Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice
South Carolina 2011 Law
Enforcement Census
Robert J. Kaminski, Ph.D.
Jeff Rojek, Ph.D.
Mikaela Cooney, M.A.
December, 2011
CONTENTS
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 2
FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Agency Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 3
Personnel and Training ............................................................................................................... 8
Budgets and Salaries ................................................................................................................. 16
Operations ................................................................................................................................. 23
Equipment ................................................................................................................................. 34
SPECIAL TOPICS ....................................................................................................................... 39
Foot Pursuit Policies ................................................................................................................. 39
Impact of Recession .................................................................................................................. 44
APPENDIX A – SC Law Enforcement Census Survey ............................................................... 47
APPENDIX B – Data Responses.................................................................................................. 58
APPENDIX C – Number of Officers per 1,000 Residents ......................................................... 140
i
List of Figures
Figure 1. Racial and ethnic composition of full-time sworn personnel .......................................... 8
Figure 2. Gender composition of full-time sworn personnel .......................................................... 9
Figure 3. Percentage of agencies reporting different minimum education requirement
for new full-time sworn personnel ................................................................................. 11
Figure 4. Percent of agencies reporting post academy entry-level training .................................. 13
Figure 5. Percent of agencies reporting seizure of money and/or goods through drug asset
forfeiture ....................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 6. Percentage of agencies reporting various patrol shift lengths ....................................... 27
Figure 7. Percentage of agencies participating in 911 and enhanced 911 systems....................... 28
Figure 8. Percentage of municipal and sheriffs’ agencies operating with various types of
communications center management ............................................................................ 28
Figure 9. Percentage of agencies with full-time traffic units ....................................................... 30
Figure 10. Percentage of agencies with special weapons and tactics units .................................. 30
Figure 11. Percentage of agencies with various motor vehicle pursuit policies ........................... 33
Figure 12. Percentage of agencies provide take-home marked vehicles and allowing
duty personal use of marker vehicles ........................................................................... 35
Figure 13. Percentage of agencies with various types of computers used by
patrol/field personnel .................................................................................................. 35
Figure 14. Percentage of agencies requiring body armor ............................................................. 36
Figure 15. Percentage of agencies supplying body armor or providing cash allowance .............. 37
Figure 16. Percentage of agencies with written foot pursuit policy ............................................. 39
Figure 17. Type of written foot pursuit policy.............................................................................. 41
Figure 18. Agency implemented budget cuts in FY 2009 ........................................................... 44
Figure 19. Agency implemented budget cuts in FY 2010 ........................................................... 44
Figure 20. Expect agency to implement budget cuts in FY 2011 ................................................ 45
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Number and percent of responding agencies .................................................................... 2
Table 2. Full-time sworn personnel by agency type ....................................................................... 3
Table 3. Full-time sworn personnel by agency size ........................................................................ 3
Table 4. Full-time sworn personnel for municipal agencies by agency size .................................. 4
Table 5. Full-time sworn personnel for sheriffs’ agencies by agency size ..................................... 4
Table 6. Sworn personnel per 1,000 residents by agency type ....................................................... 5
Table 7. Sworn personnel per 1,000 residents by agency size........................................................ 5
Table 8. Non-sworn personnel by agency type ............................................................................... 6
Table 9. Non-sworn personnel by agency size ............................................................................... 6
Table 10. Sworn personnel per 1,000 residents for municipal agencies by agency size ................ 7
Table 11. Sworn personnel per 1,000 residents for sheriffs’ agencies by agency size ................... 7
Table 12. Racial and ethnic composition of full-time sworn personnel by agency type ................ 9
Table 13. Gender composition of full-time sworn personnel by agency type .............................. 10
Table 14. Number and percentage of agencies using specific screening methods for new
full-time sworn personnel ............................................................................................. 12
Table 15. Post-academy classroom and field training hours by agency type ............................... 13
Table 16. Post-academy classroom and field training hours by agency size ................................ 14
Table 17. Percentage of agencies requiring annual or semiannual physical fitness tests ............. 15
Table 18. Percentage of agencies providing enhanced pay or benefits for additional education,
experience, skills or duties ............................................................................................ 15
Table 19. Operating budgets for most recent fiscal year by agency type ..................................... 16
Table 20. Operating budgets for most recent fiscal year by agency size ...................................... 16
Table 21. Operating budgets for most recent fiscal year for municipal agencies by agency size 17
Table 22. Operating budgets for most recent fiscal year for sheriffs’ agencies by agency size ... 17
Table 23. Overtime paid for most recent fiscal year by agency size ............................................ 18
Table 24. Estimated value of money, goods, and property seized through drug asset forfeiture
by agency size ............................................................................................................... 19
Table 25. Statewide salary ranges ................................................................................................. 20
Table 26. Salary ranges by agency type........................................................................................ 21
Table 27. Salary ranges by agency size ........................................................................................ 22
Table 28. Allocation of sworn personnel by agency type ............................................................. 23
Table 29. Functions agencies reported having primary responsibility for or perform on a
regular basis .................................................................................................................. 24
Table 30. Functions that municipal and sheriffs’ agencies reported having primary
responsibility for or perform on a regular basis ............................................................ 25
Table 31. Number and percentage of agencies performing specific type of
investigations ............................................................................................................... 26
Table 32. Number and percentage of agencies with various patrol shift
rotation schedules......................................................................................................... 27
Table 33. Calls for service for municipal and sheriffs’ agencies by agency size ......................... 29
Table 34. Percentage of municipal and sheriffs’ agencies placing school resources
officers in different school levels .................................................................................. 31
Table 35. Agencies with in-house attorneys and psychologist/counselor .................................... 31
Table 36. Agencies with reserve officer and youth cadet programs ............................................. 32
iii
Table 37. Number and percentage of agencies with written policies for specified issues............ 32
Table 38. Agencies with national and state accreditation ............................................................. 33
Table 39. Percentage of agencies utilizing specific less-than-lethal weapons.............................. 34
Table 40. Percentage of agencies using computers for various functions .................................... 36
Table 41. Body armor requirements for officers by agency type ................................................. 37
Table 42. Body armor requirements for officers by agency size .................................................. 38
Table 43. Body armor allowance by agency type ......................................................................... 38
Table 44. Body armor allowance by agency size ......................................................................... 38
Table 45. Written foot pursuit policy by agency type .................................................................. 40
Table 46. Written foot pursuit policy by agency size ................................................................... 40
Table 47. Agency foot pursuit practices (excluding emergency exceptions) ............................... 42
Table 48. Agency in-service foot pursuit training ........................................................................ 42
Table 49. Specific in-service foot pursuit physical training methods ........................................... 43
Table 50. Number and percentage of agencies reporting budget cuts and reductions for
FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 46
Table 51. Number and percentage of agencies reporting budget cuts and reductions for
FY2010 ......................................................................................................................... 46
iv
INTRODUCTION
Every two to three years the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the United States Department of Justice conducts a
comprehensive survey of law enforcement agencies titled Law Enforcement Management and Statistics
(LEMAS). The survey covers a variety of issues on agency capacity, operations, equipment and various special
topics. The survey is administered to all law enforcement agencies in the United States with 100 or more sworn
personnel and a sample of agencies with less than 100 officers. While LEMAS is informative for general
knowledge on law enforcement agencies across the United States, it has limitations in providing information on
South Carolina law enforcement agencies. Most important of these limitations is that only a portion of South
Carolina agencies are captured by this sampling approach. For example, the 2003 version of the LEMAS survey
only included 42 South Carolina agencies. Given there are nearly 300 law enforcement agencies at the
municipal, county and state level in South Carolina, this LEMAS sample provides only a glimpse of the diverse
characteristics of law enforcement agencies in the state.
Over the past two decades the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South
Carolina has addresses this gap by periodically conducting a census of all law enforcement agencies in the state.
Early versions of the survey were conducted through phone interviews, but the survey has become longer and
more complex over the years resulting in it becoming a mail survey. The South Carolina survey traditionally
focused on issues found in the LEMAS survey, which examines the characteristics of law enforcement agencies
such as number of personnel, budgets, and resources. The survey has also included questions on special topics
related to recent trends in law enforcement, including homeland security funding, policies regarding the
mentally ill, and community policing implementation. Recent iterations of the South Carolina law enforcement
census have also been solely dedicated to special issues facing law enforcement. Topics examined included
gangs (2005), academy and post-academy training standards (2007), less-lethal weapons and use-of-force
policies (2009) and local law enforcement use of the South Carolina Intelligence and Information Center (2010).
These and earlier reports are available electronically at http://www.cas.sc.edu/crju/sclec.html).
The 2011 survey returned to the traditional LEMAS format to provide an update to earlier versions of the
census on the characteristics of South Carolina law enforcement agencies. In addition to the questions on
agency personnel, operations, budgets, and equipment, the 2011 census survey examined foot pursuit policies
and the impact of the recession on law enforcement agencies. The primary purpose of the census is to inform
law enforcement administrators on how their agencies compare to peer agencies within the State on such issues
as personnel allocation, budgets, salaries, policies, and equipment. This information can subsequently be used
by these administrators to inform their city, county or state officials on resource and funding needs.
1
METHODOLOGY
The 2011 South Carolina Law Enforcement Census survey was 11 pages in length and included of 53 questions.
As noted above, the questions incorporated into the survey were drawn from earlier versions of the LEMAS
survey, as well as questions created by Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice faculty. The survey
was divided into 7 sections: Agency Information, Operations, Personnel, Expenditures, Policies and Procedures,
Foot Pursuit Policies and Training, and the Impact of Economic Recession. Appendix A provides a complete
copy of the survey.
The study is intended to be a complete census of South Carolina law enforcement agencies. To accomplish this
goal, a list of all law enforcement agencies in the state was obtained from the 2009 National Directory of Law
Enforcement Administration for Region 3. The list included a total of 289 agencies in the state consisting of all
municipal police departments, sheriffs’ departments, county police departments, special district law
enforcement agencies, and state law enforcement agencies.
A print copy of the survey was mailed to all agencies in mid-February, 2011. A reminder letter was mailed to all
agencies two weeks later, and a full survey packet was sent to any non-responders in mid-March. All agencies
that did not respond to this second mailing were subsequently mailed another survey packet.
A total of 165 out of 289 agencies provided usable surveys, for a 57.1% response rate. Table 1 displays the
distribution of response rates for the different types of agencies included in the census. The highest response
rate was among sheriffs (70.2%), and the lowest was among special district agencies. Although the response
rate does not encompass every agency in the state, it represents information on almost four times as many South
Carolina agencies as found in the LEMAS surveys. As a result, this report provides a more complete overview
of South Carolina law enforcement agencies.
Table 1. Number and percent of responding agencies
Agency Type
Municipal/County
Sheriff
Department of Public Safety
Special District
State
Total
Total number of
Agencies
173
47
12
57
2
289
Number of
Reporting Agencies
96
33
9
25
2
165
Percent of
Reporting Agencies
55.5
70.2
75.0
43.9
100.0
57.1
Note: The Horry County Police Department is included among the county Sheriff agencies.
The survey findings are presented in two locations in this report. The findings section below presents selected
results. It is divided into six subsections: (I) agency characteristics, (II) personnel and training, (III) budgets and
salaries, (IV) operations, (V) equipment, and (VI) special topics. A second presentation of the results is
provided in Appendix B, where the responses to each survey question are provided.
Each subsection provides a portion of the results in tables and graphs. Some of the analyses examine results by
agency characteristics, such as type of agency or size. Other analyses focus on only specific types of agencies,
such as municipal police departments and county sheriff’s agencies. Note that Municipal Agencies include city,
town, and village police. Special District Police includes campus/university police, airport and railroad police
and the capital police. The Horry County Police Department – the lone responding county police agency – is
included among the sheriffs’ agencies. The presentations are intended to highlight specific results and provide a
comparative analysis where relevant.
2
FINDINGS
Agency Characteristics
The section presents information regarding the number of sworn and non-sworn personnel by agency size and
type. Additional analysis is provided on the service coverage provided by agencies as defined by the number of
officers per 1,000 residents for given jurisdictions. Table 2 provides the distribution of full-time sworn
personnel across agency type. Overall, the number of full-time sworn personnel ranged from 0 to 815 with an
overall average of 57 officers. The number for responding municipal police departments ranged from 1 officer
to 409 officers with an average of 36 officers. The responding sheriff’s departments ranged from 16 deputies to
542 deputies with an average of 131. Table 3 presents the number of full-time sworn personnel by agency size.
Twenty-one of the responding agencies (13.1%) had 100 or more sworn personnel. Just over one third of the
responding agencies (33.8%) had fewer than 10 sworn personnel.
Table 2. Full-time sworn personnel by agency type
Range in Number of
Full-Time Sworn
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Average Number
of Full-Time
Sworn
Minimum
Municipal
95
35.9
1
409
Sheriff
31
130.6
16
542
Department of Public Safety
9
42.8
13
90
Special District
23
15.3
0
58
State
2
439.5
64
815
All Agencies
160
56.8
0
815
Agency Type
Maximum
Table 3. Full-time sworn personnel by agency size
Agency Size
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Average
Number of
Personnel
Percent of
Responding
Agencies
Range in Number of FullTime Sworn
Minimum
Small Agencies
(1-9 Sworn Personnel)
Moderately Small Agencies
(10-49 Sworn Personnel)
Medium Agencies
(50-99 Sworn Personnel)
Large Agencies
(100 + Sworn Personnel)
All Agencies
Maximum
54
5.0
33.8
0
9
63
24.6
39.4
10
49
22
72.7
13.8
52
99
21
269.6
13.1
107
815
160
56.8
100.0
1
815
Tables 4 and 5 present the distribution of agencies by number of sworn personnel for municipal police
departments and sheriffs’ agencies, respectively. Agencies with 9 or fewer sworn personnel are the largest
group of responding municipal agencies (45%), followed by those employing 10 to 49 officers (40%). Seven
medium-sized agencies (7%) employed between 50 and 99 sworn personnel, and 8 municipal (8%) large
agencies employed over 100 sworn.
3
Among the 31 responding sheriffs’ agencies, 12 (39%) employed more than 100 sworn personnel, 8 (26%)
employed between 50 and 99 and 11 (35%) employed between 10 and 49 deputies. No sheriffs’ departments
employed fewer than 10 sworn.
Table 4. Full-time sworn personnel for municipal agencies by agency size
Agency Size
Small Agencies
(1-9 Sworn Personnel)
Moderately Small Agencies
(10-49 Sworn Personnel)
Medium Agencies
(50-99 Sworn Personnel)
Large Agencies
(100 + Sworn Personnel)
All Agencies
Range in Number of
Full-Time Sworn
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Percent of
Responding
Agencies
Average
Number of
Personnel
43
45.3
5.1
1
9
37
38.9
24.7
10
49
7
7.4
64.6
52
96
8
8.4
228.8
107
409
95
100.0
36.0
1
409
Minimum
Maximum
Table 5. Full-time sworn personnel for sheriffs’ agencies by agency size
Agency Size
Small Agencies
(1-9 Sworn Personnel)
Moderately Small Agencies
(10-49 Sworn Personnel)
Medium Agencies
(50-99 Sworn Personnel)
Large Agencies
(100 + Sworn Personnel)
All Agencies
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Percent of
Responding
Agencies
Average
Number
of
Personnel
Range in Number of
Full-Time Sworn
Minimum
Maximum
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
11
35.4
31.6
16
48
8
25.8
85.5
66
99
12
38.7
251.4
120
542
31
100.0
130.6
16
542
Tables 6 shows the minimum, maximum, and average number of sworn officers per 1,000 residents by agency
type, while Table 7 shows this breakdown for municipal agencies by size of agency. The rate is calculated by
dividing the number of sworn personnel by the number of residents in a jurisdiction, and then multiplying the
result by 1,000. This calculation provides a standardized measure of manpower that is comparable across
agencies serving jurisdictions with widely varying populations. It is important to note that the population figures
used to calculate the rates were self-reported by the responding agencies and we cannot guarantee their accuracy.
In addition, there are complicating factors to consider. For example, some county agencies may first subtract
major city population figures before providing estimates of the size of populations they serve, whereas other
county agencies may not.
As indicated in Table 6, municipal agencies employed 3.6 officers per 1,000 residents on average (range = 0.2 –
36.4), sheriffs’ agencies employed 1.2 (range = 0.7 – 2.6), and public safety departments employed 3.7 per
1,000 residents on average (range = 1.0 – 6.0).
4
Table 6. Sworn personnel per 1,000 residents by agency type
Average Number
of Officers per
1,000 residents
Range in Number of
Officers per 1,000
residents
Minimum
Maximum
Agency Type
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Municipal
88
3.6
0.2
36.4
Sheriff
29
1.2
0.7
2.61
Department of Public Safety
9
3.7
1.0
6.0
All Agencies
126
3.1
0.2
36.4
Notes: Rates for sheriffs’ agencies should be interpreted with caution due to difficulties estimating county
populations served. State and special district agencies excluded due to non-comparable populations.
Table 7. Sworn personnel per 1,000 residents by agency size
Agency Size
Small Agencies
(0-9 Sworn Personnel)
Moderately Small Agencies
(10-49 Sworn Personnel)
Medium Agencies
(50-99 Sworn Personnel)
Large Agencies
(100 + Sworn Personnel)
All Agencies
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Average Number
of Officers per
1,000 Residents
Range in Number of
Officers per 1,000
Residents
Minimum
Maximum
39
4.3
0.2
36.4
48
2.8
0.5
6.0
19
2.5
0.9
5.2
20
2.1
0.7
6.4
126
3.1
0.2
36.4
Note: State and special district agencies excluded due to non-comparable populations.
Tables 8 and 9 provide the distribution of non-sworn department personnel by agency type and size,
respectively. On average, state agencies (mean = 102) and sheriffs’ departments (mean = 42) employed the
largest number of civilians, while municipal agencies (mean = 10) and departments of public safety (mean = 11)
employed the fewest. Table 9 shows that on average large agencies employ the most civilians (mean = 72)
followed by medium-size agencies (mean = 27).
5
Table 8. Non-sworn personnel by agency type
Agency Type
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Average
Number of
Civilian
Personnel
Range in Number of
Civilian Personnel
Minimum
Maximum
Municipal
86
10.3
0
138
Sheriff
29
41.7
2
167
9
11.3
1
25
23
15.0
0
52
2
102.0
5
199
Department of
Public Safety
Special
District
State
Table 9. Non-sworn personnel by agency size
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Average
Number of
Civilian
Personnel
Minimum
Maximum
Small Agencies
46
2.4
0
32
Moderately Small Agencies
59
8.1
1
52
Medium Agencies
22
26.8
5
73
Large Agencies
20
71.9
7
199
Agency Size
Range in Number of
Civilian Personnel
Tables 10 and 11 present the rate or number of sworn personnel per 1,000 residents for municipal and sheriffs’
departments 1 (see Appendix C for a complete list of population served and respective rates for all responding
agencies. Note - for confidentiality, the names of agencies are removed from Appendix D. Only the number of
sworn employees, population, and rate are provided).
Table 10 reveals considerable variation among municipal agencies in the number of officers employed per
1,000 residents, particularly among small agencies (range = 0.2 to 36). The average rate across all agencies in
the State ranges from 0.2 to 36.4 officers per 1,000 residents. Table 11 illustrates that the rates among sheriffs’
departments are considerably lower than found in their municipal counterparts. The average number of deputies
per 1,000 residents ranged from 1.2 to 1.3. Moreover, the range across sheriffs’ agencies of different size is
much narrower than found among the municipal agencies.
1
Only rates for municipal and sheriffs’ departments are presented because populations for other agency types are not comparable.
Further, population estimates and the number of sworn officers per 1,000 population for county agencies must be viewed with caution,
as it is not clear how populations estimates were calculated.
