pd_Over_Hire_Budget_Request_3_23

Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Police Department

TO: Thomas M. Markus, City Manager

FROM: Tarik Khatib, Chief of Police

Anthony Brixius, Police Captain

CC: Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager

Casey Toomay, Assistant City Manager

Bryan Kidney, Finance Director

Brandon McGuire, Assistant to the City Manager

DATE: March 23, 2016

RE: Over-hire Budget Request

Background

The overarching goal for the Lawrence Police Department’s resource requests has been to be match resources with expected community service levels. To this end, and over the past several years, the Department has had the opportunity to present and discuss resource needs through written memorandum, Study Session presentation to the City Commission, and a formal Facility Needs Assessment. Some of the information presented in regards to personnel needs were provided in the following format(s):

1. Memorandum, Priorities, Goals, and Issues, March 29, 2011 – An overall “state of the Department” in terms of resources.

2. Memorandum, Civilianization Opportunities, March 29, 2011 – A discussion on potential savings and efficiencies to be realized by hiring additional civilian personnel to perform some work currently being performed by commissioned personnel.

3. Memorandum, Resource Options, May 9, 2011 – Costs associated with various personnel hiring options for the 2012 budget year.

4. City Commission Study Session, June 14, 2011 – Department presentation to City Commission in regards to personnel, equipment, and facility needs.

5. Memorandum, Resource Needs Outline and Strategy, May 14, 2012 – An update of the March 29, 2011 memorandum in response to City Commission inquiry about the total costs for personnel, equipment, and facility needs. Presented personnel additions in modules with expected outcomes if funded and consequences if funding was not provided.

6. Memorandum, Model for Funding Multi-year Plan for Police Resources, June 14, 2012 – City Management presentation in reference to how the personnel, equipment, and facility needs could potentially be funded.

7. City Commission Study Session, June 19, 2012 – Funding of Police Department resources needs was discussed including a multi-year plan.

8. Memorandum, 2015 Budget – Additional Personnel, April 7, 2014 – Specific request for personnel for the 2015 budget year.

9. Memorandum, Police Department Service Deficiencies, May 2, 2014 – Outlining potential service provision changes impacted by funding.

10. Memorandum, Additional Investigative Personnel, March 9, 2015 – Request for additional investigators to handle unmet investigative caseload, staffing of an evening shift investigative component, and increasing the Department’s proactive capabilities in regards to career criminals.

11. City Commission Study Session, April 21, 2015 – Department presentation to City Commission in regards to personnel, equipment, and facility needs.

Of the approximately 35 officer, detective, supervisor, and civilian positions that have been requested, the Department has been fortunate to have received nine:

2011 – One detective position (later changed to a sergeant position out of necessity).
2012 – Four officer positions.
2013 – Three officer positions.

· 2015 – One sergeant position.

It is important to note that the authorized strength of the Department in 2003 was 140 commissioned positions. Today’s authorized strength is 152 positions. Over the last 13 years, the Department has only added 12 commissioned positions. With the exception of 2011 – and this was later changed to a sergeant – none of these have been detective positions. The number of positions added over the years has not been enough to keep up with the increased workload, complexity, technology challenges, and community expectations.

Department Attrition

Attrition occurs when an officer or commissioned staff member separates from the Department for various reasons. In broad terms, these include:

· Retirement – completion of career.

· Medical retirement – injury related.

· Termination – as a result of misconduct or poor performance.

· Voluntary separation – the officer decides to pursue other job opportunities.

· Involuntary separation – officer leaves not due to misconduct, but inability to perform the duties of an officer, or poor job fit. This is most often associated with “washing out” of the training program at some point in the year-long training process. This can also be voluntary if the officer recognizes this on his/her own and elects to pursue other job opportunities.

The following table reflects the Department’s attrition over the last 13 years:

Table I.

