other counselors. Also, the extent of campus crime is likely to be
misleading because official measures of crime are partly a hnction of victims' reporting practices. For
example, in a study of crime at The University of Alabama-Birmingham it was found that about one half of
the victims on campus reported their experiences to the campus police or local authorities." In a national

392
study on reporting practices similar findings revealed only 49 percent of all on-campus physical assaults
were reported." Another study conducted at Michigan State found that about one-fourth of victims failed
to report their victimization to the campus police. l2 In turn, this kind of underreporting leads to a distorted
picture of crime on campus.
Underreporting of on-campus sexual offenses is even more acute. Moreover, in a report for the
purpose of helping Congress assess the progress made under the Crime Awareness and Campus Security
Act several important problems and reasons for the problems emerged from a representative survey of
1500 colleges. The results are provided in the table below:

Table 1

Colleges' Principal Problems in Reporting Crime statistic^'^

Problem
Excluding crimes reported to campus officials
Other than campus security officials
Reason
Details of crimes reported to academic officials, such
as counselors, are protected from disclosure, and
Some campus safety officials are reluctant to report
numbers they cannot veri@.

Using incorrect categories to report sex-related Crimes to be reported in this category were amended
Offenses in 1992 to provide different reporting systems for
Sex offenses.

Using an incorrect category to report murder Some colleges are reporting deaths as homicides,
Which can include deaths from negligence, rather
Than just murders.

Omitting information on hate crimes Some colleges reported that they were unaware of
this requirement, which is not mentioned in the
Department's letters to colleges.

Excluding information on crimes reported Local police records do not always lend themselves
To local police to identification and categorization of incidents at
College-related facilities (such as fiaternities or
Sororities).

Using arrest data to reflect reported liquor, Such factors as whether the campus police
Drug, and weapons possession violations department has arrest power can affect the number
Of arrests reported by the school.

Method
Respondents
A survey comprising 37 questions was sent to 389 Campus Police Security Officers having email
addresses listed in the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators(IACLEA).
Only 8 percent of the emailed surveys were returned (32). An additional 50 surveys were sent out by
regular mail to a systematic sample of the IACLEA members with no email address listed, which provided
an additional 11 respondents for a total of 43 campuses. Surveys continue to be received sporadically.
Still, response rates appear low for both email and regular mail surveys and may be explained by several
reasons. First, many of the email addresses may have been changed from the 1998 IACLEA Directory.
Second, the surveys were sent out a few days before the Columbine incident in Colorado and some officers
may have been hesitant in answering questions concerning security procedures at educational institutions.

393
Survey
The survey obtained information such as: campus size, the number of students living on campus,
the security technology available on campus, where most crimes occur, which types of crimes are reported
most fiequently, if crime is on the increase, decrease or experienced no change, what technology is
recommended to alleviate crime on campus if budget were of no concern. Two questions addressed the
Clery Law or Security On Campus (S.0.C) founded in 1987 by the parents of Jeanne Clery who was
brutally raped, beaten and murdered in her dormitory room. The S.O.C. is the only national, non-profit
organization geared specifically and exclusively to the prevention of campus violence and crimes and to
assist campus victims in the enforcement of their legal rights. According to the Clery Law ampuses must
keep a public log of crimes that occur on campus. However, as outlined in Table 1, numerous problems
exist in campus crime reporting.
Three in-depth interviews with Police Security Officers were conducted to gain hrther insights
about security technology and crime and to generate questions for the survey.

Results
Of the 43 surveys returned, eighteen (42%) represent campuses with less than 10,000 students and
twenty-five (58%) represent large universities with 10,000 or more student enrollment. The campuses were
also coded for location by time zones: Pacific (23%), Mountain (21%) Central (16%) and Eastern (39%).
Twenty-eight percent of the campuses have less than 1500 students living in dormitories or on campus, 49
percent have 1500-5000 students living on campus and 23 percent have over 5,000 students living on
campus.
Securitv Technologv on Campus
Small campuses (less than 10,000) were compared to large campuses (10,000 or more) to ascertain
if there were any differences in the security technology available. Sixteen questions addressed security
technology available on campus and inquired if Police Security officers believed the lighting on campus
was safe in parking facilities and across campus. Table 2 presents the percentages of security technology
utilized at small and large campuses across the United States.