6
Table 10. Sworn personnel per 1,000 residents for municipal agencies by agency size
Agency Size
Small Agencies
(1-9 Sworn Personnel)
Moderately Small Agencies
(10-49 Sworn Personnel)
Medium Agencies
(50-99 Sworn Personnel)
Large Agencies
(100 + Sworn Personnel)
All Municipal Agencies
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Average Number
of Officers per
1,000 Residents
Range in Number of
Officers per 1,000
Residents
Minimum
Maximum
39
4.3
0.2
36.4
34
3.1
0.5
5.3
7
2.9
1.5
4.1
8
3.4
2.0
6.4
88
3.6
0.2
36.4
Table 11. Sworn personnel per 1,000 residents for sheriffs’ agencies by agency size
Agency Size
Small Agencies
(1-9 Sworn Personnel)
Moderately Small Agencies
(10-49 Sworn Personnel)
Medium Agencies
(50-99 Sworn Personnel)
Large Agencies
(100 + Sworn Personnel)
All Sheriffs’ Agencies
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Average Number
of Officers per
1,000 Residents
Range in Number of
Officers per 1,000
Residents
Minimum
Maximum
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9
1.2
0.8
1.6
8
1.3
0.9
2.6
12
1.2
0.7
1.7
29
1.2
0.7
2.6
Notes: Rates for sheriffs’ agencies should be interpreted with caution due to difficulties estimating county
populations served.
7
Personnel and Training
The survey asked agencies to provide detailed information on the race and gender of sworn department
personnel. Subsequent questions asked about the minimum standards these sworn personnel must meet for
entry-level positions and the training they were provided by the agency post academy.
The number of officers in each racial group was summed across all responding agencies to create an overall
distribution of race among South Carolina sworn law enforcement personnel, which is illustrated in Figure 1.
The large majority of sworn personnel in the state are white (81.1%). Black officers are the second largest group
(16.3%), followed by Hispanic, Asian, Other, and Native American personnel. Table 12 shows similar
distributions across agency type. The only notable exception is the higher percentage of black officers (23.8%)
and lower percentage of white officers (68.2%) among special district agencies. Compared to other
departmental types, special district agencies also employed a higher percentage of Hispanic officers (7%).
Figure 1. Racial and ethnic composition of full-time sworn personnel
Hispanic, 1.9%
Black, 16.3%
Native
American, 0.1%
Asian, 0.3%
Other, 0.2%
White, 81.1%
Note: The agencies were asked to separately list Asian and Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. For presentation
purposes these categories were combined under the Asian category.
8
Table 12. Racial and ethnic composition of full-time sworn personnel by agency type
Municipal
Race / Ethnicity
No. of
Officers
Sheriff
%
No. of
Officers
Public Safety
%
No. of
Officers
%
Special District
No. of
Officers
%
State
No. of
Officers
All Agencies
%
No. of
Officers
%
White
2705
79.9
3331
82.3
313
81.3
238
68.2
745
85.3
7332
81.1
Black
580
17.1
628
15.5
67
17.4
83
23.8
112
12.8
1470
16.3
Hispanic
71
2.1
67
1.7
3
0.8
24
6.9
11
1.3
176
1.9
American Indian
Alaskan Native
12
0.4
6
0.1
0
0.0
2
0.6
4
0.5
24
0.3
Asian
12
0.4
8
0.2
2
0.5
1
0.6
1
0.1
24
0.3
Other
4
0.1
8
0.2
0
0.0
1
0.3
0
0.0
19
0.1
Total
3384
100
4048
100
385
100
349
100
873
100
9045
100
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Agencies were asked to separately list Asian and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
For analysis purposes these categories were combined under the Asian category.
Figure 2 shows the overall percentage of male and female officers employed by law enforcement agencies in
South Carolina. Male officers are the vast majority at 87.4%, with females representing 12.6%. Table 13
separates the distribution of officer gender by agency type. Municipal and sheriffs’ agencies employ about the
same percentages of female officers (13% - 14%), special district agencies employ the largest (24%), and public
safety and state agencies employ the lowest percentage of females (4%).
Figure 2. Gender composition of full-time sworn personnel
Female, 12.6%
Male, 87.4%
9
Table 13. Gender composition of full-time sworn personnel by agency type
Gender
Female
Municipal
No. of
%
Officers
458
13.4
Sheriff
Public Safety
No. of
No. of
%
%
Officers
Officers
554
13.7
37
3.9
Male
2958
86.6
3495
86.3
Total
3416
100.0
4049
100.0
348
Special District
No. of
%
Officers
59
23.5
State
No. of
%
Officers
33
3.8
All Agencies
No. of
%
Officers
1144
12.6
96.1
292
76.5
846
96.2
7939
87.4
385 100.0
251
100.0
879
100.0
9083
100.0
10
Figure 3 reveals that the minimum education requirement for new full-time sworn personnel for the
overwhelming majority of South Carolina agencies is a high school degree or equivalent (95.2%). Only 4
responding agencies reported requiring a two- or four-year college degree, and another two agencies required
some college.
Figure 3. Percentage of agencies reporting different minimum education requirement
for new full-time sworn personnel
No Requirement
1.2%
Four Year Degree
1.2%
Two Year Degree
1.2%
Some College
1.2%
High School Degree
95.2%
The survey also asked agencies about other methods used to screen new full-time sworn recruits (Table 14).
The most common methods are background investigations, criminal history check, review of driving record,
and personal interviews, with over 90% of the agencies reporting the use of these methods. It is interesting to
note that less than half of the agencies reported the use of written aptitude tests, physical ability tests,
polygraphs, and psychological evaluations, which are methods commonly used by agencies across the county.
The least used methods were analytical/problem solving skills, conflict management skills, second language test,
understanding of diverse cultural populations, .and volunteer/community service history (all under 5%).
11
Table 14. Number and percentage of agencies using specific screening methods for
new full-time sworn personnel
Screening Method
Analytical/Problem Solving Ability
Understanding of Diverse Cultural Populations
Background Investigations
Credit History
Criminal History
Driving Record
Drug Test
Mediation/Conflict Management Skills
Medical Exam
Personal Interviews
Personality Test
Physical Ability Test
Polygraph Test
Psychological Evaluation
Second Language Test
Voice Stress Test
Volunteer/Community Service History
Written Aptitude Test
Other Screening Method
Number of Agencies
Reporting
30
6
162
128
163
162
136
4
140
160
21
56
45
63
1
0
7
61
9
Percentage
18.5
3.7
99.4
78.5
98.8
99.4
83.4
2.5
85.9
98.2
12.9
34.4
27.6
38.7
0.6
0.0
4.3
37.4
5.5
Except for the South Carolina Highway Patrol, new recruits for South Carolina law enforcement agencies
receive their basic training from the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy, which is 12 weeks in length.
Some agencies provide additional training beyond the Academy and the survey respondents were asked if their
agency provided supplemental post-academy training, whether it is classroom or field-based, and the number of
hours of training. Figure 4 illustrates that just over half (54%) of the responding agencies provided some postacademy training. Field-based training was slightly more common (50%), followed by classroom-based training
(48%).
12
Figure 4. Percent of agencies reporting post academy entry-level training
54.0%
54%
52.3%
52%
50.3%
49.7%
50%
47.7%
48%
46.0%
46%
44%
42%
Yes
No
Any Post
AcademyTraining
Yes
No
Yes
Classroom Training
No
Field Training
Table 15 examines responses to the post-academy training questions by agency type. Generally, agencies
provided substantially more field training hours on average than classroom training hours. Further, there was
significant variability in the number of field training hours provided, ranging from one hour up to a maximum
of 672 hours. Classroom hours ranged from zero to 400 hours. On average, special district agencies reportedly
provided the fewest number classroom training hours (23) and field training hours (208), while departments of
public safety provided the greatest (107 and 419, respectively).
Table 15. Post-academy classroom and field training hours by agency type
Agencies Reporting Additional Hours
Agency Type
Municipal
Type of
Training
Classroom
Field
Sheriff
Classroom
Field
Dept. of
Public
Safety
Classroom
Special
District
Classroom
State
Field
Field
Classroom
Field
Number
Reporting
Average
Number of
Hours
Minimum
Hours
Maximum
Hours
39
51.0
0
400
42
292.0
1
672
19
42.2
0
240
18
257.6
16
512
3
106.7
0
280
5
419.2
208
560
10
23.1
0
80
10
208.3
2
320
1
320
---
320
1
320
---
320
13
Table 16 examines responses to the post-academy questions by agency size. Small agencies with fewer than 10
officers provided on average 31 hours of classroom training and 138 hours of field training. Moderately small
agencies reportedly provided fewer classroom training hours on average (20), but more field training hours
(257) than small agencies. Otherwise, the amount of training on average increased with agency size (medium
and large agencies),
Table 16. Post-academy classroom and field training hours by agency size
Agencies Reporting Additional Hours
Agency Size
Type of
Training
Number
Reporting
Average
Number of
Hours
Minimum
Hours
Maximu
m Hours
Small Agencies
(1-9 Sworn Personnel)
Classroom
12
31.3
0
240
Field
13
137.9
1
320
Moderately Small Agencies
(10-49 Sworn Personnel)
Classroom
29
19.7
0
80
Field
30
256.9
2
672
Classroom
15
61.3
0
400
Field
17
336.8
80
560
Classroom
16
112.1
0
360
Field
16
385.9
172
640
Medium Agencies
(50-99 Sworn Personnel)
Large Agencies
(100 Plus Sworn Personnel)
The survey asked agencies whether they required their sworn personnel to take an annual or semiannual
physical fitness test. As shown in Table 17, 31% of the agencies overall reported in the affirmative, which is
nearly double the percentage found in the last administration of the census survey (16.8%) in 2007. Municipal
and sheriffs’ agencies were about equally likely to report requiring a test (33.6% and 33.3%, respectively),
while special district and departments of public safety were less likely to require a physical fitness test (22%
and 13%, respectively).
Agencies were also asked whether or not they provided their personnel with additional benefits or pay
incentives for special skills, experience, or education (Table 18). Support for education was the most common
across the agencies, with 28% of agencies providing a pay incentive for higher levels of education (presumably
undergraduate and graduate college/university degrees) and 24% provided reimbursement for tuition. Less than
13% of agencies provided enhanced pay or benefits for any of the remaining skills or experience categories.
14
Table 17. Percentage of agencies requiring annual or semiannual physical fitness tests
Percent of Agencies
Municipal
Number of Agencies
With Requirement
33
Sheriff
11
33.3
Department of Public Safety
2
13.3
Special District
4
22.2
State
1
100.0
All Agencies
51
30.9
Agency Type
33.6
Table 18. Percentage of agencies providing enhanced pay or benefits for additional education,
experience, skills or duties
Educational Incentive
Hazardous Duty
Field Training Officers
Shift Differential
Special Skills Proficiency
Bilingual Ability
Tuition Reimbursement
Military Service
Other pay or benefit
Number of Agencies with
Enhanced Pay or Benefits
46
0
21
9
8
8
40
12
9
Percent of
Agencies
27.9
0.0
12.7
5.5
4.8
4.8
24.2
7.3
5.5
15
Budgets and Salaries
Law enforcement agencies were asked to provide information on their overall operating budget and their
training budget. Table 19 provides the minimum and maximum reported operating and training budgets by
agency type, along with average budgets. The budget figures vary considerably within agency type categories,
which are influenced by the various agency sizes within these categories. State agencies’ budgets were the
largest on average, followed in magnitude by sheriff, municipal, departments of public safety and special
district police departments. Some municipal, departments of public safety and special district agencies indicated
they had no training budget. Table 20 shows that budgets are a function of agency size and that agencies with
no training budgets are small and moderately small departments.
Table 19. Operating budgets for most recent fiscal year by agency type
Budget Type
Agency Type
Operating Budget
Training Budget
Municipal
Sheriff
DPS
Special District
State
Municipal
Sheriff
DPS
Special District
State
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
86
33
9
21
2
85
31
8
21
2
Range of Reported Budgets
($)
Minimum
Maximum
21,735
30,008,292
328,250
33,956,265
145,924
10,857,081
14,200
6,656,585
328,358
56,327,513
0
128,850
500
388,000
0
28,300
0
76,778
2,000
782,760
Average
Budget
($)
2,961,137
9,697,016
4,412,148
1,298,515
28,327,936
12,818
40,279
10,354
11,326
392,380
Table 20. Operating budgets for most recent fiscal year by agency size
Budget Type
Operating
Budget
Training
Budget
Agency Size
Number
of
Agencies
Reporting
Range of Reported Budgets
($)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Budget
($)
Small Agencies
44
14,200
2,013,201
362,078
Moderately Small Agencies
61
103,000
3,562,370
1,630,066
Medium Agencies
22
328,358
10,857,081
6,033,618
Large Agencies
21
856,230
56,327,513
20,256,514
Small Agencies
42
0
15,000
2,298
Moderately Small Agencies
60
0
43,217
8,760
Medium Agencies
20
1,500
76,778
23,482
Large Agencies
21
10,000
782,760
102,734
Tables 21 and 22 provide additional budget information by examining differences by agency size for municipal
and sheriff agencies, respectively. As expected, the average reported operating and training budgets increase
with increases in agency size. However, a review of the minimum and maximum reported budgets for both
16
types of agencies shows that there are some departments that are better funded than their peers in the next size
category above them.
Table 21. Operating budgets for most recent fiscal year for municipal agencies by agency size
Budget Type
Operating
Budget
Training
Budget
Agency Size
Number
of
Agencies
Reporting
Range of Reported Budgets
($)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Budget
($)
Small Agencies
34
21,735
2,013,201
381,504
Moderately Small Agencies
36
103,000
3,562,370
1,689,413
Medium Agencies
7
3,272,531
7,599,355
5,240,744
Large Agencies
8
7,858,027
30,008,292
18,546,494
Small Agencies
34
0
15,000
2,087
Moderately Small Agencies
35
760
43,217
10,553
Medium Agencies
7
7,150
32,500
18,155
Large Agencies
8
10,000
120,000
49,156
Table 22. Operating budgets for most recent fiscal year for sheriffs’ agencies by agency size
Budget Type
Operating
Budget
Training
Budget
Agency Size
Number
of
Agencies
Reporting
Range of Reported Budgets
($)
Minimum
Maximum
---
Average
Budget
($)
Small Agencies
0
---
---
Moderately Small Agencies
11
328,250
3,073,734
1,634,425
Medium Agencies
8
2,260,000
9,268,899
6,451,345
Large Agencies
12
856,230
33,956,265
18,749,323
Small Agencies
0
---
---
Moderately Small Agencies
10
500
10,000
4,072
Medium Agencies
7
1,500
73,000
23,563
Large Agencies
12
20,000
388,000
81,783
---
Table 23 provides the reported overtime paid by agency size and as can be seen, average reported overtime
increases with agency size. Among agencies paying overtime, the amount ranged from a low of $500 to a
maximum of $1,033,238. Only 14 (10%) of the 139 responding agencies reportedly paid no overtime.
17
Table 23. Overtime paid for most recent fiscal year by agency size
Agency Size
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Range of Total Paid
Overtime ($)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
($)
Small Agencies
39
0
30,000
7,094
Moderately Small Agencies
56
0
260,000
37,937
Medium Agencies
20
3,000
267,200
123,629
Large Agencies
21
55,000
1,033,238
457,781
In addition to annual operating budgets, law enforcements agencies often find supplemental funding support
through drug asset forfeiture proceeds. As shown in Figure 5, 66% of agencies reported they received asset
forfeiture proceeds in their most recent fiscal years. Table 24 indicates that the largest agencies in South
Carolina had on average a higher value of seized assets. As shown later, larger agencies are more likely to have
specialized drug units and participate in multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, thereby increasing their
involvement in drug investigations with forfeiture potential.
Figure 5. Percent of agencies reporting seizure of money and/or goods through drug asset
forfeiture
18
Table 24. Estimated value of money, goods, and property seized through drug asset forfeiture
by agency size
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Seized Assets
Minimum
Maximum
Small Agencies
39
0
120,000
4,475
Moderately Small Agencies
54
0
200,000
14,275
Medium Agencies
18
0
556,539
68,939
Large Agencies
19
0
1,984,158
361,530
Agency Size
Range in Value of Seized
Assets ($)
Average
($)
Agencies were also asked to report the salary ranges for different ranked positions, from entry level officers to
agency heads (Chief, Sheriff, or Director) and this information is presented in tables 25-27. Table 25 provides
salary ranges for all agencies combined, regardless of type or size. The average minimum salary as well as the
highest and lowest minimum salaries reported across agencies is presented by officer rank. In addition, the
average maximum salary as well as the highest and lowest maximum salaries reported across agencies is
presented by officer rank. Table 26 presents this information by agency type, while Table 27 reports the
breakdowns by agency size. Note that agencies across the state do not have the same rank structure, thus the
number of agencies providing information for each rank is provided.
The purpose for dividing the salaries into the three different tables is provide agency administrators, other
government officials, and citizens the ability to view what peer organizations pay relative to their own
jurisdiction salary scales. In general, the data show that there is considerable variability in salaries across the
responding agencies. For example, in Table 27 one small municipal agency reported a maximum salary of
$75,000 for a Chief, while another large municipal agency reported a maximum salary of $166,982 for a Chief;
a small municipal agency reported an entry level salary of $18,000 while another large municipal agency
reported a starting salary of $36,999. Not unexpectedly, salaries tend to increase with agency size. In terms of
salaries by agency type (Table 26), with the exception of state agencies, personnel in sheriffs’ agencies tend to
have higher salaries.
19
Table 25. Statewide salary ranges
Position Type
Agency Head
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Assistant Agency Head
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Major
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Captain
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Lieutenant
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Sergeant
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Senior Officer
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Entry Level Officer
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Salary Range ($)
Average Salary
($)
Lowest
Highest
121
121
25,000
110,386
29,376
166,982
55,657
76,661
49
52
30,000
29,000
101,275
153,171
50,181
70,012
40
38
29,000
37,030
78,256
119,980
51,205
78,570
82
82
24,881
22,000
71,739
116,699
44,857
64,059
97
94
24,881
27,500
58,731
89,055
38,855
54,164
114
113
20,000
25,000
48,542
76,929
34,072
46,167
89
87
20,000
21,000
49,697
84,814
31,213
41,935
126
122
18,000
19,500
39,726
58,350
27,771
36,999
Note: Some agencies reported only one salary for a position instead of range, which was placed in either the minimum
or maximum category. These salaries are presented in the category in which the agency placed them (minimum or
maximum).
20
Table 26. Salary ranges by agency type
Agency Type
Position Type
Agency Head
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Assistant Agency Head
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Major
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Captain
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Lieutenant
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Sergeant
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Senior Officer
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Entry Level Officer
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Municipal
Sheriff
Department
of Public
Safety
Special
District
State
25,000
141,000
51,489
69,297
40,000
166,982
70,638
99,485
36,840
143,939
59,331
86,568
25,000
135,477
50,464
76,282
80,114
149,383
80,429
131,385
30,000
117,785
47,679
63,563
35,000
153,171
53,501
78,104
30,274
102,100
44,876
69,269
34,000
82,930
43,366
50,988
66,360
122,775
66,360
122,775
29,000
119,980
53,444
78,967
34,000
118,373
50,834
78,261
44,000
48,000
44,000
48,000
36,840
82,930
40,833
75,545
54,540
100,907
62,103
99,752
28,000
98,482
45,379
62,701
32,720
116,699
45,244
67,719
24,881
79,909
43,258
59,723
30,274
95,150
40,697
58,010
54,540
100,907
58,936
95,271
27,000
84,621
38,992
51,660
27,000
89,055
38,545
56,613
24,881
72,475
39,966
53,132
30,000
71,488
36,232
56,673
44,825
82,930
49,949
80,437
23,500
68,399
33,908
44,171
26,000
76,929
34,629
50,499
24,881
66,665
34,994
49,834
20,000
64,989
31,992
44,105
36,840
68,160
42,365
67,969
20,000
63,416
30,477
39,419
24,000
84,814
31,919
49,686
27,000
58,016
34,042
42,339
27,993
57,849
33,592
42,646
30,724
56,015
33,985
51,059
18,500
54,487
26,998
34,358
22,500
58,350
28,859
41,368
24,000
57,949
31,073
42,949
23,000
52,590
27,568
38,879
30,724
56,015
30,714
47,058
Note: Some agencies reported only one salary for a position instead of range, which was placed in either the minimum or maximum
category. These salaries are present in the category in which the agency placed them (minimum or maximum).
