A Study Reviewing Patrol Staffing, Organizational Structure, and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A Study Reviewing Patrol Staffing, Organizational Structure, and Prior Consultant Reports 502 East 11 th Street · Suite 300 · Austin, Texas 78701 · 512 / 476-4697 July 13, 2011

Who We Are? MGT of America, Inc.  Management consulting firm with over 37 years of experience providing services to public sector clients  Corporate headquarters in Tallahassee, FL and regional offices in Austin, TX; Sacramento, CA; Olympia, WA; and Washington DC  Criminal Justice / Public Safety practice is our largest practice area  Team for this project 1

Project Approach and Report Format A Study Reviewing Patrol Staffing, Organizational Structure, and Prior Consultant Reports Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. Staffing Analysis of El Paso Police Patrol and Deployment Practice and Policies Chapter 3. Department Organizational Structure Chapter 4. Status of Recommendations from Prior Studies 2

Safest City Distinction Violent Crim e Rate per 10 0 ,0 0 0 Residents in El Paso: 20 0 1-20 0 9 3

Safest City Distinction Property Crim e Rate per 10 0 ,0 0 0 Residents in El Paso: 20 0 1-20 0 9 4,500 4,000 3,823 3,500 3,208 3,024 3,000 2,812 2,500 2,480 2,428 2,412 2,367 2,361 2,000 1,500 1,000 443 572 450 388 432 322 500 492 373 377 357 349 317 359 339 318 310 339 305 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Burglary Larceny Auto Theft 4

Peer Review Police Force Peer Benchm arks for 20 0 9 2009 2009 2009 Total Viol. Prop. Index Officers Below Crime Crime Crime # per 1000 Poverty Square City State Pop. Rate Rate Rate Officers % Civ. Res. Line Mile El Paso TX 620,456 457 2,994 3,451 1,117 23.4% 1.8 25.3% 249 Mesa AZ 467,157 425 3,415 3,840 801 36.2% 1.7 11.7% 124 Tucson AZ 543,910 650 N/A N/A 1,012 25.9% 1.9 20.3% 194 Fresno CA 479,918 609 4,369 4,978 827 32.0% 1.7 23.0% 104 Long Beach CA 462,604 681 2,725 3,406 955 28.1% 2.1 18.8% 50 Sacramento CA 466,676 886 4,465 5,351 700 31.8% 1.5 16.5% 97 San Francisco CA 815,358 736 4,262 4,997 2,367 17.0% 2.9 11.5% 46 Denver CO 610,345 578 3,453 4,031 1,510 14.1% 2.5 17.8% 153 Albuquerque NM 529,219 769 5,492 6,261 1,087 26.2% 2.1 15.2% 180 Las Vegas NV 567,641 947 3,461 4,408 2,735 48.0% 4.8 12.3% 113 Oklahoma City OK 560,333 930 6,098 7,029 1,048 19.2% 1.9 17.3% 606 Austin TX 786,386 523 6,245 6,769 1,564 27.1% 2.0 17.5% 251 Fort Worth TX 727,577 585 4,960 5,545 1,502 21.6% 2.1 17.0% 292 5

Peer Review El Paso and Peers: Rate of Officers per 1,0 0 0 Residents 6

Peer Review El Paso and Peers: Percent of Police Force that are Civilian 7

Patrol El Paso Police Departm ent Patrol Operations Organizational Structure Chief of Police Regional Regional Operations I Operations II Central Regional Northeast Command Regional Command Westside Pebble Hills Regional Regional Command Command Mission Valley Regional Command 8

Patrol City of El Paso Police Departm ent Patrol Personnel by Regional Com m and Centers Patrol Num ber of Patrol Regional Patrol Patrol Officers as of Officers Used is Com m and Lieutenants Sergeants Dec. 20 10 Analysis NERCC 3 11 70 74 MVRCC 3 11 69 74 WSRCC 3 10 69 70.5 CRCC 3 12 96 103.5 PHRRCC 3 14 116 119.5 Total 15 58 420 441.5 9

Patrol El Paso Police Departm ent Analysis of Patrol Officer Hours Percent of Potential Hours per Hours Hours Worked FTE Potential Hours Worked 9 18 ,320 9 7.5% 20 8 0 Estim ated Overtim e 23,9 8 3 2.5% 54 Adjusted Potential Hours 9 4 2,30 3 10 0 .0 % Hours Leave 24 2,6 27 25.7% 54 9 .6 Vacation 127,123 13.5% 288 Sick 40,895 4.3% 93 Holiday 27,255 2.9% 62 Compensatory 24,478 2.6% 55 Personal 12,698 1.3% 29 Other 10,178 1.1% 23 Hours on Duty 6 9 9 ,6 76 74 .3% 158 5 Hours Recorded on CAD 514 ,253 54 .6 % 116 5 On Scene 396,054 42.0% 897 Dispatch/ Travel 96,559 10.2% 219 Traffic/ Parking 14,808 1.6% 34 Officer-Initiated Call* 3,398 0.4% 8 Out With 19 0.0% 0 Other 3,415 0.4% 8 Hours Rem aining 18 5,4 23 19 .7% 4 20 10

