U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------------------------------------------ This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5216 ------------------------------------------------------ ******************* Special Report ******************* Campus Law Enforcement, 2011–12 Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., BJS Statistician During the 2011–12 school year, about two-thirds (68%) of the more than 900 U.S. 4-year colleges and universities with 2,500 or more students used sworn police officers to provide law enforcement services on campus (figure 1). Sworn police officers have full arrest powers granted by a state or local authority. The percentage of public institutions (92%) using sworn officers was more than twice that of private institutions (38%). Similar to sworn officers, about two-thirds of campuses were served by armed officers. The percentage of public campuses (91%) using armed officers was also more than double the percentage of private institutions (36%). Among public institutions, nearly all students were enrolled on campuses with sworn (96%) and armed (94%) officers. Among private institutions, nearly half of the students were enrolled on campuses with sworn (46%) and armed (45%) officers. These findings come from the 2011–12 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, the first conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) since the 2004–05 school year. Among the institutions contacted for both the 2004– 05 and 2011–12 BJS surveys, the percentage using sworn officers increased from 75% to 77%, and the percentage using armed officers increased from 68% to 75% (not shown). ************************************************************* ************ HIGHLIGHTS ************ Among 4-year institutions enrolling 2,500 or more students, during the 2011– 12 school yea-- * About 75% of the campuses were using armed officers, compared to 68% during the 2004-05 school year. * About 9 in 10 public campuses used sworn police officers (92%), compared to about 4 in 10 private campuses (38%). * Most sworn campus police officers were authorized to use a sidearm (94%), chemical or pepper spray (94%), and a baton (93%). * Most sworn campus police officers had arrest (86%) and patrol (81%) jurisdictions that extended beyond campus boundaries. * About 7 in 10 campus law enforcement agencies had a memorandum of understanding or other formal written agreement with outside law enforcement agencies. * Most campus law enforcement agencies serving 5,000 or more students had personnel designated to address general crime prevention (91%), rape prevention (86%), drug education (79%), alcohol education (78%), stalking (75%), victim assistance (72%), and intimate partner violence (69%). * Compared to private campuses, a higher percentage of campus law enforcement agencies on public campuses met regularly with special interest groups, such as advocacy groups (64% public compared to 43% private), and groups seeking to prevent domestic violence (69% compared to 48%) or sexual violence (76% compared to 58%). * Nearly all campuses had a mass notification system that used email, text messages, and other methods to alert and instruct students, faculty, and staff in emergency situations. ************************************************************* A majority of the campuses with sworn police officers also used nonsworn security officers. Overall, 41% of campuses were served by both types of officers (table 1). About a third of campuses (32%) were served by nonsworn officers exclusively. The percentage of campuses using sworn officers ranged from a high of 96% among public campuses with 10,000 or more students to a low of 30% among private campuses with 2,500 to 4,999 students. The officers were armed at more than 9 in 10 campuses using sworn personnel (table 2). Among the campuses using only nonsworn officers, about 1 in 10 had armed officers. Overall, 66% of campuses had armed officers. ************************************************* About 95% of 4-year schools with 2,500 or more students operated their own campus law enforcement agency ************************************************* The 905 4-year colleges and universities with 2,500 or more students contacted for the 2011–12 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies (see Methodology for exclusions) enrolled 82% of all students attending 4-year institutions (those primarily awarding 4-year degrees or higher) (appendix table 1). A total of 861 (95%) of these schools reported that they operated their own campus law enforcement agency using officers employed by the institution (appendix table 2). Among the institutions that did not operate their own campus law enforcement agency, 77% contracted with a private security firm to provide these services, and 18% used local law enforcement agencies. All 861 campus law enforcement agencies serving 2,500 or more students received the BJS survey. Agencies serving campuses with 5,000 or more students received a longer questionnaire than those serving smaller campuses (see Methodology). A majority (83%) of the schools that were within scope for the 2011–12 survey but not for the 2004–05 survey were in the smallest enrollment category (2,500 to 4,999 students). Since the inclusion of these schools could mask trends occurring on larger campuses, comparisons presented in the report are limited to the 724 institutions and 717 campus law enforcement agencies that were included in both surveys. The comparison agencies represent 96% of the agencies and 98% of the total enrollment covered by the 2004–05 survey. These agencies