21
Table 27. Salary ranges by agency size
Agency Size
Position Type
Small
Agencies
(0-9)
Agency Head
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Assistant Agency Head
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Major
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Captain
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Lieutenant
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Sergeant
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Senior Officer
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Entry Level Officer
Minimum Reported Salary
Maximum Reported Salary
Minimum Average Reported Salary
Maximum Average Reported Salary
Moderately
Small
Agencies
(10-49)
Medium
Agencies
(50-99)
Large
Agencies
(100)+
25,000
75,000
38,825
48,881
34,364
135,477
53,487
73,257
52,000
143,939
69,400
102,168
41,500
166,982
81,653
125,356
30,000
43,000
33,333
38,233
30,000
82,930
42,569
55,542
43,281
102,100
53.041
72,799
41,373
153,171
63,541
101,044
29,000
42,000
33,500
42,000
34,000
76,145
43,808
63,347
37,026
98,597
50,591
74,998
41,500
119,980
58,202
91,591
28,000
52,462
33,764
42,696
24,881
95,150
40,893
56,296
32,847
89,634
46,183
66,933
38,393
116,699
52,996
82,847
27,000
47,268
32,763
37,095
24,881
71,488
36,708
48,961
30,769
77,943
40,877
59,379
27,000
89,055
44,609
69,216
20,000
43,000
29,286
34,169
24,881
65,168
32,981
44,347
26,599
67,777
36,637
52,239
27,000
76,929
39,320
60,489
20,000
48,618
27,902
31,509
21,000
63,416
30,277
39,986
25,557
58,016
33,094
45,925
25,000
84,814
35,386
55,009
18,000
46,033
24,773
29,833
19,000
54,487
27,324
36,494
23,262
57,949
30,293
41,777
25,000
58,350
31,101
46,110
Note: Some agencies reported only one salary for a position instead of range, which was placed in either the minimum or
maximum category. These salaries are present in the category in which the agency placed them (minimum or maximum).
22
Operations
Survey questions on agency operations focused on the allocation of personnel, services provided by agencies,
use of patrol resources, calls for service load, specialized response areas, and department policies. Table 28
Table 28. Allocation of sworn personnel by agency type
Agency Size
Patrol
Investigations
Support Services
Jail
Court
Patrol
Investigations
Support Services
Jail
Court
Patrol
Investigations
Support Services
Jail
Court
Patrol
Investigations
Support Services
Jail
Court
Patrol
Investigations
Support Services
Jail
Court
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Range of Sworn Personnel
Minimum
Municipal Agencies
95
0
93
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
Sheriff Agencies
31
14
31
0
31
0
30
0
29
0
Departments of Public Safety
9
11
9
0
9
0
8
0
8
0
Special District Agencies
24
0
24
0
23
0
23
0
23
0
State Agencies
2
84
2
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
Maximum
Average
Number of
Sworn
Personnel
314
111
72
4
14
24.0
5.8
2.5
0.2
0.6
442
73
40
430
31
63
20.8
4.3
42.3
8.3
64
16
11
19
1
31.6
5.4
2.3
2.4
0.1
53
9
3
0
0
12.6
1.0
0.4
0
0
716
38
61
0
6
390.0
19.5
30.5
0
3.0
23
examines the allocations of sworn agency personnel in different agency types to five general law enforcement
agency functions. The allocation is reported as the average number of sworn assigned to a function, with the
minimum and maximum numbers of personnel assigned reported as well. As indicated by the average number
of sworn personnel column in Table 28, for each agency type the majority of sworn personnel are assigned to
patrol, with substantially fewer assigned to investigations, support services, jail and court duties, on average.
Some notable exceptions emerge, however. Sheriffs’ agencies assign substantial numbers of personnel to jail
operations (mean = 42) and investigations (mean = 21). The two state agencies assigned substantial numbers to
support services and investigations (means = 31 and 20, respectively).
Table 29. Functions agencies reported having primary responsibility for or
perform on a regular basis
Law Enforcement Functions
Respond to citizen calls
Patrol services
First response to criminal incidents
Drug law enforcement
Vice law enforcement
Traffic law enforcement
Traffic direction/control
Accident investigations
Parking enforcement
Commercial vehicle enforcement
Death investigations
Other violent crime investigations
Arson investigations
Property crime investigations
Cybercrime investigations
Bomb/explosive disposal
Search & rescue
Special weapons and tactics (SWAT)
Underwater recovery
Jail operations
Lockup/temporary hold for overnight detention
Lockup/temporary hold for more than one night
Inmate transport
Execution of arrest warrants
Court security
Serving civil process
Serving eviction notices
Enforcement of protection orders
Enforcement of child support orders
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
160
159
160
148
101
150
143
132
115
32
138
149
123
153
96
17
44
53
19
28
20
17
65
141
107
44
34
115
47
Percentage
(%)
97.6
97.0
97.6
90.2
61.6
91.5
87.2
80.5
70.1
19.5
84.1
90.9
75.0
93.9
58.9
10.4
26.8
32.3
11.6
17.1
12.2
10.4
39.6
86.0
65.2
26.8
20.7
70.1
28.7
24
Table 30. Functions that municipal and sheriffs’ agencies reported having primary
responsibility for or perform on a regular basis
Law Enforcement Functions
Respond to citizen calls
Patrol services
First response to criminal incidents
Drug law enforcement
Vice law enforcement
Traffic law enforcement
Traffic direction/control
Accident investigations
Parking enforcement
Commercial vehicle enforcement
Death investigations
Other violent crime investigations
Arson investigations
Property crime investigations
Cybercrime investigations
Bomb/explosive disposal
Search & rescue
Special weapons and tactics (SWAT)
Underwater recovery
Jail operations
Lockup/temporary hold for overnight detention
Lockup/temporary hold for more than one night
Inmate transport
Execution of arrest warrants
Court security
Serving civil process
Serving eviction notices
Enforcement of protection orders
Enforcement of child support orders
Municipal Agencies
Sheriffs’ Agencies
Number of
Percentage
Agencies
(%)
Reporting
95
100
94
98.9
94
98.9
91
95.8
63
66.3
95
100
90
94.7
94
98.9
77
81.1
24
25.3
89
93.7
92
96.8
73
76.8
91
96.8
52
55.3
6
6.3
16
16.8
23
24.2
4
4.2
7
7.4
12
12.6
6
6.3
40
42.1
91
95.8
67
70.5
9
9.5
2
2.1
71
74.7
15
15.8
Number of
Percentage
Agencies
(%)
Reporting
32
97.0
32
97.0
32
97.0
32
97.0
25
75.8
27
81.8
21
63.6
8
24.2
4
12.1
3
9.1
32
97.0
32
97.0
32
97.0
32
97.0
27
81.8
11
33.3
22
66.7
24
72.7
13
39.4
20
60.6
7
21.2
9
27.3
21
63.6
33
100.0
33
100.0
33
100.0
31
93.9
33
100.0
31
93.9
Agencies were asked if they provided different specific functions that fall within the general categories
examined above in Table 28. Table 29 presents the number and percentage of agencies indicating that they have
responsibility for the service listed within their jurisdiction. The most common specific functions that agencies
provided were responding to calls for service, patrol services, traffic enforcement, accident and crime
investigation, drug/vice enforcement, and execution of arrest warrants. The least likely functions agencies
reported having responsibility for were bomb disposal, underwater recovery and commercial vehicle
enforcement.
Table 30 provides a comparison of municipal and sheriffs’ departments in reporting the primary responsibility
for specific law enforcement functions. Municipal agencies are more likely to have responsibility for trafficbased efforts: traffic enforcement, accident investigations, and parking enforcement. Sheriffs’ departments were
more likely than municipal agencies to report responsibility for search and rescue, bomb disposal, fingerprint
and drug analysis, call dispatch, court security, jail operations, serving civil process papers, and tactical/SWAT
operations.
25
Table 31 presents the number and percent of agencies that stated they performed specific types of criminal
investigations. The analysis only examined municipal and sheriffs’ department since Table 28 revealed that
special district and state agencies devoted few if any resources to investigations. In general, Table 31 illustrates
that the vast majority of municipal and sheriffs’ departments conduct death, violent crime, and property crime
investigations. However, sheriffs’ departments were more likely to conduct arson and cybercrime investigations.
Table 31. Number and percentage of agencies performing specific type of
investigations
Municipal Agencies
Sheriffs’ Agencies
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Percentage
(%)
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Percentage
(%)
Death investigations
89
93.7
32
97
Other violent crime
investigations
92
96.8
32
97
Arson investigations
73
76.8
32
97
Property crime
investigations
91
96.8
32
97
Cybercrime
investigations
52
55.3
27
81.8
Law Enforcement
Functions
Agencies were asked how they managed their patrol resources in relation to shift length and shift rotations.
Figure 6 shows that most of the responding agencies have moved away from the traditional eight hour a day,
five day working schedules. The majority of agencies, specifically the sheriffs’ departments, have opted for 12
hour patrol shifts that usually require an officer or deputy to work 3 days one week and 4 days the next week.
There was more diversity in the rotation schedules reported in Table 32. The most common response was from
agencies reporting no rotation (35%), followed by monthly rotations (30%) and to a much lesser extent weekly
rotations (7%). The remaining agencies reported a diverse set of rotation plans, such as quarterly, semi-annually,
bi-weekly, every 28 days, and every two months.
26
All Agencies
8 Hour
10 Hour
12 Hour
Other
Municipal
Agencies
8 Hour
10 Hour
12 Hour
Other
Sheriff
Agencies
Figure 6. Percentage of agencies reporting various patrol shift lengths
8 Hour
10 Hour
12 Hour
Other
20.2%
7.4%
76.7%
4.3%
18.8%
8.3%
76.0%
5.2%
9.4%
3.1%
96.9%
0.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Table 32. Number and percentage of agencies with various patrol shift
rotation schedules
Schedule Type
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Semi-Annually
Do Not Rotate
Other
Number of Agencies
Reporting
11
49
6
1
56
39
Percent of Total
Agencies (%)
6.8
30.2
3.7
.6
34.6
24.1
The communications systems of law enforcement agencies represent the primary mechanism for connecting
agency resources with the needs of the citizens they serve. The most common mechanism for this connection is
a 911 emergency system. Figure 7 illustrates that 88% of the responding agencies reported they participate in a
911 systems. A somewhat lower percentage of agencies (74%) reported that their communication system is a
911 enhanced-system that provides such information as caller ID and address for the reporting individual.
Agencies were also asked about who operates their 911 system. Figure 8 presents the responses to this question
for municipal and sheriff agencies, given these agencies provide primary routine policing services in the state.
The majority of municipal police departments and sheriffs’ departments participate in joint city/county
communications centers (53.7% and 57.7%, respectively). Approximately 35% of county sheriff departments
operated their own communication centers, but only 12.6% municipal agencies operated their own center.
27
However, 26.3% of municipal agencies worked with communications centers that were solely operated by a
county sheriff department.
Participates in a
911 System
Yes
Communication
System is
Enhanced 911
Figure 7. Percentage of agencies participating in 911 and enhanced 911 systems
Yes
87.5%
12.5%
No
73.9%
26.1%
No
0%
40%
20%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 8. Percentage of municipal and sheriffs’ agencies operating with various types of
communications center management
13.7%
Municipal
Own Center
40.0%
Joint City/County Center
33.7%
County Sheriff Dept.
4.2%
Other
18.2%
Sheriff
Own Center
33.3%
Joint City/County Center
33.3%
County Sheriff Dept.
6.1%
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
One approach for measuring the workload of agencies is to examine the number of calls for service they
manage. Thus, the surveyed agencies were asked to report the number of calls for service they handled for the
28
12 month period that ended on October 1, 2011. Since municipal and sheriffs’ agencies are the entities within
the state that primarily handle citizen calls for service, Table 33 presents the range and average number of calls
handled by municipal and sheriffs’ departments by agency size. Table 33 illustrates that calls for service vary
considerably across the agency types and within agency type by agency size. Generally, calls for service are a
function of agency size (and concomitant size of their jurisdiction).
Table 33. Calls for service for municipal and sheriffs’ agencies by agency size
Agency Size
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Range of Total Calls for Service
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Number of Calls
for Service
Municipal Agencies
Small Agencies
40
30
30,000
3,577
Moderately Small Agencies
34
480
69,700
16,221
Medium Agencies
6
24,500
111,299
54,209
Large Agencies
6
50,007
272,326
134,760
86
30
272,326
21,261
All Municipal Agencies
Sheriff Agencies
Small Agencies
---
---
Moderately Small Agencies
9
6,000
38,699
17,141
Medium Agencies
6
11,883
46,488
33,919
Large Agencies
10
31,000
308,422
144,316
25
6,000
308,422
70,064
All Sheriffs’ Agencies
---
---
In addition to questions about general operations, agencies were asked about the incorporation of specialized
units in their organizations. Figure 9 illustrates the number of agencies that stated they have a full-time traffic
unit, with 45 of 165 reporting agencies (48%) stating that they had a unit. Traffic units were most common
among large agencies, with 85% (17) of these agencies reporting that they had a traffic unit. Only 3 (6%)
agencies with fewer than 10 officers reported having a traffic unit.
29
Figure 9. Percentage of agencies with full-time traffic units
No
72.4%
Yes
27.6%
Figure 10 presents information on whether agencies had a Special Weapons and Tactic (SWAT) team or tactical
unit. Agencies could indicate that they had a full-time or part-time tactical unit, or that they participated in a
multi-jurisdictional team. A full-time team is composed of officers/deputies whose primary assignment in this
agency is as a member of this unit. Part-time teams are composed of officers who have other primary
assignments in the agency, such as patrol or investigations, but perform as members of the unit when incidents
requiring its use emerge. Multi-jurisdiction units are composed of officers from multiple agencies in a similar
geographical area. The participation of these officers is similar to the above part-time units in that they have
other primary assignments and participate in the unit on an as needed basis. Of 163 responding agencies, 61
(37%) reporting having a unit or officers that participated in a unit. Only 4 agencies (7%) had a full-time unit,
while 54 (90%) reported having a part-time unit. Moreover, 9 agencies (15%) reported that they participated in
a multi-jurisdictional tactical unit.
Figure 10. Percentage of agencies with special weapons and tactics units
37.40%
Agencies with Any Unit
6.6%
Agencies with Full-Time Unit
88.5%
Agencies with Part-Time Unit
14.8%
Agencies Participating in Multi-Jurisdictional Unit
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Over the past 10 years law enforcement agencies have increasingly placed officers in schools under school
resource officer (SRO) programs. A total of 67 of 163 responding agencies (41%) stated that they placed SROs
30
in schools within their jurisdiction. Agencies were additionally asked what school level they placed SROs,
which is reported in Table 34 for municipal and sheriff agencies separately. As the table illustrates, Municipal
and sheriff agencies primarily placed SROs in middle and high schools (over 80% in each case).
Table 34. Percentage of municipal and sheriffs’ agencies placing school resources
officers in different school levels
Number of Agencies
Reporting
Municipal Agencies
Elementary
5
Middle Schools
29
High Schools
29
Alternative Schools/Academies
9
Sheriffs’ Agencies
Elementary
6
Middle School
21
High Schools
24
Alternative Schools/Academies
10
School Resource Officer Placement
Percentage
(%)
14.3
82.9
82.9
25.7
23.1
80.8
92.3
38.5
Table 35 presents information about whether agencies employed an attorney and whether they employed or
contracted with a psychologist or counselor. A total of 22% of agencies (N=36) reported having an in-house
attorney, and 34% (N=56) reported they employed or contracted with a psychologist or counselor. Agencies
also were asked if they provided counseling services for officers for critical incidents, family/marital issues, and
substance abuse. More than half of the agencies reported they provided services for critical incidents (58%),
while 42% provided them for substance abuse and 41% provided services for family/marital issues.
Table 35. Agencies with in-house attorneys and psychologist/counselor
Number of Agencies
Responding Yes
In-house Attorney
36
Employ or Contract Psychologist or Counselor
56
Specific Counseling Services Provided for Officers
Critical Incident
95
Substance Abuse
69
Family/Marital
66
Other counseling services
16
Percentage
(%)
22.2
34.4
58.3
42.3
40.5
9.7
Many agencies across the country supplement their full-time sworn personnel with reserve officer programs
composed of volunteer personnel with limited or full sworn authority. Table 36 shows that 86 of the responding
agencies (52%) have reserve officer programs. In addition, 25 agencies (15%) reported that they have youth
cadet programs.
31
Table 36. Agencies with reserve officer and youth cadet programs
Number of Agencies Reporting Programs
Percent
Range in Number of Participants
Average Number of Participants
Reserve Officer Youth Cadet
Program
Program
86
25
52.1
15.2
0-62
0-21
7
11.4
In addition to the assignment of personnel to different tasks and specialized units, operations of organizations
are shaped by formalized written policies. The number and percent of South Carolina agencies acknowledging
they have written policies for various issues are presented in Table 37. The majority of the South Carolina
agencies, 80% or more, have written policies regarding deadly force/firearm discharges, less-lethal force,
conduct and appearance of personnel, off-duty employment and off-duty conduct. A substantial proportion of
agencies also reported having written policies regarding a variety of other issues of interest, an exception being
how to deal with homeless individuals (only 18%).
Table 37. Number and percentage of agencies with written policies for specified issues
Issue
Deadly Force/Firearm Discharge
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
156
Percentage
(%)
95.1
Less-Lethal Force
152
92.7
Conduct and Appearance
149
90.9
Off-duty Employment
140
85.4
Maximum Work Hours Allowed
75
45.7
Dealing with the Homeless
29
17.8
Dealing with Domestic Violence
121
73.8
Dealing with Juveniles
117
71.3
Conducting Strip Searches
99
60.4
Racial Profiling
93
56.7
Citizen Complaints
117
71.3
Off-duty Conduct
132
80.5
Interacting with the Media
122
74.4
Employee Counseling Assistance
87
53.0
Agencies were also asked about their vehicle pursuit policy. A discouragement policy discourages all pursuits,
which only 6% (N=10) of responding agencies reported having. A judgmental policy that leaves the decision to
pursue to the discretion of the officer is used by 18.4% (N=29) of agencies. The majority of agencies (68%,
N=107) reported having a restrictive policy, which restricts officers decisions to pursue to specific criteria.
Agencies reporting having some “other” policy were primarily oriented toward giving supervisors the decision
to allow and terminate pursuits (4%, N=6). Six agencies (4%) reported that they had no policy.
32
Figure 11. Percentage of agencies with various motor vehicle pursuit policies
No Policy
3.8%
Discouragement
6.3%
Other Policy
3.8%
Judgemental
18.4%
Restrictive
67.7%
Another consideration that can impact the operations of agencies is their voluntary participation in a national or
state accreditation process. This accreditation process generally requires an agency to institute model policies
and practices, which in turn shape how the agency operates. Table 38 indicates overall that 16% (N=26) of
South Carolina agencies reported they were nationally accredited and that 18% (N=30) of agencies reported
they were state accredited. Table 38 further provides the number and percentage of agencies that are nationally
and state accredited by agency type. Sheriffs’ agencies and departments of public safety were more likely to be
nationally accredited compared to other agency types, while Sheriffs’ departments were most likely to be state
accredited.
Table 38. Agencies with national and state accreditation
Agency Type
Number of
Agencies
Reporting
Number of
Agencies
Nationally
Accredited
Percent of
Agencies
Nationally
Accredited
Number of
Agencies State
Accredited
Percent of
Agencies State
Accredited
Municipal
96
12
12.5
14
14.6
Sheriff
Department of
Public Safety
32
7
21.9
11
34.4
9
2
22.2
1
11.1
Special District
24
3
12.5
4
16.7
State
2
2
100.0
0
0.0
163
26
16.0
30
18.4
All Agencies
33
Equipment
Equipment-related questions focused on less-lethal weapons, use of agency vehicles, and use of computers.
