U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

JANUARY 2015 NCJ 248028

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 year—

 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. 

Figure 1

Use of sworn and armed law enforcement officers on 4-year 

campuses with 2,500 or more students, 2011–12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Private

Public

All campuses

Private

Public

All campuses

Campuses

Sworn ocers

Armed ocers

Students served

Percent
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 2

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).

Table 1

Officers providing law enforcement services, by type and size of 4-year campus, 2011–12

Sworn officers 

Nonsworn 

Type and size of 4-year campus officers only

Number 

of campuses Total

With nonsworn

officers

Without 

nonsworn officers

All campuses 905 68% 41% 27% 32%

Public 501 92% 52% 40% 8%

15,000 or more students 173 96 59 37 4

10,000–14,999 83 96 49 47 4

5,000–9,999 146 92 51 41 8

2,500–4,999 99 84 44 39 16

Private 404 38% 26% 11% 62%

15,000 or more students 31 61 48 13 39

10,000–14,999 37 49 35 14 51

5,000–9,999 96 45 33 12 54

2,500–4,999 240 30 20 10 70

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.

Table 2

Use of sworn and armed law enforcement officers, by type and size of 4-year campus, 2011–12

Type and size of 4-year campus

Number of 

campuses

Sworn officers Nonsworn officers

Total Armed Unarmed Total Armed Unarmed

All campuses 905 68% 63% 5% 32% 3% 29%

Public 501 92% 91% 2% 8% 0% 8%

15,000 or more 173 96 94 2 4 0 4

10,000–14,999 83 96 95 1 4 0 4

5,000–9,999 146 92 90 2 8 0 8

2,500–4,999 99 84 83 1 16 0 16

Private 404 38% 30% 8% 62% 6% 56%

15,000 or more 31 61 55 6 39 10 29

10,000–14,999 37 49 43 5 51 3 49

5,000–9,999 96 46 35 10 54 7 47

2,500–4,999 240 30 22 7 70 6 64

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 3

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).

Table 3

Average number of full-time campus law enforcement 

employees per 1,000 students, by type and size of 4-year 

campus, 2011–12

All agencies

Agencies employing 

sworn personnel

Type and size of 

 4-year campus

Full-time 

employees

Per 1,000 

students

Full-time 

officers

Per 1,000 

students

All campuses 37 4.1 24 2.4

Public 41 3.6 25 2.2

15,000 or more 67 2.5 38 1.4

10,000–14,999 32 2.5 20 1.6

5,000–9,999 26 3.6 16 2.3

2,500–4,999 24 6.7 15 4.2

Private 32 4.8 22 2.9

15,000 or more 114 5.0 52 2.3

10,000–14,999 62 5.2 45 3.7

5,000–9,999 30 4.4 19 2.8

2,500–4,999 17 4.8 10 2.9

Note: See appendix table 4 for the 25 largest agencies ranked by number of 

full-time employees. See appendix table 5 for the 25 largest agencies ranked by 

number of full-time sworn officers.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 4

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%).

Table 4

Extended arrest jurisdiction of sworn officers in campus law enforcement agencies, by type and size of 4-year campus, 

2011–12

Type and size of 4-year campus

Properties adjacent 

to campus

Properties outside the area 

surrounding the campus Statewide 

Defined by memorandum 

of understanding or mutual 

aid agreement

All campuses 86% 71% 35% 70%

Public 89% 75% 40% 75%

15,000 or more 94 86 45 79

10,000–14,999 94 83 38 72

5,000–9,999 83 61 38 70

2,500–4,999 86 65 36 78

Private 76% 57% 20% 52%

15,000 or more 94 75 25 62

10,000–14,999 86 79 14 36

5,000–9,999 82 68 18 65

2,500–4,999 66 41 20 46

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Private

Public

Other type of agency

State or local courts

Other campus agency 

(non-law enforcement)

Other campus law 

enforcement agency

State law 

enforcement agency

Sheri's oce

Local police 

department

One or more types of agencies

Percent of agencies

Figure 2

Agencies included in the memorandums of understanding 

or mutual aid agreements with campus law enforcement 

agencies serving 2,500 or more students, by type of 4-year 

campus, 2011–12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 5

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 problemsolving 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%).

Table 5

Extended patrol jurisdiction of officers in campus law enforcement agencies, by type and size of 4-year campus, 2011–12

Sworn officers Nonsworn officers

Type and size of 

4-year campus

Properties 

adjacent 

to campus

Properties outside 

the area surrounding 

the campus

Defined by memorandum 

of understanding or 

mutual aid agreement

Properties 

adjacent 

to campus

Properties outside 

the area surrounding 

the campus

Defined by memorandum 

of understanding or 

mutual aid agreement

All campuses 81% 57% 59% 44% 27% 11%

Public 84% 60% 64% 13% 13% 10%

15,000 or more 87 68 69 0 33 17

10,000–14,999 87 64 60 33 33 33

5,000–9,999 81 48 61 9 9 9

2,500–4,999 77 58 65 20 0 0

Private 72% 47% 43% 49% 29% 11%

15,000 or more 81 81 56 73 55 27

10,000–14,999 80 47 40 15 15 8

5,000–9,999 68 50 53 44 34 19

2,500–4,999 70 38 34 52 27 8

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.