Year	Officers Leaving
2003	10
2004	6
2005	8
2006	5
2007	5
2008	11
2009	10
2010	9
2011	9
2012	12
2013	8
2014	6
2015	11
2016	3 (as of 3-23-16)

Not counting 2016, the average attrition for the Department based upon 13 years of data is 9 positions per year. This represents a reasonably accurate predictor of the number of Department positions vacated on a yearly basis due to the normal course of business.

A closer examination of the attrition since 2011 reveals that retirements have not been a major factor in attrition. They only represent 20% of the 49 positions vacated over the last six years:

· Retirements: 10 or 21%

· Medicals: 4, or 8%

· Other separations: 35, or 71%

Since only 21% of attrition has been due to retirements, it stands to reason the Department will continue to lose the historical number of 7 officers each year, not including retirements. This becomes important as we try to predict future attrition while taking into account a dramatic increase in the number of retirements expected.

Increase in Attrition Due to Retirements

While the typical average attrition over the past 13 years has been 9 positions, the Department is predicting an unprecedented number of retirements in the next four years. The anomaly in the rate of retirement is due to several reasons:

· As part of a successful ½ cent sales tax vote, 27 officers were added to the Department in 1991. There are 19 current employees from this hiring process that are now or soon eligible for retirement.

· Employees on the replaced Tier I system of the KP&F system are now becoming eligible for retirement.

· Proposed changes in legislation, which could significantly effect a retiree’s payout based on when they retire, is causing some officers to consider retiring earlier than originally thought.

The Department recently surveyed the 27 officers eligible for retirement this year through 2019.

The following table predicts future Department attrition:

Table II.

Year	Officers Planning on Retiring	Unknown (retirement eligible now)	Other Attrition	Total Attrition
2016	8	5	7	15 – 20
2017	5	0	7	12+
2018	3	0	7	10+
2019	3	0	7	10+
2020	3	0	7	10+

Past Attrition Mitigation Strategy

Before 2011, the Department had to wait until it found itself several positions below authorized strength before being allowed to initiate the hiring process. Due to the length of the process, which does not end until the new officers are out of the field training program, the Department was often below authorized strength on a continual basis. Staff shortages often manifested at the patrol officer level as supervisor, detective, and some special assignments have been either too mission critical not to fill, or subject to community expectations to remain staffed. Patrol capacity failed to keep pace with call, workload, and service demands.

Shortening the length of the hiring process, making it more consistent, and increasing predictability for applicants, was one of the first mitigation strategies initiated. The process for hiring and training new police officers is significant as it lasts well over one calendar year. The process has been streamlined and shortened from those used in the past and represents the minimum reasonable length of time needed. Typically, a new officer timeline is as follows:

· January: process begins with advertising, acceptance of applications and applicant testing.

· March – June: applicants are selected and background investigations are completed.

· June – November: 25-week academy training.

· November – March: 15-week Field Training Officer (FTO) program.

· Mid-March: officer is released from FTO.

· March – September: officer remains on probationary status.

The time from beginning the hiring process until the officer is released on their own is approximately 14 months (assuming the best case scenario). Typically it takes a new police officer two to three years before they are operating at a level close to that of an average police officer.

A second strategy utilized in conjunction with shortening the hiring timeline was to over-hire officer positions to take into account the historical average attrition rate. For several years, the Department has been allowed to over-hire officer positions in recognition of the challenge in maintaining staffing due to attrition and length of time it takes to fully train and deploy officers on their own. The following table details the number of over-hires in the past three years and the non-funded budgetary impact of the over-hires:

Table III.

Year	Over-hires	Anticipated cost w/benefits	Regular Salary Line-item budget	Actual Salary Line-item	Over-expenditure
2013	8	$520,000 (@65k each)	$6,169,153	$6,542,251	$373,098
2014	8	$560,000 (@70k each)	$6,630,105	$6,542,251	$216,965
2015	10	$740,000 (@74K each)	$6,889,270	$7,036,000	$146,730

In all three years, the actual amount of funds over-expended in the salary line-items were less than what it had been anticipated an over-hire would cost:

· 2013 – 72% of anticipated costs.

