Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

CSPD Staffing

353 views

Published on

CSPD Staffing

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CSPD Staffing

  1. 1. PATROL ALLOCATION STUDY Tim Freesmeyer - Etico Solutions, Inc. Presented: April 11, 2019 College Station Police Department
  2. 2. Project Scope What is an appropriate staffing level for the Patrol Division? Are the current patrol beat configurations effective and/or efficient? Can the existing work schedule be improved to increase operational efficiency? What is an appropriate staffing level for the Criminal Investigations Division? What is an appropriate staffing level for Training & Recruiting?
  3. 3. Patrol Staffing Patrol staffing is based on: Historical workload data (CAD) Annual frequency of various call types Average time spent per call Ancillary requirements per call (report writing, follow-ups, court, etc.) Leave, exceptions, and overtime data. Patrol staffing is NOT based on: National averages, Benchmarking practices with other agencies, or Officers per 1,000 population.
  4. 4. Total Patrol Staff On Duty Officers Per Day Shift Relief Factor Average Time Off Patrol Shift Lengt h Regularly Scheduled Days Off Benefit Days Off Non-Patrol Days Net Comp Time Use Total Units Per Day Officers per Unit Minimum Units per Day Total Patrol Workload Shift Length Admin Time Per Shift Performance Factor Reactive Minutes per Hour (MR) Total Reactive Workload Performance Units per Day Availability Workload
  5. 5. Reactive / Proactive Time Reactive: MR Calls for Service Service Requests On-View Criminal activities Directed Patrols Determined from CAD data Proactive: MP Extra Patrols Area Checks Non-Criminal Traffic Stops Community Policing Administrative Time Reactive 30 Minutes Proactive 30 Minutes Average Patrol Hour
  6. 6. Hours Spent on Calls 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 61,546 Annual Reactive Workload
  7. 7. Patrol Interval Also referred to as “Officer Presence” or “Visibility” By definition: “The average time it takes for all units on proactive time to randomly patrol every street in the jurisdiction.” A second definition: “The average time a stranded motorist will have to wait for a unit to come by while on random patrol on proactive time.” As MR increases, the patrol interval increases exponentially.
  8. 8. Probability of Saturation By definition: “The probability that when the next call-for-service arrives, all patrol units will be busy.” Once saturation has occurred, incoming calls will either be held in a queue (stacked), or officers will be pre-empted from lower priority calls. Once saturated, performance only gets worse. “You cannot dig yourself out of a hole!” As MR increases, the probability of
  9. 9. Cross-Beat Dispatching By definition: “Dispatching a unit out of their assigned beat to handle reactive workload in another officer’s assigned beat.” Typically only used with high priority calls Opens a domino-effect of performance loss Increases response times on high priority calls Decreases officer and citizen safety as officers are driving longer distances with lights and sirens. Reduces the likelihood of timely follow-up by
  10. 10. Total Staff Size for Patrol • To staff the 12 hour shifts with an MR of 30 mins: • 25.29 units would need to be fielded per day • 61.97 total officers would have to be on staff • To staff the 10 hour shifts with an MR of 30 mins: • 9.93 units would need to be fielded per day • 21.35 total officers would have to be on staff • Total staff for 30/30 split: 83.32 employees • At the time of the report, patrol was staffed with 67 patrol officers and 8 sergeants.
  11. 11. Workload/Availability Balance Officers fielded Per Day Shift Relief Factor Total Patrol Staff
  12. 12. Project Scope Are the current patrol beat configurations effective and/or efficient? Can the existing work schedule be improved to increase operational efficiency? What is an appropriate staffing level for the Criminal Investigations Division? What is an appropriate staffing level for Training & Recruiting?
  13. 13. Beat Configuration Are the current district configurations effective and/or efficient? Is the workload equitable among the existing eight beats? Is an 8 beat plan conducive to future deployment options?
  14. 14. Beat Map Areas Reactive Hours % reactive hours 10 Beat 33 10,651 13.62% 20 Beat 15 10,256 13.11% 30 Beat 30 10,624 13.58% 40 Beat 17 7,850 10.03% 50 Beat 16 7,253 9.27% 60 Beat 22 7,702 9.85% 70 Beat 33 6,835 8.74% 80 Beat 52 10,179 13.01% CSPD 1 6,877 8.79% Total 219 78,227 100.00% Beat Configuration
