1. ALLOCATING POLICE RESOURCES FOR RESULTS

2. As fiscal pressures on local governments increase, cuts to core services are being made without an adequate understanding of the consequences
The fiscal conditions facing many local governments are dire
Many local governments have had to resort to hiring freezes and across the board cuts to balance their budgets
In some cases, public safety services - which may historically have been exempted from significant budget scrutiny - have been subjected to the budget axe
Even local governments that have been able to avoid significant budget reductions until now face an uncertain future
When making decisions about how to reduce expenditures it is important that decision-makers clearly understand the implications of potential budget cuts on the services citizens receive
Cuts in some areas may result in modest reductions in the level and quality of services that citizens receive and may be deemed acceptable by decision makers
Cuts in other areas, by contrast, may result in an unacceptable reduction in service levels
Without a clear understanding of how budget reductions will affect service quality, decision makers may unwittingly make decisions that adversely affect citizen service in ways that are neither desired nor intended

3. Police departments, in particular, often lack the ability to articulate the impact potential budget reductions will have on the law enforcement services citizens receive
Despite the fact that police departments comprise the largest part of most local government budgets, most departments lack the ability to link expenditures with service levels
On one level this cannot be avoided because the overall level of crime and incidents requiring police intervention in a community are affected by a broad range of factors of which expenditures on law enforcement services is but one
However, even for dimensions of police services for which expenditures and service levels can reasonably be linked (for example, the time required to respond to an incident requiring police intervention) most police departments are unable to articulate the relationship between resource allocation and service levels
For some departments, this results because resource assignments have evolved incrementally over time and no systematic resource deployment strategy has been developed
Even departments that have undertaken resource allocation studies, however, are typically not able to articulate the relationship between resource expenditures and the level of service provided

4. Resource allocation methodologies that are employed by most police departments do not link service levels and expenditures
Most patrol resource allocation methodologies establish an expectation for the percentage of a patrol officer’s shift that should be devoted to responding to calls-for-service and the percentage of time that should be available for “proactive” activities
For example, a typical patrol staffing methodology might assume that patrol officers should spend 65 percent of their shift responding to calls-for-service and the remaining 35 percent on proactive activities
Another methodology might assume that 55 percent of patrol officers time should be devoted to responding to calls-for-service with 45 percent devoted to proactive activities
Such an approach does not consider what community expectations are with regard to how quickly patrol officers should respond to incidents requiring police intervention
Allocation of resources to investigative activities tends to be even less results oriented and is typically based on comparisons with other jurisdictions or the “experience” of the consultant performing the analysis
For proactive and specialized activities (e.g., narcotics, vice, horse, park and bike units) analysis of staffing needs is typically subjective

5. In addition to not linking resource allocation with results some of these resource allocation methodologies are flawed for other reasons as well
Patrol staffing methodologies that base staffing needs on the percent of time officers should spend responding to calls-for service assume that the level of proactive patrol activity in a community should be directly related to the level of reactive patrol activity
Moreover, these methodologies typically assume that the same percentage of time should be spent on proactive activities on all patrol shifts despite the fact that during the night shift less proactive policing which involves interacting with the community can be performed
In addition, these patrol staffing methodologies typically assume that the same amount of time is devoted to each call for service on all shifts when, in fact, the distribution of calls by type (and consequently the time required to respond) can vary significantly over the course of a day
Furthermore, while most patrol staffing methodologies consider what types of calls can be handled over the phone or by sending a civilian rather than a sworn officer to the incident scene, all too often these methodologies do not systematically compare the costs of these alternative response approaches with the cost of patrol officer response

6. A more effective way to allocate police resources is to link staffing requirements with service expectations
The number of patrol officers that are deployed on each shift should be based, in part, on the desired response time to citizen initiated calls-for-service
The number of patrol officers that are needed to perform proactive activities should be based on explicit expectations with regard to the proactive activities officers are expected to perform on each shift and the specific results the department expects to achieve from performing these activities
In many cases, the number of officers needed to ensure response time expectations are met will be sufficient to handle these proactive requirements but this will not always be the case
Moreover, if the proactive activities expected of patrol officers require them to perform duties that cannot be interrupted additional officers will need to be deployed to ensure sufficient capacity exists to perform these activities
While it is more difficult to precisely link resource allocation with service expectations for investigative activities. a productivity expectation for detectives conducting follow-up investigations should be established
Defining expected results for proactive and specialized units (e.g., narcotics, vice, horse, park and bike units) while sometimes difficult is important to ensuring resources are allocated appropriately

7. In addition to considering how resources should be allocated to achieve desired results, a number of other factors should be considered when allocating police resources
Policing strategies. The policing strategies employed by a department will significantly affect a department’s success in achieving its objectives
Management and supervision. Effective management practices must be in place if police resources are to be effectively deployed
Scheduling and deployment. Police resources must be scheduled and deployed where they are most needed if they are to be effective
Mix of skills. Police departments should generally not employ sworn officers to perform jobs that could be assumed by less costly civilians
Dispatch strategies. Cost-effective operations also require dispatching the correct number of patrol officers to each call-for-service
Flexible use of resources. Unnecessary specialization can also reduce a police department’s operational effectiveness

8. A number of benefits can be achieved from taking a results based approach to allocating police resources
Decision-makers are able to make informed decisions about the level of service that can be provided for a given level of resources
Decision makers will also understand the impact budget cuts will have on the quality of services citizens receive
The methodology can be used to articulate for taxpayers the relationship between resources and service levels
Establishing expectations for results achieved and for employee productivity strengthens management and accountability
The resource allocation methodology can be used to develop a framework for systematically assessing the impact alternative policing strategies have on achieving desired results