· 2014 – 39% of anticipated costs.

· 2015 – 20% of anticipated costs.

Since the over-hires were absorbed into the regular salary line-items (a separate line-item was not created), it is difficult to determine if other savings in the salary line-items may have off-set the actual cost of the over-hires. Also, attrition would have gradually reduced the amount of time each over-hire was carried outside the normal budget. Most likely all of the over-hires would not have needed to be funded for an entire year; and 2015 is an example of this. The Department over-hired by 10 positions, however, the least amount of over-expenditure of the salary line-item occurred. The 2015 attrition of 11 officers was higher than the respective 8 and 6 officers lost in 2013 and 2014.

Discussion

Because the Department has not been able to increase the number of personnel as recommended by staff, it has become increasingly important to not fall below the number of commissioned staff the Department is authorized for. For several years now, the Department has been fortunate to obtain authorization to over-hire during the recruit academy process by 8 – 10 positions. This has been due to the average attrition of 9 positions a year for the past 13 years. Over-hires have not been budgeted for and the Department’s personnel line-items have been overspent each year. For the last recruitment and hiring cycle (June, 2015 – June, 2016), attrition for the Department is expected to be 17 positions:

· In June, 2015, the Department was over-hired by 10 positions (start of last recruit academy). By June, 2016 (next recruit academy), the Department will be seven positions under authorized strength.

As articulated earlier in this memorandum (see Table II.) it has been forecast that attrition will significantly increase in the coming year(s) as a large number personnel approach retirement. This requires a strong funding and hiring strategy to mitigate.

With the two most recent retirements occurring this month, and a recent resignation, the Department has 150 commissioned personnel out of an authorized strength of 152. With a very high degree of certainty, five additional personnel will retire in early summer of this year and another officer plans to leave in December. This would put the Department’s strength at 144, eight positions below authorized strength in very short order – and at least a year out from being able to have new officers in place to replace these positions. It should be noted that a large portion of the attrition (70%, or 7 positions a year) has been demonstrated to be due to factors other than retirement: employees leaving for other opportunities, employees who the Department separates from, and employees who are unable to complete training. When this factor is included in the calculation, it is very feasible the Department could be 19 positions understrength by 2017 without a significant over-hire to maintain appropriate staffing levels:

· Seven positions under authorized strength by June, 2016. Six due to retirements, one resignation.

· One retirement in December, 2016.

· Five officers who are retirement eligible now but have not declared when they may retire.

· Six more positions based on historical averages that are not a result of retirements.

In order to maintain adequate staffing levels in the near and intermediate future, the Department should attempt to hire up to 19 qualified candidates from the current on-going hiring process. As it stands at this moment, there are only two open positions. If things drastically change and no one leaves the Department, this would represent an over-hire of 17 officers as of June. If the anticipated retirements occur between now and June (which is also the start date for the recruit academy), this will represent an over-hire of 12 officers.

Personnel Costs and Budgetary Impact

For purposes of determining the cost of an over-hire, the following are anticipated personnel costs per officer position:

Police Officer - $74,553

Base salary (step 1): $44,042
Add assumed benefits (22.54%): $9,927
Add health care benefit (employee + spouse benefit): $12,584
Add cost of outfitting officer: $8,000
Total cost: $74,553 per position

An over-hire of 17 positions would cost $1,267,061. An over-hire of 12 positions would cost $894,396. The Department’s regular line-items would not be able to absorb these costs and a budget adjustment would be necessary.

As stated earlier, the Department has over-hired by up to 8 – 10 positions in the past three years without additional funding. However, this resulted in the Department over-expending its salary line-times without a way to balance them from other inter-department sources each of those years. One large mitigating factor that has made this somewhat manageable at the City budget level has been the attrition rate; an over-hire of 8 – 10 does not last throughout the whole year as staffing levels decline as projected.

