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
Canine Option
2
Establishing a Canine Unit
On a University Campus:
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the University
of Central Florida
Canine Option
Abstract:
Police narcotics-trained canines have apparently been underutilized 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
3
Canine Option
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
4
Canine Option
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.
do not exist in a vacuum.
These categories
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
5
Canine Option
6
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
Canine Option
7
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 19921994, 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
Canine Option
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 drugrelated crimes occur on campuses”(p.32).
Fernandez, McBride, and Lizotte (1997) found a statistically
8
Canine Option
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
9
Canine Option
10
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 $41701, while the social cost
of drug use is $8972.
It is acknowledged that all drugs are not
equal in their social cost, but taken as a whole the stated cost
of $897 accurately depicts the average value in this market for
the purposes of this paper.
The monthly cost can be
approximated at $74.75 per person3.
Figure 1. Societal Dollar Value of Crimes Index (Cohen, 1996)
Crime
$ Value of Losses
Fatal 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
$
Burglary
$ 1,400
370
1
This is the cost of enforcement and prevention programs.
2
This cost is related to lost wages and productivity.
3
Derived by dividing annual cost ($897) by 12 months
Canine Option
Auto Theft
11
$ 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
Canine Option
12
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
Canine Option
13
(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.
Canine Option
14
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 decisionmaking 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.
research has shown this total to range from
In the past,
$ 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
Canine Option
15
average length of service for a police service dog4.
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.
4
Personal interview with K-9 handler Troy Crepeau, Venice Police
Department
Canine Option
16
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).
The drug





detection ability includes (but is not limited to):
Marijuana (cannabis sativa)
Cocaine hydrochloride (C12H21O4)
Crack cocaine (cocaine freebase)
Heroin (C21N23NO5)
Methamphetamine (C10H15N)
In order to justify a number of costs, extensive research
of well-established criminal justice system equipment providers
was undertaken. Sources, although not exclusive, represent the
market in this field (see source list in appendix).
It is
acknowledged that prices vary greatly from vendor to vendor.
DETERMINING COSTS FOR CANINES
A number of factors influence the cost involved with
obtaining a police dog.
on the price.
First, the type of dog has an influence
German shepherds are extremely popular due to
their intelligence and adaptability (Ellis & Kirchner, 1990).
Unfortunately, they are one of the highest priced work-dogs on
the market. Second, the actual cost of a dog is dependent upon
the amount of training that it has received. If an agency were
to have a trainer already on staff, the cost of a dog would be
minimal and could be nothing if a suitable donation or rescue
from Animal Control was identified. Finally, regardless of the
Canine Option
level of training that a dog has received prior to sale, the
handler will need to be trained with the dog.
Often this is in
a location away from the hometown of the agency and thus the
handler will need to be compensated for the cost of housing,
food and the time away from work. The time necessary to train
the handler with the dog is related to the level of training
that the dog has received.
A narcotics dog requires
substantially less time than a dog trained to perform patrol
functions.
In this analysis, the following conditions are given as
constants for the sole purpose of remaining consistent in our
analysis:
 All dogs utilized for the purpose of this analysis are
German Shepherds.
 All training is outside commuting area and will require
housing and food compensation, but will not require air
travel.
 Narcotics dog orientation lasts 4 weeks (see appendix A).
 The work life of a narcotics dog is estimated at eight
years.
It must be acknowledged that this working lifespan
is flexible and can vary due to illness or injury.
 The
vehicle used by the canine handler will be a “pool” car
that will be shared with other officers.
Although it will
have a heat alarm installed, it will not have permanent K9
labels affixed or a permanent cage installed.
Instead, it
will utilize magnetic signs and a cargo cage that can be
easily installed and removed each shift.
17
Canine Option
18
OPTION A
COSTS FOR NARCOTICS DETECTION CANINE
TRAINING COSTS
$38.50 (hourly rate) x 160 hrs (4 week trainingi)
$6,160
Hotelii- $40.00 (per night) x 28 days
$1,120
Drug trained dogiii
$4,500
Per Diem costsiv= $35.00 (per day) x 28 days
$
980
TOTAL TRAINING COSTS-----------------------------$12,760.00
EQUIPMENT COSTS (Start-up)
Heat Alarmv
$
550
Cagevi
$
300
K9 Equipmentvii (basic)
$
100
Magnetic K9 signs for carviii
$
100
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS
$1,050.00
RECURRING COSTS (over 8 years)
Care and Feedingix(including vet) yearly
$ 1,500
K9 Equipment replacement (yearly)
$
Care and Feeding (including vet) entire program
$12,000
K9 Equipment entire program
$
TOTAL RECURRING COSTS
$12,800
TOTAL COST OF K9 PROGRAM
100
800
$26,610
OVER EIGHT YEARS
To determine the entire cost of this program, the initial
Canine Option
19
training costs ($12,760) must be added to the start-up equipment
costs ($1,050) and the recurring costs ($12,800) for a total of
$26,610.00.
