The organisation and operation of policing on university campuses: A case study

Abstract

The operation of policing services on university campuses in the United Kingdom is under-researched. Drawing on interviews with university managers, security personnel and residential wardens, this article adds to the limited literature on policing in educational institutions by providing a case study of the organisation and implementation of campus policing at a university in the United Kingdom. We find that the work of the security teams includes routine housekeeping and caretaking tasks across campus, maintaining adherence to university rules and regulations, enhancing student well-being and welfare and preventing and responding to crimes. Further research is needed to understand how university spaces are managed and policed across the United Kingdom and the role of private security in dealing with welfare and mental health issues on campus.

Introduction

This article provides a case study of the organisation and functions of policing on a university campus in the United Kingdom. University campuses are environments where all or most of a university’s buildings and infrastructure are found. ¹

Universities in the United Kingdom are deemed to be relatively safe. That said, data regarding crime rates at university campuses are hard to locate. Universities are not required to compile these data, and many do not. ² Concerns have been raised about students’ perceptions of their safety affecting their experience at university (Barberet and Fisher, 2009; Maier and DePrince, 2020). Concerns have also been raised – among students and their representatives – about violence and especially sexual violence on campuses (Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023). Indeed, the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that full-time students were more likely to have experienced sexual assault in the previous year than people in any other occupation type (ONS, 2021). Several reports (NUS, 2022; Universities UK, 2016) and academic studies (Hales and Gannon, 2022; Tutchell and Edmonds, 2020) have reported high rates of sexual violence among university students. In turn, universities and other organisations have developed initiatives to address sexual harassment and violence. ³

Despite such concerns, the evidence base about the operation of policing on campuses in the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, is very small. Consequently, there is a need to understand the forms and functions of policing in these environments. University campuses have social and situational features that distinguish them from other policing contexts (Ferrandino, 2012; Paoline and Sloan, 2003; Patten et al., 2016; Sloan et al., 2000). The environment in which campus policing is conducted – shaped by the character of students’ routines and lifestyles, the open nature of campuses, and the presence of valuable property – will come to influence the nature of crime trends. In the absence of literature examining campus policing, this article provides an important case study of the operation of policing on one university campus. We draw on interviews with university managers, security personnel and residential wardens and ask the following questions: ‘What is the form and character of campus policing?’ ‘How does it operate in practice?’ ‘What are the different functions campus security carry out and how do they link to one another?’ and ‘What are the relationships between campus security officers and the public police?’

In contrast to the United States, from where most of the literature on campus policing originates, campus policing in the United Kingdom is typically carried out by private security (Forbes-Mewett, 2018). The extent to which public police and private security can be considered broadly similar is an important question for policing scholarship, both conceptually and empirically (among others, see Button, 2019; Jones and Newburn, 1998). Because of the lack of literature on how private security operates on university campuses, we do not know whether their work is comparable to what public campus police forces do, or if any differences appear in the tasks they carry out or in how they make sense of their work. We also do not know whether private policing carried out in universities is different from security work in other settings (extant literature has looked at schools (Fisher et al., 2022), shopping centres (Wakefield, 2003) and transport hubs (Nøkleberg, 2023)) because of the specificities of the university context. Recent developments suggest that the nature of the issues faced by campus security is changing, particularly as a result of a recorded rise in mental health problems in students (Storrie et al., 2010), exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic (Batra et al., 2021). In presenting an account of how security operates in one campus, our study thus contributes to policing scholarship by illuminating how officers and university management understand the expansive role, varied responsibilities and porous boundaries of private security which partly overlap and intersect with the work of the public police, but more broadly go beyond what might be typically construed as policing, carried out by either public or private actors.

Literature review

The evidence base about the policing of UK campuses is very small. The body of work is focused almost entirely upon the United States, where university campuses are predominantly policed by state-funded police forces (Reaves, 2015). In contrast, in the United Kingdom, campus policing is normally led and undertaken by teams of private security officers in conjunction with police officers from a nearby police station aligned with the campus (Forbes-Mewett, 2018). Because of these different arrangements, it is possible that findings from the US literature might not be directly applicable to the British context. This means that in understanding the operation of policing on university campuses, there is a need to move beyond an analysis of the organisation and functions of the public police to an analysis of the operation of private security and the interaction between the different forms of policing. Thus, this review first considers the literature on policing in educational institutions, with a specific focus on universities, before moving on to discuss the remit and responsibilities of private security and how they differ from those of the public police.