Table 39 presents the number and percent of agencies in the state that authorize the use various less-lethal
weapons. OC (oleoresin capsicum or pepper spray) emerged in the 1990s as a new less-lethal technology that
was deemed highly effective but was not without controversy. Table 39 shows that handheld stun devices (e.g.,
TASER) was the most commonly authorized less-lethal weapon (79%), followed by OC (78%) and collapsible
batons (71%). Other less-lethal weapons are authorized by far fewer agencies. Interestingly, 10 agencies (6%)
reported authorizing the Extended Range Electro-Muscular Projectile or XREP, a self-contained wireless
projectile fired from a shotgun that has a 100-foot range and delivers a 20-second incapacitating shock. 2
Table 39. Percentage of agencies utilizing specific less-than-lethal weapons
Less-Than-Lethal Weapons
Traditional Baton
PR-24 Baton
Collapsible Baton
Soft Projectile
Blackjack
Rubber Bullet
Other Impact Device
OC Spray
CNS Gas
Other Chemical
Direct Stun Device (e.g., stun gun)
Handheld Stun Device (e.g., TASER, Stinger)
Long-range Stun Device (e.g., XREP)
High Intensity Light
Flash Bang
Neck Restraint
Number of Agencies
Reporting Use
14
11
115
24
0
8
4
127
4
1
9
129
10
1
14
1
Percentage
(%)
8.6
6.7
70.6
14.7
0.0
4.9
2.5
77.9
2.5
.6
5.5
79.1
6.1
.6
8.6
.6
Figure 12 presents findings regarding the use of marked vehicles during off duty hours. The majority of
agencies (68.6%, N=109) allow officers/deputies to take their patrol vehicles home. Less than one third of
agencies (27.5%, N=33), however, allow officers/deputies to use marked vehicles during off duty hours for
personal use.
Figure 13 presents the responses to a question asking agencies what types of computer systems field/patrol
personnel use when they are in the field. The responses reveal that most agencies have moved away from the
MDC and MDT systems to laptop computers, which almost half of agencies reported using (N = 82). A
substantial number of agencies (N = 56 or 35%) indicated that officers are using GPS hand-held devices in the
field.
2
The XREP is a wireless electrical stun device that has a maximum effective range of 100 feet. The XREP projectile is fired from a
standard issue shotgun and contains four forward-facing barbed electrodes that attach to the body upon impact and delivers a 20second incapacitating shock (see http://www.taser.com/products/law-enforcement/taser-xrep).
34
Figure 12. Percentage of agencies provide take-home marked vehicles and allowing
duty personal use of marker vehicles
Percent of Agencies that Allow Officer
to Take-Home Marked Vehicles
68.6%
Percent of Agencies that Allow for OffDuty Personal Use of Marked Vehicle
21.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Figure 13. Percentage of agencies with various types of computers used by
patrol/field personnel
34.6%
GPS Hand-held Device
49.4%
Laptops Computers
9.9%
MDC (Mobile Digital/Data Computers)
21.0%
MDT (Mobile Digital/Data Terminals)
11.1%
PDA (Personal Digital Assistant)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Agencies were also asked about their broader use of computers across agencies functions, whether in patrol
services, investigations, administration, or records. Table 40 represents the number and percent of agencies who
stated that they use computers across 14 different domains. Beyond the logical use of computers for internet
access (81%), the second most common use for computers was in records management (76% of agencies).
35
Table 40. Percentage of agencies using computers for various functions
Type of Computer Use
Community Problems
Automated Booking
Crime Investigations
Dispatch
Fleet Management
In-Field Communication
Traffic Stop Data Collection
In-Field Report Writing
Inter-Agency Information Sharing
Internet Access
Personnel Records
Records Management
Resource Allocation
Crime Analysis
Number of Agencies
Reporting
58
50
111
70
61
47
94
110
83
133
84
125
43
81
Percent Reporting
(%)
35.4
30.5
67.7
42.7
37.2
28.7
57.3
67.1
50.6
81.1
51.2
76.2
26.2
49.4
Figure 14 shows that few agencies (14 or 9%) required officers to wear body armor all of the time, while 124
agencies (79%) required them to wear body armor some of the time; 19 agencies (12%) reportedly had no
requirement. Figure 15 indicates that the vast majority of agencies (142 or 89%) issue body armor to their
officers, while only 1 agency give a cash allowance (0.6%). Apparently, 17 or 11% of agencies required their
officers to purchase their own body armor.
Figure 14. Percentage of agencies requiring body armor
Not required,
12.1%
Required all of
the time, 8.9%
Required some
of the time,
79.0%
36
Figure 15. Percentage of agencies supplying body armor or providing cash allowance
Neither
supplies nor
provides cash
allowance,
10.6%
Agency
provides cash
allowance for
body armor,
0.6%
Agency supplies
body armor,
88.8%
Tables 41-44 provide additional details regarding body armor. Table 41 shows that sheriffs’ departments are
more likely to require the wearing of body armor all of the time (15.6%) than other types of agencies, municipal
agencies are more likely to require officers to wear body armor some of the time (85%), while special district
police departments are more likely to not have a requirement (29%). Table 42 presents the breakdown by
agency size. Small agencies (20%) are more likely to not have a requirement, while medium-sized agencies are
more likely to require officers wear body armor some of the time (95%) and large agencies are more likely to
require officers to wear body armor at all times (19%). Table 43 presents body armor allowance by agency type,
while Table 44 presents this information by agency size. As shown in Table 43, about 90% or more of the
responding agencies supply body armor, the exception being special district agencies (64%). Special district
agencies are most likely to not supply or provide an allowance for body armor (36%). Table 44 reveals that
agencies of all sizes are most likely to supply body armor (81% to 100% of agencies), while small agencies are
most likely to neither supply nor provide an allowance.
Table 41. Body armor requirements for officers by agency type
Not required
Municipal
Number of
agencies
reporting
8
Percent
reporting
(%)
8.6
Sheriff
3
9.4
Department of Public Safety
2
22.2
Special District
6
State
0
Agency Type
Required some of the
time
Required at all times
Number of
agencies
reporting
79
24
Percent
reporting
(%)
84.9
75.0
Number of
agencies
reporting
6
Percent
reporting
(%)
6.5
5
15.6
6
13
66.7
61.9
1
11.1
28.6
2
9.5
0.0
2
100
0
0.0
37
Table 42. Body armor requirements for officers by agency size
Required some of the
time
Not required
Small Agencies
Number of
agencies
reporting
10
Percent
reporting
(%)
19.6
Moderately Small Agencies
5
8.3
Medium Agencies
1
4.8
Large Agencies
1
4.8
Agency Size
Required at all times
Number of
agencies
reporting
37
50
Percent
reporting
(%)
72.5
83.3
Number of
agencies
reporting
4
Percent
reporting
(%)
7.8
5
8.3
20
16
95.2
76.2
0
0.0
4
19.0
Table 43. Body armor allowance by agency type
Agency neither
supplies nor provides
allowance
Municipal
Number of
agencies
reporting
8
Percent
reporting
(%)
8.3
Sheriff
0
0.0
Department of Public Safety
1
11.1
Special District
8
State
0
Agency Type
Agency supplies body
armor
Agency provides cash
allowance for body
armor
Number of
agencies
reporting
87
31
Percent
reporting
(%)
90.6
100
Number of
agencies
reporting
1
Percent
reporting
(%)
1.0
0.0
0.0
88.9
63.6
0.0
0.0
36.4
8
14
0.0
0.0
0
2
100
0
0
Table 44. Body armor allowance by agency size
Agency neither
supplies nor provides
allowance
Small Agencies
Number of
agencies
reporting
10
Percent
reporting
(%)
19.2
Moderately Small Agencies
4
6.6
Medium Agencies
0
0.0
Large Agencies
0
0.0
Agency Size
Agency supplies body
armor
Agency provides cash
allowance for body
armor
Number of
agencies
reporting
42
56
Percent
reporting
(%)
80.8
91.8
Number of
agencies
reporting
0
Percent
reporting
(%)
0.0
1
1.6
21
21
100
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38
SPECIAL TOPICS
The 2011 census survey addressed two special topics – foot pursuits 3 and the impact of the recession on law
enforcement agencies. Foot pursuits have come under increased scrutiny in recent years, primarily over
concerns of officer-involved shootings during or at the terminus of these events, with some concerned parties
calling for greater restrictions on foot pursuits and training on the use of specific tactics to reduce the risks of
death injury among officers, suspects, and bystanders. In 2003, the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(2003) (IACP) established a foot pursuit model policy and in 2000 several law enforcement experts
recommended specific tactics to enhance safety during foot pursuits (Bohrer, Davis & Garrity, 2000). 4 The
census survey asked several questions based on these safety recommendations.
The economic recession that began in late 2007 had a significant impact on governments across the United
States, including law enforcement agencies. To assess its impact on law enforcement agencies in South Carolina,
the survey included several questions related to budget cuts and other organizational changes in response to the
economic downturn.
Foot Pursuit Policies
As shown in Figure 16, relatively few agencies indicated they had a written policy on foot pursuits (28 agencies
or 17%), 127 (79%) reported they did not have a written policy and 6 respondents (4%) were not sure if their
agency had a written policy. In additional, 13 of 96 responding agencies (14%) reported they were in the
process of developing a written policy.
Figure 16. Percentage of agencies with written foot pursuit policy
Not sure,
3.70%
Has written
foot pursuit
policy, 17.40%
Does not have
written foot
pursuit policy,
78.90%
Table 45 shows that municipal and sheriffs’ departments were more likely to have a written policy (19% and
16 %, respectively) than departments of public safety and special district agencies (12% and 11%, respectively).
Regarding agency size, Table 46 indicates that larger agencies were more likely than smaller agencies to have a
written policy, though medium-sized agencies were more likely than large agencies to have a written policy
(24% vs. 19%).
3
Foot pursuits were defined as “an attempt by an officer to follow or track, on foot, a fleeing person who is attempting to avoid arrest,
detention or observation.”
4
See: Bohrer, S., Davis, E., & Garrity, T. (2000). Establishing a foot pursuit policy: Running into danger. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, 69(5),10-15 and International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2003). Foot Pursuit Model Policy. Retrieved Feb. 26, 2011
from http://www.tacp.org/getdoc/0b850b0f-7570-4a25-a460-c37996807d8b/Foot_Pursuit_Policy.
39
Table 45. Written foot pursuit policy by agency type
Agency does not have a
written foot pursuit
policy
Municipal
Number of
agencies
reporting
72
Percent
reporting
(%)
75.0
Sheriff
26
83.9
Department of Public Safety
8
88.9
Special District
21
State
0
Agency Type
Agency has a written
foot policy
Unsure if agency has
written foot pursuit
policy
Number of
agencies
reporting
18
5
Percent
reporting
(%)
18.8
16.1
Number of
agencies
reporting
6
Percent
reporting
(%)
6.3
0
0
11.9
11.1
0
0
91.3
1
2
0
0
0
2
100
0
0
Table 46. Written foot pursuit policy by agency size
Agency does not have a
written foot pursuit
policy
Agency has a written
foot policy
Unsure if agency has
written foot pursuit
policy
Small Agencies
Number of
agencies
reporting
39
Percent
reporting
(%)
73.6
Number of
agencies
reporting
8
Percent
reporting
(%)
15.1
Number of
agencies
reporting
6
Percent
reporting
(%)
11.3
Moderately Small Agencies
50
82.0
11
18.0
0
0.0
Medium Agencies
16
76.2
5
23.8
0
0.0
Large Agencies
17
81.0
4
19.0
0
0.0
Agency Type
Agencies were also asked how restrictive their written policy was. Possible responses were:
Prohibition - agency prohibits all foot pursuits
Discouragement – agency discourages all foot pursuits
Restrictive – agency restricts officer decisions to specific criteria
Judgmental – agency leaves decision to officer discretion
As shown in Figure 17, none of the 28 agencies with a written policy prohibited foot pursuits and only 1 (4%)
discouraged foot pursuits. Just under half of the agencies (46%, N = 13) had a restrictive policy and exactly half
(N=14) left the decision to pursue a fleeing suspect to officer discretion (judgmental policy).
40
Figure 17. Type of written foot pursuit policy
Discouragement
3.60%
Judgmental,
50%
Restrictive,
46.40%
A number of best practices have been identified in the literature regarding safer practices when engaging in foot
pursuits during non-emergency situations, as opposed to situations involving imminent danger to officers or
civilians (Bohrer, Davis & Garrity, 2000; International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2003). For example,
some law enforcement agencies do not allow lone officers to close in and individually apprehend a fleeing
suspect, some require the use of containment, and some agencies prohibit partner splitting when chasing
suspects on foot. 5 Regardless of whether or not an agency had a formal written policy regarding foot pursuits,
respondents were asked to report on their foot pursuit practices during non-emergency situations. The results are
presented in Table 47.
Nearly all agencies (91%, N=112) allowed lone officers to close in and apprehend fleeing suspects under nonemergency situations, while relatively few agencies practiced containment when apprehending fleeing suspects
(32%, N=30). The vast majority of agencies required officers to radio in pursuit-related information before or
within the first few seconds of engaging in a foot pursuit (94%, N=118), though fewe r than half required lone
officers to cease a foot pursuit if communication with dispatch or a communication center is lost (48%, N=56).
Relatively few agencies required lone officers to cease a foot pursuit after losing sight of a fleeing suspect (40%,
N=45) and fewer prohibited lone officers from pursuing suspects into a building or other structure (32%, N=38).
Finally, few agencies prohibited partner splitting during foot pursuits (14%, N=14).
5
Containment refers to the establishment of a perimeter to keep a suspect within a specified area and prevent escape. Partner splitting
during a foot pursuit occurs when loss of visual contact, distance or obstacles separates partners to a degree that they cannot
immediately assist each other should a confrontation take place (this does not pertain to lone officers assigned to static containment
positions).
41
Table 47. Agency foot pursuit practices (excluding emergency exceptions)
Number of
responding
agencies
# Yes
% Yes
# No
% No
# Not
Sure
% Not
Sure
123
112
91.1
9
7.3
2
1.6
95
30
31.6
56
58.9
9
9.5
Officers are required to radio in
pursuit-related information before or
within the first few seconds of
engaging in a foot pursuit
126
118
93.7
7
5.6
1
0.8
Lone officer must cease a foot pursuit if
communication with dispatch /
communication center is lost
117
56
47.9
56
47.9
5
4.3
114
45
39.5
66
57.9
3
2.6
119
77
64.7
38
31.9
4
3.4
101
83
82.2
14
13.9
4
4.0
Tactic
Lone officer may close in and
individually apprehend fleeing suspects
Lone officer may pursue but apprehend
suspects using only containment
Lone officer must cease a foot pursuit
after losing sight of a fleeing suspect
Lone officer may pursue fleeing
suspects into buildings & other
structures
Officers may engage in partnersplitting during foot pursuits
Respondents also were queried as to whether or not their agency provided in-service training on foot pursuits
and whether it was classroom- and/or physically-based. As shown in Table 48, 25 of 161 responding agencies
provided some type of training on foot pursuits (16%). Virtually all agencies provided classroom training (23 of
24 responding agencies or 96%), while far fewer provided physical training (7 of 22 responding agencies or
32%). Of 21 agencies that provided responses to both questions, 6 reported they provided both classroom and
physical training (28.6%).
Table 48. Agency in-service foot pursuit training
Tactic
Number of
agencies
responding
# Yes
% Yes
# No
% No
Provides in-service training on
foot pursuits
161
25
15.5
136
84.5
Provides in-service
classrooom training
24
23
95.8
1
4.2
Provides in-service physical
training
22
7
31.8
15
68.2
Because officers sometimes find themselves in a physical struggle with a suspect and/or discharge their firearm
at the terminus of foot pursuit, some law enforcement agencies have officers jog or sprint before simulating a
physical struggle with a “suspect” (e.g., Red Man Suit) or before target practice with their sidearm. The purpose
of such training is to increase officer performance under stress, an import training method designed to enhance
both officer and citizen safety. Respondents were asked if their agency provided these types training to their
officers. As can be seen in Table 49, of 120 responding agencies, one-third required officers to simulate a
physical struggle after running (N=40) and of 126 responding agencies, half required officers to practice with
42
their sidearm after running. Of 115 agencies that provided a response to both questions (and excluding those
who responded “not sure”), 38 or 33.0% indicated they provided both types of training.
Table 49. Specific in-service foot pursuit physical training methods
Method
Officers during in-service training
required to run (jog or sprint) before
simulating a physical struggle with a
suspect (e.g. Red Man Suit)
Officers during in-service training
required to run (jog or sprint) before
engaging in target practice with their
firearm
Number of
responding
agencies
# Yes
% Yes
# No
% No
# Not
Sure
% Not
Sure
120
40
33.3
75
62.5
5
3.0
126
63
50.0
61
48.4
2
1.6
43
Impact of Recession
Respondents were asked if their agency implemented budget cuts in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and whether or
not they expected their agency to cut their budget in 2011. The responses to these questions are present in
Figures 18-20, respectively. Fifty-eight of 157 responding agencies (37%) indicated they cut their budget in
2009 and 69 of 157 agencies (44%) indicated they cut their budget in 2010. Of the 148 agencies that responded
to both questions (and did not indicate “not sure), 51 or 34.5% reported they experienced budget cuts in both
2009 and 2010. This figure represents 31.9% of the responding agencies overall (i.e., 51 of 160 agencies).
Figure 18. Agency implemented budget cuts in FY 2009
Not Sure, 3.8%
Yes, 36.9%
No, 59.2%
Figure 19. Agency implemented budget cuts in FY 2010
Not Sure, 3.8%
Yes, 43.9%
No, 52.2%
As indicated in Figure 20, when asked if their agency will cut or they expect their agency to cut their budget in
2011, 49 of 160 respondents (31%) indicated yes and 62 (39%) indicated they were not sure.
44
Figure 20. Expect agency to implement budget cuts in FY 2011
Not Sure, 38.8%
No, 30.6%
Yes, 30.6%
Tables 50 and 51 report the number and percentage of agencies making specific budget cuts in fiscal years 2009
and 2010, respectively. Areas most often impacted in 2009 were overtime spending (60%), new technology
(66%), and training (49%). The proportion of agencies that experienced cuts in these areas was even greater in
2010, with 50% of agencies experiencing cuts to training and 68% percent experiencing cuts to both new
technology and overtime spending. Substantial percentages of agencies also reported hiring freezes of both
sworn and civilian personnel in both years. Relatively few agencies reported having to layoff civilian or sworn
personnel. Unfortunately, the consequences for agency performance of the budget cuts and other actions taken
by agencies in response to the recession are unknown.
45
Table 50. Number and percentage of agencies reporting budget cuts and reductions for
FY2009
Cuts and Reductions Made By Agency
Implemented hiring freeze for sworn personnel
Implemented hiring freeze for civilian personnel
Cut overtime spending
Cut back/eliminated plans to acquire new technology
Reduced/discontinued various types of police training
Reduced sworn personnel through attrition
Implemented unpaid furlough
Laid off sworn personnel
Laid off civilian personnel
Discontinued special units (i.e. gang, drug enforcement)
Number of
Agencies
Reporting Cuts
21
17
44
48
35
11
13
3
3
3
Percentage
(%)
28.4
23.0
60.3
65.8
48.6
14.9
17.6
4.1
4.1
4.2
Table 51. Number and percentage of agencies reporting budget cuts and reductions for
FY2010
Cuts and Reductions Made By Agency
Implemented hiring freeze for sworn personnel
Implemented hiring freeze for civilian personnel
Cut overtime spending
Cut back/eliminated plans to acquire new technology
Reduced/discontinued various types of police training
Reduced sworn personnel through attrition
Implemented unpaid furlough
Laid off sworn personnel
Laid off civilian personnel
Discontinued special units (i.e. gang, drug enforcement)
Number of
Agencies
Reporting Cuts
24
19
55
55
40
7
16
0
2
4
Percentage
(%)
30.4
23.5
67.9
67.9
50.0
8.6
9.7
0.0
2.5
5.0
46
APPENDIX A – SC Law Enforcement Census Survey
RETURN
TO:
Jeff Rojek
Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice
1305 Greene Street
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
FAX: 803-777-9600
EMAIL: [email protected]
2011 South Carolina Law Enforcement Census
University of South Carolina
Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice
Thank you for participating in the 2011 South Carolina Law Enforcement Census. The census is an annual survey conducted by the
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. The annual topics of the census vary on a year
to year basis between a general survey on the characteristics of law enforcement agencies in South Carolina and surveys that cover
specific issues confronting the law enforcement community. This year's survey is the more general form examining agency
characteristics. The purpose of the survey is to inform law enforcement agencies about the characteristics and practices of peer
agencies across the state. We appreciate your honest and candid responses. All information provided will be kept confidential. No
individual or department will be linked to the responses provided.