This can be broken down to a cost of $3,326.25 per
year and using the manpower model designed by Moffatt & Salzberg
(1999), a daily cost of $14.46 can be predicted based on 230
working days.
As a result, the hourly cost extrapolated from
this model places the hourly cost of a trained narcotics canine
at $1.81 per hour.
This amount is quite low in comparison to
that of a human officer ranging from $ 38.46 per hour (Edmonds &
McCready, 1993) to $38.71 (Hakim, 1995). Thus, the handler and
dog have a total wage of $40.31 per hour.
Although it does not change the tangible cost of the dog
team, an additional issue must be addressed.
Due to recent
labor law decisions, canine handlers need to be compensated for
the time spent caring for the dog away from work.
In order to
meet this standard without a substantial increase in cost,
handlers will reduce their work hours by 30 minutes to
compensate. This would require slight modification to shift
schedules to prevent manpower shortages at key times.
However,
failure to properly address this point has been grounds for
numerous lawsuits by handlers against their agencies.
BENEFITS OF NARCOTICS DETECTION CANINE
This option places a non-aggressive detector dog on the
University campus for the sole purpose of identifying and
arresting narcotics violators.

Potential for cash-generating seizures through forfeiture

Canine Option
Public opinion of a non-aggressive dog is likely to be
20
positive.

Ability to generate probable cause (from narcotics alert)
for search warrants, warrantless searches, and arrests
Comparison of records prior to the installation of a canine
unit to those afterward at Central Michigan University showed an
increase in narcotics apprehensions by over 500% (8 in 1998 to
42 in 1999)5. During that same time period, the University of
Central Florida recorded an increase of only 3.4% (29 in 1998 to
30 in 1999).
Theoretically, if the same 500% increase in
apprehensions were realized by the utilization of a narcotics
dog at the University of Central Florida, the arrests of a total
of 145 drug suspects could be anticipated.
Although a direct nexus has not been proven between the
arrival of the canine at Central Michigan University and the
reduction in street crime, it is certainly a reasonable
hypothesis.
5
Personal interview with K-9 Handler Leo Mioduszewski, Central Michigan
University Police Department
Canine Option
21
Figure 4. Comparison of Campus Crime Statistics
University of Central Florida
Central Michigan University
Offense
1998 1999
Offense
1998
1999
Murder
0
0
Murder
0
0
Forcible Sex Off
3
0
Forcible Sex Off
6
5
Nonforcible Sex Off
0
0
Nonforcible Sex Off
0
0
Robbery
0
0
Robbery
0
1
Agg Assault
6
6
Agg Assault
4
6
Burglary
22
26
Burglary
11
4
Auto Theft
7
6
Auto Theft
3
2
Larceny
213
282
Larceny
281
227
In the comparison between the University of Central Florida
and Central Michigan University, it must be noted that there is
a small size differential between the schools.
The enrollment
at Central Michigan is 27,015, while the University of Central
Florida has 33,453.
However, when looking at the crime data, it
is important to note the changes in crime trends, not the amount
of crime.
Reductions in street crime at Central Michigan illustrate
a trend that could be a result of the canine implementation.
Using Cohen’s model of crime values (1996), the reduction of 54
larcenies ($370 each), 1 auto theft ($3800 each) and 7
burglaries ($1400 each) decreases the cost to society by $33,580
per year.
The increase of a single robbery at Central Michigan
has an associated cost of $8000, but still allows a cost savings
Canine Option
22
of $25,580. If a nexus could be made crediting the canine unit
for these reductions, the reduced cost to society for this
single year all but funds the program until its conclusion.
For the same time period, the University of Central Florida
documented an increase of 69 larcenies, a decrease of 1 auto
theft and an increase of 4 burglaries for an increase in
societal cost of $27,300. Although these potential benefits are
not included in this effectiveness analysis, they are important
points to consider in future policy decisions and an area for
potential research opportunities.
OPTION B: THE DO-NOTHING OPTION
This alternative is the status quo: no change is made to
the existing campus police model.
Unfortunately, this option
has the higher cost of liability.