Policing within educational institutions ⁴

The US literature on campus policing has unpacked certain themes: the history and the development of campus policing; its nature and organisation, with an emphasis on how these differ from the policing of other municipal areas; and student perceptions of it. Historically, the development of campus policing services mimicked and replicated structures and functions of the developing municipal policing services (Perez and Bromley, 2015). In turn, the replication of municipal policing services was viewed as important to securing the legitimacy of campus police services (Bromley, 2000; Paoline and Sloan, 2003; Sloan, 1992; Sloan et al., 2000).

Presently, analyses of the structure and role of campus police services demonstrate certain similarities – in terms of their organisation, administration, and operational functions – to wider municipal police services (Bromley and Reaves, 1998a, 1998b; Paoline and Sloan, 2003; Peak, 1995; Perez and Bromley, 2015; Sloan, 1992; Sloan et al., 2000). Similar to their municipal counterparts, modern campus police services, certainly in the United States, tend to be hierarchical, specialised and bureaucratic and they make use of different kinds of tactics (enforcement of criminal law, patrol, and community relations) (Bromley and Reaves, 1998a, 1998b; Paoline and Sloan, 2003; Peak, 1995; Perez and Bromley, 2015; Sloan, 1992; Sloan et al., 2000).

Research has also shown that municipal and campus police have similar backgrounds and characteristics (Sloan et al., 2000) and that campus police officers and other officers hold similar views about their roles. Studies suggest that campus officers see their role as primarily about law enforcement in the same ways as other police officers tend to do (Sloan et al., 2000). This is in contrast with police officers based in schools, who have been found to draw a distinction between themselves and ‘typical officers’ with a ‘more controlling’ (Rhodes and Clinkinbeard, 2020: 273) attitude. However, research (see Higgins et al., 2020, for a discussion) shows that these same officers are ‘most frequently engaged in roles related to security enforcement and patrol’ (Kupchik et al., 2020: 295) which align more with an enforcement rather than a service role. Campus officers tend to resemble other officers in terms of their use of discretion, both in higher education institutions (Sloan et al., 2000) and in schools (Ghavami et al., 2021). Specifically, they tend to rank situations in terms of perceived seriousness and respond accordingly and exercise less discretion in enforcement situations than in other scenarios (Sloan et al., 2000).

Despite these similarities, campus police also take on additional responsibilities in their day-to-day job that are not typically carried out by the municipal police. These will range from providing information to campus visitors, to responding to health and safety emergencies, and enforcing university regulations (Ferrandino, 2012; Paoline and Sloan, 2003; Patten et al., 2016; Sloan et al., 2000). In addition, while they are responsible for crime control on campus, they will usually refrain from criminalising students and try to establish and maintain positive relations with them. Studies suggest that campus officers are not viewed as equivalent to officers operating in other environments in terms of legitimacy and competence and suffer from reduced status (Falcone and Gehrand, 2003; Ferrandino, 2012; Paoline and Sloan, 2003; Patten et al., 2016).

We are aware of only one study that has examined private security on university campuses in the United Kingdom (Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023). In line with some of the American literature (Ferrandino, 2012; Patten et al., 2016; Sloan et al., 2000) and that on private security (Button, 2019; Shearing and Stenning, 1981, 1983), the study found that campus security officers hold a vast range of responsibilities outside of campus safety, including signposting, providing first aid, and preventing material loss. Notably, a prominent role held by security officers included responding to students experiencing mental health crises, although not always with positive outcomes (Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023). Overall, the authors noted how the increasing presence that the police held on university campuses included in their study resulted in the ‘growing convergence between the roles of police and campus security’ (Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023: 16), and the concurrent sidelining of the caring aspects within the work of security officers.

Remit and responsibilities of private security

Growth in the private security sector over the past decades has reshaped how the structure and function of policing is conceived (Button, 2007, 2019; Johnston, 1992; Jones and Newburn, 1998; Shearing and Stenning, 1981, 1983; South, 1988). Indeed, there are many different types of state and non-state police organisations with responsibility for policing (e.g. Button, 2019; Jones and Newburn, 1998; Reiner, 2010) and voluntary policing models (e.g. Button, 2019). There is much debate on what constitutes private policing (e.g. Button, 2019; George and Button, 2000; Johnston, 1992; Jones and Newburn, 1998; South, 1988). Private security may be operating in different kinds of private, quasi-public and public spaces and there is now much greater reliance on private security arrangements across both private (retail, offices) and public sectors (transport, educational establishments, and hospitals) (Button, 2007, 2019; George and Button, 2000; Johnston, 1992; Jones and Newburn, 1998; Shearing and Stenning, 1981, 1983; South, 1988; Wakefield, 2003).

