Canine Option 1
Establishing a Canine Unit
On a University Campus:
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the University of Central Florida
Charles Mesloh
Ross Wolf
Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Fl 32816
407-823-2429
Establishing a Canine Unit
On a University Campus:
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the University of Central Florida
Abstract:
Police narcotics-trained canines have apparently been under-utilized in the campus environment as a method to assist police agencies in controlling illegal drugs and other crimes linked to drug use and distribution. This paper examines the utilization and cost-effectiveness of the police canine unit as a tool in the higher education environment. Specifically, this paper examines the annual societal costs of crime on two college campuses and the potential impact of the implementation of a police canine unit trained in narcotics detection. The implementation of a canine program was found to be 33% more effective than officers without narcotics trained dogs when calculating the number of possible arrests. Additionally, narcotics trained canines could have a significant impact on reducing societal costs of crime in the campus environment.
Keywords: Police, Canine, Drugs, Campuses, Safety, Crime
Cost Effective Analysis of Establishing a Canine Unit on a University Campus
The university campus was once viewed as a haven from the violence and criminal activity of the outside world. However, over time, crime in various forms has begun to appear in this once sacred environment (Trump, 1998). This growing threat has placed increasing responsibilities on campus law enforcement agencies. Violent crime, illegal drug use and the threat of civil litigation against the institution are all very real issues facing college administrators (Wolf, 2001).
Municipal, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies around the country have successfully utilized canine units as an additional measure in their crime control strategy. However, this option appears to be under utilized in the college and university setting. This paper will examine the problem of campus drug related crime and analyze the alternative policy of implementing a canine unit in relation to the traditional campus police model.
For this analysis, it was determined that two schools of sufficient size should be chosen to allow comparison between them and to extrapolate findings to other similar institutions. The University of Central Florida was chosen partly as a result of convenience but also for their previous identification in the top fifty largest universities as defined in Reaves and Goldberg’s study (1995) on campus law enforcement agencies. Although seven campus law enforcement agencies were identified as utilizing trained canines in some function (Mesloh & Wolf, 2001), Central Michigan University was chosen for comparison due to the similarity in student population to the University of Central Florida, the recency of their canine program implementation, and availability of relative campus crime data.
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Over recent years, a number of studies have been conducted about campus crime. Disturbing trends have been identified that may influence future policy decisions. This literature in this area tends to fall into distinct categories: crime analysis, victimology, illegal drug use and litigation. These categories do not exist in a vacuum. As a review of the literature will illustrate, a nexus exists between these categories that demands further examination. Any possible solutions to the campus crime problem would need to be multidisciplinary in the sense that it would need to be able to address multiple problems simultaneously.
CRIME
Nearly half of all higher education institutions describe themselves as “urban,” and another 30% describe themselves as “suburban or metropolitan” (Wolf, 1998). McPheters (1978) believed that campus crime had a relationship to both campus and noncampus variables. The proximity of the campus to urban areas of high unemployment was determined to be a strong predictor of campus crime.
Fox and Hellman (1985) determined that the size of the campus was directly related to the crime rate, while the location of the campus was found to be correlated with the proportion of violent crime.
Nourse (1991) examined the relationship between campus crime rates and certain demographic variables. A number of interesting relationships were found:
- Higher rates of FBI U.C.R. Part 1 Crimes were linked to the percentage of students living on campus.
- Higher rates of robbery and burglary were associated with the location of the institution in relation to high-density populations of a city.
Sloan (1994) conducted a review of Congressional hearings on the problem of crime on college and university campuses. During the period of 1985-1989, campus crime had steadily increased and 80% of reported crimes involved students victimizing other students. Additionally, Sloan reviewed crimes reported to 494 campus law enforcement agencies during the 1989-1990 academic year. Burglary, theft and vandalism made up 83% of the reported crimes, while 6% were violent crimes. Further analysis showed drinking/drug offenses were significantly related to violent crime.
Toch (1994), a journalist for U.S. News and World Report, documented that during 1992-93, reports of robberies climbed 12 percent over the previous year. During the same reporting period, auto thefts and aggravated assaults both rose 3 percent. Burglaries declined 4 percent while the number of murders dropped slightly from 18 to 17. The schools also reported 466 rapes and 448 forcible sex offenses in 1992-93.
The National Center for Education Statistics (1994) conducted a survey on campus crime at postsecondary education institutions for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994. The final document chose to focus on 1994 since earlier years statistics reflected a relatively stable crime rate. For 1994, institutions reported an estimated total of about 10,000 violent crimes and about 38,000 property crimes. The breakdown of violent offenses was:
- 20 murders
- 1,300 forcible sex offenses
- 3,100 robberies
- 5,100 cases of aggravated assault.
Bromley (1996) states that prior to the 1980’s, most campuses were somewhat free of serious crimes. However, during the last ten years, college crime has received considerable attention from the media and the legal system.
