Police Staffing ReportAn Examination of the Edgewater Police Department's Size of Force:
Findings & Recommendations from the US COPS Staffing Analysis Model
Drs. J. Mitchell Miller & Brenda Vose
University of North Florida
Dr. Wesley G. Jennings
University of Mississippi
December 2023
DISCLAIMER
This report relates the methods and findings, including hiring recommendations, from empirical
assessment of the staffing capacity and needs of the Edgewater Police Department. The
conclusions, opinions and suggestions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the official positions of the Edgewater Police Department or the City of Edgewater.
Executive Summary
4
Introduction: Meeting Staffing Challenges in Trying Times
10
Background: A Critical Review of Leading Staffing Models
12
Authorized Level Approach
13
Minimum Staffing Approach
14
Workload -Based Approach
15
Per Capita Approach
17
The US COPS Staffing Model: A New & Enhanced Approach
19
Methodology 20
Research Setting (City of Edgewater, Florida) 20
Analytic Strategy 24
Findings 26
Conclusions and Hiring Recommendations 28
Appendices & Tables 32
References 33
Table 1. Number of CFS 37
Table 2. Officer Time Spent on CFS 37
Table 3. Officer Time Spent on CFS and Minimum Officers Required by Shift 37
Table 4. Minimum Number of Officers by Shift with Varying Performance Objectives 37
Table 5. Minimum Number of Officers by Shift with Varying Performance Objectives,
Factoring in Real World Obligated Time for CFS 37
Table 6. Minimum Number of Officers per Shift by Performance Objective including the
Shift Relief Factor, Factoring in Real World Obligated Time for CFS 37
Figure 1. Calls for Service Frequency and Distribution by Shift (January 1, 2022 —
December 31, 2022) 38
Figure 2. Average Officer Time Spent per CFS by Shift
Figure 3. Total Officer Minutes Spent for CFS by Shift
39
40
Figure 4. Total Officer Hours Spent for CFS by Shift 41
Figure 5. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution 42
Figure 6. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (100% Obligated) 43
2
Figure 7. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (66% Obligated) 44
Figure 8. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (50% Obligated) 45
Figure 9. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (33% Obligated) 46
Figure 10. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution including Real World Obligation 47
Figure 11. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (60% Real World Obligated) 48
Figure 12. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution including Real World Obligation, adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
49
Figure 13. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (100% Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
50
Figure 14. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (66% Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
51
Figure 15. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (60% Real World Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
52
Figure 16. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (50% Real World Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
53
Figure 17. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (33% Real World Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
54
Executive Summary
Specifying Size of Force Needed through Law Enforcement Staffmg Analysis
System -wide personnel shortages have become a national and ongoing problem across
the criminal justice system and particularly so for law enforcement. Without sufficient
manpower, the ability to meet basic law enforcement functions becomes increasingly difficult
as remaining available personnel are progressively challenged by mental health, substance
abuse, violence, and related crime and social problems that drive police dispatch and can
dictate officer shiftwork time. Increased demand for dispatch in tum presents a dual
interrelated challenge as additional officers are needed to cover increases in community needs
for service and longer dispatch durations per call responded to per the time-consuming nature
of mental health and substance abuse calls that spiked for almost all of law enforcement since
COVID. Dispatch response to such calls often involve multiple officers and other agencies, as
well as suspect and offender transport. Efficiently managing personnel assumes an adequate
size of force with a predictable number of officers across patrol shifts. The combination of
pandemic effects and widespread anti -police sentiment that prompted early retirements and
transition out of law enforcement threaten understaffed situations which, for smaller
departments such as Edgewater, can have acute impact through even the loss of a few officers.
When compounded with general community growth and transition, and the changing nature
and increased extent of calls for police services, scientific examination of Edgewater Police
Department's staffing level was conducted to empirically inform adequate size of force the
City needs (Vermeer et al., 2020).
The fundamental question for community stakeholders, ranging from citizens
4
depending on police services for public order and basic safety to community officials for
whom the answer presents fiscal considerations, consistently remains: How many police
officers does a department need? To answer this vital question for the Edgewater Police
Department (EPD) located in central coastal Florida approximately 20 miles south of Daytona
Beach, a team of experienced applied criminologists (Dr. J. Mitchell Miller, John Delaney
Presidential Professor at the University of North Florida, an Academy of Criminal Justice
Sciences Fellow, and Editor of the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Dr. Brenda Vose,
Chair of the Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice at the University of North Florida
and Southern Criminal Justice Association Board of Director, and Dr. Wesley G. Jennings,
Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice & Legal Studies at the University of Mississippi,
also an Academy of Criminal Justice Science Fellow, and Past President of the Southern
Criminal Justice Association) collected official EPD data as well as original field data to apply
an enhanced law enforcement staffing analysis formula (the US COPS Staffing Model)
developed over the last two years through US DOJ awards.
The extant research literature on police staffing has until recently indicated a
performance-based calculation logic, the workload model (Wilson & Weiss, 2012), as a
preferable analytic strategy for determining an agency's staffing needs. Clearly superior to
the older widely adopted 1 officer per 1,000 citizens calculation (per capita model) fraught
with assumptions and unconcerned with crime or level of demand for services, this approach
was crafted pre-COVID during the wave of police community relations initiatives wherein
law enforcement administrators could balance public safety and other community
outreach/citizen engagement activities. The general officer shortage since COVID, however,
has redefined staffing scope conditions that restrict administrative autonomy and redirect
agency resources and activity toward the most basic function of addressing calls for service
(CFS) - leaving questionable the workload model which erroneously assumes administrative
autonomy and, rather than measuring personnel time expenditures, that officer shiftwork
splits into equal thirds of dispatch, community outreach, and paperwork. In short, complex
theoretical models projecting manpower needs per assumptions of officer and agency realities
and "guesstimates" of desired yet unrealistic officer performance and shiftwork activity are
not optimally suited for addressing the occupational, social, political, and related fiscal
pressures on law enforcement agencies today so as to accurately indicate staffing needs.
Research Process
Fortunately, a recent research article has noted the inadequacy of leading models for
accurately specifying the number of officers needed to meet calls for service (CFS) demands.
Projections from the workload model essentially provide little more than guesses of staffing
need due to methodological shortcomings, including and most importantly failure to measure
key staffing level considerations such as officer shiftwork time allocation, shift relief, and
personnel needs that vary across sectors and within departments per varying demands across
shifts (most notably differences between day and night). More importantly, this research
article (please see Law Enforcement Manpower Analysis: An Enhanced Calculation Model) by
Vose et al. in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol.
43, Number 3, 2020, pp. 511-523) also introduced a more practical and scientifically rigorous
alternative mixed methods strategy to better specify the size of force a municipality should
maintain. The approach, sponsored for developed and thus titled the US COPS Staffing Model,
is a mixed methods inquiry strategy per the combination of different research techniques
employed — in this case traditional quantitative data collection, management, and analysis but
also qualitative data collection through focus group interviews with patrol and specialty
officers to understand firsthand and directly how they expend their shiftwork time.