Table 2

Security Technology Small Campus Large Campus

Available (less than 10,000) ( 10,000 or more)

Dorm cards used (to gain entry) 39% 64%

Building cards used (to gain entry) 22% 36%

Dorm Pin numbers used (to gain entry) 28% 16%

Dorms have building alarms 44% 40%

Dorms have building automation system 11% 28%

a
Call box/security telephones across Campus 72% 96%

Card-access control to verify authorization (for dorm entry) 50% 56%

b
Card-access control to verify authorization 39% 72%
(for entry into buildings other than dorms)

CCTV (Closed-circuit television) in some locations 61% 72%

Door leversflocksin dorms (when door lockdever rotates) 11% 36%
Use of metal detectors 16% 36%

a Significantp<.05
b SignificantF.05

394
 The only significant differences in the security technology available at small and large campuses
were the use of security telephones and the use of card access control to verity entry into some buildings,
other than dorms. The large campuses tend to use both technologies more than small campuses.
Two follow up questions addressed where metal detectors and CATV were used. Metal detectors
are used for special events or dances that take place on campus. CCTV is used mainly in parking lots and
the student union at smaller campuses. Whereas, large campuses appear to have CCTV in more locations
including the student union, parking lots, dormitories, administrative buildings and computer labs. In line
with this, when asked if budget were of no concern, what security technology would be obtained to
alleviate crime, CATV was suggested over any other technology by both small (39%) and large (36%)
schools. The second most frequent request for small colleges was "improved lighting on campus grounds"
and large universities called for mobile computer monitoring systems as a secondary choice.
For the most part, respondents of both size campuses reported that 'hight lighting across the
campus provides a safe walk anywhere on campus" (27% strongly agree, 55% somewhat agree). However
5% somewhat disagree and 11% strongly disagree. Larger campuses responded similarly as 28% strongly
agree, 68% somewhat agreed, and 4% strongly disagreed. The same question was posed in regard to
parking facilities. For small campuses 33% strongly agreed, 61% somewhat agreed, and 5% strongly
disagreed that night lighting was safe in parking facilities. Twenty-four percent of large universities
strongly agreed, 68% somewhat agreed, and 8% somewhat disagreed.
Respondents reported their annual budgets for campus security and were asked "In the past 3
years, what percentage has the annual budget for campus security increased. Five percent of campuses
surveyed receive less than $20,000 annually, 21% receive $100,000 to $499,000, 14% receive $500,000 to
$700,000, 33% receive $1,000,000 to $2,500,000, and 12% receive $3,000,000 to $4,500,000. Sixteen
percent of the respondents did not respond to this question. In relation to the percent of increase campuses
have received in the past three years, 79% reported that they received less than a 5% increase in the past
five years, about 5% reported they received a 6% to 10% increase, about 12% received 11% to 20%
increase, 2% reported they received 21% to 30% increase, and another 30% said the budget had actually
decreased in the past 3 years.
Results: Crime on Campus
Police Security ORicers were asked which crimes occur most frequently on campus as well as
outside the boundaries of campus. In addition they were asked where most crimes occur on campus and if
crime was on the increase, decrease or unchanged. Also, because there is so much controversy about crime
statistics reported by campuses, we asked if the public police log at campus accurately reflects the number
of crimes that occur and if the computer software used to document the crime statistics, in compliance with
the Clery law, is efficient.
Both small (72%) and large (72%) campuses reported theft as the most frequent crime to occur on
campus. For small campuses, drinking and disorderly conduct was reported by 22% as a frequent crime.
Twelve percent of large universities reported assaulthattery (including rape, non-forcible sex offenses &
hate crimes) as another frequent crime. There was a significant difference among small and large campuses
in regard to the most frequent crimes which occur outside the campus boundaries. For example, small
campuses mentioned property damage (39%), auto theft (17%) and drug and alcohol problems (17%) as
frequent. Larger campuses reported theft (44%), property damage (44%), and assaulthattery (4%) as
crimes that occur outside the boundaries of campus. Some of the Police Security oRicers said they did not
have information about crimes that occur frequently just outside the boundaries of the campus or that it was
not available.
In answer to whether crime was on the increase, decrease or unchanged, 11% of small campuses
reported crime was on the increase and 24% of large universities reported an increase. Thirty-three percent
of small campuses reported crime was on the decrease, whereas 56% of large universities said crime was
on the decrease. However, 55% of the smaller campuses reported that crime levels had not changed, while
only 2% of the larger universities said crime was unchanged. Taken together, there was a significant
difference in crime level accounts at small and large campuses. Also, a significant difference was found
with both size campuses when asked "where crimes occur most fiequently on campus." Small schools
reported that 55% of the crimes occur in residence halls and large universities said 36% of the crimes occur
there. Twenty-two percent of small campuses reported crimes occur in parking lots and larger schools
reported only about 4% of crimes occur in parking facilities Also, smaller campuses report crime occurs
in administrative buildings (1 l%), and larger schools said that 8% of crimes occur there. While smaller