Table 6

Community policing activities of campus law enforcement agencies serving 5,000 or more students, by type of 4-year campus, 

2011–12

All 4-year campuses Public Private

Incorporated community elements into campus security policy 79% 82% 73%

Gave officers responsibility for geographic areas 63 62 69

Conducted joint patrols with local law enforcement 62 65 52

Conducted a ride-along program 60 68 36

Upgraded technology to support analysis of campus problems 54 53 55

Actively encouraged officers to engage in problem-solving projects 51 55 38

Partnered with citizen groups and used feedback to develop strategies 51 54 42

Conducted intelligence-led policing 49 51 42

Conducted environmental analysis to assess precursors to crime 48 48 48

Included collaborative problem-solving projects in officer evaluations 46 48 39

Had a formal, written community policing plan 33 34 28

Conducted an on-campus citizen police academy 9 10 5

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 6

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).

0 20 40 60 80 100

Conducted an on-campus

citizen police academy

Had a formal, written

community policing plan

Included collaborative

problem-solving projects in ocer evaluations

Conducted Environment Analysis

to assess precursors to crime

Partnered with citizen groups and

used feedback to develop strategies

Actively encouraged ocers to engage in problem-solving projects

Upgraded technology to support analysis of campus problems

Conducted a ride-along program

Gave ocers responsibility for geographic areas

Incorporated community elements into campus security policy

Percent of agencies

2011–12

2004–05

Figure 3

Community policing activities of campus law enforcement 

agencies on 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students, 

2004–05 and 2011–12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12 and 2004–05.

Table 7

Use of sworn and nonsworn uniformed officers by campus 

law enforcement agencies on 4-year campuses with 2,500 or 

more students, 2011–12

Agencies using nonsworn officers

Agencies using sworn officers Total At all times

Some of 

the time At no time

Public campuses 100% 36% 22% 42%

At all times 91% 29% 20% 42%

Some of the time 2 1 1 0

At no time 7 6 2 0

Private campuses 100% 78% 10% 13%

At all times 37% 18% 6% 12%

Some of the time 5 3 1 1

At no time 59 56 3 0

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 7

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.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Emergency response

Agency recruitment tool

Residence hall security

Building lock-up

Auxiliary patrols

Special event security

Safety escorts

Percent of agencies

Figure 4

Functions performed by student patrols in campus law 

enforcement agencies, on 4-year campuses with 5,000 or 

more students, 2011–12 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.

Table 8

Operation of safety escort services by campus law 

enforcement agencies serving 5,000 or more students, by 

type of 4-year campus, 2011–12

All campuses Public Private

Total with safety escort service 88% 88% 90%

Type of staff

Sworn officers 60% 62% 48%

Nonsworn officers 76 72 83

Students 56 59 45

Type of escort

Walking 87% 89% 83%

Vehicle 82 81 85

Both 71 71 71

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 8

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).

Table 9

Emergency telephone systems of campus law enforcement agencies, by type and size of 4-year campus, 2011–12

9-1-1 system

Type and size of 4-year campus

Total using 9-1-1 or 

on-campus number

Any 9-1-1 

system

Enhanced 9-1-1 

system

On-campus 3- or 

4-digit system

Blue light 

phone system

All campuses 94% 65% 45% 70% 92%

Public 94% 71% 52% 63% 93%

15,000 or more 97 83 65 52 96

10,000–14,999 93 68 53 63 97

5,000–9,999 93 69 46 72 93

2,500–4,999 92 55 34 69 80*

Private 94% 55% 35% 80% 91%

15,000 or more 88 52 36 76 100

10,000–14,999 88 60 28 64 92

5,000–9,999 97 54 42 81 93

2,500–4,999 95 55 34 83 85*

*Data are from the 2004-05 BJS Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies. These agencies received the short survey questionnaire which did not include the 

blue-light phone question. The maximum increase from 2004–05 to 2011–12 in any of the larger enrollment categories was 3%. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.

Table 10

Enhanced features of emergency phone systems used by campus law enforcement agencies, by type and size of 4-year 

campus, 2011–12

Type and size of 4-year campus

Phone patch call 

forwarding when 

dispatch not 

available

Reverse 9-1-1 

call-back 

available

Recorded calls 

available for 

immediate playback

Displays phone 

number of 

wireless caller

Displays general 

location of 

wireless caller

Displays exact 

location of 

wireless caller

All campuses 39% 30% 65% 74% 13% 4%

Public 35% 36% 76% 73% 18% 7%

15,000 or more 28 49 93 77 30 12

10,000–14,999 30 36 85 75 14 4

5,000–9,999 40 28 70 67 13 4

2,500–4,999 46 22 45 74 5 2

Private 44% 22% 50% 75% 5% 2%

15,000 or more 28 24 92 84 12 4

10,000–14,999 32 24 68 75 8 0

5,000–9,999 41 23 57 70 7 6

2,500–4,999 48 21 39 76 3 0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 9

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.

