A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH 

TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

Jeremy M. Wilson and Alexander Weiss

A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH 

TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

Jeremy M. Wilson and Alexander Weiss
This project was supported by Grant Number 2009-CK-WX-K005 awarded by the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the 

author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement 

by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 

discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that 

URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity. 

Recommended citation: 

Wilson, Jeremy M., and Alexander Weiss. 2014. A Performance-Based Approach to Police Staffing and 

Allocation. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

ISBN 978-1-932582-60-4

First printed 2012

Revised 2014
◽ iii ◽

About the COPS Office

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) is the component 

of the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community 

policing by the nation’s state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies through 

information and grant resources. 

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support 

the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address 

the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social 

disorder, and fear of crime. 

Rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, community 

policing concentrates on preventing crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear it 

creates. Earning the trust of the community and making those individuals stakeholders in 

their own safety enables law enforcement to better understand and address both the needs 

of the community and the factors that contribute to crime.

The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies to hire and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cuttingedge crime fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies. COPS 

Office funding also provides training and technical assistance to community members and 

local government leaders and all levels of law enforcement. The COPS Office has produced 

and compiled a broad range of information resources that can help law enforcement better 

address specific crime and operational issues, and help community leaders better understand 

how to work cooperatively with their law enforcement agency to reduce crime.

•	 Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested nearly $14 billion to add community 

policing officers to the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support 

crime prevention initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to help 

advance community policing. 

•	 To date, the COPS Office has funded approximately 125,000 additional officers 

to more than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the 

country in small and large jurisdictions alike.

•	 Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government 

leaders have been trained through COPS Office-funded training organizations.

•	 To date, the COPS Office has distributed more than 8.57 million topic-specific 

publications, training curricula, white papers, and resource CDs. 

COPS Office resources, covering a wide breadth of community policing topics—from 

school and campus safety to gang violence—are available, at no cost, through its online 

Resource Center at www.cops.usdoj.gov. This easy-to-navigate website is also the grant 

application portal, providing access to online application forms. 

◽ v ◽

Contents

About the COPS Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

CHAPTER ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Outline of Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

CHAPTER TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Charting the Staffing Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The Profound Effect of the 2008 Recession on Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A Wide Range of Internal and External Factors Determine Staffing Need . . . 1

Agencies Perform Staffing Analyses to Varying Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Budgeting for Staffing is Precarious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Agencies Feel Understaffed, But Cannot Demonstrate It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Context Matters When Considering Staffing Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Community Policing and Problem-Solving Efforts Are Being Compromised . . . 1

Salient Themes Emerge from Staffing Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Agencies Are Adjusting to a “New Normal” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Agencies Seek Efficient Ways to Do Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Staffing Analysis Remains a Mystery to Many . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Staffing Analyses Are Useful but Out of Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Staffing Is an Intuitive Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Concluding Remarks..

CHAPTER THREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A Workload-Based Assessment for Patrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Typical Approaches to Staffing Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Per Capita Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Minimum Staffing Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Authorized Level Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Workload-Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ vi ◽

A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

A Step-By-Step Approach for Conducting a Workload-Based Assessment . . . . .28

Examine the Distribution of Calls for Service by Hour of Day, 

Day of Week, and Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Examine the Nature of Calls for Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Estimate Time Consumed on Calls for Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Calculate Agency Shift-Relief Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Establish Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Provide Staffing Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Limitations of the Workload-Based Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Work Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Eight-Hour Shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Ten-Hour Shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Twelve-Hour Shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

CHAPTER FOUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Alternative Delivery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Mobilizing the Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Handling Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Non-Sworn Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

CHAPTER FIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Staffing for Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Basic Approaches to Community Policing Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Implications of Community Policing for Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Maximizing the Discretionary Time of Patrol Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Creating a Special Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
◽ 1 ◽

Preface

Much attention has been given to police recruitment, retention, and, in this economic 

context, how to maintain police budgets and existing staffing positions. Less has 

centered on adequately assessing the demand for police service and alternative ways of 

managing that demand. To provide some practical guidance in these areas, the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) provided support to the Michigan 

State University (MSU) School of Criminal Justice to review current staffing allocation 

experiences and existing approaches to estimating the number of sworn staff a given 

agency requires. This guide summarizes the research conducted by the MSU team. It 

highlights the current staffing allocation landscape for law enforcement agencies and 

provides a practical step-by-step approach for any agency to assess its own patrol staffing 

needs based upon its workload and performance objectives. Additionally, it identifies 

some ways beyond the use of sworn staff that workload demand can be managed and 

discusses how an agency’s approach to community policing implementation can affect 

staffing allocation and deployment. This guide will be particularly useful for police 

practitioners and planners conducting an assessment of their agency’s staffing need and 

for researchers interested in police staffing experiences and assessment methods. This 

guide has a companion document, titled Essentials for Leaders: A Performance-Based 

Approach to Police Staffing and Allocation, which may be of particular interest to police 

executives and policymakers who are concerned about both police-staffing allocation and 

efficiently providing quality police service in their communities.
CHAPTER ONE
CHAPTER ONE

◽ 3 ◽

Introduction

Staffing police departments is a continuous challenge and one that has become more 

complex in recent years. Immediately prior to the onset of the 2008 recession, police 

agencies had difficulty recruiting officers and responded by implementing a number of 

creative recruitment incentives. Shortly thereafter, the depressed economy caused police 

agencies to implement hiring freezes, furloughs, lay-offs, salary and benefit cut-backs, and 

retirement incentives. Such difficulties spurred 7,272 applications to the COPS Hiring 

Program requesting $8.3 billion to support more than 39,000 sworn-officer positions 

(COPS Office 2009). Altogether, both the supply of and demand for qualified officers are 

changing in a time of increasing attrition, expanding law-enforcement responsibilities, 

and decreasing resources (Wilson, Dalton, Scheer, and Grammich 2011).

While agencies give much attention to recruitment and retention, they often overlook 

a more fundamental question: How many police officers does a particular agency need?

Answering this question is essential to any discussion about managing workforce levels, 

regardless of whether there is a shortage of qualified officers or an inability to support 

previous staffing levels. Put another way, what number of officers would help an agency 

most cost-effectively meet the demands placed on it? This is a fundamentally different 

question than how many officers does a community want or can a community support. 

Yet answering the “need” question effectively frames a discussion about “want” and 

“affordability.” 

Unfortunately, police decision makers have few resources to guide them in determining 

the number of officers they need. To be sure, there are multiple approaches to answering 

this question, ranging from the simple to the complex, each with a range of advantages, 

disadvantages, and assumptions. These approaches, however, generally have not been 

described and synthesized in a way that most practitioners could immediately understand 

and implement. In this work, we seek to provide a practical resource to help police 

decision makers understand the fundamentals of determining workforce need.

Objective

There are many variables to consider in developing a comprehensive personnel plan. 

These variables include the following:

•	 Staffing level

•	 Distribution of workforce by skill, 

seniority, rank, gender, and race

•	 Deployment of personnel by 

function and geography

•	 Compensation structure

•	 Generational preferences and 

differences

•	 Qualification criteria and selection 

process

•	 Promotion criteria and process

•	 Retirement and pension options
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 4 ◽

This guide provides a practical resource that police decision makers can use to assess and 

determine the number of sworn patrol staff they need to meet their service obligations 

according to their communities’ preferences, expectations, and requirements. This can 

be considered the first step in developing a comprehensive personnel plan. By focusing 

exclusively on patrol staffing levels, we can give more attention to the nuances, intricacies, 

and scenarios of determining these and provide the broadest-applicable advice. 

Approach

We used many sources of information and expertise to develop this guide.

First, for context on typical staffing approaches, we reviewed the literature on police 

staffing analyses. This included various staffing tools and manuals, case studies, 

consultant assessments, and academic studies of staffing determinants.

Second, we interviewed representatives from 20 police agencies about their current 

staffing assessment. We sought, in particular, to identify variation in their experiences. 

Our interviewees represented multiple agency types and varying levels of sworn officer 

populations, geographic regions, and jurisdictional size and other characteristics (see 

table 1.1 on page 5). We included agencies serving locations considered “college towns” 

(Kalamazoo, MI; Tuscaloosa, AL), cities having economic difficulties (Rockford, IL; 

National City, CA), and cities with recent growth (North Charleston, SC; Colorado 

Springs, CO). We chose seven cities from the South, seven from the Midwest, two from 

the Northeast, and four from the West. We chose some cities because of their membership 

in professional consortia that shared staffing ideas, and others because of their unique 

size (e.g., particularly large or small). We chose interviewees from four sheriff’s offices, 

14 municipal agencies, one consolidated city-county agency, and one joint police and fire 

protection agency. We selected individuals from urban, suburban, and rural jurisdictions. 

We conducted interviews between February and September of 2010 with representatives 

who were familiar with staffing and personnel procedures. We interviewed the chiefs 

of nine agencies. We conducted group interviews of two to six persons for four agencies. 

We conducted in-person interviews for four agencies and telephone interviews for all 

others. We used a semi-structured interview protocol designed to elicit discussion about 

staffing issues.
◽ 5 ◽

CHAPTER ONE

Table 1.1. Agencies chosen for interview, ranked by number of sworn officers

Agency name Type Sworn officers Region

Jurisdiction 

population

Los Angeles County (CA) 

Sheriff’s Office County sheriff 9,700 West 3,501,487

Houston (TX) Police 

Department Municipal police 5,100 South 2,245,100

Milwaukee (WI) Police 

Department Municipal police 1,893 Midwest 596,974

Prince George’s County 

(MD) Police Department County police 1,725 South 828,770

Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

(NC) Police Department Consolidated city-county 1,765 South 753,000

Seattle (WA) Police 

Department Municipal police 1,358 West 617,300

St. Louis (MO) Police 

Department Municipal police 1,296 Midwest 348,189

Hillsborough County (FL) 

Sheriff’s Office County sheriff 1,195 South 1,174,727

Colorado Springs (CO) 

Police Department Municipal police 623 West 315,000

North Charleston (SC) 

Police Department Municipal police 321 South 90,000

Rockford (IL) Police 

Department Municipal police 280 Midwest 151,000

Tuscaloosa (AL) Police 

Department Municipal police 275 South 80,000

New Bedford (MA) Police 

Department Municipal police 258 Northeast 100,000

Overland Park (KS) Police 

Department Municipal police 242 Midwest 175,000

Kalamazoo (MI) 

Department of Public 

Safety

Joint police-fire 240 Midwest 95,000

Lansing (MI) Police 

Department Municipal police 234 Midwest 118,000

Douglas County (NE) 

Sheriff’s Office County sheriff 127 Midwest 497,416

National City (CA) Police 

Department Municipal police 90 West 65,000

Slidell (LA) Police 

Department Municipal police 84 South 35,000

McCandless (PA) Police 

Department Municipal police 28 Northeast 27,000

Source: Agency self-report [Sworn officers]; National Public Safety Information Bureau (2011) [jurisdiction population].
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 6 ◽

Third, we conducted a 1-1/2 day focus group with 21 police executives and planners, 

researchers, consultants, and members of the COPS Office.1

 The discussion centered on 

current and future staffing challenges; what agencies are doing to plan for their workforce 

needs; why agencies do not use existing staffing tools and methodologies; components of 

comprehensive personnel planning; who would use this guide and how would they use it; 

and how the guide should be structured.

Fourth, our research team has significant practical and academic experience working 

with police agencies across the United States. In particular, members of the team have 

had many collaborations with police agencies and various decision makers, officials, and 

administrators to assess staffing needs, identify areas for improved efficiency, and develop 

evidence-based personnel planning lessons. We have used information obtained from 

several police agencies and these collaborations to illustrate our approach. 

Finally, we continually solicited feedback from police and staffing experts on content and 

format throughout the development of this guide.

Outline of Guide

In the following chapter, we review the current staffing landscape, including effects of 

the recent recession on staffing needs and agencies’ abilities to meet them, and issues that 

agencies currently consider in determining staffing levels. In Chapter 3, we review some 

approaches to staffing, discussing how agencies may apply one specific approach called 

the workload-based patrol staffing model, using actual data from select departments 

to illustrate the process. We highlight alternative ways of providing police service in 

Chapter 4, and conclude in Chapter 5 with a discussion of the relationship between police 

staffing and community policing.

1. Ordered by institution, participants included Alexander Weiss, Alexander Weiss Consulting; Lynn Nelson, Cache 

County (UT) Sheriff’s Office; Katrina Graue, Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) Police; Ron Sloan, Colorado Bureau of 

Investigation; Amanda Terrell-Orr, Colorado Springs (CO) Police; Albert Pearsall and Mora Fiedler, COPS Office; Russ 

Torres, Douglas County (NE) Sheriff’s Office; Dwayne Orrick, Cordele (GA) Police; John Jackson, Houston (TX) Police; 

Gary Cordner, Kutztown University; Todd Diaz, Lafourche Parish (LA) Sheriff’s Office; Bruce Fogarty, Los Angeles 

County (CA) Sheriff’s Office; Peter Bellmio, Management Consultant Group; Jeremy Wilson and Charles Scheer, 

Michigan State University; Adolfo Gonzales, National City (CA) Police; Victoria Brock, Prince Georges’ County (MD) 

Police; Darryl Smith, Percyville (VA) Police; Greg McFadden, Seattle (WA) Police; and Kenneth Hailey, St. Louis (MO) 

Metropolitan Police. 

CHAPTER TWO
CHAPTER TWO

◽ 9 ◽

Charting the Staffing Landscape

To illustrate the staffing landscape that police agencies face, including the total demand for 

new officers and the challenges in personnel planning, Wilson et al. (2011) suggest a “bucket” 

metaphor (see figure 2.1). In this analogy, the bucket represents the total demand for police 

officers. The supply of personnel flows through a tightening faucet, shrinking due to changing 

generational preferences and a decreasing number of qualified applicants. The 2008 recession 

shut off this flow completely for some agencies, who found themselves unable to hire, 

thus disrupting the delivery of services by increasing the level of unmet demand for police 

(McNichol, Oliff, and Johnson 2010). Meanwhile, the hole in the bucket, caused by retirement, 

military call-ups, and other sources of attrition, is expanding. The demand for police officers 

is increasing because of the need for local police to address community policing, homeland 

security, and other emerging issues, such as immigration enforcement, computer crime, 

violence in schools, and the implications of social media. The net result is an increasing gap 

between the actual number of officers and both the allocation level (shown by the dashed line 

in figure 2.1) and the total demand for officers.

Though helpful for illustrating overall issues, the bucket metaphor may not account for 

all complexities in police staffing. In recent years, many local communities have had to 

implement stop-gap measures, such as furloughs, hiring freezes, layoffs, and unfilled 

vacancies, to meet budget deficits, all of which affect staffing cohorts and have long-term 

implications on strategic planning and personnel management, including recruitment, 

retention, training provision, career progression, supervision, productivity, morale, costs 

of service, and so on (Wilson, Rostker, and Fan 2010). The recruitment-and-retention 

challenge local agencies have traditionally faced has become a multifaceted problem that 

affects all forms of personnel administration and service delivery.

Figure 2.1. The staffing supply and demand bucket metaphor
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 10 ◽

The Profound Effect of the 2008 Recession on Staffing

The recession of late 2008 and early 2009 aggravated the relationship between staffing 

and unmet demand. In our interviews, agency representatives portrayed themselves as 

struggling with a crisis previously created by pronounced staffing difficulties.

The interviews suggest that the deepening crisis has led to a precarious situation. The 

crisis further restricts the resources and hence the ability of agencies to plan strategically 

for staffing needs. Indeed, one respondent told us economic restrictions have become 

so severe that agencies often cannot apply innovative solutions learned elsewhere. Such 

inability adversely affects how well agencies can meet individual and organizational needs 

ranging from training and supervision to career progression and leadership (Wilson et al. 

2010). Agencies feel planning is more important than ever for determining staffing needs 

and in getting the resources to meet these needs. Many respondents do not believe their 

agency is “understaffed,” because it has already absorbed the additional workload arising 

from budget-cutting. Nevertheless, though they can offer no empirical analysis of the 

impact of losing officers, they feel such analyses could show an understaffing problem. 

Economic growth, practitioners told us, will not solve the problem of diminished 

resources that constricts staffing analyses and imperils agency staffing.

To date, there have been no comprehensive evaluations of the ultimate impact of the 2008 

recession, which DeLord (2009) termed a “perfect storm” for police human-resource 

concerns, on service delivery in America’s police agencies. However, the COPS Office 

recently compiled and assessed data from a variety of sources and confirmed a downward 

trend in staffing levels (the first in at least 25 years): about 12,000 police officers and 

deputies were laid off in 2011; there were about 30,000 unfilled sworn positions; about 

28,000 law enforcement personnel experienced a work furlough of at least one week 

or more in 2010; and over half of U.S. counties are providing police service with fewer 

staff than one year ago (COPS Office 2011; Melekian 2012). Without such evaluations, 

anecdotal evidence captures but a glimpse of a larger problem that the Police Executive 

Research Forum (PERF) contends has led to cuts in training, hiring, recruitment, and 

benefits packages (PERF 2010). 

