U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Hiring and Retention of State and Local Law Enforcement Officers, 2008 – Statistical Tables By Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., BJS Statistician October 2012, NCJ 238251 ------------------------------------------ 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://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4514 ---------------------------------------------- In 2008, the United States had roughly 16,000 general purpose state and local law enforcement agencies, including local police departments, sheriffs’ offices, and the 50 primary state agencies. These agencies employed about 705,000 full- time sworn personnel (table 1). From 1992 to 2008, the number of sworn personnel employed by general purpose agencies increased by about 141,000, or 25% (figure 1). The 1.6% average annual growth rate for the number of officers exceeded that of the U.S. population (1.2%). Sheriffs’ offices (34% overall, 2.1% annually) had a higher growth rate over the 16-year period than local police departments (23%, 1.4%) or state agencies (15%, 0.9%). The agencies hired about 61,000 officers in 2008, but lost about 51,000 through resignations, retirements, and other types of separation for a net gain of about 10,000 officers (figure 2) or 1.4% (table 2). Most agencies used specific strategies and policies designed to help them meet the challenges of recruiting, hiring, and retaining qualified sworn personnel. To better understand these efforts, a special survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 general purpose agencies as part of the 2008 BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA). (See Methodology for details.) ************************************** ******************* List of figures ************** Figure 1 Cumulative percent growth in number of full-time sworn personnel employed by general purpose state and local law enforcement agencies, 1992–2008 1 Figure 2 Number of full-time sworn personnel in state and local law enforcement agencies who separated or were hired, by type of agency, 2008 1 Figure 3 Percent of full-time sworn personnel who separated from state and local law enforcement agencies, by size of agency, 2008 6 Figure 4 Reason for officer separations from state and local law enforcement agencies, by size of agency, 2008 6 Figure 5 Percent of state and local law enforcement officers that were military reservists called to active duty, by size of agency, 2008 9 Figure 6 Percent of state and local law enforcement officers employed by agencies using selected methods to recruit applicants for sworn positions, 2008 11 Figure 7 Percent of state and local law enforcement officers employed by agencies offering selected incentives to recruit applicants for sworn positions, 2008 12 Figure 8 Percent of state and local law enforcement officers employed by agencies targeting specific applicant groups with special recruitment efforts, 2008 13 Figure 9 Percent of state and local law enforcement officers employed by agencies using selected screening methods in the hiring process for sworn positions, 2007 14 Figure 10 Percent of state and local law enforcement officers employed by agencies allowing the hiring of applicants with selected negative prior events, 2008 14 Figure 11 Percent of full-time sworn personnel in state and local law enforcement agencies who were hired during the year, by size of agency, 2008 17 Figure 12 Percent of state and local law enforcement officers employed by agencies using selected methods to increase retention of sworn personnel, 2008 18 Figure 13 Percent of state and local law enforcement officers employed by agencies with selected overtime and outside employment policies, 2008 19 **************************************** **************************************** **************** List of tables **************** Table 1 Number and percent of full-time sworn personnel employed by general purpose state and local law enforcement agencies, by type and size of agency, 2 Table 2 Percent growth in number of full-time sworn personnel employed by state and local law enforcement agencies, by size and type of agency, 2008 2 Table 3 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies that had separations of full-time sworn personnel, by size and type of agency, 2008 7 Table 4 Officer separations from state and local law enforcement agencies, by type of separation, and by size and type of agency, 2008 7 Table 5 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with a mandatory retirement age for officers, 2008 8 Table 6 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with officers called to active military duty and number of full-time sworn personnel called to active military duty, 2008 9 Table 7 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with a dedicated recruiting budget, by size and type of agency, 2008 10 Table 8 Median recruiting budget of state and local law enforcement agencies, by size and type of agency, 2008 10 Table 9 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with a full-time recruitment manager, by size and type of agency, 2008 10 Table 10 Officer recruitment methods used by more than half of state and local law enforcement agencies, by size and type of agency, 2008 11 Table 11 Officer recruitment methods used by fewer than half of state and local law enforcement agencies, by size and type of agency, 2008 11 Table 12 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies offering financial support for