Table 11

Weapons authorized for use by campus law enforcement agencies, by type and size of 4-year campus, 2011–12

Sworn officers Nonsworn officers

Type and size of 4-year campus Sidearms Batons

Chemical/

pepper spray

Conducted 

energy device Sidearms Batons

Chemical/

pepper spray

Conducted 

energy device

All campuses 94% 93% 94% 40% 11% 32% 48% 4%

Public 98% 95% 95% 45% 0% 39% 58% 6%

15,000 or more 98 97 98 54 0 67 83 0

10,000–14,999 100 94 96 43 0 33 67 0

5,000–9,999 98 93 92 38 0 27 45 18

2,500–4,999 99 93 93 39 0 36 55 0

Private 82% 86% 89% 23% 13% 31% 46% 4%

15,000 or more 94 93 93 13 27 18 45 0

10,000–14,999 89 93 100 27 8 31 38 0

5,000–9,999 81 86 89 23 23 42 45 3

2,500–4,999 77 83 85 25 10 30 47 5

Note: See appendix table 7 for other types of weapons authorized for use.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Conducted energy device

Chemical/pepper spray

Baton

Percent of ocers

Sworn

Nonsworn

Figure 5

Nonlethal weapons authorized for use by sworn and 

nonsworn officers in campus law enforcement agencies on 

4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students, 2011–12 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 10

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).

Table 12

Use of electronic devices by patrol officers in campus law 

enforcement agencies, by type and size of 4-year campus, 

2011–12

Total using 

electronic 

devices

In-field computers/terminals

Other 

devices

Type and size of 

 4-year campus Total 

Vehiclemounted Portable 

All campuses 71% 52% 42% 22% 50%

Public 79% 63% 55% 24% 54%

15,000 or more 84 76 66 32 59

10,000–14,999 77 64 59 18 54

5,000–9,999 78 61 52 22 49

2,500–4,999 70 43 33 19 54

Private 59% 35% 25% 18% 45%

15,000 or more 78 59 44 26 56

10,000–14,999 79 61 50 14 32

5,000–9,999 68 42 34 21 49

2,500–4,999 51 26 16 17 43

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Private

Public 

Crime mapping

In-eld reporting

Inter-agency information sharing

Dispatch

Percent of agencies

Figure 6

Selected functions of computers in campus law enforcement 

agencies on 4-year campuses with 5,000 or more students, 

2011–12 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 11

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 vehiclerelated 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%).

Table 13

Functions performed by sworn and nonsworn campus law 

enforcement agencies serving 4-year campuses with 2,500 

or more students, 2011–12

Type of function Sworn Nonsworn

Security functions

Access control (including electronic access) 83% 95%

Building lockup/unlock 92 100

Central alarm monitoring 85 82

Key control 52 71

Monitoring surveillance cameras 85 93

Executive protection 93 68

Arena events 87 81

Auditorium events 98 97

Daycare facilities 35 25

Educational (K-12) facilities 15 13

Hazardous biological/chemical materials 47 43

Library or cultural facilities 85 74

Medical facilities 37 27

Nuclear/Radioactive materials 26 11

Stadium events 79 65

Vehicle-related functions

Parking administration 63% 88%

Parking enforcement 91 95

Traffic accident investigation 97 79

Traffic direction and control 99 93

Traffic law enforcement 94 47

Transportation system management 31 43

Vehicle registration for on-campus use 50 72

Special public safety functions

Animal control 51% 52%

Dispatching calls for service 94 93

Emergency fire services 36 55

Emergency management 89 94

Emergency medical services 56 67

Environmental health/safety 41 62

Fire inspection 28 62

Fire prevention education 40 74

Temporary lock-up facility (overnight) 3 4

Temporary holding cell (not for overnight) 23 2

Specialized functions

Bomb/explosive disposal or detection 22% 4%

Search and rescue 32 18

Tactical operations (SWAT) 27 1

Task force participation 59 20

Underwater recovery 1 0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.

Table 14

Groups that campus law enforcement agencies met with 

regularly to discuss crime-related problems on 4-year 

campuses with 2,500 or more students, 2011–12

Type of group

All 4-year 

campuses Public Private

Campus administrators/officials 97% 98% 97%

Other law enforcement agencies 93 94 91

Faculty/staff organizations 87 89 84

Student housing groups 86 86 86

Student organizations 81 82 79

Student government 80 81 78

Sexual violence prevention groups 69 76 58

Local public officials 64 63 67

Domestic violence prevention groups 60 69 48

Advocacy groups 55 64 43

Fraternity/sorority groups 53 63 39

Neighborhood associations 40 39 43

Business groups 33 35 30

Religious groups 25 23 27

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.
Table 15

Average number of serious crimes known to campus law enforcement agencies, by type and size of 4-year campus, 2011

Violent crimes Property crimes

Type and size of 4-year campus

Total 

violent Murder

Forcible 

sex offense Robbery

Aggravated 

assault

Total 

property Burglary

Larceny/

theft

Motor 

vehicle theft Arson

All campuses 5 -- 3 1 1 180 14 163 2 1

Public 6 -- 3 1 2 190 17 169 3 1

15,000 or more 10 -- 5 2 3 303 31 265 6 1

10,000–14,999 5 -- 3 1 1 126 13 110 2 1

5,000–9,999 4 -- 2 1 1 82 10 70 1 1

2,500–4,999 3 -- 1 1 1 91 8 82 1 --

Private 3 -- 2 -- 1 154 9 144 1 --

15,000 or more 7 0 5 1 1 311 22 286 2 1

10,000–14,999 7 -- 4 1 2 239 13 223 2 1

5,000–9,999 3 0 2 -- 1 77 9 67 1 --

2,500–4,999 2 0 1 -- 1 51 8 42 1 --

--Less than 0.5.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 

2011; and FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2011.