accounted for 94% of the total enrollment covered by the 2011–12 survey. ************************************************* Between the 2004–05 and 2011–12 school years, the increase in full-time campus law enforcement employees (16%) outpaced the increase in student enrollment (11%) ************************************************* The 861 campus law enforcement agencies serving campuses with 2,500 or more students employed about 32,000 persons on a full-time basis during the 2011– 12 school year (appendix table 3). The full-time total included about 15,000 sworn police officers, 11,000 nonsworn security officers, 5,000 civilian support staff, and 1,000 student employees. These agencies also employed another 12,000 part-time staff, including about 1,000 sworn police officers, 3,000 nonsworn security officers, 1,000 civilian support staff, and 7,000 students. The 717 campus law enforcement agencies included in both the 2004–05 and 2011–12 BJS surveys increased their number of full-time employees by 16% during the 7-year period. This included a 10% increase in the number of full- time sworn personnel. During the same period, the collective enrollment of students on these campuses increased by 11% (not shown). ************************************************* Agencies serving private campuses had an average of 4.8 full-time employees per 1,000 students compared to 3.6 per 1,000 on public campuses ************************************************* During the 2011–12 school year, agencies serving campuses with 2,500 or more students had an average of 37 full-time employees, the equivalent of 4.1 employees per 1,000 students (table 3). The average ratio was higher on private campuses (4.8 full-time employees per 1,000 students) than public campuses (3.6 full-time employees per 1,000 students). On campuses with sworn personnel, an average of 24 full-time sworn officers were employed, the equivalent of 2.4 officers per 1,000 students. The average ratio was higher on private campuses (2.9 full-time sworn officers per 1,000 students) than public campuses (2.2 full-time sworn officers per 1,000 students). ************************************************* About 9 in 10 sworn campus police officers had arrest jurisdiction beyond campus boundaries ************************************************* The arrest jurisdiction of nearly all sworn campus police officers extended beyond the campus (table 4). In 86% of agencies (employing 90% of officers) the arrest jurisdiction included properties adjacent to campus. In 71% of agencies (employing 76% of officers) the jurisdiction included areas outside the area surrounding the campus (not shown). In 70% of agencies (employing 71% of officers) the area of off-campus arrest jurisdiction was defined through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or mutual aid agreement (MAA). Overall, 88% of the agencies serving public campuses had MOUs or MAAs of some type, compared to 63% of the agencies serving private campuses (figure 2). Most of the agencies serving public campuses had agreements with local police departments (81%) and sheriffs’ offices (55%). About a third of these agencies had agreements with state law enforcement (35%) or other campus law enforcement agencies (31%). About half of the agencies serving private campuses had written agreements with local police (52%) and about a sixth had agreements with sheriffs’ offices (17%). As with their arrest jurisdiction, most sworn officers had patrol jurisdictions that went beyond the boundaries of the campus they served. On 81% of campuses, sworn officers had patrol jurisdictions that extended to properties adjacent to campus, compared to 44% for nonsworn officers (table 5). The patrol jurisdiction of sworn officers extended to properties outside the immediate campus in 57% of agencies, compared to 27% for nonsworn officers. Agencies using sworn officers were also more likely to use an MOU or MAA to define extended areas of patrol jurisdiction. ************************************************* Most campus law enforcement agencies serving campuses with 5,000 or more students conducted joint patrols with local law enforcement ************************************************* As in 2004–05, most of campus law enforcement agencies implemented various community-oriented policing practices during the 2011–12 school year. About 8 in 10 (79%) agencies serving campuses with 5,000 or more students had incorporated community policing elements into their overall campus security policy (table 6). At least 6 in 10 agencies gave officers responsibility for specific geographic areas on campus (63%), conducted joint patrols with local law enforcement (62%), or conducted a ride-along program (60%). During 2011–12, about half of agencies serving campuses with 5,000 or more students upgraded their technology to support the analysis of campus community problems (54%). They also actively encouraged officers to engage in problem-solving projects on campus (51%), partnered with citizen groups and used their feedback in developing community policing strategies (51%), conducted intelligence-led policing (49%), conducted environmental analysis to assess precursors to crime (48%), and included collaborative problem- solving projects in the evaluation of patrol officers (46%). ************************************************* More campus law enforcement agencies were engaging in community policing activities during the 2011–12 school year compared to 2004–05 ************************************************* All but 3 of the 12 community-oriented policing activities included in the 2011–12 survey were implemented