training or education as recruitment incentive, by size and type of agency, 2008 12 Table 13 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies using special recruitment efforts to target selected groups for sworn positions, by size and type of agency, 2008 13 Table 14 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with special officer recruitment efforts targeting women and racial/ethnic minorities, by size and type of agency, 2008 13 Table 15 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies considering applicants with selected negative prior events, by size and type of agency, 2008 15 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies considering applicants with selected negative prior events, by size and type of agency, 2008 15 Table 16 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with a residency requirement for sworn personnel, by size and type of agency, 2008 15 Table 17 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies that hired full-time sworn personnel, by size and type of agency, 2008 16 Table 18 Percent of newly hired officers in state and local law enforcement agencies, by type of hire and size and type of agency, 2008 17 Table 19 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies using selected methods to increase retention of sworn personnel, by size and type of agency, 2008 18 Table 20 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies allowing officers to work overtime, by size and type of agency, 2008 19 Table 21 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies allowing officers to have outside employment, by size and type of agency, 2008 19 Table 22 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies offering a full-service retirement pension to sworn personnel, by size and type of agency, 2008 20 Table 23 Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies conducting exit interviews of departing officers, by size and type of agency, 2008 20 ***************************************************** ************************** List of appendix tables ************************** Appendix table 1 Item non-response for 2008 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies on recruitment and retention Supplement 22 Appendix table 2 Standard errors of the number of officers hired by and separated from state and local law enforcement agencies, 2008 22 Appendix table 3 Standard errors for table 3: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies that had separations of full-time sworn personnel, 2008 22 Appendix table 4 Standard errors for table 4: Percent of officer separations resulting from resignations from state and local law enforcement agencies, by size and type of agency, 2008 23 Appendix table 5 Standard errors for table 5: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with a mandatory retirement age for officers, 2008 23 Appendix table 6 Standard errors for table 6: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with officers called to active military duty and number of full-time sworn personnel called to active military duty, 2008 23 Appendix table 7 Standard errors for table 7: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with a dedicated recruiting budget, by size and type of agency, 2008 23 Appendix table 8 Standard errors for table 8: Median recruiting budget of state and local law enforcement agencies, by size and type of agency, 2008 23 Appendix table 9 Standard errors for table 9: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with a full-time recruitment manager, by size and type of agency, 2008 24 Appendix table 10 Standard errors for table 10: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies using internet advertising for officer recruitment, by size and type of agency, 2008 24 Appendix table 11 Standard errors for table 11: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies, using job fairs for officer recruitment, by size and type of agency, 2008 24 Appendix table 12 Standard errors for table 12: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies offering financial support training as a recruitment incentive, by size and type of agency, 2008 24 Appendix table 13 Standard errors for table 13: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies using special recruitment efforts to target applicants with prior law enforcement experience, by size and type of agency, 2008 24 Appendix table 14 Standard errors for table 14: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with special officer recruitment efforts targeting women, by size and type of agency, 2008 24 Appendix table 15 Standard errors for table 15: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies considering applicants with a prior misdemeanor conviction, by size and type of agency, 2008 25 Appendix table 16 Standard errors for table 16: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies with a residency requirement for sworn personnel, by size nd type of agency, 2008 25 Appendix table 17 Standard errors for table 17: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies that hired full-time sworn personnel at the entry level, by size and type of agency, 2008 25 Appendix table 18 Standard errors for table 18: Number of applications received per sworn position filled by state and local law enforcement agencies, by size and type of agency, 2008 25 Appendix table 19 Standard errors for table 19: Percent of newly hired officers in state and local law enforcement agencies, by type of hire and size and type of agency, 2008 25 