INSTRUCTIONS
Please complete the front and back of each page and do not leave any items blank.
Please mail the completed survey within two weeks of receiving it.
Please retain a copy of the completed survey for your records as project staff may call to clarify responses.
Please answer all questions. If answers are not readily available, provide reasonable estimates and mark them with
an asterisk (*) outside the box that you fill in.
If you have any questions regarding the survey, please call or e-mail Jeff Rojek at (803) 777-1560,
[email protected].
Respondent Information:
Agency: ____________________________________________________________________________________
City: ___________________________________________ State: South Carolina Zip Code: _______________
Originating Reporting Agency Identifier (ORI):
Name of Person Completing Survey: _____________________________________________________
Title/Rank: __________________________________ Unit/Section: ___________________________
Contact Telephone Number: ___________________________________ Ext: ____________________
Contact Email: _______________________________________________________________________
County Code: ______
01. Abbeville
02. Aiken
03. Allendale
04. Anderson
05. Bamberg
06. Barnwell
07. Beaufort
08. Berkley
09. Calhoun
10. Charleston
11. Cherokee
12. Chester
13. Chesterfield
14. Clarendon
15. Colleton
16. Darlington
17. Dillon
18. Dorchester
19. Edgefield
20. Fairfield
21. Florence
22. Georgetown
23. Greenville
24. Greenwood
25. Hampton
26. Horry
27. Jasper
28. Kershaw
29. Lancaster
30. Laurens
31. Lee
32. Lexington
33. McCormack
34. Marion
35. Marlboro
36. Newberry
37. Oconee
38. Orangeburg
39. Pickens
40. Richland
41. Saluda
42. Spartanburg
43. Sumter
44. Union
45. Williamsburg
46. York
47
SECTION A
1.
AGENCY INFORMATION
Which category below best describes your type of agency?
Municipal or County Police Department
Sheriff’s Office
Department of Public Safety
Special District Police Department (e.g. campus
police, park police, etc.)
State Highway Patrol
Other (Specify): ____________________________
2 Enter the number of FULL-TIME SWORN personnel in your agency by race and gender
Race
Male
(Sworn)
Female
a. White, NonHispanic
2.2. Enter the number of NON-SWORN
personnel employed by your agency.
b. Black, NonHispanic
c. Hispanic/Latino
d. American
Indian/Alaskan Native
2.3. Enter the total of number of
AUTHORIZED SWORN positions in
your agency.
e. Asian
f. Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific Islander
g. Other
h. Total
3.
What is the total population under your jurisdiction?
SECTION B
4.
OPERATIONS
Which of the following functions does your agency have PRIMARY responsibility for or perform on a regular basis in your
jurisdiction? Mark all that apply.
Law Enforcement Functions
Responding to citizen
call/requests for service
Criminal Investigation
Death Investigations (homicide,
suicide, unknown)
Patrol services
Other violent crime (robbery, rape
assault)
First response to criminal
incidents
Drug law enforcement
Vice law enforcement
Traffic and Vehicle-Related
Functions
Traffic law enforcement
Traffic direction/control
Accident investigation
Parking enforcement
Arson
Other property crimes
Cybercrime
Special Operations
Bomb/explosive disposal
Search and rescue
Special weapons and tactics
(SWAT)
Underwater recovery
Detention-Related Functions
Jail operations
Lockup or temporary holding
facility separate from jail (for
overnight detention)
Temporary holding cell (for more
than overnight detention)
Inmate transport
Court-Related Functions
Execution of arrest warrants
Court Security
Serving civil process
Serving eviction notices
Enforcement protection orders
48
Commercial vehicle enforcement
Enforcing child support orders
5.
How many hours in a shift do your patrol personnel typically work? Mark all that apply.
8 hour
12 hour
10 hour
Other (Specify) _________________________
6.
How often do your agency’s patrol shifts rotate?
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Semi-Annually (every 6 months)
Annually
Shifts are permanent and do not rotate
Other (Specify) _________________________________________
7.
Does your agency have a full-time dedicated traffic unit?
8.
Does your agency have a SWAT or critical incident response team? Mark all that apply.
Yes – Full time
Yes – Part time (officers assigned to other/additional duties)
Yes – Multijurisdictional
No
9.
Does your jurisdiction participate in a 911 system?
Yes
Yes
No
No – skip to Question 12
9.1 If you answered "yes" to question 9 above, who operates the system?
Your agency
County sheriff's office
City/County communication center
Other (Specify) ____________________________
9.2. Is the 911 system enhanced (provides caller ID, address information, etc.)?
Yes
No
10. For the 12-month period ending December 31, 2010, enter the approximate number of calls/requests for service received by your
agency:
11.
Does your agency provide school resource officers (SRO's) for any of the following? Mark all that apply.
Yes - Elementary Schools
Yes - Middle Schools
Yes - High Schools
Yes - Alternative Schools/Academies
No – SROs not provided
11.1 Indicate total number of SROs employed: _______
12.
Does your agency operate a crime lab?
Yes
No
12.1 If yes to question 12, indicate which analyses your lab conducts. Mark all that apply.
DNA analysis
Latent fingerprint analysis/comparison
Ballistics analysis
Drug analysis
13. Does your agency have an in-house attorney?
Yes
No
14. Does your agency employ or contract with a psychologist or counselor?
Yes
No
15. Indicate which of the following types of counseling your agency provides for officers? Mark all that apply.
49
Critical incident counseling
Substance abuse counseling
Family/marital counseling
Other (Specify) _________________________
16. Does your agency have any officers who can speak a language other than English?
Yes
No
If yes, what languages?
17. Is your agency accredited by a national or state accrediting body? Mark all that apply.
National
State
Neither
17.1 If you answered NO to national or state accreditation, what are the reason(s) for your agency not pursuing
these efforts? Mark all that apply.
National
Unaware of accreditation offered
Too expensive to pursue (e.g. fees and devoting personnel to the process)
Does not add much value to our department.
Other (Specify): __________________________________________________________
State
Unaware of accreditation offered
Too expensive to pursue (e.g. fees and devoting personnel to the process)
Does not add much value to our department.
Other (Specify): __________________________________________________________
SECTION C
PERSONNEL
17. Indicate your agency's minimum education requirement for new officer recruits. Mark only one.
Four-year college degree required
High school diploma or equivalent required
Two-year college degree required
No formal education required
Some college but no degree required
18. Indicate which of the following screening techniques your agency uses to select new officer recruits. Mark all that apply.
Analytical/problem solving ability assessment
Personal interview
Assessment of understanding of diverse cultural
Personality inventory
populations
Background investigation
Physical agility test
Credit history check
Polygraph examination
Criminal history check
Psychological evaluation
Driving history check
Second language test
Drug test
Voice stress analyzer
Mediation/conflict management skills
Volunteer/community service history check
Medical exam
Written aptitude test
Other (specify):__________________________
Other (specify):____________________________
19. Does your agency require any additional training of new officer recruits other than the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy
basic certified training?
50
Yes
No – skip to question 20
19.1. If Yes, how many additional hours are required in the classroom and in the field?
a. Additional classroom training hours required
b. Additional field training hours required
20. Indicate how often your agency conducts physical fitness tests for officers. Mark only one.
Annually
Semi-annually
Other (specify): _________________________________________________________________
NA – Agency does not require physical fitness tests
21. Enter the total number of Full-Time SWORN and Full-Time NON-SWORN personnel employed by your agency in each of the
following areas.
Position
Sworn
a. Uniform Patrol Operations: Uniform officer on patrol.
Non-Sworn
N/A
b. Investigative Services: Detectives, investigators, etc.
c. Support Services: Record clerks, data processors,
crime analysts, etc.
d. Jail Operations: Correctional officers, guards, cooks,
janitors, others working in the jail
e. Court Operations: Bailiffs, security guards, process
servers, etc.
22. Indicate the special pay/benefits your agency provides. Mark all that apply.
Education incentive
Special skill proficiency
Hazardous duty
Bilingual ability
F.T.O
Tuition reimbursement
Shift differential
Military service
Other (specify):___________________________________________________________________________
23. Indicate the national and/or state accrediting agencies that your agency is currently accredited by. Mark all that apply
National
State
If your agency is not currently accredited, is it actively seeking accreditation?
Yes
No
24. Does your agency have a reserve officer/deputy program?
Yes
No
25. Does your agency have a youth cadet program?
Yes
No
SECTION D
If yes, how many reserve officers are in your agency?
If yes, how many cadets participate?
EXPENDITURES
51
26. Enter your agency's total operating budget for the most recently completed fiscal year.
27. Enter your agency's total training budget for the most recently completed fiscal year.
28. How much did your agency pay for overtime during the most recently completed fiscal year?
29. Enter the total estimated value of money, goods, and property received by your agency from a drug asset forfeiture program
during the most recently completed fiscal year.
30. Enter your agency's currently salary schedule for the following full-time sworn positions.
Position
Minimum
Maximum
Agency does not
have this rank
a. Chief, Sheriff, or Director
b. Assistant Chief or Deputy Chief
c. Major
d. Captain
e. Lieutenant
f. Sergeant
g. Senior Patrol officer (e.g. Master Patrol
officer or Master Deputy)
h. Entry-level law enforcement officer
31. Does education and experience affect entry-level officer salaries?
a. Education
Yes
No
b. Experience
Yes
No
52
SECTION E
EQUIPMENT
32. Indicate if your agency gives a supply and/or cash allowance to its regular field/patrol officers for the following. Mark all that
apply.
Supply
Cash
Neither
allowance
allowance
Primary sidearm
Backup sidearm
Body armor
Uniform
33. Indicate the types of sidearms that are authorized for use by your agency's field/patrol officers? Mark all that apply.
On-duty weapon
Primary
Backup
Off-duty
Semiautomatic
sidearm
sidearm
sidearm
10mm
9mm
.45
.40
.357
.380
Other caliber (specify): _____________
Any semiautomatic as long as they qualify
Revolver
34. Indicate whether your agency's uniformed field/patrol officers are required to wear protective body armor while in the field. Mark
only one response.
Required all the time
Required only for some circumstances (e.g., serving warrants)
Not required
35. Which of the following less-than-lethal weapons/actions are authorized for use by your agency's field or patrol officers? Mark all
that apply.
Impact devices
Chemical agents
Other weapons/actions
Traditional baton
Personal-issue OC
(pepper spray)
Hand-held electrical stun device direct contact (e.g., stun gun)
PR-24 baton
Personal-issue
CN/CS gas
Hand-held electrical device - standoff
(e.g.,TASER)
Collapsible baton
Other chemical agent
Long-range electrical stun device
(e.g., XREP)
Soft projectile (e.g.
bean bag)
High Intensity light source (e.g. laser
dazzler)
Blackjack/slapjack
Flashbang grenade
Rubber bullet
Neck restraint (e.g., LVNR)
Other impact devices
36. Does your agency allow patrol officer/deputies to take marked vehicles home?
Yes
No
53
37. Does your agency allow patrol officers to drive marked vehicles for personal use during off-duty hours?
Yes
No
38. Indicate whether your agency's field or patrol officers use any of the following types of computers or terminals WHILE IN THE
FIELD. Mark all that apply.
Laptop computer
PDA or other hand-held devices
Mobile digital/data computer (MDC)
GPS hand-held device
Mobile digital/data terminal (MDT)
Other (specify): ____________________________
39. Indicate the functions your agency uses computers for. Mark all that apply.
Analysis of community problems
In-field report writing
Automated booking
Inter-agency information sharing
Crime investigators
Internet access
Dispatch
Personnel records
Fleet management
Records management
In-field communication
Resource allocation
Traffic stop data collection
Crime analysis
SECTION F
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
40. Does your agency have written policy directives on the following? Mark all that apply.
Use of deadly force/firearm discharge
Dealing with juveniles
Use of less-lethal force
Strip searches
Code of conduct and appearance
Racial profiling
Off-duty employment of officers
Citizen complaints
Maximum work hours allowed for officers
Off-duty conduct
Dealing with the homeless
Interacting with the media
Dealing with Domestic Violence
Employee counseling assistance
41. Which of the following best describes your agency's written policy for pursuit driving? Mark only one.
Agency does not have a written policy on pursuit driving
Discouragement - discourages all pursuits
Restrictive - restricts officer decisions to specific criteria
Judgmental - leaves decision to officer discretion
Other (specify):
SECTION G
SPECIAL ISSUE: FOOT PURSUIT POLICY AND TRAINING
DEFINITIONS – please read before answering the questions below:
Foot pursuit - A foot pursuit is an attempt by an officer to follow or track, on foot, a fleeing person who is attempting to avoid
arrest, detention or observation.
Partner Splitting - "Partner splitting" during a foot pursuit occurs when loss of visual contact, distance or obstacles separates
partners to a degree that they cannot immediately assist each other should a confrontation take place. For the purposes of this
survey, partner splitting does not pertain to lone officers assigned to static containment positions.
Containment - The establishment of a perimeter to keep a suspect within a specified area and prevent escape.
POLICY
42. Does your agency have a written policy or procedural directive for foot pursuits?
Yes
No
42.1 If YES, what year was the policy implemented? ___________
42.2 If NO, is your agency currently in the process of developing a written policy/directive?
Not Sure
Yes
No
Not Sure
54
43. Which of the following best describes your agency's written policy/procedural directive for foot pursuits? Mark only one.
N/A - Agency does not have a written policy/procedural directive on pursuit driving
Prohibition - prohibits all foot pursuits
Discouragement - discourages all foot pursuits
Restrictive - restricts officer decisions to specific criteria
Judgmental - leaves decision to officer discretion
Other (specify):
44. Excluding emergency exceptions (e.g., imminent danger to officers or civilians), indicate which of the following applies to foot
pursuits in your agency. If an item does not apply to your agency, check N/A. Please answer each item. ***Note: We recognize
that agencies vary on whether or not they deploy one or two officers/deputies in a patrol unit. Thus, we specify in some of the
questions below whether we are referring to situations involving a lone officer/deputy.
Yes
No
Not sure
N/A
a. Lone officer may close in and individually apprehend fleeing suspects
b. Lone officer may pursue but apprehend suspects using only containment
c. Lone officer must cease a foot pursuit if communication with
dispatch/communication center is lost
d. Lone officer must cease a foot pursuit after losing sight of a fleeing suspect
e. Lone officer may pursue fleeing suspects into buildings & other structures
f. Officers may engage in partner-splitting during foot pursuits
h. Officers are allowed to "Taser" suspects actively running away from them
i. Field Sergeants are required to respond to the terminus of foot pursuits
j. Officers are required to radio in pursuit-related information before or within
the first few seconds of engaging in a foot pursuit
k. Foot pursuits are debriefed by a Field Sergeant or other supervisor, even
when there is no significant use of force or an injury to an officer or civilian
45. Approximately what percentage of your agency's regular patrols are two-officer units? ___________
46. Are officers required to report involvement in a foot pursuit? Mark only one.
Yes – must report all foot pursuits
Yes – but only if force is used
Yes – but only if injury occurs to suspect or officer
Yes - Other (Specify):
No – agency has no reporting requirement specifically for foot pursuits
Not sure
TRAINING
47. Does your agency provide in-service training specifically on foot pursuits to its officers?
Yes
No
Not sure
47.1 If YES, indicate if this type of foot pursuit training is provided and the duration of the training:
a. Classroom instruction
Yes
No
Not sure
# hours _______
Not sure
b. Physical training
Yes
No
Not sure
# hours _______
Not sure
48. How often does your agency provide in-service foot pursuit training to officers?
N/A - no in-service training provided on foot pursuits
Annually
55
Semiannually
As needed
Other (Specify) :
Not sure
New Recruit Foot Pursuit Training
49. Do new recruits receive foot pursuit training at the ACADEMY?
Yes
No
Not sure
48.1 If YES, indicate the type and duration of the training at the academy:
a. Classroom instruction
Yes
No
Not sure
# hours _______
b. Physical training
Yes
No
Not sure
# hours _______
Not sure
Not sure
50. Do new recruits in your agency receive foot pursuit training by OTHER MEANS (e.g. by FTOs, frontline sergeants, during shifts,
etc.)?
Yes
No
Not sure
50.1 If YES, indicate the type and duration of the training by other means in your agency:
a. Classroom instruction
Yes
No
Not sure
# hours _______
b. Physical training
Yes
No
Not sure
# hours _______
Not sure
Not sure
c. Other (specify):
51. As part of physical training are new academy recruits or officers during in-service training required to run (jog or sprint) before
simulating a physical struggle with a suspect (e.g. Red Man Suit) or engage in target practice with their firearm? Mark all that
apply, If your agency does not provide in-service training, please check "N/A."
Officers are required to run prior to:
Yes
IN-SERVICE
Not
No
sure
ACADEMY
N/A
Yes
No
Not
sure
a. Simulating a physical struggle
b. Target practice with firearm
SECTION H
SPECIAL ISSUE: IMPACT OF ECONOMIC RECESSION
The recent fiscal crisis has had a tremendous impact on the operating budgets of many state and local governments, which has
subsequently resulted in budget cuts and other organizational changes to law enforcement agencies. This section explores the extent
to which such budget cuts and other organizational changes have occurred in your department.
52. Did your agency experience a decrease in your operating budget for fiscal years 2009 or 2010?
Fiscal Year 2010
Fiscal Year 2009
Yes
No
Do not know
Yes
No
Do not know
52.1. If you responded YES to question 52, what was the percent decrease in your budget for FY 2009 and FY 2010?
Percent Decrease 2009 __________
Percent Decrease 2010 ___________
52.2. If YES to question 52, how have you implemented your cuts for fiscal years 2009 and 2010?
Fiscal Year 2009
Fiscal Year 2010
a. Implemented a hiring freeze for sworn personnel?
Yes
No
Yes
No
b. Implemented a hiring freeze for civilian personnel?
Yes
No
Yes
No
c. Cut overtime spending?
Yes
No
Yes
No
56
d. Cut back or eliminated plans to acquire new technologies?
Yes
No
Yes
No
e. Reduced or discontinued various types of police training?
Yes
No
Yes
No
f. Reduced sworn personnel force through attrition (e.g., not
Yes
No
Yes
No
hiring to fill positions left open through retirement)?
g. Implemented unpaid furloughs?
Yes
No
Yes
No
h. Laid off sworn personnel?
Yes
No
Yes
No
i. Laid off civilian personnel?
