DR. KIM LONSWAY, Research Director, National Center for Women & Policing
SUSAN CARRINGTON, PATRICIA AGUIRRE AND MICHELLE WOOD, Research Assistants
MARGARET MOORE, Director, National Center for Women & Policing
CHIEF PENNY HARRINGTON, Founding Director & Chair of the Board,
National Center for Women & Policing
ELEANOR SMEAL, President, Feminist Majority Foundation
KATHERINE SPILLAR, Executive Vice-President, Feminist Majority Foundation

In order to gauge the status and growth of women in law enforcement, the National Center for Women & Policing conducted its fifth annual study on women sworn and civilian personnel within the largest law enforcement agencies in the United States. In addition, the second annual survey of small and rural law enforcement agencies was conducted by the Justice and Safety Center at Eastern Kentucky University, in cooperation with the National Center for Women & Policing. This report includes the results of both studies and examines the gains – and the gaps – in the numbers of women in policing, providing a picture of where women are in law enforcement today.

The 2001 Status of Women in Policing Survey provides a comprehensive – and discouraging – picture of women’s representation in law enforcement. Our research shows that the number of women in sworn law enforcement remains small, and in large agencies the pace of increase has stalled or even reversed.

In 2001, women accounted for only 12.7% of all sworn law enforcement positions in large agencies (with 100 or more sworn personnel) – a figure that is less than four percentage points higher than in 1990, when women comprised 9% of sworn officers. In small and rural agencies (with fewer than 100 sworn personnel), women comprise an even smaller 8.1% of all sworn personnel. When these figures are combined in a weighted estimate, they indicate that women represent only 11.2% of all sworn law enforcement personnel in the U.S. – dramatically less than the participation of women in the whole of the labor force at 46.5%.1

Although women gained approximately half a percentage point per year in their representation within large police agencies from 1972 to 1999, there is mounting evidence that this trend has now stalled or even reversed. In 2000 and 2001, the representation of women in large police agencies actually declined from the year before –from 14.3% in 1999 and 13.0% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2001. At the present rate, women will not achieve equality in large police agencies for several generations, if at all.

Despite overwhelming evidence that women and men are equally capable of police work,2 widespread bias in police hiring, selection practices and recruitment policies keeps the numbers of women in law enforcement artificially low.3  Entry exams, with an overemphasis on physical prowess block many qualified women from serving, even though research documents that such tests are not job-related and they do not predict successful job performance.4  While discriminatory height requirements were finally discarded in the early 1970’s, today’s tests continue to bar highly qualified women from entering policing.

Moreover, many women are discouraged from applying to law enforcement agencies because of policing’s aggressive and authoritarian image, an image based on the outdated paramilitary model of law enforcement. Once on the job, women often face discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and are maliciously thwarted, especially as they move up the ranks.5  This undermines any efforts to recruit and retain women, and contributes to their dramatic under-representation in sworn law enforcement.

The continued under-representation of women in policing is a significant contributing factor to the widespread excessive force and corruption scandals plaguing law enforcement today. Research conducted in the United States and internationally demonstrates that women police officers utilize a style of policing that relies less on physical force and more on communications skills. As a result, women are often better at defusing potentially violent confrontations, and are less likely to become involved in use of excessive force situations.6 In fact, no matter which measure of excessive force is used – citizen complaints, sustained allegations, or civil liability payouts – the pattern is both dramatic and consistent. Women are substantially less likely to be named in a citizen complaint, sustained allegation, or civil lawsuit for excessive use of force.7

The under-representation of women in law enforcement also has significant implications for women in the community who are victims of domestic violence. Research shows that women officers respond more effectively to domestic violence incidents8 – which constitute approximately half of all violent crime calls to the police.9 Moreover, studies have found that up to 40% of police officers commit domestic abuse themselves.10 That means that 4 in 10 officers responding to the scene of a domestic violence incident may themselves be abusers. The overall quality of police response to cases of violence against women would improve greatly by increasing the numbers of women in law enforcement.

Clearly, the grave disparity between the numbers of men and women involved in policing adversely impacts the culture, operations, and efficacy of law enforcement agencies throughout the country. Given the many difficult challenges facing modern police agencies, the imperative to hire more women has never been more urgent.

KEY FINDINGS

• Women currently comprise 12.7% of all sworn law enforcement positions among large municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies in the United States with 100 or more sworn officers. Women of color hold 4.8% of these positions.11

• In small and rural police agencies, women hold only 8.1% of all sworn positions. Women of color are virtually absent, with a representation of 1.2%. For this survey, small and rural police agencies are defined as those county and municipal agencies located in a county with a population of less than 50,000 and with fewer than 100 sworn personnel.12

• Over the last ten years, the representation of women in large police agencies has slowly increased from 9% in 1990 to 12.7% in 2001 – a gain of less than 4%. This under-representation of women is striking, given that women account for 46.5% of the adult labor force.1

• There is now mounting evidence that the slow pace of increase in the representation of women in large police agencies has stalled or even possibly reversed. The percentage of women in large police agencies was 14.3% in 1999, 13.0% in 2000, and 12.7% in 2001. This discouraging trend is primarily concentrated among municipal and state agencies, and raises the question of whether women will ever reach equal representation or gender balance within the police profession.

• Within large police agencies, sworn women currently hold only 7.3% of Top Command positions, 9.6% of Supervisory positions, and 13.5% of Line Operationpositions.13  Sworn women of color hold 1.6% of Top Command positions, 3.1% of Supervisory positions, and 5.3% of Line Operations positions.

• In small and rural agencies, sworn women hold only 3.4% of all Top Command positions, 4.6% of all Supervisory positions, and 9.7% of all Line Operations positions. Women of color represent less than one percent of both Top Command positions (0.3%) and Supervisory positions (0.4%) and only 1.5% of all Line Operation positions.

• More than half (55.9%) of the large police agencies surveyed reported no women in Top Command positions, and the vast majority (87.9%) reported no women of color in their highest ranks. For small and rural agencies, 97.4% have no women in Top Command positions, and only 1 of the 235 agencies has a woman of color in their highest ranks. This is a clear indication that women continue to be largely excluded from the essential policy-making positions in policing.

• Among those police organizations with at least 100 sworn personnel, state agencies trail municipal and county agencies by a wide margin in hiring and promoting women. Specifically, state agencies report 5.9% sworn women law enforcement officers, which is significantly lower than the percentage reported by municipal agencies (14.2%) and county agencies (13.9%).