This new US COPS Staff ng Model is novel in staffing studies in terms of
methodological rigor and in being responsive to the realities within an agency through
measurement and empirical assessment rather than assumed projections of officer activity and
related time allocations. With enhanced analytic capability, this new mixed -methods staffing
model has been well received by the Florida (the first iteration of the new model originated out
of work originally conducted in partnership with the Flagler County Sheriff's Office) and then
the national law enforcement community first as the keynote address at the Florida Sheriffs
Association Executive Leadership Conference and at the Tennessee -Kentucky FBI National
Academy Conference in 2021; and then presented at the National Sheriffs' Association Annual
Conference, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, the Southern Criminal Justice
Association, and the American Society of Criminology in 2022; and, finally, invited back again
to the NSA for the opening panel at their national 2023 Annual Conference. Since the 2020
Vose et al version, the new staffing model has received funding support through two US COPS
Office awards to further refine measurements and the multistep process illustrated below and
utilized in the analysis here. Named the US COPS Staffing Model, this approach consists of
collecting and analyzing the supply and demand of service calls relative to officer availability
after adjustment for several factors.
The Seven Steps of the US COPS Staffing Model
1. Examining the distribution of calls for service by hour, day, and month. Calls
for Service (CFS) are collected and evaluated based on hour, day, and month
to identify temporal trends in demand for service.
2. Examining the nature of CFS. Identifies call type (e.g., traffic collision, assault
investigation, 911 call) to specify the workload demand for different types of
CFS.
3. Estimating time consumed on CFS. Determines the length of each CFS,
including response time, duration on scene, and time expenditure for associated
administrative tasks.
4. Calculating agency shift -relief factor (SRF). The SRF represents the number of days
an officer can work. Due to days off, vacation, training, and other time making
officers unavailable for dispatch, the SRF allows agencies to know how many
officers are required to ensure basic services.
5. Establishing performance objectives. Established by an agency, performance
objectives are the amount of time an officer's shift is devoted to different work
domains (e.g.,CFS, police community relations, & administrative tasks).
Measures of these time expenditures are determined by operationalizing officer
focus group interview responses.
6. Providing staffing estimates. Based on the results of the previous steps, staffing
needs are identified by the hour and distributed across department shifts to ensure
adequate response capability for CFS.
7. Workload analysis by district/sector (if applicable). Calculations from steps 1-6
are applied to a spatial patrol zone, enabling enhanced service through abbreviated
response time.
Collection and analysis of EPD data and administration of the US COPS model in the
present study was intended to: 1) empirically specify the immediate and near future hiring needs
of EPD and 2) demonstrate the utility of the model for replication for other agencies' staffing
analysis needs. The current analysis of EPD personnel and CFS data followed the seven -
stepwise process specified in the new model to estimate the minimum number of new officers
needed (the supply) to respond to the number of service calls (the demand) to inform
recommendations regarding the City's immediate and near future law enforcement staffing
situation and related hiring needs.
Findings
Analysis of CFS and related service demands relative to the department's current staffing
level yielded findings supporting the need to immediately hire additional EPD officers. At
present, officers expend the majority of their shiftwork time (60%) responding to CFS. The
capability to respond quickly to dispatched calls is a non-negotiable law enforcement expectation
and, without additional manpower, response time is all but certain to increase. The following
report specifies in detail all research methods and findings including various staffing projections
set at various performance level calculations (i.e., varying levels of officer commitment to
dispatch, generally). In short, findings clearly indicate additional personnel are needed.
Specifically, the analysis revealed that, according to the 60% real world obligation
estimate (a number derived directly from the focus group interviews with the EPD officers), 9.43
officers are needed for the day shift and 4.96 officers are needed for the night shift. Assuming a
50% obligation to CFS, 11.79 officers are needed for the day shift and 6.2 officers are needed for
the night shift. Finally, under a 33% standard workload assumption for CFS time commitment, a
minimum of 17.69 officers are needed for the day shift and 9.31 officers for the night shift.
EPD Immediate Hiring Recommendations: EPD is currently understaffed. In order to
keep pace with the 2022 CFS volume and with the recommendation that EPD reallocate officer
workload distribution to 33% time devoted to CFS, EPD should hire 9 officers devoted to
handing CFS (i.e., patrol officer or motor unit) so there are a total of 28 officers responding to
CFS. This staffing level will enable time for officer report writing and other administrative
tasks, additional training time making for a more professional force, and increased officer -
initiated and community engagement activity.
EPD Near Future Hiring Recommendations: Assuming a 5% population growth in
five years and that EPD intends to reallocate officer workload distribution from 60% to the 33%
expected obligation to CFS, the City will need 29.4 officers in five years (approximately 11 new
hires). Assuming a 10% population growth in ten years, then EPD will need 30.8 officers in ten
years (approximately 12 new hires).
Introduction: Meeting Staffing Challenges in Trying Times
The criminal justice system is facing unprecedented challenges with law enforcement, as
the frontline responders most interactive with the pubic, particularly tested. Beyond forcing
novel adaptations to maintain daily operations around minimizing exposure and spread of
contagion, the COVID-19 pandemic effected attrition reflected in still lingering personnel
shortages throughout the justice system (Jennings & Perez, 2020; Miller & Blumstein, 2020).
Manpower is especially concerning for law enforcement who realized both a COVID wave of
early retirements and a sharp decrease in new applicants, largely attributable to an ongoing anti-
police sentiment contextualized in and fueled by racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Several unfortunate excessive use of force incidents against Black Americans, particularly
George Floyd, have prompted a national controversy regarding the future of law enforcement
and signal the need for some reform. Extreme positions of the Black Lives Matter and "defund
the police" movements (Kaba, 2020), though, reflect an emotive and ideological response rather
than a more empirically informed rationale regarding necessary size of force. Hiring more
deputies and police officers (a bipartisan idea common for Republicans and supported by the
Clinton and Obama administrations) has long been a categorical response to rising crime and
social order problems (Mello, 2019). Scholars have argued otherwise, often pointing to the well-
known Kansas City Preventative Patrol experiments that found adding additional peace officers
only pushes crime from one part of a city to another but lowers crime minimally, if at all, overall
10
(Kelling et al., 1974). This criminological axiom, however, is increasingly out -of -touch and
inconsistent with the pressures that the COVID-19 pandemic, rising crime, the opioid and
methamphetamine epidemics, the growing national mental health crisis, and what many are
deeming a new American crime spree per spikes in retail theft and violence in metropolitan areas
across the country among other rsource drivers have placed on contemporary undermanned law
enforcement agencies. Across the nation ranks were already slowly dwindling prior to COVID-
19 as peace officers retired or quit for other opportunities while many cities experienced
population growth and a related surge of 911 calls (Collazo, 2021; Lum, Koper, & Wu, 2021).