Yes
No
Yes
No
j. Discontinued special units such as gang, drug enforcement,
Yes
No
Yes
No
or community policing?
k. Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________
l. Other: __________________________________________________________________________________________
m. Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________
53. Will your agency or do you expect your agency to receive a budget cut in fiscal year 2011?
Yes
No
Not sure
54. Our goal every year is to cover issues and topics of concern to law enforcement agencies in South Carolina. Our previous census
efforts have largely been shaped by comments from law enforcement leaders across the state and we would like to continue this
practice. If there are issues or topics you think should be covered in future census efforts, please describe them below.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
Please return the survey in the self-addressed stamped envelope or fax or email to:
Jeff Rojek
Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice
1305 Greene Street
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
FAX: 803-777-9600
EMAIL: [email protected]
57
APPENDIX B – Data Responses
Agency Type
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Municipal or County Police
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
96
58.2
58.2
58.2
33
20.0
20.0
78.2
9
5.5
5.5
83.6
25
15.2
15.2
98.8
2
1.2
1.2
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Department
Sheriff's Office
Department of Public Safety
Special District Police
Department
State Law Enforcement
Total
Sworn by Race by Sex, Total Males & Females, % Males & Females, Rate
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Number of full-time sworn White, non-Hispanic males
159
0
687
41.43
Number of full-time sworn White, non-Hispanic females
156
0
64
4.94
Number of full-time sworn Black, non-Hispanic males
159
0
127
7.24
Number of full-time sworn Black, non-Hispanic females
159
0
31
2.02
Number of full-time sworn Hispanic/Latino males
156
0
15
.94
Number of full-time sworn Hispanic/Latino females
155
0
5
.21
Number of full-time sworn American Indian/Alaskan Native males
153
0
2
.06
Number of full-time sworn American Indian/Alaskan Native females
153
0
2
.03
Number of full-time sworn Asian males
153
0
4
.13
Number of full-time sworn Asian females
154
0
1
.03
Number of full-time sworn Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander
153
0
2
.06
153
0
1
.01
Number of full-time sworn Other males
153
0
6
.12
Number of full-time sworn Other females
153
0
0
.00
Total full-time sworn males
160
0
793
49.62
Total full-time sworn females
159
0
100
7.18
male_pct
159
.0
100.0
88.024
sworn_tot
160
0
815
56.75
# sworn officers per 1,000 pop
149
.00
36.36
2.9256
Valid N (listwise)
142
males
Number of full-time sworn Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander
females
58
Race / Ethnicity Totals
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
white
156
.00
702.00
47.0000
black
158
.00
158.00
9.3038
hispanic
155
.00
19.00
1.1355
indian
153
.00
4.00
.1569
asian
153
.00
2.00
.0850
pacific
153
.00
2.00
.0719
orace
153
.00
6.00
.1242
Valid N (listwise)
153
Race / Ethnicity Percentages
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
whitep
155
.00
100.00
79.5012
blackp
157
.00
100.00
18.9412
hispanicp
154
.00
90.48
1.6613
indianp
152
.00
8.00
.2316
asianp
152
.00
10.00
.1694
pacificp
152
.00
3.33
.0714
oracep
152
.00
5.00
.0804
Valid N (listwise)
152
Sworn Categorical
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Small Agencies (0-9)
54
32.7
33.8
33.8
Moderately Small Agencies
63
38.2
39.4
73.1
Medium Agencies (50-99)
22
13.3
13.8
86.9
Large Agencies (100 +)
21
12.7
13.1
100.0
160
97.0
100.0
5
3.0
165
100.0
(10-49)
Total
Missing
System
Total
Non-Sworn & Population Served
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Total number of non-sworn personnel employed by agency
149
0
199
18.44
Total number of authorized sworn positions in agency
150
0
1046
63.66
Total population under agency jurisdiction
151
110
4625850
78221.61
Valid N (listwise)
137
59
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis vice law enforcement
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
63
38.2
38.4
38.4
Yes
101
61.2
61.6
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis traffic law enforcement
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
14
8.5
8.5
8.5
Yes
150
90.9
91.5
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis traffic direction/control
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
21
12.7
12.8
12.8
Yes
143
86.7
87.2
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis accident investigation
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
32
19.4
19.5
19.5
Yes
132
80.0
80.5
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
60
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis parking enforcement
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
49
29.7
29.9
29.9
Yes
115
69.7
70.1
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis commercial vehicle enforcement
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
132
80.0
80.5
80.5
Yes
32
19.4
19.5
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis death investigations
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
26
15.8
15.9
15.9
Yes
138
83.6
84.1
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis other violent crime
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
15
9.1
9.1
9.1
Yes
149
90.3
90.9
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
61
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis arson
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
41
24.8
25.0
25.0
Yes
123
74.5
75.0
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis other property crimes
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
10
6.1
6.1
6.1
Yes
153
92.7
93.9
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis cybercrime
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
67
40.6
41.1
41.1
Yes
96
58.2
58.9
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis bomb/explosive disposal
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
147
89.1
89.6
89.6
Yes
17
10.3
10.4
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
62
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis search and rescue
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
120
72.7
73.2
73.2
Yes
44
26.7
26.8
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis special weapons and tactics
(SWAT)
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
111
67.3
67.7
67.7
Yes
53
32.1
32.3
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis underwater recovery
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
145
87.9
88.4
88.4
Yes
19
11.5
11.6
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis jail operations
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
136
82.4
82.9
82.9
Yes
28
17.0
17.1
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
63
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis lockup/temporary holding for
overnight detention
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
144
87.3
87.8
87.8
Yes
20
12.1
12.2
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis inmate transport
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
99
60.0
60.4
60.4
Yes
65
39.4
39.6
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis execution of arrest warrants
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
23
13.9
14.0
14.0
Yes
141
85.5
86.0
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis court security
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
57
34.5
34.8
34.8
Yes
107
64.8
65.2
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
64
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis serving civil process
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
120
72.7
73.2
73.2
Yes
44
26.7
26.8
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis serving eviction notices
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
130
78.8
79.3
79.3
Yes
34
20.6
20.7
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis enforcing protection orders
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
49
29.7
29.9
29.9
Yes
115
69.7
70.1
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Responsibility for/Perform on regular basis enforcing child support orders
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
117
70.9
71.3
71.3
Yes
47
28.5
28.7
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
65
Length of patrol shifts (less overtime and unusal circumstances) 8 hours
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
130
78.8
79.8
79.8
Yes
33
20.0
20.2
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Length of patrol shifts (less overtime and unusal circumstances) 10 hours
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
151
91.5
92.6
92.6
Yes
12
7.3
7.4
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Length of patrol shifts (less overtime and unusal circumstances) 12 hours
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
38
23.0
23.3
23.3
Yes
125
75.8
76.7
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
66
Specify other length of patrol shifts (less overtime and unusal circumstances)
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
158
95.8
95.8
95.8
11
1
.6
.6
96.4
12.33
1
.6
.6
97.0
2-10 hr, 2-11 hr
1
.6
.6
97.6
3 9 hrs, 2 8 hrs
1
.6
.6
98.2
3 x 9.5 & 1 x 9 hours
1
.6
.6
98.8
8.6
1
.6
.6
99.4
9 hours
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
How often does agency patrol shift rotate?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Weekly
11
6.7
6.8
6.8
Monthly
49
29.7
30.2
37.0
Quarterly
6
3.6
3.7
40.7
Semi-annually
1
.6
.6
41.4
Permanent shifts
56
33.9
34.6
75.9
Other
39
23.6
24.1
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
3
1.8
165
100.0
99
67
Specify other agency shift rotation
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
126
76.4
76.4
76.4
14 day cycle
1
.6
.6
77.0
14 days
1
.6
.6
77.6
2 months
1
.6
.6
78.2
2 times a week
1
.6
.6
78.8
2 weeks 4 on-4off
1
.6
.6
79.4
28 days
2
1.2
1.2
80.6
35 days
1
.6
.6
81.2
6 weeks
2
1.2
1.2
82.4
At discretion of administration
1
.6
.6
83.0
Bi-monthly
1
.6
.6
83.6
Bi-monthly every 2 weeks
1
.6
.6
84.2
Bi-weekly
5
3.0
3.0
87.3
Every 2 months
1
.6
.6
87.9
Every 2 weeks
2
1.2
1.2
89.1
Every 28 days
2
1.2
1.2
90.3
every seven weeks
1
.6
.6
90.9
every two months
1
.6
.6
91.5
every two weeks
1
.6
.6
92.1
Every two weeks
1
.6
.6
92.7
most are permanent, try to work w/ off.
1
.6
.6
93.3
N/A
1
.6
.6
93.9
never
1
.6
.6
94.5
No rotation
1
.6
.6
95.2
None
1
.6
.6
95.8
set shifts
1
.6
.6
96.4
some permanent some rotate monthly
1
.6
.6
97.0
some rotate weekly some do not rotate
1
.6
.6
97.6
Supervisors only- yearly
1
.6
.6
98.2
varies
1
.6
.6
98.8
varies ~ every 3 weeks
1
.6
.6
99.4
Vary as needed
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
68
Does agency have full-time dedicated traffic unit?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
118
71.5
72.4
72.4
Yes
45
27.3
27.6
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Does agency have SWAT or critical incident response team
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Agency does not have
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
102
61.8
62.6
62.6
61
37.0
37.4
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
SWAT
Agency has SWAT/CIRT
Total
Missing
99
Total
Does agency have full-time SWAT or critical incident response team?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
57
34.5
93.4
93.4
Yes
4
2.4
6.6
100.0
Total
61
37.0
100.0
98
102
61.8
99
2
1.2
104
63.0
165
100.0
Total
Total
Does agency have part-time SWAT or critical incident response team?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
7
4.2
11.5
11.5
Yes
54
32.7
88.5
100.0
Total
61
37.0
100.0
98
102
61.8
99
2
1.2
104
63.0
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
69
Does agency have multijurisdictional SWAT or critical incident response
team?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
52
31.5
85.2
85.2
Yes
9
5.5
14.8
100.0
Total
61
37.0
100.0
98
102
61.8
99
2
1.2
104
63.0
165
100.0
Total
Total
Does jurisdiction participate in 911 system?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
20
12.1
12.5
12.5
Yes
140
84.8
87.5
100.0
Total
160
97.0
100.0
99
2
1.2
System
3
1.8
Total
5
3.0
165
100.0
Total
Who operates the 911 system?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
My agency
25
15.2
15.4
15.4
City/county communication
54
32.7
33.3
48.8
44
26.7
27.2
75.9
7
4.2
4.3
80.2
98
20
12.1
12.3
92.6
99
12
7.3
7.4
100.0
162
98.2
100.0
3
1.8
165
100.0
system
County Sheriff
Other
Total
Missing
Total
System
70
Specify who operates 911 system
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
158
95.8
95.8
95.8
911 center
1
.6
.6
96.4
City
1
.6
.6
97.0
Consolidated
1
.6
.6
97.6
County
1
.6
.6
98.2
County E-911 Center
1
.6
.6
98.8
County gov.
1
.6
.6
99.4
Independent County Entity
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
Is 911 system enhanced (caller ID, address)
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Yes
122
73.9
Missing
98
19
11.5
99
21
12.7
3
1.8
43
26.1
165
100.0
System
Total
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
100.0
100.0
# of calls for service
N
Approximate number of
Minimum
133
Maximum
15
Mean
308422
30553.94
calls/requests for service for
12 month period ending
12/31/2010
Valid N (listwise)
133
Does agency provide school resource officers?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
96
58.2
58.9
58.9
Yes
67
40.6
41.1
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
71
Agency provides SRO for elementary schools
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
55
33.3
82.1
82.1
Yes
12
7.3
17.9
100.0
Total
67
40.6
100.0
98
96
58.2
99
2
1.2
98
59.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Agency provides SRO for middle schools
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
13
7.9
19.4
19.4
Yes
54
32.7
80.6
100.0
Total
67
40.6
100.0
98
96
58.2
99
2
1.2
98
59.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Agency provides SRO for high schools
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
10
6.1
14.9
14.9
Yes
57
34.5
85.1
100.0
Total
67
40.6
100.0
98
96
58.2
99
2
1.2
98
59.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
72
Agency provides SRO for alternative schools
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
47
28.5
70.1
70.1
Yes
20
12.1
29.9
100.0
Total
67
40.6
100.0
98
96
58.2
99
2
1.2
98
59.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Descriptive Statistics
N
Total number of SROs
Minimum
61
Maximum
1
Mean
57
5.23
employed by agency
Valid N (listwise)
61
Does agency operate a crime lab?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
122
73.9
74.8
74.8
Yes
41
24.8
25.2
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Lab conducts DNA analysis
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
38
23.0
92.7
92.7
Yes
3
1.8
7.3
100.0
Total
41
24.8
100.0
N/A
122
73.9
2
1.2
124
75.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Total
Percent
73
Lab conducts latent fingerprint analysis/comparison
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
12
7.3
29.3
29.3
Yes
29
17.6
70.7
100.0
Total
41
24.8
100.0
N/A
122
73.9
2
1.2
124
75.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Total
Lab conducts ballistics analysis
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
37
22.4
90.2
90.2
Yes
4
2.4
9.8
100.0
Total
41
24.8
100.0
N/A
122
73.9
2
1.2
124
75.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Total
Lab conducts drug analysis
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
3
1.8
7.3
7.3
Yes
38
23.0
92.7
100.0
Total
41
24.8
100.0
N/A
122
73.9
2
1.2
124
75.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Total
Does agency have an in-house attorney?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
126
76.4
77.8
77.8
Yes
36
21.8
22.2
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
3
1.8
165
100.0
99
74
Does agency employ or contract with a psychologist or counselor?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
107
64.8
65.6
65.6
Yes
56
33.9
34.4
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Agency provides critical incident counseling for officers
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
68
41.2
41.7
41.7
Yes
95
57.6
58.3
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Agency provides substance abuse couseling for officers
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
94
57.0
57.7
57.7
Yes
69
41.8
42.3
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Agency provides family/marital counseling for officers
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
97
58.8
59.5
59.5
Yes
66
40.0
40.5
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
75
Agency provides other counseling for officers
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
147
89.1
89.1
89.1
Yes
16
9.7
9.7
98.8
99
2
1.2
1.2
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
Specify counseling for officers
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
148
89.7
89.7
89.7
as needed
1
.6
.6
90.3
Alternate Resource
1
.6
.6
90.9
Chaplain
1
.6
.6
91.5
Depression etc.
1
.6
.6
92.1
EAP
2
1.2
1.2
93.3
EAP - Employee Assistance
1
.6
.6
93.9
Financial
2
1.2
1.2
95.2
Peer
1
.6
.6
95.8
Pre-employment evaluation
1
.6
.6
96.4
psychological/mental health
1
.6
.6
97.0
University counseling
1
.6
.6
97.6
variety available through
1
.6
.6
98.2
Victim Advocate
1
.6
.6
98.8
Work place issues
1
.6
.6
99.4
Work, medical
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Program
S.C. Vocational Rehab.
Total
Does agency have officers who can speak a language other than English?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
89
53.9
54.3
54.3
Yes
75
45.5
45.7
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
76
Specify additional languages spoken
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
93
56.4
56.4
56.4
Arabic, Russian, German, Spanish
1
.6
.6
57.0
Chinese
1
.6
.6
57.6
German
1
.6
.6
58.2
German, Spanish
1
.6
.6
58.8
Greek, Portuguese, Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish,
1
.6
.6
59.4
Hispanic*
1
.6
.6
60.0
limited Spanish
1
.6
.6
60.6
Mandarin, Portuguese
1
.6
.6
61.2
53
32.1
32.1
93.3
Spanish & German
1
.6
.6
93.9
Spanish, Arabic, Hebrew, Russian
1
.6
.6
94.5
Spanish, French
1
.6
.6
95.2
Spanish, French, Arabic, Korean
1
.6
.6
95.8
Spanish, German
1
.6
.6
96.4
Spanish, German, Russian, Greek
1
.6
.6
97.0
Spanish, Greek
1
.6
.6
97.6
Spanish, Hmong
1
.6
.6
98.2
Spanish, Italian
1
.6
.6
98.8
Spanish, Japanese
1
.6
.6
99.4
Spanish, Polish, Portugese
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Sign Language, German, Chamorro
Spanish
Total
Agency is accredited by a national accrediting body
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
137
83.0
84.0
84.0
Yes
26
15.8
16.0
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
77
Agency is accredited by a state accrediting body
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
133
80.6
81.6
81.6
Yes
30
18.2
18.4
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Not pursing state accreditation - unaware of accreditation offered
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
106
64.2
94.6
94.6
6
3.6
5.4
100.0
Total
112
67.9
100.0
N/A
31
18.8
99
22
13.3
Total
53
32.1
165
100.0
Yes
Missing
Percent
Total
Not pursing state accreditation - too expensive to pursue
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
N0
33
20.0
29.5
29.5
Yes
79
47.9
70.5
100.0
Total
112
67.9
100.0
N/A
31
18.8
99
22
13.3
Total
53
32.1
165
100.0
Total
Not pursing state accreditation - does not add value to our department
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
89
53.9
79.5
79.5
Yes
23
13.9
20.5
100.0
Total
112
67.9
100.0
N/A
31
18.8
99
22
13.3
Total
53
32.1
165
100.0
78
Other reason for not pursuing state accreditation
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
93
56.4
83.0
83.0
Yes
19
11.5
17.0
100.0
Total
112
67.9
100.0
N/A
31
18.8
99
22
13.3
Total
53
32.1
165
100.0
Total
Specify reason for agency not pursuing state accreditation
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
146
88.5
88.5
88.5
Already nationally accredited
1
.6
.6
89.1
Applying this year
1
.6
.6
89.7
Currently pursuing STATE
1
.6
.6
90.3
In accreditation process
1
.6
.6
90.9
In process
2
1.2
1.2
92.1
in process of (to be accredited
1
.6
.6
92.7
In the process of completing
1
.6
.6
93.3
In-progress, but limited by
1
.6
.6
93.9
Lack of facilities
1
.6
.6
94.5
Mayor not impressed w/
1
.6
.6
95.2
N/A
1
.6
.6
95.8
No personnel
1
.6
.6
96.4
Not viewed as a necessity
1
.6
.6
97.0
Plans are in the future
1
.6
.6
97.6
Thinking about it but cost is a (?)
1
.6
.6
98.2
we are currently in the process
1
.6
.6
98.8
We have no sworn officers
1
.6
.6
99.4
Why state? Working on CALEA
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
this year)
personnel available
accreditation & cost
Total
79
Agency minimum education requirement for new officer recruits
Frequenc
y
Valid
No formal education required
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2
1.2
1.2
1.2
154
93.3
95.1
96.3
Some college but no degree
2
1.2
1.2
97.5
Two-year college degree required
2
1.2
1.2
98.8
Four-year college degree required
2
1.2
1.2
100.0
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
High school diploma/equivalent
Total
Missing
Percent
Valid
Total
Agency uses analytical/problem solving ability assessment to select new
officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
132
80.0
81.5
81.5
Yes
30
18.2
18.5
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Agency uses assessment of understanding diverse cultural populations to
select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Percent
95.2
96.3
96.3
6
3.6
3.7
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
157
Yes
Missing
Percent
80
Agency uses background investigation to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1
.6
.6
.6
Yes
162
98.2
99.4
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Agency uses credit history check to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
35
21.2
21.5
21.5
Yes
128
77.6
78.5
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Agency uses criminal history check to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Yes
Missing
Percent
163
98.8
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
100.0
100.0
Agency uses driving history check to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
No
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1
.6
.6
.6
Yes
162
98.2
99.4
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
81
Agency uses drug test to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
27
16.4
16.6
16.6
Yes
136
82.4
83.4
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Agency uses mediation/conflict management skills to select new officer
recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
159
96.4
97.5
97.5
4
2.4
2.5
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Agency uses medical exams to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
23
13.9
14.1
14.1
Yes
140
84.8
85.9
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
82
Agency uses personal interview to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
3
1.8
1.8
1.8
Yes
160
97.0
98.2
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Agency uses personal inventory to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
142
86.1
87.1
87.1
Yes
21
12.7
12.9
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Agency uses physical agility tests to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
107
64.8
65.6
65.6
Yes
56
33.9
34.4
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
83
Agency uses polygraph examinations to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
118
71.5
72.4
72.4
Yes
45
27.3
27.6
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Agency uses psychological evaluation to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
100
60.6
61.3
61.3
Yes
63
38.2
38.7
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Agency uses second language test to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Percent
98.2
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
162
Yes
Missing
Percent
84
Agency uses voice stress analyzer to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Valid
No
163
98.8
Missing
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
100.0
100.0
Agency uses volunteer/community service history check to select new
officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
156
94.5
95.7
95.7
7
4.2
4.3
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Agency uses written aptitude test to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
102
61.8
62.6
62.6
Yes
61
37.0
37.4
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
85
Agency uses other screening techniques to select new officer recruits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
154
93.3
94.5
94.5
9
5.5
5.5
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Specify other screening techniques used to select new officer recruits
Freque
Percen
Valid
Cumulativ
ncy
t
Percent
e Percent
Valid
158
95.8
95.8
95.8
firearms
1
.6
.6
96.4
Interview Committee, Questions on
1
.6
.6
97.0
Oral review panel
1
.6
.6
97.6
Questionnaire concerning past history
1
.6
.6
98.2
Reading comprehension
1
.6
.6
98.8
references screened, prior military (if appl.)
1
.6
.6
99.4
writing test
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
performance, technical & job skills.