0 20 40 60 80 100

2004–05

2011–12

Private

Public

All campuses

Rate per 100,000 students

Figure 7

Serious violent crimes per 100,000 students known to 

campus law enforcement agencies on 4-year campuses 

with 2,500 or more students, 2004 and 2011

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12 and 2004–05; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, 2011 and 2004.

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). 
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 13

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%).

0 20 40 60 80 100

Student organizations

Student

housing groups

Religious groups

Neighborhood

associations

Local public ocials

Fraternity/

sorority groups

Faculty/ sta organizations

Domestic

violence groups

Business groups

Advocacy groups 2011–12

2004–05

Percent of students

Figure 8

Groups that campus law enforcement agencies met with 

regularly to discuss crime-related problems on 4-year 

campuses with 2,500 or more students, 2004–05 and 

2011–12 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12 and 2004–05.

Table 16

Use of designated personnel by campus law enforcement 

agencies to address crime and safety issues on 4-year 

campuses with 5,000 or more students, 2011–12

Total

Assigned full-time 

to special unit

Other designated 

personnel

General crime prevention 91% 28% 63%

General rape prevention 86 14 72

Date rape prevention 84 14 70

Drug education 79 10 69

Alcohol education 78 10 68

Self-defense training 76 11 65

Stalking 75 7 68

Community policing 74 21 53

Victim assistance 72 12 60

Bicycle/pedestrian safety 71 10 61

Social network abuse 70 8 62

Intimate partner violence 69 7 62

Identity theft 68 8 60

Cybercrime 62 8 54

Research and planning 61 8 53

Bias/hate crime 58 6 52

White collar crime 52 5 47

Suicide prevention 49 4 45

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12 and 2004–05.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 14

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. 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Victim assistance

Stalking

Self-defense

training

General rape

prevention

General crime

prevention

Drug education

Date rape

prevention

Cybercrime

Bias/hate crime

Alcohol education

Special problem or task

Percent of agencies

2004–05

2011–12

Figure 9

Campus law enforcement agencies with designated 

personnel to address special problems or tasks on 4-year 

schools with 5,000 or more students, 2004–05 and 2011–12 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12 and 2004–05.

Table 17

Emergency preparedness activities of campus law 

enforcement agencies on 4-year campuses with 2,500 or 

more students, 2011–12

Total Public Private

Disseminated information to increase 

 citizen preparedness 86% 90% 81%

Formal intelligence-sharing agreements 

 with other law enforcement agencies 69 74 62

Participated in campus meetings regarding

 emergency preparedness plans 98 99 98

Designed/revised a preparedness plan 

 for a school shooting 84 86 81

Designed/revised a preparedness plan 

 for an emergency campus evacuation 83 81 85

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 15

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%).

Table 18

Interoperability of radio systems used by campus law 

enforcement agencies, by type and size of 4-year campus, 

2011–12

Type and size of 4-year campus Total Full Partial None

All campuses 100% 48% 30% 22%

Public 100% 64% 29% 7%

15,000 or more 100% 70 25 5

10,000–14,999 100% 64 25 11

5,000–9,999 100% 58 33 9

2,500–4,999 100% 62 34 4

Private 100% 26% 31% 43%

15,000 or more 100% 28 44 28

10,000–14,999 100% 32 44 24

5,000–9,999 100% 29 34 37

2,500–4,999 100% 23 26 50

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Maintained formal

 intelligence-sharing

 agreements with other law enforcement agencies

Disseminated information to

 increase citizen preparedness

Met with campus

 administrators and

 sta regarding emergency prepredness

Percent of agencies

2011–2012

2004–2005

Figure 10

Emergency preparedness activities of campus law 

enforcement agencies on 4-year campuses with 2,500 or 

more students, 2004–05 and 2011–12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12 and 2004–05.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 16

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%).

Table 19

Use of mass notification systems on 4-year campuses with 

5,000 or more students, 2011–12

Type of system used Total Public Private

Students 100% 100% 100%

Voluntary, opt-in 63% 66% 55%

Mandatory, opt-out 33 31 39

Other 3 3 6

Not available -- -- 1

Faculty/staff 100% 100% 100%

Voluntary, opt-in 70% 72% 64%

Mandatory, opt-out 26 24 29

Other 4 4 5

Not available -- 0 2

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

--Less than 0.5%. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.

0 20 40 60 80 100

CCTV monitor announcements

Voice-over re alarms

LCD billboard announcements

TV announcements

Radio announcements

Outdoor speakers

Siren

Voicemail alerts

Cell phone calling

College/unversity website

Text message alerts

E-mail alert

Percent of students

Mass notication method

Figure 11

Percent of students enrolled on campuses using mass 

notification methods on 4-year campuses with 5,000 or more 

students, 2011–12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 17

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.

Percent of sworn police ocers

Percent of nonsworn security ocers 

25 50 75 100 0

25

50

75

100

Personal interview

Voice stress analyzer

Polygraph examination

Understanding of 

cultural diversity

Drug test

Personality inventory

Medical exam

Criminal record check

Reference check

Driving record check

Community service check

Written aptitude test

Physical agility test

Problem-solving ability Credit history check

Psychological evaluation

Role-play assessment

Background investigation

Conict management skills

.