With limited manpower, supervisors must increasingly prioritize officer dispatch while
minimizing officer -initiated, community relations, and lesser crime investigations in order to do
so (McCabe, 2013a). Continuing media coverage generally unfavorable to law enforcement has
been coupled with an alarming and increasing number of reports of a new national crime spree
highlighted by violence and brazen broad -daylight retail store theft. In general, these crimes
follow decreased law enforcement presence that began during the COVID-19 pandemic and
continues on with too few deputies and officers available to signal deterrent effects. In addition
to the seeming correlation between recent force reductions and crime increases in many cities,
additional peace officers in the community theoretically deters crime thereby reducing the need
to arrest and reduces emergency response time (Stickle & Felson, 2020). Moreover, many
important and evidence -based practices and strategies, such as justice mental health, connection
to treatment and similar diversion initiatives, and community policing require agencies to adopt
more manpower -intensive practices.
It is unreasonable, on a practical level, to expect law enforcement, particularly
jurisdictions with increasing populations and related socioeconomic diversification, to maintain
11
normative core mission services (most importantly being able to respond quickly when
needed/called and ensuring public order) with less than the minimum number of personnel
necessary — a fundamental premise all the more valid in the present overlapping contexts of
COVID-19 pandemic recovery, rising crime, and recruitment shortfalls (Halla, Lynch, & Leiber,
1997). The current law enforcement "staffing crisis" is a vital and pressing budgetary concern
for county commissions and city councils regarding new hires, as well as support to better retain
and recruit high quality officers, and raises the important question of focal concern here: How
many officers does a police department really need?
To answer this question for the Edgewater Police Department (EPD) in central coastal
Florida, the new enhanced mixed -methods staffing analysis calculation model (Vose et al., 2020)
was executed with recent calls for service and important qualitative data obtained from two days
of semi -structured questionnaire guided on-site focus group interview sessions with EPD
officers, detectives, and supervisors. After quickly reviewing major staffing models below to
note their respective methodological shortcomings, we present the research methods and data
collection procedures executed across the model steps to generate findings informing the
immediate and near future hiring needs for EPD.
Background: A Critical Review of Leading Staffing Models
Despite the current circumstances, staffing challenges are a longstanding concern as
noted by a law enforcement pundit a half century ago: "taxes, coupled with continual manpower
shortages... and the jaundiced eye with which all legislators view requests for additional budget
money, it is imperative that the administrator get the maximum efficiency from what manpower
he has" (Walton, 1958, p. 165). Strategic management notwithstanding, now more than ever
there are limits to supervisory efficiency and "doing more with less" that manifests in diminished
12
services, less perceptual and literal deterrence, and predictable crime increases without an
adequate workforce (Hayland, 2008). Sheriffs and chiefs are routinely asked to justify requests
for additional staff and sometimes to even maintain current staffing levels (McCabe &
O'Connell, 2017) which requires facts - not opinions or best estimates (Stenzel, 2007). As
Brotheim (2003, p. 9) noted, "as requests for staffing projections increase in this age of tighter
municipal budgets, law enforcement agencies are faced with an ever-growing demand to
accurately and constantly foresee staffing needs and to present a methodology for the projections
and request."
The various challenges confronting policing ostensibly compels a need for increased law
enforcement presence as the need to efficiently and adequately staff agencies is perhaps more
important than ever. The question consistently remains, how many officers does a department
need? This question is both a function of structure and management beginning with how many
officers are available for shiftwork (structure) and how they should be deployed (management),
with the latter dependent on the former. Analyses to determine the appropriate size of force have
historically occurred through four approaches: 1) authorized level, 2) minimum staffing, 3)
workload -based, and 4) per capita. Below, we briefly describe each approach along with their
respective strengths and weaknesses.
Authorized Level Approach
The authorized level approach is likely the most straightforward method of staffing
analysis that is driven, with little consideration of other factors, by incremental multi-year budget
specified positions (McCabe, 2013b). This simplistic approach is irrespective of crime and other
social problems such as the opioid epidemic, the mental health crisis, and the compounding
effects of COVID-19 (Stogner, Miller, & McLean, 2020). In a critical assessment of existing
13
staffing analysis practices, Wilson and Weiss (2014) noted the highly variable and arbitrary
nature of how baseline numbers are established within and across jurisdictions — a somewhat
secondary point to the criticism that little consideration is afforded to factors other than budget
expectancy. As a result, the authorized level approach rarely reflects the level of manpower
actually required to ensure law enforcement functions. Further, this approach provides no
insight regarding officer allocation or metrics to address efficiency. As a result, this approach
cannot empirically inform how many officers or deputies are needed or how to assign them and
is susceptible to erroneously claims of understaffing should the number of personnel fall below
the number of budget -indicated positions, even if crime and other drivers of law enforcement are
declining (Ammons & Edwards, 2008).
Minimum Staffing Approach
The minimum staffing approach is similar to the authorized level approach but, rather
than being oriented around budgetary matters beyond law enforcement control, it is configured
around supervisory discretion and occupational culture that, of course, varies across communities
and agencies (McCabe & O'Connell, 2017). This model basically requires sheriffs and their
administrations to estimate the number of officers needed to maintain public safety, respond to
crime and other calls for service, and the numbers need per shift to ensure officer safety (Orrick,
2008; Wilson & Weiss, 2014). This model is sometimes used as a matter of convenience as it is
often compatible with organizational policies specifying a minimum number of officers available
for patrol per shift and similar details often embedded in collective bargaining agreements and in
contracts for municipalities contracting with sheriffs' offices for law enforcement services.
Regardless of the motivation for establishing minimums, there is often little analysis or
consistency in identifying objective standards to set minimum staffing levels potentially resulting
14
in understaffing on one shift while overstaffing another with added difficulty in adjusting to
systemic or fluctuating workload demands. Not surprisingly, this approach may negatively
impact community safety and officer safety and is incapable of optimally indicating necessary
size of force or aligning actual law enforcement services with community needs.
Workload -Based Approach
The least commonly used method for staffing police agencies is the workload -based
approach (see Wilson & Weiss, 2014; also see Srinivasan et al., 2013; Wilson & Heinonen,
2011). This strategy, also referred to as the "performance-based model", systematically utilizes
an agency's records and community demographics to analyze historical workload demands and
project staffing needs consistent with agency goals and targeting community problems. Decades
of direct observation and related fieldwork research have shown that police officers spend more
time on activities unrelated to crime, such as traffic accidents, noise complaints, and services
delivery, than on crime -related activities (Terrill, Rossler, & Paoline, 2014).
Accordingly, the size of a sheriff's office or police department should be determined by a
complex set of factors informed by workload (primarily calls for service), actual measurement of
shiftwork time demands, adjustments for shift relief and other shift minimizing realities, and
contextualizing agency drivers like proactive/cutting-edge policing practices, training, and
attrition. These intertwined variables inform a seven -step model that provides estimates of hiring
needs (Wilson & Weiss, 2014).
The workload -based model is generally considered the most rigorous of the extant
staffing models as it offers an evidence -based and data -driven process cognizant of community
conditions and agency priorities (Wilson & Weiss, 2012; McCabe, 2013b). The approach has
been supported by CALEA, ICMA, and IACP (McCabe & O'Connell, 2017) with IACP noting,
15
"Defining patrol staffing allocation and deployment requirements is a complex endeavor that
requires considering an extensive series of factors and a sizable body of reliable, current data"
(IACP, 2004. Despite its supporters, the workload -based approach is rarely utilized. In fact, it's
the least commonly used staffing analysis method according to ICMA's Center for Public Safety
Management (McCabe, 2013a) due to various limitations.