Based on the extant research
and case law in this field, agencies that choose the status quo
could be demonstrating a deliberate indifference towards the
problem of campus crime and place themselves in a particularly
weak position in the event of litigation. However, there are no
start-up or recurring costs associated with a new program.
Additionally, the opportunity cost associated with not
establishing a canine program is great, allowing implementation
of a different type of program at a later time.
As a result,
$35,050 that would have been spent on starting a maintaining the
canine unit can be spent elsewhere.
Canine Option
23
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS
Figure 5.
Program
Student
Cost per
Population Arrest
Number of
Probability # of
Arrests
of Success6
Arrests/
Dollar7
Canine
33,453
$100.78
145
.93
.009
33,453
$96.25
29
.59
.006
Unit
Status
Quo
The above analysis is based on the projected impact of
establishing a canine program at the University of Central
Florida.
The cost per arrest is based on an average time of 2 ½
hours for the investigation, arrest and paperwork for the
primary officer8. As previously stated, this estimated amount is
$1.81 per hour more for the canine handler than the regular
patrol officer (or $4.53 per arrest). It is understood that
additional officers are often present in a back-up capacity but
in this analysis their cost has been omitted since it should be
equal for canine and non-canine categories and any projection of
their frequency would be little more than guesswork.
The projected number of arrests for the canine unit was
extrapolated from the success rate of the Central Michigan
6
Extrapolated from Wolfe’s (1991) study
7
Calculated by dividing probability of success by the cost per arrest
8
Personal interview with K9 Handler Troy Crepeau, Venice Police Dept
Canine Option
24
University Police Department that documented a 500% increase in
narcotics arrests9 (which can be projected to be 145 arrests).
The status quo option showed no increase as it has for the last
several years. It is also assumed that no appreciable changes in
policy have occurred that might significantly change the
narcotics arrest rate.
The probability of success was quantified through a
research study of effectiveness in searches, comparing canine
and human search teams.
According to Wolfe (1991), canine teams
outperformed human teams in accuracy and the amount of time
spent searching.
In these building search scenarios, canine
teams were successful 93% of the time in comparison to human
teams that were only successful 59%.
To determine the number of arrests per dollar of spending,
the probability of successful apprehension is divided by the
cost per arrest. As shown in figure 5, the canine option is
clearly 1/3 more efficient, prior to examining intangible
benefits and externalities. The anticipated long-term results,
then, would be a drop-off in arrests, as more and more students
and other campus visitors decided that they should not bring
their drugs or other criminal activity to a facility that is
adept at locating it.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
As stated earlier in this analysis, the price for the
9
Personal interview with K-9 Handler Leo Mioduszewski, Central Michigan
University Police Department
Canine Option
25
proposed implementation could be substantially less if the
agency already had a trainer on staff who could train the dog
locally without the costs associated with distance training
(hotel accommodations and food allowance). However, the time
spent training the dog would remain the same requiring overtime
expenditure for a replacement officer.
A donation dog or rescue from Animal Control could provide a
suitable candidate for training as has been demonstrated by the
U.S Customs Detector Dog Program (United States Customs Website,
Canine Enforcement, 2001). Provided that these factors were
possible, a reduction in the overall costs of $6600.00 would be
possible, reducing the total cost to $29,250 ($3656.25 per year;
$15.90 per day; $1.98 per hour). However, it should be noted
that this analysis was conducted by utilizing data from only two
institutions that lack similarities in many ways, which could
greatly affect the cost-effectiveness values when applied at
institutions with greater differences.
It should also be noted that this analysis is based largely
upon the research of others in determining societal and
deterrent costs, which are assumed by the authors to be
legitimate.
Additionally, the reader should understand that the
costs for training, purchase and maintenance of the dog are
based upon averages from existing department costs.
IMPLICATIONS
Although the early history of the police dog as a violent
means of social control may negatively affect current
perceptions within institutions of higher learning, the use of
Canine Option
26
trained dogs in this function is fully supported by this
analysis.
Increased narcotics seizures, reductions in related
street crimes and their consequent liabilities offset any
argument to the contrary.
Additionally, the use of non-
aggressive canines offers the ability to gain student support
through high visibility interaction in a public relation type
role that has been documented at other university canine
programs (Mesloh & Wolf, 2001). Finally, the unique nature of
this type of program and the scant research in this field offers
a wide-range of investigative opportunities in various academic
disciplines, as new programs are implemented and data becomes
more available.
The cost range of $1.98 to $2.38 per hour to fund a canine
program provides an opportunity for even the smallest college to
reap the benefits of this law enforcement tool.