-

Figure 12

Methods used by campus law enforcement agencies to 

screen applicants for entry-level officer positions on 4-year 

campuses with 2,500 or more students, 2011–12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Field hours

Academy hours

Total training hours

Hours

Required training hours

Sworn

Nonsworn

Figure 13

Average training requirements for entry-level officers in 

campus law enforcement agencies on 4-year campuses with 

2,500 or more students, 2011–12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 18

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.

Table 20

Minimum education levels required for entry-level officers in 

campus law enforcement agencies on 4-year campuses with 

2,500 or more students, 2011–12

Percent of officers employed 

by agencies with requirements

Minimum educational level

Sworn officers Nonsworn officers

Required Preferred Required Preferred

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

4-year degree 3% 31% 3% 16%

2-year degree 9 18 5 17 

Some college* 8 19 6 34

High school diploma 74 16 76 18

Other requirement 2 2 3 1

None stated 3 14 7 13

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

*Non-degree requirements only.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.

Table 21

Average base starting salary for selected positions in campus law enforcement agencies, 2011–12

Sworn officers Nonsworn officers

Type and size of 

4-year campus

Chief/

director

Shift 

supervisor

Sworn officer with 

5 years experience

Entry-level 

sworn officer

Chief/ 

director

Shift 

supervisor

Nonsworn officer with 

5 years experience

Entry-level 

nonsworn officer

All campuses $85,200 $48,900 $42,700 $36,700 $65,600 $37,400 $31,600 $27,500

Public $86,800 $49,900 $43,100 $36,900 $65,800 $39,600 $32,500 $28,500

15,000 or more $103,400 $55,100 $47,300 $40,400 $92,700 $47,800 $35,800 $33,300

10,000–14,999 $84,600 $49,500 $42,000 $36,400 $64,300 $39,200 $32,200 $28,200

5,000–9,999 $78,200 $46,900 $41,100 $35,100 $63,700 $36,600 $31,500 $29,500

2,500–4,999 $69,000 $42,500 $37,400 $32,800 $50,200 $32,100 $31,000 $26,600

Private $78,800 $45,100 $40,800 $35,800 $65,600 $37,100 $31,400 $27,300

15,000 or more $121,000 $61,900 $52,800 $44,000 $94,500 $44,300 $36,600 $28,800

10,000–14,999 $108,000 $50,400 $48,800 $39,400 $74,900 $40,100 $33,800 $29,400

5,000–9,999 $80,000 $46,800 $44,300 $37,200 $73,700 $43,000 $36,300 $31,300

2,500–4,999 $65,400 $38,100 $34,300 $31,700 $60,900 $34,600 $29,500 $26,000

Note: Salaries are rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 19

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.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Health incentive pay

Educational incentive pay

Merit/performance pay

Longevity pay

Training ocer pay

Collective bargaining

Shift dierential pay

Tuition waiver/

reimbursement

Overtime pay/comp time

Percent of ocers

Sworn

Nonsworn

Figure 14

Special pay and benefits for sworn and nonsworn officers in 

campus law enforcement agencies on 4-year campuses with 

5,000 or more students, 2011–12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Other

Hispanic or Latino

African American

 or Black

Minority, total

Female

Percent of sworn personnel

2004–05

2011–12

Figure 15

Female and minority representation among sworn campus 

law enforcement personnel on 4-year campuses with 2,500 

or more students, 2011–12 and 2004–05

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2011–12 and 2004–05.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 20

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 longform 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 longform 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.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 21

Appendix table 1

Enrollment at 4-year campuses in the United States, 

Fall 2011

Type and size 

of campus

Number of 

campuses

Total 

students 

Percent of 

students

All 4-year campuses 2,235 11,935,051 100%

Public 682 8,047,729 67.4%

15,000 or more 173 4,711,346 39.5

10,000–14,999 83 1,035,751 8.7

5,000–9,999 146 1,053,757 8.8

2,500–4,999 99 366,258 3.1

Under 2,500 181 880,617 7.4

Private, nonprofit 1,553 3,887,322 32.6%

15,000 or more 31 690,676 5.8

10,000–14,999 37 434,748 3.6

5,000–9,999 96 652,070 5.5

2,500–4,999 240 832,354 7.0

Under 2,500 1,149 1,277,424 10.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Department of 

Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

Appendix table 2

Four-year campuses with 2,500 or more students that 

operated their own campus law enforcement agency, 

2011–12

Type and size of 4-year campus

Total 

number

Schools that operated their own 

campus law enforcement agency

Number Percent

All campuses 905 861 95%

Public 501 493 98%

15,000 or more 173 172 99

10,000–14,999 83 82 99

5,000–9,999 146 144 99

2,500–4,999 99 95 96

Private , nonprofit 404 368 91%

15,000 or more 31 31 100

10,000–14,999 37 32 86

5,000–9,999 96 89 93

2,500–4,999 240 216 90

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.