The principal and fatal disadvantage of this approach is the assumptive nature regarding
shiflwork activity. There is a nuanced relationship between effective manpower supervision and
number of staff available; experienced supervisors can often meet calls for service demands and
indeed do more with less - up to a point. Short-staffed, even the best and most experienced of
supervisors can achieve only so much thereby placing a premium on the allocation of staff
available for shiflwork. To comprehensively appreciate the daily challenges and actual time
outlays of officers essential to hiring recommendations (basically, how many officers are needed
given specific shiftwork time demands), staffing analyses must investigate and actually measure
shiflwork time expenditures. Unfortunately, t workload -based approach rests on the assumption
that patrol shifts are time split into equal thirds of dispatch, community relations, and paperwork
(1ACP, 2008). Moreover, the model is labor-intensive and only works for jurisdictions that have
a minimum of 15,000 calls for service annually.
The underlying limitation with this approach, then, is that rather than observe and
measure agency workload, a time-consuming and ideally interactive site-based task, it
guestimates shiflwork activity across work domains of responding to calls for dispatch, officer
outreach, and administrative tasks such as report writing, court appearances, and training. This
approach is completely suitable for agencies whose shiflwork allocations indeed calculate out to
even thirds of time expenditure (Chamlin, 1989), but experience, the current staffing climate, and
16
reality suggests this is rarely the case. In all and compared to the other options, the workload -
based approach better accounts for characteristics specific to an individual agency or its
jurisdiction but, like the other models, it is also limited to empirically indicate the size of force as
recommendations are rooted in underlying assumptions versus an analysis of agency -specific
data essential to the supply and demand calculations necessary to conduct a contextualized
staffing analysis and generate hiring recommendations.
Per Capita Approach
The per capita model of manpower analysis is perhaps the most used of the approaches
and, prior to the workload -based approach, was touted by the International Association of Chiefs
of Police (IACP) as the preferable method for determining size of force (Chamlin, 1989; Hollis
& Wilson, 2015). This simple method is determined by officer to population ratios with a
specified peace officer needed per every 1,000 citizens — essentially it is a projection of adequate
force size that, if nothing else, establishes a common measurement logic applicable across
agencies. This approach is preferrable to the authorized and minimum staffing approaches as it
attempts to equate police resources to community size which enables standardized comparisons
across jurisdictions (McCabe & O'Connell, 2017; Wilson & Weiss, 2014). Reference to
preferrable ratios in neighboring counties or similarly sized regional departments can provide a
justificatory logic and may support hiring requests. For example, comparing the ratios of one
peer city with 2.09 officers per 1,000 residents to another with only 1.29 officers per 1,000
residents is an easy -to -grasp data informed recommendation that new hires are needed.
Like the other models, the per capita logic is also rooted in underlying assumptions and is
apt to yield force size recommendations that can be either be artificially low or high (Orrick,
2008). For instance, a central premise is that size of force is usually measured as number of
17
sworn personnel with the assumption that all are dispatch available. In reality, the sworn
personnel number should be adjusted as a simple calculus of patrol officers minus detectives and
specialty officers that are not routinely "dispatchable". Another assumption is that the number of
officers assigned to a shift reflects a level of manpower available for patrol but the actual number
per shift decreases due to absenteeism for training, desk duty, vacation, maternity/family, sick
leave, etc. Yet, the per capita model relies on the highest potential number thus projecting that
law enforcement is satisfied when the ratio is met thereby reflecting a better staffing climate than
may be the case.
It is clear that jurisdictions may vary tremendously by numerous demographics just as the
degrees of crime and social problems from one city to the next; some jurisdictions require more
manpower than others to execute public safety and crime suppression needs. Relatedly, there is
not a national standard for how many peace officers cities should have per capita with a few
affluent California municipalities having less than one (9) officer per 1,000 residents and higher
crime locales having almost three officers (2.87) per 1,000 residents, such as in Washington,
D.C. (Maciag, 2014). Additionally, the per capita model does not account for essential
differences within jurisdictions such as how officers spend shiftwork across zones or sectors,
crime level and type per shift, and population changes, including transitory populations, and
more. As a result, several police management organizations have discouraged this still popular
approach. For instance, the IACP explained that ratios should not be used as a basis for agency
staffing decisions stating, "universally applicable patrol staffing standards do not exist. Ratios,
such as officers -per -thousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing
decisions" (2004, p. 2). Further, the International City/County Management Association stated
"the use of officers per thousand for police is an ineffective performance measure," and the FBI
18
states on their Police Employee Data webpage, "law enforcement's differing service
requirements and functions as well as the vaned demographic traits and characteristics of
jurisdiction, suggest caution when drawing comparisons between agency staffing levels" (FBI,
2022, para 2).
The US COPS Staffing Model: A New & Enhanced Approach
The per capita approach remains a point of departure with a straightforward logic that, if
nothing else, size of force should increase alongside population growth. Recognition of the
number of influencing variables and the multiple functions peace officers now perform, however,
discourages sole reliance on population driven ratios though law enforcement staff to population
size remains a basic reference supportive of hires. The workload model assuming even
distributions of dispatch, outreach, and administrative work is more assumptive when in reality
these workload distributions likely vary within an agency and even more so across agencies
(IACP, 2008). Furthermore, law enforcement agencies have become increasingly complex over
the last two decades with more pronounced divisions of labor for specialty officers, social media,
and treatment initiatives. Within an agency, staff perform a wide range of functions that
organically entail various levels of involvement regarding responding to calls for service,
engaging the community, and paperwork. Traffic officers, for example, are infrequently
dispatched except for back-up as is the case for most detectives and many specialty officers.
Relatedly, jurisdictions have different crime problems, populations, and social composition as
well as resource differences. As such, it can be potentially problematic to place measures on
patrol and other shiftwork activities without collecting firsthand data indicating actual manpower
shiftwork time demands and expenditures.
W
Recognizing that a more scientifically rigorous approach for determining hiring needs is
needed, a mixed -methods model was shaped to provide an enhanced calculation of agency hiring
needs. Integration of the per capita and the workload -based model furthered development of the
current and more rigorour approach as they identify key staffing analysis concepts and serve as
an important reference base for the new approach which features multiple enhancements and
measurement refinements which culminate in a preferrable staffing analysis model (Vose et al,
2020).
Methodology
This section describes the research setting of Edgewater, Florida and the study agency,
the Edgewater Police Department (EPD), en route to relating the mixed -methods research design
logically underpinning the new staffing calculation model. Data collection activities, both
quantitative and qualitative, and the research procedures employed across the model's seven
steps are described in turn prior to the presentation of findings and related hiring
recommendations.
Research Setting (City of Edgewater, Florida)
The City of Edgewater is situated in southeast Volusia County (county seat is Deland) in
central Florida on the Atlantic coast. The City of Edgewater is a blend of commercial and
residential areas with a population of about 23,600 in 2021 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021b).