In fact, as the
state of litigation of against higher education evolves, it may
become necessary for many more schools to adopt similar programs
in the hope of reducing liability.
Regardless of the
motivations, the canine detection option has been shown to be
cost-effective method to increase drug detection while suffering
minimal initial overhead and recurring costs.
Canine Option
27
References
Bromley, M. (1996). Policing our Campuses: A National
Review of Statutes. American Journal of Police, 15 (3),1-22.
Bromley, M. & Reaves, B. (1998). Comparing Campus and
Municipal Police: The Human Resource Dimension. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21 (3),
534-546.
Bromley, M. (2000). A Content Review of Campus Vehicle
Pursuit Policies at Large Institutions of Higher Education.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and
Management, 23 (4),492-507 .
Bryson, S. (2000). Police Dog Tactics. Calgary, Alberta
Canada: Detselig Enterprises LTD.
Central Michigan University (2001). Crime Statistics.
Retrieved March 1, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.police.cmich.edu/crime.htm
Chapman, S. (1990). Police Dogs in North America.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Curtis, H. & Johnson, P. (2000, May 28). Ecstasy, GHB use
linked to deaths. The Orlando Sentinal, pp. A1, A13.
Davis, D. (1995). Crime on Campus: A Qualitative
Examination of Unreported Crimes on the College Campus. Boston,
MA: Boston University.
Department of Justice. (1999). Grants to Combat Violent
Crimes Against Women on Campuses. Federal Register, 64
(78),20090-20100.
Drug Enforcement Administration (1995). A Guide to Canine
Canine Option
28
Interdiction. Washington: US Printing Office
Eden, R. (1993). K-9 Officer's Manual. Bellingham, WA:
Temeron Books, Inc.
Edmonds, D. & McCready,D. (1994). Costing and Pricing of
Police Services. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 7 (5), 4-14.
Ellis, J. & Kirchner, C. (1990). Establish and Maintain a
Successful Canine Program and Effective K9 Unit Management.
Sarasota, FL: Palm Printing.
Fernandez, A., McBride, B., & Lizotte (1997). Future Trends
of Weapons on Campus. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 27 (5),
31-32.
Fox, J. & Hellman, D. (1985). Location and Other Correlates
of Campus Crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13 (2), 429-444.
Green, M (1999). The Appropriate and Effective Use of
Security Technologies in U.S. Schools: A Guide for School and
Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington: National Institute of
Justice.
Kirchner, C. (1977). Metropolitan Police Department Canine
Branch. Washington, D.C.: Washington D.C. Police Department.
Lamplugh and Pagan (1996). Personal Safety for Schools.
Brookfield, VA: Ashgate Publishing Limited
Levitt (1995) Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to
Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime. NBER Working Paper No.
W4991.
Lilly, J. & Puckett, M. (1997). Social Control and Dogs: A
Sociohistorical Analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 43 (2), 123147.
Canine Option
29
Lucey, R., Marel, R., Smith, R., Frank, B., & Schmeider, J.
(1999). Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among College Students in New
York State. Albany, NY: New York State Office of Alcoholism and
Substance Abuse Services.
Luckey, R. (1999). A Study of Interpersonal Violence Among
College Students Living on Campus. Pittsburgh, Pa: University of
Pittsburgh.
McEvoy, S. (1992). Campus Insecurity: Duty, Foreseeability,
and Thrid Party Liability. Journal of Law and Education, 21 (2),
137-154.
McPheters, L. (1978). Econometric Analysis of Factors
Influencing Crime on Campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 6 (6),
47-52.
Mesloh, C. & Surrete, R. (2001).
Analysis of News Media
Coverage of the Law Enforcement Canine. Unpublished manuscript.
Mesloh, C. & Wolf, R. (2001).
The Use of Trained Canines
in Higher Education Law Enforcement.
Unpublished manuscript.
Moffat, J. & Salberg, P. (1999). Police Enforcement of
Traffic Laws: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. FBI Law Enforcement
Journal, 68 (4), 18-20.
Miller, N. (1995). Less Than Lethal Force Weaponry.
Creighton Law Review, 28, 1-43.
Nichols, D. (1997). Creating a Safe Campus: A guide for
College and University Administrators. Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas.
Nichols, D. (1987). The Administration of Public Safety in
Higher Education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Canine Option
30
Nourse, C. (1993). The Relationship Between Campus Crime
Rates and Certain Demographic Variables on Selected College
Campuses in Tennessee. Memphis: Memphis State University.