Appendix table 20 Standard errors for table 20: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies providing take-home vehicles to increase retention of sworn personnel, by size and type of agency, 2008 25 Appendix table 21 Standard errors for table 21: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies allowing officers to work overtime without limits, by size and type of agency, 2008 26 Appendix table 22 Standard errors for table 22: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies allowing officers to have outside employment without limits, by size and type of agency, 2008 26 Appendix table 23 Standard errors for table 23: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies offering a full-service retirement pension to sworn personnel , by size and type of agency, 2008 26 Appendix table 24 Standard errors for table 24: Percent of state and local law enforcement agencies conducting exit interviews of departing officers , by size and type of agency, 2008 26 *************************************** ********************* Officer separations ********************* Types of separation ------------------- * Overall, about 7% of state and local officers separated from agencies during 2008. The separation rate from agencies with fewer than 10 officers (20%) was 4 times the rate of agencies with 500 or more officers (5%) (figure 3). * About two-thirds (65%) of all agencies had at least one officer separate in 2008. Nearly all agencies with 100 or more sworn personnel lost officers (table 3). * Officer separations in 2008 included resignations (54%), nonmedical retirements (23%), dismissals (10%), probationary rejections (5%), and medical or disability retirements (5%) (table 4). * Resignations accounted for more than half of the separations from sheriffs’ offices (56%) and local police departments (55%), compared to less than a third from state agencies (30%). * About half (52%) of the separations from state agencies in 2008 were attributable to nonmedical retirements, compared to less than a quarter from local police departments (23%) and sheriffs’ offices (19%). * Among agencies with 500 or more officers, the percentage of separations in 2008 resulting from nonmedical retirements was higher in state law enforcement agencies (54%) than local police departments (41%) or sheriffs’ offices (32%). * Resignations accounted for nearly twice the percentage of separations in agencies with fewer than 10 officers (71%) as agencies with 500 or more officers (37%) (figure 4). * Nonmedical retirements accounted for 41% of officer departures in agencies with 500 or more officers in 2008, compared with 5% of the separations from agencies employing fewer than 10 officers. Mandatory retirement policies ------------------------------ * In 2008, 10% of all agencies, employing 21% of officers, had a mandatory retirement age for officers. About 1 in 4 agencies with 500 or more officers had a mandatory retirement age, compared to 1 in 20 agencies with fewer than 10 officers (table 5). * Among agencies with 500 or more officers, state law enforcement agencies (52%) were more likely than local police departments (24%) or sheriffs’ offices (3%) to have a mandatory retirement age. * The most common mandatory retirement age used by state and local law enforcement agencies in 2008 was age 65 (42%). Other jurisdictions reported mandatory retirement ages of 60 (21%), 70 (13%), 63 (10%), 62 (8%), and 55 (4%) (not in a table). * In agencies with a mandatory retirement age, nonmedical retirements accounted for 44% of separations, compared to 20% among agencies without a retirement age (not in a table). ******************************************* Military reservists called to active duty ****************************************** * In 2008, 19% of agencies had about 7,500 full-time sworn personnel who were called to active military duty (table 6). This was a decrease from 2003 when 23% of agencies had 11,400 officers called to active duty (not in a table). * Nearly all agencies employing 500 or more sworn personnel had officers called to active duty in both 2003 (99%) and 2008 (99%) (2003 data not in a table). * As in 2003, agencies with fewer than 10 officers (5%) were the least likely to have officers called to active duty in 2008. * Of all full-time sworn personnel, 1.1% got called to active military duty in 2008, compared to 1.7% in 2003. In agencies that had officers called, 1.5% of all officers got called to active duty in 2008, compared to 2.2% in 2003 (2003 data not in a table) (figure 5). * Among agencies employing fewer than 10 sworn personnel that had officers called to active duty in 2008, call-ups affected about 21% of their total number of full-time sworn personnel, compared to about 1% in the largest agencies. A similar effect was observed in 2003 (23% and 1.5%) (not in a table). ************************ Recruitment of officers ************************ Recruitment methods ------------------- * About 9 in 10 agencies actively recruited applicants for sworn positions during 2008 (not in a table). * Most agencies with 100 or more officers had a dedicated recruiting budget in 2008. Among agencies with 25 to 99 officers, about half of local police departments had a recruiting budget, compared to about a quarter of sheriffs’ offices (table 7). * Among agencies with a recruiting budget, the overall mean was $13,700 (not in a table) and the median was $2,000 (table 8). * Among agencies with 500 or more officers, the median recruiting budget was $50,000, compared