Patrol Current Workload Current Work Load Patrol Type of Duty Hours Percent Normal Patrol Duties 514,253 73.5% Admin (assume 25%) 174,919 25.0% Proactive and Non-Dedicated Time 10,504 1.5% Hours on Duty 699,676 100.0% 11

Patrol Com m unity Policing 20% Community Policing Work Load Patrol Type of Duty Hours Percent Normal Patrol Duties 514,253 60.0% Admin (assume 20%) 171,418 20.0% Community Policing 171,418 20.0% Hours on Duty 857,088 100.0% 12

Staffing Goal Examples Change to staffing to reduce percent of tim e spent on reactive patrol activity from 73.5% to 60 % 60 % Norm al Patrol Type of Duty Hours Percent Responding to CFS 514,253 60.0% Admin/ Proactive time combined 171,418 40.0% Hours on Duty 857,088 100.0% Hours per Officer 1,584.77 Hours on Duty 857,088 Number of Officers Needed 540.83 Change in Officers 99.33 Change in Units 14.02 On average, there are 62.3 units patrolling at any given time. Difference in Mean response time (minutes) 1.67 13

Patrol Officers Full Crew Adjusted Num ber of Units Based on CAD Data Num ber of Officers Full- Hour of Crew Solo % Full From Day Units Units Total Crew CAD Scheduled Expected 0000 24.7 43.5 68.2 36.2% 92.9 120.1 91.6 0200 20.5 36.9 57.4 35.8% 78.0 98.6 75.1 0400 15.1 26.8 41.9 36.0% 57.0 78.7 60.0 0600 12.8 43.6 56.4 22.6% 69.1 124.7 95.0 0800 4.0 43.4 47.4 8.4% 51.4 64.7 49.4 1000 3.8 44.5 48.3 7.8% 52.1 68.5 50.1 1200 5.1 51.5 56.6 9.0% 61.6 88.7 67.6 1400 8.8 69.2 78.0 11.3% 86.9 120.7 92.0 1600 13.1 54.3 67.4 19.4% 80.5 86.1 65.6 1800 14.4 50.1 64.5 22.3% 78.8 97.6 74.4 2000 15.7 50.2 65.9 23.8% 81.6 104.4 79.6 2200 29.3 63.4 92.8 31.6% 122.1 152.7 116.4 Average 14 .0 4 8 .4 6 2.3 22.4% 76.3 10 0 .1 76.3 14

Patrol Recom m endation 2-1 EPPD should reduce its reliance on full-crew units. This would require  the purchase of additional vehicles and expenditures for vehicle equipment, maintenance and fuel, but should result in additional patrol coverage by putting more vehicles on the street without an investment in additional staff. Additional patrol deployment will improve patrol response time to calls for service and improve its crime control initiatives. Recom m endation 2-2: If response times are considered by city and department decision  makers to be an important indicator of department performance, and if they are already being used for decision making purposes, measureable objectives for average response times should be established. 15

Deployment of Officers Average Response Tim e by Patrol Units for 20 10 (Citizen-Initiated Calls) 8 0 Percentile All Response Tim es (Minutes) (Minutes) Dispatch Drive Respons Dispatch Drive Response Priority Tim e Tim e e Tim e Tim e Tim e Tim e 2 5.47 7.74 13.21 2.94 6.43 9.37 3 8.91 9.64 18.55 4.58 7.51 12.09 4 9.76 9.40 19.16 4.98 7.64 12.62 5 16.99 11.76 28.75 9.06 8.81 17.87 6 45.75 18.18 63.93 26.13 11.31 37.44 2-6 Total 16 .30 11.28 27.58 7.55 8 .35 15.90 7 33.96 15.41 49.37 20.07 9.90 29.97 8 53.84 20.46 74.30 35.15 12.40 47.55 9 62.87 19.63 82.50 42.29 12.67 54.96 Total 25.57 13.25 38 .8 2 12.10 9 .0 8 21.18 16

Deployment of Officers El Paso Police Departm ent Patrol Operations Percent of Citizen Initiated CFS per hour Com pared to Patrol Hours 17

Deployment of Officers El Paso Police Departm ent Patrol Operations Percent CFS per hour Com pared to Patrol Hours Presented at Surpluses and Deficits in Patrol Resource Allocations for High Priority Calls 18

Deployment of Officers Recom m endation 2-3 The El Paso Police Department and relevant citywide elected officials,  policymakers, and civic stakeholders should develop a shared public safety investment plan tied to measurable community outcomes. Recom m endation 2-4 Develop or adopt a model for long-term planning of patrol force size.  Concrete objectives and consistent data-measurement are critical in determining the value of additional resources. Simply pouring more resources into patrol to match peer communities without clear goals could quickly become replicating inefficiency instead of improving policing outcomes. Additionally, the department should reconsider its decision to not renew its contract for its police optimization software, which although not an actually a model, it provides a resource to optimize staffing around a selected model. 19

Other Patrol Issues Recom m endation 2-5 The practice of arresting officers first taking prisoners to the  substation and then to the booking facility should be minimized if not completely eliminated. Recom m endation 2-6 Alternately, if this practice cannot be changed and offenders  must continue to first be taken to a substation for paperwork and other processing, they could be transported from the substation to the booking facility by a “transport officer” and not the arresting officer. The officer could complete the required paperwork and then return to the street to be available for calls. 20