Private security may be organised and operated in different ways. Large numbers of products – such as security equipment – and services can be provided by private security organisations, including but not limited to patrols, security and risk management advice, or CCTV and alarm systems (Button, 2019; Johnston, 1992; Shearing and Stenning, 1981; South, 1988). Staffed private security may be bought directly from a commercial organisation, organised in-house (corporations and institutions may develop and operate their own internal security systems) or there may be a mixture of the two (Johnston, 1992; Shearing and Stenning, 1981; South, 1988; Walby and Lippert, 2014).

This variation makes it difficult to neatly define and conceptualise private security (see Kempa et al., 1999). Shearing and Stenning (1981, 1983) provided an influential analysis of the characteristics of private policing. They argue that private police are not defined by a legal duty as the public police are; that private policing is linked to broad and varying needs of those who pay for it rather than securing the public interest; and in many cases private policing emphasises the prevention of loss. This instrumental orientation towards meeting the interests and needs of those who purchase it – rather than an externally defined moral or legal standard – is an important distinction between the public and private sectors. Shearing and Stenning argue that this establishes a social order which is more extensive than the public police (since it can be concerned with matters such as absenteeism or breaches of confidentiality) but also more limited (because it is not normally concerned with violations of the criminal law) (Shearing and Stenning, 1981, 1983). That said, the distinctions between the public and private are nonetheless blurry (see, for example, discussions in Button, 2019: 7–25; Jones and Newburn, 1998: 30–41).

While there have been investigations of the structure, organisation, and operation of private security (e.g. Johnston, 1992; Jones and Newburn, 1998; South, 1988; Wakefield, 2003), the recent and rapid growth in scale and scope of the private sector (as of 2020, there were approximately 2.5 times as many SIA licence holders in England and Wales than police officers, see Home Office, 2021; Security Industry Authority (SIA), 2020) means there is still much we do not know about the organisation and impact of private security. There remains a general need to examine the operation of the forms, functions and outcomes of private policing. In particular, the operation of corporate security or in-house security is poorly understood (Button, 2007, 2019; Walby and Lippert, 2014). This is surprising as in-house security has been operating for a long time and relies on better technology and training than contract security does (Walby and Lippert, 2014). It may also be less visible and wield more power than contract security (South, 1988; Walby and Lippert, 2014). There is also a need to analyse the operation of private security in specific contexts.

We turn now to the design and implementation of the case study of the operation of policing on one university campus before setting out the findings of the study.

Methodology

The article is based on 20 semi-structured interviews conducted in the first half of 2022 as part of a study on the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) by campus security. All authors were involved in data collection, and the interviews ranged in length from 15 to 120 minutes, with more than half lasting at least 40 minutes. The findings reported in this article draw on a single case study of policing at one university campus in the United Kingdom. The case study design is commonly used in qualitative research and typically comprises in-depth, multifaceted investigation of a single phenomenon in their natural settings to examine its complexity and context (for example, Becker, 1970; Feagin et al., 1991; Punch, 1998; Yin, 2003). Case studies generate large quantities of rich and valid information about particular social processes and produce comprehensive understanding of the groups under study (Becker, 1970). Certain limitations of the case study design should be acknowledged – notably that it may be hard to generalise from one case study and multiple cases may have improved ability to generalise across the university sector in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, this study offers a rich and holistic account of processes and practices which have rarely been empirically examined.

