NUCPS Staff Studies - Northwestern University Center for Public Safety

Discussion

Background

When compared to other Arizona communities, the rural community of Globe has unique internal and external challenges. Once a thriving mining community, Globe is now dependent upon its service industry as a primary revenue source (Tuck, 1963; Colby & Powell, 2017). At the same time, Globe’s crime rate is above the national average (PSSG, 2015, p. 4).

A recent study revealed GPD’s self-initiated LE activities (e.g.,  traffic stops, field interviews) have dramatically decreased due to a trend of fewer patrol personnel (PSSG, 2015, p. 5). The same study expressed a dire need to address the lack of experience within GPD’s sworn officer force (PSSG, 2015, p. 8).

Since 2015, GPD has employed a total of 52 sworn LE officers, with only 17 on staff today (City of Globe; GPD). Only two sworn officers on GPD’s current staff worked for the department in 2015 (City of Globe). When considering the number of officers hired and those who have left the agency since 2015, GPD has suffered an astoundingly low sworn-officer retention rate.

Due to personnel shortages, GPD currently utilizes a 12-hour patrol schedule. The purpose of this schedule is to ensure adequate coverage is available for 24-hour services. Often, officers are required to work additional unscheduled overtime hours when they are involved in calls for service or matters that extend past their regularly scheduled shifts, including covering understaffed shifts. Inherent risks of such shift issues include officer burnout, careless work habits, fatigue, and poor morale (Kavetski, 2016).

When GPD hires an entry-level officer, the agency’s initial expenditures exceed a minimum of $64,588 (Globe Police Department, Hiring). Those costs increase if the newly hired officer requires remedial training extension or other factors are involved in the training phases. Although a certified and experienced officer may not need to attend a training academy, he or she will still need to complete a field-training period. When officers leave the agency, employee replacement costs quickly escalate. More than 35 officers have separated from the GPD since 2014. During the last five years, the GPD has expended a minimum of $2.26 million in recruiting, training, salary, benefits, and retirement costs for employees that ultimately separate from the department.

Officer Retention: A National Concern

GPD is far from the only agency facing sworn-officer retention challenges. LE retention is a universal concern across the country. National statistics revealed smaller agencies suffer an average attrition rate of 18.2%, with most voluntary officer resignations taking place between 33 and 36 months of service (Orrick, 2005). A lack of community engagement and confidence, ineffective crime-fighting strategies and efforts, increased overtime budget expenditures, poor officer morale and performance, and officer safety risks are the commonly cited effects of negative retention. (Kavetski, 2016).

Professional Development/Succession Planning

Leading experts agree that professional development and advancement opportunities are essential employee retention strategies (Harris, 2018; Kavetski, 2016; Yearwood & Freeman, 2004). Agencies must possess the ability to implement mentoring and succession plans and to provide consistent professional development and training (Harris, 2018) (Kavetski, 2016).

In a recent audit of GPD, recommended opportunities for improvement included career development and performance management (PSSG, 2015, p. 18). Due to its remote boundaries, GPD must endure the expenses of employee overtime, travel, tuition, and lodging when officers attend LE training that is located outside of the city. Since the agency lacks internal experience and training expertise, the GPD is often unable to provide professional development to its sworn staff members.

Competitive Pay, Incentives & Benefit Packages

Contemporary research has revealed high officer turnover rates are directly related to compensation and benefits packages. If LE agencies hope to recruit and retain qualified candidates and professionals, compensation plans and benefits must be adjusted to meet current market trends (Kline, 2011). Longevity and cost-of-living salary adjustments are critical elements of employee retention (Yearwood & Freeman, 2004). In addition to professional development and career enhancement, competitive pay and benefits planning ranks among the most recommended and proven recruitment and retention strategies (Yearwood, 2004).

A 2015 audit recommended the following improvements (PSSG, 2015, p. 18):

• Implementation of a pay scale that entices employee willingness to pursue extra responsibilities and specialized assignments.
• Provide pay-scale adjustments to attract experienced officers.
• Implement stipends to be awarded for specialized/additional responsibilities and expertise.

• Since raises are only available every three years, it does not provide frequent cost-of-living adjustments.
• Average annual pay increases for first-line supervisors are very conservative and do not provide incentives for sworn personnel to promote within this scale.
• Pay-step requirements and standards are unattainable due to limited training resources and unattainable professional development opportunities.
• The pay scale for supervisors and officers is likely not comparable or competitive to other Arizona LE agencies.

Although measures were taken in 2017 to address GPD’s sworn personnel pay scale, the result was a compensation and benefits package that lacks the ability to compete with other LE agencies. The 2017 salary adjustments did not reduce GPD’s high turnover rate. Although complete elimination of negative retention is not possible, the GPD must act to ensure turnover rates are manageable.