Edgewater is predominantly White (91%), has a median age of 55.3 years, and a median
household income of $52,097 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021a). The Edgewater Police Department
(EPD) is responsible for a wide range of law enforcement and crime prevention as well as
service and crisis intervention activities. A major driver of police time entails responding to calls
for service from two zones that cover a total of 22.59 square miles (Southeast Volusia Chamber
20
of Commerce, n.d.). Additional drivers of police time include but are not limited to responding
to requests for assistance from neighboring jurisdictions, transport of suspects to jail and hospital
facilities outside the city limits.
The population and subsequent call for service volume to the City continues to grow
rapidly as the area experiences both residential influx and commercial development. An article
published in The Daytona Beach News -Journal identifies several projects in various stages of
development (e.g., Cornerstone at Deering Park, Riverfront Estates, Lakeview Estates,
Woodbridge Lakes, and Hacienda del Rio) that will result in considerable growth to the
population of Edgewater (Harrison, 2020). The Deering Park project alone may allow for over
8,000 homes, and combined, more than three million square feet for office space and commercial
development (Park, 2018). Collectively, these residential and commercial projects will result in
a massive population growth, and relatedly, additional demand for services from EPD.
EPD has been under the leadership of Chief Joseph P. Mahoney since 2018. During his
illustrious 20 -year career in law enforcement, Chief Mahoney has amassed a wealth of
professional experience and served in a number of law enforcement capacities. Prior to his
promotion, Chief Mahoney served five years as Captain of EPD. Additionally, Chief Mahoney
holds a bachelor's degree and is a graduate of the FBI National Academy Program.
According to data provided by EPD, they employed 32 sworn employees during the 2022
calendar which, which includes the Chief, Captain, Sergeants, Patrol, Detectives, K9, Motor, a
marine unit, and Narcotics Task Force. Of these 32 sworn employees, 17 were patrol officers.
The majority of officers were male (87.5%) and White (87.5%) followed by Black (6.3%),
Hispanic (3.1 %), and Other (3.1 %). Over half (53.1 %) of sworn employees had law
enforcement experience prior to joining EPD, with an average of 52.8 months of prior
21
experience. An estimated 18.75% of sworn employees had military experience, and 31.3% had
earned an associate's or bachelor's degree. EPD also employed six non -sworn employees during
the 2022 calendar year. Of the non -sworn employees, the majority were female (83.3%) and
White (100%). Approximately 16.7% of non-swom employees had military experience, and
16.7% had earned an associate's or bachelor's degree.
Edgewater police officers are typically assigned to the day shift (Bravo or Delta, 6:00 am
- 6:00 pm) or night shift (Alpha or Charlie, 6:00 pm - 6:00 am). Officers assigned to specialty
units have schedules that may differ from the 12 -hour shifts assigned to patrol officers. The
responsibilities of sworn personnel also varies greatly by their rank, shift, and needs of the
department and community. The following staffmg analysis examines EPD's current staffmg
needs based on their 2022 calls for service.
Study Data
In that this analysis was a mixed methods approach, data collection and analysis entailed
both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Quantitative data collection consisted of written
detailed requests to EPD who transmitted CFS, dispatch, shift relief, and related data to the
research team to clean and sort for analysis. Qualitative data collection was executed through a
series of focus group interview with patrol and specialty officers as noted below.
Quantitative Data: The primary quantitative data relied on sought to capture the supply and
demand dynamic of shiftwork, reflective of community need for and reliance on department
service. Accordingly, quantitative data included all calls for service (CFS) (excluding field -
initiated activity) to the EPD that occurred from January 1, 2022 — December 31, 2022 and data
on officer dispatches to those CFS (e.g., time dispatched; number of officers dispatched).
Additional data obtained, cleaned, and managed for analysis included adjustment variables to
22
capture occupational realities effecting the basic supply and demand ratio denotative of capacity
to dispatch timely such as shift relief factor reflective of normative absenteeism from shiftwork
attributable to vacation and sick leave.
Qualitative Data: Previous staffing models have assumed deputy and officer shiftwork time to be
allocated in even thirds across work domains of. 1) being dispatched/on a call for service, 2)
participating in some type of police -community relations or other officer -initiated activity, and 3)
administrative work such as report writing, training, and court appearances. Per the very
different functions performed by sworn personnel within an agency and the many differences in
populations served, severity and nature of crime problems, and the level of agency resources
across agencies, the equal third measure seems to be likely limited in real-world application.
The addition of a semi -structured questionnaire enabling officer and deputy input
regarding their actual time expenditures across domains of law enforcement life is one of the
foremost enhancements offered by the US COPS Staffing Model (see Appendix A). A random
number generator was calculated for all officers that was stratified on a host of individual (e.g.,
age, rank, years of service, gender, and race) and logistical (e.g., patrol, detective, or other
position, shift worked) variables to identify a sample of officers statistically representative of
EPD so that focus group interview data are indicative of agency realities, generally. In short, we
specifically measured officer shiftwork time allocation.
Interviews were systematically conducted on-site at EPD headquarters through five focus
groups of approximately 5 officers per group over a two-day period per the semi -structured
questionnaire. Two researchers posed, recorded, and scored answers (with focus on
measurement of time allocation across various shiftwork activities); final scores reflect an
23
average of observed measures and thus basic inter -rater reliability and operationalizations of
shiftwork activity suitable for quantitative analysis.
Analytic Strategy
In general, staffing analysis in law enforcement has been customarily applied in a six -step
method with the addition of a seventh step more recently (see Vose et al., 2020). Specifically,
the current staffing analysis derived from the EPD CFS data follows this systematic and
arithmetic stepwise process in an effort to estimate the minimum number of officers needed
(supply) to respond to the number of service calls (demand). In this vein, Step 1(CFS Analysis
per Shift) assesses calls recorded per shift (i.e., 12 -hour day shift and 12 -hour night shift for
EPD). Step 2 (Time Allocation for CFS) involves determination of the amount of officer time
spent on all CFS. As many CFS are "worked by" more than one officer, prior studies have
applied a conservative upward adjustment for the percent of calls that involve multiple
responding officers (for example, Vose et al., 2020 applied a conservative 5% upward
adjustment to the CFS volume). Alternatively, the current analysis provides an enhancement by
deriving officer time estimates for CFS based on an officer time multiplier for CFS that involved
more than one responding officer (i.e., CFS time for call XYZ * 2 officers). Step 3
(Determining Minimum Officers Required) focuses on producing an estimation of the minimum
number of officers needed to respond to/manage the CFS volume by shift. This calculation is
based on the typical work schedule for EPD officers to provide "around the clock" coverage: 12
hours per day, 365 days per year (4,380) hours. The supply/number of officers needed to
respond to the CFS volume is then determined by dividing the total number of hours worked by
4,380 hours.