to $1,000 in agencies with fewer than 10 officers. * About 8 in 10 agencies with 500 or more sworn personnel and about 5 in 10 agencies with 100 to 499 officers had a full- time recruitment manager (table 9). * Among agencies with recruitment managers, nearly all employed either one (79%) or two (14%). About 85% of agencies employed only sworn personnel in the position, 8% employed only civilians, and 7% used both sworn and civilian personnel (not in a table). * About 7 in 10 agencies used newspaper advertisements (69%) for recruitment purposes, with little variation by size category (table 10). A majority of agencies (59%) also used personal contacts, including about 3 in 4 agencies employing 100 or more officers. * A majority of agencies in each size category of 10 officers or more used the internet in 2008 to recruit applicants. Agencies with 500 or more officers (96%) were nearly 3 times as likely to use internet advertising as those with fewer than 10 officers (36%). * Most agencies employing 100 or more officers used job fairs and special events in 2008 to recruit applicants (table 11). * In 2008 a majority of officers were employed by an agency that used agency websites (78%), personal contacts (74%), newspapers (71%), job fairs (70%), employment websites (62%), or special events (56%) to recruit applicants for sworn positions (figure 6). Recruitment incentives ----------------------- * To attract applicants for sworn positions, many agencies offered financial support to defray or eliminate the costs of recruit training. A majority (57%) of agencies offered these types of incentives including nearly all (99%) agencies with 500 or more officers (table 12). * About 1 in 2 state law enforcement agencies offered college tuition reimbursement to new recruits in 2008, compared to about 1 in 4 local police departments and 1 in 8 sheriffs’ offices. A majority of local police departments with 25 or more officers used this incentive. * In 2008 most officers were employed by an agency that paid their salary during academy training (81%), offered free academy training (71%), or reimbursed them for college tuition (57%) (figure 7). * Small percentages of officers worked for agencies that offered incentives such as flexible hours to allow college attendance (12%), a signing bonus (7%), an academy graduation bonus (7%), or relocation assistance (5%) to recruit applicants. Targeted recruitment efforts ---------------------------- * About half of agencies employing 100 or more officers and a third of agencies employing fewer than 100 targeted applicants who possessed prior law enforcement experience for sworn positions (table 13). * Most agencies (4 in 5) with 100 or more officers targeted women and minorities with special recruitment efforts in 2008 (table 14). Among larger agencies, state agencies were the most likely to target women and minorities, and sheriffs’ offices were the least likely. * Women represented 12.1% of the officers in agencies that targeted female applicants in 2008, compared to 10.6% of officers in agencies that did not. Likewise, the percentage of minority officers was larger in agencies that targeted such applicants (24.3%) than in agencies that did not (18.9%) (not in a table). * In 2008 most officers worked for an agency that targeted minorities (59%) and women (56%) for employment. About half worked for an agency that targeted military veterans (51%), applicants with prior law enforcement experience (45%), and multi-lingual persons (42%)(figure 8). ********************************* Selection of officers ----------------------- * As of 2007, more than 9 in 10 state and local officers were employed by an agency that screened recruits with criminal and driver records checks, background investigations, and medical and psychological exams (figure 9). More than 8 in 10 officers worked for an agency that used physical agility or fitness tests, credit history checks, and written aptitude tests. * As of 2006, basic recruit training programs included more than 1,200 classroom and field hours on average. Of those recruits who started a training program in 2005, 14% failed to complete it (not in a table) (see State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2006). * In 2008, 5% of post-academy recruits did not successfully complete the probationary period with their hiring agency (not in a table). Therefore, it is estimated that for every 122 officer recruits, agencies obtained 100 non-probationary post-academy officers. * In order to increase the pool of applicants for sworn positions, an estimated 84% of agencies had a policy in 2008 that allowed for some applicant screening criteria to be relaxed at times within agency-specified parameters (such as severity, frequency, or time elapsed) (not in a table). * A majority of agencies in all size categories were willing to consider applicants with prior credit-related problems, including about 90% of those employing 100 or more officers (table 15). * A majority of agencies in all size categories were willing to consider applicants with a misdemeanor conviction, including more than 80% of agencies employing 100 or more officers. * Nearly half (47%) of agencies allowed the hiring of applicants with prior marijuana use, including more than 80% of agencies with 100 or more officers. Overall, a sixth of agencies considered hiring applicants that used illegal drugs other than marijuana, including more than half of agencies with 100 or more officers. * About 4 in 10 agencies were willing to