Total
Does agency require additional training of new officer recruits other than
SCCJA basic certified training?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
75
45.5
46.0
46.0
Yes
88
53.3
54.0
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Additional training hours required
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Additional classroom training hours required
72
0
400
50.83
Additional field training hours required
76
1
672
281.57
Valid N (listwise)
70
86
Specify how often agency conducts physical fitness tests for officers
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
154
93.3
93.3
93.3
as a part of defensive tactics/firearms training
1
.6
.6
93.9
At employment
1
.6
.6
94.5
Every 3, 2, or 1 years based on age group
1
.6
.6
95.2
Pre-employment/Tactical Teams
1
.6
.6
95.8
Quarterly
2
1.2
1.2
97.0
Upon initial hire
1
.6
.6
97.6
Upon new hire for non-certified candidates
1
.6
.6
98.2
voluntary annually
1
.6
.6
98.8
When hired
1
.6
.6
99.4
Will begin with accreditation
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
Full-time sworn employed in various operations
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Full-time sworn personnel employed in uniform patrol operations
161
0
716
34.77
Full-time sworn personnel employed in support services
157
0
72
2.91
Full-time sworn personnel employed in jail operations
155
0
430
8.40
Full-time sworn personnel employed in court operations
154
0
31
1.94
Full-time sworn personnel employed in investigative services
159
0
111
8.13
Valid N (listwise)
150
Full-time non-sworn employed in various operations
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Non-sworn personnel employed in investigative services
153
0
10
.36
Non-sworn personnel employed in support services
158
0
192
8.27
Non-sworn personnel employed in jail operations
153
0
47
2.20
Non-sworn personnel employed in court operations
152
0
29
.63
Valid N (listwise)
148
Agency provides special pay/benefit for education incentive
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
119
72.1
72.1
72.1
Yes
46
27.9
27.9
100.0
Total
165
100.0
100.0
87
Agency provides special pay/benefit for hazardous duty
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
165
Percent
100.0
Valid Percent
Percent
100.0
100.0
Agency provides special pay/benefit for F.T.O.
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
144
87.3
87.3
87.3
Yes
21
12.7
12.7
100.0
Total
165
100.0
100.0
Agency provides special pay/benefit for shift differential
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Yes
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
156
94.5
94.5
94.5
9
5.5
5.5
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Agency provides special pay/benefit for special skill proficiency
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Yes
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
157
95.2
95.2
95.2
8
4.8
4.8
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Agency provides special pay/benefit for bilingual ability
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Yes
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
157
95.2
95.2
95.2
8
4.8
4.8
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Agency provides special pay/benefit for tuition reimbursement
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
125
75.8
75.8
75.8
Yes
40
24.2
24.2
100.0
Total
165
100.0
100.0
88
Agency provides special pay/benefit for military service
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
153
92.7
92.7
92.7
Yes
12
7.3
7.3
100.0
Total
165
100.0
100.0
Agency provides other special pay/benefit
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
156
94.5
94.5
94.5
9
5.5
5.5
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Yes
Total
Percent
Specify other special pay/benefit
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
156
94.5
94.5
94.5
Canine Handler
1
.6
.6
95.2
Career Path
1
.6
.6
95.8
cost of living
1
.6
.6
96.4
Educational Reimbursement Expense
1
.6
.6
97.0
K-9 Officers/Investigators
1
.6
.6
97.6
May receive overtime if skills used
1
.6
.6
98.2
pay for performance
1
.6
.6
98.8
Step pay increases 1st and 2nd yeras
1
.6
.6
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Program
beyond normal work hrs.
and Master Deputy Prog.
work experience
Total
Does your agency have a reserve officer/deputy program?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
79
47.9
47.9
47.9
Yes
86
52.1
52.1
100.0
Total
165
100.0
100.0
89
Does your agency have a youth cadet program?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
139
84.2
84.8
84.8
Yes
25
15.2
15.2
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
99
Total
Number of reserve officers and cadets
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
How many reserve officers are in agency?
86
0
62
6.97
How many cadets participate?
25
0
21
11.44
Valid N (listwise)
20
Operating and training budgets
N
Agency's total operating budget for most recently
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
153
14200
56327513
4573248.57
147
0
782760
23425.71
completed fiscal year
Agency's total training budget for most recently
completed fiscal year
Valid N (listwise)
143
Pay for overtime
N
How much did agency pay for overtime during
Minimum
139
0
Maximum
1033238
Mean
108849.84
most recently completed fiscal year?
Valid N (listwise)
139
Value of asset forfeiture
N
Total estimated value of goods/property by agency
Minimum
134
0
Maximum
1984158
Mean
68775.99
from drug asset forfeiture during most recently
completed fiscal year
Valid N (listwise)
134
90
Minimum, maximum and average salaries by rank
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Current minimum salary schedule for chief
121
25000
110386
55656.75
Current maximum salary schedule for chief
121
29376
166982
76660.62
Current minimum salary schedule for assistant chief
49
30000
101275
50181.27
Current maximum salary schedule for assistant chief
52
29000
153171
70011.52
Current minimum salary schedule for major
40
29000
78256
51205.08
Current maximum salary schedule for major
38
37030
119980
78569.71
Current minimum salary schedule for captain
82
24881
71739
44857.49
Current maximum salary schedule for captain
82
22000
116699
64059.38
Current minimum salary schedule for lieutenant
97
24881
58731
38855.26
Current maximum salary schedule for lieutenant
94
27500
89055
54163.83
Current minimum salary schedule for sergeant
114
20000
48542
34072.11
Current maximum salary schedule for sergeant
113
25000
76929
46167.16
89
20000
49697
31212.46
87
21000
84814
41934.83
126
18000
39726
27770.92
121
19500
58350
36998.88
Current minimum salary schedule for senior patrol
officer
Current maximum salary schedule for senior patrol
officer
Current minimum salary schedule for entry level law
enforcement officer
Current maximum salary schedule for entry level law
enforcement officer
Valid N (listwise)
11
Does education affect entry-level officer salaries?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
85
51.5
52.1
52.1
Yes
78
47.3
47.9
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
2
1.2
165
100.0
99
Total
Does experience affect entry-level offcier salaries?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
49
29.7
30.6
30.6
Yes
111
67.3
69.4
100.0
Total
160
97.0
100.0
5
3.0
165
100.0
99
91
Agency supplies and/or gives a cash allowance to its regular field/patrol officers for primary
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Neither provides nor gives allowance
Valid Percent
Percent
17
10.3
10.6
10.6
142
86.1
88.8
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
160
97.0
100.0
98
1
.6
99
4
2.4
Total
5
3.0
165
100.0
Supplies
Cash allowance
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Agency supplies and/or gives a cash allowance to its regular field/patrol officers for backup
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Neither provides nor gives allowance
Valid Percent
Percent
121
73.3
82.9
82.9
25
15.2
17.1
100.0
146
88.5
100.0
98
1
.6
99
18
10.9
Total
19
11.5
165
100.0
Supplies
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Agency supplies and/or gives a cash allowance to its regular field/patrol officers for uniform
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Neither provides nor gives allowance
Percent
9.1
9.3
9.3
144
87.3
89.4
98.8
2
1.2
1.2
100.0
161
97.6
100.0
98
1
.6
99
3
1.8
Total
4
2.4
165
100.0
Cash allowance
Total
Total
Valid Percent
15
Supplies
Missing
Percent
92
10mm authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
161
97.6
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
9mm authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
147
89.1
90.7
90.7
Yes
15
9.1
9.3
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
45 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
137
83.0
84.6
84.6
Yes
25
15.2
15.4
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
93
40 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
37
22.4
22.8
22.8
Yes
125
75.8
77.2
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
357 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
160
97.0
98.8
98.8
2
1.2
1.2
100.0
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
380 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Valid
No
162
98.2
Missing
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Valid Percent
100.0
Percent
100.0
Other caliber authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Percent
97.6
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
161
Yes
Missing
Percent
94
Specify other caliber authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as
primary sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
32
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
164
99.4
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Any semiauto authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Valid
No
162
98.2
Missing
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Valid Percent
100.0
Percent
100.0
Revolver authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as primary
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Valid
No
162
98.2
Missing
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Valid Percent
100.0
Percent
100.0
10mm authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
148
89.7
91.4
91.4
Yes
14
8.5
8.6
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
95
9mm authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
133
80.6
82.1
82.1
Yes
29
17.6
17.9
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
45 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
134
81.2
82.7
82.7
Yes
28
17.0
17.3
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
40 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
118
71.5
72.8
72.8
Yes
44
26.7
27.2
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
96
357 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
134
81.2
82.7
82.7
Yes
28
17.0
17.3
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
380 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
125
75.8
77.2
77.2
Yes
37
22.4
22.8
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Other caliber authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
148
89.7
91.4
91.4
Yes
14
8.5
8.6
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
97
Specify other caliber authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as
backup sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
153
92.7
92.7
92.7
.32, .38
1
.6
.6
93.3
.38
5
3.0
3.0
96.4
22 & up
1
.6
.6
97.0
38
3
1.8
1.8
98.8
38 spc
1
.6
.6
99.4
45
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
Any semiauto authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
144
87.3
88.9
88.9
Yes
18
10.9
11.1
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Revolver authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as backup
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
114
69.1
70.4
70.4
Yes
48
29.1
29.6
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
98
10mm authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
140
84.8
86.4
86.4
Yes
22
13.3
13.6
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
9mm authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
114
69.1
70.4
70.4
Yes
48
29.1
29.6
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
45 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
119
72.1
73.5
73.5
Yes
43
26.1
26.5
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
99
40 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
104
63.0
64.2
64.2
Yes
58
35.2
35.8
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
357 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
124
75.2
76.5
76.5
Yes
38
23.0
23.5
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
380 authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
117
70.9
72.2
72.2
Yes
45
27.3
27.8
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
100
Other caliber authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
148
89.7
91.4
91.4
Yes
14
8.5
8.6
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Specify other caliber authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as
off-duty sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
159
96.4
96.4
96.4
.32
1
.6
.6
97.0
.32, .38
1
.6
.6
97.6
.38
2
1.2
1.2
98.8
45
1
.6
.6
99.4
99
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
Any semiauto authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
134
81.2
82.7
82.7
Yes
28
17.0
17.3
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
101
Revolver authorized for use by agency field/patrol officers as off-duty
sidearm
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
107
64.8
66.0
66.0
Yes
55
33.3
34.0
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Agency requires field/patrol officers are required to wear protective body armor while in the field
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Not required
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
19
11.5
12.1
12.1
124
75.2
79.0
91.1
14
8.5
8.9
100.0
157
95.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
7
4.2
Total
8
4.8
165
100.0
Required only for some
circumstances
Required all the time
Total
Missing
Total
Traditional baton authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
149
90.3
91.4
91.4
Yes
14
8.5
8.6
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
102
PR-24 baton authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
152
92.1
93.3
93.3
Yes
11
6.7
6.7
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Collapsible baton authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
48
29.1
29.4
29.4
Yes
115
69.7
70.6
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Soft projectile authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
139
84.2
85.3
85.3
Yes
24
14.5
14.7
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
103
Blackjack authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Valid
No
163
98.8
Missing
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
100.0
100.0
Rubber bullet authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
155
93.9
95.1
95.1
8
4.8
4.9
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Other impact weapon authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
159
96.4
97.5
97.5
4
2.4
2.5
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
OC (pepper spray) authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
36
21.8
22.1
22.1
Yes
127
77.0
77.9
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
104
CS/CN authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
159
96.4
97.5
97.5
4
2.4
2.5
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Other chemical weapon authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
162
98.2
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Stun gun authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Percent
93.3
94.5
94.5
9
5.5
5.5
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
154
Yes
Missing
Percent
105
Taser authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
34
20.6
20.9
20.9
Yes
129
78.2
79.1
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Long range stun device (XREP) authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
153
92.7
93.9
93.9
Yes
10
6.1
6.1
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
High intensity light authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Percent
98.2
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
162
Yes
Missing
Percent
106
Flash bang authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
149
90.3
91.4
91.4
Yes
14
8.5
8.6
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Neck restraint authorized for use by field or patrol officer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
162
98.2
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Does agency allow patrol officers/deputies to take marked vehicles home?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
50
30.3
31.4
31.4
Yes
109
66.1
68.6
100.0
Total
159
96.4
100.0
98
1
.6
99
5
3.0
Total
6
3.6
165
100.0
107
Does agency allow patrol officers to drive marked vehicles for personal use
during off-duty hours?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
124
75.2
79.0
79.0
Yes
33
20.0
21.0
100.0
Total
157
95.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
7
4.2
Total
8
4.8
165
100.0
Total
Agency field or patrol officers use laptop computer while in the field
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
82
49.7
50.6
50.6
Yes
80
48.5
49.4
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Agency field or patrol officers use mobile digital/data computer while in the
field
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
146
88.5
90.1
90.1
Yes
16
9.7
9.9
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
108
Agency field or patrol officers use mobile digital/data terminal while in the
field
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
128
77.6
79.0
79.0
Yes
34
20.6
21.0
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Agency field or patrol officers use PDA or other hand-held device while in
the field
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
144
87.3
88.9
88.9
Yes
18
10.9
11.1
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Total
Agency field or patrol officers use GPS hand-held device while in the field
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
106
64.2
65.4
65.4
Yes
56
33.9
34.6
100.0
Total
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
109
Agency field or patrol officers use other device while in the field
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
157
95.2
96.9
96.9
5
3.0
3.1
100.0
162
98.2
100.0
98
1
.6
99
2
1.2
Total
3
1.8
165
100.0
Yes
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Specify other device used while in the field
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
160
97.0
97.0
97.0
GPS built into MDT/RADIO
1
.6
.6
97.6
LPR
1
.6
.6
98.2
MC-75 Biometric
1
.6
.6
98.8
Radar handheld
1
.6
.6
99.4
Vehicle Mounted GPS
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
Agency uses computers for analysis of community problems
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
106
64.2
64.6
64.6
Yes
58
35.2
35.4
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for automated booking
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
114
69.1
69.5
69.5
Yes
50
30.3
30.5
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
110
Agency uses computers for crime investigators
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
53
32.1
32.3
32.3
Yes
111
67.3
67.7
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for dispatch
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
No
93
56.4
56.7
56.7
Yes
70
42.4
42.7
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
9
Total
Missing
Percent
98
Total
Agency uses computers for fleet management
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
103
62.4
62.8
62.8
Yes
61
37.0
37.2
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for in-field communication
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
117
70.9
71.3
71.3
Yes
47
28.5
28.7
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
111
Agency uses computers for traffic stop data collection
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
70
42.4
42.7
42.7
Yes
94
57.0
57.3
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for in-field report writing
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
54
32.7
32.9
32.9
Yes
110
66.7
67.1
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for inter-agency information sharing
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
81
49.1
49.4
49.4
Yes
83
50.3
50.6
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for internet access
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
31
18.8
18.9
18.9
Yes
133
80.6
81.1
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
112
Agency uses computers for personnel records
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
80
48.5
48.8
48.8
Yes
84
50.9
51.2
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for records management
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
39
23.6
23.8
23.8
Yes
125
75.8
76.2
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for resources allocation
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
121
73.3
73.8
73.8
Yes
43
26.1
26.2
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency uses computers for crime analysis
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
83
50.3
50.6
50.6
Yes
81
49.1
49.4
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
113
Agency has written policy directive on use of deadly force/firearm discharge
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
No
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
8
4.8
4.9
4.9
Yes
156
94.5
95.1
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on use of less-lethal force
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
12
7.3
7.3
7.3
Yes
152
92.1
92.7
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on code of conduct and appearance
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
15
9.1
9.1
9.1
Yes
149
90.3
90.9
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on off-duty employment of officers
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
24
14.5
14.6
14.6
Yes
140
84.8
85.4
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
114
Agency has written policy directive on maximum work hours allowed
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
89
53.9
54.3
54.3
Yes
75
45.5
45.7
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on dealing with the homeless
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
134
81.2
82.2
82.2
Yes
29
17.6
17.8
100.0
Total
163
98.8
100.0
98
1
.6
System
1
.6
Total
2
1.2
165
100.0
Total
Agency has written policy directive on dealing with domestic violence
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
43
26.1
26.2
26.2
Yes
121
73.3
73.8
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on dealing with juveniles
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
47
28.5
28.7
28.7
Yes
117
70.9
71.3
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
115
Agency has written policy directive on strip searches
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
65
39.4
39.6
39.6
Yes
99
60.0
60.4
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on racial profiling
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
71
43.0
43.3
43.3
Yes
93
56.4
56.7
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on citizen complaints
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
47
28.5
28.7
28.7
Yes
117
70.9
71.3
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on off-duty conduct
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
32
19.4
19.5
19.5
Yes
132
80.0
80.5
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
116
Agency has written policy directive on interacting with the media
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
42
25.5
25.6
25.6
Yes
122
73.9
74.4
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Agency has written policy directive on employee counseling assistance
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
77
46.7
47.0
47.0
Yes
87
52.7
53.0
100.0
Total
164
99.4
100.0
1
.6
165
100.0
98
Total
Describe agency's written policy for pursuit driving
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Agency does not have
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
6
3.6
3.8
3.8
10
6.1
6.3
10.1
Restrictive
107
64.8
67.7
77.8
Judgmental
29
17.6
18.4
96.2
Other
6
3.6
3.8
100.0
Total
158
95.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
6
3.6
Total
7
4.2
165
100.0
written policy
Discouragement
Missing
Total
117
Specify other written policy for pursuit driving
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
159
96.4
96.4
96.4
1
.6
.6
97.0
1
.6
.6
97.6
No vehicle for pursuit
1
.6
.6
98.2
Not allowed
1
.6
.6
98.8
Pursuit not authorized
1
.6
.6
99.4
Supervisor discretion
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Leaves decision to officer and supervisor
aware of reason.
Leaves decision to officer; but supervisor
monitors pursuits.