on a greater percentage of public campuses than private campuses. The largest differences were for offering ride-along programs (68% public versus 36% private), encouraging officers to engage in problem-solving projects (55% versus 38%), and conducting joint patrols with local law enforcement (65% versus 52%). For the 501 agencies serving campuses with 5,000 or more students that responded to both the 2004–05 and 2011–12 surveys, the use of community policing techniques increased at least 8% for 5 of the 10 community policing activities (figure 3). The largest increases were for collaborative problem- solving in the evaluation of patrol officers (46% in 2011–12 compared to 21% in 2004–05), conducting a ride-along program (61% compared to 49%), and encouraging officers to engage in problem-solving projects (52% compared to 39%). ************************************************* Nearly all campus law enforcement agencies provided 24-hour patrol coverage at all times ************************************************* Ninety-six percent of agencies provided 24-hour patrol coverage with uniformed officers at all times, including during weekends, breaks between academic terms, and summer terms. Most of the remaining agencies provided regular patrol coverage, but not on a 24-hour basis (not shown). All agencies had uniformed officers on duty at all times (table 7). About 9 in 10 public campuses had sworn uniformed officers on duty at all times, while about 3 in 10 public campuses had both sworn and nonsworn uniformed officers on duty at all times. About 8 in 10 private campuses had nonsworn uniformed officers on duty at all times, and about 2 in 10 private campuses had both sworn and nonsworn uniformed officers on duty at all times. Approximately 11% of agencies used officers from local law enforcement agencies at times to increase patrol coverage on campus or assist with special events during the 2011–12 school year. Four percent of agencies used officers from private security firms to supplement patrol coverage, and 24% used private security officers to assist with special events (not shown). Overall, 45% of the agencies serving campuses with enrollments of 5,000 or more used student security patrols. Half of the agencies serving public campuses (50%) and about a third of those serving private campuses (32%) used student patrols (not shown). On most campuses with student patrols, they were used to provide safety escorts (89%), special event security (70%), auxiliary patrols during normal patrol hours (64%), and building lockup or unlock services (59%)(figure 4). ************************************************* Most agencies offered free on-demand walking and vehicle safety escort services ************************************************* About 9 in 10 campus law enforcement agencies serving 5,000 or more students provided a personal safety escort service during the 2011–12 school year (table 8). Typically, this is a free and confidential on-demand service that operates at night for students, faculty, staff, and others who request it. The percentage of agencies that provided a safety escort service was about the same on public (88%) and private (90%) campuses. Most agencies that served public campuses operated a safety escort service staffed with nonsworn security officers (72%), sworn police officers (62%), and students (59%). About 5 in 6 private campuses had a safety escort service staffed by nonsworn security officers (83%). Just under half had a service staffed by sworn officers (48%) or students (45%). About 71% of public and private campuses provided both walking safety escorts and vehicle safety escorts. ************************************************* Nearly all agencies participated in a 9-1-1 system or had a similar on-campus emergency telephone system ************************************************* In an emergency, campus law enforcement agencies could be contacted by picking up a blue-light phone on campus (92%), calling a 3- or 4-digit on- campus emergency phone number (70%), or calling 9-1-1 (65%) (table 9). Almost all campuses (94%) either participated in a 9-1-1 system or provided another emergency number. A higher percentage of agencies serving public campuses (71%) participated in a 9-1-1 system than those serving private campuses (55%). More agencies on private campuses (80%) offered an on-campus emergency number than on public campuses (63%). Nearly two-thirds of public campuses (64%) and about half of private campuses (50%) had both systems (not shown). About half of the agencies serving public campuses (52%) and about a third of those on private campuses (35%) participated in an enhanced 9-1-1 system, which could display caller location and identification when available. About three-quarters (74%) of campus law enforcement agencies had an emergency telephone system that displayed the number of a wireless caller (table 10). Fewer agencies had a system that could display the general (13%) or specific (4%) location of a wireless caller. Other advanced features of campus emergency telephone systems included recorded phone calls available for immediate playback (65%), “phone patch” call forwarding when dispatch was not available (39%), and reverse 9-1-1 call-back (30%). Nearly all sworn (94%) and nonsworn (92%) agencies were responsible for dispatching calls for service (not shown). ************************************************* Nearly all sworn officers were authorized to use a sidearm, chemical spray, and baton ************************************************* Nearly all of the agencies that employed sworn police officers authorized them to use