  15. 15. 12-Beat Design Based on the % of reactive time occurring per district. Beat Configuration Beat Reactive Hours % reactive hours Area 1 6,070 8.51% Area 2 5,991 8.40% Area 3 5,890 8.25% Area 4 5,986 8.39% Area 5 6,037 8.46% Area 6 6,168 8.64% Area 7 5,788 8.11% Area 8 5,830 8.17% Area 9 5,899 8.27% Area 10 5,837 8.18% Area 11 5,950 8.34% Area 12 5,906 8.28% CSPD 6,877 Total 78,229 100.00%
  16. 16. Current Previous Beat Configuration 10 Beat 20 Beat 30 Beat 40 Beat 50 Beat 60 Beat 70 Beat 80 Beat CSPD 13.6%13.1%13.6% 10.0%9.3% 9.9% 8.7% 13.0% 8.8% Reactive Hours Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Area 9 Area 10 Area 11 Area 12 8.5% 8.4% 8.3% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6%8.1%8.2%8.3%8.2%8.3%8.3% Reactive Hours
  17. 17. Project Scope Can the existing work schedule be improved to increase operational efficiency? What is an appropriate staffing level for the Criminal Investigations Division? What is an appropriate staffing level for Training & Recruiting?
  18. 18. Resource Deployment Can the existing work schedule be improved to increase operational efficiency? Are better alternatives available to improve: Service Delivery Quality of Service Workload Equity Quality of Life
  19. 19. Workload vs. Staffing Curves Workload 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ChartTitle Workload Staffing
  20. 20. Benefits of Schedule Efficiency Reduce the need for overtime Reduce Probability of Saturation Reduce Cross-beat Dispatching Improve response times Improve officer/citizen safety Reduce Patrol Intervals Equalize workload for officers Equalize opportunity for leave time
  21. 21. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Current Allocation Index Current Allocation Index= 64.96%
  22. 22. Schedule Options Four alternative schedule recommendations were offered to improve performance Redistributing officers among shifts Redistributing officers and modifying start times Distributing 10-hour days off throughout the week Adopting a new schedule These were offered as suggestions but their benefits must be weighed against other organizational circumstances. A theoretical increase in efficiency may not be seen if the change is not accepted by the patrol staff.
  23. 23. Project Scope What is an appropriate staffing level for the Criminal Investigations Division? What is an appropriate staffing level for Training & Recruiting?
  24. 24. Benchmark Comparisons Since investigators are not CAD driven, only a fraction of their workload appears in CAD. In the absence of a workload database, the next option is to benchmark with other agencies. A group of 29 agencies across the country have already compiled annual benchmarking reports that can be used for this study
  25. 25. Section A - Demographics 2 Fremont, CA Cary, NC Edmond, OK Coral Springs, FL Olathe, KS Overland Park, KS Norman, OK Broken Arrow, OK FT Collins, CO Boulder, CO Boca Raton, FL Bellevue, WA Plano, TX Irving, TX Garland, TX Cedar Rapids, IA Richardson, TX Lincoln, NE Naperville, IL Benchmark Cities - 2017 A Coalition for Mutual Support Chula Vista, CA Chesapeake, VA Springfield, MO Boise, ID Lawrence, KS Henderson, NV Columbia, MO Grand Prairie, TX Peoria, AZ Carlsbad, CA
  26. 26. Benchmark Comparisons The most reliable metrics to use for estimating CID staffing were: Total authorized staff, and Total first responders Both metrics showed an correlation coefficient of greater than .8 indicating the results were reliable
  27. 27. Investigators vs Authorized Sworn
  28. 28. Investigators vs. First Responders
  29. 29. Benchmark Comparisons Both metrics indicated a need for 19 investigators for the College Station PD. This result was based on the number of first responders resulting from the patrol study and the agency’s total authorized staff at the time of this report The need for additional staff based on benchmarking is consistent with the historical metric analysis and the time tracking snapshot.
  30. 30. Project Scope What is an appropriate staffing level for Training & Recruiting?
  31. 31. Training & Recruiting At the time of the study report, the division contained 6 sworn personnel and 3 civilians. The division had previously set an internal goal of accomplishing 70% of all backgrounds and 70% of all instructor hours from within the division. The best the division has reached is 59% and 65% respectively. “Borrowed” employees are likely to carry a switching costs which could be hurting efficiency.
  32. 32. Training & Recruiting Based on the need for outside assistance on a continuous basis and the upcoming growth of the organization, additional resources appear to be warranted. An additional police assistant and an additional training officer would reduce the reliance on other divisions within the department and reduce potential switching costs.
  33. 33. Questions? Tim Freesmeyer Etico Solutions, Inc. 3275 Sycamore Springs Rd Mountain Home, Arkansas 72653 www.eticosolutions.com 309-333-4906

×