Another mitigating factor affecting the likely budgetary impact will be that retirees, who are typically at close to or top of scale in regards to salary, are ultimately (after promotions) replaced with a new hire who earns considerably less. The following table of current and anticipated retirements as of June, 2016 provides some examples:

Table IV – round figures used, benefits neutral.

Position	Current Salary	Hire to Replace	Difference	Retiree Benefit(s) payout	Promotion to replace	Total Savings
Captain	$111,000	$44,000	-$67,000	+$31,000	+$5000	$31,000
Sergeant	$93,000	$44,000	-$49,000	+$26,000	+$10,000	$13,000
Sergeant	$98,000	$44,000	-$54,000	+$27,000	+$10,000	$17,000
Detective	$79,000	$44,000	-$35,000	+$22,000	+$4000	$9,000
Detective	$79,000	$44,000	-$35,000	+$22,000	+$4000	$9,000
Detective	$79,000	$44,000	-$35,000	+$22,000	+$4000	$9,000
Officer	$70,000	$44,000	-$26,000	+$19,000	N/A	$7,000
Officer	$70,000	$44,000	-$26,000	+$19,000	N/A	$7,000
TOTAL						$102,000

Subsequent retirements and/or separations as outlined in Table II will follow a similar distribution. This may result in the expenditure of approximately $250,000 less than originally estimated if an attrition of 19 positions is realized by 2017, while at the same time over-hiring for these positions. Applying this logic, the likely budgetary impact will be $644,396 - $1,017,061 to hire 19 officers during this hiring process.

Service Reductions and Threats

With the inability to add significant personnel resources over the last 13 years, maintaining authorized staffing is critical. In late 2009, the Department had 15 vacancies at the patrol officer level without a recruiting process in motion. This represented almost an entire patrol shift. It took approximately four years to recover from this. Nonetheless, there have been some service reductions. These include:

Table V – these have already occurred.

Service Changes	Realized Impacts
To staff patrol, School Resource Officers (SRO) reduced from six and a sergeant to four officers.	School safety, community policing, and oversight of the program reduced.
To staff patrol, six officers and a sergeant previously assigned to the Traffic Safety Unit (TSU) reassigned.	Traffic safety and enforcement in the community reduced.
Patrol Division restructured to allow more officers to be on-duty during statistically busiest time period of 11 AM to 3AM. As a result, 3 AM to 11 AM time period is very lightly staffed.	Minimal number of patrol officers on duty when people head to work or school. Lessened proactive patrol and preparedness for critical events during that time period.
Due to prioritization, detective position converted to a patrol sergeant position.	Less investigation of crimes.
Due to prioritization, civilian support position reclassified into a patrol sergeant position.	Civilian position still needed in other areas where commissioned officers are being utilized (e.g., IT).
Due to time required, police officers no longer pick up loose (non-dangerous) animals when Animal Control is off-duty.	Loose animals roam free or are sheltered by citizens until Animal Control is on-duty the next day.
Police officers no longer respond to some medical emergencies; left to Fire/Medical.	Increased response time for service, lack of law enforcement inquiry – medical may actually be a crime.
Current one police unit response to alarm calls.	Officer safety and criminal apprehension issue.
Private vehicle tows are often left to the citizen(s) to take care off.	Citizens may be taken advantage of.
Some police service calls (noise complaints, non in-progress crimes, non-emergency) often held during peak activity times.	Longer response times, violators not identified, and frustrated citizens.
During peak busy times (usually weekend nights), portions of the City are often without police presence as resources are shifted to high call volume areas.	Increased vulnerability to criminal activity (particularly property crime) in those areas.
Two commissioned officer positions utilized as Information Technology (IT) support.	Not cost effective, drain on patrol officer resources.
Some detectives utilized as IT support at the Investigations and Training Center (ITC) building.	Not cost effective, drain on detective recourses. Function of split facilities.
Most crimes are often left to the patrol officer to investigate.	Difficult and inefficient in the call-driven, shift work, patrol environment. Causes diminished service availability.
Very little property and financial crimes (most common crimes) investigation.	Crimes that most affect citizens (numerically). Very low case clearance rate. Repeat offenders not apprehended.
Investigative Division concentration on person felonies only. Also spread thin covering day and evening hours.	Majority of cases without investigator oversight. Limited flexibility and reduced interdivision information exchange.
Training Unit understaffed.	Lack of forward momentum on reality-based and situational training for officers, a best practice.
Event management shifted to off-duty, overtime basis.	Increased overtime costs for non-crime related tasks.
Growth in overtime expenditures for staffing, investigations, and event management.	Budget challenge. Job equity and pay issues between non-exempt and exempt employees.
Only one crime analyst to track and provide information about crime trends. Should be two or three analysts for a city of this size and activity.	Inhibits best practices: predictive policing and real time information to patrol supervisors for resource deployment.
High officer to supervisor ratio.	Affects accountability and productivity.