Potential Solutions

The following are available options that the GPD may consider when addressing sworn personnel retention:

Option #1: The first option is to make no changes to the GPD’s current methods of recruitment and retention.

Pros:

• The city would incur no additional direct expenses.
• Additional administrative actions involving a revision of the current pay scale/promotion system would not be necessary.
• New policies or procedures would not need to be developed or implemented.

• The high rate of employee turnover would likely continue or worsen.
• The ability to recruit and select qualified/experienced candidates and entry-level candidates would be severely limited.
• Due to continued manpower shortages, the extended hours necessary to satisfy service and coverage requirements will continue to increase the risk of employee burnout and fatigue, job-related injuries, and poor morale.
• The GPD will not achieve its fullest potential to serve its community.

Costs:

• Since no additional measures will be taken, no additional direct costs will be incurred. Indirect expenses of replacing sworn personnel and required minimum staffing overtime will likely increase. These indirect costs will be significantly more than the direct costs that are associated with other available options that seek to improve officer retention.

Option #2: Develop and implement a new pay scale with employee incentives.

Although an independent pay study is desirable, the process of selecting an appropriate firm is time-consuming. In addition, costs incurred for such a study would likely prove to be expensive and take months to complete. A simplified pay scale can be implemented to provide immediate incentives and relief to the GPD’s existing sworn staff (GPD, Proposed Pay Scale).

Pros:

• Annual cost-of-living adjustments will be provided to all employees.
• Sergeants and detectives will receive annual pay increases, providing incentives to junior officers to promote and increase the longevity that is indicative of experienced professionals.
• The position of detective will be converted to an assignment (as opposed to a position), so the GPD management staff can easily rotate sworn personnel in and out of this assignment without encountering the employee due-process issues that are associated with formal position demotions. This will increase the likelihood that other officers can work this assignment during their quest for professional development.
• Special-assignment incentive pay will motivate officers to seek professional enhancement opportunities and reward those who have achieved such milestones (PSSG, 2015, p. 4).
• Providing a periodic longevity bonus will greatly improve retention and help sworn members feel that their services are valued.
• The motivation to seek challenging professional and career development will increase.
• Such pay incentives will positively affect employee retention.
• Employee-related budget expenses will likely decrease as employee retention improves.

Cons:

• Assignment policies will need to be written and implemented.
• Assignment selection processes may need to be developed and implemented.
• Specialized training needs must be coordinated by the staff sergeant.

Costs:

• Fully staffed, initial costs of adjusting the compensation of 22 sworn personnel (18 officers and four sergeants) compensation will require a budget allocation of $31,761.08 annually. These adjustments simply add funding to the previously budgeted and allocations ($185,858,00) in the current 3-Step Pay Scale that will result in 2.5% annual merit increases across the board to sergeants and officers. This does not include a five percent special assignment pay stipend for detectives and K-9 officers. However, since the GPD’s current staff is limited, the immediate adoption of this option will prove to be cost effective through salary savings from vacant positions. When computing the costs of negative retention versus adoption of this option, achieving significant long-term savings that are greater than implementation and on-going costs is very likely.

Option #3: Implementing career enhancement measures.

Pros:

• GPD will be able to increase its training quality and elevate the level of professionalism in the services it provides to its community and stakeholders.
• Professional training decreases liability and officer safety risks.
• A professionally trained staff enhances the agency’s reputation and increases its abilities to attract and retain qualified employees.
• Job satisfaction of existing employees will increase when employees receive professional training and attain realistic career milestones.
• When combined with competitive pay and benefit incentives, professional development and training increase employee retention.
• Career planning assists in agency focus and improved employee morale.
• Career enhancement efforts and planning increases the likelihood of internal promotion opportunities.

If efforts are made to develop internal trainers and training programs, staffing and training expenses will be minimized.

Cons:

• Initial costs of training tuition, per diem, travel and lodging expenses create budget concerns.
• Sending sworn personnel to specialized training may create shift coverage issues.
• Training policies and guidelines will need to be developed and implemented.
• Implementation of a career enhancement program will require an increased training budget.

Costs:

• The initial costs of implementing a career enhancement and training program may be high. However, these costs can be spread out if this program is implemented in a long-term, gradual process. Incurred long-term savings that are the result of decreased liabilities and risk reduction, and increased employee retention, are much greater than the direct expenses of the program. Additionally, public and private grant opportunities, as well as monies from RICO/asset forfeiture, may be available to off-set staff training costs.

Option #4: Hybrid / staggered implementation of Options 2 and 3.

Combining the enhanced pay scale and pay incentive solutions with career enhancement and training programs (Options 2 & 3) are a viable alternative to consider.