• One possible explanation for the stall or even decline in women's representation within sworn law enforcement is the decrease in the number of consent decrees mandating the hiring and/or promotion of women and/or minorities. Among surveyed agencies, eight consent decrees expired in the period of time from 1999 to 2002, yet only two consent decrees were implemented since 1995, and only six were implemented in the entire decade. Without the consent decrees imposed to remedy discriminatory hiring and employment practices by law enforcement agencies, even the marginal gains women have made in policing would not have been possible.

THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN LARGE POLICE AGENCIES:

Over the last 30 years, women have increased their representation in sworn positions within large police agencies (with more than 100 sworn personnel) to 12.7% in 2001, from a low of 2% in 1972.14 This 10.7% increase has been spread over the intervening years, averaging an annual gain of less than one-half of 1% per year. In 1978, women held 4.2% of the sworn law enforcement positions in the largest municipal agencies. Ten years later, in 1988, that number had barely doubled to 8.8%,15 and it was not until 1993 that large police agencies reached a major benchmark by crossing into the double digits.

In 2000 and 2001, however, this trend of slow increase has stalled and possibly even reversed. In the first three Status of Women in Policing Surveys conducted by the NCWP, a slow pace of increase was seen in the representation of sworn women from 13.3% in 1997, to 13.8% in 1998, and 14.3% in 1999. Then in 2000, the figure declined to 13.0% and continued to backslide in 2001 to 12.7%.16  At best, this pattern can be seen as a stall in the glacial pace of progress for women in policing. At worst, it demonstrates that women are actually losing ground in their representation within sworn law enforcement.

Comparisons between state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies also reveal sharp differences for women in law enforcement. While county and municipal agencies tally 13.9% and 14.2% women in sworn law enforcement positions, respectively, state agencies lag with an average of only 5.9% 

Although women hold only 12.7% of the sworn law enforcement positions in agencies surveyed, they continue to hold the majority (67.6%) of lower paid civilian jobs that often offer little or no chance of upward mobility. Source: NCWP Survey, 2001. Among civilian personnel, women comprise 46.2% of Management positions, 59.9% of Supervisory positions, and 69.0% of Administrative Support Staff .17  While women comprise a significant majority of civilian positions, they continue to be underrepresented in civilian Management positions.

Comparisons between the percentage of women serving in corrections facilities and women serving as sworn officers in state, county, and municipal agencies indicate a vast difference.18  The percentage of women in corrections positions is more than twice as high as the percentage of sworn women police personnel – 26.3% in corrections compared to 12.7% in sworn . Unfortunately, corrections officers are traditionally paid less than sworn law enforcement officers in non-corrections positions, and often have less career advancement opportunity. Source: NCWP Survey, 2001. Women’s gains in correctional facilities are also concentrated in the lower tiers. Women comprise 27.2% of Line Operations positions within corrections, 20.4% of Supervisory positions, and only 15.8% of Top Command positions..

In the majority of law enforcement agencies, women of color are also under-represented, holding 4.8% of sworn positions. This under-representation of women of color within sworn law enforcement contrasts with their 8.2% representation in the overall labor force over age 16.1 Moreover, women of color are virtually absent from the highest ranks, holding only 1.6% of the coveted Top Command positions in sworn law enforcement. Source: NCWP Survey, 2001. Women of color have made greater gains as civilian personnel, holding 25.1% of civilian positions. However, they occupy only 10.2% of civilian Management positions and 15.7% of Supervisory positions. Most women of color in civilian law enforcement are concentrated in the lowest tier of Administrative positions (26.5%) . Women of color hold 12.9% of corrections positions, 9.7% of the Top Command positions, and 9.1% of Supervisory positions within corrections 

Although a number of possibilities exist to explain the stall in women's progress within law enforcement, one is the decrease in the number of active consent decrees mandating the hiring and/or promotion of women and/or minorities. Of the 247 agencies responding to this year's Status of Women in Policing Survey, 40 indicated that they had once been under such a consent decree. Only 22 currently remain in effect. Moreover, there is evidence that consent decrees are expiring and not being implemented at the same rate as they were in the 1970's and 1980's. Eight of the consent decrees reported in the 2001 sample expired in the period of time from 1999 to 2002, yet only six were implemented in the entire decade of the 1990's. Only two consent decrees reported in the sample had been implemented since 1995. Without consent decrees imposed to remedy discriminatory hiring and employment practices by law enforcement agencies, even the marginal gains women have made in policing would not have been possible. The truth of this statement is underscored by the fact that progress in some agencies is maintained only as long as the watchful eye of the court is upon them. For example, Pittsburgh Police Department was under a court order from 1975 to 1991 mandating that for every white male they hired they were to hire one white female, one African-American male, and one African-American female. At the time the court order was imposed, Pittsburgh police department had only 1% women at the rank of police officer. By 1990, the department had the highest representation of women police officers in the country at 27.2%. However, once the court order was lifted the number of women hired dropped dramatically from the 50% percentage mandated under the court order to 8.5%. As of 2001, the percentage of women serving in the rank of police officer was 22% and continuing to decline.19

The example of Pittsburgh Police Department is particularly disturbing given the recent decision by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to withdraw from supporting the plaintiffs in Lanning v. South Eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA). The women plaintiffs in that case claimed that SEPTA's requirement that applicants run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes screened out a disproportionate number of female candidates and was not job related and consistent with business necessity. The Civil Rights Division is the primary institution within the federal government responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. Without the willingness of the Civil Rights Division to bring lawsuits and negotiate consent decrees, the number of women in law enforcement will likely decrease.

Survey data reveal that only 8.1% of sworn personnel in small and rural police agencies are women, substantially less than the representation seen in larger agencies. For this study, small and rural police agencies were defined as those county and municipal agencies located in a county with a population of less than 50,000 and with fewer than 100 sworn personnel.

Like the larger agencies, women in small and rural police departments are also concentrated in the lowest tier of sworn law enforcement. Although women hold 9.7% of Line Operation positions, they are seen in only 4.6% of Supervisory positions and 3.4% of Top Command.13  A vast majority (97.4%) of the small and rural agencies reported not having any women in Top Command.