a sidearm (94%), chemical or pepper spray (94%), and a baton (93%) (table 11). Fewer than half (40%) of these agencies authorized their sworn officers to use a conducted energy device (such as a Taser). Among agencies that employed only nonsworn security officers, 11% authorized them to carry a sidearm. About half of agencies authorized nonsworn officers to use chemical or pepper spray (48%), and about a third authorized them to use a baton (32%). Few nonsworn agencies authorized their officers to use a conducted energy device (4%). In agencies employing both nonsworn and sworn officers, the nonsworn officers were somewhat less likely to be authorized to use a sidearm (4%), chemical or pepper spray (44%), or a baton (21%) than in agencies that employed only nonsworn officers (not shown). Overall, 96% of sworn officers were employed by an agency that authorized them to use chemical or pepper spray, compared to 39% of nonsworn officers (figure 5). Two percent of nonsworn officers were employed by an agency that authorized them to use a conducted energy device, compared to 38% of sworn officers. ************************************************* Patrol officers used in-field computers in about twice as many agencies during 2011–12, compared to 2004–05 ************************************************* Patrol officers were using in-field computers in about half (52%) of campus law enforcement agencies serving 2,500 or more students during 2011–12, compared to about a quarter (27%) of agencies during 2004–05. Most agencies serving public campuses with 5,000 or more students and private campuses with 10,000 or more students used in-field computers during 2011–12 (table 12). During 2011–12, agencies employing sworn officers (64%) were about three times as likely to use in-field computers as agencies that employed only nonsworn officers (20%) (not shown). Half of campus law enforcement agencies provided patrol officers with handheld electronic devices (such as smart phones or personal digital assistants) during the 2011–12 school year. Overall, patrol officers in 71% of campus law enforcement agencies used either in-field computers or handheld devices during 2011–12. A majority of agencies on both public (82%) and private (66%) campuses used computer-aided dispatch (figure 6). Most agencies serving public campuses also used computers for inter-agency information sharing (70%) and in-field reporting (60%). About a third of the agencies serving public (36%) and private (29%) campuses used computers for crime mapping. Agencies that employed sworn officers were about twice as likely as those that employed only nonsworn officers to use computers for dispatch (83% sworn versus 47% nonsworn)information sharing (69% versus 32%), in-field reports (59% versus 29%), and crime mapping (37% versus 20%) (not shown). ************************************************* Agencies provided security for a wide range of campus facilities ************************************************* In addition to the core law enforcement functions of patrol and response, campus law enforcement agencies performed numerous functions related to the security of campus buildings, facilities, and property. For more than 80% of sworn and nonsworn agencies, these responsibilities included general security functions, such as locking and unlocking buildings (92% sworn versus 100% nonsworn), monitoring surveillance cameras (85% versus 93%), controlling access to facilities (83% versus 95%), and monitoring central alarm systems (85% versus 82%) (table 13). The majority of sworn and nonsworn campus law enforcement agencies were also responsible for vehicle-related functions, such as directing and controlling traffic (99% sworn versus 93% nonsworn), enforcing parking restrictions (91% versus 95%), and investigating traffic accidents (97% versus 79%). Nearly all sworn agencies (94%) also enforced traffic laws, compared to about half of nonsworn agencies (47%). Nearly three-quarters (72%) of nonsworn agencies administered vehicle registration systems, compared to half (50%) of sworn agencies. Campus law enforcement agencies operated a wide range of vehicles to support many of the functions they performed (appendix table 8). ************************************************* Agencies serving public campuses were more likely to meet with groups working to prevent domestic and sexual violence ************************************************* During the 2011–12 school year, most agencies met regularly with campus administrators and officials (97%), other law enforcement agencies (93%), faculty and staff organizations (87%), student housing groups (86%), student organizations (81%), and student government leaders (80%) to discuss crime- related problems (table 14). A majority also met regularly with sexual violence prevention groups (69%), domestic violence prevention groups (60%), and advocacy groups (55%). ************************************************************* ************************************************* The Clery Act and reporting campus crime ************************************************* The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act was signed into law in 1990 as the Campus Security Act, and it has been amended several times. The act requires institutions of higher education that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their campus. The U.S. Department of Education monitors compliance. Violations can result in penalties of up to $35,000 per infraction and suspension from federal student financial aid programs. The Clery Act requires institutions to fulfill the following obligations: * Publish an annual campus security report by October 1 that documents three calendar years of specified campus crime statistics. This report must be made available to current and prospective students and employees. The crime statistics must include incidents occurring on campus, in public areas adjacent to or running through the campus, and at certain off-campus buildings, such as Greek housing and remote classrooms. * Maintain a timely public log of all crimes reported or otherwise known to campus law enforcement officials. The log must be accessible to the public during normal business hours. * Give timely warning of crimes that represent a threat to student or employee safety. Institutions also must submit an annual report to the U.S. Department of Education. The report should include statistics on criminal homicide, sex offenses (forcible and nonforcible), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The report must identify any of these offenses, as well as any incidents of larceny or theft; simple assault; intimidation; and destruction, damage, or vandalism of property that are believed to be hate crimes. The report must also include arrests and disciplinary referrals for liquor law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons possession. Clery Act statistics are available at http://ope.ed.gov/security/. Campus law enforcement agencies serving 4-year schools with 2,500 or more students handled an average of 5 violent crimes each in 2011, compared to 180 property crimes (table 15). During 2011, violent crimes accounted for 3% of the serious crimes known to campus agencies, compared to 12% of the serious crimes known to state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide (not shown). These campus agencies recorded 45 violent crimes per 100,000 students in 2011, a rate which was 27% lower than in 2004 (figure 7). Although the violent crime rate remained higher on private campuses (53) than public campuses (42) in 2011, the difference was much less than in 2004. The overall violent crime rate on campuses was much lower than the U.S. violent crime rate of 386 per 100,000 residents. Campus law enforcement agencies serving schools with 2,500 or more students recorded 1,049 property crimes per 100,000 students during 2011. As with violent crimes, the overall property crime rate per 100,000 students was higher on private campuses (1,354) than public campuses (994). Campus property crime rates were 35% lower in 2011, compared to 2004. Nationwide, the rate for known serious property crimes was 2,909 per 100,000 residents in 2011, or about three times the campus rate (not shown). ************************************************************* Agencies on public campuses were more likely than those on private campuses to have met regularly with most of the types of interest groups included in the survey. The largest differences were observed for advocacy (64% public versus 43% private), domestic violence prevention (69% versus 48%), and sexual violence prevention groups (76% versus 58%). For all but one of the group types included in both 2004–05 and 2011–012 surveys, there was an increase in the percentage of the agencies meeting with them (figure 8). Increases of more than 10% were observed for local public officials (64% versus 41%), domestic violence groups (63% versus 45%), and advocacy groups (61% versus 48%) (figure 8). ************************************************* About 4 in 5 agencies had personnel designated to provide alcohol and drug education ************************************************* Most agencies serving campuses of 5,000 or more students had personnel specially designated to provide prevention, education, and assistance programs and services to the campus community. More than two-thirds of the agencies had personnel designated to address general crime prevention (91%), general rape prevention (86%), date rape prevention (84%), self-defense training (76%), stalking (75%), victim assistance (72%), and intimate partner violence (69%) (table 16). In addition, about 4 in 5 agencies had personnel addressing drug (79%) and alcohol education (78%). In some cases, the personnel who addressed these issues were assigned full time to a specialized unit. At least 1 in 10 agencies had specialized units for general crime prevention (28%), community policing (21%), general rape prevention (14%), date rape prevention (14%), victim assistance (12%), self- defense training (11%), alcohol education (10%), drug education (10%), and bicycle and pedestrian safety (10%). ************************************************* More agencies had personnel designated to address stalking, alcohol education, and victim assistance in 2011–12, compared to 2004–05 ************************************************* For all but one of the interest group types included in both 2004–05 and 2011–12 surveys, there was an increase in the percentage of agencies meeting with them (figure 9). Increases of 5% were observed for stalking (76% versus 67%), alcohol education (80% versus 74%), and victim assistance (72% versus 67%). ************************************************* A majority of the agencies on both public and private campuses engaged in a range of emergency preparedness activities ************************************************* The 2004–05 BJS Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies helped assess the impact of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the emergency preparedness policies and practices of campus law enforcement agencies. In the years following that survey, the mass shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Northern