24
Step 4 (Workload Distribution Analysis) involves the application of the performance
objectives that an officer is assumed obligated per the IACP suggested standards of 33.33% for
responding to calls for service/reactive, 33.33% for patrol/proactive, and 33.3% for
administrative duties (Wilson & Weiss, 2012). In reality, the assumption that an officer
workload evenly splits into thirds is more of a generalized guesstimate versus an actual agency-
specific workload distribution. As such, the current analysis derives an enhanced estimate of
workload function distributions by the administration of a semi-structured questionnaire to a
random sample of agency officers (see Appendix A). This qualitative research design
component began with obtaining the sampling frame and list of the EPD officers that were
employed for EPD during January 1, 2022 — December 31, 2022 (the time frame of the CFS data
being analyzed). Upon receipt of this sampling frame, approximately 46.9% of the officers
(n=15) were randomly selected to participate in one of several focus groups conducted in
October 2023 comprised of approximately 5 officers on average using a random number
generator. As part of the focus group interviews, the research team asked each focus group
member to report the number of hours they devoted to the three workload functions (responding
to calls for service/reactive, patrol/proactive, and administrative duties) in a "typical" 12 hour-
shift. The data gathered from the focus groups for these workload functions are converted to
percentages of a 12-hour workday to total 100% averaged across the participants and across the
research team members. To permit various comparisons of officer supply needed to meet CFS
volume demand, several workload percentages are applied including: 100% of time spent per
shift devoted to CFS, 66% of time spent per shift devoted to CFS, 50% of time spent per shift
devoted to CFS, 33% of time spent per shift devoted to CFS (i.e., the IACP/workload-
25
performance assumed standard), and finally the real world percentage of time per shift devoted
to CFS as informed by the data gathered and synthesized from the focus group interviews.
Step 5 (Calculation of Shift Relief Factor - SRF): The SRF is calculated to account for
annual leave times like vacations and sick days, influencing the total number of working hours
and, consequently, the staffing needs. Importantly, this step accounts for the actual time taken
off by the officers versus the time off hours that an officer accrues. Step 6 (Adjusting Staffing
Needs by Workload and SRF) revisits the staffing requirements ascertained in Step 3, modifying
them based on the workload distribution and the calculated SRF. Step 7 (District Specific
Workload Analysis): This step is not always applicable as it depends on factors such as agency
size, jurisdiction size, number of zones/districts/precincts/sectors/etc. As such, smaller agencies
in smaller jurisdictions with minimal geographic differentiations for determining workload
allocations, such as EPD in this case, are not ideal situations for application of this step.
Findings
EPD received 21,522 calls for service that included dispatch time and closed call time
(i.e., cancelled calls were excluded) between January 1, 2022 — December 31, 2022. Table 1 and
Figure 1 provides the distribution of CFS for the day shift (n=11,165; 51.9%) and the night shift
(n--11,165;48.1%). The CFS data reveals a wide range in the duration of CFS, with the average
time officers spend on a CFS being roughly 44.66 minutes during the day shift and 25.43
minutes during the night shift (see Table 2 and Figure 2). Table 3 (see also Figures 3 & 4)
further breaks down the total time officers dedicated to CFS over the study period. It shows that
day shifts resulted in officers cumulatively spending 11,729.41 hours responding to CFS, while
night shifts involved a total of 6,195.54 hours of officer time responding to CFS. This total
officer time allocated to CFS includes a multiplier for cases where more than one officer
responded to the CFS, as detailed in Step 2. In Step 3 of the analysis, the calculation for
determining the minimum number of officers required to handle the CFS is based on dividing the
total number of hours officers spend on CFS by the potential annual working hours of an officer,
which is 4,380 hours. According to this formula, it is determined that the day shift requires a
minimum of 2.68 officers, while the night shift necessitates at least 1.41 officers (see Table 3).
In Step 4, the focus is on determining the minimum number of officers required for each
shift to manage the CFS when considering various levels of workload allocation, such as 100%,
66%, 50%, and 33% (see Table 4 and Figures 5-9). For example, under the assumption that an
officer spends their entire shift (100%) on CFS, the analysis suggests a need for 2.68 officers on
the day shift and 1.41 officers on the night shift (Table 4 and Figure 6). Comparatively, when
the expectation is adjusted to officers spending 66% of their shift on CFS, the minimum
requirement increases to 4.02 officers for the day shift and 2.12 officers for the night shift (Table
4 and Figure 7). If the scenario changes to officers dedicating 50% of their shift to CFS, then
5.36 officers are needed for day shift and 2.82 officers are needed for the night shift (Table 4 and
Figure 8). Finally, in the case where officers are projected to spend 33% of their shift on CFS,
following the IACP guidelines, the minimum staffing need increase to 8.04 officers during the
day shift and 4.23 officers during the night shift (Table 4 and Figure 9). The qualitative data
gleaned from the focus groups with EPD officers revealed the actual percentage of time spent on
CFS per shift was 60%, with the rest of the time devoted to proactive and administrative duties.
Based on this real-world estimate, a minimum of 4.29 officers are required for the day shift and
2.26 officers for the night shift to effectively respond to the CFS (Table 5 and Figures 10-11).
Data on the time off taken by EPD officers from the beginning of January 2022 to the end
of December 2022 was compared against the theoretical yearly working hours of an officer
27
(based on 12 -hour shifts every day of the year, amounting to 4,380 hours). This comparison,
outlined in Step 5, resulted in the derivation of a shift relief factor of 2.20. Subsequently, in Step
6, the minimum number of officers required was calculated and is presented in Table 6 and
Figures 12-17. These calculations consider the volume of CFS, the percentages of an officer's
shift dedicated to CFS, and the shift relief factor, encompassing a range of scenarios from the
hypothetical to IACP-based and real-world estimates. The findings demonstrate that if officers
are entirely dedicated to CFS (100%), 5.90 officers are needed for the day shift and 3.10 officers
are needed for the night shift. In contrast, when officers are expected to spend 66% of their time
on CFS, the minimum staffing requirement rises to 8.84 officers during the day and 4.65 officers
during the night. The analysis also reveals that, according to the 60% real world obligation
estimate derived from the focus group interviews with the EPD officers, 9.43 officers are needed
for the day shift and 4.96 officers are needed for the night shift. Assuming a 50% obligation to
CFS, 11.79 officers are needed for the day shift and 6.2 officers are needed for the night shift.
Finally, under a 33% workload assumption for CFS time commitment, a minimum of 17.69
officers are needed for the day shift and 9.31 officers for the night shift.
Conclusions and Hiring Recommendations
The empirical results observed from analysis of EPD data indicate that the department is
currently understaffed with respect to IACP-standard workload assumptions. Further, historical
data from EPD suggest that despite population growth, the number of sworn and non -sworn
employees is fewer in 2022 (32 sworn, 6 non -sworn) than it was in 1999 (35 sworn, 12 non -
sworn). This information is concerning as one would expect to see a positive relationship
between staffing and population. That is, as population increases, so too does the number of
police officers needed to adequately address the needs of the community.