consider applicants with prior driving-related problems such as a suspended license or a conviction for driving under the influence. Nearly 9 in 10 agencies with 100 or more officers had such a policy. * In 2008, more than two-thirds of officers worked for agencies that allowed the consideration of highly qualified applicants whose personal history included prior credit- related problems (82%), marijuana use (76%), a misdemeanor conviction (75%), a suspended driver’s license (72%), or job-related problems (71%) (figure 10). * In 2008, nearly all state agencies (98%) had a residency requirement, compared to 65% of sheriffs’ offices and 38% of local police departments (table 16). * About half of state agencies (51%) and sheriffs’ offices (49%) required officers to live within a specified service area, compared to 8% of local police departments. ******************** Hiring of officers ******************** * About two-thirds (68%) of all agencies hired at least one full-time officer during 2008. Nearly all (95%) agencies with 100 or more officers had at least one new hire, compared to about half (53%) of agencies with fewer than 10 officers (table 17). * More than half (57%) of all agencies hired at least one officer at the entry level (no prior law enforcement experience) during 2008. This included about 9 in 10 agencies employing 100 or more officers and about 4 in 10 agencies employing fewer than 10 officers. * In 2008, 81% of all new officer hires were at the entry level. The proportion of new hires that were entry level ranged from about 9 in 10 among agencies with 500 or more officers to about 7 in 10 among agencies with fewer than 25 officers (table 18). * An estimated 14% of hires by state and local law enforcement agencies in 2008 were lateral hires (those with experience as a sworn officer for a minimum time, such as 5 years, who were already employed by a law enforcement agency (or had only a brief break in service). * Officers newly hired during the year accounted for about 9% of all full-time sworn personnel working in state and local law enforcement agencies in 2008 (figure 11). This percentage ranged from 7% in the largest agencies to 23% in the smallest. * New entry-level hires accounted for about 7% of all state and local officers in 2008, ranging from 6% in the largest agencies to 17% in the smallest agencies. *********************** Retention of officers *********************** Retention strategies --------------------- * In 2008, 19% of agencies required new officers to sign a minimum time-of-service agreement. Among agencies with service agreements, most required either a 2-year (43%) or 3-year (32%) service term (not in a table). * About 9% of officers were employed by a state or local law enforcement agency with a 2-year time-of-service agreement, and 5% by one with a 3-year time-of-service agreement (not in a table). * Many agencies used financial incentives to increase officer retention rates in 2008. About two-thirds (65%) of agencies offered free uniforms or a financial allowance for uniform- related expenses (table 19). * About half of agencies offered increased pay at specific service milestones (55%) or take-home vehicles (46%) to officers. Local police departments (37%) were less likely to offer take-home vehicles to officers than state agencies (83%) or sheriffs’ offices (80%). * In 2008, about 8 in 10 officers worked for an agency that offered free or subsidized uniforms. More than 7 in 10 worked for an agency with pay raises at service milestones (figure 12). * More than 4 in 10 officers worked for an agency that offered take-home vehicles or a pay raise for a college degree. Overtime and outside employment policies ---------------------------------------- * Nearly all (95%) agencies allowed officers to work overtime in 2008. About 4 in 5 agencies (78%) did not limit the amount of overtime that could be worked (table 20). * Nearly all (93%) agencies allowed officers to earn extra income by working at a second job; however, most agencies limited the number of hours worked outside of the agency and the types of establishments where officers could work (table 21). * About two-fifths of agencies with fewer than 10 officers allowed outside employment without restrictions. * Nearly all officers were employed by an agency that allowed them to earn additional income through overtime (99%) or outside employment (98%) during 2008. About 70% of officers worked for an agency that allowed them to earn unlimited overtime, compared to 7% who worked for an agency that allowed unrestricted outside employment (figure 13). Pension and exit interview policies ------------------------------------ * About 9 in 10 agencies offered full-service retirement pensions to officers during 2008. At least 96% of the agencies in each size category employing 10 officers or more had a pension plan, compared to 85% of agencies with fewer than 10 officers. * Retirement plans varied, but the minimum service requirement was most commonly 20 or 25 years, and minimum qualifying age was 50 or 55 (table 22). * Agencies with 500 or more officers (81%) were nearly 3 times as likely to conduct exit interviews as agencies with fewer than 10 officers (30%). State agencies were the most likely type of agency to conduct exit interviews (table 23). ************ Methodology ************ Sample design --------------- The data analyzed for this report are from a supplement to the 2008 BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA). The sample, based on the 2007 