Seymour and Sigmon (2000) found for each of the years 1992-1994, violent crimes were reported by about 25 percent of postsecondary campuses. On-campus arrests for liquor law violations, drug abuse violations, and weapons possession were reported by about 10 percent of the institutions in each of the 3 years.
VICTIMS
Davis (1995) examined the issue of unreported crime on the university campus. During qualitative interviews, student victims expressed shock at being a victim of a crime on campus and had previously underestimated their likelihood for becoming victimized. These findings are at odds with Lamplugh and Pagan (1996) that found that people in general often overestimate the risk of crimes and violence. This feeling of safety from crime may come from the “en loco parentis” philosophy of many higher education institutions when dealing with criminal activity.
Turner (1998) studied the relationship between student perceptions of crime and involvement in campus activities. Student perceptions of crime significantly impacted their extracurricular activities. Participation in nighttime activities was discovered to be the most significantly impacted by perceptions of crime. Thus, a reduction in the standard of living could be linked to the fear of crime.
Luckey (1999) researched the incidence of violence among college students living on campus at a medium-size (14,000)
University. 30% reported that they had been victimized during the last year, but only 10% had made an official report of the incident.
ILLEGAL DRUG USE
Sloan’s (1994) review of Congressional hearings on the problem of crime on college and university campuses during the period of 1985-1989 found that 95% of all reported offenses on campuses involved alcohol or drugs, thus supporting Nichol’s (1987) earlier statement that a “significant number of drug-related crimes occur on campuses”(p.32).
Fernandez, McBride, and Lizotte (1997) found a statistically significant relationship between the rate of drug violations on campus and the rate of weapons violations. Of 2,400 campuses 18% report at least one weapon violation on campus each year. Of those campuses reporting weapon violations, the average is about 3.5 weapon violations and at some campuses as many as 40 such incidents each year. The authors stress the need for clear and precise drug and violence prevention policies.
Page and Scanlan (1999) examined the prevalence of marijuana use among college students in the United States. They found that 35% of the males and 28% of the females had used marijuana in the past month. These results are consistent with the findings of Lucey, Marel, Smith, Frank, & Scheider (1999) who documented that 34 percent of the college students survey used marijuana in the year prior to the survey. Seymour and Sigmon (2000) found each of the years 1992-1994, arrests for liquor law violations, drug abuse violations, and weapons possession were reported by about 10 percent of the institutions in each of the 3 years.
The Department of Justice (1999) released the findings of a 1995 study of violence against women on college campuses linking alcohol to 74% of the sexual assaults. Students who engaged in binge drinking were seven to ten times more likely to engage in unprotected and unplanned sexual activity (Rivers & Shore, 1997). Additionally, the use of drugs such as Rohypnol and GHB to subdue sexual assault victims has been documented and is on the rise, particularly in the Orlando area (Curtis & Johnson, 2000), which is the home to the University of Central Florida.
Finally, the CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey at the University of Central Florida indicated that 21.1 % of the students had used marijuana in the last month. During the same time period, the students reported additional drug use of designer drugs (5.9%), sedatives (4.0%), and cocaine (2%).
DETERMINING THE COST OF CRIME
According to Saffer & Chaloupka (1999), the cost of deterring a single drug offender is $4170[1], while the social cost of drug use is $897[2]. It is acknowledged that all drugs are not equal in their social cost, but taken as a whole the stated cost of $897accurately depicts the average value in this market for the purposes of this paper. The monthly cost can be approximated at $74.75 per person[3].
Figure 1. Societal Dollar Value of Crimes Index (Cohen, 1996)
Crime / $ Value of LossesFatal Crime / $2.9 – $3.1 Million
Child Abuse / $60,000
Rape / Sexual Assault / $87,000
Other Assault / $ 9,400
Robbery / $ 8,000
DUI / $18,000
Arson / $37,000
Larceny / $ 370
Burglary / $ 1,400
Auto Theft / $ 3,800
Concurrently, Cohen (1996) placed dollar value on losses that per victimization that included societal and quality of life issues. Levitt (1995) determined that each additional police officer in a large city is estimated to eliminate eight to ten serious crimes and suggests that, based on the cost of the crimes, the social benefit of a reduction in crime is approximately $100,000 per officer per year.
Page and Scanlan’s findings on self-reported drug use by college students (1999) showed that 30% of the males and 20% of the females admitted marijuana use within the last month. Using the statistical data from the University of Central Florida (UCF), it was determined that there were 14,915 males and 18,538 female students (in comparison with Central Michigan’s census of 10,995 males and 16,020 females). From the previously determined marijuana use rate, we are able to project drug use at UCF, as 4,475 males and 3,708 females (8,183 total) per month.