The recession appears to have produced an environment prompting reconsideration of 

traditional staffing concerns and practices. Concerns about the economy color personnel 

decisions from staffing analysis to supervision to retention. 
◽ 11 ◽

CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER ONE

The substantive effects of the 2008 recession remain unclear. McNichol et al. (2010) 

suggest its effects upon state budgets continue due to the lag of federal stimulus money 

and a growing inability of many states to close budget gaps. Our interviewees also 

note concerns ranging from the utility of staffing benchmarks (e.g., existing staffing 

numbers don’t always reflect the number actually needed) and budgeting for new hires to 

community policing efforts and perception of staffing strength. One police chief related 

that “there hasn’t been any real urgency, until now.” Interviewees also fear that the 

ultimate effects of the recession pose a greater hazard to institutional health than initially 

envisioned, especially as federal stimulus dollars diminish. 

Beyond the scope of this work, more research is needed to discern the ultimate effects of the 

recent recession on agencies by size and organizational characteristics, including their ability 

to provide adequate staffing levels and to meet needs for community policing, service quality, 

training, accreditation, employee retention, organizational planning, accountability, and 

advancement. As one respondent stated, “The [staffing] process is getting extremely difficult, 

and we need help.” Another lamented that examining staffing needs “works great...but can 

we keep any of what we have, given our current budget?” 

Such statements may reflect a fiscal “new normal” for 

public services (McNichol et al. 2010; Scott-Hayward 2009). 

In light of both systemic and recent events one thing is 

clear—the complexities of the contemporary staffing 

challenge call for ongoing, comprehensive, evidencebased personnel planning.

Table 2.1. Variables respondents claimed 

influence the need for sworn staff

Variables

Efficiency and productivity

Crime rates and anticipated growth or decline

Job tasks/type of calls

Officer/population ratios

Mandatory minimums

Collective bargaining minimums

Shift distribution

Supervisory placement

Command staff need

Response time

Uncommitted time

Call volume

Estimates of future call volume

Technology

Organizational capability

Organizational ethic

Organizational vision and planning

Public pressure

Geographic issues

Community policing style

Source: Respondent interviews

A Wide Range of Internal and 

External Factors Determine 

Staffing Need

Beyond the effects of the recent recession, respondents 

described a number of departmental variables that 

influence the need for officers (see table 2.1). These 

may be used as agency-specific inputs in a staffing 

model designed to generate a number of desired sworn 

officers. One respondent provided a unique visual of 

the process: the staffing allocation in his city is based on 

mandatory minimums, but there are other pieces, such 

as funding, to the “pie” that are equally crucial and may 

restrict hiring of new recruits. Many of these pieces do 

not actually affect demand but rather how an agency 

processes or manages the demand. 
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 12 ◽

Agencies Perform Staffing Analyses to Varying Degrees

Most agencies recognize the importance of staffing analysis. All but three agencies in our 

sample have used some type of analysis to determine personnel needs. Nevertheless, the 

sophistication of analysis varies considerably given that each agency has a different level 

of facility with the processes, prescriptions, and formulas available, as well as a different 

familiarity with what a proactive planning analysis requires. What constitutes a “staffing 

analysis” for each agency depends on organizational needs, capacities, time, and resources. 

We asked our interviewees what staffing benchmarks their 

agencies use (see table 2.2). Many noted that the use of specific 

benchmarks is fluid. Representatives of three agencies of varying 

size told us that benchmarks are seen as “idiosyncratic” and often 

are used selectively to support impressions of personnel stability. 

Respondents representing four agencies were apprehensive about 

using benchmarks as strict measurements because of the perception 

that they do not account for organizational change. Respondents 

in one of the largest agencies said they are skeptical about using 

population-based staffing metrics because such metrics do not 

incorporate specific community needs. 

There does not appear to be any pattern by agency size or 

jurisdictional character to explain variation in staffing analyses. 

Representatives of agencies with more than 1,000 officers showed 

the same variation as those with fewer officers. Representatives 

of agencies with 100 to 300 officers were more likely to claim that 

budget concerns could limit analyses. One agency sought to conduct staffing analyses 

during budgeting in order to make less arbitrary decisions. Two agencies had empirically 

compared their needs to others of similar size or jurisdiction through participation in 

professional consortia, such as the Massachusetts Major City Chief’s Association and the 

Benchmark Cities Survey (City of Overland Park 2010). Four other agencies conducted 

less formal comparisons. 

Agencies cite many different reasons for conducting staffing analyses. Perhaps most 

commonly, agencies may conduct staffing analyses when organizational or leadership 

changes occur. They may also, as noted, conduct them for budget and labor negotiations. 

Indeed, representatives of two agencies said that such an analysis is required by labor 

contract. Agencies may also conduct analyses in response to new funding restrictions or to 

determine the effect of recent position losses or increases. 

Agencies may also conduct ad hoc analyses. One chief told us, in addition to more 

comprehensive and formal analysis, his agency will conduct analyses when he “gets a wild 

hair.” Some focus group participants said they conduct staffing analyses for accreditation 

purposes, but receive no formal guidance on which method to use.

Table 2.2. Staffing benchmarks 

indicated by respondents

Benchmarks

Levels mandated by labor agreement

Budget

Productivity assessments/job task analysis

Reported calls for service or perceived need

Anticipated workload

Officer/population ratios

Crime levels

Officer/crime ratios

Response time

Mandated minimum staffing totals

Officer distribution

Source: Respondent interviews
◽ 13 ◽

CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER ONE

Respondents from five agencies expressed concern that, because past staffing analyses had 

occurred prior to the most recent economic recession, they may not reflect current needs. 

One respondent stated that city budgets rely on “historical precedent” that has been rendered 

obsolete because it assumes comparability between the current and prior fiscal environment. 

Budgeting for Staffing is Precarious

We asked respondents to discuss their budgeting process. Many noted that although 

budgeting is usually a cooperative effort within agencies (e.g., chief and command staff) 

and between agencies and local government (e.g., chief and city council/mayor), now they 

feel pressure to justify their budgets more than ever. Agencies discuss budgets throughout 

the fiscal year, and view staffing analyses as a means to influence budget makers. How or 

when they use such analyses varies. Respondents from three agencies explained that the 

budget is final when presented to them. Agencies may also use public outcry about crime 

waves, or increased complaints about service cutbacks, to pressure local governments 

for staff increases. A few agencies noted making temporary adjustments to their budget 

because of stimulus grants. One agency is examining ways to fund community policing 

outside budget negotiations. 

We asked respondents to identify variables that decision 

makers use for staffing allocation (see table 2.3). Many of these 

variables, such as calls for service and mandatory minimum 

levels, affect shift allocation. Three agencies reported 

performing workload assessments to guide allocation decisions. 

One respondent explained his agency employs a minimum 

staffing approach but often needs to adjust staffing deployment 

based on daily needs. 

Not all respondents keep their actual staff levels close to 

their budgeted levels. Some deliberately keep fewer staff 

than authorized so that budget cuts do not debilitate their 

department. Most see this gap as inevitable due to fluctuations 

in staff resulting from military call-ups and layoffs or 

furloughs. Most also see the gap as unavoidable in the current 

fiscal environment. What matters is that the gap not grow nor become a permanent 

problem. Being “close to full staff” is a more realizable and practical goal for most 

responding agencies. Many respondents felt that if they can get through a fiscal year 

without layoffs or other events increasing the unmet demand for police, then they have 

adequately weathered whatever financial problems existed. If departments are able to 

minimize larger, systemic problems, one respondent said, then the department can resolve 

“spot problems” with overtime. 

Table 2.3. Variables respondents 

claimed determine staff allocations

Variables

Calls for service

Crime levels

Response time

Patrol allocation

Shift distribution

Geographic disbursement

Officer-population ratio

Mandatory minimum levels

Metrics arising from workload assessments

“Game-time decision” at shift level

Source: Respondent interviews
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 14 ◽

Agencies Feel Understaffed, But Cannot Demonstrate It

Few agencies are able to conclusively demonstrate through workload analysis that they 

are not properly staffed. Several agencies acknowledged that they can reassign or redeploy 

officers to overcome shortages and meet workload demands. Agencies that use staffinganalysis software note that the software-based analyses suggest mathematically that their 

staff numbers are sufficient. 

For many agencies, understaffing is a feeling that traditional workplace efforts appear 

disrupted. Some agencies pointed out ways they feel understaffed (see table 2.4). Others state 

the extent to which they feel understaffed changes over time, given various changes in duties 

and crime trends. A common claim of respondents, regardless of perceived staffing need, 

was that agencies could accomplish more with additional officers. The perception of always 

needing more officers coupled with the seemingly haphazard way by which police agencies 

determine staffing led one agency to seek staffing analysis techniques. Another claimed 

that an “immediate need” existed for an empirically-based staffing analysis. A focus-group 

participant claimed that the lack of empirical staffing analysis directly affects challenges such as 

departmental efficiency and employee recruitment.

While many agencies have fewer sworn staff numbers 

than budgeted, the notion of a “full staff”—let alone what 

may constitute evidence of understaffing—appears to be 

subjective. Typically, police personnel consider their agency 

understaffed if their current number of officers is below 

their allocated level. This is problematic if the allocated 

level is not based on any kind of workload or performance 

assessment. In this situation, officers might feel there 

is a lack of commitment to the police and that they are 

overworked, even if the agency has enough officers to meet 

current demand. Agencies typically use processes that rely 

on organizational familiarity to reach what one respondent 

called an “educated arbitrary figure.” One agency had nearly 

200 fewer officers than budgeted and a graduating academy 

class of recruits that was funded entirely by federal stimulus 

grants, yet its respondents did not perceive understaffing (an 

assessment that might not, of course, be universally shared). 

Some practitioners also do not believe staffing cures all. 

As one focus group participant said, “If the answer to our 

problems is more staffing, we’ll always be understaffed.”

Table 2.4. Stated reasons for perceive 

understaffing reasons 

Reasons

Decline in officer proactivity

Increase in administrative tasks

Lack of staffing flexibility

Inability to reduce overtime

Trickle-down effect stresses specialty assignments

Perceived efficacy of service delivery

Concerns about future departmental expansion

Concerns about military deployments

Triage-ing of calls

Increased response times

Increase in citizen complaints

Burden of police reporting has shifted to citizens with 

little agency follow-up

“Intuition”

“Doing more with less”

“Officers have a full plate”

Source: Respondent interviews
◽ 15 ◽

CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER ONE

Context Matters When Considering Staffing Analysis

When asked to provide department-specific contexts for their staffing experiences, 

respondents listed circumstances that were remarkably similar across agencies. Budget 

constraints were important to almost all respondents. Respondents from more than half 

the agencies in our sample stated that their relationships with state or local governments 

were strained because of the recent recession and subsequent budget negotiations. Such 

strains, they added, have actually led agencies of varying size to share knowledge and 

strategy. Professional organizations help provide connections for sharing strategies. 

The perceived unique context of each jurisdiction is both a disadvantage and a 

potential benefit for staffing analyses. Because they feel their environments are 

unique, some practitioners feel that inter-departmental comparisons yield few 

tangible solutions to problems that they have faced independently over long periods 

of time. Respondents from three agencies expressed a desire to conduct analyses, 

but were reluctant to use peer comparisons because of the perception that no other 

agency has a similar operational environment. One respondent said that although 

“we’re always looking at what others are doing,” specific organizational issues not 

shared by others make such comparisons “meaningless.” Such an attitude may isolate 

agencies professionally. As one chief commented, “We’re not in competition with 

each other,” and “all our problems are basically the same.” Using peer comparisons 

in budget negotiations may counter or confirm perceptions that an agency’s struggle 

is common or unique, allowing for informal and casual comparisons upon which 

many professional relationships are based. Peer benchmarking can also help mitigate 

insular thinking and the potential belief that the agencies and communities are more 

different than they truly are. In fact, as discussed throughout this guide, agencies 

share a lot of common characteristics and experiences.

Community Policing and Problem-Solving Efforts 

Are Being Compromised

Perceived understaffing may undercut community policing and similar problem-solving 

efforts. Many agencies disclosed that the relationship between staffing and community 

policing efforts may not be linear. Problem-solving may be structurally integrated in 

community-oriented approaches to patrol, response, follow-up, and organizational 

transparency. Nevertheless, both specialized units (often in the form of school, housing, or 

business-related outreach programs) and proactive patrol efforts are compromised because 

of restrictions in uncommitted officer time arising from budget cutbacks.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 16 ◽

Increased duties arising from fiscal belt-tightening reduce officer-initiated time normally 

spent in the community. One chief said that “our officers cannot add one more thing to 

their plate” because of a lack of personnel. Increased response times, additional report 

taking, triage of calls, and other indicators of understaffing have contributed to a sense 

that the time available for long-term problem-solving is shrinking. “During tough times, 

the important stuff is the first to go,” said one chief whose agency seeks to solve problems 

locally by establishing one-on-one relationships with the public.

While many of the duties officers no longer have time to perform could be transferred 

to non-sworn staff, one respondent saw potential disadvantages to such an approach. 

Telephone interviews by non-sworn staff, lack of follow-up with lower-level property 

crime calls, and online crime-reporting reportedly have contributed to public perceptions 

that the agency is isolated and does not care about residents. This, in turn, could 

undermine gains made in community policing.

Changes in protocol resulting from staffing deficiencies and the need to manage demand 

have also contributed, one respondent claimed, to “slippage in our clearance rates.” Over 

time, such slippage may lead to negative public perceptions of the agency. This respondent 

in particular feared increases in citizen complaints, despite the lack of any current 

“organized public outcry.” 

Salient Themes Emerge from Staffing Experiences

Much of what respondents shared on their staffing experiences reflects a state of being 

overwhelmed, both by concern for budgetary shortcomings and by lack of experience 

with long-term economic difficulties. Nevertheless, representatives from all but two 

agencies in our sample said the way they currently determine their staffing budgets 

reflects normal procedure. Despite feeling overwhelmed and underprepared, few 

agencies and local governments are changing how they determine their budgets. Instead, 

the biggest difference since the recession has been in how agencies absorb additional 

workload caused by staffing shortages. Respondents indicate they seek answers to help 

them navigate contemporary budget challenges, but they appear to rely on approaches 

developed when staffing crises did not exist.
◽ 17 ◽

CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER ONE

Agencies are adjusting to a “new normal”

Concern for the volatile economy as a fundamental problem has transitioned to an 

“adjustment stage” (four agencies noted this). Opportunities to expand staff are restricted 

despite a growing concern that the recession has magnified the need for urgent and 

innovative action. In each agency, the economic crisis has created tenuous relationships 

with local government and led to fears that service restrictions will result in public 

dissatisfaction and undermine community outreach efforts that have been building for 

several years. This suggests the importance of police–community communication (e.g., 

through meetings, presentations, surveys, newsletters)—the police need to keep abreast of 

community concerns while simultaneously sharing their practical realities.

Agencies seek efficient ways to do business

Efficient and effective service delivery is a focus of many agencies both in budgeting and 

evaluating staffing. Six of the agencies view the current economic crisis as a watershed 

moment in their organizational development and are searching for ways to staff 

effectively and efficiently. Capitalizing on technology and learning from other professions, 

including the private sector, are just a few options to explore.

Staffing analysis remains a mystery to many

For many agencies, staffing assessment tools and processes appear to be a “black box.” 

Many feel frustrated by either the lack of control in conducting analyses or a lack of 

understanding of their mechanics. Agencies speak of workload assessments, computer 

programs, metrics, and formulas with an often unclear understanding of how these 

resources actually work, sometimes placing blind faith in them to define their staffing 

needs. Some agencies lamented that many metrics used in computerized staffing analyses 

appeared either irrelevant or inapplicable to them. Four agencies make staffing decisions 

with little empirical data or analysis to support them, even pinpointing areas where they 

think research could help but remaining unaware whether any exists. 

Staffing analyses are useful but out of reach

Agencies view staffing analyses, specifically those conducted with external assistance, 

as especially important in recessionary times. Due to the rigor and apparent objectivity 

of such analyses, these agencies hypothesize that expert assessments could provide them 

with greater leverage for negotiating budgets with local decision makers. Although 

expert analysis might better articulate their true needs, many agencies cannot afford to 

hire others to do them and lack the expertise or time to conduct them internally. These 

limitations frustrate many agencies. These same kinds of limitations have been identified 

in similar studies (see Levine and McEwen 1985).
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 18 ◽

Staffing is an intuitive process

Certain agencies, suspicious of external analysts and formulas, feel comfortable using 

processes that rely largely on historical precedent or, at times, no empirical basis at all. 