395
campuses did not report that crimes occur on campus grounds, larger campuses responded that 40% of
crimes occur on campus.
In response as to whether the public police log accurately reflects the number of crimes that occur
on campus all smaller campuses answered positively. Only 2% of larger campuses believed that the police
log was inaccurate, giving the reason that '!not all crimes are reported to campus security." Finally, Police
Security officers were asked if the computer software used to document the crime statistics required to
comply with the Clew law was efficient. The majority of campuses, both small (83%) and large (64%)
believed their software was efficient. Sixteen percent of small schools and 36% of the larger schools
reported that the software is not efficient in complying with the Clery law citing the failure of the software
to capture crime statistics arrayed, as required by the law. Another reason for inefficient reporting in
complying with the Clery law was "because they keep amending the law."

Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to compare the types of crimes that occur most frequently and the
crime index of small and large campuses to the safety and security options that are available on the
respective campuses. Another part of this study compared the security technology available at each
campus size to seek out what systems may be more efficient in terms of crime prevention.
It was difficult to ascertain the actual crime statistics of campuses because many schools do not
report them. Moreover, an attempt was made to obtain crime statistics for each campus in the sample.
However, more than 50% of the crime statistics were not reported or not available. Consequently, we
obtained figures from the Uniform Crime Reporting program operated by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. But, statistics reported under this program (UCR) include only offenses known to campus
police, while CSA (Campus Security Act) disclosures are required (although many schools fail to do so) to
include crimes reported to a broad range of campus officials, including, under certain circumstances
counselors and rape crisis centers. Regardless, application of the UCR list proved ineffectual even though
it included other government reports and individual institutional web sites because more than 50% of the
crime statistics were not reported for the schools under study and therefore did not yield enough data to
make meaningful comparisons. Consequently, we used crime levels (increase, decrease, or no change) as
reported, to describe the crime index and make comparisons to security technology available and found
several differences. First, it was reported that larger universities tend to use both call bodsecurity
telephones on campus and card-access control to verify authorization into buildings other than dorms. This
finding is not surprising since larger university budgets far exceed smaller school budgets. However, based
on the survey data, utilization of security telephones and a verification of authorization into buildings may
account for the decrease in crime reported by 56% of the larger campuses and compared to 33% of small
campuses.
This study also found that CATV is the technology that both size schools would obtain over other
security devices, to alleviate crime if budget were of no concern. Even though the majority of schools
reported that CATV is used on campus, small schools tend to utilize CATV in a specific area while larger
schools tend to have CATA in use in two or more locations across campus. This finding may explain why
larger campuses showed a significant difference in reporting where crimes occur on campus.. Some of the
larger schools reported that CATA is used in residence halls besides other locations across campus,
whereas this is not a location that CATV is in use at smaller schools. Yet, smaller schools relate that 55%
of the crimes occur in residence halls.
In line with previous research, theft was reported as the most common crime to occur on
campuses, both small and large. One Security Oficer14 explained how a typical theft incident occurs on
campus:

A student will go into the library and leave their books at a time when the book
store is doing a book business, leave their books on a table, just go into the stacks for
twenty, thirty seconds. When they get back, their books are gone, their notes are gone,
and their leather jackets are gone. Campus cops for years have had a saying, 'If its not
nailed down, it walks away.' That unfortunately is still true. Our biggest problem on
every campus in the country, by far, is theft and burglary.

This study reported significant differences in campus size for crimes that occur just outside the
boundaries of the educational institution, with small campuses reporting property damage, auto theit, and

396
druglalcohol problems as frequent and large campuses reporting threats of assault and property damage as
frequent crimes happening outside the campus. It is difficult to explain the reason for these differences.
But it is clear that previous studies have pointed out that campus crime statistics cannot be properly
interpreted without reference to the characteristics of the campus setting and the communities adjacent to
campus.
More research is required about the usefulness of security technology in alleviating crime at
educational institutions in the United States. Too many campuses in this study reported that crime was
unchanged or on the increase. Furthermore, it would be fruitfhl to conduct a more in-depth investigation
focusing on the computer software used by campuses to find what particular problems exist in reporting
crimes in accordance with the Campus Security Act. Too many schools do not report crime figures
accurately because of the computer software in use, exclusion of crimes reported to campus officials, or
because incorrect categories are used in reporting sex-related offenses. Whatever, future investigations are
necessary to gain an accurate account of the number and types of crimes that occur on campuses in the
United States.

J.W. Powell, Campus Securitv and Law Enforcement. Butterworth Publishers, 1981.
'J.W. Powell, 1981, ov.Cit.
J.W. Powell, 1981, ibid.
J.W.Powell, 198 1,
J.W. Powell, 1981, ibid.
Fisher, B.S., "Crime and Fear on Campus," Annals ofAmerican Academy OfPoIitical & Social Science,
1, May/June, 1995.
'Siegel, D.G. & Raymond, C.H., "AnEcological Approach to Violent Crime on Campus," J m m I of
Security Administration, vol. 15 (2):21 Dec., 1992.
Fisher, S. et al., "The Prevalence of Student Victimizations," (Manuscript, University of Cincinnati,
1994).
Fox, J.A. & Hellman D.A., "Location and Other Correlates of Campus Crime, Journal of Criminal
Justice, 13(2):42944(1 985).
lo Sloan, J.J. & Fisher, B.S. & Wilkins, D.L., "Crime, Attitudes toward the Police and Related Issues on the
UAB Campus: Interim Report, 'I (Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama-Birmingham,
1994).
11
Towson State University, Center for the Study and Prevention of Campus Violence, "Regional Campus
Violence Survey: 1985, 1986, 1987 General Report," (Towson-State University, 1988).
*' Trojanowicz, R. & Benson, B. & Trojanowicz, S.,*'CommunityPolicing: University Input into Campus
Police Policy-Making," (East Lansing: Michigan State University, School of Criminology, and National
Neighborhood Foot Patrol, 1988).
13
Campus Crime: Difficulties Meeting Federal Reporting Requirements, (FBI Uniform Crime Reporting
Program California) HEHS-97-52, 3/11/97.
l4 Interview with Campus Police Chief, Kathy Guimond, February 23, 1999.

397