Figure 2. University of Central Florida Societal Costs
The monthly societal cost can then be projected as follows:
7,059 (drug users/month) X 74.75 (societal cost)= $527,660
The yearly societal costs can then be projected as follows:
$527,660 (monthly cost) X 12 (months) = $6,331,920
However, using the CORE data from the University of Central Florida that shows a lower self-reported marijuana use rate (21.1%), the total number of users is estimated at 7,059 students. This does not take into account other types of drug users that are not reporting marijuana use.
LIABILITY
A recent trend has been the litigation against the university system for failure to properly protect the personal safety of individuals on campus. For the plaintiff to recover damages in a negligence action, it must be shown that the school owed the student a duty of care and the result of the school failing to meet this obligation led to the injury. Additionally, the issue of foreseeability was raised in virtually every case brought by student victims (McEvoy, 1992). This issue requires the court to review previous similar incidents and determine whether the crime was foreseeable and thus preventable. Several cases demonstrate the foreseeable standard:
In Duatre v. State (1978), California State University was found to be responsible for the rape and murder of a freshman student in her dormitory room. Although previous attacks on females in the community had occurred, the university failed to take precautions to reduce the risks to students. No warnings had been issued, nor had any security measures been implemented. The court found that “since the university was on notice of the potential for harm, a duty of care was owed…” (McEvoy, 1992, p.141).
In Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that the college was still liable even after some preventive measures were taken. It was acknowledged that the college had taken some steps to protect students but had not gone far enough.
Most recently, in June of 2001, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reinstated a lawsuit filed by the parents of a young woman who says that she was raped at the University of Southern Maine. The parents have charged that U.S.M. failed to warn their daughter of potential dangers and explain campus security measures (Hoover, 2001).
Although crime as a whole can never be eliminated, the literature does suggest that a reduction in drug use would have a marked effect on the crime rate. Since the seizure rate of illegal drugs through the use of trained dogs is somewhere between 500 times (CMSU P.D. Website, 2001) to 1000 times (Remsburg, 1995) that of officers without dogs, a university could justify such an implementation from the position of reduction in liability through protective measures.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS
As shown in the crime and drug literature, campuses suffer from the same ills that many cities do. The result of this problem is a legal duty to protect students from crime and violence (Nichols, 1997). Previous studies articulating the drug-crime nexus provide guidance for future law enforcement planning.
Many new technologies are costly and not feasible in the detection of illicit narcotics trafficking, which has been shown to be strongly associated with crime. Thus, for the purposes of this paper, these options have been elimated due to either their impractical nature or the deterrent nature of their capital investment. Although impressive, the technology-based options are probably beyond the budgetary limits of most universities and may not serve as a deterrent for illicit drug use. As a result, only two options remain in this analysis: the installation of a narcotics dog program or as in all decision-making processes, the option to do nothing.
DETERMINING MANPOWER COSTS
According to Moffatt & Salzberg (1999), the average law enforcement officer performs 230 working days per year adjusting for holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and training days. To determine the actual cost of a police officer per hour, it is necessary to include hourly wage + payroll tax expenses + vacation + insurance + other fringe benefits. In the past, research has shown this total to range from $ 38.46 per hour (Edmonds & McCready, 1993) to $38.71 (Hakim, 1995). For the sake of simplicity for this analysis, a rounded number of $38.50 has been selected for the total cost per hour for a law enforcement officer. For the canine option, this dollar amount per hour will then have the added cost of all of the start-up and recurring expenses over the projected eight-year program. The length of the program (eight years) was decided by the average length of service for a police service dog[4].
OPTION A: THE CANINE OPTION
The scenting power of dogs has been used by man for thousands of years (Chapman, 1990). Recently, the perception of police dogs is exemplified in the personification of canines as equivalent to human officers with personalities and traits of heroicism, sacrifice and loyalty (Mesloh & Surette, 2001). Around the country today, law enforcement agencies use specially trained dogs for a variety of purposes. The primary reason is that they are cost-effective means for crime control (O’block, Doeren, & True, 1979; Lilly & Puckett, 1997). This cost-effectiveness offers a great benefit to campus law enforcement. This position will not require the hiring of additional replacement personnel, as the handler would remain assigned to the patrol division.
However, it is necessary in advance to determine the function of the dog prior to its purchase. Narcotics dogs can be of virtually every breed but canines used in the physical apprehension of suspects need to be chosen for their size and stamina. Obviously, aggressive dogs that have the potential for causing injuries create new issues in liability and public relations. As a result, for this analysis the option for implementing a canine unit has been reduced to a non-aggressive single purpose dog trained only to search for narcotics. According to Williams et al (1997), “the dog and its handler remain the most widely used, broadly sensitive, accurate, fast, mobile, flexible, and durable system available for detecting illegal drugs and explosives (p.1) A trained dog’s alert can be used as probable cause to search or obtain a search warrant (D.E.A., 1995; Bryson, 2000).