This intuitive process is often defended as providing a more individualized picture of an 

agency’s staffing needs. One agency stated that in four years it conducted three different 

staffing studies but none reflected its unique needs. Another stated that metrics available 

in software packages and from external sources may present “basic standards” but do not 

account for variables such as geography and organizational changes. 

Concluding Remarks

The staffing landscape, particularly that portrayed by the respondents and focus group 

participants in our study, is one characterized by complexity and uncertainty. While the 

staffing experience appears to vary by agency, a common thread is that the determination 

of staffing need warrants greater attention. As one respondent put it, “We determine how 

many officers we need by holding an envelope to our head.” In the next chapter, we take 

a step to help guide an evidence-based process by presenting an approach to assessing the 

demand for patrol officers who form the “backbone” of the police organization.

CHAPTER THREE
◽ 21 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

A Workload-Based Assessment for Patrol

In this chapter, we highlight common staffing approaches and demonstrate how 

agencies may develop and use a workload-based assessment of patrol staffing needs that 

incorporates performance objectives for discretionary time. We also review various work 

schedules and illustrate their importance in patrol staffing allocation, using data from four 

law enforcement agencies, including information from their calls for service and notional 

work schedules.

An assessment approach reflecting departmental workload can help provide a better 

and more objective means for determining staffing needs. Additionally, comprehensive 

assessments for patrol help to answer a host of critical questions, including:

•	 How many patrol units should be on duty during each shift?

•	 How should they be distributed among the various communities in the city or 

county?

•	 Should one officer or two be assigned to each car? Or should there be a mix of 

one-officer and two-officer cars?

•	 How do patrol officers spend their time when they are not handling calls for 

service?

•	 What are the patrol beats for each car?

•	 Which citizen calls merit response by a patrol car, and which ones can be handled 

by other means, such as taking a crime report over the telephone?

•	 How many cars are dispatched to each call?

•	 What should be the starting times of patrol officers’ tour of duty?

•	 What do patrol officers’ schedules look like: days on duty, tour rotation, and so 

forth (Levine and McEwen 1985, 3)?

Police-staffing models have evolved to reflect models of policing. The earliest models reflected 

approaches to addressing rising crime and the number of personnel necessary to do so. Later 

models aimed to improve efficiency, but did not give much attention to discretionary time 

needed for community policing. More recent models address community policing needs, but 

can require difficult decisions—e.g., defining response intervals. 

Typical Approaches to Staffing Allocation

Traditionally, there have been four basic approaches to determining workforce levels. Each 

differs in its assumptions, ease of calculation, usefulness, validity, and efficiency. We review 

each below to provide context for developing an evidence-based approach to police staffing. 
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 22 ◽

The per capita approach

Many police agencies have used their resident population to estimate the number of 

officers a community needs (Adams 1994; Orrick 2008). The per capita method requires 

determining an optimum number of officers per person and then calculating the number 

of officers needed for the population of a jurisdiction (Orrick 2008). To determine an 

optimum number of officers per population—that is, an optimum officer rate—an agency 

may compare its rate to that of other regional jurisdictions or to peer agencies of similar 

size. Although it is difficult to determine the historical origin of or justification for the per 

capita method, it is clear that substantial variation exists among police departments. 

Advantages of the per capita method include its methodological simplicity and ease of 

interpretation. The population data required to calculate this metric, such as census 

figures and estimates, are readily available and regularly updated. Per capita methods that 

control for factors such as crime rates can permit communities to compare themselves 

with peer organizations (Edwards 2011). The disadvantage of this method is that it only 

addresses the quantity of police officers needed per population and not how officers spend 

their time, the quality of their efforts, or community conditions, needs, and expectations. 

Similarly, the per capita approach cannot guide agencies on how to deploy their officers.

Agencies using the per capita method may risk a biased determination of their policing 

needs (Adams, Baer, Denmon, and Dettmansperger 2009; Campbell, Brann, and Williams 

2003; Coleman 2010; Ervin 2007; Glendale Police Department 2009; Hale 1994; Hassell 

2006; IACP 2004, 2007; Orrick 2008). There are several reasons for this. First, there is no 

generally accepted benchmark for the optimum staffing rate. Rather, there is considerable 

variation in the police rate depending on community size, region, agency structure and 

type. Table 3.1 on page 23, for example, shows widely varying rates by region, population 

of jurisdiction, and for selected large jurisdictions.

Per capita ratios do not account for the intensity of workload by jurisdiction. Crime levels and 

types can vary substantially among communities of similar population sizes. Per capita ratios 

also do not account for changes in population characteristics (such as seasonal fluctuations in 

tourist communities), or long-term trajectories of population growth and shrinkage. 

The per capita method does not account for variations in policing style, service delivery, 

or response to crime (i.e., how police officers spend their time). Some police departments 

may choose to use non-sworn staff to perform some service functions. Others may choose 

a more community-oriented (with various forms of implementation) or traditional style of 

service delivery. Variations in how agencies choose to patrol their jurisdictions also have 

implications for staffing needs that are not reflected in per capita ratios.
◽ 23 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Table 3.1. Full-time officers per 1,000 population by region, community 

population, and for selected large jurisdictions 

Location

Number of full-time officers 

per 1,000 population

Region

Northeast 2.6

South 2.6

Midwest 2.2

West 1.7

Population of jurisdiction

250,000 or more 2.7

100,000 to 249,999 1.8

50,000 to 99,999 1.7

25,000 to 49,999 1.8

10,000 to 24,999 1.9

2,500 to 9,999 3.5

All sizes 2.3*

Selected jurisdictions

Washington, D.C. 6.7

New Orleans, Louisiana 6.5

Baltimore, Maryland 4.7

Chicago, Illinois 4.7

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 4.7

Newark, New Jersey 4.4

New York, New York 4.3

St. Louis, Missouri 3.9

Boston, Massachusetts 3.7

Cleveland, Ohio 3.6

Detroit, Michigan 3.5

Atlanta, Georgia 3.4

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 3.4

Cincinnati, Ohio 3.2

Los Angeles, California 2.5

Houston, Texas 2.3

Phoenix, Arizona 2.1

Albuquerque, New Mexico 1.9

Las Vegas, Nevada 1.8

San Diego, California 1.5

Montgomery County, Maryland 3.1

Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011), Reaves (2010).

*There is significant variation within each of these categories. For example, in the Northeast region, ratios range from 4.1 

for cities over 250,000 to 1.8 for cities from 10,000 to 25,000 in population. In cities over 250,000 in population the ratios 

range from 2.0 officers per 1,000 in the West to 4.1 in the Northeast
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 24 ◽

Table 3.2. Police staffing ratios in Michigan cities with populations 

between 100,000 and 200,000

Estimated 

population

Sworn 

officers

Officer rate 

per 1,000

Crime rate 

City per 100,000

Lansing 114,415 240 2.09 1,819

Flint 113,462 201 1.77 3,339

Warren 133,721 230 1.71 1,144

Grand Rapids 193,096 323 1.67 2,416

Ann Arbor 115,148 149 1.29 1,253

Sterling Heights 127,697 166 1.29 1,058

The per capita approach fails to account for environmental differences among 

jurisdictions. It does not incorporate service-area size, weather patterns, or physical 

barriers and obstacles (such as rivers, mountains, bridges, and tunnels) in determining 

optimum staffing levels. Furthermore, it does not account for non-crime related 

functions and activities, traditionally performed by police as community demographic 

and economic characteristics dictate. In sum, the per capita method does not consider 

community context for determining staffing levels. 

Table 3.2, which presents population, officers, officer rate, and crime rate for six Michigan 

jurisdictions with populations between 100,000 and 200,000, demonstrates how differing 

communities can have variations in their officer rates. Flint, which reports the highest crime 

rate, has the second-highest officer rate. Yet Lansing, with a crime rate only about half that of 

Flint, has the highest officer rate. Warren, with a crime rate only about one-third that of Flint, 

and less than half that of Grand Rapids, has the third-highest officer rate.

Given the disadvantages noted above as well as others, the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police (IACP) has strongly advised against using population rates for police 

staffing. The IACP (2004, 2) notes, “Ratios, such as officers-per-thousand population, are 

totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions.... Defining patrol staffing allocation 

and deployment requirements is a complex endeavor which requires consideration of an 

extensive series of factors and a sizable body of reliable, current data.”

The minimum staffing approach

The minimum staffing approach requires police supervisors and command staff to estimate 

a sufficient number of patrol officers that must be deployed at any one time to maintain 

officer safety and provide an adequate level of protection to the public (Demers, Palmer, 

and Griffiths 2007; Orrick 2008). The use of minimum staffing approaches is fairly 

common (Kotsur 2006; National Sheriffs’ Association 2007) and is generally reinforced 

through organizational policy and practice and collective bargaining agreements. 
◽ 25 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

There are two principal reasons a jurisdiction may use a minimum staffing approach. 

First, policymakers in many communities believe there are a minimum number of officers 

needed to ensure public safety. This may be particularly common in small communities 

where there are relatively few citizen-generated demands for police service yet residents 

expect a minimum number to be on duty at all times. Second, police officers themselves 

may insist (often through collective bargaining) that a minimum number of officers be 

on duty at all times. In some communities, the minimum staffing level is established by 

ordinance (Mrozinski 2010). 

There are no objective standards for setting the minimum staffing level. Agencies 

may consider population, call load, crime rate, and other variables when establishing 

a minimum staffing level. Yet many agencies may determine the minimum necessary 

staff level by perceived need without any factual basis in workload, presence of officers, 

response time, immediate availability, distance to travel, shift schedule, or other 

performance criteria (New Jersey Division of Local Government Services 2009; Shane 

2007; Demers et al. 2007; Orrick 2008). This may result in deploying too few officers 

when workload is high and too many officers when it is low. To be sure, the minimum 

staffing level is often higher than what would be warranted by the agency workload. 

Ironically, even when the minimum staffing is not workload based, it is not uncommon to 

hear police officers suggest that an increase in the agency’s workload should warrant an 

increase in the minimum staffing level.

Minimum staffing levels are sometimes set so high that it results in increasing demands 

for police overtime. When staffing falls below the minimum standard, police managers 

typically must “hire back” officers on overtime to satisfy the minimum staff requirement. 

It is not uncommon for some agencies to hire back officers nearly every day due to officers 

taking time off for sick leave, vacations, or other reasons. Additionally, some agencies 

use a very narrow definition of available staffing. For example, they may hire back to 

fill a vacancy in patrol, even though there are a number of other officers on the street, 

including those in traffic, school resource units, and supervisors. Inefficiency increases 

when there are minimum staffing levels on overlapping shifts, leading to a higher number 

of officers on duty at a time that may not coincide with workload demand.

Most police officers, given a choice, would prefer to have more officers on the street, 

lending credence to a minimum-staffing model. Nevertheless, increasing the minimum 

staffing level will not, by itself, improve agency performance or necessarily increase officer 

safety. In fact, officers hired back to work extra shifts are likely to be fatigued, increasing 

the risk of injury to themselves or others.

Minimum staffing can also decrease the extent to which an agency can be nimble and 

flexibly deploy officers based on changing workload demands. 
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 26 ◽

Finally, in some agencies the minimum staffing level may become, by default, the 

perceived optimal staffing level. In these situations, agencies often use the minimum 

level as a method to decide, for example, whether an officer can take a benefit day 

off. Others build work schedules so as to ensure that the minimum level is on duty. In 

these situations, staffing decisions are based on meeting the minimum level rather than 

optimizing the available resources to meet workload demand.

The authorized level approach

The authorized level approach uses budget allocations to specify a number of officers 

that may be allocated (Wilson et al. 2011). (See, for example, City of Bloomington 2009.) 

Although the authorized level may be determined through a formal staffing assessment, 

it is often driven by resource availability and political decision making. The authorized 

level does not typically reflect any identifiable criteria such as demand for service, 

community expectations, or efficiency analyses, but may instead reflect an incremental 

budgeting process. 

It can sometimes be difficult to determine what is meant by authorized level. For 

example, in 2009, the Chicago Police Department simultaneously offered an early 

retirement plan and reduced hiring of new officers. As a result, at the end of 2009 the 

department was about 700 officers below its authorized level of 13,500. In addition, there 

were also more than 1,000 officers unavailable each day because of leave or other limited 

capacity. This resulted in media reports suggesting that the department was operating 

nearly 2,000 officers below its authorized level (Fox News 2009).

The authorized level can become an artificial benchmark for need, creating the 

misperception among police leadership, line staff, and the community that the agency is 

understaffed and overworked if the actual number of officers does not meet the authorized 

level (Baker and Harmon 2006). Additionally, as our focus group participants noted, unless 

an agency staffs above the authorized level, fluctuations in recruitment, selection, training, 

and attrition may lead to the actual staffing levels falling below authorized levels. Wilson, 

Rostker, and Fan (2010) found that municipal police agencies with at least 300 sworn 

officers are, on average, 5 percent below their authorized sworn level. 

Because the authorized level is often derived independently of workload considerations, 

an agency may be able to meet workforce demand with fewer officers than authorized. 

Still, the perception of being understaffed, resulting when officials bemoan the department 

operating below authorized strength, can diminish morale and productivity (Shane 2010) 

and make it appear that the community is not adequately funding public safety. 
◽ 27 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

The workload-based approach

A more comprehensive attempt to determining appropriate workforce levels considers 

actual police workload.2 Workload-based approaches derive staffing indicators from 

demand for service (Lumb 1996). What differentiates this approach is the requirement to 

systematically analyze and determine staffing needs based upon actual workload demand 

while accounting for service-style preferences and other agency features and characteristics. 

The workload approach estimates future staffing needs of police departments by modeling 

the level of current activity (Orrick 2008; Wilson and McLaren 1972; Keycare Strategy 

Operations Technology 2010). Conducting a workload analysis can assist in determining the 

need for additional resources or relocating existing resources (by time and location), assessing 

individual and group performance and productivity, and detecting trends in workload 

that may illustrate changing activity levels and conditions (Glendale Police Department 

2009; Hale 1994; Orrick 2008; Shane 2007). Furthermore, a workload analysis can be 

performed at every level of the police department and for all key functions, although it is 

more difficult to assess workload for some units than others (Hale 1994). The importance 

of the workload-based approach to staffing is evidenced by it being codified as a standard 

(16.1.2) by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (2006). The 

agency allocates personnel to, and distributes them within, all organizational components in 

accordance with documented workload assessments conducted at least once every 3 years.

Unfortunately, there is no universally-accepted standard method for conducting a 

workload-based assessment. Defining and measuring “work” varies by agency. Knowing 

that staff decisions are based upon calls for service and the time required to respond to 

them, officers may not have an incentive to be efficient in their response to calls or even to 

engage in activities that reduce calls (Orrick 2008; Shane 2007). Learning how to conduct a 

workload-based assessment may be challenging for police administrators. Typical workload 

models are complicated and require intensive calculations. They also require decisions on a 

wide array of issues that are very difficult for officials and communities to make—such as 

how frequently streets should be patrolled—and do not uniformly account for discretionary 

activities, such as time for community policing and other officer-initiated activities. 

Software programs may simplify the analytical process, but their methods are not always 

clear and can be inappropriate for some agencies. The cost of purchasing these software 

programs can be substantial, as can the training of staff to use them. These programs can 

be helpful for scheduling purposes, but less so as a tool for optimizing resources. Rather 

than relying on software, some agencies hire outside assistance to assess their workload. 

This may be more costly than conducting the analysis “in-house,” but the analysis will 

benefit from experience, the results may carry greater weight among decision makers 

because they are independent, and, in most cases, the cost-savings of creating a more 

efficient staff allocation more than offsets the costs of the analysis.

2. For an historical overview of “early” and “modern” workload-based allocation models for patrol, see Fritsch, 

Liederbach, and Taylor 2009. 
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 28 ◽

We suggest that, even with shortcomings, allocation models based on actual workload 

and performance objectives are preferable to other methods that might not account 

for environmental and agency-specific variables. Agencies could benefit from a more 

popularized workload-based methodology of staffing analysis that is easy to learn, 

comprehend, employed by administrators, and, importantly, helps to effectively manage 

discretionary time. No single metric or benchmark should be used as a sole basis for 

determining an agency’s staffing level (Fritsch, Liederbach, and Taylor 2009). Rather, 

agencies should consider metrics in light of professional expertise that can place them in 

an appropriate practical context.

A Step-By-Step Approach for Conducting 

a Workload-Based Assessment

We demonstrate how to conduct a workload-based assessment by examining the 

distribution of calls for service in four law enforcement agencies:

1. The Delaware (Ohio) Police Department, June 1, 2007–May 31, 2008

2. The Rockford (Illinois) Police Department, July 1, 2007–June 30, 2008

3. The Lansing (Michigan) Police Department, January 1, 2009–December 31, 2009

4. The Chicago Police Department, August 1, 2008–July 31, 2009

This method is designed to provide staffing estimates for the patrol division. That is, it is 

based on the assumption that officers spend some fraction of their time handling citizengenerated calls for service. 