This representation of women in the various ranks contrasts with that of their male colleagues. When women are considered as a group within sworn law enforcement in small/rural agencies, 85.2% are in Line Operations, 10.5% are in Supervisory positions, and 4.3% are in Top Command. Yet only 69.9% of the men are in Line Operations, 19.3% are in Supervisory positions and 10.8% are in Top Command. As with the larger agencies, women are underrepresented within sworn law enforcement and disproportionately represented in the lower tiers of the rank structure. However, this discrepancy is even larger for small and rural agencies than it is for large police agencies.

Although women hold only 8.1% of sworn positions in small and rural police agencies, they hold a vast majority (73.9%) of the lower paid civilian jobs that often offer little or no chance of upward mobility.. Within civilian law enforcement, women are also disproportionately represented among the lower tiers of the rank structure. Women hold 76.0% of Administrative positions, 66.7% of Supervisory positions, and 61.1% of Management positions.

The Status of Women in Correctional Law Enforcement

Women constitute 31.7% of correctional personnel in small and rural police agencies, a figure that is almost four times higher than that for sworn law enforcement.18 Unfortunately, correctional positions are typically paid less than sworn law enforcement in non-correctional positions, and they often offer less opportunity for career advancement.  As with sworn law enforcement, women in correctional positions are concentrated in the lowest tier of the rank structure. Women in correctional law enforcement hold 37.4% of Line Operation positions, yet they are seen in only 21.1% of Supervisory positions and 13.2% of Top Command.

Women of color are virtually absent in smaller agencies representing only 1.2% of the sworn personnel in small and rural police agencies. This contrasts sharply with their representation in the adult labor force, which is 8.2%.1 Moreover, the concentration of women of color within Line Operations is even more striking than for women overall. Women of color represent 1.5% of sworn personnel in Line Operations, yet they hold less than one percent of both Supervisory (0.4%) and Top Command (0.3%) positions. Only one of the 235 surveyed agencies reported having a woman of color in Top Command. Women of color have made considerably greater gains as civilian personnel, and they are seen in slightly higher percentages within the upper tiers of the rank structure. Specifically, women of color represent 13.7% of civilian personnel in small and rural police agencies, and they hold 13.5% of Administrative positions, 13.5% of Supervisory positions, and 15.9% of Management positions. Although women overall represent 31.7% of correctional personnel, women of color hold only 3.9% of these positions. Within corrections, women of color hold 4.3% of Line Operation positions and 4.7% of Supervisory positions yet not a single woman of color was reported in Top Command.20

Overall, the number of women in law enforcement has increased at an alarmingly slow rate over the past 30 years and women remain severely under-represented in large, small and rural law enforcement agencies. Worse, this glacial pace of progress has either stalled or reversed in the past few years. Until law enforcement agencies enact policies and practices designed to recruit, retain, and promote women, gender balance in policing will remain a distant reality. Until then, law enforcement personnel will not fairly represent the characteristics of the communities they serve.

This study was conducted in the summer and fall of 2001, and it involved surveying 360 law enforcement agencies who were identified in the 1997 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics21 as having 100 or more sworn officers. The 360 agencies were selected to constitute a stratified random sample, designed to represent both agency type (city, county, state) and size (100-249, 250-499, 500+). In addition, the ten largest agencies identified in the 1997 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics were included in the sample.22 Of these 360 agencies, 257 responded with information for an excellent response rate of 71.4%. However, 10 of these 257 agencies reported fewer than 100 sworn officers and were thus excluded from the analysis. To avoid bias in the data collection effort, all contact with participating agencies was designed to be both persistent and consistent. In order to meet these two goals, the following implementation plan was followed.

• A cover letter and survey questionnaire was mailed to the head of the law enforcement agency in the summer of 2001.

• Next, a phone call was made to the office of the agency’s head to determine who would be the most appropriate contact person to provide the desired information. This person was often named as the agency’s Director of Human Resources.

• A phone call was then made to the contact person. A copy of the survey was faxed immediately to the contact person if he or she had not yet received it.

• After the contact person received the faxed survey, a follow-up call was made within a few days to emphasize the importance of the study and their role in it, to address any questions or concerns, and to generally facilitate their participation.

• Follow-up phone calls were made to each contact person, either until the department provided information or it became clear that no amount of persistence would yield cooperation. The number of phone calls made was documented to assure consistency across the departments in our sample.

• If errors or inconsistencies were found in any survey responses, the contact person was telephoned until the issue was clarified or it became clear that no amount of persistence would yield clarification. In the latter instance, the data in question was excluded from further analysis.

The final sample for the 2001 Status of Women in Policing Survey thus included 168 municipal agencies, 59 county departments, and 20 state agencies. The size of the agencies included in the survey ranged from a low of 100 to a high of 9,083 sworn personnel. The average number of sworn officers for the reporting agencies was 593. For a complete ranking of the 247 large police agencies responding to the 2001 survey ranked from the highest to the lowest percentage of sworn women law enforcement officers, see the Appendix.

In order to make overall generalizations across agency size and type for the entire population of law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn personnel, it was necessary to weight the data. Once the data was collected, it was weighted so that the data from the responding agencies would accurately reflect the total number of agencies in the actual population. For example, the number of officers in small state agencies (i.e., 100-249 officers) was weighted differently from the number of officers in large city departments (i.e., 500 or more officers), because 33% of the small state agencies in the population ultimately responded to the 2001 Status of Women in Policing Survey, as compared to 42% of the large city departments.  To calculate the weighted figures for each agency, we simply multiplied the raw data within each cell in the table above by a constant representing the proportion of agencies of that size and type in the larger population.23  For more information on the constants and weighting system used, please visit our website at http://www.womenandpolicing.org.

Methodology for Small and Rural Agencies

The definition for small and rural law enforcement agencies was drawn from previous research24 as those county and municipal agencies located in a county with a population of less than 50,000 and with fewer than 100 sworn personnel. The population of 11,956 small and rural agencies was identified using the National Directory of Law Enforcement Administrators, Correctional Institutions and Related Agencies, which is published by the National Public Safety Information Bureau. From this population, a random sample of 384 agencies (72 county and 312 municipal) was selected, stratified by agency type to reflect the percentage of county versus municipal agencies in the larger population. Surveys were originally mailed to the Chiefs and Sheriffs of the sampled agencies, with second and third copies sent to those who had not yet responded. Follow-up calls were conducted with a few agencies to clarify the information provided. As a result, 238 agencies completed surveys for an excellent response rate of 62%. Three agencies were then dropped from further consideration because they reported employing 100 or more sworn personnel. Thus, the final sample included a total of 235 agencies (195 municipal and 40 county). Only two of the agencies reported having a consent decree in place mandating the hiring and promotion of women. Both of these agencies reported having no women among their ranks. Five agencies reported having a consent decree in place mandating the hiring and/or promotion of minorities.