28
While all police agencies that are understaffed feel strain, the impact is especially acute
for small police departments such as EPD. As one officer stated, "We can only be stretched so
thin with replacement duties." Understaffing can result in excessive overtime for officers and a
hesitance to take leave due concerns over leaving the department shorthanded. Additionally,
officers in understaffed departments may not be able to attend training opportunities aimed to
improve their professional skills and enhance job satisfaction. In short, if not addressed, staffing
shortages can lead to increased officer stress, burnout, resignations, and early retirements.
The findings from this study are intended to help inform existing and near -future
Department hiring needs to maintain public safety, effectively respond to calls for service, and
continue providing proactive and community policing services for the citizens of Edgewater.
Department staffing needs can best be summarized as a range depending on calculation logic and
immediate or over time projection. For example, on the low end of the range is nine officers (5.9
day shift and 3.2 night shift) based on the assumption that all EPD officers spend their entire 12 -
hour shifts responding to the calls for service (CFS) volume. The high end of the range is 28
officers (17.69 day shift and 9.31 night shift), assuming all EPD officers spend only one-third of
their 12 -hour shift dispatched responding to CFS (a limited assumption of the previous
workload -performance oriented model). Obviously, 100% of time allocated to CFS is likely
realistic.
Our series of focus group interviews for this staffing analysis confirmed that EPD
officers engage in a range of shiftwork duties, including proactive/community policing
activities and administrative/paperwork, in addition to a primary focus on patrol which is
typically dispatch -driven and even more so when too few officers are available per shift. A
fundamental finding regarding the need for EPD staffing, and perhaps more critical for
29
additional staffing model analyzes, is affirmation of the most basic assumption of the new
model. Given the assumptions regarding the varied nature of shiftwork central to the mixed
methods model, the ability to evenly split dispatch, officer -initiated, and report writing time
distributions into equal thirds was not upheld. We found that officers spend at least 60% of
shiftwork dispatched which is not surprising given the multifaceted demands upon police today.
Therefore, the recommendations from this staffing analysis dictate that EPD needs 28
officers (17.69 day shift and 9.31 night shift) in 2024 to meet the baseline standards to
effectively manage and handle the CFS that occurred in their jurisdiction, acknowledging
other workloads functions. These observations are considered the minimum number of
needed officers at the current/most recent CFS volume. Should workload functions shift
toward more proactive/community policing and/or more administrative paperwork duties in
the future, then these staffing estimates would need to be recalibrated. Also, should
population size increase in the next five years, as will likely be the case as the overall Florida
population continues to swell, these staffing estimates will need to be adjusted accordingly.
For example, assuming a 5% population growth in three years, EPD will need 29.4 officers at
100% obligation to CFS. Assuming a 10% population growth in ten years, EPD will need
30.80 officers at 100% obligation. While additional officers are no doubt needed both to
handle increased CFS and other functions, recommendations seek to balance actual current
and near future demand on EPD and practicality. In addition, we recommend that EPD
consider implementing more geographic boundaries for allocating workload assignments into
multiple zones/districts/precincts/sectors/etc. going forward in order to respond to this
projected increase in staffing and population size in the coming years, and also collect data
that is specific to each of these geographically defined zones/districts/precincts/sectors/etc.
30
This would improve EPD's efficiency in responding to CFS that varies by shift, by call
frequency and call type, and increases as a function of population growth.
As we think about immediate and near future hiring needs it is important to take
into consideration the many ongoing residential and commerical developments in and
around Edgewater and how the impending growth will subsequently impact the demand
on policing services. As one officer stated, "The population boom is inevitable. If staffing
stays stagnant, we will be swallowed up."
Immediate Hiring Needs: EPD is currently understaffed. In order to meet the 2022 CFS
volume and with the recommendation that EPD re -allocate the officers' workload distribution
to the 33% IACP-standard expectation of time devoted to CFS, EPD should hire 9 officers
devoted to handing CFS (i.e., patrol officer or motor unit) so there are a total of 28 officers
responding to CFS.
Near Future Hiring Needs: Assuming a 5% population growth in five years and that EPD
intends to re -allocate the officers' workload distribution from 60% to the 33% IACP-standard
expected obligation to CFS, then EPD will need 29.4 officers in five years (approximately 11
new hires). Assuming a 10% population growth in ten years, then EPD will need 30.8 officers
in ten years (approximately 12 new hires).
31
Appendices & Tables
Appendix A. Semi -Structured Questionnaire
Questionnaire
I. Dispatch time (estimated for an average shift)
1. How many hours are spent responding to calls for service/a dispatch?
2. What are the leading issues for dispatches (i.e., crime, emergency, nuisance/911)?
Top three:
3. Which of these require the most time, including, if carried over to next shift(s)?
4. "Hot Spots": Districts/Sectors/where? And Temporal patterns/when (day vs night and
time of year)?
11. Community policing/community relations/officer-initiated (OI) activities
5. On average, how many hours per shift are spent on community policing/community
relations/officer-initiated activities?
6. Are there Department required officer -initiated programs/activities (e.g., community
policing)? 2 most common examples:
7. Factors influencing officer -initiated activity?
Constraining/limiting factors:
Enabling factors:
III. Paperworkladministrative activity/training
Per shift, please estimate in hours how much time is allocated to:
8. Reports & other paperwork:
Per month, please estimate in hours how much time is allocated to:
9. Training:
10. Court preparation, depositions & appearances:
IV. Other
Effects of:
11. Transitory/commuter population:
12. COVID:
13. Drug Control reforms:
Are there any other important factors or issues effecting shiftwork that we did not cover?
32
References
Ammons, D. N., & Edwards, J. S. (2008). Misrepresentation of staffing standards for police.
State and Local Government Review, 40(3), 186-194.
Brotheim, H. (2003). A proven staffing methodology. Journal of California Law Enforcement,
37(1), 9-13.
Chamlin, M. B. (1989). A macro social analysis of change in police force size, 1972-1982:
Controlling for static and dynamic influences. Sociological Quarterly, 30(4), 615-624.
Collazo, J. (2021). Backing the blue in the midst of COVID-19: Simultaneous shared trauma and
the effects of coping in law enforcement couples. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(4),
456-462.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), (2022, April 2). Crime in the United States, 2017: Police
employee data. hMs://ucr.tbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s -
2017/topicpages/police-employee-data.
Hayland, S. (2008). Full-time employees in law enforcement agencies, 1997-2016. Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Harrison, C. (2020, January 5). Edgewater may see development surge. The Daytona Beach
News -Journal. https://www.news-
joumalonline.com/story/newsilocaVvolusia/2020/01/05/edgewater-may-see-
development-surge/1956092007/
Hollis, M. E., & Wilson, J. M. (2015). Police staffing levels: Disaggregating the
variation. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38,
33
IACP (2004). Conducting a staffing analysis. International Association of Chiefs of Police.
IACP (2008). Enforcement program staffing requirements study report. International
Association of Chiefs of Police.
Jennings, W. G., & Perez, N. M. (2020). The immediate impact of COVID-19 on law
enforcement in the United States. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 690-701.
Kaba, M. (2020). Yes, we mean literally abolish the police. Abolition Library Commons.