There are six steps in this process:

1. Examine the distribution of calls for service by hour of day, day of week, and month

2. Examine the nature of calls for service

3. Estimate time consumed on calls for service

4. Calculate agency shift-relief factor

5. Establish performance objectives

6. Provide staffing estimates
◽ 29 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Examine the distribution of calls for service by hour of day, 

day of week, and month

The principal metric used to assess workload is citizen-initiated calls for service. A call 

for service occurs when a resident contacts the police, typically by phone, and a police 

officer is dispatched to handle the call. While key to the workload-based approach, it can 

be difficult to reliably measure the number of calls in a community. Law enforcement 

executives may use information from a Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to 

determine the number of calls for service in a given time period, but such information can 

be very misleading. Most organize their CAD systems around “events” or “incidents.” Yet 

these events are not necessarily calls for service. In some communities, every traffic stop 

is an event, as is, in Chicago, even an officer’s meal, and an officer’s visit to a station is an 

incident (Weiss 2010). In others, an event may be generated or initiated by an officer, yet 

appear in a statistical system as a call for service. Traffic stops in particular may appear 

to be calls for service, particularly if an arrest is made. Using CAD data without scrutiny 

may grossly exaggerate, perhaps by three- or four-fold, the number of citizen-generated 

calls, although some systems permit users to identify records by the source of the call. 

Emerging CAD/RMS technologies may make it easier to obtain reliable workload data.

In order to produce a staffing estimate, it is important to carefully examine data on calls 

for service. To illustrate this concept, consider data from Rockford, Illinois, from July 1, 

2007 to June 30, 2008. For this period we identified 104,251 calls in which a police officer 

was dispatched. This equates to an average daily call volume of 286, or an average of 12 

calls per hour.

Figure 3.1 on page 30 illustrates the distribution of these calls by hour of day. On a typical 

day, demand for services appears to be greater between 2:00 p.m. and midnight than at 

other times.

Figure 3.2 on page 32 illustrates the distribution of calls by day of week in Rockford for 

the same time period. Demand is greatest on weekends, with the number of calls on 

Saturday being 15 percent higher than on Monday.

As previously noted, agencies can differ by their needs. Figure 3.3 on page 32, on the daily 

distribution of calls in Delaware, Ohio, illustrates this. While calls for service in Rockford 

are greatest on Saturday and least on Monday, in Delaware, Ohio, they are greatest on 

Friday and least on Sunday. 

Calls for service may also vary by season. Such demands may have implications for other 

requests and activities that affect resource allocation, as well as scheduling vacations and 

training. Figure 3.4 on page 33 shows distribution of calls for service in Lansing, where 

peak call levels occur in the summer months.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 30 ◽

Examine the nature 

of calls for service

In addition to analyzing the distribution 

of calls for service by hour, weekday, 

and month, administrators should 

examine the nature of or reasons for 

calls. This will serve two purposes. 

First, it will help to determine whether 

the data reliably reflect citizengenerated calls. If, for example, the list 

of call types includes categories such as 

traffic stops or officer meals, then the 

data are likely not reflecting resident 

needs. Second, such a review will help 

in better understanding the work that 

the agency’s officers are doing.

Table 3.3 on page 31 lists the top 20 call 

types in Lansing, Michigan. These calls, 

all of which require an officer response, 

represent 61 percent of citizen-generated 

calls for service.

About 6,000 calls in this group are 

related to traffic and parking (as are 

about 8,000 calls in the top 25 categories, 

which include 5 additional categories 

not shown in table 3.3). Altogether, 

traffic and parking related calls account 

for 12 percent of all calls. Some fraction 

of these calls may require a back-up 

unit, but that information is typically 

not available in the CAD data. 

It can also be useful to examine the types of calls by districts or beats. Table 3.4 lists the 

most frequent call types in two Chicago police districts. In the first, most calls involve 

violent or otherwise more serious crime. In the second, calls are for less serious issues. 

(Parking violation 1 is for parking violations, such as obstructing traffic or blocking a 

fire hydrant, which create an immediate hazard and require an officer to wait until the 

violation is cleared with a disposition. Parking violation 2 is for parking violations, such 

as residential zone parking violations, which do not create an immediate hazard and do 

not require an officer to wait at the scene until the violation is cleared.)

Figure 3.1. Rockford police calls for service by hour, 

July 2007 to June 2008

Source: Rockford Police Department
◽ 31 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Table 3.3. Lansing police 

calls for service by type, 

January to December 2009

Type Number

Larceny 3,623

Fight 3,570

Property damage accident 3,212

Assault 3,189

Trouble with subject 2,831

Check welfare 2,781

Unwanted guest 2,196

Suspicious person 2,096

Burglary 1,985

Noise complaint 1,963

Parking complaint 1,940

Malicious destruction 1,847

B&E/burglary alarm 1,769

E911 hang up 1,438

Unknown trouble 1,424

Transport 1,325

Check security of building 1,320

Threats complaint 1,264

Reckless driving 1,194

Suspicious vehicle 1,139

Source: Lansing Police Department

Table 3.4. Calls for service by type in two Chicago districts, 

August 2008 to July 2009

District A District B

Type Number Type Number

Domestic disturbance 14,623 Disturbance 9,209

Disturbance 13,941 Parking violation 1 3,308

Narcotics loitering 7,708 Disturbance music 2,297

Battery injury 6,565 Detail 1,960

Domestic battery 5,182 Battery injury 1,691

Selling narcotics 5,067 Auto accident PD 1,640

Person with a gun 4,148 Domestic disturbance 1,387

Alarm burglar 4,002 Parking violation 2 1,366

Disturbance music 3,061 Check well being 1,270

Assault injury 2,815 Emergency medical 

service

1,191

Source: Chicago Police Department

Estimate time consumed 

on calls for service

An important component of the analysis is 

the amount of time consumed on calls for 

service, specifically the time from when an 

officer is dispatched to answer the call until the 

last officer clears the scene. How this time is 

recorded will vary by community. This is most 

straightforward when a single officer handles 

the call and completes resulting administrative demands (e.g., reports, arrests) prior to 

clearing it. Information on time consumed by calls for service should be readily available 

in the CAD database.

In some cases, measuring time consumed on calls for service is more problematic. In 

some organizations an officer may respond to a call and report the call is completed upon 

finishing the on-scene work. In other cases the officer may complete the report for that call 

later in the shift, perhaps at the station. In some agencies, the use of computer-based report 

systems may increase the time required for report preparation, or may prompt officers to 

return to the police facility to complete reports. As a result, report preparation may not 

appear as call-for-service (CFS) time. This potential problem can be addressed in two ways. 

First, an agency can determine the number of calls that require a report, and estimate the 

amount of time required. Second, if report writing will normally not be part of CFS time, 

it may be necessary to adjust for this when establishing performance standards.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 32 ◽

Figure 3.2. Rockford police calls for 

service by day of week, July 2007 

to June 2008

Source: Rockford Police Department

Figure 3.3. Delaware, Ohio, police calls 

for service by day of week, June 2007 

to May 2008

M T W Th F S Sn

Source: Delaware Police Department

A final issue related to measuring time consumed is multiple-officer dispatching. Most 

CAD systems do not accurately capture the number of “back-up” officers dispatched to 

a call, nor do they capture the amount of time that the back-up officers spend on the call. 

In some communities officers “self-dispatch” to calls. That is, they respond to a call even 

though they have not been instructed to do so. There may not be a record of their time on 

scene. We will later describe alternative approaches to this issue.

Calculate agency shift-relief factor

The fourth component of the staffing model is the shift-relief factor. The shift-relief 

factor shows the relationship between the maximum number of days that an officer can 

work and actually works. Knowing the relief factor is necessary to estimating the number 

of officers that should be assigned to a shift in order to ensure that the appropriate 

number is working each day. The shift-relief factor will vary by whether officers work 8-, 

10-, or 12-hour shifts.
◽ 33 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Shift-relief factor calculation 

begins with gathering data 

about benefit time3

 in the 

agency. There are two ways to 

approach this. In some agencies 

it is possible to obtain data on 

the actual use of benefit time. 

That is, the agency can provide 

the actual number of hours of 

vacation taken by officers in 

a unit or on a shift. This can 

be very informative because 

officers with more seniority 

tend to use more benefit time. 

Thus, a shift with senior 

officers would have a higher 

shift-relief factor than one 

with junior officers. Adjusting 

for this difference makes the 

workforce model more reliable. 

An alternative approach to 

obtaining the actual data is to 

build a shift-relief factor on the 

assumption that officers will 

use all their benefit time each year. For example, if an agency provided 10 days each year 

for sick leave, we would assume that each officer would use all 10 sick days (while it may 

not be common for officers to use their entire amount of sick time, this assumption will 

allow for a conservative estimate given the possibility that it could occur). 

3. This may include sick leave, vacation, holidays, compensatory time, training, worker’s compensation, military leave, etc.

Figure 3.4. Lansing police calls for service by month, 

January to December 2009

Source: Lansing Police Department
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 34 ◽

Table 3.5. Notional time off each year for 

officers working five 8-hour shifts weekly

Category Time off (hours)

Personal time 7

Vacation 116

Holiday (12 annually) 96

Sick leave 107

Training 64.5

Regular days off (2 weekly) 832

Total 1,222.5

Source: Notional data for illustration

Table 3.6. Notional time off each year for 

officers working four 10-hour shifts weekly

Category Time off (hours)

Personal time 7

Vacation 116

Holiday (12 annually) 96

Sick leave 107

Training 64.5

Regular days off (3 weekly) 1,560

Total 1,950.5

Source: Notional data for illustration

Table 3.5 illustrates, notionally, the average benefit time off per officer for an agency 

working 8-hour shifts (total time off divided by the number of personnel).

The formula for the shift relief factor is:

365 x shift length / (365 x shift length – total time off)

where 365 is the number of days in the year and shift length is the number of hours per shift.

The data above indicate this agency should have a shift-relief factor of 

2920/ (2920–1222.5) or

2920/ 1697.5 or

1.7

Thus, in this example, 1.7 officers need to be assigned to a shift to ensure one is working 

any given shift.

The shift-relief factor will differ for an agency with 10-hour shifts, because officers have 

more regular days off. Table 3.6 illustrates, notionally, average benefit time off in an agency 

using 10-hour shifts (but retaining 8-hour award increments for vacation and holiday time).

Notice that the total time off grew significantly because officers now have 30 hours off 

each 7-day period instead of 16 in 8 hour shifts. This leads to the following calculations 

for the shift-relief factor:

365 x shift length / (365 x shift length – total time off) or

365 x 10 / (365 x 10 – total time off) or

3650/ (3650–1950.5) or

3650/ 1699.5 or

2.1
◽ 35 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

This means that 2.1 officers must be assigned to a 

shift to ensure one is working it on a given day.

Table 3.7. Notional time off each year for 

officers working 12-hour shifts

Category Time off (hours)

Personal time 40

Vacation (10–15 years of service) 136

Holiday 144

Sick leave (maximum earned) 96

7 days off in each 14 day period 2,288

Total 2,704

Source: Notional data for illustration

Finally, we examine the shift-relief factor for an 

agency on 12-hour shifts (estimated with vacation 

time off for an employee with 10–15 years of 

experience because actual time off data were not 

available). Table 3.7 presents notional benefit time 

for officers working such shifts, with calculations 

for shift-relief factor immediately following.

365 x shift length / (365 x shift length – 

total time off) or

365 x 12 / (365 x 12 – 2704 or4

4380 / (4380–2704) or

4380/1676 or 

2.6

Although the shift-relief factor for 12-hour shifts, at 2.6, is high, the agency only has to 

staff two shifts. It is roughly comparable to a relief factor of 1.7 for a department using 

8-hour shifts. A department using 12-hour shifts with a relief factor of 2.6 must have at 

least 5.2 officers to ensure at least one can be scheduled for each shift, while a department 

using 8-hour shifts with a relief factor of 1.7 must have at least 5.1 officers to ensure at 

least one can be scheduled for each shift.

Establish Performance Objectives

The fifth component of the staffing model is the performance objective. That is, we need 

to determine what fraction of an officer’s shift should be devoted to calls for service and 

what portion to other activities. While there is no accepted standard for this allocation it 

can be instructive to explore how agencies have faced this challenge.

In developing one of the earliest workload-based models three decades ago, the IACP 

suggested that officers should devote one-third of their time to calls for service, one-third 

to proactive (patrol) time, and one-third to administrative activity. While superior to the 

per capita method for estimating staffing needs, this approach is still simplistic. In fact, 

our experience suggests that for most agencies a careful analysis of calls for service would 

find officers spending far less than one-third of their time on calls for service. 

4. Twelve-hour shifts will result in a 42-hour workweek. If agencies want officers to work 12 hours on each shift, it will 

require that officers be paid overtime.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 36 ◽

Another approach for estimating workload is the Police Allocation Manual (PAM) 

developed by William Stenzel (Northwestern University Traffic Institute 1993; Stenzel 

2007). It is widely used by law enforcement agencies to estimate police staffing needs. 

Stenzel argues that on-duty time has four components:

•	 Reactive: Time spent responding to calls for service

•	 Proactive: Time spent on self-initiated activities

•	 Proactive (patrol): Time spent free or uncommitted

•	 Administrative time: All other activities while on patrol

In the PAM approach, obligated time is defined as reactive time plus administrative 

time plus proactive time. Patrol time is considered unobligated. Stenzel suggests using 

total obligated time and a performance factor to estimate total unobligated time. For 

example, an agency could suggest 20 minutes out of each hour (the performance factor) be 

unobligated. The number of officers required would be based on the total obligated time 

plus the total unobligated time.

We base our estimate of officers required on the known community-generated workload 

(calls for service), because it is easiest to measure and best reflects demand for police 

service. We believe that this approach is very reliable, because other activity categories 

are often duplicative. First, consider the self-initiated (proactive) category. Much of this 

activity involves traffic stops and contacts of suspicious persons. Suppose an officer parks 

a patrol vehicle along the highway and looks for speeders for 30 minutes. The officer 

records this time as self-initiated activity. In the PAM approach this would be counted as 

obligated time. But, given that the officer would be available to handle calls for service, 

we suggest that this self-initiated activity (obligated in the PAM approach) is, in fact, 

discretionary (and not obligated). Or consider an officer that is directed to increase patrol 

in an area with gang activity. The officer records this time as a directed assignment 

(proactive time), but is it really patrol (classified as uncommitted in the PAM approach)?

Noting the possible confusion of categories does not denigrate these activities. Rather, 

the point is that many police activities are discretionary. If an officer were occupied on 

a call, these activities would not be performed, or would be of a shorter duration. In the 

PAM approach, 50 percent of a shift would be available for patrol. That time would be in 

addition to the patrol-like activities previously described.
◽ 37 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

In our analysis, we can accurately define the time 

consumed by community-generated activities. 

The community, through policy-makers, must 

then determine what fraction of an officer’s day 

should be available for other activities. Insight on 

community preferences, values, and expectations 

with regard to how officers spend their time can be 

obtained through a variety of sources, such as surveys, 

community meetings and forums, focus groups, 

individual and group interviews, media reports, etc. 

Some communities might want officers to be available 

for patrol for at least half their shift. Others, like 

Chicago, devote considerable resources to specialized 

patrol units; as a result, beat cars need less time for 

officer-initiated activities. Once the community sets a 

performance objective, we can estimate the number 

of officers required. If that number is greater than are 

available, the community can either add capacity or 

adjust its performance demands to available resources. 

One useful tool to determine the appropriate amount 

of discretionary time is to conduct interviews and focus groups with elected officials as 

well as representatives of neighborhood and business organizations.

Table 3.8. Modified calls for service data for 

Delaware, Ohio, June 2007 to May 2008

Shift CFS 25%

Total 

(CFS+25%)

One 5,741 1,368 7,109

Two 8,176 2,044 10,220

Three 3,289 822 4,111

Source: Delaware Police Department

Source: Delaware Police Department

Table 3.9. Estimated hours required by shift 

to fulfill Delaware, Ohio, calls for service 

Total Time

Shift Minutes Hours

One 220,379 3,673

Two 316,820 5,280

Three 127,441 2,124

Provide staffing estimates 

Having described the method for estimating the officers required for patrol, we provide 

examples of how this approach is applied. The first examines Delaware, Ohio.

We constructed staffing models for three shifts:

•	 Shift one (0700 to 1459 hours)

•	 Shift two (1500 to 2259 hours)

•	 Shift three (2300 to 0659 hours)

The first step in building our staffing model is to determine the number of officers 

required to answer calls for service. In order to compensate for the failure of the CAD 

to capture multiple officer dispatches, we add 25 percent to the number of calls per shift. 