To compute the combined percentages, the weighted estimate for the number of sworn personnel in large agencies was summed with the estimated total for sworn personnel in small and rural agencies. Based on weighting techniques that have been previously described, the estimated total for the number of sworn personnel in large police agencies (with 100 or more sworn personnel) was 389,677.66. Of these, 12.65% are women and 4.78% are women of color. To estimate the number of sworn personnel in small and rural agencies, the number of agencies provided in the National Directory of Law Enforcement Administrators (11,956) was multiplied by the average number of personnel per agency, as identified by this survey (16.10). This computation derived an estimate of 192,491.60, of which 8.10% are women and 1.17% are women of color. The estimated total for small and rural agencies was then summed with the figure for large agencies to derive an estimate of 582,169.26 for the total number of sworn law enforcement personnel nationwide. Using this estimated total, the combined percentage was calculated to be 11.15% for women and 3.59% for women of color. These figures represent the estimated percentage of women and women of color within both large and small/rural police agencies across the U.S.

Agency Total Sworn Officers Total Sworn Women Officers % Sworn Women Officers % Sworn Women Top Command % Sworn Women Supervisory % Sworn Women Line Operation % Sworn Women of Color

1 Terrebonne Parish Sheriff, LA 187 78 41.71 9.09 3.33 52.05 2.14  
2 Madison Police, WI 347 111 31.99 16.67 22.22 34.52 4.03
3 Lafayette Parish Sheriff, LA 251 71 28.29 9.09 20.00 31.00 4.38
4 Cook County Sheriff, IL 2587 699 27.02 17.24 24.64 27.48 10.32
5 Detroit Police, MI 4195 1085 25.86 17.39 27.28 25.70 20.07
6 Boulder Police, CO 176 45 25.57 12.50 4.55 29.45 0.57
7 Philadelphia Police, PA 6990 1682 24.06 7.74 9.60 26.67 15.64
8 Spartanburg Police, SC 139 31 22.30 0.00 21.43 23.58 7.91
9 Miami-Dade Police, FL 3078 676 21.96 17.98 18.46 23.11 13.55
10 Douglas County Sheriff, GA 116 25 21.55 0.00 23.53 22.83 0.00
11 Tallahassee Police, FL 342 69 20.18 22.22 19.64 20.22 4.39
12 Cincinnati Police, OH 1025 204 19.90 9.52 14.66 21.40 5.76
13 Albany Police, GA 179 35 19.55 15.38 12.70 24.27 13.41
14 Chatham County Police, GA 135 26 19.26 11.11 20.83 19.61 9.63
15 Montgomery County Police, MD 1034 197 19.05 13.64 11.36 20.34 3.29
16 Los Angeles Police, CA 9083 1698 18.69 7.07 14.11 19.65 10.17
17 Saginaw Police, MI 133 24 18.05 0.00 22.73 17.59 8.27
18 Columbia Police, MO 129 23 17.83 0.00 16.67 19.05 1.55
19 Montgomery County Sheriff, MD 113 20 17.70 16.67 22.73 16.47 9.73
20 Monroe County Sheriff ,FL 187 33 17.65 25.00 13.33 18.84 0.53
21 Bellevue Police, WA 173 30 17.34 7.14 5.26 20.00 1.73
22 Cleveland Police, OH 1819 311 17.10 6.98 17.88 17.24 8.96
23 St. Paul Police, MN 563 96 17.05 14.71 17.52 17.09 1.78
24 Flint Police, MI 292 49 16.78 20.00 9.86 18.98 8.90
25 Grand Rapids Police, MI 370 62 16.76 10.00 16.92 16.95 2.43
26 El Paso County Sheriff, CO 356 59 16.57 16.67 15.38 16.85 2.53
27 Memphis Police, TN 1882 310 16.47 5.00 17.43 17.39 11.80
28 Arvada Police, CO 134 22 16.42 11.11 16.67 16.82 2.24
29 Berkeley Police, CA 190 31 16.32 0.00 18.60 16.20 5.79
30 Tucson Police, AZ 967 157 16.24 11.11 16.67 16.27 4.55
31 Sacramento County Sheriff, CA 938 152 16.20 13.64 9.38 18.09 3.62
32 Portland Police Bureau, OR 1027 165 16.07 8.33 15.95 16.35 1.27
33 Dallas Police, TX 2862 452 15.79 30.77 11.94 16.39 7.86
34 Minneapolis Police, MN 854 134 15.69 9.09 19.84 13.99 1.29
35 Prince George's County Police, MD 1380 209 15.14 15.38 9.43 16.21 8.26
36 Kansas City Police, MO 1224 185 15.11 17.65 15.61 14.83 3.59
37 Lafourche Parish Sheriff, LA 146 22 15.07 8.33 13.16 16.67 4.11
38 Shreveport Police, LA 495 74 14.95 0.00 13.99 16.07 6.46
39 Tempe Police, AZ 325 48 14.77 13.33 10.91 15.69 .
40 Tulsa Police, OK 810 116 14.32 8.57 8.28 16.18 3.58
41 San Diego Police, CA 2075 297 14.31 17.39 12.63 14.65 4.00
42 Cape Coral Police, FL 147 21 14.29 0.00 8.00 16.10 1.36
43 Concord Police, CA 162 23 14.20 0.00 10.34 15.50 3.70