The institution where the study was conducted is mid-sized, with a student population of between 12,000 and 17,000, ⁵ approximately a third of which live on campus. Ten halls of residence spread across three sites house them. The campus features a shop, post office, several cafes and food outlets, a pub and a nightclub. On student nights, the nightclub runs its own security service, with responsibility for what happens within the perimeter of the building. Campus security maintains oversight of the immediate surroundings and deals with the flows of students coming in and out of the premises. The open campus is located on the outskirts of an urban centre and access to university grounds is not regulated in any way. The campus is covered by CCTV, although due to technical limitations the system is not seen as particularly useful by security staff, with BWCs seen as more effective ⁶ particularly when it comes to the identification of persons of interest. The university security team are funded, organised and managed in-house. The team of some 40 officers is organised into four teams, each with a team leader, and overseen by two managers. The teams are available 24 hours a day each day of the year. The teams work 12-hour shifts, doing two-day shifts and two-night shifts followed by 4 days off. Security officers wear a distinctive uniform and drive clearly marked cars. The security officers are also equipped with BWCs and GPS-enabled radios. They do not have power of arrest, although they can perform a citizen’s arrest in some circumstances. ⁷

The authors approached the head of the security department at the university to enquire whether they would support a study on campus security and the use of BWCs by campus security officers. Following a positive response, favourable ethical approval from the university ethics committee at the authors’ institution was obtained. All patrolling officers employed by the university were emailed and asked if they would like to participate in the research. Of the 30 patrolling officers, we secured the participation of 16 officers, including three team leaders (pseudonyms are followed by CS). We also interviewed three members of university management teams and one accommodation warden (pseudonyms followed by M and W, respectively). Interviews with security staff covered questions regarding their background, the tasks they are responsible for and how these change between day and night. Interviews with management and wardens covered security matters and the problems faced by students on campus. Interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams or face-to-face. All were recorded and professionally transcribed. Any identifying details regarding the respondents and the institution were removed. The transcripts were analysed thematically following an iterative process of data familiarisation, code generation, identification, review and refinement of themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Results

Overall, from the perspective of participants this campus was perceived to be a safe place, with policing concerned with a diverse set of issues and practices within which crime and disorder did not play a large part. As one participant stated, ‘To quantify what we do: the place is so big, there are so many people here that no two days are the same’ (Paul, CS), and for another, ‘So it’s quite a lot of people to deal with and we do have everything from antisocial behaviour to serious medical issues and leading up to suicides as well’ (Tom, M). However, there were several broad themes which characterise the work of the security teams. These are discussed below.

Routine housekeeping and caretaking

Security staff reported spending a significant amount of time engaged in what might be described as routine housekeeping and caretaking tasks on the campus. For example, they secure university buildings, facilitate the smooth running of those buildings and grounds and act as the first point of call for all kinds of queries. Securing the university buildings was one of the officers’ ‘general bread and butter day jobs’ (Peter, CS). As one put it, ‘A typical day shift, you come in, you’ve got quite a few doors to open maybe . . . like open buildings, classrooms, and all that, get them ready’ (Alex, CS). In turn, at night-time security officers patrolled the campus with the aim of checking that buildings and rooms were secure and looking for hazards or problems such as fires or flooding. As one stated, ‘In the evenings, we lock down all the academic blocks in the evening, we also patrol every single academic block in the evening, do fire and floods everywhere, make sure there’s no water chucking out everywhere’ (Sam, CS). Security officers also spent a significant amount of time responding to ‘any issues in there or any staff has any problem, if the students have any problem, that sort of thing’ (Dan, CS). Problems might include organising contractors who come to the campus; directing and organising traffic; giving directions and instructions to staff, students and visitors; finding lost student university cards; helping with university events; and responding to accidents and medical problems and providing first aid. Security officers were the first point of call for all kinds of incidents or emergencies that might occur on the university campus, as one security officer stated: ‘Yeah, we react to calls. I mean anything can happen, that’s the thing’ (John, CS).

Maintaining adherence to university rules and regulations

A major role of security officers was ensuring adherence to university rules and regulations – especially in relation to student disciplinary matters of a non-academic nature. Disciplinary matters may be conceived broadly. The university may discipline students for misdemeanours as diverse as committing crimes of all sorts on the campus (including assault, drugs offences, sexual misconduct and fraud), conditions of residence breaches, concealing dangerous items on the campus and tampering with fire safety regulations. The university could respond to these matters in various ways depending on the severity of the infraction. These might include automatic expulsion, suspension from studies, final written warnings, exclusion from the campus – or certain parts of the campus – at particular times of the day, right through to accommodation being revoked, fines and requirements to undertake courses in order to address problematic behaviour. Noise complaints in university accommodation during curfew hours was a common issue campus security is asked to deal with, as one explained: ‘But especially in the evening or night shift, the night-time. Pretty much about noise complaint’ (Dan, CS). Security officers reported that they worked closely with residential wardens providing the information that might be needed to evidence cases, as one noted:

So, you know we go to a party, they are playing music, we have to take all of the student details, we write an internal report, that gets sent off to the wardens, and then the wardens will make contact with the students, and they take action from there. (Phil, CS)

During the Covid lockdowns in which security teams continued to operate on campus, much of their work linked to investigating student breaches of government Covid regulations. Participants described dealing with students who remained in university campus accommodation who moved between flats to socialise, breaching regulations. ⁸ As one stated,

During Covid the majority of our complaints were breaking up people who were going against the Covid regulations. So it meant they were supposed to be isolating, they weren’t isolating. People were having parties in lockdown when they weren’t allowed to, so we’d have to go in and do all that. (Tom, M)

BWC footage was seen to be useful in these circumstances: ‘That would all get caught on camera and it would get sent onto the warden and to [university management] so they could discipline them. I think there was about 300 cases of breaches’ (Tom, M).

Support, welfare and mental health

There was a strong emphasis on student welfare and supporting the needs of students within the accounts of our interviewees, something which was especially clear in respect to how mental health cases were dealt with. Participants dealt with these cases differently, depending on the circumstances – from a welfare check and chat, to referring students to university wellbeing services, to taking them to hospital. As one explained,

We also deal with like mental health cases so we have got a connection there with [the Wellbeing Services]. From what we do we have got links with [the Wellbeing Services], we have got links with the hospital and we’re all qualified sort of first aiders so we can give initial first aid and ascertain what’s required. (John, CS)

Security teams are often the first port of call for students in crisis – especially over-night when support services are generally not available. As one officer explained,

The jobs that we deal with you know, most of them are at night-time because the support services aren’t as readily available, and that is normally when you are sort of on your own. You know, during the day there is lots of people about, you [students] are at lectures, you are doing whatever. But in the evening you know, the students are in on their own in their own room, they feel a bit isolated and things, and that is normally when we get called for that sort of thing. (Phil, CS)

Caring for students with mental health problems clearly takes up significant amounts of time, as one security officer told us: ‘I would be astounded if I didn’t have three mental health jobs in my two nightshifts, in my block of four [days on] if I didn’t have three mental health jobs that needed escalating’ (Peter, CS). Participants also suggested that they are dealing with more cases of mental ill health on campus. One of the university residential wardens explained that ‘mental health post-lockdown has really like, that’s become a major part of my role. Probably around about a 200% increase in mental health cases and then I also have to conduct rounds as part of my job’ (Pat, W). As the quote indicates, the Covid pandemic seems to have led to an increase in the numbers of mental health cases among students – probably due to the impact of isolation and worry, as one officer put it: ‘People that were struggling beforehand and then Covid came along, I think it just, it just played havoc with them I think. If you’re struggling with life already and then somebody puts the pandemic on top of you’ (Sam, CS).

Preventing and responding to crime

Preventing and responding to crime was not the primary role of the security teams although they undertook it in several ways. First, security guards patrolled the campus on foot, with the aim of deterring crime and antisocial behaviour and responding to any incidents that they might encounter, as one outlined: ‘Basically we go round, we patrol round, we check that there’s nobody here that shouldn’t be here’ (Paul, CS), and for another, ‘so we’re just walking to make a presence, and to make sure when the clubs finish we’re walking around, seeing if someone is just lying in the bush, and drunk or whatever’ (Peter, CS). Second, security officers described responding to incidents of crime and disorder on campus. Many of these incidents were associated with the night-time economy, as one security officer noted: ‘At night and deal with the noise complaints and any attached incidents revolving around them. Because [students’ union nightclub], it’s not just about people coming outside and having a fight or making some noise, you often get some injuries that are caused by falling downstairs or steps’ (John, CS).

Responding to reports of drug using and dealing was also a routine part of the crime-related work of the security teams, much of which linked to the possession and use of cannabis. However, security officers were also dealing with class A and B drugs and issues related to county lines. Security officers also suggested that problems to do with drug dealing and possession on the campus were becoming more serious, as one security officer told us: ‘Since I arrived I have seen a massive use of drugs in the campus by the students. So we have taken so many names, we have put incident reports of the people we caught’ (Ash, CS).