Table 3.8 illustrates the modified calls for service data. 

Table 3.9 presents estimates of officer time required to handle these calls for service. We 

multiply the modified number of calls by 31 minutes, the average time per call, to estimate 

the hours required to meet them (rounding to the nearest hour).
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 38 ◽

Table 3.10. Minimum officers 

required per shift to fulfill 

Delaware, Ohio, calls for service

Shift Hours

Officers 

required

One 3,673 1.26

Two 5,280 1.81

Three 2,124 0.73

Source: Delaware Police Department

Table 3.11. Minimum officers required per shift 

to meet Delaware, Ohio, performance objectives

Shift

Officers required to 

fulfill calls for service

Officers required to meet 

performance objectives 

(middle column times four)

One 1.26 5.03

Two 1.81 7.23

Three 0.73 2.91

Source: Delaware Police Department

An officer working 8 hours per day 365 days per year would work 2,920 hours per year. 

To determine the number of officers required to handle the calls for service, we divide the 

total hours on calls for service by 2,920. Table 3.10 shows the results of these calculations.

Next we examine the performance objective. In Delaware, Ohio, patrol officers are 

responsible for conducting the vast majority of follow-up investigations. This is clearly a 

time-consuming activity. Based on these requirements we have developed a model that 

proportions officer time as follows:

•	 25% CFS

•	 25% Patrol and self-initiated

•	 25% Administrative

•	 25% Criminal investigation follow-up

In order to apply this model to our data, we multiply the number of officers required to 

answer calls for service by four. Table 3.11 illustrates the number of officers required per 

shift to meet our performance objective.

This estimate assumes officers work 365 days per year. To adjust for the actual number 

of days that an officer is likely to work we multiply the minimum number of officers 

required to meet Delaware, Ohio, performance objectives by the shift relief factor, 

which for Delaware, Ohio, is 1.8. Table 3.12 on page 39 presents this number, as well as a 

rounded-up estimate (given it is impossible to provide a fraction of an officer).

In short, to have fulfilled its calls for service and met other performance objectives, the 

Delaware, Ohio, department required a minimum of 30 officers, of which 10 were needed 

for assignment to the first shift, 14 to the second shift, and six to the third shift.5

5. This only includes officers that are fully available to handle calls for service. 
◽ 39 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Table 3.12. Minimum officers for assignment to each shift 

to manage Delaware, Ohio, police workload

Shift

Number of officers required to meet 

performance objectives multiplied 

by shift-relief factor of 1.8

Number of officers needed for 

assignment to each shift

One 9.06 10

Two 13.02 14

Three 5.24 6

Total 30

Source: Delaware Police Department

Table 3.13. Modified calls for service data for Rockford, July 2007 to June 2008

Shift CFS Accidents

CFS less 

accidents

Estimated calls for 

back-up officers

Modified 

CFS

Night 21,353 663 20,690 5,172 25,862

Day 37,517 1,000 36,517 9,129 45,646

Evening 39,730 1,000 38,730 9,683 48,413

Source: Rockford Police Department

Next, we examine patrol staffing in Rockford.

In this analysis we have divided the day into three 8-hour shifts:

•	 Night shift (midnight to 8:00 a.m.), 21,353 CFS

•	 Day shift (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.), 37,517 CFS

•	 Evening (4:00 p.m. to midnight), 39,730 CFS

The analysis of calls for service revealed that officers outside of patrol investigated 2,663 

traffic accidents. Thus we have removed them from the total.6

 The “subtotal” represents 

the result of this adjustment.

We also adjusted for calls that require a back-up officer. The Rockford data system did 

not time how long back-up officers remain on calls, making it difficult to accurately 

account for back-up officers. We estimated that 25 percent of calls require a back-up unit 

and that this unit stays for the entire time of the call. This increases the number of calls for 

service by 25 percent. Table 3.13 shows the total number of calls for service in Rockford 

and the number of calls adjusted for the number of accidents and for our estimated 

number of calls for back-up officers in a recent year.

6. We allocated these investigations in proportion to the distribution of other calls. 
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 40 ◽

Table 3.14. Estimated hours required by 

shift to fulfill Rockford calls for service

Shift Total time consumed in hours

Night 17,069

Day 30,126

Evening 31,956

Source: Rockford Police Department

Table 3.15. Minimum officers required per 

shift to fulfill Rockford calls for service

Shift

Total time 

consumed in hours

Officers 

required

Night 17,069 5.8

Day 30,126 10.3

Evening 31,956 10.9

Source: Rockford Police Department

The next element of our model is the time devoted to calls. During our period of study, the 

average travel time for all calls was 8 minutes and the average time on scene was 

32 minutes. We therefore estimated a call consumed 40 minutes or 0.66 hours. Table 3.14 

presents our estimates on the total time consumed on calls for service by shift, which is 

calculated by multiplying the average time consumed per call (0.66 hours) by the modified calls for service for each shift.

We next estimate the number of officers required to handle these calls by dividing the total 

number of hours consumed in calls by the number of hours an officer could work each year 

assuming 365 8-hour shifts (2,920). Table 3.15 presents these results.

We provide two models for allocating time. 

The first assumes that officers spend 50 percent 

of their time on calls for service and 50 percent 

on the other activities. In order to produce this 

estimate we multiply the number of officers 

required for calls for service by two. The second 

model assumes that officers will spend one-third 

of their time on calls for service, one-third on 

administrative activities, and one-third on officerinitiated activities. In this case we multiply by 

three the minimum number of officers needed to fulfill CFS by shift. Table 3.16 presents 

our calculations.

These values indicate the numbers of officers that must be on duty to reach these specific 

performance levels. We now estimate the number of officers that needs to be assigned to 

each shift in order to ensure that the appropriate number of officers is on duty, using a shift 

relief factor of 1.7 (as calculated using the method described above). Table 3.17 on page 41 

presents our calculations.

In short, to fulfill its calls for service and provide appropriate levels of shift-relief, the 

Rockford department required a minimum of 93 officers for a 50-percent performance 

objective and 143 to meet a 33-percent performance objective (sum of rounded-up officers 

required per shift-relief factor for all shifts under each performance objective, respectively).

Table 3.16. Minimum officers required per shift 

to meet varying Rockford performance objectives

Shift

Officers required 

for CFS

50% 

obligated

33% 

obligated

Night 5.8 11.6 17.4

Day 10.3 20.6 30.9

Evening 10.9 21.8 32.7

Source: Rockford Police Department
◽ 41 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Table 3.17. Minimum officers required per shift to manage Rockford police workload 

under varying performance objectives

50% Obligated 33% Obligated

Shift

Officers 

required 

CFS

Minimum officers 

required (x 1.7)

Officers required 

per shift-relief 

factor

Minimum officers 

required (x 1.7)

Officers required 

per shift-relief 

factor

Night 5.8 11.6 19.7 17.4 33.5

Day 10.3 20.6 35.0 30.9 52.5

Evening 10.9 21.8 37.1 32.7 55.6

Source: Rockford Police Department

Finally, we look at staffing for a sample Chicago police district. Table 3.18 presents the 

results of our calculations. The first column (time) shows the times of the different shifts. 

The second column (% of CFS needing backup) helps denote three different assumptions 

about the percentage of calls requiring a backup unit during the day shift. (Because the 

evening and night shifts use two-officer cars, we assume that every call then gets two 

officers. On some calls, more than one two-officer car is assigned, and officers may “selfassign” to calls.) The third column (CFS) shows the total CFS by shift for the year. The 

fourth column (adj. CFS) shows the additional CFS calculated under the three daytime 

backup scenarios. The fifth column (Total CFS) shows the actual plus adjusted CFS. The 

sixth column (hours) shows the total time consumed in hours for CFS, based on an average 

of 45 minutes for each call. The seventh column (min. no. of units) shows the minimum 

number of police units needed to handle these calls. This minimum number is calculated 

by multiplying the total number of hours needed to respond to CFS by 2,920, which 

is the total number of hours an officer could work in a year (365 days times an 

8-hour shift). 

Table 3.18. Minimum staffing calculations for a sample Chicago police district, 

August 2008 to July 2009

Time

% of 

CFS 

needing 

backup CFS

Adj. 

CFS

Total 

CFS

Total 

hours 

for CFS

Min. 

no. 

of 

units

Cal. 

RF

50% 

time

No. officers 

in twoofficer

shift

Min. 

no. 

officers

0800–1600 25% 16,511 4,127 20,638 15,478 5.3 10.3 20.6 21

0800–1600 50% 16,511 8,255 24,766 18,574 6.4 12.4 24.8 25

0800–1600 75% 16,511 12,383 28,894 21,670 7.4 14.4 28.8 29

1600–2400 20,679 0 20,679 155,509 5.3 10.3 20.6 41.2 42

0000–0800 12,321 0 12,321 9,240 3.1 6.1 12.2 24.2 25

Source: Chicago Police Department
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 42 ◽

The eighth column (cal. RF) multiplies the minimum number of police units needed to 

handle CFS by 1.94, the relief-factor for Chicago. The ninth column (50% time) shows the 

number of officers needed, assuming a 50-percent performance objective for responding 

to CFS. The tenth column (no. officers in two-officer shift) shows the number of officers 

needed for the evening and night shifts given that officers on these shifts work in pairs. 

Last, the eleventh column (min. no. officers) shows the minimum number of officers 

needed for each shift given the assumptions of the previous column and rounding up. 

Workload data and subsequent estimates of the required number of officers can also 

help evaluate performance. Figure 3.5 illustrates the relationship between resources 

required and resources available for the Rockford Police Department in 2010. The dotted 

line illustrates the number of officers required each hour of the day under a 50-percent 

community-generated performance standard. The dashed line illustrates the number 

of officers required to meet a 33-percent community-generated performance standard. 

Finally, the solid line illustrates the average number officers working.

Under the 50-percent performance standard, the Rockford Police Department, which 

uses a 10-hour shift schedule, has excess capacity almost every hour. Under the 33-percent 

performance standard, it has excess capacity from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. but insufficient capacity in 

nearly all other hours. It is clear that the 10-hour shift schedule leads to unnecessary overlap 

times and that the increased staffing during those times is at the expense of the other hours.

Figure 3.5. Staffing availability and requirements under differing performance standards for the 

Rockford Police Department in 2010

50% 33% 

Working Performance objective Performance objective

icers trol offaP

Source: Rockford Police Department
◽ 43 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Table 3.19. National data illustrating the difficulty of using the workload-based approach 

with less than 15,000 annual citizen-generated calls for service

No. calls for service CFS Adj Minutes Hours Units 50% time RF 66% time RF

600–1800 6,449 8,061 209,586 3,493 0.8 1.6 4 2.4 6

1800–0600 4,364 5,455 141,830 2,364 0.54 1.1 3 1.62 4

Limitations of the workload-based model

When using the workload-based approach it is important to consider some of the 

potential limitations. First, this model relies heavily on averages in producing the 

estimates. To the extent that workload demands exceed averages, relying on averages 

for scheduling may affect agency performance. An example of where this might occur is 

during substantial emergencies, concurrent major calls, or some unplanned event. In these 

sorts of unpredictable situations, the workload-based model, like other approaches, may 

not provide for an adequate number of officers. The main effect of this shortfall will be 

to reduce the availability of discretionary time. Second, the models do not differentiate 

about the job functions of the police units. That is, we assume that calls are handled by 

police officers. To the extent that calls are handled by supervisors or by non-sworn staff, 

officer staffing requirements will diminish. Third, we include the response time as a 

component of the call for service time, which we believe is reliable in most communities. 

In communities with large geographical patrol zones, agencies may find that even when 

officers are available for calls for service, travel time to answer calls exceeds that needed to 

provide acceptable performance. In these agencies it is important to consider re-designing 

patrol zones to ensure that officers can respond to calls appropriately. 

Finally, it is important to note that the workload-based approach works best when a 

community responds to at least 15,000 citizen-generated calls per year. Otherwise, the time 

required for calls for service is so low that the number of officers recommended is far fewer 

than is thought reasonable. Table 3.19 illustrates this type of outcome. In the 50% time 

column we see that the model indicates that only one officer is recommended to be on duty.

In these communities police staffing is typically determined through a “coverage,” or 

minimum staffing approach. That is, the community makes a subjective judgment 

about the appropriate level of policing required for deterrence, rapid response, and to 

ensure officer safety. Of course, there are typically varied views about these objectives. 

For example, research suggests that as few as 5 percent of police calls for service require 

a rapid response (McEwen, Connors, and Cohen 1986), and yet most police departments 

are organized and staffed to respond rapidly to every call. Sometimes the number of 

officers is a function of citizen willingness to pay for those services. For example, the City 

of Holland, Michigan, employs about 60 sworn police officers, but Holland Township, 

which is about the same size and similar in nature, contracts for service with the county 

sheriff who covers the township with 16 sworn officers. 

Source: Notional data for illustration
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 44 ◽

One approach to this coverage problem is to treat police response like one would examine 

a fire department response. That is, we could examine each location in the community and 

determine the time required to respond to an emergency from a central location. If that time 

were outside acceptable limits, it would suggest the need to assign additional resources.

In general, rural communities have lower rates of crime and higher levels of social 

control. The long distances required to respond tend to challenge most agencies that 

provide services in rural areas. Most citizens understand this, and thus they have more 

modest expectations about response time. For example, the average quarterly response 

time from 2008 to 2011 to priority one calls by the Albemarle County (Virginia) Police 

Department typically varied from about 12 to 14 minutes—the target being a 10-minute 

average (Albemarle County n.d.). We can see that response times are considerably greater 

than one would expect in an urban area.

Work Schedule

The second component of patrol resource analysis is the work schedule. The work 

schedule is critical because it helps ensure that resources are aligned with organizational 

objectives.

Police work schedules come in all forms. Although each schedule seems unique, there are 

several ways to compare them. Among the important components of a work schedule are:

•	 Average work week

•	 Shift length

•	 Number of consecutive work days

•	 Weekend time off

•	 Staffing by day of week

•	 Percentage of officers on duty each day
◽ 45 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Table 3.20. Notional scheduling of officers working five 8-hour shifts weekly

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

1 Off Off

2 Off Off

3 Off Off

4 Off Off

5 Off Off

6 Off Off

7 Off Off

% On duty 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Source: Notional data for illustration

Eight-hour shifts

Consider an agency that works 8-hour shifts, with each officer having two days off each 

week. In this schedule, each officer or group of officers is assigned permanently to a dayoff group. Table 3.20 illustrates this configuration.

This schedule features

•	 fixed days off;

•	 three groups of officers having a full or partial weekend off;

•	 equal staffing by day of week;

•	 an on-duty cycle of five days.

Importantly, every day 71 percent of the officers are on duty, and the number of officers 

on duty each day is the same. The proportion and numbers of officers on duty are two 

very important criteria that can be used in evaluating a work schedule.

Fluctuations in group size can provide some scheduling flexibility. Consider, for example, 

a workgroup with nine officers. Each officer is assigned a day-off group, but groups two 

and three each have two officers. This allows the reduction of staffing on some days and 

an increase on others. This schedule is particularly attractive to employees that want fixed 

days off. It works well for officers that are attending school, and may help those with 

child-care needs. The disadvantage is that a substantial portion of employees never have a 

weekend off. In this schedule, the department is able to staff to match a workload that is 

more intense on weekends. Table 3.21 on page 46 illustrates this schedule.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 46 ◽

Table 3.21. Notional scheduling of officers working five 8-hour shifts weekly allowing flexibility 

to meet peak-demand days

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

1 Off Off

2 (2) Off Off

3 (2) Off Off

4 Off Off

5 Off Off

6 Off Off

7 Off Off

On duty 6 5 6 7 7 7 7

Off duty 3 4 3 2 2 2 2

% on duty 66 55 66 77 77 77 77

Source: Notional data for illustration

A scheduling variation providing every officer with occasional weekend days off work is 

the 4 on–2 off schedule. Table 3.22 illustrates this schedule.

This schedule has a 6-week cycle and days off rotate each week. During the cycle each 

officer receives three full or partial weekends off. Two thirds of the officers work each 

day. This schedule requires that officers have rotating days off.

Because in some weeks officers will have 3 days off work, this schedule results in an 

average work week of 37.33 hours. Under this system, there are three possible means for 

officers to achieve an average 40-hour work week. First, the officer could “pay back” 

one day every 3 weeks. If the shift length were increased to 8.25 hours, then the average 

workweek would be 38.5 hours, and the officer would have to provide 6 “payback” days 

every 33 weeks. If the shift length were increased to 8.5 hours, then the average work 

week would increase to 39.67 hours, and officers would only be required to pay back 

2 days every 51 weeks.