44 Pontiac Police, MI 162 23 14.20 14.29 9.38 15.45 7.41
45 Gainsville Police, FL 234 33 14.10 20.00 13.64 14.05 2.99
46 Dayton Police, OH 490 69 14.08 33.33 6.19 15.76 2.24
47 Columbus Police, OH 1770 246 13.90 13.04 7.35 15.12 3.56
48 San Diego County Sheriff, CA 1408 195 13.85 16.67 16.67 13.14 3.41
49 Harris County Sheriff, TX 2600 357 13.73 9.38 10.16 14.19 5.77
50 Greenville Police, SC 147 20 13.61 20.00 11.11 13.71 2.72
51 Chesapeake Police, VA 353 48 13.60 0.00 4.26 15.70 2.55
52 Santa Monica Police, CA 214 29 13.55 20.00 13.64 13.33 6.07
53 Richland County Sheriff, SC 340 46 13.53 0.00 4.08 15.77 3.53
54 Appleton Police, WI 111 15 13.51 28.57 6.25 13.64 0.00
55 Overland Park Police, KS 211 28 13.27 11.11 7.89 14.63 0.95
56 Killeen Police, TX 144 19 13.19 0.00 9.52 14.66 4.86
57 Sacramento Police, CA 630 83 13.17 5.88 7.95 14.29 2.06
58 Camden Police, NJ 410 54 13.17 0.00 5.06 15.48 12.93
59 North Las Vegas Police, NV 176 23 13.07 0.00 6.90 14.58 1.14
60 Leon County Sheriff, FL 222 29 13.06 8.33 9.52 14.29 2.70
61 Sedgwick County Sheriff, KS 163 21 12.88 12.50 11.11 13.45 0.61
62 Boston Police, MA 2173 279 12.84 8.70 7.51 14.08 7.27
63 St. Louis Metropolitan Police, MO 1440 183 12.71 7.41 7.12 14.14 5.00
64 Newport News Police, VA 388 49 12.63 25.00 5.80 13.83 3.35
65 Clearwater Police, FL 262 33 12.60 0.00 10.87 13.33 3.05
66 Duluth Police, MN 151 19 12.58 0.00 12.50 12.93 1.99
67 Houston Police, TX 5300 664 12.53 3.85 8.14 13.81 6.70
68 Alameda County Sheriff, CA 905 113 12.49 11.76 12.68 12.47 5.30
69 San Joaquin County Sheriff, CA 201 25 12.44 0.00 10.87 13.33 3.98
70 Evanston Police, IL 154 19 12.34 0.00 12.50 12.70 5.84
71 Osceola County Sheriff, FL 284 35 12.32 0.00 7.55 13.84 2.46
72 Wilmington Police, NC 310 38 12.26 16.67 15.79 11.65 3.23
73 Boca Raton Police, FL 147 18 12.24 0.00 33.33 8.62 1.36
74 Hollywood Police, FL 327 39 11.93 8.33 1.89 14.12 3.06
75 Johnson County Sheriff, KS 160 19 11.88 0.00 2.86 15.25 0.63
76 Bernalillo County Sheriff, NM 245 29 11.84 0.00 9.76 12.76 .
77 Framingham Police, MA 110 13 11.82 0.00 0.00 16.25 3.64
78 Charlotte County Sheriff, FL 233 27 11.59 0.00 18.37 10.06 1.72
79 Glendale Police, CA 233 27 11.59 0.00 4.35 13.74 4.29
80 Pinellas County Sheriff, FL 894 103 11.52 0.00 9.48 12.06 1.79
81 Salt Lake City Police, UT 401 46 11.47 16.67 6.06 12.38 0.25
82 Escondido Police, CA 157 18 11.46 25.00 10.71 11.20 0.00
83 Fresno Police, CA 685 78 11.39 0.00 10.53 11.70 4.09
84 Palm Bay Police, FL 123 14 11.38 16.67 4.17 12.90 0.81
85 Fairfax County Police, VA 1183 134 11.33 9.68 10.29 11.57 1.35
86 Plantation Police, FL 159 18 11.32 0.00 0.00 14.17 1.89
87 Wichita Police, KS 601 68 11.31 6.67 6.19 12.47 1.83
88 Santa Fe Police, NM 133 15 11.28 16.67 3.70 13.00 3.76
89 Yonkers Police, NY 612 69 11.27 5.00 6.86 12.45 2.78
90 San Mateo Police, CA 107 12 11.21 25.00 4.76 12.20 2.80
91 Denver Police, CO 1510 169 11.19 11.43 11.90 11.03 4.37
92 Adams County Sheriff, CO 135 15 11.11 0.00 4.55 12.84 0.00
93 Clackamas County Sheriff, OR 207 23 11.11 0.00 12.90 11.18 0.00
94 High Point Police, NC 192 21 10.94 7.14 8.00 11.76 1.04
95 Oklahoma City Police, OK 1016 111 10.93 10.87 11.58 8.68 2.26
96 Mesa Police, AZ 687 75 10.92 14.29 7.96 11.43 1.75
97 Suffolk Police, VA 138 15 10.87 0.00 7.69 12.15 3.62
98 Rochester Police, NY 701 76 10.84 5.56 11.29 10.91 4.28
99 Suffolk County Police, NY 2722 295 10.84 1.85 2.90 12.51 1.87
100 Norfolk Police, VA 735 79 10.75 6.25 9.46 11.01 2.72
101 Fort Lauderdale Police, FL 467 50 10.71 14.29 6.25 11.26 1.50
102 Virginia Beach Police, VA 739 79 10.69 7.14 4.95 11.70 1.22
103 Collier County Sheriff, FL 524 56 10.69 0.00 7.50 11.96 0.76
104 Atlantic City Police, NJ 412 44 10.68 3.33 3.39 12.69 3.64
105 Aurora Police, CO 527 56 10.63 0.00 2.53 12.36 2.09
106 Miramar Police, FL 132 14 10.61 25.00 0.00 10.91 2.27
107 Sarasota County Sheriff, FL 361 38 10.53 9.09 5.08 11.68 0.55
108 Mobile Police, AL 363 38 10.47 0.00 8.05 11.97 5.23
109 Placer County Sheriff, CA 220 23 10.45 0.00 9.09 11.24 .
110 Athens - Clarke County Police, GA 201 21 10.45 0.00 9.52 11.26 1.99