Kelling, G. L., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City Preventive Patrol
Experiment. A Technical Report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Wu, X. (2021). Can we really defend the police? A nine -agency study
of police response to calls for service. Police Quarterly, 10986111211035002.
Maciag, M. (2014). Which cities have the biggest police presence? Governing: The Future of
States & Localities White Paper.
McCabe, J. (2013a). An analysis of police department staffing: How many officers do you really
need. ICMA Center for Public Safety Management White Paper.
McCabe, J. (2013b). An analysis of police department staffing: A review of 62 police agencies
analyzed by the ICMAICPSM. ICMA Center for Public Safety Management.
McCabe, J. E., & O'Connell, P. E. (2017). Factors related to police staffing. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review, 3(6), 1-14.
Mello, S. (2019). More COPS, less crime. Journal of Public Economics, 172, 174-200.
Miller, J. M., & Blumstein, A. (2020). Crime, justice & the COVID-19 pandemic: Toward a
national research agenda. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 515-524.
Nalla, M. K., Lynch, M. J., & Leiber, M. J. (1997). Determinants of police growth in Phoenix,
1950-1988. Justice Quarterly, 14(1), 115-143.
34
Orrick, D. W. (2008). Recruitment, retention, and turnover of police personnel. Reliable,
practical, and effective solutions. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Park, C. (2019, September 19). Edgewater site near I-95 could accommodate 8,500 homes. The
Daytona Beach News Journal. https://www.news journalonline.com/story/business/real-
estate/2018/09/19/edgewater-site-near-i-95-could-accommodate-8500-
homes/10251853007/
Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce (n.d.). Edgewater. Retrieved from
https://sevchamber.growthzonecros.comledgewater/#:—:text=The%20town%20covers%2
022.59%20square,name%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Hospitalityo/o20City%E2%80%9D.
Srinivasan, S., Sorrell, T. P., Brooks, J. P., Edwards, D. J., & McDougle, R. D. (2013).
Workforce assessment method for an urban police department: Using analytics to
estimate patrol staffing. Policing.- An International Journal of Police Strategies do
Management, 36(4),702-218.
Stenzel, W. (2007). Personal Allocation Model (PAM) for law enforcement agencies.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Stickle, B., & Felson, M. (2020). Crime rates in a pandemic: The largest criminological
experiment in history. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 525-536.
Stogner, J., Miller, B. L., & McLean, K. (2020). Police stress, mental health, and resiliency
during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 718-730.
Terrill, W., Rossler, M. T., & Paoline III, E. A. (2014). Police service delivery and
responsiveness in a period of economic instability. Police Practice and Research, 15(6),
490-504.
35
U.S. Census Bureau (2021a). Quickfacts. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/guickfacts/marioncountvflorida.
U.S. Census Bureau (2021b). Quickfacts. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/guickfacts/fact/table/ocalacitvflorida/POP815220.
Vermeer, S., Stickle, B., Frame, M., & Hein, M. (2020). Reasons and barriers for choosing
police careers. Policing: An International Journal, 43(5), 817-830.
Vose, B., Miller, J. M., & Koskinen, S. (2020). Law enforcement manpower analysis: An
enhanced calculation model. Policing: An International Journal, 43(3), 511-523.
Walton, F. E. (1958). "Selective Distribution" of police patrol force: History, current practices,
recommendations. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 49(2),
165-171.
Wilson, J. M., & Heinonen, J. A. (2011). Advancing a police science: Implications from a
national survey of police staffing. Police Quarterly, 14(3), 277-297.
Wilson, J. M., & Weiss, J. (2014). A performance-based approach to police staffing and
allocation. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Wilson, J.M., & Weiss, A. (2012). Police staffing allocation and managing workload demand: a
critical assessment of existing practices. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8,
wi
Table 1. Number of CFS
Shift N %)
Day 11,165 51.9%
Night 10,357 (48.1%)
Table 2. Officer Time Spent on CFS
Shift AVG
Day 44.66 minutes
Night 25.43 minutes
Table 3. Officer Time Spent on CFS and Minimum Officers Required by Shift
Shift
Minutes
Hours Officers Required
Day
703,764.83
11,729.41 2.68
Night
371,732.43
6,195.54 1.41
Table 4. Minimum Number of Officers by Shift with Varying Performance Objectives
Shift
Obligated Obligated Obligated
100% 66% 50%
Obligated
33%
Day
2.68 4.02 5.36
8.04
Night
1.41 2.12 2.82
4.23
Table 5. Minimum Number of Officers by Shift with Varying Performance Objectives,
Factoring in Real World Obligated Time for CFS
Shift Obligated
Obligated
Real
Obligated
Obligated
100%
66%
World
50%
33%
Obligated
Obligated
60%
Day
60%
9.43 11.79
17.69
Day 2.68
4.02
4.29
5.36
8.04
Night 1.41
2.12
2.26
2.82
4.23
Table 6. Minimum Number of Officers per Shift by Performance Objective including the
Shift Relief Factor, Factoring in Real World Obligated Time for CFS
Shift
Obligated Obligated
Real Obligated
Obligated
100% 66%
World 50%
33%
Obligated
60%
Day
5.90 8.84
9.43 11.79
17.69
Night
3.10 4.65
4.96 6.20
9.31
37
Figure 1. Calls for Service Frequency and Distribution by Shift (January 1, 2022 —
December 31, 2022)
Distribution of Day and Night Shifts (With Frequencies and Percentages)
38
Figure 2. Average Officer Time Spent per CFS by Shift
M
0
v
7
C
CU
30
E
Average Time for Day and Night Shifts
10
n
Day Shift Night Shift
Shift Type
39
Figure 3. Total Officer Minutes Spent for CFS by Shift
700000
,, 500000
CU
u
7
400000
0
~ 300000
200000
100000
Total Minutes for Day and Night Shifts
Shift Type
m
Figure 4. Total Officer Hours Spent for CFS by Shift
12000
10000
8000
L
= 6000
m
Y
4000
2000
Total Hours for Day and Night Shifts
Shift Type
41
Figure 5. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution
Number of Officers Required for Different Obligation Levels
Obligation Level
42
Figure 6. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (100% Obligated)
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
43
Figure 7. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (66% Obligated)
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
44
Figure 8. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (50% Obligated)
Day and Plight Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
45
Figure 9. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (33% Obligated)
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
46
Figure 10. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution including Real World Obligation
Number of Officers Required for Different Obligation Levels
ri•
i r,
ea
4.22
u
0bI,94twn Level
M
Figure 11. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (60% Real World Obligated)
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
EF
Figure 12. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution including Real World Obligation, adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
Number of Officers Required for Different Obligation Levels
„ .hn ,,,,
f4A3
r"
N
Obhgatlan tftei
49
Figure 13. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (100% Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
50
Figure 14. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (66% Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
51
Figure 15. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (60% Real World Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
52
Figure 16. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (50% Real World Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
53
Figure 17. Minimum Number of Officers Needed for CFS by Shift and Workload
Distribution (33% Real World Obligated), adjusted by Shift Relief Factor
Day and Night Shifts (with Frequencies and Percentages)
54