Pros:

• All of the benefits of Options 2 and 3 can be attained.
• Both options maximize employee retention potential.
• GPD can realistically attain or utilize existing resources to achieve this option.
• If properly coordinated, these two options complement one another.
• Option 2 can be immediately implemented to drive GPD towards improved employee retention, while Option 3 is a long-term effort that can be planned over a prolonged period.
• A robust career enhancement and professional development program produces high performing officers and reduces the “second chance” stigma often faced by small rural agencies.

Cons:

• Requires coordination of training courses and programs.
• New policies and procedures may need to be created and applied.
• Assignment selection and processes may need to be developed and implemented.

• Increased budgeted amounts will be necessary to implement both options. Combined initial direct costs of both alternatives are far less than the long-term savings that both will produce when employee retention improves.

Conclusion

GPD has been plagued with a high sworn-officer turnover rate for several years. As a result, the ability to provide essential services to community members and stakeholders has been severely hampered. Contributing factors to this issue likely entail past hiring, selection, training and compensation practices. Although initial and on-going costs are factors to consider when efforts are made to retain qualified and professional employees, reduction of liabilities, officer safety, and long-term cost savings must also be considered.

Option 1, which involves making no efforts to improve employee retention, will likely cause negative retention to continue. Long-term employee attrition costs will continue to escalate, and safety and liability risks will increase.

Increasing officer pay (Option 2) is a viable solution that will undoubtedly provide immediate relief to GPD’s current officer retention dilemma. However, if implemented as a sole means of improvement, benefits will likely prove to be short-term in nature. This option provides no incentives for officers to remain with GPD if other working conditions and career development expectations are not satisfied. Professional development is essential to maintain career focus and purpose.

Development and implementation of professional development programs (Option 3) will initially satisfy some job satisfaction issues and will initially improve morale. However, such efforts will make officers a more marketable asset to competing entities. Without comparative compensation, negative retention will eventually continue and possibly worsen.

By embracing both Options 2 & 3 and implementing a viable pay scale with a long-term career development program (Option 4), the GPD will ensure it improves employee retention to a manageable state. Officers will be provided with attainable and appealing career options while receiving frequent and adequate compensation incentives. The GPD’s current negative retention rate has proven officers must satisfy their quality of life requirements while maintaining a high degree of career satisfaction and purpose.

Recommendation

Based on the research and factors detailed within this study, implementation of Option 4 is recommended. This option provides immediate and lasting benefits and improvements that will undoubtedly enable the GPD to manage the retention of its sworn present and future workforce.

Resources

• City of Globe, AZ. (2019). Current Globe police department employees.
• Coby & Powell, PLC. (2017). City of Globe, Arizona annual financial statements and independent auditor’s report. Gilbert, Arizona.
• G & A Partners. (2019). Calculating your rate of employee turnover. Retrieved May 2, 2019 from https://www.gnapartners.com/article/calculating-employee-turnover/
• Globe (AZ) Police Department. (2019, April). Calls for service.
• Globe (AZ) Police Department. (2019). Globe police department employment separations list.
• Globe (AZ) Police Department. (n.d.). Minimum initial hiring costs.
• Globe (AZ) Police Department. (n.d.). Proposed pay scale and pay incentives.
• Harris, S. (2018, October 3). Advanced tools to help police agencies recruit and retain. The Police Chief. Retrieved April 26, 2019 from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org /product-feature-advanced-tools-to-help-police-agencies-recruit-and-retain/
• Kavetski, B. (2016, March 3). High turnover among public safety employees. Retrieved May 5, 2019 from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/high-turnover-among-public-safety-employees-a-a-s-nremt-p
• Northup, J. B. (2019). Police personnel retention challenges: Literature review and recommendation. The Police Chief. Retrieved May 2, 2019, from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/police-personnel-retention-challenges/
• Orrick, D. (2005, October 6). Police turnover. The Police Chief. Retrieved April 26, 2019 from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/police-turnover/
• The Public Safety Strategies Group (PSSG). (2015). City of Globe Police Department audit. West Townsend, Massachusetts.
• Tuck, F. (1963). History of mining in Arizona. Arizona Department of Mineral Resources. Phoenix, Arizona.
• US Census Bureau (2018, July 1) QuickFacts: City of Globe, Arizona. Retrieved May 2, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/globecityarizona
• Yearwood, D. & Freeman, S. (2004). Analyzing concerns among police administrators: Recruitment and Retention. The Police Chief. Retrieved May 5, 2019 from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/analyzing-concerns-among-police-admins/
• Yearwood, D. (2003). Recruitment and retention of sworn sheriff’s personnel: What the research shows. North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center: Raleigh, NC.