Third, officers described how they would follow up incidents of crime that they were aware of on the university campus. Many of the incidents that the officers became involved with were then dealt with by the university’s internal disciplinary teams. However, security officers also spoke of engaging with the local police in responding to some incidents, with much of this role linked to the provision of information. On the one hand, security officers described liaising with officers to follow up incidents that had occurred on campus and provide information with the aim of enforcing the criminal law:

We’re also in the morning tidying up last night’s work. So they might have had, you know, a serious incident or two the night before – when we say ‘serious’ that’s a matter that needs further investigation – and that’ll be dealt with from sort of half past eight, if you know what I mean. Yesterday, for example, the Team Leader was with British Transport Police for five or six hours dealing with a death on the railway line. (Peter, CS)

On the other hand, security officers noted that police officers came to them to request information regarding crimes that had been committed on campus.

Finally, security officers described routine informal interaction and liaison with the police, noting their generally good and long-standing relationships, as one security officer stated: ‘We’ve always had a good relationship with police here, we work very closely with them’ (Sam, CS). This relationship was both a formal one involving following up incidents that had occurred on campus, but it was also informal. Security officers mentioned that they had contact details of police personnel whom they could contact quickly and easily to discuss any issues. In addition, police personnel often visit the security teams to have a general chat about security on campus, as a member of the security team outlined: ‘I think since I come here from February, I seen lots of police contact and they come in our building as well. They are so closely working with [the] police. I think it’s so close yeah’. (Rob, CS).

Discussion and conclusion

The starting point of this article was that university campuses represent novel sites for policing – in terms of the crime types present and their social and situational environments. Yet, studies of the policing of university campuses are rare, especially in the United Kingdom.

Overall, in our study we found that, from the perspective of our participants, the operation of campus security teams was strongly linked to the broad organisational needs of the university. First, the security teams played a key role in the housekeeping and caretaking of the campus – securing buildings and responding to wide-ranging queries related to the operation and maintenance of the campus. Second, the operation of the teams was bound up in the arrangements for students who might have breached university regulations and in providing information to facilitate the implementation of disciplinary proceedings. Third, the teams played a significant role in assisting with student welfare and support, especially at an individual level and whenever conventional well-being support for students was unlikely to be available.

In terms of what is most commonly thought of as security work, the remit of the security team was not primarily related to providing a response to crimes that might be committed on campus. However, preventing and responding to crime inevitably fell within their remit too. This was evident in respect to the patrols they conducted (especially at night), responding to calls for service (which would have included crimes committed on the campus), conducting follow-up investigations and engaging in formal and informal liaison with the public police, all activities which are more explicitly linked to crime control. There was, therefore, some sense that the routine organisational functions of the teams were interacting with a crime control function.

The theoretical question we wanted to explore in our study was whether the specific features that we could identify in the operation of campus policing in our case study were to do with who was carrying out the policing – namely, private security officers, rather than the police – or where this happened (i.e. a university campus). In this respect, our findings suggest that the where – the unusual setting of a university campus – matters a great deal more than the who, and that therefore the activities carried out under the banner of campus security taken as a whole go beyond what might be typically construed as policing, carried out by either public or private actors.

Having said that, we also found that in our case study the work campus officers carry out shows a degree of blurring between their role and that of the police, with frequent and meaningful interactions between the two groups. While this partially echoes some of the observations made by Joseph-Salisbury et al. (2023), our findings do not support the claim that such interactions have led to an increased police presence on campus, or the securitisation of the campus as a whole. To illustrate, private security officers may be involved in the investigation of crimes – even serious ones – on campus, which may be investigated and sanctioned internally. Private security officers have access to electronic and non-electronic sources of information about crime (and other) incidents which occur on campus which the public police cannot routinely access. In this sense, the public police are reliant on the security officers for information pertaining to the investigation of crimes committed on campus – rather than the other way around. Taken together, the work of the campus security officers was clearly interacting with that of the public police, and it does not make sense to suggest that the work of the security teams is separate to or simply additional to the work of the public police. It indicates also, as Johnston (1992: 191) suggested, that public and private forms of policing, far from distinct, are instead increasingly connected and that the actions and reactions of one will have implications for the other. Beyond a crime control function, we also found significant similarities in the work our respondents described and accounts found in the literature, from the role of campus security officers in providing information about or administering university disciplinary rules (Ferrandino, 2012; Paoline and Sloan, 2003; Patten et al., 2016; Sloan et al., 2000), and responding to concerns regarding the welfare and mental health of students (Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023).