111 Roanoke Police, VA 235 24 10.21 0.00 6.98 11.23 1.28
112 DeKalb County Police, GA 814 83 10.20 3.70 7.61 11.28 4.05
113 Chula Vista Police, CA 206 21 10.19 0.00 6.25 11.18 4.85
114 Hayward Police, CA 190 19 10.00 0.00 6.25 11.04 4.21
115 Cedar Rapids Police, IA 201 20 9.95 0.00 6.06 11.46 0.00
116 Fort Bend County Sheriff, TX 191 19 9.95 0.00 5.00 10.71 1.57
117 Johnson City Police, TN 152 15 9.87 0.00 15.00 9.76 0.00
118 Nassau County Police, NY 2851 280 9.82 5.17 5.67 10.60 1.54
119 Manchester Police, CT 113 11 9.73 0.00 0.00 12.79 0.00
120 Marion County Sheriff , FL 262 25 9.54 4.35 9.68 10.10 1.53
121 Massachusetts State Police, MA 2297 219 9.53 3.70 5.77 10.90 0.61
122 Skokie Police, IL 105 10 9.52 0.00 0.00 11.90 3.81
123 Clay County Sheriff, FL 214 20 9.35 0.00 9.26 9.93 0.47
124 Douglas County Sheriff, CO 107 10 9.35 0.00 17.65 7.95 1.87
125 Lowell Police, MA 247 23 9.31 16.67 2.56 10.20 2.43
126 South Bend Police, IN 258 24 9.30 5.56 4.35 10.82 2.71
127 Yakima Police, WA 108 10 9.26 0.00 5.56 10.47 1.85
128 Denton Police, TX 130 12 9.23 33.33 0.00 10.48 0.77
129 Brookline Police, MA 141 13 9.22 0.00 3.85 11.01 0.71
130 Pasco County Sheriff, FL 326 30 9.20 0.00 11.86 8.75 1.53
131 Wilmington Police, DE 294 27 9.18 9.09 15.09 7.83 4.76
132 Hamilton Police, OH 120 11 9.17 0.00 5.56 10.10 0.00
133 Citrus County Sheriff, FL 164 15 9.15 0.00 0.00 11.90 0.61
134 Evansville Police, IN 274 25 9.12 10.00 17.86 6.73 0.36
135 Niagara Falls Police, NY 154 14 9.09 0.00 5.26 10.48 3.25
136 California Highway Patrol, CA 6765 606 8.96 8.92 10.06 8.78 1.97
137 Minnesota State Patrol, MN 526 47 8.94 12.00 7.45 9.09 0.00
138 Covington Police, KY 112 10 8.93 0.00 0.00 11.90 0.89
139 Fort Myers Police, FL 157 14 8.92 0.00 4.55 9.85 1.27
140 Sunrise Police, FL 158 14 8.86 0.00 4.17 10.08 2.53
141 Chattanooga Police, TN 454 40 8.81 8.33 11.21 7.98 2.64
142 Inglewood Police, CA 193 17 8.81 0.00 7.69 9.33 5.70
143 Oregon State Police, OR 785 69 8.79 0.00 2.99 10.24 0.89
144 Las Cruces Police, NM 148 13 8.78 0.00 4.55 9.76 4.73
145 Aurora Police, IL 263 23 8.75 0.00 2.08 10.53 2.66
146 Rhode Island State Police, RI 218 19 8.72 0.00 4.69 10.96 0.46
147 Jefferson County Sheriff, AL 300 26 8.67 10.00 6.94 9.17 4.67
148 Fresno County Sheriff, CA 440 38 8.64 0.00 7.81 8.97 0.91
149 Delray Beach Police, FL 130 11 8.46 0.00 3.70 10.42 1.54
150 West Palm Beach Police, FL 261 22 8.43 16.67 8.33 7.96 3.45
151 Vallejo Police, CA 131 11 8.40 0.00 10.34 8.08 3.05
152 Monroe Police, LA 179 15 8.38 0.00 20.00 6.62 4.47
153 West Haven Police, CT 111 9 8.11 0.00 8.70 8.54 0.00
154 Charleston Police, SC 350 28 8.00 0.00 12.73 7.29 3.71
155 Tulare County Sheriff, CA 226 18 7.96 0.00 5.88 8.82 3.10
156 Lynn Police, MA 178 14 7.87 0.00 3.13 9.42 3.37
157 Volusia County Sheriff, FL 496 39 7.86 0.00 4.76 8.59 1.01
158 Grand Prairie Police, TX 191 15 7.85 0.00 3.57 8.81 1.05
159 San Angelo Police, TX 153 12 7.84 0.00 3.23 9.48 2.61
160 Kokomo Police, IN 103 8 7.77 0.00 0.00 10.67 0.97
161 Daly City Police, CA 143 11 7.69 0.00 5.00 8.33 2.80
162 Waltham Police, MA 144 11 7.64 0.00 0.00 10.09 1.39
163 Vermont State Police, VT 290 22 7.59 0.00 6.36 8.82 0.00
164 St. Charles County Sheriff, MO 133 10 7.52 0.00 4.00 8.65 0.00
165 Springfield Police, MA 600 45 7.50 8.33 2.63 8.20 3.50
166 Downey Police, CA 107 8 7.48 0.00 10.00 7.23 4.67
167 Cobb County Police, GA 564 42 7.45 0.00 7.45 7.73 0.35
168 Topeka Police, KS 283 21 7.42 0.00 5.88 8.04 0.35
169 Green Bay Police, WI 191 14 7.33 0.00 8.70 7.55 0.00
170 Allegheny County Police, PA 205 15 7.32 0.00 8.70 7.34 2.44
171 Burbank Police, CA 165 12 7.27 0.00 6.67 7.69 2.42
172 Elgin Police, IL 166 12 7.23 0.00 0.00 8.70 1.20
173 Kenosha Police, WI 180 13 7.22 0.00 12.50 6.80 0.56
174 Norman Police, OK 125 9 7.20 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00
175 Ventura Police, CA 126 9 7.14 0.00 0.00 8.82 0.79
176 Sioux Falls Police, SD 169 12 7.10 0.00 9.09 6.87 0.00
177 Pierce County Sheriff, WA 355 25 7.04 12.50 5.17 7.27 0.28
178 Brown County Sheriff, WI 128 9 7.03 0.00 7.14 7.61 0.00
179 Holyoke Police, MA 130 9 6.92 0.00 9.09 6.80 1.54