Table 3.22. Notional scheduling of officers working five 8-hour shifts weekly allowing 

rotation of off days

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

1 Off Off

2 Off Off

3 Off Off

4 Off Off

5 Off Off Off

6 Off Off Off

% on duty 66 66 66 66 66 66 66

Source: Notional data for illustration
◽ 47 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Table 3.23. Notional scheduling of officers working four 10-hour shifts weekly

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

1 Off Off Off

2 Off Off Off

% on duty 50 50 100 50 50 50 50

Ten-hour shifts

More than 30 years ago, several law enforcement agencies began adopting the “4–10” 

plan. Under this plan, officers work four 10-hour shifts and have 3 days off each week. 

The plan appeals to officers because it reduces the number of days worked, the likelihood 

of working on a holiday, and commuting time.7

 The plan can also appeal to agencies. 

Because the work schedules have an “overlap” period between shifts, when officers on 

two shifts are working, the agency can double staffing during peak demand times.

Having two groups of officers working four 10-hour shifts weekly would allow every 

employee a weekend day off, as table 3.23 illustrates.

Agencies scramble to find activities to fill the excess capacity on days when all officers are 

scheduled to work (e.g., Wednesday in schedule above), but most excess capacity becomes 

lost time. It is possible, of course, to implement 10-hour shifts that better conform to the 

workload, such as the schedule below. For example, table 3.24 illustrates the 10-hour shift 

schedule used by the Rockford Police Department.

Source: Notional data for illustration

Table 3.24. Rockford Police Department (10-hour) shift schedule

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

1 Off Off Off

2 Off Off Off

3 Off Off Off

4 Off Off Off

5 Off Off Off

6 Off Off Off

7 Off Off Off

% on duty 57 57 57 57 57 57 57

Source: Rockford Police Department

7. Typically, officers on a 5–8 schedule work about 260 days per year whereas those on a 4–10 schedule work about 

208 days. With fewer days worked, officers on a 4–10 schedule have a smaller probability of being scheduled on a 

holiday and commute to work less frequently.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 48 ◽

Compared to 8-hour shifts, the above 10-hour schedule significantly reduces the 

proportion of officers on duty. This happens because the agency must use the same 

number of officers that are used to provide 24 hour staffing to provide 30 hours of staffing 

a day. In many agencies, those additional 6 hours of coverage are unnecessary. Moreover, 

10-hour shifts require additional police vehicles to cover overlap times, which may reduce 

productivity for some officers.

Proponents of 4–10 plans have argued that departments would not need additional 

resources to meet performance objectives. In theory, departments would staff the overlap 

by reducing staffing during 6 non-peak hours, keeping constant the total number of 

officers. An agency can accomplish this if using a workload-based approach to staffing. 

Such a model can be very efficient but problematic with minimum staffing. For example, 

an agency with ten officers assigned to each 8-hour shift will have minimum staffing of 

7 on each shift under a schedule in which each officer works 5 days weekly. An agency 

adopting a 10-hour schedule will have 6 hours of overlap between shifts. If the agency 

retains its minimum staffing requirements for the entire day, then, unless the department 

allocates more resources to patrol, it will have chronic understaffing and need to hire offduty officers to fill vacant spots.

Recent empirical research has pointed to additional advantages of the 10-hour shift. In 

their compressed work schedule experiment, Amendola, Weisburd, Hamilton, Jones, and 

Slipka (2011) discovered that, compared to those working an 8-hour shift, those working 

10-hour shifts had a higher quality of work life, and averaged more sleep and less overtime.

Twelve-hour shifts

One of the most interesting recent changes in police work scheduling has been the 

widespread adoption of the 12-hour shift. Hundreds of agencies have adopted this 

approach, and more are doing so. Evidence, both anecdotal and more systematic, 

suggests that this approach can be highly effective.

The 12-hour schedule is relatively straightforward. It is a 14-day duty cycle. The pattern 

consists of: 2 days on, 2 days off, 3 days on, 2 days off, 2 days on, 3 days off. This schedule 

results in a 42-hour average workweek. Over the 2-week cycle officers would earn four 

additional hours.8 Table 3.25 on page 49 illustrates how two groups of officers might be 

scheduled to cover a 12-hour shift over a 14-day duty cycle.

Officers have rotating days off during the duty cycle, with the pattern repeating every 2 

weeks. Officers assigned to this pattern would also have every other weekend off. Twelvehour schedules are better for meeting workload requirements than 10-hour shifts because 

agencies provide 24 rather than 30 hours of service daily. This results in a more even 

distribution of officer hours, as table 3.26 on page 49 illustrates.

8. To accommodate this situation, most agencies adjust schedules so that officers work only 40 hours.
◽ 49 ◽

CHAPTER THREE

Table 3.25. Notional scheduling of two groups of officers on a 12-hour shift 

over a 14-day duty cycle

Group Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Week 1

1 Off Off

2 Off Off Off Off Off

Week 2

1 Off Off Off Off Off

2 Off Off

Source: Notional data for illustration

Table 3.26. Notional coverage on a 12-hour shift schedule

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

1 (7) Off Off

2 (7) Off Off Off Off Off

On Duty 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

% On Duty 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Source: Notional data for illustration

At first glance, it appears 12-hour shifts reduce resource availability, but recall that the 

agency need only staff two shifts per day. Staffing seven officers on 12-hour shifts is 

equivalent to staffing 10 8-hour officers.

Twelve-hour shifts, as noted, offer several advantages. They require fewer shift changes 

and two rather than three shifts to administer, and they provide officers more days off per 

year. Additionally, compared to 8-hour shifts, 12-hour shifts result in less overtime and 

less sick leave (Amendola et al. 2011; Sundermeier 2008). Nevertheless, while growing 

in popularity, 12-hour shifts also have several disadvantages. Because they result in 

fewer work days per officer per year, it is more difficult to maintain communications 

with officers. Officers with fewer work days may also be more likely to engage in 

outside activities conflicting with their duties and to live further away. More off days 

also increases the likelihood of more off-duty court time and makes it more difficult to 

schedule training. The use of 12-hour shifts leads to uniform staffing by day of week and 

shift with little or no opportunity to adjust the schedule to meet peak demands.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 50 ◽

Agencies that adopt 12-hour work schedules are particularly concerned about fatigue. 

The evidence on this issue is mixed (Fritsch et al. 2009; Peacock, Glube, Miller, and Clune 

1983). However, Amendola et al.’s (2011) recent experiment determined that, compared to 

those working 8-hour shifts, officers working 12-hour shifts experienced greater levels of 

sleepiness and lower levels of alertness. While they detected no performance differences, 

they warned of the importance of this finding given the nature of police work where the 

need may exist to make life and death decisions. 

The key to successful implementation of the 12-hour shift is effective management of 

off-duty time, particularly during the 12-hour break between consecutive days on duty. 

It is critical that officers get sufficient rest during their time off. Departments should 

closely monitor off-duty employment, court, and other obligations that may diminish the 

opportunity for rest.

Concluding Remarks

There are several approaches to estimating an agency’s staffing allocation, each with 

its own advantages and disadvantages. From an efficiency standpoint—that is, from 

the perspective of optimizing resources to best complete a given agency’s work and 

accomplish its objectives—the preferred method is one that specifically considers 

workload, performance objectives, and work schedules. While conducting this form 

of assessment may seem complicated or costly, the approach we present is fairly 

straightforward, applicable to most agencies, and can help identify if and where staffing 

adjustments can be made to significantly enhance overall efficiency and effectiveness.

Our analysis in this chapter has assumed that all calls for service are alike. In fact, they 

differ substantially, in urgency and feasible means to handle them. In the next chapter, 

we explore alternative means for responding to calls for service, and how they might help 

police departments manage their workloads.

CHAPTER FOUR
◽ 53 ◽

CHAPTER FOUR

Alternative Delivery Systems

Patrol staffing analyses may not always support perceptions of workload. For example, Gascon and Foglesong 

(2010) note that Mesa, Arizona, police officers believe there has been an “incessant increase in calls for 

service,” leaving officers feeling as though they are “running from call to call,” even though many calls may 

not warrant a police response. Available data do not support views that there has been a sharp increase in calls 

for service, but evolving police duties, including expectations for community policing or problem solving, may 

help create such a perception. In most communities police officers believe that they are very busy, and that 

there is little time to engage in activities like community policing or problem solving (Maguire and Gantley 

2009). A close examination of calls for service demand in most law enforcement agencies, however, would 

reveal a significant amount of discretionary time.

There are several contributors to perceptions of demand not matching the actual data.

•	 While calls for services are relatively predictable by time of day and day of week, there are occasions 

(e.g., a major crime or traffic accident) when a police department finds all of its units busy. Even if this 

occurs infrequently, it can re-enforce notions that the department is understaffed.

•	 In many police organizations officers complete their reports subsequent to their time on the scene 

of a call. Many officers, for example, will complete reports at the station. This affects the officer’s 

perception of his availability. Each incident results in both on-scene time and some variable amount of 

additional time. An officer may not know how long the report writing process will take, and when he 

will complete it. 

•	 Administrative processes can affect call stacking, or how calls are held in queue. For example, many 

departments spend a great deal of time in briefing at the beginning of a shift. At the same time, some 

departments will hold non-emergency calls for service that are received near the end of a shift. When 

the on-coming shift clears its briefing, officers may find calls that have been holding for nearly an hour. 

In some communities it may take hours to eliminate this backlog. Compounding this problem, it is not 

uncommon for law enforcement agencies to conduct shift change during the busiest hours of the day.

•	 Because many departments use a minimum staffing approach, rather than one based on workload, 

they find peak demand exceeds supply. 

While all the above are significant contributors to officer and management perceptions about demand, the 

larger problem, in our view, is that few organizations attempt to manage how citizens request police services 

and how those services are delivered. In most communities the police will respond to every call even if, as a 

result, every officer on duty is assigned to a call.

In this chapter we examine three ways in which law enforcement agencies can more effectively manage the 

demand for police services. First, we examine alternative ways that police departments can more effectively 

manage non-emergency calls for service. Next we look at different ways that citizens can report crimes and 

traffic accidents to the police. Finally, we examine ways in which law enforcement agencies can use nonsworn personnel to handle calls.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 54 ◽

Mobilizing the Police

In the 1960s, the United States introduced a universal three-digit number for citizens 

to obtain emergency services. The idea behind 911 was simple and straightforward: 

the number would be easy to remember and be available virtually anywhere in North 

America. Since that time 911 systems have proliferated and improved. Now, so called 

“enhanced 911 systems” provide information about the location of the call, and can 

be linked with computer aided dispatch systems to provide information about the 

appropriate police unit to assign. Moreover, 911 systems now work well with mobile 

phones and VOIP phone systems.

The Police Foundation has recently launched a study of automated vehicle locator 

systems. The project description suggests that, “Currently, police agencies have little 

ability to assess the effectiveness of their deployment strategies in relationship to their 

goals. Developments in technology, such as the Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL)—a 

global positioning device that can be placed in a vehicle for monitoring its location across 

real time/space—promise to provide an invaluable tool to inform CompStat and other 

directed patrol strategies (e.g., hot spots policing) in police agencies through measurement 

of police presence at all places and at all times” (Police Foundation n.d.).

It is clear that 911 provides an easy and effective method for citizens to contact police. The 

police have marketed the 911 systems very heavily. It is quite common to see “call 911” 

emblazoned on a police vehicle. In some communities it can be difficult to find a nonemergency number to call the police. The dilemma for the police is that while 911 was 

designed for obtaining emergency services and rapid response, most calls for police service 

are not emergencies and do not require a rapid response. Nonetheless, citizens use 911 to 

request all types of police service. 

Three other related factors also hamper police-communication systems. First, most lawenforcement agencies use non-sworn personnel to serve as call-takers and dispatchers. 

This is efficient, but these individuals are usually not equipped to resolve issues as an 

officer would. Second, turnover rates for public-safety communication personnel are 

relatively high, which in turn limits knowledge and experience among these personnel 

(Avsec 1998). Third, communities are increasingly consolidating their communications 

functions and creating centralized dispatch centers that cover police, fire, and EMS. 

Moreover, these communication centers may be responsible for several different 

communities. For example, the Southwest Central Dispatch in suburban Chicago 

provides service for 16 agencies. Differing policies and procedures of multiple agencies 

participating in such a consolidated system would further limit the ability of a dispatcher 

to resolve issues without sending an officer. 
◽ 55 ◽

CHAPTER FOUR

For many years communities have sought ways to better manage the call intake process. 

Such efforts led to development of 311 as a number for nonemergency calls. The 

Baltimore Police Department was one of the first to adopt a 311 system. In the first year of 

the program, the department experienced a 25-percent reduction in 911 calls, with those 

in the lowest priority category dropping 99.7 percent (National Institute of Justice 2005).

Nonemergency call systems are now common in many large cities. In some cases the 

police department manages the 311 system. More frequently, 311 is used as a general 

number for customer service, which could be managed by non-sworn personnel. Recently, 

311 systems have helped support 911 systems during major incidents. For example, during 

a significant weather event citizens are instructed to contact 311 for information. This 

reduces 911 demands.

Although 311 systems have appeared primarily in large communities, they are beginning 

to emerge in smaller cities. Evanston, Illinois (population 77,000), for example, recently 

implemented a 311 center. Not only does it support citizen requests by telephone, but the 

city also maintains a website where many of the answers sought over the phone can be 

viewed online (City of Evanston 2011).

In addition to training communication staff on effective alternative approaches to 

customer service, a jurisdiction may also find it valuable to carefully define some group of 

calls to which the police will not typically respond. In lieu of police response, citizens may 

be instructed to visit a police station or use other means for submitting a report. 

The Colorado Springs Police Department, for example, will not send an officer for (City 

of Colorado Springs 2011):

•	 Traffic accidents with no injuries, vehicles that can be driven from the scene, and 

with each vehicle incurring less than $1,000 in damage

•	 Found property that does not pose a health or safety risk, and is not evidence in a 

crime

•	 Offences that are not in progress and for which there is no evidence or suspect 

information (e.g., shoplifting)

•	 Medical calls not requiring police intervention
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 56 ◽

Handling Reports

When citizens call the police they often do so in order to file a report about an offense 

or traffic accident. In most communities, police officers are dispatched to the scene of 

the incident to gather information for the report. For many of these incidents, there is 

little likelihood that the case will be solved, and in some cases there will be little or no 

follow-up. Nonetheless, citizens often need evidence that a report was filed (typically 

for insurance purposes), and police do want to know about all offenses so as to better 

understand patterns and hot spots. Many police departments have found ways to satisfy 

these needs while avoiding the inconvenience of filing reports.

In 1980 the National Institute of Justice conducted a “Differential Police Response” program 

in Garden Grove, California; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Toledo, Ohio (McEwen et 

al. 1986). The project was designed to test alternative ways of collecting reports, including 

walk-in, mail-in, officer response by appointment, and telephone reporting units. The 

results showed overwhelming citizen support for these approaches. Evidence indicated that 

such approaches could reduce patrol workload as much as one-fifth, in part because police 

could take as much as 45 percent of reports over the phone (Kennedy 1993). 

One of the more popular strategies for alternative response is telephone-reporting units. 

These units receive citizen complaints and, when appropriate, prepare a police report. 

Their organization varies by the type of offenses they handle and how they are staffed.

The Rockford (Illinois) Police Department, for example, operates a Crime Reporting Unit 

(CRU) at its headquarters. Non-sworn personnel handle citizen “walk-in” reports and 

also take reports on the phone. The department estimates that 25 percent of all reports are 

prepared by the CRU (City of Rockford 2011). 

The Portland, Oregon, Telephone Reporting Unit (TRU) is part of its detective division 

and is staffed by sworn officers. TRU calls include those for:

•	 Violation of restraining orders by suspects with unknown location

•	 Certain thefts and fraud

•	 Identity theft

•	 Additional information on previously reported cases

•	 Telephone and other harassment

•	 Hit-and-run

•	 Missing juvenile (ages 14–17)

•	 Missing adult where the complainant is calling from outside Portland

•	 Vandalism

•	 Child-abuse calls referred from the Child Abuse Team
◽ 57 ◽

CHAPTER FOUR

Each month the Portland TRU handles approximately 3,700 calls, 11 percent of the police 

bureau’s call load, and writes 1,800 reports, 17 percent of all reports written by the police 

bureau (City of Portland 2011). 

The TRU of the Sunrise (Florida) Police Department is housed in the Communication 

Dispatch Center. This TRU consists of four part-time Police Service Aides who handle 

telephone reports of all non-violent property crimes without suspect information as well 

as general police-information reports (City of Sunrise 2012). 