Illinois University in 2008 occurred. The 2011–12 survey provides some measures of how campus law enforcement agencies have responded to these and similar incidents by further developing their emergency preparedness capabilities. During 2011–12, more agencies serving public campuses, compared to private campuses, disseminated information to increase citizen preparedness (90% public compared to 81% private), had formal intelligence-sharing agreements with other law enforcement agencies (74% versus 62%), and designed or revised a preparedness plan for a school shooting (86% versus 81%) (table 17). A slightly higher percentage of the agencies on private campuses (85%) than on public campuses (81%) designed or revised a preparedness plan for an emergency evacuation. Nearly all agencies on both public (99%) and private (98%) campuses participated in campus meetings regarding emergency preparedness plans. ************************************************* Between the 2004–05 and 2011–12 school years, the percentage of agencies participating in emergency preparedness activities increased ************************************************* The percentage of agencies that held meetings with campus administrators and staff regarding emergency preparedness increased from 91% in 2004–05 to 99% in 2011–12 (figure 10). Increases also occurred in the percentage of agencies that disseminated information to increase citizen preparedness and maintained formal intelligence-sharing agreements with other law enforcement agencies. Almost all (97%) campus law enforcement agencies serving 5,000 or more students reported they were participants in active shooter training during 2011–12. This training was usually in the form of workshops, seminars, and lectures (95%) and typically involved the use of mock exercises and scenarios (90%). About a third of agencies participated in active shooter training that included the use of virtual reality systems (31%) (not shown). ************************************************* More agencies on public campuses than on private campuses had radio systems that were fully interoperable with other first responders’ systems ************************************************* About half (48%) of campus law enforcement agencies serving campuses with 2,500 or more students used a radio system that was fully interoperable with the systems used by local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and other first responders (table 18). Another 30% reported their system was partially interoperable with other first responder systems. Agencies serving public campuses (64%) were more than twice as likely as those on private campuses (26%) to have a system that was fully interoperable. Nearly all of the agencies on public campuses (93%) had systems that were either fully or partially interoperable, compared to just over half on private campuses (57%). ************************************************* Most campuses had a mass notification system to alert and instruct students, faculty, and staff in an emergency situation ************************************************* The recognized potential for an emergency to occur on campus has resulted in the development of sophisticated mass notification systems that can alert students, faculty, and staff about a situation and provide critical information and instructions. Survey questions regarding mass notification systems were asked for the first time in the 2011–12 BJS survey and covered agencies serving campuses with 5,000 or more students. All but a few of these campuses reported they had a mass notification system available for students, faculty, and staff. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the campuses had opt-in systems that allowed first-year students to enroll voluntarily (table 19). Most of the remainder had opt-out mass notification systems that required students to enroll, but allowed them to discontinue their enrollment at some point if they preferred. For faculty, administrators, and staff, about 70% of campuses had voluntary opt-in mass notification systems, and 26% used a mandatory opt-out format. Campus mass notification systems used a wide variety of methods for alerting the campus community and conveying emergency information and instructions. The most common methods used were e-mail (100% of students covered), text messages (99%), and websites (98%) (figure 11). About three-quarters of students were enrolled on campuses that used cell phone calls (77%) and voicemails (73%). About half of students were enrolled on campuses that used sirens (56%), outdoor speakers (54%), radio (52%), and television (46%). ************************************************* The hiring process for sworn campus police officers typically involved more than twice as many screening methods as nonsworn officers ************************************************* To employ the most qualified officers, campus law enforcement agencies use numerous screening methods. Typically, sworn officers must undergo a considerably more rigorous screening process prior to hiring than their nonsworn counterparts. Of the 20 screening methods included in the 2011–12 survey, a majority of sworn officers worked in agencies that used 12 methods for hiring sworn officers. Most nonsworn officers worked in agencies that used five of the screening methods for hiring nonsworn officers. The five screening methods generally used for both sworn and nonsworn officers included personal interviews, criminal record checks, reference checks, background investigations, and driving record checks (figure 12). Screening methods used for more than