180 Canton Police, OH 190 13 6.84 0.00 2.38 8.57 1.58
181 Hernando County Sheriff, FL 190 13 6.84 0.00 7.69 7.05 2.11
182 Monroe County Sheriff, NY 322 22 6.83 12.50 0.00 7.75 0.00
183 Snohomish County Sheriff, WA 220 15 6.82 0.00 6.06 7.22 0.00
184 Cherry Hill Police, NJ 133 9 6.77 0.00 4.55 7.41 0.00
185 Binghamton Police, NY 148 10 6.76 0.00 4.17 7.76 0.00
186 Cranston Police, RI 149 10 6.71 0.00 0.00 8.55 0.67
187 Dothan Police, AL 152 10 6.58 0.00 7.50 6.60 1.32
188 Ontario Police, CA 222 14 6.31 25.00 5.41 6.08 1.80
189 Franklin County Sheriff, OH 191 12 6.28 0.00 6.90 6.33 1.05
190 San Antonio Police, TX 1954 122 6.24 8.00 7.76 6.00 3.63
191 Salinas Police, CA 162 10 6.17 25.00 7.41 5.34 0.62
192 Fontana Police, CA 131 8 6.11 0.00 0.00 7.69 0.76
193 Marietta Police, GA 131 8 6.11 0.00 4.35 7.07 0.00
194 Indiana State Police, IN 1285 78 6.07 5.26 5.23 6.38 0.16
195 Lake County Sheriff , IN 182 11 6.04 10.00 2.56 6.50 3.30
196 Greenwich Police, CT 154 9 5.84 0.00 7.41 5.74 0.65
197 Billings Police, MT 122 7 5.74 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00
198 Malden Police, MA 105 6 5.71 0.00 4.17 6.58 0.00
199 Hidalgo County Sheriff, TX 193 11 5.70 0.00 4.00 6.13 5.70
200 Charles County Sheriff, MD 214 12 5.61 0.00 7.41 5.33 0.93
201 Hattiesburg Police, MS 107 6 5.61 18.18 0.00 5.56 0.93
202 Modesto Police, CA 250 14 5.60 0.00 2.44 6.34 0.40
203 Odessa Police, TX 161 9 5.59 0.00 11.43 4.24 1.86
204 Independence Police, MO 199 11 5.53 0.00 3.45 6.17 0.50
205 Pawtucket Police, RI 146 8 5.48 11.11 3.33 5.61 0.00
206 Garden Grove Police, CA 165 9 5.45 0.00 0.00 6.77 0.61
207 Arlington Heights Police, IL 111 6 5.41 0.00 0.00 6.98 0.90
208 Texas Department of Public Safety, TX 3130 167 5.34 2.46 5.48 5.45 2.75
209 Bristol Police, CT 116 6 5.17 0.00 0.00 6.59 0.00
210 Simi Valley Police, CA 123 6 4.88 0.00 0.00 6.45 0.81
211 Clarkstown Police, NY 165 8 4.85 0.00 3.70 5.19 0.00
212 Garland Police, TX 290 14 4.83 0.00 0.00 5.65 1.03
213 Greenburgh Police, NY 111 5 4.50 0.00 4.55 4.71 1.80
214 Nebraska State Patrol, NE 356 16 4.49 0.00 8.64 3.44 0.00
215 Warren Police, MI 246 11 4.47 25.00 0.00 4.88 0.00
216 Huntington Beach Police, CA 231 10 4.33 0.00 2.44 4.86 0.87
217 Schenectady Police, NY 163 7 4.29 0.00 0.00 5.47 0.61
218 El Cajon Police, CA 142 6 4.23 0.00 3.57 4.50 0.00
219 Joliet Police, IL 263 11 4.18 0.00 4.35 4.33 0.76
220 Kentucky State Police, KY 795 33 4.15 2.33 4.19 4.27 0.38
221 Pennsylvania State Police, PA 4108 166 4.04 3.33 6.89 3.80 0.75
222 Woonsocket Police, RI 100 4 4.00 12.50 0.00 4.55 0.00
223 Santa Ana Police, CA 376 15 3.99 0.00 4.41 3.95 1.60
224 Kansas Highway Patrol, KS 479 19 3.97 0.00 3.39 4.40 0.21
225 Port Arthur Police, TX 153 6 3.92 0.00 5.00 3.85 1.31
226 Missouri State Highway Patrol, MO 1084 42 3.87 3.23 2.69 4.46 0.37
227 Gulfport Police, MS 181 7 3.87 0.00 5.71 3.68 1.10
228 Virginia State Police, VA 1712 66 3.86 0.00 2.59 4.17 0.41
229 Nashua Police, NH 156 6 3.85 0.00 0.00 5.22 0.64
230 Dutchess County Sheriff, NY 105 4 3.81 0.00 0.00 4.71 0.00
231 Harlingen Police, TX 107 4 3.74 0.00 0.00 4.71 2.80
232 El Dorado County Sheriff, CA 169 6 3.55 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00
233 Lower Merion Township Police, PA 141 5 3.55 0.00 5.00 3.36 0.71
234 Laredo Police, TX 340 12 3.53 16.67 0.00 3.79 3.24
235 New Jersey State Police, NJ 2658 90 3.39 3.85 3.14 3.49 0.30
236 Perth Amboy Police, NJ 123 4 3.25 0.00 4.00 3.19 0.81
237 Georgia State Patrol, GA 775 25 3.23 0.00 4.55 3.09 1.03
238 Parsippany Police, NJ 106 3 2.83 0.00 0.00 3.90 0.94
239 Utah Highway Patrol, UT 399 11 2.76 11.11 0.00 3.30 0.00
240 Louisiana State Police, LA 963 26 2.70 2.63 1.14 3.32 0.52
241 Linden Police, NJ 129 3 2.33 0.00 0.00 3.06 0.00
242 Wyoming Highway Patrol, WY 174 4 2.30 0.00 10.53 1.41 0.00
243 Dover Township Police, NJ 143 3 2.10 0.00 0.00 2.52 0.70
244 Oklahoma Highway Patrol, OK 830 17 2.05 0.00 2.21 2.06 0.36
245 West New York Police, NY 120 2 1.67 0.00 0.00 2.33 1.67
246 Bethlehem Police, PA 142 2 1.41 0.00 0.00 1.79 0.00
247 Lorain Police, OH 105 1 0.95 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.95