O'block, R., Doeren, S., & True, N. (1979). The Benefits of
Canine Squads. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7
(2), 155-160.
Page, R. & Scanlan, A. (1999). Perceptions of the
Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among College Students: A Comparison
Between Current Users and Nonusers. Journal of Child and
Adolescent Substance Abuse, 9 (2), 1-12.
Pearsall, M. & Leedham, C. (1958). Dog Obedience Training.
New York: Charles Scribner's Son's.
Remsburg, C. (1986). The Tactical Edge: Surviving High Risk
Patrol. Northbrook, IL: Calibre Press.
Remsberg, C. (1995). Tactics for Criminal Patrol.
Northbrook, IL: Calibre Press.
Rivers, P. & Shore, E. (1997). Substance Abuse on Campus: A
Handbook for College and University Personnel. Ct: Greenwood
Press.
Seymour, A. & Sigmon, J. (2000). Campus Crime and
Victimization. In A. Seymour & J. Sigmon (Eds.), National Victim
Assistance Academy (pp. 22.4.1-22.4.16). Rockville, MD: US
Department of Justice.
Sloan, J. (1994). The Correlates of Campus Crime: An
Analysis of Reported Crimes on College and University Campuses.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 22 (1), 51-61.
Canine Option
31
Taylor, D. (1999). Evolving Premises Liability and
Security-It Ain't Slip and Fall Anymore. Retrieved March 1, 2001
from the World Wide Web:
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?file:/firms/tc/
tc000015.htm
Toch, T (1994, February). On the Rise. U.S. News and World
Report, 116, 18-20.
Trump, K. (1998). Practical School Security: Basic
Guidelines for Safe and Secure Schools. Thousand Oaks, Ca:
Corwin Press.
Turner, S. (1998). Student Perceptions of Campus Crime and
Campus Involvement. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma.
United States Customs Service Website (2001). Retrieved
April 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.customs.gov/enforcem/k9.htm
University of Central Florida (2001). Retrieved March 1,
2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.police.ucf.edu
Wensyel, J. (1987). Campus Public Safety and Security.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Williams, M., Johnston, J., Waggoner, L., Cicoria, M.,
Hallowell, S., & Petrousky, J. (1997). Canine Substance
Detection: Operational Capabilities. Atlantic City, NJ.: Federal
Aviation Administration.
Wolf, R. (2001). A Nationwide Survey of the Use of
Leadership Frames. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 31 (2).
Wolf, R. (1998). Campus Safety Directors: A Leadership
Frame Analysis (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Central
Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (11A), 4082.
Canine Option
Wolfe, M. (1991). A Study of Police Canine Search Teams.
Retrieved September 20, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.uspc9.com
32
Canine Option
33
Appendix A. Source List
i
Length of canine training based on personal communication with Master
Trainer Jack Ellis, Sarasota County Sheriff’s Department.
Hotel prices based on Motel 6 (WWW.Motel6.com)
ii
Price of canine (competitive with market value) based on personal
iii
communication with Master Trainer Jack Ellis, Sarasota County Sheriff’s
Department.
Price of per diem based on personal communication with K9 Officer
iv
Troy Crepeau, Venice Police Department.
v
Heat alarm price based on American Aluminum Accessories
(http://www.keylink.net/ezrider/K-9Concerns.htm)
vi
Cage price from Pets Mart (http://www.petsmart.com)
Basic equipment (leashes, bowls, collars) from Ray Allen
vii
Manufacturing Company (www.rayallen.com)
viii
ix
Magnetic signs from Quick Signs (www.quicksigns.com)
Price of care and feeding based on personal communication with K9
Officer Troy Crepeau, Venice Police Department.
Canine Option
34
Biographical Information
Charles Mesloh, M.P.A. is a former law enforcement officer
and K-9 handler and trainer with a Master’s degree in Public
Administration from Florida Gulf Coast University.
Currently,
he is the Coordinator of Administrative Services at the
University of Central Florida Police Department pursuing a Ph.D.
in Public Affairs.
His areas of research include law
enforcement training, canine utilization, forfeiture, and use of
force.
Ross Wolf, Ed.D is an instructor and program coordinator of
Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida in
Orlando.
He has ten years of experience as a law enforcement
officer and served as a detective with the Orange County
Sheriff’s Department.
Currently Dr. Wolf serves as a Captain
with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office Reserve Unit and
coordinates a career-track internship agreement for college
seniors.
Contact Information:
Charles Mesloh & Ross Wolf
University of Central Florida
Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies
P.O. Box 161600
Orlando, Fl 32816-1600
(407) 823-2429