three-quarters of sworn officers but less than half of nonsworn officers included medical exams, drug tests, and psychological evaluations. Screening methods used for more than half of sworn officers, but less than half of nonsworn officers, included credit history checks, physical agility tests, personality inventories, and written aptitude tests. Overall, none of the screening methods included in the survey was used for a larger percentage of nonsworn officers than sworn ones. ************************************************* On average, sworn campus police officers were required to complete about 4 times the training as nonsworn officers prior to employment ************************************************* There was also a significant difference in the amount of training required of new sworn officers compared to nonsworn officers. The average training requirement for entry-level sworn officers during 2011–12 was 1,027 hours, with approximately two-thirds of it in the classroom and a third in the field (figure 13). Nonsworn officers were required to complete an average of about 230 hours of training, which were split almost evenly between classroom and field training. ************************************************* About 1 in 5 sworn officers and 1 in 7 nonsworn officers worked for an agency with a college education requirement ************************************************* Most sworn (74%) and nonsworn (76%) campus officers worked for an agency that required them to have at least a high school diploma, but did not specify any college-level education requirement (table 20). About 1 in 5 sworn officers worked for an agency that had some type of college requirement for new sworn officers, compared to about 1 in 7 nonsworn officers. About 3% of sworn officers were employed by an agency with a 4-year degree requirement for new sworn officers, and 9% by an agency with a 2-year degree requirement. Agencies with a 4-year degree requirement for nonsworn officers employed 3% of all nonsworn officers, while those with a 2-year degree requirement for nonsworn officers employed 5% of all nonsworn officers. Although data availability was more limited than for other survey items, agencies provided information on the highest education attainment of about 9,000 sworn officers (60% of the total) and about 4,000 nonsworn officers (36% of the total). Based on these data, sworn officers (57%) were about twice as likely as nonsworn officers (30%) to have at least a 2-year degree. About 43% of sworn officers had a 4-year degree or higher, compared to 21% of nonsworn officers (not shown). ************************************************* The average starting salary for entry-level sworn officers was 34% higher than for nonsworn officers ************************************************* Consistent with the more rigorous selection process used for hiring sworn officers compared to nonsworn officers, significant differences were found in the salaries and benefits offered to the two types of officers. The average starting salary for entry-level sworn officers was $36,700 in 2011–12, compared to $27,500 for entry-level nonsworn officers (table 21). For those with 5 years of experience, sworn officers earned an average base salary of $42,700, compared to $31,600 for nonsworn officers. Dispatch operators earned an average starting salary of $28,000 in sworn agencies, compared to $26,000 in nonsworn agencies (not shown in table). On larger public campuses (15,000 or more students), the average starting salary for entry-level sworn officers was about $40,000, compared to about $33,000 on the smallest public campuses (2,500 to 4,999 students). On private campuses, average starting salaries for sworn officers ranged from $32,000 on the smallest campuses to $44,000 on the largest. For nonsworn officers, by enrollment category, average starting salaries ranged from about $27,000 to $33,000 on public campuses and from about $26,000 to $31,000 on private campuses. Among campuses with 5,000 or more students, slightly more sworn (51%) than nonsworn (43%) officers worked for an agency that authorized collective bargaining for them (figure 14). Starting salaries for sworn officers averaged about $43,000 in the agencies with collective bargaining, compared to about $34,000 in those without it. Likewise, average starting salaries were higher for nonsworn officers in agencies with collective bargaining ($35,000) than in those without it ($28,000) (not shown). Nearly all sworn and nonsworn officers (99% each) worked for agencies that allowed them to earn overtime pay or comp time. Most sworn (93%) and nonsworn officers (98%) also had access to tuition assistance from their agency in the form of a waiver, reimbursement, or discount. Sworn officers (25%) were five times as likely as nonsworn officers (5%) to work for an agency that offered educational incentive pay. Nonsworn officers were more likely than sworn officers to work for an agency that offered shift differential pay and merit/performance pay. A higher percentage of sworn officers (37%) than nonsworn officers (28%) worked for an agency that offered them longevity pay. For both types of officers, the most common service requirement for longevity pay was 10 years (33%) followed by 5 years (21%). About 13% of sworn officers worked for an agency that required a written service agreement that required them to serve a minimum term, usually 2 or 3 years. One percent of nonsworn officers worked for an agency that required a service agreement (not shown). ************************************************* The percentage of sworn campus police officers who