A Flawed Staffing Algorithm Is at the Core of Burnout and Safety Violations

Remember those “Steveisms” that drive people nuts?

Here’s another: Too many things don’t get done in America because too many people who should know better are either lazy, unimaginative, fearful, or selfish—or some combination of those four.

Humor me while I apply those.

The historic algorithm for staffing Law Enforcement agencies has been “Officers Per Thousand Population.”

When people use that equation, they get a little number—representing the ratio—that is rarely, if ever, larger than 1.5 (though it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

Even though so-called “leaders” in the industry have historically foisted the algorithm off on their City Councils, Mayors, City Administrators, County Executives, Commissioners, media, and their own employees, the algorithm is deeply flawed and useless.

First, it assumes that jurisdictions can be compared. The reality is your town is not the same as a neighboring town. Your county is not the same as a neighboring county. Your state is different than each of the other 49 states.

“Comparables,” whether staffing levels, salaries, benefits, or anything else, are the lazy person’s way of trying to appear smart.

The reality is, I don’t care what the salaries, staffing levels, or other indicators are for other agencies. What I want to know is, “What are the people of this jurisdiction willing to pay for a predetermined, specific level of service?”

Secondly, “comparables” assume that all those other agencies with which we’re comparing ourselves have enough people, money, and other resources to get the job done. That is never the case.

Never.

Why would we want to compare ourselves to other people or agencies who may or may not have their act together? That’s merely “lazy” masquerading as “management.” Meh.

Please consider these issues as you read on:

• A focus on tourism
• Burned-out employees
• The unnecessary costs of replacing burned-out employees
• Stress in the workplace
• Recruiting and retention problems

I note that we’ve reached a point in some places in America where you can get a pizza delivered to your house faster than you can get a Law Enforcement Officer to respond.

Why?

Because pizza companies do not base their staffing on geography. They base it on workload.

We must get this down to what I refer to as a human-sized portion of work.

There is hope.

A friend was appointed Chief of Police in a municipality with a population of about 40,000. There was significant momentum to increase tourism in that community.

(By the way, tourism, by itself, is not exactly a thing upon which to build a strong, balanced economy. Tourism tends to be seasonal; tourists are fickle, restaurants and the like tend to operate on very thin margins, which dooms them and their employees to perpetual vulnerability. And, with ultimate honor and respect to those who do the dirty boots work in tourism, the pay scale tends to be minimum wage plus tips. Tourism, while it sounds nice and may result in some creative murals on old buildings in a decaying municipality, is not a sector upon which to build a strong, viable economy.)

When he analyzed Calls For Service to the Police Department over time, he found that somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 percent of the Calls For Service came from people who don’t even live in that community.

Right away, that should alert everyone from first graders to legislative bodies that the old “Officers per Thousand” algorithm is flawed. It only takes into account the fixed resident population. Remember: we live in a very mobile society.

Acknowledging that fact, the Chief made a proposal to the City Council for changing the staffing algorithm. His presentation was, and I paraphrase (Alert, please do not get hung up on the numbers … it is the equation I’m asking you to think about …)

“Since nearly 60% of our Calls For Service come from people who don’t live here, I propose that for the future we staff the Police Department based upon a different algorithm. I propose that we hire based upon:

• One commissioned Officer for every 750 Calls For Service Per Year, a Call For Service being defined as a combination of those things to which we are dispatched, plus Officer-Initiated Activity.
• Next, I want every commissioned Officer to be able to focus on the things they were trained to do rather than losing focus on a bunch of collateral duties. Therefore, to promote that focus, every time we hire four new commissioned Officers, we’re going to need one more staff support person—whether in Dispatch, Records, Evidence, or elsewhere.
• And, each time we have an additional six-line employee, we will need a new slot for a Sergeant position in the Police Department.
• And, each time we have an additional six Sergeants, we’re going to need an additional Lieutenant.”

The City Council approved his proposal as an official policy of the city government.

That means every time Calls For Service start to consistently exceed 750 per Officer per year, it is an automatic policy trigger: Go hire another Officer.

Among the beauties of the change are these:

If you were the Records Director or the Dispatch Director, wouldn’t it be nice to know that every time four commissioned Officers were hired, you’d automatically get another employee—instead of burning people out and having to beg for more staff?

For those who might wonder, I don’t know if the number in your community is 750. It could be 832 or 408. All I know is:

1. I don’t care what the number is in an adjacent jurisdiction—“comparables” are lazy; and,
2. Someone – a leader – needs to make a decision about what the number is and stick with it.
3. If the number starts being in the neighborhood of 2500 and upward, you’ll start seeing very predictable consequences: employee burnout, misuse of sick time, negativism, dodging calls, divorces, the inability to sustain long-term relationships, sarcasm, cynicism, triangulation, and … dying within five years after retirement.

I don’t know what the definition of “Call For Service” is for your jurisdiction, but I do know:

1. It should be a combination of “those things to which we are dispatched” (pretty easy to count, right?) plus “Officer Initiated Activity.”
2. Whatever the definition of “Call For Service” is, it must be consistent from supervisor to supervisor, up, down, left, and right.
3. Whatever the definition of “Officer Initiated Activity” is, it must be consistent from supervisor to supervisor, up, down, left, and right … we cannot have one supervisor measuring the number of birds that flew by and another supervisor measuring monkeys and bicycle seats.
4. Whatever is measured must have relevance – VALUE – in the mind of The People Who Pay The Bills Around Here.

The model I described above only deals with Commissioned, Line employees, and how the staffing algorithm drives promotional opportunities and span of control. In my leadership academies, we explore how to properly structure organizations based upon workload. That is fundamentally an operational management question, not simply a personnel question.

In Corrections, the typical algorithm has something to do with “number of Deputies per bed,” which is the same lazy artifice of geography regurgitated from “Officers per thousand.” It does not take into account the acuity of inmates. Would you have the same number of employees overseeing a houseful of misdemeanors as you would overseeing a houseful of mass murderers? I think not. I propose that there are numerous opportunities to restructure the staffing algorithm for Corrections / Jail facilities … if for no other reason than Corrections professionals have the highest rate of suicides among any group in Public Safety. Something is dreadfully wrong—and anyone worthy of recognition as a leader needs to fix the deeper problems rather than continuing to engage in hand-wringing and pearl-clutching about symptoms.

While I’m here, please put some effort into recalibrating the misguided folks who think that Corrections professionals are somehow accountable for “recidivism rates.” That cannot be done; it’s just crazy talk from the back of a misinformed room. The assumptions underlying such a ludicrous pronouncement betray an understanding of human behavior and show blatant disregard for the power of human will. If people want to be repeat offenders, they’re going to repeatedly break the law. Hold them accountable for their choices.

If you’re tired of dealing with the symptoms, fix the underlying problem: The staffing algorithm is flawed, and people are paying for it with their mental health, their family relationships, and their physical health. And, if that’s not enough, the funding algorithm is also flawed.

Ultimately, this is a leadership development issue as much as it is a staffing issue. Leaders have to be willing to question inherited formulas, examine the workload in front of them, and make decisions based upon the organization they actually have—not the organization someone else says they should have.

The goal should be more than filling vacancies. It should be building an organization capable of sustaining the workload, retaining its people, preserving its institutional knowledge, and maintaining organizational continuity when the next generation of leaders takes over.

If you have a problem you’d like to discuss in a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit, you can self-schedule it by clicking on this button:

Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.