Some departments also allow citizens to submit reports electronically. The Sacramento 

Police Department (SPD), for example, allows citizens to use its website for reports of:

•	 Accidents 

•	 Harassment/threats/bias 

•	 Financial crimes/theft/burglary/lost property 

•	 Insufficient funds (checks) 

•	 Vandalism 

•	 Violation of restraining order 

•	 Drug, gang, criminal or suspicious activity 

Citizens who use this system immediately receive a report number and ability to print and 

review it (City of Sacramento 2011).

Another significant demand on law enforcement agencies is preparation of traffic 

accident reports. Traffic accident investigation is time consuming and may pose risks to 

citizens and emergency personnel at the scene. The city of Toronto has implemented one 

very promising approach to this issue (City of Toronto 2011). Several police organizations 

have collaborated with the insurance industry and a private company to create accidentreporting centers. These facilities are located throughout the region. 

These centers are very customer-focused. Drivers involved in property damage collisions 

must report within 24 hours to such a center, where a police officer inspects the vehicle 

damage. The driver then completes a simplified government collision report form that is 

checked by a police officer. Once the reports are completed, drivers may use the insurance 

services offered at the center. In some cases, the driver’s own insurance provider is 

represented on site. This allows for the timely reporting of the collision to the insurance 

provider and an early resolution of the claim process. The Toronto Police receive about 

250 reports each day at the reporting centers.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 58 ◽

Non-Sworn Staff

Until recently law enforcement agencies were organized so that nearly all functions were 

performed by sworn police officers. Many departments now employ a significant number 

of non-sworn employees to provide support to police operations. In 2007, the number of 

full-time non-sworn employees in local police departments was about 138,000 (Reaves 

2010).

The growth in non-sworn personnel has led to use of these individuals to perform tasks 

once thought to be the exclusive domain of sworn officers. Reasons for this change include:

•	 Freeing up time for sworn officers to do community policing and other tasks

•	 Non-sworn staff often having skills more appropriate for the immediate task

•	 The cost of non-sworn personnel being less than that of sworn personnel

One of the most common ways in which duties are moved from sworn personnel is 

through the use of community service officers (CSO). (Police-service aides and police 

cadets may perform similar functions.) These members perform a wide range of tasks 

previously performed by sworn officers, or they may work in conjunction with sworn 

officers. CSOs usually wear a uniform but are unarmed. They typically have limited 

police authority. In Minneapolis, assignments of CSOs can include:

•	 Assisting patrol officers in non-enforcement activities 

•	 Responding to citizen requests for service 

•	 Maintaining police vehicles and equipment 

•	 Picking up and delivering correspondence for the department and community 

organizations 

•	 Identifying and reporting criminal activities 

•	 Assisting citizens in identifying crime prevention techniques 

•	 Recovering abandoned property 

•	 Assisting in traffic control of special events, major fires, parades, and accidents 

•	 Assisting department officers or other agencies in providing transportation as 

requested (City of Minneapolis 2011)

Other departments use non-sworn personnel in more specialized roles:

•	 Several departments (e.g., Yuma, Arizona; Fayetteville, North Carolina; 

Albuquerque, New Mexico) use non-sworn traffic accident investigators. 

These investigators are often well equipped to do so (some have backgrounds 

in mathematics and physics). Because they handle traffic crashes, sworn officers 

can devote more time to enforcement (City of Yuma 2012; Bergamine 2009; 

Northwestern University Center for Public Safety 2007).
◽ 59 ◽

CHAPTER FOUR

•	 Many agencies use non-sworn staff as evidence technicians and to manage and 

staff property and evidence facilities. Some also use them to provide prisoner 

transportation (Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office 2012; Tucson Police 2012).

•	 The City of Chicago has created a traffic-management authority staffed by nonsworn traffic control aides. They are assigned to traffic control during rush-hour, 

as well as during special events, emergencies, and at the airports. This has resulted 

in thousands of hours of police time redirected to policing (Hilkevitch 2006). 

•	 The Oakland Police Department employs neighborhood service coordinators to 

help coordinate community groups, collaborate with problem-solving officers, and 

assist citizens needing other city services (Wilson and Cox 2008; Wilson et al. 2007).

•	 The San Francisco Police Department has developed a plan to use non-sworn 

investigators to handle non-violent crimes (Fenton 2011).

For some issues, the use of non-sworn officers is so common that standards have been 

developed. For example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (2002) has 

developed standards for using non-sworn staff to respond to alarms. 

All these strategies represent efforts to provide quality service at lower cost while ensuring 

that departments can continue to provide adequate staffing for patrol. 

Concluding Remarks

While much public discussion centers on finding ways to increase the supply of officers to 

effectively meet the demand for police service, it is important to simultaneously consider 

alternative ways to manage that demand. As illustrated in this chapter, several options exist 

to help manage demand, such as the ways in which calls are taken, reports are processed, 

and non-sworn staff is deployed. These strategies reduce effort required of sworn staff, 

thereby reducing the need for sworn officers to address certain issues and freeing their time 

to focus on other substantive tasks. Future research should identify additional alternatives 

to delivering police service and more fully explore their costs and benefits.

One of the principal reasons that police agencies must manage additional demand is, 

as noted, the expectations among residents, businesses, elected officials, and others for 

the police to engage in community policing and problem-solving activities. In the next 

chapter, we conclude our work by examining alternative ways police agencies may 

manage community policing.
CHAPTER FIVE
◽ 61 ◽

CHAPTER FIVE

Staffing for Community Policing

Just as the police role in society has expanded historically, so too has its responsibilities, 

especially in recent decades. Community policing perhaps provides the prototypical 

example of how a more dynamic police environment influences personnel planning, 

affecting both substantive tasks of police and the demand for them and for specific skills 

(Wilson et al. 2011). Given that most agencies claim to practice community policing, it is a 

critical issue for personnel management (Reaves 2010; Wilson 2006).

The definition and implementation of community policing has varied across agencies 

and over time (Bayley 1988; Bayley and Worden 1996; Maguire, Kuhns, Uchida, and Cox 

1997; Eck and Rosenbaum 1994; Greene and Mastrofski 1988; Wilson 2006). The Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) defines it as 

[A] philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the 

systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively 

address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as 

crime, social disorder, and fear of crime (COPS Office 2009, 3).

COPS (2009, 3–4) identifies three fundamental dimensions of community policing:

•	 Community partnerships—Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement 

agency and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to 

problems and increase trust in police

•	 Problem solving—The process of engaging in the proactive and systematic 

examination of identified problems to develop and rigorously evaluate effective 

responses

•	 Organizational transformation—The alignment of organizational management, 

structure, personnel, and information systems to support community partnerships 

and proactive problem solving.

While some broad-based approaches place community policing in a larger context of 

community governance (Drew and Weiss 2009), just the dimensions mentioned above 

alone have tremendous implications for police staffing. They increase demand by 

requiring officers to devote considerable time and effort (and to develop specialized skills) 

to building community capacity and solving problems. The structure of the organization 

influences how this work is differentiated and managed within the organization. When 

assessing workforce demand for a particular agency, then, it is important to answer if

and (if so) how it wishes to implement community policing. Below we explore the most 

prevalent approaches to implementing community policing and their implications for 

staffing allocation and deployment. The merits of alternative approaches are beyond the 

scope of our work, but it is important to identify common approaches because they have 

implications for police staffing.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 62 ◽

Basic Approaches to Community Policing Implementation

Advocates have long argued that the most effective way to implement community 

policing is to make it a fundamental component of the entire organization. Consider two 

of the 10 principles of community policing identified by Trojanowicz, Kappeler, and 

Gaines (2002): 

Community policing’s organizational strategy first demands that everyone in the 

department, including both non-sworn and sworn personnel, must investigate 

ways to translate the philosophy into practice. (311)

Community policing must be a fully integrated approach that involves everyone 

in the department, with the [community-policing officers] as specialists in 

bridging the gap between the police and the people they serve. (313)

At the line level, this means every officer would be trained in community policing and 

able to assist community members with a wide range of problems and issues without 

having to refer them to another unit. Despite the merits of a “generalized” approach 

claimed by many looking to improve fundamental police–community partnerships, some 

agencies took a “specialized” approach and implemented community policing through a 

specific unit, often referred to as a “split-force.” As a result, throughout the 1990s police 

agencies became even more specialized (Maguire et al. 1997).

As of 2007, 14 percent of all agencies (60 percent of agencies serving populations between 

50,000 and less than 1 million residents) had a specialized community-policing unit 

(Reaves 2010). Nearly half of all agencies (47 percent) and over two-thirds of agencies 

serving populations of at least 25,000 had dedicated community policing officers, even 

if not part of a formal unit. Maguire and Gantley (2009) identified several contributors 

toward a specialized approach, including:

•	 Perception that there is not enough time to conduct community policing while 

responding to calls for service

•	 Belief that funding agencies prefer specialized models

•	 Symbolic value in visibly demonstrating the commitment to community policing

•	 Challenge of training large numbers of officers
◽ 63 ◽

CHAPTER FIVE

Nevertheless, specialization has many challenges. Among those Maguire and Gantley 

(2009) identified are:

•	 Balancing supervision and autonomy of community-policing officers

•	 Developing and measuring performance metrics

•	 Animosity of traditional officers toward community-policing officers

•	 Fully engaging the community given that traditional officers view community 

interaction as the function of someone else

•	 Unevenness in community-policing training, with community-policing officers 

receiving more than traditional officers

Others have made similar assessments of the split-force approach. Wilkinson and 

Rosenbaum (1994), in their analysis of community policing in two medium-sized cities 

in Illinois, concluded: 

Although community policing can survive within the constraints of special 

units, this does not mean that such activities will flourish or even survive for 

an extended period of time given the cultural and organizational forces that 

continue to work against this arrangement. (124)

Some agencies have sought to adopt community policing in a way that mixes generalized 

and specialized approaches. For example, an agency might have a dedicated problemsolving unit but fully train all officers in community policing and expect them to 

engage the community and attempt to address underlying crime problems as part of 

their normal work routine. Maguire and Gantley (2009) referred to such approaches as 

“hybrid models” that agencies may use as a transition from a specialized to a generalized 

community-policing model.

Implications of Community Policing for Staffing

There is no standard benchmark to assess appropriate levels of staffing for community 

policing. Rather, levels tend to be determined locally based on qualitative assessments, 

performance objectives, and practical considerations (e.g., resource availability, demand 

for staff throughout the organization). Below we describe the relationship between 

the generalized and specialized approaches to community policing, staffing allocation, 

and deployment. 
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 64 ◽

Maximizing the discretionary time of patrol officers

Agencies that implement community policing throughout the organization expect all 

officers to engage in community policing. Yet, typically the brunt of this effort is borne by 

patrol officers who are most closely tied to community interaction. Community policing 

requires that patrol officers have the time necessary to build community partnerships and 

solve problems. The challenge is determining how much time is practical given a desired

level of service and that which can actually be achieved. 

We earlier discussed the importance of articulating obligated (e.g., responding to calls) 

and unobligated (e.g., officer-initiated) time as part of an agency’s performance objective. 

The most direct connection between community policing and the demand for staffing 

relates to the officer-initiated, or discretionary, time objective. Generally, an agency that 

adopts a generalized approach and expects all patrol officers to engage in community 

policing must provide greater discretionary time to the officers than an agency that adopts 

a specialized approach to be implemented primarily by a special unit. 

Our earlier discussion of Rockford police staffing exemplifies this. Controlling for other 

characteristics (e.g., workload, relief factor), Rockford, if expecting officers to spend half 

their time on unobligated tasks, would require more than 90 patrol officers. If expecting 

that officers would spend two-thirds of their time on unobligated tasks, it would require 

more than 140. Under this scenario, increasing unobligated time to facilitate community 

policing activities requires a 55 percent increase in patrol staff.

As our earlier examples illustrate, it is fairly easy to estimate patrol staffing demand 

for alternative performance objectives once the initial model is constructed. Although 

standards do not exist for the amount of discretionary time that should be set aside 

for community policing, agencies may seek to estimate staffing demands for various 

assumptions (e.g., 50 and 66 percent) and then determine what they can afford.

Creating a special unit

Agencies taking a specialized approach to community policing place a lesser workload 

burden on patrol officers because other officers handle community-policing duties. 

Therefore, discretionary time for patrol officers is minimized with this model and instead 

the number of officers required to staff the specialized unit must be estimated. As with 

the generalized approach, there are no standards for determining this number; instead, 

agencies may determine it by considering qualitative preferences, geography, community 

characteristics, and available staff and budget resources.
◽ 65 ◽

CHAPTER FIVE

The following examples highlight differing ways jurisdictions have chosen to determine 

staffing levels for community-policing units.

•	 Oakland, California, a city of approximately 391,000 residents, passed legislation 

to hire and deploy 57 problem-solving officers—covering the whole city, there was 

to be one for each of the city’s community policing beats (Wilson, Cox, Smith, Bos, 

and Fain 2007; Wilson and Cox 2008);

•	 In Traverse City, Michigan, a city of approximately 14,500 residents, the police 

agency staffed a sector-policing unit to interact with neighborhood associations 

and conduct problem-solving activities. Headed by a sergeant, the unit had five 

officers, one assigned to each sector of the city, but, due to budget cuts, three 

officers were transferred to patrol (Weiss and Wilson 2011).

•	 In Green Bay, Wisconsin, a city of approximately 100,000 residents, the police 

maintained 18 community policing officers who worked in teams of two in nine 

neighborhoods (Wells and Fisher 2009).

•	 Greenville, South Carolina, a city of approximately 57,400 residents, employs 30 

officers and 2 non-sworn staff differentiated among various assignments, including 

business communities and housing complexes, crime prevention, bike patrol, 

schools, drug and alcohol resistance education, and recreation coordination (King 

and Shields 2009).

•	 In 2007, on average, agencies serving populations of at least 500,000 residents 

employed more than 130 dedicated community-policing officers (Reaves 2010). 

Those serving populations between 50,000 and 500,000 employed 20 to 50 such 

officers. Those with population less than 50,000 employed less than 10 on average.

These examples show there is no single solution to the number of dedicated community 

policing officers any given agency requires. Rather, the number of community policing 

officers varies by local preferences and constraints. What is clear, however, is that those 

engaged in community policing need time to conduct their activities. The way in which 

that work is assigned—be it to patrol or dedicated community policing unit—determines 

where staffing resources must be placed.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 66 ◽

Future Directions

It would be useful for future research to consider developing work-load-based models to 

assess staffing need for community policing, while also considering the “time” (by hour of 

day and day of week) during which the efforts should occur. Unlike patrol, which can be 

fairly well predicted based on the easily measurable time to respond to calls for service, an 

approach to determining staffing needs for community policing would need to account 

for 1) fluctuations in the definition and operationalization of community policing; 2) the 

opportunity and need to engage the community and solve problems over time; 3) the 

difficulty of measuring the “time” to complete the typical “community policing activity;” 

and 4) the need to strategically engage the community regarding the implementation 

of and staffing for community policing. Until such resources exist, it is likely that 

agencies will continue to staff for community policing based on general expectations of 

time commitment required or what can be afforded (e.g., a certain percentage of patrol 

officers’ shifts or number community policing officers per beat) rather than on a formal 

community policing workload assessment.
◽ 67 ◽

References

References

Adams, Aaron, Robert Baer, Somone Denmon, and Stacy Dettmansperger. 2009. 

“Glendale Police Department’s Strategic Approach to Staffing.” Alliance for 

Innovation Management Interns, October 1. http://icma.org/en/Article/100024/

Glendale_Police_Departments_Strategic_Approach_to_staffing. 

Adams, Thomas F. 1994. Police Field Operations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Albemarle County. n.d. “Performance Management: Police Response Times Rural 

Areas.” http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=perfmgt&

relpage=3473.

Amendola, Karen L., David Weisburd, Edwin E. Hamilton, Greg Jones, and Meghan 

Slipka. 2011. “An Experimental Study of Compressed Work Schedules in Policing: 

Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Shift Lengths.” Journal of Experimental 

Criminology 7:407–42.

Avsec, Robert P. 1998. Employee Turnover in Chesterfield County’s Emergency 

Communications Center. Chesterfield, VA: Fire Department. 

Baker, Rick, and Chuck Harmon. 2006. “Police Staffing Levels Defended.” St. Petersburg 

Times, June 25. http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/25/Perspective/Police_staffing_

level.shtml. 

Bayley, David H. 1988. “Community Policing: A Report from the Devil’s Advocate.” 

In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, edited by Jack R. Greene and Stephen D. 

Mastrofski, 225–58. New York: Praeger.

Bayley, David H., and Robert Worden. 1996. Federal Funding of Police Overtime: A 

Utilization Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bergamine, Tom. 2009. Community Wellness Plan. Fayetteville, NC: Fayetteville Police 

Department. http://police.ci.fayetteville.nc.us/files/pdf/Community_Wellness_Plan.pdf.