Although not a replacement for the Department’s long-term personnel needs, the ability to be at authorized staffing or above has kept the Department afloat. It may be additionally detrimental to Department operations and service levels to allow the Department to enter an under authorized strength state. Threats include:

· Concerns about officer safety if the Department is not able to meet minimum staffing.

· Further increases in overtime to meet staffing needs.

· Concerns about officer and public safety if there are less officers to back each other.

· Reduced staffing or inability to staff events which could diminish public safety.

· Reduction in investigation of some non-state reportable (private property, damage under $1000) accidents may cause some citizens to be taken advantage of.

· Reduction in non-confrontational (community policing) interaction opportunities: school lunch program, presentations, foot patrol, and general public interaction not related to crime response. May lead to community and police falling out of touch. Danger to only interaction being when news is bad (e.g., crime victim, crime suspect, or traffic ticket).

· Potential for more criminal complaints becoming phone-in, or “self-serve” web-based. This would result in reduced information, lack of detail, and diminished crime solvability.

· Potential for refusal to task police officers to “deliver message” or “attempt to contact” person type calls and other non-police related calls. By not helping people check in on each other when concerned, we may miss someone in crisis.

· Potential reduction in funeral escort services may lead to the perception of lack of sympathy on the part of City.

· Potential to no longer investigate non-violent/person crimes without readily identifiable suspect (e.g., taking “insurance report” for property theft without any subsequent investigation to identify suspects). We would no longer travel to various locations in an attempt to obtain video(s), evidence, etc. Time-intensive minor crimes would be triaged as non-investigatory. This may increase minor crimes as repeat offenders would not be identified and prosecuted.

· Decreased staffing may impact the ability of officers to adequately handle the very large increase in mental health crisis calls which often take several officers and many hours to complete.

Recommendation

It is recommended that a separate budgetary line-item be created to fund the over-hiring of 17 positions during the current hiring process (offers to be made by the end of March, 2016). It is very likely this will only be an over-hire of 12 positions by the start of the recruit academy in June, 2016, when the funds would have to be available. All positions could be encumbered to this line item. As personnel separate from the Department, over-hire positions can then be transferred to the regular salary line-items which support 152 authorized positions. In this manner, the amount needed to finance or balance the over-hire fund will likely be less than $1,267,061, and more in the neighborhood of $644,396 - $1,017,061. This is dependent on the availability of qualified candidates to fill these positions. If this does not occur during this hiring process, it is recommended that the concept and funds still be available to try other methods; each having some pitfalls:

· An experienced officer recruitment process – may cost more per officer; generally a higher attrition/wash-out rate for various reasons.

· A consecutive academy process to the current one – may overreach current Training Unit capabilities; and may draw from same applicant pool if too soon.

· Consideration of funding retention incentives to delay some retirements – could create some equity concerns that would have to be addressed.

Absent a plan to increase the number of authorized positions, it is also recommended that a line-item be created in the Department’s budget in future years so as to provide for on on-going ability to over-hire approximately 10 positions a year. The trigger for the over-hire should be when the Department’s actual staffing equals the authorized staffing level of 152 positions. Ideally this would coincide with the recruit academy hiring process.