Note: The Appendix only includes large agencies (more than 100 sworn officers). Agencies are listed in descending order, based upon the percentage of sworn women. The percentage of sworn women in Top Command, Supervisory, and Line Operations represent the proportion of personnel within each rank that are women. For example, if 1 out of 4 Top Command personnel on a particular agency are women, the percentage of sworn women in Top Command would be 25%.

1 For 2000 Bureau of Labor Statistics on Americans in the labor force, broken down by gender and racial/ethnic identification, please see http://www.bls.gov/pdf/cpsaat11.pdf   *webmaster note: this file no longer exists on their site as of 2003*

2 For an extensive review of this literature, see: S. Martin & N. Jurik (1996), Doing Justice, Doing Gender: Women in Law and Criminal Justice Occupations. Sage Publications, California.

3 For a comprehensive review of the many forms of bias in law enforcement, and concrete suggestions for improvement, see: "Recruiting and Retaining Women: A Self Assessment Guide for Law Enforcement" (2000). Prepared by the National Center for Women & Policing, a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation, with funding by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice (Grant #99-LD-VX-0003). Available at http://www.ncjrs.org.

4 M.L. Birzer & D.E. Craig (1996), "Gender Differences in Police Physical Ability Test Performance." American Journal of Police, Vol. 15, no. 2, p. 93-108 E.C. Rhodes & D.W. Farenholtz (1992), "Police Officer's Physical Abilities Test Compared to Measures of Physical Fitness." Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, Vol. 17, no. 3, p. 228-233 J.H. Wilmore & J.A. Davis (1979), "Validation of a Physical Abilities Field Test for the Selection of State Traffic Officers." Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 21, no. 1, p. 33-40.

5 C.G. Garrison, N. Grant & K. McCormick (1998), "Utilization of Police Women." The Police Chief, Vol. 32, no. 7, p. 4. Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (1991), "Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department: Summary." S. Janus et al. (1988), "Women in Police Work - Annie Oakley or Little Orphan Annie." Police Studies, Vol. 11, no. 3, p. 124-127. S.E. Martin (1990), "On The Move: The Status of Women in Policing" Washington DC: Police Foundation. W.M. Timmins & B.E. Hainsworth (1988), "Attracting and Retaining Females in Law Enforcement: Sex-Based Problems of Women Cops in 1988." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 33, no. 3, p. 197-205. J.G. Wexler & D.D. Logan (1983), "Sources of Stress Among Women Police Officers." Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 11, no. 1, p. 46-53.

6 Independent Commission on the Los Angles Police Department (1991), Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department: Summary. S.A. Grennan (1987), "Findings on the Role of Officer Gender in Violent Encounters with Citizens." Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 15, no.1, p. 78-85. G.R. Perlstein (1972), "Policewomen & Policemen: A Comparative Look." Police Chief, Vol. 39, no. 3, p. 72-74. L.J. Sherman (1975), "An Evaluation of Policewomen on Patrol in a Suburban Police Department." Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 3, no. 4, p. 434-438.

7 Excessive Force, Gender, and Civil Liability. Report prepared by the National Center for Women & Policing, a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Available at http://www.womenandpolicing.org.

8 R. Homant & D. Kennedy (1985), "Police Perceptions of Spouse Abuse: A Comparison of Male and Female Officers." Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 13, p. 29-47.

9 M. Cassidy, C.G. Nicholl & C.R. Ross (2001), Results of a Survey Conducted by the Metropolitan Police Department of Victims who Reported Violence Against Women. Executive Summary published by the DC Metropolitan Police Department.

10 P. Neidig, H. Russell & A. Seng (1992), "Inter-spousal Aggression in Law Enforcement Families: A Preliminary Investigation." Police Studies, Vol. 15, no. 1, p. 30-38. L.B. Johnson (May 20, 1991), On the front lines: Police stress and family well-being. Hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families House of Representatives: 102 Congress First Session (p. 32-48). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

11 These findings are based on 247 responses to a survey of 360 state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn personnel.

12 These findings are based on 235 responses to a survey of 384 county and municipal law enforcement agencies in a county with a population of less than 50,000 and fewer than 100 sworn personnel.

13  For this study, the sworn law enforcement positions have been grouped as follows: Top Command includes Chiefs, Deputy/Assistant Chiefs, Commanders/Majors, and Captains, or their equivalent; Supervisory includes Lieutenants and Sergeants, or their equivalent; and Line Operation includes Detectives and Patrol Officers, or their equivalent.

14 International City Management Association (1972), "Personnel Practices in Municipal Police Departments," Urban Data Service.

15  S. Martin (1989), "Women on the Move? A Report on the Status of Women in Policing." Police Foundation Reports.

16 Further evidence for the stalled pattern of increase is found in an analysis of the 20 agencies that responded to the NCWP survey for the past three years. The percentage of sworn women within these 20 agencies was virtually unchanged during this three-year period (8.4% in 1999, 8.6% in 2000, and 8.7% in 2001). These figures are lower than the overall sample, because state agencies are disproportionately represented among the 20 agencies responding to all three surveys.

17 Administrative support staff includes all civilian personnel that are non-management and non-supervisory. Supervisory positions include non-management civilian personnel with supervisory responsibilities equivalent to Sergeant or Lieutenant. Management positions include any civilian responsible for a division equivalent to a Captain or above.

18 For the purposes of this report, "corrections officer" refers to sworn and civilian personnel serving in a jail facility for a county or municipal law enforcement agency.

19 Thanks to Laura Zaspel of the Pittsburgh Police Department for providing these figures. Although Pittsburgh Police Department did not respond to the 2001 survey, it has provided data for surveys in previous years.

20 Information on racial identification was not available for 10 women of color in Supervisory positions. Percentages are therefore computed after removing these 10 women from the sample. If these 10 women are included in the analysis, the results change only slightly. The overall figure changes from 3.9% to 3.8%, and the figure for Supervisory positions changes from 4.7% to 4.2%.

21 The (1997) Bureau of Justice Statistics publication entitled Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics is available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/lawenf.htm.

22  Six of the ten largest agencies responded to the survey, and their percentage of sworn women did not significantly differ from the rest of the sample. Therefore, their inclusion did not bias the sample that was otherwise chosen at random.

23  Interestingly, the weighting procedure only affected the estimate for the percentage of sworn women to the slightest degree. The unweighted estimate – based on simply calculating the percentage of sworn women from the raw data – was 12.6%, compared with the weighted estimate of 12.7%. This suggests that the 2001 sample does an excellent job of fairly approximating the representation of agency size and type within the overall population.

24 R.A. Weishet, D. N. Falcone, & L.E. Wells (1999), Crime and policing in rural and small-town America (2nd ed.). Waveland: Prospect Heights, IL.

Status Reports Women in Policing   1997    1998    1999    2000    2001