Campbell, John H., Joseph Brann, and David Williams. 2003. Officer-Per-Thousand 

Formulas & Other Policing Myths: A Leadership Model for Better Police Resource 

Management. Portland, OR: Campbell DeLong Resources. http://www.cdri.com/

library/Officer1000FullVer.pdf.

City of Bloomington, Minnesota. 2009. “Police Statistics and Budget.” 

http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/cityhall/dept/police/po_support/po10yr.htm.

City of Colorado Springs. 2011. “Colorado Springs Police Department Alternative 

Response.” http://www.springsgov.com/Page.aspx?NavID=788.

City of Evanston. 2011. “About 311.” http://www.cityofevanston.org/311-service/

about-311/.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 68 ◽

City of Minneapolis. 2011. “Minneapolis Police Department: Community Service Officer.” 

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/recruiting/cso.asp.

City of Overland Park, Kansas. 2010. “Benchmark Cities Survey Results.” June. 

http://www.opkansas.org/Documents-and-Forms/List/Benchmark-City-Survey.

City of Portland. 2011. “Portland Police Bureau: Detective Division Telephone Reporting 

Unit (TRU).” http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=41879.

City of Rockford. 2011. “City of Rockford Police Department, Field Services Bureau.” 

http://www.ci.rockford.il.us/police/field-services-bureau.aspx.

City of Sacramento. 2011. “Sacramento Police Department: File Online Crime Reports.” 

http://www.sacpd.org/reports/fileonline/index.aspx. 

City of Sunrise. 2012. “City of Sunrise (Florida) Police Department: Communications & 

Records.” http://www.sunrisefl.gov/index.aspx?page=232. 

City of Toronto. 2011. “Toronto Police Service: Traffic Services, Collision Reporting 

Centres.” http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/traffic/collision.php. 

City of Yuma. 2012. “Traffic.” http://www.yumaaz.gov/1799.htm.

Coleman, Vernal. 2010. “How Many Cops is Enough?” Seattle Weekly News, July 21. 

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-07-21/news/how-many-cops-is-enough.

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. 2006. Standards for Law 

Enforcement Agencies. 5th ed. Fairfax, VA: Commission on Accreditation for Law 

Enforcement Agencies.

COPS Office (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services). 2009. “COPS 

Hiring Recovery Program Update.” Community Policing Dispatch 2 (6). 

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/June_2009/hiring_recovery.htm.

———. 2011. The Impact of the Economic Downturn on American Police Agencies. 

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

DeLord, Ron. 2009. Personal Interview for RAND Field Experiences Series. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/ise/centers/quality_policing/

cops/resources/field_experiences/ron_delord.html.

Demers, Simon, Adam Palmer, and Curt T. Griffiths. 2007. Vancouver Police Department 

Patrol Deployment Study. City of Vancouver. http://www.curtgriffiths.com/pdfs/

VPD%20Patrol%20Deployment%20Study%20Final%20Fiinal.doc.pdf.

Drew, Diamond, and Deirdre Mead Weiss. 2009. Advancing Community Policing Through 

Community Governance: A Framework Document. Washington, DC: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services.
◽ 69 ◽

References

Eck, John E., and Dennis P. Rosenbaum. 1994. “The New Police Order: Effectiveness, 

Equity and Efficiency in Community Policing.” In Community Policing: Testing 

the Promises, edited by Dennis P. Rosenbaum, 2–26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Edwards, David . 2011. Smarter, Faster, Cheaper: An Operational Efficiency Benchmarking 

Study of 100 American Cities. Somers, NY: IBM.

Ervin, Brian. 2007. “Good Cop, Bad Cop?” Urban Tulsa Weekly, June 20. 

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17461.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2011. Crime in the Unites States, 2010. Washington, DC: 

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Fenton, Justin. 2011. “Police Reports will be Taken Over Phone in City Pilot Program: 

Other Cities Have Implemented Online Reporting.” Baltimore Sun, August 16. 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-police-reportpilot-20110816,0,7969911.story.

Fox News. 2009. “Chicago Police Shortage a Growing Problem.” Fox Chicago News,

October 29. 

Fritsch, Eric J., John Liederbach, and Robert W Taylor. 2009. Police Patrol Allocation and 

Deployment. New York: Prentice Hall.

Gascon, George, and Todd Foglesong. 2010. “Making Policing More Affordable: 

Managing Costs and Measuring Value in Policing.” New Perspectives in Policing

(December). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Glendale Police Department. 2009. Police Staffing Study. Glendale, AZ. 

http://www.glendaleaz.com/police/documents/StaffStudyFinal2009.pdf.

Greene, Jack R., and Stephen D. Mastrofski. 1988. Community Policing: Rhetoric or 

Reality. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Hale, Charles. 1994. Police Patrol: Operations & Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: 

Prentice Hall.

Hassell, Kimberly D. 2006. Police Organizational Cultures and Patrol Practices. New York: 

LFB Scholarly.

Hilkevitch, Jon. 2006. “Traffic Cops? Or Traffic Aides? Officials Can’t Agree Who 

Should Enforce Laws on City Streets.” Chicago Tribune, August 21. 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-08-21/news/0608210185_1_police-officerstraffic-aides-traffic-cops.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 70 ◽

IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police). 2002. Non-Sworn Alarm 

Responder Guidelines. http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/Publications/

nonswornalarmresponderguidelines.pdf.

———. 2004. Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study. http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.

aspx?fileticket=AKL78d4MBw8%3D&tabid=252.

———. 2007. “Police Officer to Population Ratios Bureau of Justice Statistics Data.” 

Perspectives: Research Center Directorate. http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?

fileticket=LF7xdWl1tPk%3D&tabid=87.

Kennedy, David. 1993. “The Strategic Management of Police Resources.” Perspectives 

on Policing (January). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Keycare Strategy Operations Technology. 2010. Police Workload Analysis. 

http://keycare.ca/downloads/Police_Workload_Analysis.pdf.

King, William, and Randall Shields. 2009. “Greenville, South Carolina.” In 

Implementing Community Policing: Lessons from 12 Agencies, edited by Edward 

Maguire and William Wells, 123–126. Washington, DC: Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services.

Kotsur, Kevin L. 2006. Police Staffing Update to Council. Avondale, AZ: City of 

Avondale City Council Report, February 13. http://www.avondale.org/documents/

City%20Government/City%20Council/Agenda/06%20Reports/03%20-%20

Police%20Staffing%20Update.pdf.

Levine, Margaret J., and Thomas J. McEwen. 1985. Patrol Deployment. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Lumb, Richard C. 1996. “Community Attitudes Regarding Police Responsibility 

for Crime Control.” The Police Journal 69:319–29.

Maguire, Edward R., and Megan Gantley. 2009. “Specialist and Generalist Models.” 

In Implementing Community Policing: Lessons from 12 Agencies, edited by Edward R. 

Maguire and William Wells, 45–55. Washington, DC: Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services.

Maguire, Edward R., Joseph B. Kuhns, Craig D. Uchida, and Stephen M. Cox. 1997. 

“Patterns of Community Policing in Nonurban America.” Journal of Research in 

Crime and Delinquency 34:368–94.

McEwen, J. Thomas, Edward K. Connors III, and Marcia I. Cohen. 1986. Evaluation 

of the Differential Police Response Field Test. Washington, DC: National Institute 

of Justice, NCJ 101378. 

McNichol, Elizabeth, Phil Oliff, and Nicholas Johnson. 2010. Recession Continues to 

Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery. Washington, DC: Center 

on Budget and Police Priorities. 
◽ 71 ◽

References

Melekian, Bernard. 2012. “Policing in the New Economy: A New Report on the 

Emerging Trends from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.” 

Police Chief 79 (1): 6–19.

Michigan State Police. 2009. 2009 Crime Data and Statistics. Lansing, MI. 

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1645_3501_4621-243369--,00.html. 

Mrozinski, Josh. 2010. “Scranton City Council Plan for Police, Fire Staffing Level 

Raises Questions.” Scranton Times-Tribune. http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/

scranton-city-council-plan-for-police-fire-staffing-level-raises-questions1.1078163#axzz1NyZaG6u8.

National Public Safety Information Bureau. 2011. National Directory of Law Enforcement 

Administrators. Stevens Point, WI. 

National Institute of Justice. 2005. Calling 311: Guidelines for Policymakers. Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Justice. 

National Sheriffs’ Association. 2007. Report on Patrol Staffing Needs for the Sheriff’s Office 

El Paso County, Colorado. 

New Jersey Division of Local Government Services. 2009. City of Hoboken Police 

Department: A Preliminary Review of the Staffing Levels and Organizational Structure for 

the City of Hoboken’s Police Department. 

http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/mayor/HobokenPDReport.pdf.

Northwestern University Center for Public Safety. 2007. Traffic Management Plan for the 

Albuquerque Police Department. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Northwestern University Traffic Institute. 1993. Police Allocation Manual: Determination 

of the Number and Allocation of Personnel for Patrol Services for State Police 

Departments. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/pub/stallocm.pdf. 

Orrick, W. Dwayne. 2008. Recruitment, Retention, and Turnover of Police Personnel: 

Reliable, Practical, and Effective Solutions. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Peacock, Brian., Richard Glube, Marilyn Miller, and Patti Clune. 1983. “Police Officer 

Responses to 8 and 12 Hour Shift Schedules.” Ergonomics 26 (5): 479–93.

PERF (Police Executive Research Forum). 2010. Critical Issues in Policing Series: Is the 

Economic Downturn Fundamentally Changing How We Police? Washington, DC: 

Police Executive Research Forum. http://members.policeforum.org/library/

critical-issues-in-policing-series/Econdownturnaffectpolicing12.10.pdf.

Police Foundation. n.d. “Smart Police Deployment: Evaluating the Use of Automated 

Vehicle Locator Technologies in Policing.” Research, Evaluation and Professional 

Services. http://www.policefoundation.org/docs/current_research.html#smart.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 72 ◽

Reaves, Brian. 2010. Local Police Departments, 2007. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, NCJ 231174. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd07.pdf. 

Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office. 2012. “Jail Security.” http://www.slsheriff.org/

metroJail/security.html.

Scott-Hayward, Christine. 2009. The Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Rethinking Policies 

and Practices. New York: VERA Institute for Justice, Center for Sentencing and 

Corrections. http://www.vera.org/files/The-fiscal-crisis-in-corrections_July-2009.pdf.

Shane, Jon M. 2007. What Every Chief Executive Should Know: Using Data to Measure 

Police Performance. New York: Looseleaf Law Publications.

———. 2010. “Organizational Stressors and Police Performance.” Journal of 

Criminal Justice 38 (4): 807–18. 

Stenzel, W. 2007. Personal Allocation Model (PAM) for Law Enforcement Agencies.

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Enforcement+&+Justice+Services/ 

Personnel+Allocation+Model+(PAM)+for+Law+Enforcement+Agencies.

Sundermeier, Jon. 2008. “A Look at the 12-Hour Shift: The Lincoln Police 

Department Study.” Police Chief. http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.

cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1435&issue_id=32008. 

Trojanowicz, R., Victor Kappeler, and Larry Gaines. 2002. Community Policing: 

A Contemporary Perspective. 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Tucson Police. 2012. “Non-Sworn Positions.” 

http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/police/non-sworn-positions.

Weiss, Alexander. 2010. “Patrol Staffing Analysis for the Chicago Police Department 

Bureau of Patrol.” Evanston, IL: Alexander Weiss Consulting.

Weiss, Alexander, and Jeremy M. Wilson. 2010. “Lansing Police Department Resource 

Deployment and Organization Study.” Lansing, MI: City of Lansing.

———. 2011. Traverse City Police Workload Analysis. Traverse City, MI: City of Traverse 

City. http://www.alexanderweissconsulting.com/pdf/AWC_TraverseCItyFinal 

Report.pdf. 

Wells, William, and John Fisher. 2009. “Green Bay, Wisconsin.” In Implementing 

Community Policing: Lessons from 12 Agencies, edited by Edward Maguire and 

William Wells, 117–21. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services.
◽ 73 ◽

References

Wilkinson, Deanna L., and Dennis P Rosenbaum. 1994. “The Effects of Organizational 

Structure on Community Policing: A Comparison of Two Cities.” In The Challenge 

of Community Policing: Testing the Promise, edited by Dennis P Rosenbaum, 110–26. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilson, Jeremy M. 2006. Community Policing in America. New York: Routledge.

Wilson, Jeremy M., and Amy Cox. 2008. Community Policing and Crime: The Process and 

Impact of Problem-solving in Oakland. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, TR-635-BPA. 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR635/. 

Wilson, Jeremy M., Amy Cox, Tommy Smith, Hans Bos, and Terry Fain. 2007. 

Community Policing and Violence Prevention in Oakland: Measure Y in Action. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND, TR-546-BPA. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/

TR546/.

Wilson, Jeremy M., Erin Dalton, Charles Scheer, and Clifford Grammich. 2011. 

Police Recruitment and Retention for the New Millennium: The State of Knowledge. 

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

http://cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/101027321_Police-RecruitmentRetention.pdf.

Wilson, Jeremy M., Bernard Rostker, and Cha-Chi Fan. 2010. “Recruiting and Retaining 

America’s Finest: Evidence-Based Lessons for Police Workforce Planning.” Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND, MG-960-COPS. 

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG960.

sum.pdf.

Wilson, O.W., and Roy McLaren. 1972. Police Administration. 3rd ed. New York: 

McGraw-Hill.
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO POLICE STAFFING AND ALLOCATION

◽ 74 ◽

About the Authors

Jeremy M. Wilson (PhD, The Ohio State University) is an associate professor and research 

director in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University (MSU). He recently 

founded and directs the MSU Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program. Prior 

to joining MSU, Wilson was a Behavioral Scientist at the RAND Corporation, where 

he served as founding associate director of the Center on Quality Policing and founding 

director of the Police Recruitment and Retention Clearinghouse. He has been a visiting 

scholar in the Australian Resource Council’s Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security 

at Griffith University, the Willett Chair in Public Safety in the Center for Public Safety 

at Northwestern University, and an adjunct professor of public policy at Carnegie Mellon 

University. Wilson has collaborated with police agencies, communities, task forces, and 

governments throughout the United States and the world on many salient public safety 

problems. He has written broadly in the areas of police administration, violence prevention, 

product counterfeiting, and internal security. Wilson’s research and commentary have 

been featured in numerous books, professional journals, and in various forms of national 

and international media. His most recent books include Recruiting and Retaining America’s 

Finest: Evidence-Based Lessons for Police Workforce Planning, Police Recruitment and 

Retention for the New Millennium: The State of Knowledge, and Impact of 9/11 on Police 

Forces. His current projects focus on police staffing, resource allocation, consolidation, and 

the development of anti-counterfeit strategy.

Alexander Weiss (PhD, Northwestern University) is president of Alexander Weiss 

Consulting, LLC. He has over 30 years experience as a public safety practitioner, 

researcher, trainer, and consultant. For 9 years he was director of the Northwestern 

University Center for Public Safety and Professor of Management and Strategy at the 

J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Prior to his appointment at Northwestern, 

Weiss was a member of the faculty of the department of criminal justice at Indiana 

University, Bloomington. During that time he also served as a senior advisor to the 

Indianapolis Police Department. Weiss has 12 years of experience with law enforcement 

agencies in Colorado. During his tenure with the Colorado Springs Police Department 

he served as a field supervisor and director of operations analysis. Weiss has written 

and lectured widely on topics such as resource allocation and work scheduling, police 

innovation, highway safety, program evaluation, and racial profiling. For the past six years 

he has directed the Illinois Traffic Stop Study, an analysis of traffic stop data for some 1,100 

Illinois law enforcement agencies. He has served as a consultant to the National Institute 

of Justice, the National Research Council, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

In 2010, Weiss was appointed adjunct professor of criminal justice at Michigan State 

University, and, in addition, he was invited to join the senior leadership council at Hillard 

Heintze, an independent panel of current and retired major city police chiefs and senior 

federal, state, and local law enforcement leaders.

A Performance-Based Approach to Police Staffing and Allocation summarizes the research 

conducted by the Michigan State University team. It highlights the current staffing allocation 

landscape for law enforcement agencies and provides a practical step-by-step approach for any 

agency to assess its own patrol staffing needs based upon its workload and performance objectives. 

Additionally, it identifies some ways beyond the use of sworn staff that workload demand can be 

managed and discusses how an agency’s approach to community policing implementation can affect 

staffing allocation and deployment. This guide will be particularly useful for police practitioners and 

planners conducting an assessment of their agency’s staffing need and for researchers interested 

in police staffing experiences and assessment methods. A companion document, titled Essentials 

for Leaders, which offers an overview of the issues discussed here, may be of particular interest to 

police executives and policymakers.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770

Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. e041218461

ISBN 978-1-932582-60-4

 First published 2012

Revised 2014