were women or members of a racial/ethnic minority increased slightly ************************************************* During the 2011–12 school year, about 1 in 6 sworn campus police officers were women. This was about the same proportion observed in the 2004–05 survey. When campuses that were included in both surveys are compared, the percentage of female officers increased slightly, from 16.9% in 2004–05 to 17.5% in 2011–12 (figure 15). Minority representation increased slightly as well, from 30.4% in 2004–05 to 31.5% in 2011–12. Hispanics recorded the largest increase during this period, from 6.5% to 7.5%. African Americans remained the largest minority, accounting for 21% of sworn officers in both surveys. ************** Methodology ************** This report presents data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 2011- 12 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies. In preparation for the survey, a universe list of 4-year and 2-year campuses was compiled using the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The survey focused primarily on agencies serving 4-year universities and colleges with a fall headcount enrollment of 2,500 or more (appendix table 1). In addition, 2-year institutions with 2,500 or more students and a sample of 4-year institutions with 1,000 to 2,499 students were surveyed. These campuses are covered in a separate report. Schools were classified according to the level of the highest proportion of degrees awarded. The survey excluded-- * U.S. military academies and schools * for-profit institutions * schools operating primarily online. BJS also conducted surveys of campus law enforcement agencies covering the 1994–95 and 2004–05 school years. The reports produced from these surveys are available on the BJS website. Of the 905 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students identified as being potentially eligible for the 2011–12 survey, 861 reported that they were operating their own campus law enforcement agency (appendix table 2). These 861 agencies were asked to provide data describing their personnel, functions, expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, community policing activities, specialized units, and emergency preparedness activities. ICF International, with the assistance of BJS, served as the data collection agent. The 2011–12 survey was initially conducted as a web-only data collection. Later follow-up efforts provided respondents with fax and mail-in response options. The final overall response rate was 90% for the core survey group of agencies serving 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students, with 776 of 861 potential respondents completing either the long or short version of the survey questionnaire (appendix table 9). While there were initially only two versions of the survey questionnaire--a 64-question long version and a 36-question short version--a third 23-question critical items version was added during the nonresponse follow-up phase of the data collection. The fourth and final response option asked agencies to provide only some very basic information, the most important being the number of full-time and part-time employees in each personnel category. Appendix table 10 provides a list of the items included in each version of the survey questionnaire. A total of 537 agencies on campuses with 5,000 or more students received the long version of the survey questionnaire. A total of 456 (85%) of these agencies completed the long version. Agencies that chose not to complete the long version of the survey form were subsequently given the option of completing the shorter 36-question version. A total of 31 (6%) of the original long-form agencies completed the short form. Agencies that did not respond to the short-form option received the critical items version. A total of 17 agencies (3% of the original long-form agencies) completed the critical items version. The remaining 33 agencies (6% of those who initially received the long form) did not respond to any of the three response options offered. These agencies were subsequently contacted for basic information including the number and type of employees in their agency. A total of 324 agencies serving 4-year campuses with 2,500 to 4,999 students received the shorter 36-question form. A total of 289 (89%) of these agencies completed this version. Agencies that chose not to complete the short version were given the option of completing the critical items version. Five (2%) short-form agencies completed the critical items version. The remaining 30 (9%) short-form agencies provided the basic information requested on the type and number of personnel. The final data set for agencies serving 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students includes 456 agencies that completed the long version of the survey questionnaire, 320 agencies that completed the short version, 22 agencies that completed the critical items version, and 63 agencies that provided only the basic personnel counts. ************************************************************* The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director. This report was written by Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D. Elizabeth Davis verified the report. Lynne McConnell and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn and Tina Dorsey produced the report. January 2015, NCJ 248028 ************************************************************* ************************************************ Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************ ******************** 1/5/15 JER 10:35am ********************