Total
Does agency have written policy for foot pursuit?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
127
77.0
78.9
78.9
Yes
28
17.0
17.4
96.3
6
3.6
3.7
100.0
161
97.6
100.0
98
1
.6
99
3
1.8
Total
4
2.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
No
Not sure
Missing
Percent
118
Year policy/procedural directive implemented
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
97
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
2
1.2
1.2
1.2
130
78.8
78.8
80.0
99
7
4.2
4.2
84.2
1985
1
.6
.6
84.8
1993
1
.6
.6
85.5
1996
1
.6
.6
86.1
1999
2
1.2
1.2
87.3
2000
1
.6
.6
87.9
2001
2
1.2
1.2
89.1
2003
4
2.4
2.4
91.5
2005
1
.6
.6
92.1
2006
3
1.8
1.8
93.9
2007
2
1.2
1.2
95.2
2008
2
1.2
1.2
96.4
2009
1
.6
.6
97.0
2010
4
2.4
2.4
99.4
2011
1
.6
.6
100.0
Total
165
100.0
100.0
N/A
Is agency in process of developing policy/procedural directive?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
73
44.2
76.0
76.0
Yes
13
7.9
13.5
89.6
Not sure
9
5.5
9.4
99.0
97
1
.6
1.0
100.0
Total
96
58.2
100.0
N/A
30
18.2
99
39
23.6
Total
69
41.8
165
100.0
119
Best description of written policy/procedural directive
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Discouragement
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1
.6
2.2
2.2
Restrictive
15
9.1
33.3
35.6
Judgmental
29
17.6
64.4
100.0
Total
45
27.3
100.0
Not applicable, no policy
99
60.0
99
21
12.7
120
72.7
165
100.0
Total
Total
Description of other written policy
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
164
99.4
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Relies heavily on K-9
involvement
Total
Lone officer may close in and individually apprehend fleeing suspects
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Percent
5.5
7.3
7.3
112
67.9
91.1
98.4
2
1.2
1.6
100.0
Total
123
74.5
100.0
N/A
26
15.8
99
16
9.7
Total
42
25.5
165
100.0
Not sure
Total
Valid Percent
9
Yes
Missing
Percent
120
Lone officer may pursue but apprehend suspects using only containment
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
No
56
33.9
58.9
58.9
Yes
30
18.2
31.6
90.5
9
5.5
9.5
100.0
Total
95
57.6
100.0
N/A
49
29.7
99
21
12.7
Total
70
42.4
165
100.0
Not sure
Missing
Percent
Total
Lone officer must cease a foot pursuit if communication with
dispatch/communication center is lost
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
No
56
33.9
47.9
47.9
Yes
56
33.9
47.9
95.7
5
3.0
4.3
100.0
Total
117
70.9
100.0
N/A
33
20.0
99
15
9.1
Total
48
29.1
165
100.0
Not sure
Missing
Percent
Total
Lone officer must cease a foot pursuit after losing sight of a fleeing suspect
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
No
66
40.0
57.9
57.9
Yes
45
27.3
39.5
97.4
3
1.8
2.6
100.0
Total
114
69.1
100.0
N/A
35
21.2
99
16
9.7
Total
51
30.9
165
100.0
Not sure
Missing
Percent
121
Lone officer may pursue fleeing suspects into buildings & other structures
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
No
38
23.0
31.9
31.9
Yes
77
46.7
64.7
96.6
4
2.4
3.4
100.0
Total
119
72.1
100.0
N/A
27
16.4
99
19
11.5
Total
46
27.9
165
100.0
Not sure
Missing
Percent
Total
Officers may engage in partner-splitting during foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
No
14
8.5
13.9
13.9
Yes
83
50.3
82.2
96.0
4
2.4
4.0
100.0
Total
101
61.2
100.0
N/A
47
28.5
99
17
10.3
Total
64
38.8
165
100.0
Not sure
Missing
Percent
Total
Officers are allowed to "Taser" suspects actively running away from them
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
No
39
23.6
33.9
33.9
Yes
73
44.2
63.5
97.4
3
1.8
2.6
100.0
Total
115
69.7
100.0
N/A
32
19.4
99
18
10.9
Total
50
30.3
165
100.0
Not sure
Missing
Percent
122
Field Sergeants are required to respond to the terminus of foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
No
58
35.2
57.4
57.4
Yes
41
24.8
40.6
98.0
2
1.2
2.0
100.0
Total
101
61.2
100.0
N/A
47
28.5
99
17
10.3
Total
64
38.8
165
100.0
Not sure
Missing
Percent
Total
Officers are required to radio in pursuit-related information before or within the
first few seconds of engaging in a foot pursuit
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No
Valid Percent
Percent
7
4.2
5.6
5.6
118
71.5
93.7
99.2
1
.6
.8
100.0
Total
126
76.4
100.0
N/A
25
15.2
99
14
8.5
Total
39
23.6
165
100.0
Yes
Not sure
Missing
Percent
Total
Foot pursuits are debriefed by a Field Sergeant or other supervisor, even when
there is no significant use of force or an injury to an officer or civilian
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
No
55
33.3
47.8
47.8
Yes
57
34.5
49.6
97.4
3
1.8
2.6
100.0
Total
115
69.7
100.0
N/A
33
20.0
99
17
10.3
Total
50
30.3
165
100.0
Not sure
Missing
Percent
123
Percentage of agency's regular patrols that are two-officer units
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
0
129
78.2
80.1
80.1
1
5
3.0
3.1
83.2
5
5
3.0
3.1
86.3
10
8
4.8
5.0
91.3
15
2
1.2
1.2
92.5
20
1
.6
.6
93.2
25
1
.6
.6
93.8
30
4
2.4
2.5
96.3
50
3
1.8
1.9
98.1
80
3
1.8
1.9
100.0
161
97.6
100.0
98
2
1.2
99
2
1.2
Total
4
2.4
165
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Are officers specifically required to report in writing involvement in a foot pursuit?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
No-agency has no written
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
40
24.2
25.3
25.3
99
60.0
62.7
88.0
10
6.1
6.3
94.3
4
2.4
2.5
96.8
5
3.0
3.2
100.0
158
95.8
100.0
98
1
.6
99
6
3.6
Total
7
4.2
165
100.0
reporting requirement
Yes- must report all foot
pursuits
Yes- only if force is used
Yes- only if injury occurs to
officer/suspect
Yes- other
Total
Missing
Total
124
Specify when officers are required to submit written report of foot pursuit involvement
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Document every public
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
161
97.6
97.6
97.6
1
.6
.6
98.2
1
.6
.6
98.8
1
.6
.6
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
contact
Documented in narrative of
incident report
To be included in a report, in
an arrest situation and if the
officer is injured
Tracking
Total
Does your agency provide in-service training specifically on foot pursuits to
its officers?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
136
82.4
84.5
84.5
Yes
25
15.2
15.5
100.0
Total
161
97.6
100.0
98
2
1.2
99
2
1.2
Total
4
2.4
165
100.0
Total
Classroom instruction on foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
1
.6
4.2
4.2
Yes
23
13.9
95.8
100.0
Total
24
14.5
100.0
97
1
.6
98
138
83.6
99
2
1.2
141
85.5
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
125
Duration of classroom instruction on foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
1
10
6.1
62.5
62.5
2
4
2.4
25.0
87.5
3
1
.6
6.3
93.8
4
1
.6
6.3
100.0
16
9.7
100.0
4
2.4
138
83.6
7
4.2
149
90.3
165
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
Not sure
N/A
99
Total
Total
Physical training for foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
15
9.1
68.2
68.2
Yes
7
4.2
31.8
100.0
Total
22
13.3
100.0
97
1
.6
98
139
84.2
99
3
1.8
143
86.7
165
100.0
Total
Total
Duration of physical training for foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
1
2
1.2
66.7
66.7
2
1
.6
33.3
100.0
Total
3
1.8
100.0
Not sure
3
1.8
153
92.7
6
3.6
162
98.2
165
100.0
N/A
99
Total
Total
Percent
126
How often does your agency provide in-service foot pursuit training to officers?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Annually
Valid Percent
Percent
15
9.1
60.0
60.0
As needed
8
4.8
32.0
92.0
Other (specify)
2
1.2
8.0
100.0
25
15.2
100.0
1
.6
128
77.6
11
6.7
140
84.8
165
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
97
N/A- No inservice training is
provided on foot pursuits
99
Total
Total
Specify how often agency provides in-service foot pursuit training to officers
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
161
97.6
97.6
97.6
Bi-weekly tracking
1
.6
.6
98.2
covered with other subjects
1
.6
.6
98.8
Instruct foot pursuits during
1
.6
.6
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
vehicle pursuit training
Only through scenarios, but
not stressed as a specific
training.
Total
Do new recruits receive foot pursuit training other than the academy?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
118
71.5
73.3
73.3
Yes
40
24.2
24.8
98.1
3
1.8
1.9
100.0
161
97.6
100.0
98
1
.6
99
3
1.8
Total
4
2.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
No
Not sure
Missing
Percent
127
Post-Academy classroom instruction on foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
No
5
3.0
16.1
16.1
Yes
25
15.2
80.6
96.8
1
.6
3.2
100.0
31
18.8
100.0
98
122
73.9
99
12
7.3
134
81.2
165
100.0
Not sure
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Total
Duration of post-academy classroom instruction on foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
1
10
6.1
50.0
50.0
2
5
3.0
25.0
75.0
3
1
.6
5.0
80.0
4
2
1.2
10.0
90.0
5
2
1.2
10.0
100.0
20
12.1
100.0
4
2.4
N/A
128
77.6
99
13
7.9
145
87.9
165
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
Not sure
Total
Total
Post-Academy physical training for foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
16
9.7
55.2
55.2
Yes
12
7.3
41.4
96.6
1
.6
3.4
100.0
29
17.6
100.0
98
122
73.9
99
14
8.5
136
82.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Total
Valid Percent
No
Not sure
Missing
Percent
128
Duration of post-academy physical training for foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1
4
2.4
50.0
50.0
2
2
1.2
25.0
75.0
4
1
.6
12.5
87.5
8
1
.6
12.5
100.0
Total
8
4.8
100.0
Not sure
4
2.4
N/A
139
84.2
99
14
8.5
157
95.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Specify other training on foot pursuits
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
155
93.9
93.9
93.9
By FTO initially
1
.6
.6
94.5
FTO
4
2.4
2.4
97.0
FTO lecture 1 hour
1
.6
.6
97.6
FTO provides field training
1
.6
.6
98.2
In the FTO program
1
.6
.6
98.8
OJT- 30 minutes
1
.6
.6
99.4
Part of FTO
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Total
Did your agency experience a decrease in operating budget for fiscal year 2009?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
93
56.4
59.2
59.2
Yes
58
35.2
36.9
96.2
6
3.6
3.8
100.0
157
95.2
100.0
98
2
1.2
99
6
3.6
Total
8
4.8
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
No
Do not know
Missing
Percent
129
Did your agency experience a decrease in operating budget for fiscal year 2010?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
No
82
49.7
52.2
52.2
Yes
69
41.8
43.9
96.2
6
3.6
3.8
100.0
157
95.2
100.0
98
4
2.4
99
4
2.4
Total
8
4.8
165
100.0
Do not know
Total
Missing
Percent
Total
Percent decrease in budget in 2009 and 2010
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
What was percent decrease in budget FY2009
52
0
30
7.92
What was percent decrease in budget FY2010
56
0
52
9.44
Valid N (listwise)
46
Implemented hiring freeze for sworn personnel
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
53
32.1
71.6
71.6
Yes
21
12.7
28.4
100.0
Total
74
44.8
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
6
3.6
91
55.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Implemented hiring freeze for civilian personnel
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
57
34.5
77.0
77.0
Yes
17
10.3
23.0
100.0
Total
74
44.8
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
6
3.6
91
55.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
130
Cut overtime spending
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
29
17.6
39.7
39.7
Yes
44
26.7
60.3
100.0
Total
73
44.2
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
7
4.2
92
55.8
165
100.0
Total
Total
Cut back or eliminated plans to acquire new technology
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
25
15.2
34.2
34.2
Yes
48
29.1
65.8
100.0
Total
73
44.2
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
7
4.2
92
55.8
165
100.0
Total
Total
Reduced or discontinued various types of police training
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
37
22.4
51.4
51.4
Yes
35
21.2
48.6
100.0
Total
72
43.6
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
8
4.8
93
56.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
131
Reduced sworn personnel force through attrition
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
63
38.2
85.1
85.1
Yes
11
6.7
14.9
100.0
Total
74
44.8
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
6
3.6
91
55.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Implemented unpaid furlough
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
61
37.0
82.4
82.4
Yes
13
7.9
17.6
100.0
Total
74
44.8
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
6
3.6
91
55.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Laid off sworn personnel
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
71
43.0
95.9
95.9
Yes
3
1.8
4.1
100.0
Total
74
44.8
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
6
3.6
91
55.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
132
Laid off civilian personnel
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
71
43.0
95.9
95.9
Yes
3
1.8
4.1
100.0
Total
74
44.8
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
6
3.6
91
55.2
165
100.0
Total
Total
Discontinued special units (gang, drug enforcement, community policing)
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
69
41.8
95.8
95.8
Yes
3
1.8
4.2
100.0
Total
72
43.6
100.0
98
85
51.5
99
8
4.8
93
56.4
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
133
Other budget cuts implemented
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
154
93.3
93.3
93.3
1
.6
.6
93.9
1
.6
.6
94.5
1
.6
.6
95.2
1
.6
.6
95.8
1
.6
.6
96.4
No raises in two years
1
.6
.6
97.0
Reduced pay across board by 3% no
1
.6
.6
97.6
1
.6
.6
98.2
supplies, vehicles, merit increases
1
.6
.6
98.8
Tuition reimbursement discontinued
1
.6
.6
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Cut back in other general line items
across the board
Federal stimulus and other grant
funding, seizures / forfeitures have
also made up some of the decrease
Laid off some temp and reduced hours
on essential temps.
Less of all supplies - uniforms,
maintenance, fuel, cars, paper
no pay increases, minimum/no
overtime, purchases over $50 must be
approved by town administrator
raises for past three years
Since 2006-2007, been in a hiring
freeze, no salary increases, no
promotions, no cost of living
2009 - indefinitely
We did not budget for two positions
(sworn)
Total
134
Implemented hiring freeze for sworn personnel
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
55
33.3
69.6
69.6
Yes
24
14.5
30.4
100.0
Total
79
47.9
100.0
98
77
46.7
99
9
5.5
86
52.1
165
100.0
Total
Total
Implemented hiring freeze for civilian personnel
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
62
37.6
76.5
76.5
Yes
19
11.5
23.5
100.0
Total
81
49.1
100.0
98
78
47.3
99
6
3.6
84
50.9
165
100.0
Total
Total
Cut overtime spending
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
26
15.8
32.1
32.1
Yes
55
33.3
67.9
100.0
Total
81
49.1
100.0
98
78
47.3
99
6
3.6
84
50.9
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
135
Cut back or eliminated plans to acquire new technology
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
26
15.8
32.1
32.1
Yes
55
33.3
67.9
100.0
Total
81
49.1
100.0
98
78
47.3
99
6
3.6
84
50.9
165
100.0
Total
Total
Reduced or discontinued various types of police training
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
40
24.2
50.0
50.0
Yes
40
24.2
50.0
100.0
Total
80
48.5
100.0
98
78
47.3
99
7
4.2
85
51.5
165
100.0
Total
Total
Reduced sworn personnel force through attrition
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
65
39.4
80.2
80.2
Yes
16
9.7
19.8
100.0
Total
81
49.1
100.0
98
78
47.3
99
6
3.6
84
50.9
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
136
Implemented unpaid furlough
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
74
44.8
91.4
91.4
Yes
7
4.2
8.6
100.0
Total
81
49.1
100.0
98
78
47.3
99
6
3.6
84
50.9
165
100.0
Total
Total
Laid off sworn personnel
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Valid
No
81
49.1
Missing
98
78
47.3
99
6
3.6
84
50.9
165
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
100.0
Percent
100.0
Laid off civilian personnel
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid Percent
Percent
No
79
47.9
97.5
97.5
Yes
2
1.2
2.5
100.0
Total
81
49.1
100.0
98
78
47.3
99
6
3.6
84
50.9
165
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
137
Discontinued special units (gang, drug enforcement, community policing)
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
No
76
46.1
95.0
95.0
Yes
4
2.4
5.0
100.0
Total
80
48.5
100.0
98
78
47.3
99
7
4.2
85
51.5
165
100.0
Total
Total
Other budget cuts implemented
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Frequency
Percent
155
93.9
93.9
93.9
Cut fuel usage, cut training
1
.6
.6
94.5
dept. not at full strength
1
.6
.6
95.2
did not purchase vehicles, did not give merit of
1
.6
.6
95.8
Fleet replacement funds reduced in FY 10/11
1
.6
.6
96.4
furlough days
1
.6
.6
97.0
No hiring freeze has been implemented but did
1
.6
.6
97.6
No raises in two years
1
.6
.6
98.2
reduced nonsworn personnel through attrition
1
.6
.6
98.8
same as above
1
.6
.6
99.4
supplies, vehicles, merit increases
1
.6
.6
100.0
165
100.0
100.0
Valid
longevity raises
not receive new positions for 09/10 budget year
Total
Will agency/do you expect budget cut in FY2011?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
No
49
29.7
30.6
30.6
Yes
49
29.7
30.6
61.3
Not sure
62
37.6
38.8
100.0
160
97.0
100.0
98
1
.6
99
4
2.4
Total
5
3.0
165
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
138
Special issues raised by respondents
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Percent
148
89.7
(1) Upper-level management training (2) More Detention Center training.
1
.6
# of agencies using Crime-Stat and/or some form of Intelligence-led policing.
1
.6
Educational attainment levels (existing/incumbent off.)
1
.6
Engaging in and apprehension of illegal immigrants.
1
.6
Ethics Training
1
.6
I'm curious to know how many agencies are submitting crime info to the state
1
.6
1
.6
1
.6
N/A
1
.6
NONE
1
.6
Our chief was terminated and I answered the questions to the best of my
1
.6
1
.6
Purchasing of equipment; i.e. in-car cameras, vehicles, rifles
1
.6
Social media (eg: facebook) policies
1
.6
Traffic problems
1
.6
We are part of a community college sworn security department. We report to
1
.6
1
.6
165
100.0
Policies and procedures defining its operation.
SCiEX data base. Are other agencies using camera systems to
monitor/record info in high crime areas or Public area's such as parks,
downtown ect
It would be helpful to have a form version of this survey available online in the
future.
Law enforcement is usually the first to get budget cuts, demanding more work
with less resources
ability.
Our department has suffered w unnormal turn-over. We feel this is largely
caused by not receiving raises for the past 4 years. When speaking w/ officers
that resigned their statements are they feel they are losing money working w/
us or feel stagnant in their position.
the physical plant director that controls our departmental budget as well as
daily operations with no experience in the law enforcement field.
Would like to know how many agencies have hired certified officers from other
S.C. agencies before they had been with that agency at least (1) year? 2
years?
Total
139
APPENDIX C – Number of Officers per 1,000 Residents
MUNICIPAL AGENCIES
Sworn Population
# per 1,000
19
NR
-10
4500
2.22
96
27144
3.54
7
670
10.45
10
3800
2.63
12
4600
2.61
34
8500
4.00
14
3800
3.68
7
3000
2.33
1
510
1.96
8
2500
3.20
26
9400
2.77
52
13000
4.00
10
3500
2.86
NR
NR
-16
5035
3.18
409
115634
3.54
346
129333
2.68
26
13500
1.93
3
NR
-22
4800
4.58
53
18000
2.94
6
2279
2.63
25
6397
3.91
26
NR
-7
1200
5.83
42
20000
2.10
3
614
4.89
7
2827
2.48
123
33000
3.73
12
2500
4.80
27
10361
2.61
3
1200
2.50
33
NR
-34
9000
3.78
61
40000
1.53
6
2400
2.50
2
450
4.44
176
56000
3.14
49
22710
2.16
52
24000
2.17
30
12937
2.32
4
761
5.26
42
8000
5.25
8
1300
6.15
Continued on next page.
Notes: NR = not reported; population figures self-reported.
140
MUNICIPAL AGENCIES (continued)
Sworn Population
# per 1,000
9
2600
3.46
3
13000
.23
20
5000
4.00
4
2000
2.00
4
110
36.36
6
2600
2.31
35
10160
3.44
14
2900
4.83
2
585
3.42
8
1500
5.33
33
9960
3.11
43
16321
2.63
9
2300
3.91
47
23000
2.04
1
715
1.40
6
2870
2.09
8
NR
-197
31000
6.35
6
2250
2.67
32
11500
2.78
338
97449
3.47
3
820
3.66
3
500
6.00
2
800
2.50
6
2200
2.73
8
3500
2.29
14
3000
4.67
1
1597
.63
21
11000
1.91
5
5000
1.00
1
1900
.53
134
67000
2.00
1
500
2.00
10
5000
2.00
8
740
10.81
2
NR
-37
17000
2.18
8
NR
-6
2800
2.14
107
40399
2.65
21
45000
.47
19
7620
2.49
14
3243
4.32
84
40000
2.10
14
3900
3.59
54
13064
4.13
9
2700
3.33
4
1512
2.65
8
3307
2.42
7
1000
7.00
23
9000
2.56
Notes: NR = not reported; population figures self-reported.
141
SHERIFFS’ AGENCIES
Sworn Population
# per 1,000
28
22627
1.24
127
156017
.81
310
182825
1.70
16
NR
-230
150000
1.53
22
17000
1.29
256
356000
.72
48
55342
.87
86
33000
2.61
NR
NR
-74
67000
1.10
202
140000
1.44
44
28000
1.57
89
60000
1.48
404
451428
.89
NR
257380
-66
60000
1.10
87
77767
1.12
120
70000
1.71
28
19220
1.46
243
262391
.93
36
35000
1.03
25
30000
.83
47
38500
1.22
85
72000
1.18
NR
102000
.97
98
113500
.86
542
372023
1.46
20
NR
-301
286822
1.05
122
106000
1.15
34
28000
1.21
160
227003
.70
Notes: NR = not reported; population figures self-reported. Population estimates must be
interpreted with caution.
142