On the other hand, the relevance of student welfare and mental health issues in the work of campus security represents a significant difference with the instrumental orientation and focus on loss prevention that typically characterise private policing. In alignment with the literature (see Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023; Lanser et al., 2023; Margolis and Shtull, 2012; Schriver, 2021), in our study students experiencing symptoms of mental illness are likely to come into contact with campus security officers because representatives of other support services may not be present outside of the daytime. Indeed, concerns about student welfare and mental health have come to the forefront of public and political discourse in recent times (Forbes-Mewett, 2018; Lanser et al., 2023; Margolis and Shtull, 2012), compounded latterly by Covid-related restrictions and the ‘cost of living crisis’ in the United Kingdom. ⁹ Evidence of this can be seen in ongoing discussions about whether Higher Education Institutions should be given a statutory legal duty of care for their students, in addition to their existing duty ‘not to cause harm by careless acts or omissions’ (Universities UK, 2023: 5).

In this respect, our findings are significant for two reasons: Most immediately, studies of how campus officers (public or private) respond to students with mental health issues are rare (see, for example, Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023; Lanser et al., 2023; Schriver, 2021), so our empirical study contributes to expanding what currently is a limited knowledge base. Also, the centrality of the managing of students in mental distress in the day-to-day work of campus security is important, not just for the help it provides to students in distress but also because recent developments have seen the police service in England and Wales move away from routinely providing this sort of support. ¹⁰ As private security has traditionally not seen this type of work as one of its core functions either, this aspect of the work of campus security has additional significance. Thus, our findings fall in line with the Joseph-Salisbury et al. (2023) study, in that the management of an increasingly vulnerable student population (Batra et al., 2021) is becoming one of the core activities of the campus security team at our case study site.

Given the inherent limitations of the case study design adopted, our findings raise two sets of questions that further research should address. First, the question of how and what balance is achieved across the different roles held by campus security. Given the limited scope of our study, it remains to be determined which function is the most relevant in the eyes of university management and the officers themselves; whether these assessments match; which organisational, institutional or contextual factors affect decisions around prioritisation of tasks; and how tensions between the caring and enforcing aspects of campus security are managed, negotiated and resolved. In the institution we studied, senior security management trusted the professionalism of their officers, and the ample discretion they were given on the job meant officers were able to rely on their personal judgement when dealing with problems (see Menichelli et al., 2024 for a discussion of how this applies to the use of BWCs). In contrast, the only other study on campus policing in the United Kingdom concluded that the balancing of different roles by campus security was a much more fraught process, resulting in ‘role conflict’ (Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023). This suggests responses are likely to vary across the sector. Future research should move beyond the case study design to examine how university spaces are managed and policed across the United Kingdom in a more systematic way.

Second, the relevance of welfare and mental health issues in the work of campus security raises broader questions about the aims and scope of private security and officers’ ability to deal effectively with students in distress (Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023). It has been argued that the use of public police officers to conduct welfare checks and respond to emergencies may compound crises and outcomes (Lanser et al., 2023; Margolis and Shtull, 2012). Police officers may not understand well the nature of mental illness, how to de-escalate crisis situations, and not refer students to mental health services appropriately (Margolis and Shtull, 2012). Certainly, in the literature campus police officers have expressed frustration with lack of resources, the volume of cases involving individuals with mental illness and students’ failure to follow up with specialist mental health agencies (Schriver, 2021). While these difficulties remain, additional challenges also emerge. Private security is concerned with loss prevention and meeting the needs of whoever is paying for the service provided. It is typically considered a low-skill and low-pay occupation with a high turnover (Hansen Löfstrand et al., 2016). In light of this, broader questions should be asked as to whether private security are able to effectively manage mental health and well-being issues (Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2023), how the officers’ own perception of their role is affected by the growing relevance of mental health in campus security work and, finally, what the implications are for the instrumental orientation of private security when officers are asked to play a supportive and caring role while on the job. In providing an insight into the nature of campus policing, this article has thus made an important contribution, particularly in terms of the significance of the context in which policing takes places, and the specific needs of the populations being policed for an understanding of the specific tasks and activities that can fall under the banner of ‘policing’.