Appendix table 3

Number of persons employed by campus law enforcement agencies at 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students, 2011–12 

Number of full-time employees Number of part-time employees

Type and size of 4-year campus Total 

Sworn 

officers

Nonsworn 

officers

Civilian 

support 

staff

Student 

employees Total 

Sworn 

officers

Nonsworn 

officers

Civilian 

support 

staff

Student 

employees

All campuses 31,904 14,576 10,906 5,271 1,151 12,210 1,042 2,759 932 7,477

Public 20,076 11,248 4,197 3,802 829 6,214 684 959 608 3,963

15,000 or more 11,490 6,320 2,442 2,276 452 3,481 267 499 357 2,358

10,000–14,999 2,587 1,571 330 509 177 1,026 186 191 59 590

5,000–9,999 3,705 2,136 827 614 128 1,202 148 114 153 787

2,500–4,999 2,294 1,221 598 403 72 505 83 155 39 228

Private 11,828 3,328 6,709 1,469 322 5,996 358 1,800 324 3,514

15,000 or more 3,532 979 2,002 505 46 1,612 50 648 73 841

10,000–14,999 1,989 818 878 271 22 803 21 130 31 621

5,000–9,999 2,656 818 1,357 314 167 1,188 87 257 66 778

2,500–4,999 3,651 713 2,472 379 87 2,393 200 765 154 1,274

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 22

Appendix table 4

25 largest campus law enforcement agencies, by number of 

full-time employees, 2011–12

Campus served

Full-time 

employees

Temple University 481

University of Pennsylvania 478

New York University 359

The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 347

University of Southern California 259

Pennsylvania State University - Main Campus 227

Drexel University 212

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 207

Fordham University 193

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 188

Columbia University in the City of New York 188

University of Chicago 181

Duke University 176

CUNY City College 173

George Washington University 171

University of Alabama at Birmingham 164

University of Maryland - Baltimore 158

Georgia State University 155

Arizona State University 150

Vanderbilt University 146

Johns Hopkins University 142

University of Texas at Austin 140

University of Maryland - College Park 139

Virginia Commonwealth University 138

University of Illinois at Chicago 137

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.

Appendix table 5

25 largest campus law enforcement agencies, by number of 

full-time sworn personnel, 2011–12

Campus served

Full-time sworn 

personnel

Temple University 133

University of Pennsylvania 116

University of Southern California 102

University of Maryland - College Park 99

Howard University 94

The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 92

George Washington University 90

Tulane University 90

Vanderbilt University 88

University of Chicago 86

University of Alabama at Birmingham 84

Yale University 84

Virginia Commonwealth University 82

University of Illinois at Chicago 81

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 80

CUNY Brooklyn College 80

Harvard University 80

University of Connecticut 76

Georgia Institute of Technology 76

University of Florida 74

University of Georgia 74

Arizona State University 73

Michigan State University 71

CUNY City College 70

University of Pittsburgh 70

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 23

Appendix table 6

Campus law enforcement agencies serving the 100 largest 4-year campuses in the United States, 2011–12

Total employees Sworn personnel

4-year campus Location

Fall 2011 

enrollment Full-time Part-time

Per 10,000 

students Full-time Part-time

Per 10,000 

students

Arizona State University Tempe (AZ) 72,254 150 7 21 73 1 10

University of Central Florida Orlando (FL) 58,587 107 18 20 59 6 11

Ohio State University Columbus (OH) 56,867 77 1 14 47 0 8

Auraria Higher Education Center* Denver (CO) 54,678 38 0 7 28 0 5

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Minneapolis (MN) 52,557 61 127 24 48 0 9

University of Texas at Austin Austin (TX) 51,112 140 0 27 63 0 12

Texas A & M University College Station (TX) 49,861 120 2 24 64 0 13

University of Florida Gainesville (FL) 49,589 115 39 27 74 3 15

Michigan State University East Lansing (MI) 47,954 106 0 22 71 0 15

Penn State University University Park (PA) 45,233 227 0 50 51 0 11

University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Urbana-Champaign (IL) 44,407 83 46 24 61 0 14

New York University New York (NY) 44,228 359 12 83 0 0 0

Florida International University Miami (FL) 43,831 71 0 16 47 0 11

University of Washington Seattle (WA) 43,301 92 9 22 46 0 11

Indiana University Bloomington Bloomington (IN) 42,731 54 62 20 44 45 16

University of Michigan Ann Arbor (MI) 42,265 91 60 29 53 0 13

University of Wisconsin - Madison Madison (WI) 42,022 133 19 34 65 2 16

Florida State University Tallahassee (FL) 41,087 107 0 26 62 0 15

Purdue University West Lafayette (IN) 40,849 56 35 18 40 0 10

University of South Florida Tampa (FL) 40,771 56 2 14 40 0 10

Rutgers University - New Brunswick New Brunswick (NJ) 39,950 79 102 33 44 0 11

University of Houston Houston (TX) 39,820 121 4 31 40 0 10

University of Arizona Tucson (AZ) 39,236 94 10 25 56 0 14

University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles (CA) 39,100 94 102 37 55 0 14