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey (LEMAS), included 3,095 state and local law enforcement agencies. The sample was designed to be representative of all general purpose state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States, with separate samples for local police departments and sheriffs’ offices. Agencies serving special jurisdictions (such as schools, airports, or parks) or with special enforcement responsibilities (such as conservation or alcohol laws) were out of scope for the survey. Sheriffs’ offices without primary law enforcement jurisdiction were also out of scope. The survey included all agencies employing 100 or more full- time sworn personnel and a systematic random sample of smaller agencies. Because sampling was used for smaller agencies, some of the statistics presented in the report are subject to sampling error. Statements of comparison have been tested at the 95%-confidence level. The final sample includes 942 self-representing (SR) agencies with 100 or more sworn personnel, and 2,153 non self- representing (NSR) agencies employing fewer than 100 sworn personnel. The SR agencies include 589 local police departments, 303 sheriffs’ offices, and 50 state law enforcement agencies. The NSR local police agencies were selected using a stratified random sample with cells based on the number of sworn personnel. The NSR sheriffs’ offices were selected using a simple random sample. Overall, the NSR sample included 1,504 local police departments and 615 sheriffs’ offices. All SR and NSR agencies received the two-page CSLLEA supplement containing questions on retention and recruitment in addition to the standard two-page CSLLEA questionnaire. Agency response rate -------------------- A total of 3,006 agencies completed the two-page CSLLEA supplement for a response rate of 97%. This included 918 SR agencies (97%) and 2,088 NSR agencies (97%). The response rate for local police departments was 98%; for sheriffs’ offices, 95%; and for state law enforcement agencies, 94%. The final database includes 2,053 local police departments, 906 sheriffs’ offices, and 47 state agencies. Weighting --------- The base weight for all SR agencies is 1.00. For NSR sheriffs’ offices, the base weight is 4.19. For NSR local police departments with 63 to 99 officers, the base weight is 2.15; with 40 to 62 officers, 3.37; with 24 to 39 officers, 4.97; with 14 to 23 officers, 7.09; with 7 to 13 officers, 9.86; and with fewer than 7 officers, 18.70. The final weight associated with every agency, both SR and NSR, is the product of the base weight and a factor that adjusted for the number of agencies in each sample cell that did not respond. For all state law enforcement agencies, the final weight is 1.06. For SR sheriffs’ offices, the final weight is 1.04, and for NSR sheriffs’ offices, the final weight is 4.40. The final weight for all SR local police departments is 1.02. For NSR local police departments with 63 to 99 officers, the final weight is 2.20; with 40 to 62 officers, 3.40; with 24 to 39 officers, 5.13; with 14 to 23 officers, 7.09; with 7 to 13 officers, 10.17; and with fewer than 7 officers, 19.38. To compute officer-based percentages, the final weight for an agency was multiplied by the proportion of all full-time equivalent sworn officers employed by that agency. The number of full-time equivalent sworn officers was defined as the sum of the number of full-time sworn officers and half the number of part-time sworn officers. Item nonresponse ----------------- For the 3,006 agencies completing the supplemental questionnaire, item nonresponse rates due to omission or invalid data were quite low. For most categorical items, the nonresponse rate was under 1% (appendix table 1). Imputations ------------ When an agency did not supply a response to a numeric item related to number of hires and separations, a ratio imputation was used. The imputations used the mean value of the ratio of the missing value relative to the number of full-time sworn personnel as reported by other agencies in the same sample cell. Imputations were not used for categorical items. Accuracy of the estimates -------------------------- The accuracy of the estimates presented in this report depends on two types of error: sampling and nonsampling. Sampling error is the variation that may occur by chance because a sample rather than a complete enumeration of the population was conducted. Nonsampling error can be attributed to many sources such as the inability to obtain information about all cases in the sample, inability to obtain complete and correct information from the administrative records, and processing errors. The full extent of the non-sampling error is never known in a sample. The sampling error, as measured by an estimated standard error, varies by the size of the estimate and the size of the base population. ************************************* The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director. These Statistical Tables were prepared and data were analyzed by Brian Reaves. Sheri Simmons and Alexia Cooper verified the report. Catherine Bird and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced the report under the supervision of Doris J. James. October 2012, NCJ 238251 ***************************************** ***************************************** Office of Justice Programs * Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov **************************************** ______________________ 10/17/12/JER/10:00am ______________________