From providing students with a safe escort to reporting and responding to violent crimes, public safety officials at universities help to ensure the physical wellbeing of students, faculty and staff. This charge becomes even more important in light of recent mass school shootings, such as those at Virginia Tech (2007), Northern Illinois University (2008), and Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012), which emotionally affect parents, the education community and the nation as a whole. Although school safety experts typically consider school shootings to be low-probability incidents, they force university officials to re-examine their ability to respond to such events.

In an effort to ensure the safety of their students and staff, and to maintain the trust of their community, universities have increasingly pursued various methods to prevent and prepare for active-shooter incidents. Some universities have invested in protective measures, such as installing cameras and bulletproof whiteboards, while others have incorporated active-shooter exercises and drills into their annual training. In addition, a number of universities have armed their officers as a means to mitigate the risk and increase their ability to respond quickly and appropriately.

Current data on the number of universities that have changed their policies and have armed their officers is limited. Although surveys like the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2004–2005 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies provide data on the number of universities that employ sworn armed and sworn unarmed officers, this data is reflective of trends from nearly a decade ago. To understand the current status (i.e., armed or unarmed) of university officers and the potential impact of mass shootings on the decision to arm, CNA, a not-for-profit research organization, conducted phone interviews in August 2013 with the 66 universities that noted in the 2004–2005 BJS survey that they did not employ sworn armed officers. Since the survey was conducted, 28 (42%) of these 66 universities have decided to arm their sworn officers, indicating a substantial shift in the last nine years.

This article, part one of a two-part series, breaks out a sample of CNA’s findings according to campus demographics, such as university type (private vs. public) and student enrollment, as well as by the year that the campuses decided to arm their officers. Such information will help to provide university officials with a clearer understanding of the current trend in the number of universities that employ sworn armed officers, how the university type plays a role in its ability to arm officers and the impact mass shootings have on this increasing number of universities that have armed their officers.

The next part of this series, Arming University Police Departments – Part Two: Best Practices and Lessons Learned, will provide best practices and recommendations on the process university officials should take as they consider arming and/or decide to arm their sworn police officers. Part Two will be featured in an upcoming issue of Campus Safety magazine.

Sample Findings

Of the universities CNA interviewed, 33 are public universities and 33 are private universities. As noted above, 28 of these 66 universities have armed their sworn officers since the 2004–2005 BJS survey (click on this link to view the chart) (Correction January 3, 2014: Springfield College has not armed its officers yet. It is considering the option but has not finalized the decision to date.)

If you appreciated this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!

Related Content