University of Southern California Los Angeles (CA) 38,010 259 30 72 102 0 27

University of Maryland, College Park College Park (MD) 37,631 139 120 53 99 0 26

University of North Texas Denton (TX) 37,271 86 28 27 39 1 11

Temple University Philadelphia (PA) 36,922 481 0 130 133 0 36

California State University, Northridge Northridge (CA) 36,911 89 0 24 26 0 7

California State University, Fullerton Fullerton (CA) 36,156 35 32 14 26 0 7

University of California, Berkeley Berkeley (CA) 35,852 108 53 38 64 0 18

California State University, Long Beach Long Beach (CA) 34,857 45 22 16 25 0 7

University of Georgia Athens (GA) 34,816 95 4 28 74 0 21

North Carolina State University Raleigh (NC) 34,740 52 4 16 38 1 11

Texas State University San Marcos (TX) 34,113 57 28 21 33 0 10

Brigham Young University Provo (UT) 34,101 42 189 40 29 9 10

University of Missouri Columbia (MO) 33,762 53 45 22 35 0 10

University of Texas at Arlington Arlington (TX) 33,421 94 10 30 30 0 9

Utah Valley University Orem (UT) 33,395 11 22 7 9 12 4

University of Cincinnati Cincinnati (OH) 33,329 130 15 41 56 4 17

George Mason University Fairfax (VA) 33,310 73 39 28 54 0 16

San Jose State University San Jose (CA) 33,187 65 31 24 26 0 8

Boston University Boston (MA) 32,805 71 0 22 55 0 17

Texas Tech University Lubbock (TX) 32,327 87 0 27 48 0 15

University of Colorado Boulder Boulder (CO) 32,252 67 61 30 43 11 15

Georgia State University Atlanta (GA) 32,022 155 0 48 65 0 20

University of Utah Salt Lake City (UT) 31,660 106 12 35 31 0 10

University of Alabama Tuscaloosa (AL) 31,647 119 2 38 66 0 21

Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond (VA) 31,627 138 152 68 82 0 26

University of California, Davis Davis (CA) 31,485 74 0 24 47 0 15

Northeastern University Boston (MA) 31,021 84 24 31 54 0 17

University of Texas at San Antonio San Antonio (TX) 30,968 115 6 38 52 0 17

Virginia Tech University Blacksburg (VA) 30,936 76 18 27 52 1 17

Wayne State University Detroit (MI) 30,765 71 0 23 57 0 19

University of South Carolina Columbia (SC) 30,671 76 16 27 60 2 20

West Virginia University Morgantown (WV) 30,600 65 19 24 53 0 17

Continued on next page
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 24

San Diego State University San Diego (CA) 30,541 46 17 18 24 0 8

Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Indianapolis (IN) 30,530 59 13 21 43 7 15

University of Tennessee Knoxville (TN) 30,220 97 0 32 51 0 17

University of California, San Diego La Jolla (CA) 30,070 67 34 28 31 3 11

Iowa State University Ames (IA) 29,887 39 25 17 32 0 11

Colorado State University Fort Collins (CO) 29,854 68 0 23 36 0 12

University of Iowa Iowa City (IA) 29,818 72 12 26 42 0 14

Louisiana State University Baton Rouge (LA) 29,718 63 0 21 60 0 20

University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Milwaukee (WI) 29,683 60 28 25 42 2 14

San Francisco State University San Francisco (CA) 29,541 60 0 20 26 0 9

Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton (FL) 29,290 89 16 33 45 0 15

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill (NC) 29,137 207 126 93 53 12 20

University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh (PA) 28,766 123 0 43 70 0 24

University at Buffalo Buffalo (NY) 28,601 68 52 33 61 0 21

Central Michigan University Mount Pleasant (MI) 28,194 34 51 21 23 0 8

University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst (MA) 28,084 82 0 29 63 0 22

University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago (IL) 28,065 137 19 52 81 0 29

California State University, Sacramento Sacramento (CA) 27,988 38 26 18 23 0 8

University of Kansas Lawrence (KS) 27,939 46 13 19 25 0 9

Kent State University Kent (OH) 27,855 40 10 16 30 0 11

Portland State University Portland (OR) 27,646 24 2 9 0 0 0

University of California, Irvine Irvine (CA) 27,606 46 34 23 32 0 12

Harvard University Cambridge (MA) 27,576 99 0 36 80 0 29

University of Akron Akron (OH) 27,470 51 10 20 43 0 16

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas (NV) 27,378 53 0 19 35 0 13

Washington State University Pullman (WA) 27,329 22 0 8 17 0 6

University of New Mexico Albuquerque (NM) 27,270 58 0 21 35 0 13

University of Kentucky Lexington (KY) 27,238 126 0 46 49 0 18

University of Oklahoma Norman (OK) 27,034 64 9 25 36 1 14

East Carolina University Greenville (NC) 26,911 66 31 30 51 6 20

Utah State University Logan (UT) 26,672 14 10 7 11 5 5

Troy University Troy (AL) 26,572 15 7 7 11 2 5

Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro (TN) 26,442 40 20 19 35 0 13

Columbia University New York (NY) 25,922 188 39 80 0 0 0

University of Connecticut Storrs (CT) 25,868 89 20 38 76 0 29

Auburn University Auburn (AL) 25,469 41 30 22 4 0 2

Ohio University Athens (OH) 25,461 29 12 14 23 1 9

DePaul University Chicago (IL) 25,398 64 15 28 0 0 0

Northern Arizona University Flagstaff (AZ) 25,364 42 0 17 17 0 7

Weber State University Ogden (UT) 25,301 10 40 12 9 35 10

University of North Carolina at Charlotte Charlotte (NC) 25,277 44 0 17 38 0 15

George Washington University Washington (DC) 25,260 171 0 68 90 0 36

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo (MI) 25,086 24 74 24 24 0 10

Oregon State University Corvallis (OR) 25,080 33 0 13 10 0 4

Note: Per-student ratios were calculated using a weight of 0.5 for part-time employees. 

*Includes University of Colorado at Denver, Metropolitan State College, and the Community College of Denver.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.

APPENDIX TABLE 6 (continued)

Campus law enforcement agencies serving the 100 largest 4-year campuses in the United States, 2011–12

Total employees Sworn personnel

4-year campus Location

Fall 2011 

enrollment Full-time Part-time

Per 10,000 

students Full-time Part-time

Per 10,000 

students
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 25

Appendix table 7

Additional types of weapons authorized for use by campus law enforcement agencies on 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more 

students, 2011–12

Sworn officers Nonsworn officers

Type and size of 4-year campus Rifle Shotgun

Bean 

bag rifle

Rubber 

bullets

Flash/bang 

grenade Rifle Shotgun

Bean 

bag rifle

Rubber 

bullets

Flash/bang 

grenade

All campuses 70% 65% 18% 7% 9% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Public 77% 71% 20% 8% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

15,000 or more 91 76 36 16 16 0 0 0 0 0

10,000–14,999 81 77 13 4 7 0 0 0 0 0

5,000–9,999 65 63 11 4 3 0 0 0 0 0

2,500–4,999 67 68 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

Private 46% 44% 11% 5% 7% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0%

15,000 or more 60 40 27 7 7 9 9 0 0 0

10,000–14,999 71 67 14 7 13 8 0 0 0 0

5,000–9,999 40 46 3 0 3 0 6 0 0 0

2,500–4,999 39 37 10 7 8 1 0 0 0 0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.

Appendix table 8

Vehicles used by campus law enforcement agencies serving 

4-year campuses with 5,000 or more students, 2011–12

Type of vehicle

Percent of 

agencies using

Average number 

operated*

Cars 90% 8

SUVs 80 3

Bicycles 80 7

Trucks 45 2

Golf carts 41 2

Vans 35 2

Transporter 25 2

Motorcycles 16 3

Boats 2 1

*Excludes agencies not using that type of vehicle.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.

Appendix table 9

Response rates for the 2011–12 BJS Survey of Campus Law 

Enforcement Agencies

Type and size of campus Surveyed Responded Rate

All 4-year campuses with 2,500 

or more students 861 776 90%

15,000 or more 203 186 92

10,000-14,999 114 104 91

5,000-9,999 233 210 90

2,500-4,999 311 276 89

Public campuses 493 455 92%

15,000 or more 172 160 93

10,000-14,999 82 77 94

5,000-9,999 144 133 92

2,500-4,999 95 85 89

Private campuses 368 321 87%

15,000 or more 31 26 84

10,000-14,999 32 27 84

5,000-9,999 89 77 87

2,500-4,999 216 191 88

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 

2011–12.
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2011–12 | JANUARY 2015 26

Appendix table 10

Questionnaire items included in the 2011-12 BJS Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 4-year campuses with 2,500 or 

more students

Form type

Item

Total 

surveys

Percent 

completed

Long 

(n=456)

Short 

(n=320)

Critical 

(n=22)

Minimum 

(n=63)

Types of agencies providing patrol and response services 861 100 x x x x

Types of agencies providing special event security 861 100 x x x x

Number and category of paid employees 861 100 x x x x

Race/ethnicity of full-time sworn employees 798 94 x x x

Gender of full-time sworn employees 798 94 x x x

Number of full-time officers responding to service calls 798 96 x x x

Types of functions performed 798 98 x x x

Types of temporary detention facilities operated 798 98 x x x

Type and frequency of uniformed officers on duty 798 98 x x x

Type and frequency of sworn uniformed patrol coverage 798 98 x x x

Type and frequency of nonsworn uniformed patrol coverage 798 98 x x x

Salary range for selected full-time positions 776 81 x x

Special pay and benefits for full-time officers 456 99 x

Service agreement for full-time officers 456 99 x

Collective bargaining for full-time officers 456 99 x

Blue-light emergency phone system 456 99 x

Types of emergency telephone systems 776 95 x x

Wireless caller display of emergency telephone system 776 94 x x

Use of 800 MHz radios 776 94 x x

Interoperability of campus public safety radio system 776 94 x x

Communication methods used in mass notification system 456 99 x

Enrollment methods used for mass notification system 456 99 x

Education requirement for entry-level officers 776 92 x x

Highest educational degree attained by full-time officers 456 86 x

Community policing training for recruits and officers 456 88 x

Screening methods used for hiring entry-level officers 776 92 x x

Training requirements for entry-level officers 776 71 x x

Types of active shooter training participated in 456 99 x

Types of weapons authorized for full-time officers 798 93 x x x

Number and types of vehicles operated 456 99 x

Types of information accessible to patrol officers in the field 456 99 x

Types of in-field computers/devices used by patrol officers 798 94 x x x

Functions of computers and electronic devices 456 99 x

Regular meetings held to discuss crime-related problems 776 94 x x

Community policing activities and activities 456 99 x

Emergency preparedness activities 776 94 x x

Use and functions of student patrols 456 99 x

Use of specialized units and designated personnel 456 99 x

Participation of officers in alcohol/drug education 456 99 x

Use of campus safety escort service 456 99 x

Areas of arrest jurisdiction for full-time sworn officers 798 92 x x x

Areas of patrol jurisdiction for full-time officers 798 93 x x x

Types of agencies included in written agreements 798 93 x x x

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011–12.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

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